THE SETTING OF 2 KINGS 3. ALLIANCED EUROPE. THE CENTRAL POWERS. THE FORMER AND AMERICA MUSTERED. EDOM SOUGHT. THREE KINGS' FEARS ALLAYED BY ELISHA'S ASSURANCE OF VICTORY. A VICTORY DRIVE ENDING IN DEFEAT. A CRUSHING PEACE. A FRUITLESS ATTEMPT AND SACRIFICE. PRELIMINARY REMARKS ON 2 KINGS 4. THE WIDOW AND HER TWO SONS. THE SHUNAMMITE AND HER SON. THE POISONED POTTAGE. GIFTS FOR ELISHA. BEREAN QUESTIONS. 

‍

IN CHAPTER III it was shown how that after the separation of antitypical Elijah and Elisha, the latter from the late summer of 1917 to the late spring of 1918 antityped the events set forth in 2 Kings 2:15-25. In this article it is purposed to study 2 Kings 3, in its antitypical respects. That this chapter is typical is manifest from the fact that Elisha—a typical character—takes an active part in its central feature. This is also evident from the fact that Jehoram of Israel and Jehoshaphat of Judah—two typical characters—take leading roles in its events. The frequent typical and prophetical references to Moab and Edom in the Bible confirms the same conclusion. These facts fully warrant our looking upon the entire chapter as typical. Its being in a book that forms a part of the Hebrew Bible called the Earlier Prophets proves the same thing. Furthermore, the time setting of the chapter locates its events antitypically as connected with the World War. The application of its events to the World War gives a natural setting to everything in it as typical of the World War, which proves that the facts of the case warrant our applying it typically. 

(2) In previous studies in this book, particularly in Chapters I and IV, we have learned the typical significance 

Elijah and Elisha. 

258 

of Jehoram of Israel, Jehoshaphat of Judah and the king of Edom. With the helps derived from these typical meanings, 2 Kings 3 opens up very naturally and beautifully as a type of certain features of the World War. In the above-mentioned studies we saw that Jehoram of Israel represents Allianced Europe; Jehoshaphat of Judah, America free and benevolent, especially toward Europe; the king of Edom, Conservative Labor; and the king of Moab, the Central Powers. Let us with these definitions in mind examine prayerfully and carefully 2 Kings 3, expecting a blessing from the Lord on a study so conducted. 

(3) V. 1.—Ahab represents Europe Autocratic. From Europe Autocratic two phases of European statecraft were developed, typed by the two sons of Ahab—Ahaziah and Jehoram, the former typing Europe nationally Independent and Separate, the latter typing Europe Allianced. The former phase of Europe was centuries old before its later phase came into existence, which occurred before the Napoleonic wars. The Ahaziah phase of Europe died in and as a result of the World War, while the latter phase still exists, and will continue so to do until the World Revolution will overthrow it. We have in Chapter II pointed out that Ahaziah at his father's death took his brother Jehoram as his coregent. It is their coregental reign whose beginning is mentioned as being in Jehoshaphat's eighteenth year as king. The antitype is the following: Europe Autocratic began to die [Ahab's wounding] during the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars. Europe consisting of independent and separately acting states began after 1848, when antitypical Ahab died, to add to itself the phase of Europe Allianced, and thus in the second part of the nineteenth and the first part of the twentieth centuries these two phases—Europe consisting of independent and separately acting states and Europe Allianced—acted together. The expression, "in Samaria," types 

Elisha's Earlier Independent Acts. 

259 

the political sphere. Thus Allianced Europe carried on in the political sphere. The reign lasting twelve years probably types twelve special lines of activity, through which the policy of Allianced Europe has unfolded itself. Certain it is that there are exactly twelve episodes in which typical Jehoram figured. 

(4) V. 2.—Allianced Europe has wrought evil despite the fact that the principles of the Lord's Word (in the sight of the Lord) have been made clearer in its days than ever before. However, its evils have not been so enormous as those of Europe Autocratic and those of the Catholic Church (not like his father and like his mother). Grasping for power and lording it over others (Baal worship) was something that Allianced Europe set aside so far as it itself was concerned (put away the image of Baal), though European nations acting independently and separately [antitypical Ahaziah] did continue to grasp for power and lord it over others (1 Kings 22:52, 53). 

(5) V. 3.—Though Allianced Europe as such has not sought to grasp for power and to lord it over others, it has nevertheless wrought more or less of iniquity. In the type Jehoram is spoken of as cleaving to the sins of Jeroboam (strife of the people) the son of Nebat (view, ambition). As implied in the meanings of these last two names, and as shown by Jeroboam's history, the latter's sins were especially of two kinds: partisanship and clericalism in its form of reunion of State and Church. This is evident from his rebellion, resulting in the division of Israel into two kingdoms, expressing itself in partisanship and such clericalism against the Southern Kingdom. Certain it is that Allianced Europe has been guilty of these two wrongs. The two alliances of Europe—the Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance—were filled with partisanship and such clericalism against one another, and these qualities more than any other one thing 

Elijah and Elisha. 

260 

brought about the World War. If, e.g., we look at Europe's history since shortly after the Franco-Prussian War, 1870 and 1871, we find hundreds of evidences of the operation of these qualities. The various European conferences, crises, threats of war, war preparations, land grabbings, etc., etc., for 40 years before 1914, were more or less due to the operation of these two unholy qualities. Nor will Allianced Europe cease from such qualities and their expression in deeds (he departed not therefrom). We may, therefore, expect these wrongs to go on and bring forth their corrupt fruitage, until Allianced Europe is destroyed in the approaching World Revolution. 

(6) V. 4.—Mesha (freed) king of Moab (from the father) we understand to represent the Central Powers, which by their forming the Triple Alliance rebelled against Europe nationally independent and separate—antitypical Ahaziah (2 Kings 1:1). The fact that the king of Moab types the Central Powers is not to be understood as contradictory of what we said in the preceding paragraph on the two European alliances as being antitypical Jehoram of Israel. The following is the reconciliation of this seeming contradiction: When no contrast within Allianced Europe is intended to be shown in the type, Jehoram is used to type Europe as consisting of both of the alliances; but when this contrast is intended, it is brought out by opposing Jehoram to Mesha. That Jehoram in the contrast is used as typing Allianced Europe is justified by the fact that the Allies constituted almost all the European States, against which only four fought, on the principle that an overwhelming majority of the parts is often called the whole of a combination. Mesha (freed) types the Central Powers as seeking, and for awhile obtaining, freedom from the control of the European Concert. Moab here represents the sphere of operation in which the Central Powers moved, even as the Israel of Jehoram represents the

Elisha's Earlier Independent Acts. 

261 

sphere in which the European Concert moved and moves. The Central Powers were an antitypical sheepmaster in that they had a set of remarkably docile subjects. The wool of the lambs and rams rendered to the king of Israel represents the profit that the Allies got from the remarkable inventive and other productive abilities of the Germanic peoples, old and young; for in literature, learning, science, art, politics, manufacture, support and commerce, they obtained much profit from the Germanic peoples before the latter formed the Triple Alliance. 

(7) V. 5.—But with the formation of the Triple Alliance much of these advantages were withdrawn from the European Concert by the former. The time setting suggested by the expression, "when Ahab was dead," as to when this happened, is worthy of note. As long as European Autocracy flourished these advantages flowed out to it and in its dying they flowed out to the European Concert measurably only; but when it ceased to be, the Germanic peoples began to assert themselves in a more selfish and less subservient manner than formerly. Note the advancement of Germany to unity, power and prominence under Bismarck, as an evidence of this symbolic rebellion. 

(8) V. 6.—Jehoram's going out of Samaria to muster all Israel to war, represents the course that the Triple Entente entered to checkmate the Triple Alliance. Recognizing the menace of the Triple Alliance to Europe's general peace, first France and Russia entered the Dual Entente; a little later Britain entered into the Entente, making it a Triple Entente, and gradually other European nations in sympathy approached the Entente, until finally almost all Europe was on that side. This we understand to be typed by Jehoram's mustering Israel; while his going forth from Samaria represents Allianced Europe leaving the ordinary occupations of politics to undertake the extraordinary work of organizing the later phase of the

Elijah and Elisha. 

262 

European Concert. This antitypical mustering continued far into the war time, when Italy, Portugal, Belgium, Romania, Serbia, Montenegro and Greece were brought into the Concert. 

(9) V. 7.—This verse antitypically falls into the World War time. Jehoshaphat, we understand, here represents America Independent and Benevolent. We notice that the initiative to induce America to take the side of the Allies as against the Central Powers, came from the Allies, who conducted the most clever kind of a campaign of propaganda in America to secure this result. They bought up very influential papers and magazines for propaganda uses. They colored the news as against the Central Powers and in their own favor to secure their aims. They sent commissions here for the same purpose. They set forth very deceptive theories as to the causes and aims of the war. Flattery of America and a dishonest praise of her democracy were some of their favorite methods. Their immense borrowings from the bankers and their large orders for war and other supplies, enlisted the capitalists, manufacturers, etc., on their side. They arranged for lectures and speeches to arouse American sympathy and help for them. They harped upon and grossly exaggerated "German frightfulness" in their propaganda campaign. And the Germans were thoughtless enough to furnish them abundant real and exaggerative materials for such uses. This campaign was so cleverly conducted that shortly the bulk of the American people favored the Allies as against the Central Powers. It needed only another ruthless submarine campaign on the part of the Germans to force the American people, out of sheer self-respect and desire to save the world for Democracy, to enter the war. All of the above-described methods of propaganda and influence are the antitype—given, we note, in pantomime—to the question of Jehoram, "Wilt thou go with me against Moab to battle?" And

Elisha's Earlier Independent Acts. 

263 

America's favoring the Allies and her declaration of war were in pantomime the antitype of Jehoshaphat's answer, "I will go up." The expression, "I am as thou art," types the hearty personal espousal of the Allied cause by America. The expression, "My people as thy people," types the hearty unison of the American people with the Allied peoples in the latter's announced, but, as shown by subsequent events, more or less hypocritical war aims. The expression, "My horses as thy horses," types the hearty endorsement of the Allied theories as to the Divine Right of Kings, Clergy and Aristocracy and their theories on Democracy—theories that they themselves only half believed. 

(10) V. 8.—This verse types the conferences or war councils held by the representatives of the Allies and America. The text is not so clear as to which one of the kings asked the question of this verse; but the antitype seems to suggest that it was Jehoram; for the Allies asked America how the campaign should be carried out, after America had thrown her full weight of power into the scales of war. America's answer was that the war should be so waged as to enlist and keep the support of the labor class—the liberty-loving as against the privilege-loving class on the side that was against the Central Powers. America's appeal was a popular one, and received a generous response from Labor, typed by Edom. To go up by the way of the wilderness of Edom, therefore, would be so to wage the intellectual and military war as to have the wholehearted support of Labor in all its classes—conservative and radical, in the countries outside the Central Powers. 

(11) V. 9.—By the king of Edom we understand Conservative Labor to be meant in contrast with Radical Labor. Both, however, are included in the typical term, Edom which in Biblical types represents the non-elect classes—Israel rejected from the Elect Church, the Great Company rejected from the Elect Bride, and Labor rejected from, humanly speaking, 

Elijah and Elisha. 

264 

the elect earthly classes, the well-to-do and the aristocrats. The three kings' marching with their hosts together types the fact that the Allies, America and Conservative Labor were in unison in their war endeavors. The seven-day journey represents the Allied war endeavors from the time that America entered the war in April, 1917, until July, 1918—a period of great disaster to the Allied cause, especially in its last three or four months. The number seven here seems to denote completeness—the full period of fruitlessness in the Allied endeavors. The lack of water referred to in this verse seems to type the lack of counsel, wisdom and truth, required for Allied success. There was no settled unified plan on the Allied side. Each involved Allied nation put its own interests above the common interests of the Allied side. Therefore, each had its own pet plan of campaign, which always proved unsuccessful, and would not sacrifice it in the interests of the Allied side as a whole. Divided counsel spells defeat when pitted against well-directed unified counsel (no water for the host or for the cattle that followed). And such was the condition in the World War until the Allied defeats of the Spring of 1918 induced the Allies to accept America's plan to have a Commander-in-chief for all the Allies. The host of this verse types the warriors, and the cattle type the civilians that supplied them with the necessities of life and warfare as their supporters. 

(12) V. 10.—The despairing cry of Jehoram types the sense of despair that pervaded the Allies after their great defeat in the Picardy battle, before the Passover of 1918. It seemed then that the Germanic side would surely win the war. For three years the defeatists—those who looked for the Allied side to be defeated—had moaned in the Allied countries the wail of defeat; but the bulk of the leaders and peoples on that side would not give way to them, and applied drastic punishments to the defeatists to prevent their spreading 

Elisha's Earlier Independent Acts. 

265 

the spirit of defeat among their fellows. But by the Passover of 1918, the defeatist ideas were so generally prevalent as to make the leaders expect defeat. Hence their despairing wails antitypical of Jehoram's cry in this verse. His saying that the defeat would result in ruin to all three kings, types the fear that all supporters of the Allied side would be crushed. His saying that Jehovah had so manipulated their march as to bring them unto ruin types the fact that the Allies feared that God had turned against them and favored the Germanic side, and that because more or less of wrong and error was on their side. 

(13) V. 11.—Jehoshaphat's inquiry for a prophet of the Lord represents America's quest for information along Biblical lines and along lines of proper principles for an answer to the question as to the war issues. It will be recalled that President Wilson frequently consulted the Bible and ministers for just such a solution. He thought he had found some information on the subject in Ezekiel, and the papers at that time published something of his thoughts. No satisfying answer came to him from his efforts and those whom he at first consulted. Therefore he sought further to find some one who could really give him a true answer—as from the Lord (a prophet of Jehovah). We understand that the servant of Israel's king who informed Jehoshaphat of the presence of Elisha (mighty deliverer), the son of Shaphat (he judges), in the camp represents the British Military Intelligence Bureau. This Bureau had gotten from the British brethren, in connection with their examination on their conscientious objections to combatant service, considerable information on our prophetic war views, among other things, how the very time of its outbreak was forecast by the faithful Truth people years before it came, while they under the leadership of "that Servant" were acting as God's mouthpiece (Elijah) to Nominal Spiritual Israel. America adopted the Allies' 

Elijah and Elisha. 

266 

methods of dealing with conscientious objectors. While America was trying to find some Biblical light on the situation and while consulting the British Military Intelligence Bureau on dealing with conscientious objectors, particularly with the Society adherents (Elisha), it got from this Bureau the knowledge that the Society adherents knew a great deal about the war prophecies, and that the American officials should consult them on this matter; even as the servant of Israel's king informed Jehoshaphat that Elisha was a prophet of the Lord and should be consulted by him. The expression, "Elisha … poured water on the hands of Elijah," poetically alludes to the fact that Elisha was the special servant of Elijah, even as the Great Company Society adherents had been the servant of the Little Flock while it had the office of mouthpiece to Nominal Spiritual Israel. Here in naming these the type points to the actual situation, even if the antitypical servant did not understand it clearly. 

(14) V. 12.—Jehoshaphat's recognition of Elisha as a mouthpiece of the Lord (the word of Jehovah is with him) types how the American leaders recognized the Society adherents as Bible Students related to the great work that had been done by the Lord's people under the leadership of "that Servant." So pressed were the three antitypical kings that they gave their attention to the Society adherents (the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat and the king of Edom went down to him), hoping for some Biblical indication from the Society adherents touching the former's war prospects. They began to give their attention to antitypical Elisha at the time the Society leaders began to be involved in their trouble with the military authorities on matters pertaining to the espionage and conscription laws and previous to their arrest, which occurred May 8, 1918. They "went down to him" previous to the Society's convention at Brooklyn, March 23-26, 1918; for at 

Elisha's Earlier Independent Acts. 

267 

this convention especially the answer of antitypical Elisha was given. 

(15) V. 13.—The episode connected with Elisha narrated in this chapter gives us the clue to its entire typical setting; for we know that Elisha separated from Elijah types the Great Company adherents of the Society after the separation of 1917. Elisha's sharp reproof of Jehoram types the Society adherents' strong disapproval of the European Allies, who had persecuted the European brethren and had carried on a course of action thoroughly hypocritical and wicked. This is the reason for their referring them for information to the mouthpieces of Autocracy (the prophets of thy father) and the mouthpieces of the Catholic Church (the prophets of thy mother). The Society leaders' derisive and challengesome course toward the Allies, Autocracy and Catholicism as connected with the causes of the war is antitypical of Elisha's asking these questions; while Elisha's question, "What have I to do with thee," is typical of their washing their hands clean of all Allied claims, pretentions and aims. Jehoram's answer types the hopeless despair of the Allies at this rebuff from the Lord's mouthpiece to Nominal Spiritual Israel. 

(16) V. 14.—Elisha's continued and solemn disapproval of Jehoram set forth in this verse types the continued and solemn disapproval of the Allies by the Society adherents, especially by their leaders, almost all of whom favored the Germanic side as against the Allies before America entered the war; especially was this true of the Society's president. They knew that the Allies were as guilty of fostering war-provoking policies before the war as were the Central Powers. And the former's hypocrisy in palming themselves off as altogether innocent, and the latter as altogether guilty, disgusted them with the Allies, in favor of whom they would have done nothing, nor given them any recognition whatever (would not look toward thee, 

Elijah and Elisha. 

268 

nor see—recognize—thee) had it not been for the fact that they esteemed (I regard the presence of Jehoshaphat) and honored America in its unselfish participation in the World War. The publications of the Society, e.g., The Kingdom News, and the lectures of their pilgrims, give marked evidence that such was their attitude. The patriotic sermons at the Brooklyn Convention, March 23-26, 1918, declared these thoughts. And this fulfilled the type as set forth in v. 14. 

(17) V. 15.—The minstrel of this verse types the Bible, whose parts pertinent to the World War's outcome became due to be understand at that time, in so far as mouthpieceship toward Christendom required it, and thus it gave its meaning on the subject (when the minstrel played). Remembering that antitypical Elisha was then God's mouthpiece toward Nominal Spiritual Israel, we should expect him to have received such light from the Word as applied to the situation at hand in Nominal Spiritual Israel, in so far as their ministry required it. This is actually what then happened, and what enabled the Society leaders at their 1918 Passover Convention to forecast the defeat of the Germanic side in the war, which, as all acquainted with the facts of the case know, they did. Thus "the hand [power to understand the pertinent subject matter] of Jehovah came upon him" antitypically. 

(18) V. 16.—On this subject the Society leaders gave the Lord's Truth (Thus saith Jehovah). The valley here referred to types the condition in which the Allied side was, incidental to the great Picardy defeat just before the Passover of 1918. Their condition seemed desperate, yea, even undone, giving no promise of counsel (water) as to a way out. Yet this very condition aroused the Allies to take the counsel of wisdom and common sense—water—needed for their recovery from defeat, and for their gaining final victory: the truth that they needed a Commander-in

Elisha's Earlier Independent Acts. 

269 

chief whose plans—waters—and whose orders would be accepted and carried out by the commanders of all the national armies constituting the Allied side. This truth, beaten into the Allies by the experiences of many defeats, was seized upon and translated into action by them, resulting in the selection of Field Marshal Foch as the Commander-in-chief; and this truth—water—with its subsequent plans—waters—laid hold on by the Allies, became the turning point of the war. The Society brethren forecast that there would be abundant counsel coming to the Allies to enable them to turn defeat into victory; and their forecast came true. The trenches referred to in this verse type the Allied leaders as receptacles of the counsels that would turn defeat into victory. When the Society leaders counseled the Allies amid their defeated condition—valley—to arm themselves with the mind that would receive such counsels, they were advising the latter to make the trenches that the prophet typically charged to be made. 

(19) V. 17.—Wind and rain, of course, are the precursors of water. But as they were absent in the type, though the water did come, so in the antitype was there the absence of their antitypes. There was in the antitypical valley no promise—wind and rain—of the coming counsels that would make a way of escape for the Allies out of their defeat. So the Society mouthpieces admitted at that Passover Convention that there were no present indications of the advent of true knowledge and counsel among the Allies, but promised that it would come, and that their condition of depression and defeat would become to them full of truths applicable to, and solvable of the situation (the valley shall be filled with water). They further announced that such truths—counsels—would be accepted by the three Allied groups, their leaders and their soldiers—ye—their supporting civilians—cattle—and their governments—beasts. This forecast certainly 

Elijah and Elisha. 

270 

was made, and history attests that it was fulfilled. 

(20) V. 18.—The Society's mouthpieces went further than foretelling that there would come to the Allies an abundance of counsel pertinent to, and coming out of their defeated condition. They forecast such a victory for the Allies as would crush the Central Powers and dethrone the Kaiser. They expressly said through their president at the public meeting March 25, that the next ruler to lose his throne would be the Kaiser, which forecast, made when such an eventuality seemed the last thing to be expected, was literally fulfilled. The giving of the needed counsel was to be considered a subsidiary matter (this is but a light thing in the sight of Jehovah). God would do something greater for them: He would deliver the Central Powers into their hand. This prophecy of theirs was literally fulfilled, even as its type was literally fulfilled. 

(21) V. 19.—The Society mouthpieces foretold that the Allies would get into their power every strong government of the Central Powers (fortified city), even the very choicest of them, e.g., Germany and Austria (choice city); would overthrow every Central Power leader (every good tree); make inoperative all the Central Powers' war counsels, made through their High Command, and plans for putting Germany in the place of preeminence (stop all fountains of water); and make unproductive every source of war supplies, and inoperative every war sinew of the Germanic side (and mar every good piece of land with stones—the Allied theories as to how the Central Powers were to be dealt with). This prophecy was as surely fulfilled in the antitype as its type was surely fulfilled. For did not everyone of the Central Powers come into the control of the Allies, especially Germany and Austria? Were not all their leaders, including the Kaisers, overthrown? Were not the plans of the Central 

Elisha's Earlier Independent Acts. 

271 

Powers' High Command dried up and made inoperative? Were not their sources of war supplies, war sinews and other productive appliances and means, taken from them and reduced to harmlessness? A disarmed and defeated Germany and Austria are an impressive affirmative answer to these questions. 

(22) V. 20.—As in the type water relieved the crisis for the three kings, so the crisis of the antitypical three kings—the European Allies, America and Conservative Labor—was relieved by proper counsels coming to them. The first of these was the advantage of having a single Commander-in-chief for the Allies. This was begun on April 14, 1918, by Britain agreeing to accept Field-Marshal Foch as the commander of their armies, as well as of the French armies. A little later the other Allied powers did the same thing, Italy the last of these accepting him as such on May 1. And soon a plan was evolved that first halted the furious Germanic July, 1918 attack, and then began to roll back the Germanic lines, until complete defeat was inflicted upon them. The counsels, plans, knowledge that accomplished this antitype the waters that came from the way of Edom. The morning sacrifice began in the third hour—from 8 to 9 A. M. Taking a day to represent a year, and the year beginning Nisan 1, i.e., March 13, 1918, the third hour would be from the first to the middle of the second month of such a day. The first hour of that day, therefore, ended March 28, the second ended April 12, and the third hour—corresponding to the hour of the morning sacrifice—began April 13. On the very next day, April 14, Field-Marshal Foch was appointed Commander-in-chief, at least of the armies of Britain and France, as the execution of the first element of the counsels that turned defeat into victory for the Allies. The water coming from the way of Edom seems to indicate that it was from the Labor group that the insistence on having unity of command, and its resultant 

Elijah and Elisha. 

272 

plans, came. As is well known, the Labor leaders both of Britain and of America insisted on this procedure; and so the waters came from the way of Edom. 

(23) V. 21.—The Germanic side on learning that the Allies were thoroughly backed by great reinforcements from America and from Labor, made, after their early Spring successes in 1918, extensive preparations to the limit of their strength to renew their offensive in what they called "the victory drive," which they began in July, 1918 (gathered themselves together all that were able to put on armor, and upward). Their Picardy and other victories in France, and their victories in the Flanders, encouraged them to make this supreme effort with which they hoped to end the war. In this hope the leaders, soldiers and civilians shared and boasted. The Moabites' standing on their border types the Germanic side standing on the extreme West of their positions in France, that therefrom they might launch the offensive that they thought would end the war in their favor. 

(24) V. 22.—If the waters came between 8 and 9 o'clock in the morning, which, as we showed above, would be antitypically not sooner than April 13, 1918 (the next day Field-Marshal Foch being recognized by the first two Allied nations as the Commander-in-chief), then the special preparations of the Germanic side for the final victory drive would be later than April 14; and it may properly be regarded as due to come after May 1, when Italy, as the last Allied nation so to do, accepted Field-Marshal Foch as the head of the Allied armies. This latter view is the better of the two as conforming to the facts; for it was about June, 1918, when the special preparations for "the victory drive" on the Germanic side set in. To the Germans the new counsels accepted by the Allies seemed to be an evidence of despair and a confession of expected defeat. To them these counsels seemed to be not truth and common sense (water) applied to

Elisha's Earlier Independent Acts. 

273 

the situation, but the evidence of death (red as blood; This is blood). The sun's rising upon the waters represents the new Allied plans coming into general knowledge—light; for it was not long after these new counsels were accepted that they were heralded worldwide; and, of course, came in part at least to the knowledge of the Germanic side. 

(25) V. 23.—To the Germanic side, already flushed with their Spring victories and confident of speedy final victory, these plans, as the counsels of despair, were a certain evidence of Allied defeat and overthrow—death as combatants. ("This is blood!")—these new counsels, etc., represent the death of the Allies. The following was their thought: "By taking these new measures the three groups—the European Allies, the Americans and Conservative Labor—have destroyed one another (the kings are surely slain). They have by these plans so insulted and alienated one another as to make defeat certain for them (they have smitten one another). Let us now organize our victory drive, making it invincible in its shock blows; and thereafter it will be simply a matter of our dictating a peace that will crush for a century all our enemies. We will put upon them such crushing indemnities, etc., as will overburden and enslave them, and more than reimburse our war losses. We will make the terms more grinding than were ever put upon a defeated side. To the victor from time immemorial have belonged the spoils; and we as victors will make these spoils unexampled in all history, even as this war has been the greatest of all history." (Now therefore, Moab, to the spoil!) In this case, man proposed, but God disposed, as the sequel proves. 

(26) V. 24.—The July attack of the Germans was launched with vigor (they came to the camp of Israel), but pressed back the Allied line only slightly, to the great disappointment of the Germans. It was the Americans who refused to follow the French in 

Elijah and Elisha. 

274 

retreat beyond the Marne. On the contrary, rallying, they counter-attacked the Germans, driving them back across the river. This heartened the French, who then joined in the counter attack, and helped drive back the Germans (the Israelites rose up and smote the Moabites). The success of the Allied counter attack was marked; then for a short time there was a lull, broken by the September smash into the German lines, "bitten at" here, then there, then elsewhere, everywhere surprising and driving back the Germans, who soon were compelled to beat a general retreat all along the Western front (so that they fled before them). The crumpling up of the German line in spite of their most marvelously strong positions and brave and stubborn defense, was the supreme accomplishment of the whole World War. This continued steadily for two months, when the armistice put a stop to the active warfare on the Western front. Surely the Allies in those two months advanced all along the line into the country captured by the Germans (they went forward into the land, smiting the Moabites). Through the armistice terms they advanced into the Germanic territory itself. 

(27) V. 25.—Their beating down the Moabite cities types the Allies forcing the Central Powers in their separate countries—governments—to surrender and submit to the devastating peace terms imposed upon them. Certainly the peace terms imposed upon Germany, Austria, Hungary, Turkey and Bulgaria, broke down these powers (cities). Commercial, economic, financial, political and national ruin was heaped upon these nations (cities). Certainly the peace treaties imposed every kind of a handicap on the productive machinery, especially of a military kind, of every one of the Central Powers. Look at what has been done to the German army, navy and air service, as proof of this. Look at the broken up Austrian Empire as a proof of this. Look at the taking from them of their most valuable mineral and coal lands, and the imposing of the 

Elisha's Earlier Independent Acts. 

275 

strictest restrictions on those yet remaining in their hands. See what has been done to Germany's naval and commercial fleets, its railroads, cattle, sheep, horses, etc., as a further proof of this. Note the restrictions imposed by the various commissions appointed to see to the carrying out of the various terms of the peace treaties, for further confirmation of this. Surely every Allied nation (every man) hurled at the antitypical Moabites' sources and agencies of power and supply such severe burdens as a result of their peace theories (stones) as made the latter unfruitful in their productive instrumentalities (and on every good piece of land they cast every man his stone and filled it). They surely stopped up every antitypical fountain—they dried up all the plans of the German High Command, the source of her war plans, and made every source of national aggrandizement of the Central Powers an infertile thing; so that, among others, Germany is not now [1925] preeminent (they stopped all the fountains). Surely they felled all the good trees. Trees symbolize great ones (Rev. 7:2, 3; see Berean Comments). To fell these would mean to cut them down from their high positions. Note how one of the outcomes of the war was the abdication of the thrones of Germany, Austro-Hungary, Turkey and Bulgaria. What became of the Hindenburgs, Ludendorfs, Mackenzens, Goltzes, Falkenhayns, Tripitzes, and the rest of the war heroes of the Central Powers? The Allied list of these and other leaders, drawn up, in order to have them punished for their war "frightfulness, etc.," frightened them into oblivion; and it took many a maneuver, after these were felled—cast down from their positions of power—to prevent their falling into the hands of the Allies for trial. We all recall the strenuous efforts the Allies made to force Holland to deliver up the Kaiser for trial and punishment. (They felled every good tree.) Only one country of the Central Powers measurably escaped the fate

Elijah and Elisha. 

276 

of the rest—Turkey, antitypical Kirharaseth (brick fortress). Though Turkey was badly defeated, lost much of her territory and had to submit to other disadvantages (the slingers went about it and smote it), yet she emerged from the war and its subsequent peace wrangles with almost no added burdens placed upon her. Mustapha Kemal by war and diplomacy was able to reject the Allied peace treaty and later demands, and to bring his country out of the war and peace negotiation throes with many an advantage preserved and some new ones attained; her national theories were more or less preserved (only they left the stones thereof). 

(28) V. 26.—The incident of this verse types the efforts of the Germanic side to separate Labor from the support of the Allied cause. The 700 men that drew swords type the German Socialists, whose arguments and influence with Labor in the Allied countries were depended upon by the Central Powers to divert Labor from the support of the Allied side. The climax of their efforts on this line was reached in the Stockholm Labor Conference, arranged for ostensibly by the Labor world, but actually by the Kaiser through trusted German Socialists. This conference was held in September, 1918. But Conservative Labor (the King of Edom) in the Allied world, especially in America and Britain, Mr. Gompers taking the lead in the matter, suspected the whole movement, and succeeded in keeping from the conference almost the whole of Allied Labor, thus nullifying its purpose. Thus this attack of the antitypical 700 men that drew sword failed to break through the rugged defense put up by Labor defending Conservative Labor (the King of Edom) from capture by the antitypical Moabites. 

(29) V. 27.—We understand the eldest son of the king of Moab to type Germany. The eldest son in the Scriptures types the most important one of a class. E.g., Eleazar, Aaron's oldest living son in Num. 16,

Elisha's Earlier Independent Acts. 

277 

types our Pastor as the chief of the priests on earth. The same is true of Phinehas, Eleazar's first born, in Num. 25. These and other similar types and antitypes give us the thought that the eldest son types the chief one of the class of which he is a member. Germany undoubtedly was the chief member of the Central Powers; hence very properly is typed by the oldest son of Moab's king, since the latter types the Central Powers as such, i.e., the whole class. Germany was becoming so dominant in Central Powers' circles as to be well on the way of becoming the Central Powers, itself, i.e., the others were on the way of becoming subject to Germany (that should have reigned in his stead). A wall symbolizes power, also position or exercise of power. The Central Powers sacrificed Germany in the position and exercise of power by surrendering to the enemy, leaving Germany alone to continue the war. They did this to appease the wrath of their God, who really was Satan, for their own protection from further disadvantage coming from the Allies. Germany had made herself so hated by the Allies as to have made it disadvantageous to the rest of the Central Powers to be her allies. Therefore, they sacrificed Germany in their extreme crisis. The word "then" shows that chronologically this would follow the Stockholm Labor Conference. So it turned out to be; for none of the Central Powers gave up until October, 1918. Just as the Moabites cherished intense anger and hatred toward Israel (and there was great indignation against Israel), so the Central Powers hated with an unexemplified hatred the Allies for their devastating work on the former. But finally the end of the stress and distress came, and the feelings of all concerned have become much mollified, all seeking a return of good feeling (and returned to their own land). 

(30) We have thus finished our study of 2 Kings 3. Like our previous typical studies, we find this chapter 

Elijah and Elisha. 

278 

very informing, very clear in its prophetic delineation of the things it was Divinely intended to shadow forth. It is thus only another demonstration of the inspiration and infallibility of God's Word—the Scripture of Truth; and as such it should be precious to us as a manifestation of our Father's foreknowledge; and its understanding should be precious to us as an expression of His special favor upon us who are thus privileged to see and appreciate the advancing light. Incidentally we might remark that the time setting of this antitype shows that our understanding of Elijah and Elisha is correct; and it contradicts the Tower's position; for according to it antitypical Elisha began to act separately from antitypical Elijah in 1919, over a year after this chapter proves the former was acting separately from the latter, while the previous chapter proves the separation occurred two years before. 

(31) It is more than eleven years [written January, 1937] since we have given anything new in detail on Elisha, type and antitype. The only exceptions to this are isolated features not seen when describing the general features of which they are parts, e.g., the antitype of Elijah's anointing Elisha by throwing his mantle over him, the antitype of Elijah's question and Elisha's answer just before their parting, and the antitype of Elisha's anointing Jehu. The last time that we wrote as a new thing on a lengthy type and antitype as to Elisha was in 1925. We abstained from giving further details on the Elisha type, not because we were not in possession of such details, for we have had them, but because we had decided to reserve such details until we would write the book [the tenth volume of this work] that we promised the brethren and incorporate them into that book. E.g., except the last four episodes in which Elisha took part—the anointing of Hazael, and of Jehu, the events connected with Elisha's final sickness and death and his bones resuscitating the dead Moabitish robber whose body 

Elisha's Earlier Independent Acts. 

279 

came into contact with them—practically everything in the Elisha type had become clear to us by late in 1920. Now the anointing of Hazael and of Jehu are clear to us, these having been sometime ago fulfilled. We just said that we had intended to reserve those parts of the Elisha type not yet treated by us until we would write the aforesaid book. But there has accumulated so much more matter than that book should reasonably contain that we have decided to publish in this volume some of it before that book appears, e.g., that belonging to Elisha. Hence we present some of that matter in this chapter. 

(32) It will be recalled that J.F.R. [which he will henceforth call J.F. Rutherford, for short] has successively set up four conflicting views of the Elijah and Elisha antitype. In the February, 1918, "Tower," after getting a report of our pertinent view, he claimed, as we did, that the separation of 1917 was that of antitypical Elijah and Elisha, and, reversing our thought, he claimed that the Societyites were antitypical Elijah and that the so-called opposition was antitypical Elisha. We drove him from this latter position, among other ways by the argument that since Elisha, not Elijah, had the mantle after the separation, and since the Societyites, and not the so-called opposition, had the antitypical mantle after the separation, the Societyites as such officially must be antitypical Elisha. Unable to meet this point and still hold our Pastor's view on the subject, a view that lay at the basis of our view, since he did not dare let it appear that he was leading a Great Company movement, he repudiated our Pastor's view and set forth another, i.e., that Elijah represented the head of the Little Flock, defined by him as the Society leaders, and Elisha represented the body of the Little Flock, defined by him as the Society followers. We refuted this view from four standpoints—that it was unscriptural, unreasonable, unhistorical and unstewardly. Six weeks after 

Elijah and Elisha. 

280 

this refutation appeared, unable to answer from the standpoint refuted by these four lines of argument, he brought forth a third new view—that Elijah represents the Little Flock up to the summer of 1918, and that Elisha represents the Little Flock from the late summer of 1919 onward, i.e., that antitypical Elijah was transubstantiated into antitypical Elisha. With many arguments we immediately refuted this third new view. Thereupon he came out with a fourth new view, i.e., that neither Elijah nor Elisha represent a class, but a work—Elijah the Church's work up to 1918 and Elisha its work from 1919 onward. 

(33) Thereupon we refuted his fourth new view. He ignored this refutation and invented no other new view on Elijah and Elisha, probably fearing the effect on his followers, if, after four times being driven from as many of his positions, he should take up still another new one. But his time setting for his third view and his fourth view does not fit the facts of the antitype. His fourth view is a mere subterfuge; for persons are not Biblically used to represent works, let alone persons working together for years to represent works not intertwined, but consecutive. The facts that we gave in The Last Related Acts of Elijah and Elisha [Chapter II] and in our replies to the third and fourth views [Chapter III], both in their nature and in their time setting overthrow the third and fourth views. Again, according to the third and fourth views the acts antitypical of Elisha's acts in 2 Kings 3 should have come in or after the late summer of 1919, while in the foregoing part of this chapter the fulfillment proves that antitypical Elisha's part therein was completed by Passover, 1918, at which date, according to his theory, the Elijah work was going on and the Elisha work had not yet begun. The same inconsistencies in his third and fourth new views as to fact and time will appear in a number of antitypes that will be given in the rest of this and in the next chapter. 

Elisha's Earlier Independent Acts. 

281 

We now proceed to the discussion of 2 Kings 4, whose four episodes will be set forth now, type and antitype, in their order, we trust to the blessing of all. 

(34) The episode of 2 Kings 4:1-7 represents conditions in the Society during the imprisonment of the Society leaders, the climax of those conditions being connected with the petition work for the release of such leaders and for the Societyites' freedom from oppression as to certain of their constitutional rights. The widow (v. 1) represents the Society adherents from the standpoint of being bereft of their symbolic husband, the imprisoned leaders. Her husband's dying represents the arrest, trial and sentence of these leaders, and his being dead represents their imprisonment, which severed them from the Societyites. Elisha types the crown-lost and Youthful Worthy Societyites in their capacity of being God's mouthpiece to the public, especially the leaders among these, like Bros. Spill, Page, Barber, Sexton, Bohnet, Anderson, etc. The widow's two sons represent the two classes of which the Societyites consisted: The Great Company and the Youthful Worthies—the pe shenaim, two parts or classes. The creditor represents persecuting U. S. officials, i.e., prosecutors, judges, magistrates, draft boards, military officers, secret service men, policemen, etc. The creditor's seeking to reduce the two sons to servitude represents these officials' applying and threatening to apply various repressive measures to the Societyites, existing as two classes. These repressive measures were prosecutions for distributing Vol. VII and the Fall of Babylon tract, suppressing Vol. VII and the Fall of Babylon tract, drafting Societyites in spite of their conscientious objection to military service, torturing those refusing to enter military service, prohibiting in various localities their propaganda work and winking at the populace mistreating them. The widow crying to Elisha represents the Societyites as bereaved of the imprisoned Society leaders bewailing

Elijah and Elisha. 

282 

with much sorrow their sad plight and that of those who were actually Great Company members and Youthful Worthies to the Societyites as God's mouthpiece to the public, especially to their leaders as such: Bros. Spill, Page, Sexton, Barber, Bohnet, Anderson, etc., etc. Her saying that her husband was dead represents the bereaved Societyites with grief mentioning their bereavement of their leaders. Her saying that Elisha knew that he had been God-fearing represents the bereaved Societyites' reminding especially the new leaders among God's mouthpiece to the public that the imprisoned leaders had reverenced Jehovah and were suffering for it. Her plaint that the creditor was seeking to reduce her two sons to servitude represents the bereaved Societyites' bemoaning to antitypical Elisha the persecutions and their intended effects. 

(35) Of course, to one of a benevolent heart such plaints were requests for help and were so recognized by Elisha, typical and antitypical. And as Elisha asked (v. 2) the widow what possessions she had that could be used to restrain the creditor from enforcing his demand, so his antitype asked her antitype what possessions the antitypical widow had that could be used to restrain the persecuting officials from their oppressive course. In Bible symbols oil sometimes represents the Holy Spirit (Ps. 45:7; Acts 10:38; Ps. 133:1, 2); sometimes the spirit of understanding of the Truth (Matt. 25:3, 4, 8-10; Col. 1:9; Is. 11:2, 3; Ex. 30:22-33); and sometimes the Truth itself (Zech. 4:12; Jas. 5:14). The pot of oil in this place (v. 2) represents the Truth on freedom of conscience, press, speech, propaganda and assembly. This was the only thing in the possession of the bereaved Societyites that then had any value in the eyes of the persecuting officials, for it was included in the bill of rights added as amendments to the U. S. Constitution; and it bound these officials. Elisha's suggesting (v. 3) that she ask vessels for herself from abroad types that the Societyites

Elisha's Earlier Independent Acts. 

283 

as God's mouthpiece to the public, especially their leaders, advised the bereaved Societyites to ask from outsiders their signatures for a petition to the powers that be for the release of the imprisoned leaders. The charge (v. 3), Let them not be few, represents the Societyites as God's mouthpiece to the public, especially their leaders, advising that the number of petitions be very many, not a few. The work of pushing the securing of the petitions was not done by The Tower or its editors, and that for prudential reasons, since The Tower was under the suspicion and constant watch of government officials. It was, therefore, put in charge of Bro. E. D. Sexton, who used whatever papers could be persuaded to carry a propaganda article on the petition work as news. Especially through The Labor Tribune, of Pittsburgh, and the St. Paul New Era Enterprise did he appeal to all the Societyites (the widow and her two sons) to engage in the petition work. The pilgrims and elders cooperated with him in arousing the Societyites thereto. A very generous response was made by the Societyites, who everywhere and from all (v. 3) sought signatures to the petitions. And the public also showed a generous response, especially after the Armistice (November 11, 1918). We are informed that the signatures ran into the millions. 

(36) It will be noted that empty vessels were requested and gotten (vs. 3, 4) and that oil was poured into them in secret, herself and two sons being the only witnesses thereof (v. 5). The sons had gotten the empty vessels without mentioning their purpose in borrowing them, as is implied in the secret use of them. The borrowed vessels contained no oil, which represents that above the signatures at the petitions' beginning the truths on the freedom of conscience, press, speech, propaganda and assembly were not expounded as the grounds on which the petitioners made request; nor was freedom for the Societyites from the pertinent present and threatened oppressions and for 

Elijah and Elisha. 

284 

freedom of continuing their work unmolested requested in the petitions. Rather, the petitions requested freedom for the imprisoned leaders. And because this particular point, requesting the freedom of the imprisoned leaders, is not a feature of the type, rather the consequence on the two sons of the debt of the dead father being the thing stressed in the type, the emptiness of the vessels is set forth in the type to indicate that the petitions would contain nothing as to requesting the Societyites' pertinent constitutional rights. In other words, the full purpose of petitioning the government, which purpose included the request that the Societyites be protected in their exercising their constitutional rights of liberty of conscience (worship), speech, press, propaganda and assembly, was not disclosed to the signers, even as the two sons on borrowing the vessels did not tell the neighbors why they desired them, a fact proved by the secrecy in pouring the oil (vs. 3-5). We now proceed with our study. 

(37) What is represented by pouring the oil out of the one vessel into all the borrowed vessels? We answer: The exposition of the above-mentioned constitutional rights guaranteed to all, and therefore to the Societyites as consisting of Great Company members and Youthful Worthies, and the making of this exposition a part of the petitions. In that exposition it was set forth that these rights had in part been illegally taken from them and were threatened entirely to be taken away from them; and it was requested that these violations of their constitutional rights be made to cease. This exposition and its implied request were, therefore, attached to these petitions, accompanying them as a part of them. The mother's requesting still another vessel (v. 6), after the last of the borrowed ones was filled, types the fact that the bereaved Societyites wanted still more petitions after all that could be had were gotten. The reply of her son, that no more were obtainable, types the fact that the signature

Elisha's Earlier Independent Acts. 

285 

seekers when requested to deliver more petitions replied that they could get no more. The staying of the oil (v. 6) represents the fact that the pertinent truths were connected with no more petitions. The widow coming to and telling Elisha (v. 7) that she and her sons had done what he had advised represents that the bereaved Societyites in their two classes made a report to the Societyites as God's mouthpiece to the public, especially the leaders, on the petition work. Elisha's telling (v. 7) her to sell the oil and from the proceeds to pay her debt and support herself and sons represents that the Societyites as God's mouthpiece to the public, especially the leaders, advised the Societyites as the bereaved ones to present the petition to the U. S. government and by the value of the pertinent constitutional rights satisfy the creditor, the government, as to its debt claims on the Societyites and to obtain for the future the right to use unmolested their constitutionally guaranteed rights of liberty of worship, speech, press, propaganda and assembly. 

(38) While the type does not tell of the widow's following Elisha's advice, her character as displayed in her having followed it before is a guarantee that she followed it to the end. In the antitype the advice was followed and the desired results were obtained, the husband's debt was paid (the imprisoned brothers released) and the Societyites in their two classes came into enjoyment of their constitutional rights in the freedom of worship, speech, propaganda, press and assembly. This petition work was begun in the Fall of 1918 and ended early in 1919. The imprisoned leaders were delivered about March 21, 1919. But this typical story was enacted quite awhile after Elijah's and Elisha's separation; for all the events of 2 Kings 2:12—3:27 were typically fulfilled before 2 Kings 4:1-7 started to be fulfilled; and in the antitype the antitypes of these things, except those mentioned in v. 25, were fulfilled before the antitype of 2 Kings 4:1-7 set in.

Elijah and Elisha. 

286 

This demonstrates the falsity of J.F.R.'s time setting for the commencement of the antitypical Elisha work, as he puts it; for the facts of the antitype prove that antitypical Elisha began his work in the summer of 1917, and that 2 Kings 4:1-7, which represents a part of antitypical Elisha's work, began in the fall of 1918, long after he had been working separate and distinct from antitypical Elijah, while J.F.R.'s setting makes his alleged antitypical Elisha work begin in the late summer of 1919, at the Cedar Point Convention. Accordingly, this episode fits in nicely with the time setting of the antitype of the last related acts of Elijah and Elisha and Elisha's subsequent works as set forth foregoing. God be praised for this light! 

(39) In the second episode of 2 Kings 4, that respecting the Shunammite (vs. 8-37), there is a typical history given of the Societyites in their relation to a public witness movement from the early summer of 1917 to the late summer of 1919. In this story Elisha represents the Societyites, especially in their leaders, as God's mouthpiece to the public. Gehazi represents J.F.R. as the executive and leading teacher for the Societyites as God's mouthpiece toward the public. The Shunammite represents the Societyites as the nourisher of a public witness movement. Shunem means two resting places and represents the Society as the dwelling place of the Societyites as consisting of two classes—Great Company members and Youthful Worthies. The Shunammite's husband represents the Societyites, especially the local leaders, as the life-givers of a public witness movement, while her son represents a public witness movement, even as we have already seen that the son of the widow of Zarepath (see Chapter I) represents a movement—the anti-papal-absolutism and anti-papal-idolism movement of the Dark Ages. Having seen what is the general significance of the type and the typical character of its participants, we are now ready to take up a general discussion of the details 

Elisha's Earlier Independent Acts. 

287 

of the Shunammite story, which even as a story is a most touching one. This is all the more so for those who saw it pictured in the Photo-drama of Creation so well and feelingfully. 

(40) Elisha's journey (v. 8) to Shunem types the Societyites as God's mouthpiece to the public in their leaders coming to the Society as the sphere of activity for Great Company members and Youthful Worthies. This set in immediately after June 27, 1917, the date that the Bible (2 Kings 2:3, 5), facts and the Pyramid show that the separation between antitypical Elijah and Elisha in the two representative leaders of these classes occurred. The Shunammite's laying hold (literal translation) of him to eat bread, the staff of life, represents the first support that the Societyites gave to their leaders. This began at Bethel as the Bethelites perceived that there was trouble between J.F.R., W. E. Van Amburgh and A. H. MacMillan, etc., who were representatives of antitypical Elisha, and the Board's majority and ourself, who were representatives of antitypical Elijah. Sides began to be taken and the majority of the Bethelites took the side of "the present management," who were the representatives of antitypical Elisha. The initial support that such partisans gave the representatives of antitypical Elisha is the antitype of the first feeding of Elisha by the Shunammite. In Bethel the trouble came up often, and always the majority favored "the present management," antitypical Elisha's representatives. The support that these majorities gave the early subsequent measures of the leaders in antitypical Elisha is the antitype of the subsequent food given Elisha by the Shunammite, while these leaders' bringing the knowledge of the trouble to what proved to be Great Company members and Youthful Worthies in Bethel is the antitype of Elisha's subsequent comings to Shunem. His eating represents the acceptance of such support by antitypical Elisha. The Shunammite's commending to her husband (v. 9)

Elijah and Elisha. 

288 

Elisha's office and character (holy man of God) types the partisan Bethelites' commending first "the present management," then the new Board of Directors, Tower editors and co-operating pilgrims and Bethel family, etc., as being God's mouth and hand (man of God) and separate from others and dedicated to God therefore (holy). These commendations began in response to the petitions of commendation of "the present management" circulated in Bethel, before J.F.R., July 19, sent out his letter to the churches asking their vote of confidence in "the present management," the new Board and Tower editors. The giving of that vote started, with the Church in general outside of Bethel, the building of the antitypical chamber, as typed in v. 10. The statement, "which passeth by us continually" (v. 9), types the supporting Societyites indicating that the above-mentioned representatives of antitypical Elisha were constantly active in their ministries among the Societyites (but actually as Great Company members and Youthful Worthies, Shunem). These ministries can be seen in the Tower articles, the office work at Brooklyn and the pilgrim work of antitypical Elisha's leading members up to July, 1917. Yea, antitypical Elisha passed by the antitypical Shunammite's place continually up to and in that summer; for all of the energies of antitypical Elisha were used in ministries in antitypical Shunem at that time. 

(41) The Shunammite's suggestion that she and her husband build a little room for Elisha on the wall (of the city) and furnish it with a bed, a table, a chair and a candlestick, was, from their standpoint, a fine example of entertainment of a prophet; for what they furnished him was really an office, a working place. The antitype shows, from the standpoint of the antitypical Shunammite and her husband, a fine example of entertaining an antitypical prophet, as the following will show. In Ezekiel's temple the chambers or rooms built about the temple represent the different spheres

Elisha's Earlier Independent Acts. 

289 

of work for the priests in the Church. Hence their office functions are represented by these chambers. This will help us to see the antitype of the Shunammite's suggestion to her husband, that they build and furnish a room for Elisha on the wall. This suggestion represents the Societyites as led ones advocating the making secure of office functions for the Society leaders and the securing of them in their office. The furniture of the room represents the provisions made for the proper and convenient use of the office of antitypical Elisha. The above-mentioned advocacy began in certain ones' advising J.F.R. before July 17, 1917, when the ousting of the four Directors took place, that new directors be appointed; and, as shown above, it began among the brethren in general just after July 19, when the letter went out asking endorsement of "the present management." The pertinent building work followed everywhere on the beginning of such advocacy. Everywhere the antitypical Shunammite and her antitypical husband (local leaders of antitypical Elisha) accorded these the pertinent office functions, and they were supported therein by the led and leaders of such Societyites. Building and furnishing the antitypical chamber were completed by August 8, when the four Board Directors gave up and left Bethel, when antitypical Elisha firmly held his office powers. That powers, as connected with the office, are indicated, is seen in the fact that the chamber was built on the wall, which in Bible symbols pictures powers. Elisha's coming to the chamber and dwelling there represents the Society leaders—"the present management," directors, editors, pilgrims and Bethelites—exercising the offices for which they were the choice of the antitypical Shunammite and her figurative husband—the Societyites. 

(42) As typical Elisha desired to make a suitable return to the Shunammite, so antitypical Elisha desired to reward his supporters. We are familiar with the fact, exemplified several times in this story, that in

Elijah and Elisha. 

290 

types consisting of a number of acts preceding ones must be finished before following general ones begin; but that in their antitypes this is usually not done. Rather the following antitypical acts usually set in before the preceding ones are finished. This is true in the immediate antitype now being presented; for while in the type the chamber was finished before Elisha asked Gehazi to call the Shunammite, in the antitype it was under process of building when the calling of the antitypical Shunammite occurred, though, of course, antitypical Elisha was then using the powers symbolized by the chamber, though then they had not yet been so firmly made his as they later became. His telling Gehazi to call the Shunammite represents antitypical Elisha charging J.F.R. to give this call to the Societyites, who had so fully supported antitypical Elisha, at conventions, where they were asked what reward might be given them. Accordingly, this call was given by J.F.R. first at a series of conventions beginning with that at Boston, August 1-5, and ending with that at Cincinnati, October 4-7, where rewards were to be suggested and, secondly, J.F.R. by the Tower and through the pilgrims also gave the call (v. 12). The Shunammite responding to the call represents the Societyites listening to the offer of reward at these conventions and reading the pertinent Tower statements and hearing the pertinent pilgrim discourses. As Elisha first expressed his appreciation for the Shunammite's kindnesses (v. 13), so did antitypical Elisha express his appreciation to the supporting Societyites. His request, "What is to be done for thee?" types antitypical Elisha's seeking to find out from the supporting Societyites what they would like to have as a reward. His question, "Wouldst thou be spoken for to the king, or to the captain of the host?" seems to refer to antitypical Elisha's offer to secure from the civil officers (king) or the military officials (captain of the host) exemption from the draft for the brethren, 

Elisha's Earlier Independent Acts. 

291 

as conscientious objectors. These efforts, we will remember, were made from the mid-summer till early fall of 1917. The Shunammite's answer, "I dwell among mine own people," seems to imply that the antitypical Shunammite wanted to remain obscure and thus unnoticed by the civil and military officials. 

(43) Elisha's question (v. 14), "What then is to be done for her?" was addressed to Gehazi, even as its antitype was addressed to J.F.R. Accordingly, antitypical Elisha inquired for his idea of what was to be done for the loyal Societyites. And, of course, the antitypical answer was the one to be expected from J.F.R., whose forte was, not work for the brethren, but work for the public. He chafed under the thought that so little work was done for the public since our Pastor went beyond the vail. "Verily she hath no child, and her husband is old," i.e., antitypically there is no general public witness movement in operation by the Societyites and the local leaders of these are, to use a later expression of his, "old men who are dreamers," not workers—drones, not worker bees! And antitypical Elisha, who represents the Societyites as God's mouthpiece to the public, here especially in their leaders, just as naturally falls in with the suggestion, as just the appropriate one. Elisha's charge to Gehazi (v. 15) to call the Shunammite represents antitypical Elisha charging J.F.R to call the supporting Societyites to attention, which being given (she stood in the door), antitypical Elisha promised her (v. 16) opportunities to serve in public work, in a public witness movement, with Vol. VII as the main means, in a public drive backed by extensive pilgrim and volunteer effort. And as the Shunammite at first was incredulous (do not lie unto thine handmaid, v. 16), so the supporting Societyites did not for awhile believe that they could have a public witness movement. Nevertheless, as in due time the Shunammite conceived and bore a son, as Elisha had promised her (v. 

Elijah and Elisha. 

292 

17), so the supporting Societyites did produce a public witness movement, which acted in the "Big Drive" of October, 1917, to about June, 1918. High-powered salesmanship of books, with Vol. VII especially, then began to come to birth and for awhile grew, but scarcely gave promise of what would be its later developments. Additionally, the pilgrims gave public talks along the lines of Vol. VII and the Fall of Babylon tract was widely circulated on a definite date, the last Sunday of 1917. A little later the paper, Kingdom News, was added, both as an encourager of the supporting Societyites and as a helper in the public work. Thus, indeed, a public witness movement—a son—was the antitypical Shunammite's (the woman … bare a son … the child grew, vs. 17, 18), a greatly desired boon. 

(44) But this public witness movement after about seven months' existence came to grief, and after eight months died, even as the child in the type sickened and died. The activity of the movement among the local leaders (the father) and the other Societyites as laborers (the reapers) is typed by the child going forth to, and being with his father and the reapers (v. 18). The going to the reapers is not in the antitype a going to Little Flock reapers, whose work had already ended, but to those reapers who were winning Great Company and Youthful Worthy members. The reaped ones were mistakenly taken by the Societyites as Little Flock members. For the "Big Drive" was supposed to be a part of the reaping of Little Flock members. The child's cry, "My head, my head" (v. 19), coupled with the fact that this scene was in the harvest time, suggests that the child had probably suffered a sunstroke. Whether this was actually the case or not, the antitypical child did suffer a sunstroke. In Bible figures the intense heat of the sun is used to represent fiery trials, temptations (Matt. 13:6, 21; Luke 8:13). And to be greatly injured by such symbolic sun-heat 

Elisha's Earlier Independent Acts. 

293 

is a symbolic sunstroke. It will be recalled that the Society ran into the government in a head-on collision in the spring of 1918. And the resultant trials and tests gave the public witness movement a symbolic sunstroke, which first sickened it and afterwards killed it completely (the death of the child). The lad (v. 19) whom the father commissioned to carry the child to his mother seems to represent the brethren who took charge of the work after the Society leaders were imprisoned. After the Society leaders were imprisoned it was thought expedient by the antitypical father, who represented especially the local elders, that cases arising out of the public witness movement be cared for by local Society supporters and not by the headquarters at Brooklyn and later at Pittsburgh, which, because of the suspicion with which it was then regarded and because of the close watch to which it was subjected by government officials, would only injure the cause of the brethren before the government. Hence the public witness movement was put into the care of the local Society supporters by the brethren in charge at Brooklyn and later at Pittsburgh (brought him to his mother, v. 20). This stricken public witness movement was nursed awhile by the local supporting Societyites (sat on her knees till noon). The movement functioned convulsively for awhile and then ceased altogether to function (and died). By late summer of 1918 this public witness movement was dead; for the Societyites everywhere were then threatened and oppressed by officers and harried by mobs. 

(45) The Shunammite going up and laying the dead child on Elisha's bed (v. 21) represents the supporting Societyites everywhere resting the dead movement on antitypical Elisha's teachings (bed), i.e., regarding it as a rightful recumbent on such teachings, since it sprang into being out of them. Her closing the door upon the dead child (v. 21) represents that the supporting Societyites kept the dead movement hid in the 

Elijah and Elisha. 

294 

teachings and sphere of antitypical Elisha. Asking (v. 22) her husband for a lad and ass to take her to Elisha represents the supporting Societyites asking for helpers (the young man) and a suitable message, teaching (the ass), to bring her to antitypical Elisha to obtain a resuscitation of the public witness movement. According to Z '18, 356, par. 4-357, par. 1, efforts had been going on for awhile to arouse to public work again. The beginnings of such efforts are typed by the Shunammite's seeking to have a young man and an ass take her to Elisha. The husband's objection to her going (v. 23), that it was neither a new moon, nor sabbath, types the objection of local leaders to starting public work, because the times were not propitious for work toward the consecrated outside of the Truth (not a new moon), nor for public work with a restitution message (sabbath). Her answer (It shall be well; literally, prosperity) showed that she expected good to come from it, typical of how the supporting Societyites expected good to come out of their efforts to arouse a public witness movement again. Her saddling an ass (v. 24) represents the supporting Societyites arranging the doctrine of public witnessing in a way that would bring them speedily to antitypical Elisha. Her charge to the young man to speed the journey represents the supporting Societyites requiring their pertinent helpers to give diligent and undivertible (except from themselves) attention to bringing them on their errand to antitypical Elisha. Elisha's being on Mt. Carmel (fertile) represents the fruitful work that those left in charge at headquarters were doing, while the leaders were in prison. The Shunammite coming to him there types the supporting Societyites coming to these brethren while they were engaged in such fruitful work. Elisha's seeing her coming types the fact that the brethren in charge of the work saw that their supporters were coming to them (v. 27). These sent word to that effect to J.F.R., who was then 

Elisha's Earlier Independent Acts. 

295 

still in prison (He said to Gehazi his servant, Behold, that Shunammite). They kept up a continual contact with him by letter and special messengers sent to him, and in this way gave him the information. 

(46) Elisha's charge to Gehazi to run to the Shunammite to inquire for her, her husband's and her son's welfare types the request that the Societyites as God's mouthpiece to the public, especially the leaders, made to J.F.R. to send from prison a message of comfort and inquiry as to the spiritual well being of the friends and their participation in the work. Naturally these messages appeared, not in the Tower, but in the St. Paul New Era Enterprise, the Labor Tribune, and in the pilgrims' ministrations to the friends. The Shunammite's coming to Elisha and grasping his feet (v. 27) represents the perseverance and humility of the supporting Societyites in bringing their case to antitypical Elisha; for they were intensely desirous of having the public witness movement resuscitated, as they were also deeply grieved by its cessation. Gehazi's attempt (v. 27) to thrust her aside types an act of J.F.R. that, if completed, would perhaps for years have destroyed the resuscitation of the public work. It is the following: Without consulting, much less getting the consent of the brethren in charge of the work at Pittsburgh, he arranged with Conkey Bros., the Society's printers at Hammond, Ind., to have an immense edition of Vol. VII, which was then under the ban, printed in Tower form and sent out from there to the classes for distribution. This printing was nearly completed when Bro. Spill, who had charge at Pittsburgh, learned of it. He, after consulting with other leading brothers, immediately wired Conkey Bros. to cease such printing, as the responsible executive of the Society had not ordered it done. This act of Bro. Spill was just in time to prevent the government stepping in and stopping the work at Pittsburgh; for the government had detectives working as printers in Conkey 

Elijah and Elisha. 

296 

Bros.' shop; and these kept the government informed on that printing job. It was only waiting until the first act of shipping and distributing those ZG's (Vol. VII in Tower form) would take place. Then it would have arrested the brethren in charge at Pittsburgh and closed the Society's headquarters and the local ecclesias, on the ground that they were circulating Vol. VII, which was under the government's ban as seditious literature opposing the draft; and that they were circulating it while the ban was on it and during the war. The act of J.F.R in unauthorizedly ordering that printing from prison would have prevented a renewal of a public witness movement for years, had it been permitted to be completed. This act was the antitype of Gehazi's attempt to thrust the Shunammite aside from Elisha; and Bro. Spill's preventing its completion was the antitype of Elisha's preventing Gehazi from thrusting the Shunammite aside (let her alone v. 27). This was a well-timed act. 

(47) On the surface the words of Elisha, "The Lord hath hid it from me, and hath not told me" (v. 27), seem to refer to the death of the Shunammite's son; but when we look at the antitype we are sure that antitypical Elisha knew that the public witness movement was dead, and hence that this is not here the hidden and untold thing referred to typically by Elisha. In the antitype there were two things that were hidden from Elisha: (1) the depth of sorrow (literally, her life is bitter to her) that the Societyites experienced at the cessation of the public witness movement, and (2) the above-described attempt of J.F.R, which, if consummated, would have ruined the hopes of a resuscitation of that movement for years. At first thought it would be more natural to take the first of these two possibilities as the thing typed by that which had been concealed from Elisha. If the second possibility be meant, the thought in the text would be that Elisha had not before realized that 

Elisha's Earlier Independent Acts. 

297 

Gehazi could have attempted so rudely to thrust their benefactress away. It will be noted that the word it is in italics, hence has no corresponding word in the Hebrew text. Thus it was not pointed out what the concealed thing was. Despite the first possibility's being the more natural of the two, we are more inclined to accept the second possibility, as certainly that antitypically was the thing emphatically hidden from antitypical Elisha, as the above story shows. The Shunammite's questions of v. 28 were a reminder to Elisha that she had not asked for a son and had asked not to be deceived. They had their antitypes in the statements and attitudes of the supporting Societyites, to the effect that the way things had turned out it would have been better had there not been a public witness movement, whose outcome certainly deceived the supporting Societyites, for it undoubtedly left the Society's public work and position in a far worse condition than they were before that movement set in. Doubtless these reproachful questions also implied antitypically that serious but easily avoidable mistakes had been made by the leaders, which greatly aggravated the Society's situation. The doubtful things that we have pointed out in vs. 27, 28, imply the excitement and nervousness experienced in the typical scene, for under excitement and nervousness abbreviation of expression usually occurs. Notice that v. 28 does not state that the son was dead; it only expresses in an indirect way that it would have been better had the son not come, that the whole affair had resulted in greater loss than the gain was. We are nowhere told in this story that the Shunammite told Elisha that her son was dead; it rather implies that Elisha had known it. 

(48) His commission to Gehazi (v. 29), without the Shunammite's telling of the death of her son, is also in line with the thought that he had before known of that death, and that that death was not referred to as the

Elijah and Elisha. 

298 

thing that the Lord had hid from Elisha (v. 27). While J.F.R. was in prison when he antityped Gehazi attempting to thrust aside the Shunammite, in the antitype of v. 29 he was no longer there. The expression, "Gird up thy loins," is an exhortation to service; and shortly after J.F.R.'s recovery to health from the sickness that followed his release from prison, he received such an exhortation from the Societyites acting as God's mouthpiece to the public, antitypical Elisha. Elisha's staff, or rod, stood for his office powers, even as Moses' and Aaron's rod did for theirs (Ex. 4:4; 7:9; 9:23; 10:13; Num. 17:2-8). Elisha's giving his rod to Gehazi (v. 29) types antitypical Elisha's delegating his office powers to J.F.R., which he did when he made him his mouthpiece in the following agitation to arouse the Societyites to take up the public work again. His charge not to salute anyone or return anyone's salutation (v. 29), which salutations in the Orient are lengthy affairs, types the fact that antitypical Elisha charged him to pay no attention to flatterers, congratulationists or critics, but to direct his whole attention to the mission entrusted to him, arousing the Societyites to take part in public work again. The charge to set Elisha's rod (v. 29) on the child's face represents the charge that antitypical Elisha gave J.F.R. to use Elisha's office powers as God's mouthpiece to the public to revive the dead public witness movement. 

(49) Please note the excitement and intensity of the Shunammite's feelings, as indicated in the abbreviated expression of v. 30. To what she said, something like the following should be added to fill out the sense—"but will remain with thee here, unless thou go with me to the child." Her adjuring Elisha by the life of Jehovah and the life of Elisha (v. 30) also shows the intensity of her feelings. She evidently did not trust Gehazi as having sufficient power to do an effective job. Perhaps also his attempting to thrust her aside

Elisha's Earlier Independent Acts. 

299 

made her also distrust him. Antitypically, the supporting Societyites felt very deeply in the matter of a dead public witness movement and deeply desired its revival; and, therefore, expressed themselves more feelingly than clearly to antitypical Elisha. Their experiences with a number of J.F.R.'s blunders made them distrust his boasted efficiency. His last blunder, described in paragraph 15, increased this distrust. They, therefore, desired this revival work to go on under the ministry of the more conservative leaders, like Bros. Spill, Page, Fisher, Robison, Barber, Bohnet and others of the more sober Society pilgrims. Hence they insisted on these participating in this work of reviving the dead public witness movement. In this they antityped the Shunammite, insisting so strongly on Elisha's going with her to revive her son. Elisha's arising and following after her types, especially the leading Societyites as God's mouthpiece toward the public acceding to the earnest entreaties of the supporting Societyites to participate in reviving the Society's public witness movement. Gehazi's passing on before them (v. 31) types the fact that J.F.R. initiated as leader therein the work of reviving the public witness movement in the Society. Gehazi's placing Elisha's rod on the face of the dead child types J.F.R.'s using the official powers of antitypical Elisha as mouthpiece toward the public to revive the Society's public witness movement. This work he did, after his recovery from his nearly fatal illness of the spring of 1919. His efforts proved unfruitful, typed by the child's uttering no sound nor doing any hearing (v. 31). The last features of such failures were, first, his talk at the Cedar Point Convention, Blessed Are The Fearless, in which he elaborated his third new view—the transubstantiation of antitypical Elijah into antitypical Elisha. Many of the Conventioners had within the last six weeks read our article on The Last Related Acts of Elijah and Elisha and, knowing that 

Elijah and Elisha. 

300 

he was seeking to set it aside by his third new view, they recognized the failure that he made, which threw a wet blanket on his efforts. His second failure at that convention was agitating for the Golden Age as taking the place of volunteer work. His part, therefore, as typed by Gehazi's failure to awaken the child, proved a failure. And Gehazi's report of failure (v. 31) typed his factually, not verbally (which his pride prevented his doing) acknowledging failure to arouse the Society's public witness movement. 

(50) We are familiar with the fact, already referred to in paragraph 12, that in types consisting of a number of episodes, one act must be completed before the next begins, but that in antitypes consisting of a number of episodes this is usually not the case; rather the succeeding antitypical episodes usually set in before the preceding ones are completed. This is the case in the one under study. While J.F.R. was during the summer of 1919, up to and during the Cedar Point Convention of Sept., 1919, seeking to revive the Society's public witness movement and meeting with no success therein, antitypical Elisha's efforts therein, beginning after J.F.R.'s had started, but not ended, were succeeding during that summer up to and during the Cedar Point Convention. And this work of his is typed in vs. 33-35. V. 32 types, by Elisha's coming to the Shunammite's home and finding the child lying dead on his bed, that antitypical Elisha mingled with the supporting Societyites in their sphere of being and working and viewed the public witness movement as being lifeless, though laid in rest on his teachings (bed). Elisha's entering his room (v. 33) represents antitypical Elisha's setting himself aside to occupying himself with such matters of his office as pertained to the work at hand—prayer, meditation, planning on the situation, etc. His shutting the door on Gehazi and the Shunammite represents that antitypical Elisha excluded J.F.R. and the supporting Societyites 

Elisha's Earlier Independent Acts. 

301 

from cooperating with him in resuscitating the dead public witness movement. He would, in type and antitype, work on this matter alone with God. The expression, "prayed unto the Lord" (v. 33), types the prayer and ardent desire of antitypical Elisha for a revival of the public witness movement. This emphatic desire is indicated in the Hebrew verb form used, but appears not in the A.V. 

(51) Elisha's lying on the child (v. 34) was to communicate his warmth to the child, which types antitypical Elisha's seeking to communicate his spirit to the public witness movement in its revival. His putting his mouth to the child's mouth represents antitypical Elisha's seeking to communicate his utterances as God's mouthpiece to the public witness movement in its revival. His putting his eyes upon the child's eyes types antitypical Elisha's seeking to give his insight of matters to the public witness movement in its revival. And his putting his hands upon the child's hands types antitypical Elisha's seeking to give his kind of service to the public witness movement in its revival; for in Biblical symbols the mouth represents utterance and mouthpieceship; the eyes, insight, knowledge; and the hands, service. Elisha's stretching himself on the child represents that antitypical Elisha put his all into the task of resuscitating the Society's dead public witness movement. The flesh of the child warming up under this treatment (v. 34) types the gradual warming up of the public witness movement, which occurred through antitypical Elisha's arousing interest in the public witness work. Dr. Young correctly translates the first part of v. 35 as follows: "And he turneth back and walketh in the house, once hither and once thither." This seems to type a less private dealing with the situation, a dealing with it before the brethren in general everywhere, as antitypical Elisha was everywhere exercising his office powers in the sphere of the Shunammite's being and work. This was, therefore, done 

Elijah and Elisha. 

302 

by Tower articles written by others than J.F.R and by the pilgrims and elders. As the expression, "once hither and once thither," means that he went the full length of the house each way, it would seem to type the fact that antitypical Elisha's pertinent activities covered the entire sphere of the supporting Societyites, i.e., throughout Societydom. In other words, antitypical Elisha did a thorough work of seeking to arouse everywhere the Societyites to the public witness work. 

(52) Elisha's going a second time to his room, where the dead child lay, types the second effort to resuscitate the public witness movement. And this second effort took place at the Cedar Point Convention, in Sept., 1919. Here, apart from J.F.R.'s blunder of commending his third new view on Elijah and Elisha, which, as we said above, acted like a wet blanket, the efforts of the speakers were directed to arousing to vigorous life a public witness movement. They put their all into this work (stretched himself on the child, v. 35); and the result was that they aroused that public witness movement into real life. Sneezing is not only a sign of life, but is usually caused by the tickling of the nose's mucous membrane, due to mucus forcing its way through the mucous membrane in the process of discharging poison from the body. Therefore it is a symptom of good, for which reason some people congratulate the sneezer, wishing him health. Thus the child's sneezing signified both life, riddance of evil and health, which typed that the reviving public witness movement gave evidence of getting rid of evil and of having a sound basis of life. The sevenfold sneezing showed that it was a complete manifestation of life and health; and the opening of the child's eyes emphasized the fact of the completeness of restored life and health to the supporting Societyites' 

Elisha's Earlier Independent Acts. 

303 

revived and healthy public witness movement. 

(53) Elisha's calling Gehazi (v. 36) and charging him to call the Shunammite types antitypical Elisha's charging J.F.R. to assemble a convention meeting for hearing the announcement of the new life infused into the public witness movement, and also through the Tower to bring the Societyites everywhere into a symbolic convention meeting, one of spirit, not of body, hence worldwide, for the same announcement. Gehazi's calling her and her coming type J.F.R.'s fulfilling the antitypical charge and the supporting Societyites responding to it. Elisha's telling her to take her child represents antitypical Elisha's exhorting the supporting Societyites to receive, as their own for possession and use, the revived public witness movement. Her coming to, and doing obeisance to Elisha (v. 37) types the humble recognition, appreciation and obedience that the supporting Societyites exercised toward antitypical Elisha for his part in reviving the Society's public witness movement. And her taking the child and going forth represents the supporting Societyites accepting the revived public witness movement as their own and exercising it in their subsequent ministry. Most of us have with much appreciation seen this beautiful story of the Shunammite enacted in the very fine film of the Photo-drama of Creation. But who of us then thought that we would witness its antitype taking place, or thought that we would be privileged while in the flesh to understand this antitype? "It is the Lord's doing; and it is marvelous in our eyes" (Ps. 118:23)! This wonderful antitype was finished at the time when, according to J.F.R.'s third new view, antitypical Elisha began his ministry; and when, according to his fourth new view, the alleged Elisha work began; but facts prove that it began fulfillment two and a fourth years before, immediately after the separation of antitypical Elijah and

Elijah and Elisha. 

304 

Elisha in their two respective leaders, which facts demonstrate the correctness of our understanding of the last related acts of Elijah and Elisha, and completely contradict and refute all four of J.F.R.'s new views. 

(54) The third episode of our study is found in vs. 38-41. It refers to the poisoning of the pottage by an irresponsible person and to Elisha's healing the poisoned pottage. Gilgal (rolling, circuit) seems to type the conditions of crises. This seems to be the thought in Elijah's and Elisha's coming there and leaving there for Bethel, as representing the crown-retainers and crown-losers coming to the crisis implied in our Lord's Second Advent and presence in 1874 and progressing from there to 1878 and its events (2 Kings 2:1, 2). Elisha's returning there (v. 38) seems to type the Societyites as God's mouthpiece to the public returning to matters of a crisis. The big drive of 1917-1918 and the imprisonment of their leaders and other untoward events of 1918 bore in upon the Societyites, especially those who were made leaders while the former leaders were in prison, to the effect that they were in a crisis that recalled them to the Parousia methods and ways. And under the lead of brothers like Bros. Spill, Page, etc., they made a return to those ways. This showed itself in the articles in the Tower, the pilgrim talks, colporteuring the Six Volumes and the printing and circulating of some of the leading Parousia tracts. The famine in the land (v. 38) represents the fact that no new Truth was coming to the Societyites in those days. Not that they did not think they had gotten new Truth, which they supposed Vol. VII had brought them, but that in 1918 new Truth was not coming to them. The sons of the prophets who were assembled before Elisha represent various Truth-hungry Society adherents who were, after the middle of 1918, looking to antitypical Elisha to bring forth some advancing light, some spiritual food. Elisha's servant usually represents J.F.R., but 

Elisha's Earlier Independent Acts. 

305 

in this case he, being in prison, could not have been the one represented by Elisha's servant, since the servant here is exhorted to do what represents preparing and setting spiritual food before the sons of the prophets, a thing which J.F.R. could not then do in a sufficient quantity, and which the Tower editors and Truth people writing for The Labor Tribune and The New Era Enterprise could supposedly do. Hence he represents them in this case. 

(55) The great pot (v. 38) represents the Truth. The pottage types those features of it especially suitable to the needs of the Society friends amid their trials toward the end of 1918. The boiling of it represents the preparation of such truths for the appropriation of the Society adherents. The one who went out into the field to gather herbs (v. 39) types J.F.R., who went into the world of speculation to get some new Truth for the Societyites. The wild vine that he found there was certain alleged members of the true Church, who were actually unclean Great Company brethren (a wild vine), like R. H. Barber, the original propounder of the basic thoughts of the symbolic wild gourds, and J.F.R.'s imprisoned companion leaders, who endorsed those symbolic wild gourds, each of them adding some feature to them. The symbolic wild gourds were thus the product of this symbolic wild vine, erroneous Great Company leaders. The wild gourds type the thoughts that went to make up what we have called J.F.R.'s second new view, i.e., that the Societyites were antitypical Elijah and also antitypical Elisha—both representing the Little Flock—in the sense that their imprisoned leaders were antitypical Elijah as the head and the rest of them were antitypical Elisha as the body, that this head by the imprisonment of the leaders was cut off from the body, and thus the body was left without a head, which things were supposed to be typed by John's beheading. Then this headless body was going to do a great public 

Elijah and Elisha. 

306 

work, etc.! There were other wild thoughts (gourds) in the theory which do not need to be given in detail here, as the above will be sufficient to show what the antitypical wild gourds were. The lap full (literally, garment full) represents that there were many of such wild vagaries in the pertinent theory. This unnamed person's shredding the gourds (v. 39) before putting them into the pot represents J.F.R.'s working up these thoughts into an article. He first sent it to the Tower editors for them to publish it in the Tower, which they, recognizing its erroneousness, refused to do. He then sent it to The Labor Tribune and the New Era Enterprise, which did publish it. The man's putting the gourds into the pot represents J.F.R.'s trying to palm off his wild gourds as Truth. The man's not knowing (being under deception as to) the poisonousness of his gourds types J.F.R.'s not knowing (being under deception as to) the poisonousness of the theory of Elijah and Elisha set forth in his second new view. But not only he, but also others (they, v. 39) were under the same deception. The "they" types his companions in bonds and the editors and publishers of the papers that published it. 

(56) The same parties, J.F.R., his companions in bonds and the above-mentioned editors and publishers, circulated (poured out, v. 40) the second new view among the Society adherents (men, v. 40) for their acceptance (to eat). Trouble began as they were eating. The poison in the type worked quickly (as they were eating) and so also in the antitype. The error made their symbolic mouths, throats and stomachs smart with pain. The typical cries (they cried out and said) represent the complaints that arose on all sides among the Society adherents against that second new view. It was at least one new view of J.F.R. that met a speedy rejection on all sides by the Societyites. The typical complaining to Elisha represents the general complaint made by Society adherents to their companions 

Elisha's Earlier Independent Acts. 

307 

acting as God's mouthpiece to the public, especially the leaders, like the Tower editors, pilgrims and elders. The cry, "Death in the pot," types the alarm and protests against the erroneousness of the second new view making themselves heard on all sides. Error leads to death (Jas. 5:20), hence the cry, "Death in the pot," i.e., a deadly error is mingled in with the Truth. The Societyites were unable to accept and assimilate such error, transparent and foolish as it was (could not eat, v. 40). Elisha's charge (bring meal, v. 41) types the charge, especially of the leaders among God's mouthpiece toward the public, to put into those special Parousia truths represented by the pottage, that special feature of the Parousia Truth that was Bro. Russell's view of the last related acts of Elijah and Elisha, as the antidote for the wild special gourds' poison, that thereby the evil results of the antitypical wild gourds might be neutralized. And such was the case, for that reasonable view of the matter overthrew J.F.R.'s second new view. Antitypical Elisha made no attempt to show how Bro. Russell's pertinent view was fulfilled, since that would have required the acceptance of the view that he was the public mouthpiece of a Great Company movement. But the simple acceptance of that view sufficed to set aside the error of J.F.R.'s second new view. Elisha's charging that the pottage be poured out (v. 41) represents antitypical Elisha's charging that the Truth on the subject be spread by the Societyites among one another. The men eating and there being no evil in the pottage (v. 41) types the fact that the pertinent Truth was accepted and no evil resulted therefrom. The interpretation of this episode just given is a factual one, as all fair-minded brethren who know the facts will admit. 

(57) The fourth episode of 2 Kings 4 found its antitype in connection with the article entitled, Calls—Siftings—Slaughter Weapons, in the August, 1919, Present Truth. The word Baal-shalisha (v. 42) means 

Elijah and Elisha. 

308 

lord (Baal) of the third part. At the time of the fulfillment the Great Company had already developed itself into three groups: (1) those who sought but failed to get control of our Pastor's three corporations; (2) those who sought to get and succeeded in getting control of his three corporations, and (3) those who refused to use corporations to control the general work. From the standpoint of the antitypical Levites these correspond respectively to the antitypical (1) Gershonites; (2) Merarites; and (3) Kohathites. The third group (Shalisha) of these in time order of development was the antitypical Kohathites. The brother who wrote the article on the Calls—Siftings—Slaughter Weapons had from shortly after the time of his return from England, April 10, 1917, among others, been mingling more or less with the antitypical Kohathites, especially with their leaders. But he broke with, and then left one after another of them, first Menta Sturgeon, then A.I. Ritchie and finally, R. H. Hirsh. The breach with the last named was setting in, though not completed, at the time the above-named article appeared. With the developing of that final breach he left antitypical Baal-shalisha, shalisha, third part or class, typing the antitypical Kohathites. The force of the word Baal in Baal-shalisha in this antitype is that of leadership, and this word indicates what the facts of the antitype show, that this brother mingled with the leadership (lord) of the antitypical Kohathites—with Menta Sturgeon of the Uzzielite Kohathites, A.I. Ritchie of the Hebronite Kohathites and R.H. Hirsh of the Amramite Kohathites—and that he left them, and of course he left their supporters. 

(58) In the type the man who came from Baal-shalisha came to Elisha. Thus in that issue of The Present Truth (Aug., 1919) he came to the Societyites in their capacity of being God's mouthpiece to the public. The typical man brought gifts to Elisha, i.e., twenty loaves of bread made of firstfruit barley and

Elisha's Earlier Independent Acts. 

309 

corn in its husks (v. 42). By the corn in its husks here we are not to understand our modern corn, usually called Indian corn, because the North American Indians were its developers. Such corn was unknown in Bible times. The corn of v. 42 was some kind of unwinnowed grain, since the word corn stands for the word grain in the Bible (Gen. 42:2; Num. 18:27; 1 Cor. 9:9; Judges 15:5; Ruth 2:14; Amos 9:9; Matt. 12:1; Mark 4:28; John 12:24). Its chief Biblical kinds were wheat, barley, rye, fitches and millet (Ex. 9:32; Is. 28:25; Ezek. 4:9). Bread in the Bible symbolizes the Truth as spiritual food (1 Cor. 5:8; John 6:35-48; Matt. 4:4). It will be noted first that there were twenty loaves of bread. These represent the twenty lines of Truth found in the article entitled, Calls—Siftings—Slaughter Weapons, as follows. There is one line of Truth respectively contained in each of the three general remarks on Matt. 19:26—20:19; 1 Cor. 10:1-14 and Ezek. 9; one respectively in each of the five calls, one respectively in each of the six siftings and one respectively in each of the six slaughter weapons. Thus a total of twenty truths. These are symbolized by the twenty loaves that the man from Baal-shalisha brought to Elisha. And there were also twenty truths used in that article to refute Clayton Woodworth's new view on the penny parable, which may be a secondary antitype. Barley is used to type the Great Company, also the Second Deathers as symbolic refuse barley. It also is used to represent truths on such. Inasmuch as only one of these twenty features of Truth refers to the Little Flock, represented in those called during the eleventh hour, and the other nineteen refer to the Great Company and Second Deathers, by reason of this preponderance of Truth on the Great Company and Second Deathers, the bread is represented as having been made of barley as distinct from wheat. Moreover, it is because the spiritual food in that article, as it was sent to antitypical Elisha, was

Elijah and Elisha. 

310 

intended as spiritual food for the Great Company, that the loaves were made of barley. That firstborn ones are typed here is seen in the word firstfruits. The Great Company are among the firstborn of antitypical Israel (Heb. 12:23), while the Second Deathers are the firstborn of Egypt. Corn in its husks is new corn, which here types the fact that a series of new truths were being presented to the Great Company. 

(59) In the type Elisha commanded the food to be given to the people. Hence antitypical Elisha charged the antitypical twenty loaves and unwinnowed grain to be given the Lord's people, including, of course, the Societyites. Many of the Societyites enjoyed the bulk of that article and commended its reading to one another. This was true also of a number of leaders among them; and their so doing antitypes Elisha's commending the twenty loaves and the unwinnowed grain to the people for food (v. 42). Elisha's servant here (v. 43) types J.F.R., who in the time of the antitype was free from prison and was acting again as the Society's executive and chief editor. His contempt of the truths given in the pertinent article is typed by the language, "What, should I set this before an hundred men?" The number 100 is a multiple of 10, which in Bible numerics stands for natures and things below the Divine nature and things; and with its multiples it is frequently used in connection with the Great Company, as having a nature and things lower than Divine. We pointed this out in connection with the number ten, as entering into the multiples of itself, appearing in the numbers of the second half of the captive virgins, cattle, sheep and asses of Num. 31, as picturing forth Great Company matters during the Epiphany. This also appears in the 10,000 of Ps. 91:7 and Deut. 32:20. The hundred men here referred to type the Societyites, first, as of the Great Company; and since Youthful Worthies have a nature and things lower than Divine, they in their Society representatives may justly be regarded 

Elisha's Earlier Independent Acts. 

311 

as included in the antitypical 100 men, as from another standpoint they are included in antitypical Elisha. It is not to be understood that J.F.R. spoke of the Societyites as Great Company and Youthful Worthy representatives. Rather the matter is to be viewed as follows: Those to whom he referred were actually such; and, therefore, God put into the mouth of his type language that would type the actual standing of those of whom he spoke. That J.F.R. sought to prevent the Societyites from partaking of the spiritual feast offered in that article is an undoubted fact. Personally, by letter and by instructions to his pilgrims he not only counseled against reading that and other teachings that appeared in The Present Truth, but he specifically told his adherents, some of whom were burning the copies of The Present Truth that were being sent to them, not to burn them, but to send the papers back to the publisher unopened, with the word "refused" written on the wrapper. This counsel he gave, knowing that we would no more send papers to such refusers, and thus he sought to prevent their getting any more copies of this journal. Thus he fulfilled the pertinent antitype of Gehazi contemptuously seeking to prevent the article in question from being read and assimilated by the antitypical 100 men. 

(60) Elisha's disapproving Gehazi's course (v. 43) types antitypical Elisha's disapproving the intolerant course of J.F.R. The latter has succeeded in the years since the separation occurred in making many of the partisan Societyites almost as intolerant as the Roman hierarchy have made many of their adherents. Our Pastor inculcated Christian tolerance, while J.F.R. has inculcated an unchristian or Romish intolerance in his followers. We are glad to know that the genuine Elishaites have escaped this spirit, as we are also glad to know that they have avoided many other spiritual evils into which he has led his thorough partisans. Accordingly, Elisha reiterates his charge that the food be

Elijah and Elisha. 

312 

given the people to eat, typing antitypical Elisha inculcating the examination of the teachings that the Lord's servants bring to them, even if they were not connected with the Society. There were very many brethren in the Society who at that time believed that the usurpatory and lording course of J.F.R., especially toward us, had been a wrong one. This view was held by not a few who were leaders in antitypical Elisha, and it was from such also that the antitypical charge went forth, "Give the people, that they may eat." Elisha's using the expression, "for thus saith the Lord," types antitypical Elisha's appeal to such Scriptures as charge God's people to try the spirits, teachings, whether they be of God (1 John 4:1) and to prove all things and hold fast that which is true (1 Thes. 5:21), as sanctioning the study of that article. Implied in these exhortations is the charge to reject what one considers untrue. This view as taught here is strengthened by the infinitive forms of the Hebrew verbs, here incorrectly translated, "They shall eat, and shall leave thereof." The rendering should be: [It is] to eat and to leave; i.e., the Lord commands us to prove the teachings presented to us, accepting what we regard as true and rejecting what we regard as false. J.F.R. has all along told his adherents not to examine what comes from non-Society sources. Against this teaching the real Elishaites have taught: Prove all teachings that come from Truth people who have been recognized as Truth teachers in the Church, holding fast what appears to you as true and rejecting what after proving strikes you as false. This is doubtless the right view, while J.F.R.'s view is the counterpart in Little Babylon of the pope's pertinent view in Great Babylon. This correct view antitypical Elisha taught as the antitype of Elisha's saying, "Thus saith the Lord: [It is] to eat and to leave," accept what strikes one as true, reject what strikes one as false. 

(61) At first reading one would think that it was

Elisha's Earlier Independent Acts. 

313 

Gehazi who set (v. 44) the food before the people. But when we look at the antitype we see that this cannot have been the case; for J.F.R. certainly never encouraged nor helped the Society friends to partake of that article. On the contrary, he sought to prevent their partaking thereof. We therefore think that the one who set before the people the food was the man who brought it as a gift to Elisha, and his antitype certainly set the antitypical food—the Truth on the calls, siftings and slaughter weapons—before the Society friends, by sending to them the pertinent papers, encouraged by various members of antitypical Elisha so to do. That particular issue has gone through four editions and has been circulated to the extent of about 30,000 copies among Truth people, mainly Society brethren. And it has been sent to all the friends whose names and addresses he has been able to get. Certainly it has been read with profit by many, some thereby coming into the Epiphany Truth, others enjoying it who still remained in the Society or other Levite groups. Some of these accepted all of it, others all of it except the sixth sifting and the sixth slaughter weapon; for it will be recalled that the sixth sifting has had as a part of it the Society's revolutionism in power-grasping in 1917, the murmuring at getting no more than those who labored from the eleventh hour onward, as well as the Society's subsequent revolutionisms. These put it into a bad light as to the sixth sifting and the sixth slaughter weapon. Hence they rejected this, thinking that that part of the article could not be right as to "the channel's" part in that matter. And, of course, thinking it wrong so to describe "the channel's" course, they rejected the view there presented. They "left" uneaten that part of the article, according to the Word of the Lord, which commands one to reject a thing that one considers erroneous, regardless of whether it is or is not erroneous. We are not to understand the expression, "according to the 

Elijah and Elisha. 

314 

Word of the Lord," to mean that that interpretation was not according to the Lord's Word, for it is the true interpretation of the sixth sifting and slaughter weapon; but we are to understand it to mean that it is according to the Word of the Lord not to accept what one does not see to be Truth. With this we close our discussion of the fourth and last episode of 2 Kings 4; and we find the interpretation a factual one. Like the antitypes of the first and second episodes of this chapter, the antitypes of its third and fourth episodes contradict J.F.R.'s third and fourth new views, for they occurred before the Elisha of his third and fourth new views began to work separate and distinct from the antitypical Elijah of his third and fourth new views, i.e., in the late summer of 1919, while the antitypes of the third and fourth episodes of 2 Kings 4 prove to be a prior activity of separated antitypical Elisha. 

‍

BEREAN QUESTIONS

(1) Where are details given on antitypical Elijah and Elisha? What is typed in 2 Kings 2:15-25? What is to be treated in this chapter? How do we know, in the first place, that 2 Kings 3 is typical? What second set of facts proves it to be typical? What third set of facts proves it? What fourth fact proves it? What do these four sets of facts warrant? What is the time setting of its antitype? Why? What great event does the chapter type? Why do we so apply it? 

(2) Of what character do Jehoram of Israel, Jehoshaphat of Judah and the king of Edom partake? Where has this been proven? What do these facts do to 2 Kings 3? What do these kings of Israel, Judah and Edom and the king of Moab type? What should these thoughts induce us to do with 2 Kings 3? 

(3) What does Ahab type? What are typed by his two sons? What is the time relation of these two antitypes? When, and as a result of what did antitypical Ahaziah die? How long will antitypical Jehoram continue? How were Ahaziah and Jehoram related in kingly office? Which phase of the latter's reign is referred to as beginning in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat's reign? When did antitypical Ahab begin to die? What did antitypical 

Elisha's Earlier Independent Acts. 

315 

Ahaziah add to itself at that time? How long did this combination last? What is typed by reigning in Samaria? What is probably typed by the twelve years of Jehoram's reign? 

(4) What did Allianced Europe work? Despite what was this done? How did its evils compare with those of Autocratic Europe and the Catholic Church? What did Allianced Europe set aside? What contemporaneous phase of Europe did not so do? 

(5) To whose sins did typical Jehoram of Israel cleave? What do the names Jeroboam and Nebat mean? What were Jeroboam's chief sins? How is this known? What is typed by Jehoram cleaving to these sins? What were the two alliances of Europe? Of what were they guilty as against one another? To what did this in part lead? From what time especially were these sins committed? To what evils did these two bad qualities lead? How long will they continue? 

(6) What do the words Mesha and Moab mean? What does Mesha type? How did he rebel against antitypical Ahaziah? How harmonize our definition of antitypical Mesha with the fact that both European alliances were typed by Jehoram? On what principle are we justified in calling the Allies antitypical Jehoram? In what respects does Mesha type the Central Powers? What are typed by Moab and Israel in this picture? Why were the Central Powers an antitypical sheepmaster? What is anti-typed by Mesha rendering to Israel's kings the wool of the rams and lambs? 

(7) What resulted from the formation of the Triple Alliance? What antitypical time setting is indicated in the expression, when Ahab was dead? How did the Germanic peoples thereafter act? Under what German statesman did this especially come to pass? 

(8) What is represented by Jehoram going forth to muster all Israel? Describe the antitypical acts. What is typed by his going forth from Samaria? Until when did the antitypical mustering continue? What nations joined the Entente during the World War? 

(9) To what period does this verse apply? In what respects does Jehoshaphat type America? Where did the effort to win America for the Allies originate? By what

Elijah and Elisha. 

316 

general means was this attempted? What particular, means were used for this purpose? How did the Central Powers contribute to this Allied purpose? In what did this campaign result? What gave it its finishing touches? In pantomime what did such propaganda antitype? In pantomime what did America's war declaration antitype? What three things are typed by Jehoshaphat's three answers? 

(10) What does verse 8 type? Apart from the antitype, what is not clear as to the questioner in this verse? What does the antitype suggest on this point? Why? When was this done? What was the antitypical answer? Why was this answer wise? What is typed by going up by the way of the wilderness of Edom? 

(11) What is typed by the king of Edom? What does Edom here type? On what relation of thought is this answer harmonized with other antitypes of Edom? What is typed by the three kings marching together? What is typed by the seven day journey? With what was this period, especially its last three or four months, accompanied as respects the Allies? What is represented by the seven in the expression, seven days? What is typed by the lack of water? Why was there a lack of antitypical water? To what would this naturally lead? How long was this antitypical water lacking? What is typed by host, and the cattle? 

(12) What is typed by Jehoram's cry? Why was it uttered? What led up to it? What is typed by his bewailing disaster for all three kings? What is typed by his attributing the situation to Jehovah's ordering? 

(13) What is typed by Jehoshaphat's query for a prophet of Jehovah? Who, among others, shared in this antitype? How? What was the result of his earlier efforts in this matter? What did he further do? What is typed by the servant of Israel's king? His reply to Jehoshaphat? How did the antitypical servant of Israel's king come to refer to the Society adherents as a mouthpiece of Jehovah? How did antitypical Jehoshaphat come to get this answer from the antitypical servant? What is typed by the expression, "Elisha … poured water on the hands of Elijah"? 

(14) What is typed by Jehoshaphat's recognition of

Elisha's Earlier Independent Acts. 

317 

Elisha as a prophet of Jehovah? What is typed by the three kings coming to him? What did the antitypical kings hope to get from him? When did they first come to him? Previous to what convention did this happen? How do we know this? 

(15) What does the Elisha episode of this chapter give us? Why? What is typed by Elisha's reproof of Jehoram? His referring them to the prophets of Ahab and Jezebel? His derisive course toward Jehoram? Jehoram's answer? 

(16) What is typed by Elisha's continued rebuffing of Jehoram? What was antitypical Elisha's attitude toward the Allies before America entered the war? On what was this attitude based? To what did it lead? Why did he relent at all? By what means was this set forth? In particular how and where was this done? 

(17) What does the minstrel type? What is typed by its playing? What was antitypical Elisha at that time? As a result, what should have been expected, and what actually happened? What is typed by the expression, Jehovah's hand came upon him? 

(18) What is typed by the expression of Elisha, Thus saith the Lord? What is typed by the valley? What was the antitypical valley to become? Describe how it did so become. What did it move them to do? In what did this result? What did the Society mouthpieces forecast? What were the antitypical trenches? What was the antitype of Elisha's counselling the making of trenches? 

(19) What is typed by the absence of wind and rain in this verse? By Elisha's referring to their absence? What was promised—type and antitype? How was the promise connected with the valley—type and antitype? What is typed by Elisha's promising that all would be filled? How was it fulfilled—type and antitype? 

(20) What additionally was prophesied—type and antitype? What particular did antitypical Elisha also state? What was lacking as to a fulfillment? How was the water—type and antitype—comparatively considered? What greater thing was promised—type and antitype? How did the forecast turn out? 

(21) Give the prophesied details—type and antitype. What is typed by the fortified cities? choice cities? good 

Elijah and Elisha. 

318 

trees? fountains of water? good pieces of land? and what was done to each one of these—type and antitype? Show the fulfillment of the antitypes. What is a proof of the antitypical fulfillment? 

(22) What relieved the crisis—type and antitype?, What was the first part of the antitypical water? the second? How long was the first in coming? How did the second result: at first and then later? Explain the time feature of this verse as to the coming of the water—type and antitype. What is typed by the water coming from Edom? 

(23) What did the Germanic side do after its 1918 Spring victories? What did they call their prospective offensive? What does this antitype? What had encouraged them? Who all were encouraged? What is typed by the Moabites' standing on their border? 

(24) Before what times were these special preparations not begun? What in type and antitype proves this? What is the time for their beginning? How did the new Allied plans strike the Central Powers? How is this typed? What is typed by the sun's rising on the water? 

(25) How did the Moabites interpret the sun-lit water—type and antitype? How did they boast—type and antitype? Explain the antitype of each part of the boast? What did they expect—type and antitype? How did it all end? 

(26) How was the "victory drive" launched, pressed and met? Who turned the tide? By whom were they quickly supported? In what did this result? What types this? What then set in—type and antitype? What was the character of the crumpling up of the Moabites—type and antitype? How long did the antitype continue? Describe, type and antitype, the Moabites' retreat and Israel's advance. How far did the advance penetrate—type and antitype? 

(27) What is typed by beating down the Moabite cities? How was this done? What is meant by filling the arable land with stones? By every Israelite sharing in it? By stopping up the fountains? By felling the good trees? What does the partial sparing of Kirharaseth type? Give the details that prove the fulfillment. 

(28) What does the effort to break through the line of 

Elisha's Earlier Independent Acts. 

319 

the Edomites to come to their king type? Whom do the 700 swordsmen type? By what and when was the climax of effort made in the antitype? Who were the supposed backers, and who was the real backer of this conference? How did Conservative Labor, especially in America and Britain, regard it? In what did this result? Trace the type and antitype of each particular in this verse. 

(29) Whom did the eldest son of Moab's king type? Prove Scripturally that the eldest son types the chief one of his class. Which nation was the chief one of the Central Powers? What is typed by the eldest son's being in line for the succession to the throne of Moab? What does a wall type? What is typed by Moab's king sacrificing his eldest son on the wall? Why was he sacrificed—type and antitype? What is the antitypical force of the word "then" in this verse? What was the "indignation"—type and antitype? What finally followed—type and antitype? 

(30) What is the character of the foregoing interpretation? Of what is this a demonstration? How should we esteem it? What should we render to the Lord for it? Whose view of antitypical Elijah and Elisha does it corroborate? Whose view does it refute? Why does it refute that view? 

(31) How long is it since we have given anything new to Elisha, type and antitype? What exceptions to this statement? Where is our last extended discussion of the Elisha type found? Why has there not, and why has there been so long a silence on this subject? By late in 1920 with what four exceptions had practically all of the antitypes of Elisha's history become clear? Which two of these four have since become clear? What remark has just been made? What caused a change as to postponing publishing certain features until the promised book appears? E.g., what feature? When will it be presented? 

(32) How many successively conflicting views has J.F.R. presented on the antitypes of Elijah and Elisha? Why did he make these successive conflicting changes? What view did he set forth in the Feb., 1918, Tower? What view did he reverse? How especially was he refuted? What did this refutation force him to do with our Pastor's view of the subject? Why? What was his second new view? From what four standpoints was this view 

Elijah and Elisha. 

320 

refuted? What did this refutation cause him to do? How long after the appearance of the refutation? What was his third new view? What was immediately done with the third new view? What did this cause him to do? What is the fourth new view? 

(33) What was done with this fourth new view? What did he do with this refutation? What did he refrain from inventing? Why, probably? What does not fit the time setting of his third and fourth views? As what may his fourth view be considered? What two reasons refute it? What in their nature and time setting overthrow these two views? What three considerations overthrow the third and fourth new views? What will be shown on this point in this article? How many episodes are given in 2 Kings 4 and 5? What will be done with them here? 

(34) To what time does the antitype of 2 Kings 4:1-7 apply? In what did that antitype reach its climax? What does the widow represent? What is typed by her husband's dying? His being dead? Elisha? Especially whom? The widow's two sons? The creditor? His seeking to reduce the two sons to servitude? What were the main repressive measures? What does the widow's crying to Elisha type? Her saying that her husband was dead? That Elisha knew his piety? Her plaint? 

(35) As what would such plaints impress a benevolent heart? By whom were they so recognized? What is typed by Elisha's asking her what she had, pertinent to her present plight? What three things does oil Biblically symbolize? How do the cited passages prove it in each case? What does the pot of oil type? What was the Societyites' only pertinent possession? Why? What is typed by Elisha's suggesting to the widow that she borrow from abroad empty vessels? What is typed by his charge, Let them not be few? Wherein was the petition work not pushed? Why not? Into whose charge was it put? What did he use in general? In particular? Who cooperated with him in encouraging the participation of the Societyites in the petition work? What was the response of the Societyites? The public? Especially after what event? How many signers were reported as gotten? 

(36) What kind of vessels were requested and gotten? How was oil poured into them? Known by whom only? 

Elisha's Earlier Independent Acts. 

321 

How were the vessels gathered? What was not in the borrowed vessels? What does this represent? What was not requested in the petitions as they were signed? What did the petitions request? How is this feature treated in the type? What is stressed in the type? Why is the emptiness of the vessels stressed? What was not disclosed to the signers? How is this typed? How is this proved? 

(37) What two things are typed by the pouring out of the oil from the one into all the other vessels? What was set forth in the exposition? What was requested? What was done with these two things? What is typed by the mother's requesting another vessel after the last on hand was filled? By her son's answer? By the staying of the oil? By the widow's coming to, and telling Elisha of her and her sons' response? By Elisha's telling her to sell the oil and from the gain meet their needs? 

(38) What does the type not tell? What suggests her response? What was done in the antitype? During what time was the petition work done? What is the time relation of this story and Elijah's and Elisha's separation? Why so long? How were these things related in the antitype to one another? What do these considerations do with the time setting of J.F.R.'s third and fourth new views? With what antitypical events in time does the antitype of this episode fit?

(39) What, in general, does the second episode of 2 Kings 4 type? In this story what does Elisha type? Gehazi? The Shunammite? Her husband? Her son? What analogous type and antitype shows this? For what do these generalities prepare us? 

(40) What is typed by Elisha's journey to Shunem? When did the antitype occur? Why is this a fitting date for it? What is typed by the Shunammite's laying hold on him to eat bread? In connection with what did this occur? How did it proceed? To what did this correspond? What was the antitype of the Shunammite's often feeding Elisha? What is the antitype of the Shunammite's commending Elisha to her husband? Before when and what was it made? What began the antitypical building and furnishing of the room generally? What does the 

Elijah and Elisha. 

322 

statement, "which passeth by us continually," type? In what can the pertinent ministries be seen? 

(41) What is typed by the suggestion that she and her husband build and furnish a room for Elisha? What encomium do the type and the antitype deserve? What does Ezekiel's temple show as to the symbolic meaning of chambers, or rooms? What help will this fact give us? What, therefore, does her suggestion type? In what did this advocacy have a private beginning? Before when and what event? With what is this private beginning contrasted? What immediately followed this advocacy everywhere? When and with what was the building completed? What proves that powers were connected with the office? What is represented by Elisha's coming to, and living in the room? Whose choice were they for that office? 

(42) What is typed by Elisha's seeking to make a return for the Shunammite's kindness? To what difference in the unfolding of types of various acts and the usual unfolding of their antitypes is attention here called? What is typed by Elisha's telling Gehazi to call her? How does this distinction apply to the facts here being studied? How was this first done? Secondly? What is typed by the Shunammite's response? What is typed by Elisha's first expressing appreciation? By his request, "What is to be done for thee?" By his question, "Wouldst thou be spoken for to the king, or to the captain of the host?" What is typed by her answer? 

(43) To whom was Elisha's question of v. 14 addressed, type and antitype? What was the antitypical question? What was not, and what was J.F.R.'s forte? Under what was he chafing? What is meant antitypically by Gehazi's answer? What did antitypical Elisha do with the suggestion? Why? What is typed by Elisha's charge to Gehazi to call the Shunammite? What is typed by Elisha's promise to her? The Shunammite's incredulousness? Her having a son? What made its first appearance then? What other things were used in this public witness movement? How did the paper, Kingdom News, figure in this drive? Of what were activities in these things the antitype? 

(44) After seven months what happened to this public witness movement? What is typed by the boy's going forth to this father and the reapers? Who were not, and 

Elisha's Earlier Independent Acts. 

323 

who were the antitypical reapers? What mistake was made as to those reaped? Why? Why is it likely that the child suffered sunstroke? What did the antitypical child suffer? What proves this? What happened with the Society and the government in the spring of 1918? What resulted? What is represented by the lad commissioned to carry the boy to his mother? What is typed by the father's giving this commission? Why was it done? What resulted from this view? What is typed by the boy's sitting on his mother's knees? By the child's death? When was the antitypical death? Why then? 

(45) What is represented by the Shunammite's taking and laying the child on Elisha's bed? Why? What is typed by her closing the door on him? Her asking her husband for a young man and an ass to take her to Elisha? Why did she desire to go to him, type and antitype? What does her husband's objection mean, type and antitype? Her answer? Her saddling the ass? Her charge to the servant? Elisha's being on Mt. Carmel? The Shunammite's coming to him there? His seeing her coming from afar? His telling his servant thereof? 

(46) What is typed by Elisha's charge to Gehazi? Where did the corresponding messages not appear? Where did they appear? Through whom were they also given? What is typed by the Shunammite's coming to, and grasping Elisha's feet? Why did they desire these things? What is typed by Gehazi's attempt to thrust her aside? What is the story by which this type and that of Elisha hindering Gehazi were fulfilled? What would have resulted had J.F.R. completed his pertinent attempt? 

(47) What does a surface reading of the last words of v. 27 suggest? What suggests that this is incorrect? Why? What are the two possibilities as to their meaning, suggested by the facts of the antitype? Which would be the more natural of the two? What would be two involved types? What word, indicated by the italics, has no corresponding word in the Hebrew text? What does this suggest? Which of the two possibilities has the most in its favor? Of what are the Shunammite's questions a reminder? What were their antitypes? Why were these antitypes well founded? What else did the questions seem to imply antitypically? What is implied in the doubtful 

Elijah and Elisha. 

324 

things discussed in this paragraph? What peculiarity is noted in v. 28? What, so far as the record shows, did the Shunammite nowhere tell Elisha? 

(48) What is also in line with this thought? Where was J.F.R while the antitypical thrusting away was attempted? Where was he in the antitype of v. 29? Of what is the expression, Gird up thy loins, an exhortation? When was its antitype given? Who gave it? What does a staff, or rod, type? How do the cited passages prove it? What is typed by Elisha's giving Gehazi his rod? His charge to Gehazi neither to salute anyone nor respond to anyone's salutation? To lay the rod on the child's face? 

(49) What is to be noted in the form of expression in v. 30? What words should be added to it to complete its thought? What does her adjuring Elisha suggest, type and antitype? What did the supporting Societyites' experiences with J.F.R.'s blunders raise in them? His last blunder, described in paragraph 15? What did they prefer? In what did this result? Of what was this the antitype? What is typed by Elisha's going with the Shunammite? By Gehazi's passing on before them? His placing Elisha's staff on the dead child's face? When was this antitype performed? What is typed by the child's neither uttering a sound nor hearing? What were the last features of J.F.R.'s pertinent work? What was their result? What is typed by Gehazi's failing to awaken the child? By his reporting his failure? 

(50) What peculiarity usually attaches to the antitype of a story having many episodes? How does this principle apply in the story under study? What is this antitype? In what verses is it given typically? What is typed by Elisha's coming to the Shunammite's home and seeing the dead child on his bed? By Elisha's entering his room? His shutting the door on Gehazi and the Shunammite? By the expression, "prayed unto the Lord"? 

(51) What is typed by Elisha's lying on the child? Putting his mouth to its mouth? His eyes on its eyes? His hands on its hands? Why these things? What is typed by Elisha's stretching himself on the child? By the child's flesh warming? What does the correct translation of the first part of v. 35 suggest antitypically? How was 

Elisha's Earlier Independent Acts. 

325 

it done? What is typed by Elisha's going once hither and once thither? In other words, what did it represent? 

(52) What is typed by Elisha's going a second time to his room? Where and when was the second effort put forth? What effect had J.F.R.'s two efforts—before and at that convention? To what were efforts of antitypical Elisha there directed? What is typed by Elisha's second stretching of himself on the child? What was the effect, type and antitype? Of what is sneezing a sign? What is its cause and indication? Of what is it a symptom? How do some people regard it, and wish as to it? Of what two things was it a sign? What did the child's sneezing type? Its being done seven times? The child's opening its eyes? 

(53) What is typed by Elisha's calling, and charging Gehazi to call the Shunammite? By Gehazi's calling her and her coming? By Elislia's telling her to take her child? Her coming to him and doing him obeisance? Her taking her child and going forth? What have most of us seen as to our subject? At that time what two things did we not think? How should we think of these two privileges? How is this antitype in its beginning and ending related to J.F.R.'s third and fourth new views of Elijah and Elisha? What does it prove of these views? 

(54) In what verses is the third episode of our study given? To what does it refer? What does Gilgal mean and seem to type? Why does this seem so? What does Elisha's returning to Gilgal seem to type? Away from what had the Societyites somewhat slipped? What three things opened their eyes thereto? Under whose leadership did they make the return? By what things was the return made? What is typed by the famine of v. 38? What does this not, and what does it mean? Who are typed by the sons of the prophets in v. 38? Whom does Elisha's servant usually represent? Why does he not here represent him? Whom does he type? 

(55) What is typed by the great pot? The pottage? Its boiling? Whom does the herb gatherer represent? What is typed by his going into the field? The wild vine? Who were the main members of this wild vine? Why? What do the wild gourds type? What is J.F.R.'s second new view in its main features? What else were there in these wild gourds? Why are they not here given? What 

Elijah and Elisha. 

326 

is typed by the garment full? What is typed by the unnamed person's shredding the wild gourds into the pot? What did J.F.R. first do with the article? What did the Tower editors thereupon do? What did he then do with it? With what result? What is typed by the man's putting the shredded gourds into the pot? By his not knowing their poisonous character? Who else were deceived by it? 

(56) What did these persons do with the article? Why? What began thereupon? Why, in type and antitype? What is typed by the cries of the sons of the prophets? What unusual thing was done in the antitype with this view? What is typed by the complaining to Elisha? By the cry, "Death in the pot"? What is meant antitypically by these words? What is typed by the expression, "they could not eat"? By Elisha's charge to put meal into the pot? What resulted from fulfilling this charge? Why? What did antitypical Elisha not attempt? Why not? What sufficed to set aside J.F.R.'s error? What is typed by Elisha's charge to pour out the pottage? By the men eating and there being no poison in the food? What trait has our view? 

(57) In connection with what is the antitype of the fourth episode of 2 Kings 4? What does the word Baal-shalisha mean? What thought is the foundation of the antitype of Baal-shalisha? How are the three divisions especially typed? Who constituted the third group of these? How was the man of antitypical Shalisha there? How and by when did he leave it? What is the stress in the antitype of Baal in the word Baal-shalisha? 

(58) To whom did the man from Baal-shalisha come, type and antitype? What gifts did he bring in the type? What is not, and what is Bible corn? Why was it not Indian corn? How do the cited passages prove these points? What were its chief Biblical kinds? How do the passages show this? What does bread in the Bible symbolize? How do the cited passages prove this? How many and what lines of Truth are treated in the pertinent article? What is typed by the fact that twenty loaves of bread were given Elisha? What may also be included in this antitype as a secondary thought? What two classes are typed by barley? What else does barley type? Which truth alone of the twenty applies to the Little Flock? What would be warranted by the fact that nineteen of the 

Elisha's Earlier Independent Acts. 

327 

twenty truths pertained to the Great Company and the Second Deathers? What other antitypical reason would warrant the twenty loaves as having been made of barley? What is proved by the fact that firstfruits were used in the bread? What two kinds of firstborn ones are here typed? What is typed by the corn being in husk? Why? 

(59) Who, type and antitype, commanded the food to be given to the people? What did the bulk of the Societyites think of, and do as to the pertinent article? Of whom else was this true? Of what was this the antitype? Whom does Elisha's servant here type? Why so? What was his mental attitude toward the truths of the pertinent article? How is this typed? What are the antitypical thoughts contained in the number 100 here? Explain and prove this from the Scriptural passages and facts adduced. What two classes do these hundred men type? What parallel type corroborates this thought? Against what misunderstanding are we to be on guard? How is J.F.R.'s pertinent course to be explained in harmony with the type? How did J.F.R. seek to prevent the Societyites from reading The Present Truth? Why? 

(60) What does Elisha's preventing Gehazi's course type? How has J.F.R. influenced the Societyites: as to intolerance? What courses of two persons are here contrasted? Who have escaped the contamination of J.F.R.'s pertinent course? What is typed by Elisha's reiterating his charge on giving the food to the people? What opinion was held by many Societyites as to the usurpatory and lording course of J.F.R.? Even by whom was this opinion held? From whom did the antitypical charge go forth? What is typed by Elisha's using the expression, "for thus saith the Lord"? What is implied in the cited Scriptural injunctions? What strengthens the proof of this view of the antitype of the expression, "for thus saith the Lord"? What is the proper translation of the involved terms? So rendered, what is their antitypical teaching? Who has commanded this course? What have been J.F.R.'s contrary teachings? What have the real Elishaites taught to the contrary of this view? What should we hold as to 

Elijah and Elisha. 

328 

these two contradictory views? Who taught the right view? In antitype of what? 

(61) At first reading, who is thought to have set the food before the people? What proves this first thought false? Why? Who, accordingly, set the food before the people, type and antitype? Through how many editions has the involved issue gone? How many copies of it have been circulated among Truth people? To whom has it been sent? What have been its effects? How much of it have some Truth people accepted? How much of it have others accepted? What part of it have the Societyites rejected? Why? What is meant by their leaving uneaten that part, according to the word of the Lord? What does that expression not mean? What do the antitypes of the third and fourth episodes of 2 Kings 4 do with J.F.R.'s third and fourth new views? Why is this so? 

‍