GENERAL SETTING OF PERTINENT TYPES. NAAMAN. BEN-HADAD II AND JEHORAM. ELISHA AND NAAMAN. GEHAZI. THE SUNKEN AXE FLOATED. ELISHA AND BEN-HADAD II. WAR BETWEEN JEHORAM AND BEN-HADAD II, WITH ELISHA'S PART THEREIN. THE FOUR LEPERS. SAMARIA'S DELIVERANCE. JEHORAM RESTORES THE SHUNAMMITE'S RIGHTS. ELISHA AND HAZAEL. THE PERSONALITIES OF 2 KINGS 8:25-29. JEHU'S ANOINTING. JEHU'S CONSPIRACY. RELATED ACTS OF JEHU, JEHORAM AND AHAZIAH. ARMAGEDDON. BEREAN QUESTIONS. 

‍

THE STUDY of 2 Kings 5 will next engage our attention, and that less detailedly than 2 Kings 4. Some general remarks on the Syrians and Israelites will help us to gain a vantage point from which we can better understand the antitypical teachings of 2 Kings 5-9. We have in our study of the Syrians seen that they type the radicals and that Ben-hadad II, the one active in the later part of 1 Kings and the earlier part of 2 Kings, and Hazael type the various phases through which radicalism has passed. We saw that the Ben-hadad of the later part of 1 Kings, Ben-hadad II, types Democracy, as radicalism, in contrast with Autocracy, as conservatism, from the first to the nineteenth century, typed by Ahab (P '36, 123, 124). The Ben-hadad of 2 Kings 5-8, Ben-hadad II, represents various forms of radicalism, sometimes among the Societyites, sometimes in political America and sometimes in Bolshevik Russia, while Jehoram, the king of Israel, in contrast with Ben-hadad II, represents conservatism, sometimes among the Societyites, sometimes in political America and sometimes in political Europe. It depends on the episode as to which set of antitypes is pictured in the type. In 2 Kings 5 the king of Israel and the king of Syria represent respectively conservatism and radicalism in the Society

Elijah and Elisha. 

330 

in 1919 and 1920. Hazael, in contrast with Ben-hadad II, types Russian Syndicalism, in contrast with Russian Bolshevism (Communism). The antitype of Benhadad III refers to the radicalism that will follow Armageddon, as the Israelitish kings of the Jehu dynasty represent the various phases of conservative Labor in and after Armageddon. It is necessary for us to keep these varying viewpoints in mind in order to understand the involved antitypes. That these kings are typical is evident from the fact that they act in connection with Elisha, an acknowledged genuine type; for one of the ways by which we know whether a character is typical, when the Bible does not expressly call him such, is his acting in connection with one of its expressly mentioned types. Hence Elijah being Biblically called a type (Mal. 4:5, 6; Matt. 17:12, 13; 11:14—literal translation: He himself is [types, represents, the] Elias, which is about to come) and his contacting Elisha proves Elisha to be a type; and the latter contacting Jehoram, Ben-hadad, Hazael and Jehu, all of these must be types. These remarks prepare us to study 2 Kings 5 advantageously. 

(2) Naaman (pleasantness, in allusion to his antitype's agreeableness to radicalism) represents the radical controversialist leaders of the Societyites as propagandists. They were those on whom the radical Societyites depended to present controversially the Society's theory of matters before the public, and who before the public gave the radicals in the public, Socialists and Reds, more or less sympathetic support and comfort, and who before the public too roundly and bitterly denounced state, church, capital and aristocracy, e.g., Clayton Woodworth's denunciation of patriotism in Vol. VII. Among others, the leaders were J.F.R. (who was at times radical, at other times conservative), W.E. Van Amburgh, A.H. MacMillan, Clayton Woodworth, W.F. Hudgings, R.J. Martin, G.E. Driscoll (Bro. Russell's publicity agent), etc. The 

Elisha's Later Independent Acts. 

331 

king of Syria (Ben-hadad II was the typical king of Syria alluded to in 2 Kings 5) represents radicalism as such, as it ruled in the Society. To radicalism in the Society the above-mentioned leaders were great and in high favor (v. 1), because they had in argument refuted the leaders in state, church, capital and aristocracy, and thus wrought deliverance for radicalism in the Society. But while able and victorious as controversialists, they were symbolically leprous (v. 1), contaminated with Great Company uncleanness, an uncleanness that not only made them obnoxious to the priesthood, yea, even to the conservatives in the Society, but also to the leaders in state, church, capital and aristocracy. The Society radicals (Syrians, v. 2) in groups made various inroads among the Society conservatives (Israel) and won over some of the latter (a little maid, v. 2) to the members of their party associated (Naaman's wife, v. 2) with the radical leader controversialists. The Great Company uncleanness that made antitypical Naaman despicable to the secular conservatives—those in state, church, capital and aristocracy—was a serious hindrance to their fruitfulness in service among those conservatives. This, after the war and after the freeing of the imprisoned leaders, especially after the public witness movement was revived, caused great concern among the radical Societyites and among those who had been won over to Society radicalism from Society conservatism (the little maid, v. 3). These latter expressed this concern to the helpers (her mistress, v. 3) of antitypical Naaman and at the same time expressed their wish that antitypical Naaman would put himself under antitypical Elisha's curing power, which would recover him from such (Great Company) uncleanness as hindered his usefulness toward the conservative public (v. 3). 

(3) Antitypical Naaman, hearing this, reported it to Society Radicalism by telling it to Society radicals in general (v. 4). Radicalism, as represented by Society 

Elijah and Elisha. 

332 

radicals, desirous of removing antitypical Naaman's handicap to public service, undertook to secure his healing by pertinent requests and presents (letter, etc., v. 5). The ten talents of silver represent the totality of powers to be offered to the Great Company for its public work as mouthpiece to the public. The ten changes of garments represent the totality of authority to be offered for such public work; and the 6,000 pieces of gold represent the imperfection of the channel view as to full Divine power from which the gifts were alleged to have emanated. Society Radicalism, in various of its representatives, sent a request (letter) with antitypical Naaman (v. 6) to Society Conservatism, in various representatives, asking that he be cured of the uncleanness (actually Great Company uncleanness) which hindered his usefulness in the controversial aspects of the Society's public work. The receipt of this request occasioned Conservatism in various of its representatives (king of Israel, v. 7) to do violence to their graces (rent his garments, v. 7), charging that the Society radicals were asking them to do what God alone can do (v. 7). Of course this struck Conservatism, as represented by the conservatives in the Society, as a deliberate attempt of the Society radicals to start a quarrel with them (v. 7). 

(4) As all who are conversant with Society conditions know, there were two parties in the Society in those times. Indeed, from shortly after the separation set in, during 1917, this division of sentiment as between Society radicalism and Society conservatism set in. The dominance of the radical policy in the Society undoubtedly plunged the Society into its trouble with the U. S. Government, resulting in the imprisonment of the main radical leaders, though Bro. Fisher and F. H. Robison, conservatives, were also imprisoned. Those in charge during the imprisonment of the above, like Bros. Spill, Page, etc., belonged to the conservative section of the Society. There were clashes of policy 

Elisha's Later Independent Acts. 

333 

between the imprisoned radical leaders and the free conservative leaders who were in charge, and that even before the former were released. It has already been pointed out how the conservatives refused to publish in the Tower J.F.R.'s second new view, and how when the former refused to sanction the publication of more copies of Volume VII while it was under the ban, without their knowledge J.F.R. from prison ordered an immense quantity of them printed, which order Bro. Spill, etc., cancelled just in time to prevent the closing down of headquarters altogether, as was shown in the preceding chapter. There was also friction due to the conservatives' not giving at the demand of the radicals $10,000.00 to secure the freedom of the imprisoned ones. So strong was this friction that when J.F.R., etc., were liberated and a welcome meeting was arranged for them at Pittsburgh before the Pittsburgh Society Church, J.F.R. so pointedly snubbed Bro. Spill as to arouse more distrust of him among the conservatives. We have been reliably informed that this snubbing included J.F.R.'s refusal to greet Bro. Spill with a handshake before that welcoming assembly. Bro. Spill, we have also been informed, said that he had been so shabbily treated by J.F.R. and his radical fellow leaders and that he had witnessed so much of their wrongdoings, that he could have written a paper thereon that would truthfully have manifested worse conduct on J.F.R.'s, etc., part than Light After Darkness, Harvest Siftings Reviewed and Facts for Shareholders manifested. He declined so to do, thinking that it was not the Lord's will. Thus we see that there was much friction between these two Society groups. Each, of course, sought to win over from the other supporters for itself, implied in v. 2. Accordingly, when the radicals demanded that the conservatives rid their leaders of the odium which their (Great Company) uncleanness brought on them from the conservative public, the 

Elijah and Elisha. 

334 

Society conservatives saw in this a pretense for arousing more conflicts between these two parties in the Society (v. 7). 

(5) Antitypical Elisha in the main stood with the Society conservatives (the prophet in Samaria, v. 3), as the names of the Elisha leaders already given indicate. Of course, antitypical Elisha knew that this odium in conservative Christendom against the leading Society radicals as controversialists was due to their unbridled denunciations of state, church, capital and aristocracy. Accordingly, on hearing (v. 8) of the dismay of the Society conservatives at the Society radicals' demand, he addressed a mild rebuke to the former for their doing violence to their graces thereover (rent his clothes, vs. 7, 8) and asked that antitypical Naaman be sent to him for experiencing the instruction (shall know there is a prophet, v. 8) needed for his cure from such uncleanness as hindered his usefulness in the public work that was just beginning again. In this matter antitypical Elisha was especially active in Bros. Spill, Page, Sexton, Barber, Fisher, Robison, etc. These counseled and practiced moderation in speech and manner in dealing with the public, a thing that the others did not do, hence their unpopularity with the conservative public, an unpopularity actually due to Great Company uncleanness in the radicals. Antitypical Naaman came to these brethren with his theories (horses) and organization as a party (chariot), but not into intimate contact with them (stood at the door of Elisha's house, v. 9). As these stood somewhat aloof, so antitypical Elisha stood somewhat aloof from them (sent to him a messenger, v. 10). The antagonism of the antitypes to one another is thus seen in the aloofness of the types. Antitypical Elisha by various of his representatives (sent a messenger to him, v. 10) told antitypical Naaman that to overcome the odium of his antitypical leprosy, as the peoples of Christendom were making him feel it, he must thoroughly (seven

Elisha's Later Independent Acts. 

335 

times) insinuate himself into the good graces of the peoples of Christendom (Jordan) by speaking and acting with becoming respect and tact as against his former denunciations, roughness and disrespect. In other words, by sympathetically mingling among, and ministering to the conservative peoples in the Lord's spirit he would rid himself of the uncleanness that made him odious to the conservative public and would develop a character that would make him helpful to them, as well as cure him of his evil qualities (thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt be clean, v. 10). 

(6) Vs. 11, 12 show the effects of Elisha's aloofness on Naaman, hence forecast the Society radical fighting leaders' reaction to antitypical Elisha's remedy. These radical fighting leaders, with a sense of more or less self-importance, arising in part from pride and in part from a consciousness of their position and achievements, resented antitypical Elisha's lack of subserviency, manifested by his not fulfilling their expectations in dealing with them directly (will surely come out to me, v. 11), but through an agent (messenger), became angry and gave up their quest (was wroth and went away, v. 11). They greatly resented antitypical Elisha's not making a public demonstration over them in their healing (stand, and call upon the name of his God, and strike [literally, move up and down, as a bird flying moves its wings] his hand over the place, and recover the leper, v. 11). The expression, "over the place," proves that Naaman's leprosy did not cover his entire body, which would have symbolized Adamic depravity (Lev. 13:12, 13), but was in a spot, which types Great Company uncleanness (Lev. 13, 14). That antitypical Elisha should advise a complete (seven times) sympathetic mingling with, acting courteously and tactfully toward, and placatingly addressing the conservatives in state, church, capital and aristocracy and their supporting groups of peoples (Jordan) also

Elijah and Elisha. 

336 

offended antitypical Naaman, who thought that a sympathetic mingling with, a winsome acting toward, and a placating addressing of the radical peoples (rivers of Damascus, v. 12), the Socialists (Abana, perennial) and the Reds (Pharpar, swift), would be decidedly better for the work, and that he would, accordingly, do this (may I not wash in them, and be clean? v. 12) instead of doing this to the conservative classes of Christendom. Hence antitypical Naaman turned and left antitypical Elisha's vicinity in anger at the latter's disapproval of the past course of radicalism. Deferentially (my father, v. 13) some of his supporters (servants, v. 13) approached antitypical Naaman and tactfully sought to soothe his pride and sensitiveness (if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing), to the intent that he should follow antitypical Elisha's advice (wouldst thou not have done it? how much rather than when he saith to thee, Wash, and be clean? v. 13). Their tactfulness consisted in their deference, in their not disputing Naaman's counter-proposal, which would probably have made him all the more set in it and in diverting his attention to the insignificance of the requirement of antitypical Elisha—a new line of thought entirely. All of us may well learn from them the lesson of tact, especially with the proud and sensitive. 

(7) Persuaded by this tactful suggestion antitypical Naaman humbled himself (went down, v. 14) and sympathetically mingled with, and used conciliatory and winsome methods in dealing with the conservative classes in Christendom (dipped himself). In their approaches to the public these radical controversialists ceased their blustering and bulldozing tactics with the conservatives. Their denunciations were very much toned down; a gracious and winsome manner of approaching the conservative public polished off their roughness, and thus as they thoroughly and completely (seven times) mingled with, and sympathetically approached 

Elisha's Later Independent Acts. 

337 

the conservative public, their Great Company uncleanness was washed away; and then the new creaturely graces grew (flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean, v. 14). Recognizing that antitypical Elisha had given the proper advice, and that obedience to the advice was effective unto a cure of his uncleanness, antitypical Naaman desired to make some return to antitypical Elisha; and that return was to give antitypical Elisha full power (ten talents) and authority (ten changes of clothes) and (supposed but not real) Divine channelship (6,000 pieces of gold) for the priestly work. In other words, he offered to give antitypical Elisha full and perpetual control of the work of the Society as that of a (supposed but not real) Divinely appointed priestly channelship, so that his, not radicalism's policies, would henceforth be the policies of the Society. The advisability of such overtures was discussed among the radical leaders and with antitypical Elisha from the late summer of 1919 to shortly before the voting shareholders' meeting in Jan., 1920 (returned … and all his company, and came, and stood before him, v. 15). He confessed to antitypical Elisha that the principles for which antitypical Elisha stood were the only right ones in God's service (no god in all the earth, but in Israel, v. 15). Then he gratefully and humbly offered to give him the above-mentioned position as to the Society's work (I pray thee, take a blessing of thy servant—the ten talents of silver, ten changes of clothes and 6,000 pieces of gold—vs. 5, 15). But antitypical Elisha, acting in such brothers as Bros. Spill, Page, Sexton, Fisher, Robison, etc., refused very positively to receive it, because of the mouthpieceship that they already had (as the Lord liveth, before whom I stand, I will receive none, v. 16). Almost up to the time of the election of the Society's directors and officers in Jan., 1920, did antitypical Naaman seek to induce antitypical Elisha to take these powers, which, if accepted,

Elijah and Elisha. 

338 

would have been conferred at that election, but he firmly refused (urged him … he refused, v. 16). 

(8) In the type Naaman desired two mules' load of earth from Canaan, with which to build an altar for offering to Jehovah as the only God to whom he would render sacrifice henceforth (v. 17). An altar represents the sacrificer from a certain standpoint, e.g., the brazen altar types the humanity of the Christ and the golden altar represents the new creatures of the Christ. In this case, the humanity of antitypical Naaman is represented; and the two mules' load represents the humanity of certain radical Societyite Great Company members and of the Youthful Worthies. Accordingly, antitypical Naaman determined to sacrifice on his humanity to Jehovah alone, i.e., serve the Lord according to Truth and righteousness. His asking for earth from antitypical Canaan (the Truth and the Spirit of the Truth) was a request that antitypically Elisha ministerially give such to him for his future service of God in Spirit and Truth; for we are to remember that only such service is a sacrifice to God which is offered in Spirit and Truth (John 4:23, 24), and that service offered in any other way is a sacrifice to devils. Thus antitypical Naaman recognized that his former service was to the antitypical Syrian gods and not to Jehovah, whom alone, and not the antitypical Syrians' gods, would he henceforth serve. His place as the fighting leaders of the radical Societyites required him to allow these radicals to lean on his service, gain support from him (lean on my hand, v. 18), while they served their god, success (Rimmon, pomegranate fruit); and antitypical Naaman desired God to forgive him for his supporting this class while they served antitypical Syria's god. In other words, he desired God's forgiveness for the support that he would be giving radicalism, while serving among radicals in a religious way. He recognized that it was not the ideal thing, but he thought he could not avoid it. Had he 

Elisha's Later Independent Acts. 

339 

joined antitypical Israel, he could have avoided it. Antitypical Elisha compromised principle in his assuring antitypical Naaman that he could be at peace with the Lord and yet render support to radicalism, even in its attenuated Society form (he said … Go in peace, v. 19). Antitypical Elijah, loyal to the core to principle, would not have given such advice. He would have suggested that antitypical Naaman leave the radicals and join the conservatives in the Society. With antitypical Elisha's advice antitypical Naaman went measurably, not fully yet, back to radicalism, whereas had antitypical Elisha advised in harmony with principle, antitypical Naaman would likely have gone over to the Society conservatives (he departed from him a little way, v. 19); please see Luke 4:23-27. 

(9) Thus, while antitypical Elisha refused to take a reward for helping the Society fighting radical leaders to overcome their Great Company uncleanness, J.F.R. (Gehazi, v. 20), disapproving this course (Behold, my master hath spared Naaman, this Syrian), saw that there was a chance of gaining power and authority for himself out of the above-described set of conditions and made the strong resolution (as the Lord liveth, v. 20) to seek (run after him) his backing to obtain some of the power, authority and channelship toward the Society adherents that antitypical Elisha refused to accept. Therefore, J.F.R., seeing that the election of the Society's directors and officers was drawing near, sought (followed after Naaman, v. 21) to enlist the support of antitypical Naaman for his selfish ambitions in the Society's affairs. His efforts to influence antitypical Naaman were partly recognized by antitypical Naaman (saw him running after him, v. 21) and were greeted with a readiness to listen, in secret, apart from his organization hearing, to what was wanted, though its exact nature was not yet known to antitypical Naaman (lighted down from the chariot to meet him, v. 21). From J.F.R.'s manner antitypical Naaman

Elijah and Elisha. 

340 

recognized that somewhat unusual was in the wake, and, therefore, asked whether everything was going well (Is all well? literally, [Is it] peace, prosperity? v. 21). J.F.R. answered, All is well; literally, peace, prosperity. Then he falsely told antitypical Naaman that antitypical Elisha favored that the Society's officers (one of the young men from Mt. Ephraim, v. 22) should have some of the power and authority (one talent of silver and one change of clothes, v. 22) and that the directors (the other young man from Mt. Ephraim, v. 22) should have some of the authority (one change of clothes, but, mark! no talent). The power and authority that he desired for the officers is that they were henceforth to hold and exercise their office by their election for three years, and not for one year, and the authority that the directors were to have was henceforth to hold their office, actually with no power, by their election for three years, and not for one year. The offer made to antitypical Elisha was that he should have full powers and authority as the controller of the supposed Divine channel of the Little Flock for life (ten, completeness for natures lower than the Divine), the same power that Bro. Russell exercised in the Society. Some, not yet had, of such power J.F.R. sought to get, i.e., instead of for life, for three years. But note, please, while he asked for authority (two changes of clothes) both for the directors and officers, he asked for power for the officers alone, because in ultimate analysis this meant sole power for himself, since as the executive he alone controlled the other officers. Thus, his desire was that he be given by the election a lease of power like Bro. Russell's for three years and that the directors be reduced to dummy directors, as they were in Bro. Russell's day. This shows the selfishness and power-love of the man. And a prominent part in his wicked design was that he deceived antitypical Naaman on antitypical Elisha's desires.

Elisha's Later Independent Acts. 

341 

(10) Not only did antitypical Naaman become convinced through J.F.R.'s persuasions, made suggestively in person and more plainly through others, that it would be in the interests of better service by the directors and officers, if they were elected triennially instead of annually, but antitypical Naaman, acting in Bro. Driscoll, went a little further and offered a resolution at the 1920 shareholders' meeting, giving both the directors and the officers power (take two talents, v. 23) and authority (two changes of garments) to function for three years. This resolution was seconded and passed by antitypical Naaman and his supporters (servants) at that meeting, after much debate (urged him, v. 23). Thus, this power and authority was put firmly into a double resolution (two bags, v. 23). Antitypical Naaman enlisted what were his Great Company and Youthful Worthy helpers (laid them upon two of his servants) to support this double resolution, and they did it and caused it to be carried both in the voting shareholders' meeting and in the board meeting (bare them before him to the tower, vs. 23, 24). These resolutions thus became by-laws of the charter and Society by the board's action, directed by J.F.R. (he [Gehazi] took them from their hand, and bestowed them in the house, v. 24). And he dismissed these supporters and let them go their way after they had caused the resolutions to be passed in the voting shareholders' meeting and in the board's meeting (v. 24). But the naked and almost unparalleled hypocrisy of J.F.R. is manifest in this course of action. In 1917, he claimed that the law required an annual election. Hence, he claimed that there were four vacancies in the board, which, he alleged, the charter required that he as president fill. If this position had been true there would have been seven vacancies; for the charter forbidding any but directors from being elected officers, and there having been no directors elected for years, except Bro. Pierson, who, under the theory, could not 

Elijah and Elisha. 

342 

have been elected a director by non-existent directors, no officers could have been elected. Hence, if the theory were true, there were no directors at all for years before July, 1917. Hence, there could be no president, and hence J.F.R. could not have ousted the four and appointed four others in their places. But J.F.R. misrepresented the entire situation, for the same law that required an annual election of corporation directors was passed after the Society's charter was granted; and that law specifically states that it was not retroactive, and that corporations formed before it was passed, and having charters granting longer than annual terms to their directors were exempt from the operation of this law. 

(11) Hence, there were no vacancies among the Society's directors in early July, 1917. And J.F.R.'s ousting of four valid directors was not only against Divine and human law, but was done from the base, selfish motive of his retaining the powers of executive and manager that by much intrigue, by bulldozing the resolutions committee and intimidating the inexperienced directors, he had originally gotten. No honest lawyer conversant with the pertinent law would have given the opinion on whose basis J.F.R. alleged that he acted in 1917. After the transaction of some business for a client who was a Truth brother, during a conversation on Bible Students the lawyer who gave J.F.R. the above-mentioned opinion was asked by this brother why he gave it. The lawyer laughingly answered to the following effect: Lawyers give their clients what they want; and Judge Rutherford wanted that kind of an opinion; and he gave it to him for the fee he gave him. (!) But for the sake of the argument, granting that that utterly false opinion were true, since that law on the annual election of corporation directors has not been changed even to this day and was, therefore, the same in January, 1920, as it was in July, 1917, the said resolutions, afterwards made into by-laws,

Elisha's Later Independent Acts. 

343 

on electing directors and officers triennially would have been a plain violation of that law. Hence, the gross hypocrisy of J.F.R. in having another lawyer assure the 1920 voting shareholders that the law sanctioned their passing the double resolution, afterwards by the board made into by-laws, on electing directors and officers for three years. As a matter of fact, both the action of 1917 and of 1920 were in violation of the law as it applied to the Society, a corporation whose charter, granted before the law on annual election of corporation directors and officers was passed, was expressly by the terms of its charter and that law exempt from the operation of the requirement of its annual election feature. Hence, the law required the Society directors to hold office for life and the officers to be elected annually. But in both cases the gross hypocrisy of J.F.R. stands out with noonday clearness. Selfish lust for power dominated him in both of his pertinent acts. And in the type under consideration God Himself reveals the wickedness of J.F.R.'s course in 1920. 

(12) Antitypical Gehazi had to face antitypical Elisha (went in and stood before his master, v. 25). Antitypical Elisha knew what antitypical Gehazi had greedily done, hence asked him what he had done (Whence [from what activity] comest thou? v 25). J.F.R. falsified when he denied that he had (tactfully) intrigued to get the power and authority as director and president for 3 years, actually for 3 years and about 10 months by that election of 1920 (Thy servant went no whither, v. 25). Antitypical Elisha told J.F.R. that with grief did he behold J.F.R.'s intrigue and deception as to antitypical Naaman and the latter's succumbing to J.F.R.'s designs (Went not mine heart … when the man turned … to meet thee? v. 26). It surely was not a time for the Lord's people to seek to secure for self power (money), authority (garments), working positions in the Little Flock

Elijah and Elisha. 

344 

(oliveyards), working positions in the Great Company and Youthful Worthies (vineyards), Little Flock members (sheep), justified ones (oxen), male subordinates (menservants), and female subordinates (maidservants). This language of antitypical Elisha disparages the unholy ambition and power-grasping and lording of J.F.R., antitypical Gehazi. Then antitypical Elisha expresses (v. 27) the Lord's mind on antitypical Gehazi and his symbolic seed—W.E. Van Amburgh, A.H. MacMillan, W.F. Hudgings, R.J. Martin, Clayton Woodworth, Jesse Hemery, etc.: The Great Company uncleanness that antitypical Naaman had would forever remain on them—they would never be cleansed of it. And antitypical Gehazi and his seed from that time onward proceeded into worse and worse Great Company uncleanness, seen, e.g., in their fierce denunciations of big business, big politicians and the clergy. Sometime in 1920 we came to understand the feature of the type just explained, which accounts for the severe handling that we have been giving J.F.R.; for this type and the Ruth type in its antitype of the nearest kinsman prove that, not God, but Satan uses J.F.R. and his symbolic seed. His work is under God's curse, as antitypical Elisha's work in its good Levitical features, which usually characterize his work, is under God's blessing. 

(13) The story given in 2 Kings 6:1-7 types the Society's public work from 1917 to 1920 centering in Vol. 7. In the first half of 1917 Society supporters, sons of the prophets (v. 1), felt cramped (too straight) in their sphere of service (place where we dwell), which then was as such certainly limited almost exclusively to Truth people (we … with thee). Hence they requested antitypical Elisha for an enlargement of their sphere of service, i.e., to extend it to the public (let us go … Jordan, v. 2). And thus they would prepare themselves for a ministry toward the public (take … and make us … a place there … 

Elisha's Later Independent Acts. 

345 

to dwell). Antitypical Elisha as mouthpiece to the public naturally encouraged them so to do, as we know he did from shortly after the middle of 1917 onward. The leaders (one, v. 3) in the Society desired greatly (be content) to have the Society brethren as a whole cooperate with them in this public (go with thy servants) work, and they therefore agitated that all cooperate in the work of circulating the message which smote Jordan (the second time). Antitypical Elisha certainly rallied with enthusiasm, pledging to take part in this work (I, I go, literal translation), which shows Elisha's strong and energetic promise to cooperate. He certainly did take energetic part in such public work from the fall of 1917 until the late spring of 1918 (he went, v. 4), as he also made energetic preparation for, and took zealous part in the public work (came to Jordan … cut down wood). But while the leaders (one, v. 5) were thus preparing for and engaging in such public work (felling a beam), Vol. 7, (axes represent refutative books, as is seen in the description of Ps. 74:1-11 by their desolating the true Church in the Dark Ages) which as a refutative book, plaguing Babylon in State and Church, became lost to the leaders and to the led in the Society, sunk under the ban among the public (fell into the water). The banning of Vol. 7 caused consternation among the Society leaders (cried out … alas); for they considered it precious (not "borrowed" as the A. V. here, as in Ex. 11:2; 3:22; 12:35, misrenders the word, but, desired, i.e., precious, valuable). Antitypical Elisha asked on what principle (where fell it, v. 6) was the book taken away from the leaders by the public acting through the authorities. This principle was then explained to him by the Society leaders (he shewed him the place). Then antitypical Elisha seized upon the properly applicable principles (cut down a stick), the truths that really applied to the case—liberty of press, speech, propaganda, assembly 

Elijah and Elisha. 

346 

and worship—and used these so dextrously (cast it in thither), so to the point, that the constitutional rights so advocated recovered Vol. 7 (iron did swim) from under the ban, by which the public acting through the authorities had taken it away from the possession and control of the Society leaders. Then antitypical Elisha had the leaders take Vol. 7 to themselves and use it again for propaganda purposes (v. 7), which was also done in 1920. 2 Kings 6:1-7 is thus shown to have been antityped in the Societyites' public work with Vol. 7 from 1917 to 1920, which disproves all four of J.F.R.'s views and corroborates our view on antitypical Elisha, as we have seen in other episodes. 

(14) 2 Kings 6:8-23 types the first features of the conflict between Radicalism in political America (king of Syria, v. 8) seeking to enforce Mr. Wilson's internationalist policies after the war, and Conservatism in political America (king of Israel, v. 9) striving to maintain the policies of Americanism as against Mr. Wilson's efforts to internationalize America. This section also shows antitypical Elisha's and J.F.R.'s relations to this conflict. The antitype of this section occurred in the summer and fall of 1919. The Radicals under Mr. Wilson's lead started July 10, 1919, soon after his return from the Paris peace negotiations, to try to internationalize America on the matter of adopting the Versailles Treaty and the League of Nations with the World Court matter coming up later (took counsel … saying, in such and such a place … my camp, v. 8). The Societyites' troubles with the radical authorities on military questions had won for them friends and supporters among the Conservatives; and they sent the latter warnings against America's becoming involved in internationalism (camp), pointing out to them that the Versailles Treaty and the Covenant of the League of Nations were a part of a war by Radicals against Americanism (v. 9). Conservatism (king of Israel, v. 10) in the 

Elisha's Later Independent Acts. 

347 

person of its leaders—men like Senators Knox, Lodge, Borah, Johnson, Norris, La Follette, etc.—thereupon made a diligent study (sent to the place) of the Radicals' position and thus avoided falling into the trap of internationalism in (1) the treaty, (2) the League Covenant (not once) and (3) later the World Court (nor twice). Their not falling into the trap made Radicalism in its leaders suspect treachery in its own ranks as giving clues for their defense to the Conservatives (v. 11). Some of the Radicals denied such a thing, affirming that it was the Societyites—antitypical Elisha—who were keeping the Conservatives informed on the varied, even secret relations of the Radicals (v. 12). The Radicals (he said … spy where he is) gave the charge to find out what the position of the Societyites was that was giving them such a knowledge of their plans; and were informed that it was one based on the Bible (Dothan, two wells, the Old and the New Testaments, v. 13). It will be recalled that at this time, though their sentence had been set aside, the indictment still held against the Society leaders, the ban was still on against Vol. 7, and the Societyites were still under more or less restraint. The radical authorities, finding out that the Societyites were helping the Conservatives pressed to reopen the case against the eight indicted leaders, continued the ban on Vol. 7 and continued the restraints on the Societyites' work, using their legal doctrines (horses, v. 14), legal organizations (chariots) and many legal authorities and lawyers (a great host) to accomplish these things secretly (by night) and besieged them in their Scriptural position (compassed the city about), in the hope of capturing it. 

(15) J.F.R. (Gehazi, the servant of the man of God, v. 15) early became apprised of the intentions of the Radicals' representatives (early … behold a host). As when arrested and under arrest in 1918 he showed great fear, so at the reopening of the matter 

Elijah and Elisha. 

348 

in the summer of 1919 he became greatly frightened (alas). His fear in neither case was that of a member of antitypical Elijah, as he claimed, but was in both cases that of antitypical Gehazi. His fear in this case was doubtless greater than that experienced in 1918; for his nine months' imprisonment, in the meantime, gave him no appetite for prison life. Hence his fear. Moreover he was nonplussed as to what to do in the situation (how shall we do?). Antitypical Elisha sought to calm him (fear not, v. 16), assuring him that those for them, not only the Lord and the guardian angels, but the organizations and theories of the Conservatives, though under trial as organizations and as theories (fiery chariots and horses, v. 17) were in a majority (more than they, v. 16) in political and legal America, and were on their side to defend them against the Radicals' organizations and theories. J.F.R.'s viewpoint was a pessimistic one, which saw only those on the opposing side and failed to see those on the Societyites' side. Antitypical Elisha labored (prayed), as God's mouthpiece to the public, to open J.F.R.'s eyes to the real situation, of which he as God's representative convinced him (opened the eyes), whereby J.F.R. was enabled to see that the tried organizations and theories of the Conservatives were on antitypical Elisha's side (round about Elisha). Antitypical Elisha as God's mouthpiece to the public with great desire (prayed, v. 18), and his word (word of Elisha) procured from the Lord the power of convincing the legal representatives of the Radicals that their viewpoints were erroneous and thus blinded them as to what to do in the case (smite … with blindness … He smote with blindness). The arguments that antitypical Elisha used were Biblical, which threw the government's attorneys into confusion; for their own Biblical points were inapplicable to the situation, and were shown to be such by antitypical Elisha (this is not the way, v. 19). Antitypical Elisha insisted that 

Elisha's Later Independent Acts. 

349 

the government's lawyers should not base their prosecution on Biblical grounds (this is not the city). He insisted that the matter must be conducted along the lines of the law and politics. Convincing them to this effect, he brought them into the position of the Conservatives (led them to Samaria), where they would see the real antitypical Elisha in his proper legal and political character (bring you … whom ye seek). 

(16) The Radicals' legal representatives were led by the arguments of antitypical Elisha into captured involvement in the legal and political position of the Conservatives (Samaria, v. 20). Antitypical Elisha earnestly desired (prayed) and worked along the lines of his desires that the legal representatives of the Radicals recognize that they were captives in the grasp of the legal and political arguments of the Conservatives in so far as these involved him, i.e., that they recognize their legal positions were untenable and that they be convinced of the correctness of the pertinent positions of the Conservatives (open the eyes). This prayer and concordant works realized their purpose (opened their eyes); the legal representatives became convinced that the lawyers of the other side had the merits of the legal points in their favor. Conservatism in its legal representatives (the king, v. 21) who were defending antitypical Elisha, on seeing that the government's lawyers were their captives, sought very earnestly (shall I? … shall I?) to injure these. But antitypical Elisha, desiring to win the government's legal representatives as friends, earnestly counseled against such a course (thou shalt not smite, v. 22), alleging that it would not be magnanimous to mistreat the captives of their arguments (sword). This tactful statement, which praised them as the winners of the victory, which antitypical Elisha actually won, did make his attorneys magnanimous, and they had a figurative love feast (v. 23) with the opposing attorneys who were thereby made friendly disposed toward 

Elijah and Elisha. 

350 

all concerned. In this attitude of mind the opposing attorneys left antitypical Elisha and his defending Conservatives and went to their client, Radicalism in the authorities (went to their master). This course was fruitful; for it resulted in the authorities calling off their legal representatives from, and dropping the case, which freed the Society leaders from further prosecution, withdrew the ban from Vol. 7 and removed the restrictions on the Societyites' public work by legal means (bands of Syria came no more). 

(17) While 2 Kings 6:8-23 types certain, mainly opening, features of the conflict between America Radical and Conservative on internationalism with special reference to their relation to antitypical Elisha and Gehazi, 2 Kings 6:24—7:20 types the conflict as a whole and antitypical Elisha's relation to it. Radicalism under Mr. Wilson submitted the Versailles Treaty to the U. S. Senate, July 10, 1919, strongly recommending its adoption. The Senate was at this time in control of the Republican majority; thus the submission of the treaty to the Senate opened the conflict (Ben-hadad … besieged Samaria, v. 24) between Mr. Wilson and his internationalist supporters on the one hand and the nationalists on the other hand, i.e., between America Radical and America Conservative. At first only six senators, whom Mr. Wilson, because of their determined opposition, called "six wilful little men," Messrs. Lodge, Borah, Knox, Johnson, La Follette, and Norris, opposed the Radicals; and they were so hard pressed by superior numbers and influence, and their desires for relief from others' support were so long unsatisfied (a great famine, v. 25) that even the smallest support (ass's head … cab of dove's dung [foul vegetables]) was of great value. Mr. Wilson toured the country in a campaign to arouse the people to favor the treaty and the covenant of the League of Nations and aroused considerable response in the West, but the East was cold to him. However,

Elisha's Later Independent Acts. 

351 

for awhile he appeared to be a winner; for the other side—mainly "six willful little men"—seemed to be in a desperate situation, since the bulk of the senate was either hostile or indifferent or undecided. The persistence of the "six willful little men" slowly began to win over senate members from the Republican and Democratic parties, who made deals involving the sacrifice of things (the two sons of vs. 28, 29) dear to each group (the two women of vs. 26-30). The group of Republicans were first called up to keep their promise of sacrifice (give thy son … today, v. 28) and kept their word, as bitter as it was for them to do it. But when the group from the Democratic senators were called up to make their sacrifice (next day … thy son, v. 29) they sought to retain for themselves the things that were to be sacrificed. 

(18) This group of Republicans appealed for help in this matter to the Conservatives in general, especially to the "six willful little men," whose discouragement before they knew the situation enquired about moved them to assure the petitioners that they had no power to help (v. 27). When informed of the situation they were further distressed and consequently violated more than one quality of senatorial conduct (rent his clothes, v. 30). Then for the first time it became generally known that in the exercise of their powers (wall) they were in deepest grief (sackcloth). Among others, Senator Borah in one of his great senatorial speeches expressed his heart's grief over the widespread apostacy of many Americans from the theories and practices of Americanism, which theories and practices he stated were by far more defensible in the arena of debate than the theories and practices of internationalism. He chided the bulk of his senatorial associates that they were so faint in standing up for Americanism and exhorted them not to be ashamed of their inheritance as Americans. The debate really involved the question, Americanism or Europeanism—which? 

Elijah and Elisha. 

352 

And some of the finest defenses of the American way as against the European way ever made were made in these Senate debates on the treaty and the League of Nations. While this was the situation in the Senate, Mr. Wilson in his tour in the West seemed to be winning the western part of the country for internationalism, against which the East stood. 

(19) Remembering that they had been encouraged to take their course by antitypical Elisha (vs. 9, 10), the Conservatives in despair of winning, as a second effect of the incident of the two antitypical women decided that they would turn against antitypical Elisha and let him lose out in his having his rights to freedom of speech, press, propaganda, worship and assembly in part maintained and in part restored to them (if the head of Elisha … stand, v. 31). The Societyites while engaged in their public work and that before their leaders (elders, v. 32), soon sensed this, and expressed the thought before the Conservatives' attorneys (messenger) brought them the intelligence. They charged that the public work be concealed (shut the door) and that the Conservatives' attorneys be given no opportunity to see further into their public work (hold … at the door), affirming that the Conservatives as a whole were supporting (master's feet behind him) these attorneys in their giving up the Societyites to their fate. Scarcely had antitypical Elisha made these statements to the Society leaders when these attorneys approached. He told the attorneys that the Lord had evidently so shaped the events that seemed so evil to the Conservatives (evil … of the Lord, v. 33) and asked them why should he cause them to wait (so the Hebrew) in the dark any longer on the Lord, whose help was now nigh at hand. Then antitypical Elisha assured them on the basis of the Bible (hear the word of the Lord; thus saith the Lord, 7:1) that their hunger for support would be ended by a very great abundance of political support coming to them in the 

Elisha's Later Independent Acts. 

353 

very near future (tomorrow … of Samaria). But when the special supporters (lord … king leaned, v. 2) of the Conservatives, i.e., the opponents of internationalism on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, discouraged and worn to a frazzle by their strenuous fight, doubted this assurance (Lord … windows in heaven … this thing be?), antitypical Elisha assured them that they would see the thing fulfilled, but would effect nothing thereby (not eat thereof). 

(20) There were four groups of uncleansed Great Company brethren (four leprous men, v. 3), the Societyites, the P. B. I., the Olsonites and Standfasts, who were undergoing more or less restraints as unclean ones in their public work, due to the officials' war course toward such Truth people (at … gate). These reasoned on the possibilities of their situation as being desperate, and would lead to their being cut off entirely from service, regardless of whether they became associated with the Conservatives or remained apart from them and apart from the Radicals (Why sit …? and if … we die also, vs. 3, 4). To them it seemed that the only possibility of gaining a continuance of their ministry unimpaired was to come to terms with the Radicals (let us fall … we shall live). If the Radicals would not grant this, they would be but cut from their service (shall but die). Thus they decided to take the risk, being oblivious (in the twilight, v. 5) of the conditions among the Radicals who had already fled (vs. 6, 7). At the time that the cause of the Conservatives seemed most desperate the Lord caused their agitation to sink in among the people. The gross follies of the treaty and the un-American implications of the League Covenant increasingly struck the people (a great host, v. 6) who began to agitate as organized groups (chariots) with political, legal and economic Americanisms (horses) in many discussions (noise). This tide of sentiment arose first in the East and then spread rapidly westward with ever increasing volume. 

Elijah and Elisha. 

354 

The Lord was back of this movement (the Lord had made … hear). This agitation made the Radicals think that all who were fearful (Hittites) and all who were in fair harmony with the order of affairs in America (Egyptians) had been won over to the side of the Conservatives. This, coupled with Mr. Wilson's breakdown, Sept. 26, 1919, while on his western tour, and consequent incapacity for work and leadership, made the Radicals beat an ignominious retreat, and that in secret (fled in the twilight … for their life, v. 7), abandoning their all of equipment, influence and power for the conflict. 

(21) The four Levite groups above-mentioned seized hold (eat and drink … silver, gold, raiment, v. 8) of their privileges of assembly and propaganda (one tent … another tent), which before were dominated by the Radicals, as the things nearest them (uttermost … camp). This work was secretly done (hid it). Presently these four groups of Levites became conscience-stricken at their selfishness (we do not well, v. 9) at their enjoying such privileges alone and at their not telling others of the good turn of events. Moreover, they feared that such secret doings might result in injury to themselves (some mischief). Hence they decided to let the Conservatives know of the actual position of things (tell the king's household); for at first these Truth people alone knew of the retreat of the Radicals from their position with the consequent relief that this meant for all the Conservatives, as well as for themselves. Soon the local representatives of the Conservatives (porter, v. 10) were by the local representatives of these four Levite groups locally informed of the actual situation. These then told the Conservatives on the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee and the "six willful little men" (called the porters … king's house, v. 11); but when these told the other Conservative members of the Senate of the news, the latter, being in the dark on the 

Elisha's Later Independent Acts. 

355 

subject (night, v. 12), suspected some stratagem was being attempted on them (Syrians … know … hide themselves … get the city). The "six willful little men" (one of his servants, v. 13) advised the use of the five principles (five horses) of constitutionally guaranteed privileges—freedom of press, speech, propaganda, assembly and religion as the only principles of Americanism yet left unimpaired—and the use of the fact that real Americans (Israel) were, like these five principles, greatly reduced in activity and power in connection with the more or less suppression of the other principles of Americanism, to ascertain whether by the help of these principles Radicalism had given up the conflict (let us send and see). The Conservatives sent (go and see, v. 14) the two theories of their organization (two-horsed chariot, so the Hebrew, v. 14), antitreatyism and antileagueism, out against the Radicals, to search out their condition. 

(22) This set in shortly after Mr. Wilson, Sept. 26, 1919, suffered his paralytic stroke at Wichita, Kansas, and increased by the Senate debates and by the discussions among the peoples (Jordan, v. 15) instigated from the Senate. From then on the Radicals were increasingly in flight deserting one position after another, casting aside one argument after another, and one power after another in the debates (all the way full … cast away in haste). The vote in the Senate, Nov. 19, 1919, rejecting the treaty and the League's Covenant was part of the answer of the messenger on the retreat of the Syrians (returned … and told the king, v. 15). These two anti-Radicalism theories were set forth in the resolution for the rejection of various sections of the Treaty and in the resolution to adopt the 14 reservations to the League's Covenant; and when these two resolutions were adopted by the Senate, Nov. 13, 1919, the Radicals under Mr. Wilson's advice refused, Nov. 19, to vote for the Treaty and Covenant so emasculated, and

Elijah and Elisha. 

356 

by Mr. Wilson truly declared to be a nullification of both. Hence the Radicalism theory was defeated. The efforts again to pass the Treaty and Covenant in their Radicalistic form through the Senate from Feb. 10 to Mar. 19, 1920, failed finally and completely. These two votes of the Senate, those of Nov. 19, 1919, and Mar. 19, 1920, were the announcement of the full retreat of the antitypical Syrians (messengers returned and told the king, v. 15). Those standing for Americanism, who proved to be the bulk of the American people, in the election of 1920 utterly spoiled the Radicals, sweeping them from their offices and power by the greatest landslide victory in a presidential election up to that time (people … spoiled the tents of the Syrians, v. 16). This made the support of Americanism abundant and available to even the least privileged American (a measure … a shekel … two measures … a shekel). In gratitude for the service that the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee (the lord, v. 17) had rendered Americanism, the Conservatives (the king) gave them charge of the inculcation of Americanism, as to entering into the state of, and remaining in, real American citizens (charge of the gate, v. 17); but as they were engaged therein the people cut them off from their power by taking it into their own hands to administer the matters relative to inculcating Americanism by conducting an intensive campaign to Americanize aliens and to preserve Americans from Europeanization (trode upon him … he died, vs. 17, 20). Thus was fulfilled the antitypical word of Elisha as to them (vs. 17, 20). Vs. 18, 19 being a repetition of v. 2, their antitypes have already been explained. This brings us to an end of the relations of Radicalism and Conservatism in America in their conflict on internationalism and of their relations to the Societyites. 

(23) 2 Kings 8:1-6 treats typically of the experiences of the Society supporters (the woman, v. 1) 

Elisha's Later Independent Acts. 

357 

and their public witness movement (whose son), the Societyites as mouthpiece towards the public (Elisha) and J.F.R. (Gehazi), from the time the public witness movement was resuscitated until all the government's hindrances to the public work were removed by the authorities. As pointed out heretofore, the resuscitation of the public witness movement was completed at the Cedar Point Convention in early Sept., 1919. This was before the ban was lifted from Vol. 7, before the indictment of the Society leaders was quashed, and before various other governmental handicaps were removed from the Society's work toward one another and toward the public. It will be recalled, as was shown in our comments on 2 Kings 6:8-23, that the Societyites in their mouthpieceship to the public (antitypical Elisha) favored the Conservatives as against the Radicals in the government, for which the Radical authorities began to renew their pressure along the above-mentioned three specified points against the Society. This set in almost immediately after the Cedar Point Convention, i.e., about the middle of September, which was amid the fight on the Treaty and the League Covenant (then, v. 1). The renewals of these repressions is the antitype of the famine (v. 1). Antitypical Elisha counseled the Society supporters (the woman) and their leaders, etc. (household) to withdraw themselves from work toward the public and to occupy themselves with other forms of service open to them (wheresoever thou canst sojourn). This repression was to last unto a completion according to the Lord's overruling (the Lord called … for seven years). Thereupon the Societyites in compliance (after the saying, v. 2) began to occupy themselves with work toward the divisions (sojourned in the land of the Philistines) among the Truth people, making efforts to win them back to the Society, e.g., the Standfasts and the adherents of the B. S. C. in England. They occupied 

Elijah and Elisha. 

358 

themselves with these until into 1920, unto a completion (seven years), but winning only a few of such. They then returned, i.e., to seek the right to the work that lay nearer their heart (returned, v. 3), the right to public work. Hence they undertook the work of seeking a restoration of their privileges (house) and sphere of work (land) toward the public from the authorities (cry unto the king). 

(24) At the time they went forth to seek a restoration of their privileges and sphere of work toward the public, the authorities (king talked, v. 4) were inquiring of J.F.R. (Gehazi), during the discussion of the matter of the authorities pressing the indictment against the Society leaders, and the latter arguing for a dismissal of the indictment, as to the notable activities of antitypical Elisha (tell me … things … Elisha … done). Knowing that a favorable showing made for the Societyites as mouthpiece toward the public would help toward quashing the indictment against himself and his indicted associates, J.F.R. told the authorities, among other things, of antitypical Elisha's reviving the public witness work (telling how … restored … dead …, v. 5). While he was thus engaged the Society supporters (the woman … son … restored) appealed to the authorities to remove the ban from Vol. 7 and the governmental hindrances to their public work, inasmuch as the constitutionally guaranteed liberty of press guaranteed the former and the constitutionally guaranteed liberty of speech, propaganda, assembly and worship guaranteed the latter. Thus the Societyites pled for their privileges (house) and sphere of service (land). As the authorities heard these petitions, J.F.R. (Gehazi) told the authorities that the Society supporters whose public witness movement antitypical Elisha had resuscitated were the very ones who were petitioning for the restoration of their privileges and sphere of service (this the woman … this her son … Elisha … 

Elisha's Later Independent Acts. 

359 

to life). The authorities inquired of the Society supporters, if the things were true of her and her son told them by J.F.R. (king asked the woman, v. 6). On being assured by the Societyites that such was the case (she told him), the authorities charged the pertinent officers (a certain officer) to remove the ban on Vol. 7 and to remove all legal impediments from the Society supporters' public work by granting them all their constitutionally guaranteed liberties, including the lifting of the ban from Vol. 7, quashing the indictment and permitting their public and private work (restore … hers). They also charged that there be made up to the Society supporters whatever losses they incurred through the injustices done them since the fall of 1919 when the antitypical famine set in (fruits … since she left … until now). Accordingly, this was done during the first four months of 1920. This was immediately followed by a vigorous public witness work set into operation by the Societyites with Vol. 7, etc. Thus the Societyites again entered into a work that was calculated to reflect praise, and did reflect praise upon the Lord (Rev. 19:3). Thus we see that the episode of vs. 1-6 had its fulfillment from the fall of 1919 into the spring of 1920, the quashing of the indictment against the leaders ending the last repressive act against the Society, May 5, 1920 (Z '20, 162). 

(25) In 2 Kings 8:7-15 is typed the death of Soviet Communism and the anointing of Soviet Syndicalism by the Societyites acting as God's mouthpiece to the public. In this story Elisha types the Societyites as God's mouthpiece to the public. Ben-hadad and Hazael both represent Radicalism as operating in Soviet Russia, but with this difference: Ben-hadad represents Radicalism operating in Soviet Russia as Communism, while Hazael represents Radicalism operating in Soviet Russia as Syndicalism. With these generalities premised the details of this section are rather easy to see. Antitypical Elisha made, by 

Elijah and Elisha. 

360 

the spread of his literature to Russia, a journey to Russia, the Capital of Radicalism (Elisha … Damascus, v. 7), in the years of 1919 and 1920. He found that Radicalism in the form of Russian Soviet Communism was very sick (Ben-hadad … sick). Due to the lack of peasant cooperation, famine, general impracticability, the opposition of allianced Europe and the boycott by America, Communism in Russia weakened greatly; and Syndicalism began to come into discussion among the Bolsheviki as a probable means of improvement for conditions in Russia. The critical tone against organized Christendom apparent in the Society publications, notably in Vols. 1, 4, in the ban-freed Vol. 7, the Tower and the Golden Age, made waning Communism which despised and persecuted Churchianity consider antitypical Elisha as a religious teacher worthy of consideration, when his literature became known to the Bolsheviki (the man of God is come hither). Waning Communism sent Syndicalism in its leading exponents, especially Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Kamenev, Radek, Zinoviev, Chicherin, etc., to study the Society's literature to find out whether there was given in it any hope of recovery for sickly Communism (the king said to Hazael … enquire … shall I recover, v. 8). It was in these told to make friendly study of such writings (take a present … meet the man of God). It was also told to make such a study with a submissiveness to truth and right (enquire of the Lord by him), regardless of whether the answer of this literature were favorable or not to Communism. 

(26) Accordingly, this study in the spirit above described was entered into by the leading representatives of the Bolsheviki who were by now inclined toward Syndicalism (Hazael [before he became king] went to Elisha, v. 9). Everything (burden) that the trial-involved (40) Bolsheviki organizations (camels) could put into a favorable study of the Society's literature (and this literature, as said above, included Vols. 1 

Elisha's Later Independent Acts. 

361 

and 4 also) was put into it (came and stood before him) in order to find therein an answer to the question: Could Communism recover and be made to work in Russia (shall I recover)? The answer that antitypical Elisha gave through the Society's literature that recovery was possible, but would certainly not be realized, was the one that antitypical Hazael desired (v. 10). Such study began late in 1919 and was completed before Nov., 1920; because in the eighth Congress of the Communist party held in Nov. and Dec., 1920, not only was Communism severely criticized, but the first feature of Syndication was introduced in a plan for the electrification of Russia. Hence antitypical Elisha's answer (v. 10) was finished before Nov., 1920. How much before that we do not know, but it was all given within less than a year's time, from the late fall of 1919 to sometime before Nov., 1920. The study of antitypical Elisha's literature indicated to the studying Syndicalists that antitypical Elisha foreknew the great evils that Russian Syndicalism would work in Christendom and that antitypical Elisha deplored this (settled his countenance … and wept, v. 11) which shamed the Syndicalists (ashamed). Antitypical Hazael wondered why antitypical Elisha in the literature expressed grief (why weepeth my lord? v. 12). And the literature showed him (he answered) that antitypical Elisha was aware of the evil that Syndicalistic Sovietism would do to the Conservatives in Christendom (evil … unto … Israel); overthrowing their strong defenses (strongholds), refute their defenders (young men), with its theories (sword), crush their fresh prospects and new measures for relief (dash their children) and destroy their fruit-promising associations, conferences, etc. (rip … women with child). Antitypical Hazael claimed to be so non-partisan as to be above such things (thy servant a dog … do this great thing, v. 13). Then the Society's literature informed the

Elijah and Elisha. 

362 

Syndicalists that they would be controllers of Soviet Russia (Elisha answered … thou … king). 

(27) After getting this information by which antitypical Hazael was anointed in fulfillment of the command typed in 1 Kings 19:15, the Syndicalist leaders ceased studying the Society's literature (he departed from Elisha, v. 14). Whether the antitypical anointing was partly done by oral instruction we do not know, very likely not, though Societyites could have done this also. Antitypical Hazael then returned in thought and activity to Communism in its various members (came to his master). These asked what pertinent information their investigations in the writings of the Society disclosed as to the recovery of Communism? The answer was an ambiguous one (thou shouldst surely recover) and was designedly made so, because the developing Syndicalists did not believe they could yet safely overthrow Communism and install Syndicalism in its place. It might here be in place to set forth the difference between these two theories. The difference between Communism and Syndicalism is this: whereas the former denies the right of individuals to own property and engage in competitive business, affirming that the State owns all property and conducts all business, requiring of each that he yield his all according to his ability to the State, while the State is to give to each according to his need, Syndicalism grants a joint and equal measure of ownership and competition to capital and labor in their cooperation, with the government acting as the ultimate controller, as a sort of senior partner. Theoretically there is very little difference basically between Syndicalism and Fascism, however much they may scowl at one another. Antitypical Hazael gave his answer to antitypical Ben-hadad sometime before the eighth Soviet Congress assembled in Nov., 1920. With that Congress the suppression of antitypical Ben-hadad began (thick cloth … dipped … spread 

Elisha's Later Independent Acts. 

363 

… died, v. 15). This occurred by a smothering process. Little by little and more and more Syndicalist measures were introduced, first the semi-capitalistic, semi-labor, full State control of the electrification of Russia, decided on in Dec., 1920, at the eighth Soviet Congress, the next spring allowing peasants to sell part of their produce, delivering the rest to the State, a little later permitting storekeepers to sell goods; still a little later a partial wage system was introduced, then came the organization of industries in a syndicalistic manner. Thus gradually Communism was set aside in Soviet Russia by the slow introduction of Syndicalism (he died; Hazael reigned in his stead). We will omit here a discussion of vs. 16-24, partly because they are not pertinent to our subject, and partly because we have treated of them in connection with our discussion of Jehoram of Judah in Chapter IV. 

(28) In an article entitled, Jehovah's Executioner, in the July 1, 15, and Aug. 1, 1932, Towers, J.F.R. gives us a new view on Ahab, Jezebel, Jehoram, Ahaziah, Hazael and Jehu. According to this view, Jehu types Jesus and the Church militant and triumphant, with the angels thrown in for good measure (Z '32, 196, 4; 198, 18); Ahab represents Satan; Jezebel, Satan's organization; their offspring, the seed of the serpent; and Jehu's work represents Jehovah's procedure through Jesus and the Church and angels in destroying what has wrought depravity to man and dishonor to His name (par. 7). This view is, of course, contrary to our Pastor's views, and calls for no refutation here, since we refuted it in P'33, 94, par. 4—96, top, to which we refer our readers who desire to examine these matters further. On several features of this picture our Pastor did not express himself. Since his death Truth has advanced on this subject, and that in harmony with the foundations that he laid. Here we give some details on Ahab and Jezebel not given by our Pastor; and all of these corroborate his general 

Elijah and Elisha. 

364 

setting. Some pertinent details are also found in Chapters I, IV and VI. Here we will but briefly restate such. According to our understanding, Ahab represents governmental Autocratic Europe; Jezebel, the Roman Catholic Church; Naboth, the Huguenots; Ben-hadad, various Radicals; Hazael, Soviet Syndicalists; Ahaziah of Israel, European nations independent of one another; Jehoram of Israel, Allianced Europe; Jehoram of Judah, America Reactionary; Ahaziah of Judah, Autocratic America helping Allianced Europe; and Jehu, Conservative Labor. Naboth's being killed through Jezebel at the mouth of two false witnesses types the crushing of the Huguenots by Autocratic France at Rome's demand and the instigation of the French clergy and aristocracy. Elijah's denunciation of Ahab and Jezebel therefore types the true Church denouncing Autocratic France and Rome therefore. Ahab's death represents the death of Autocratic Europe in stages mainly from the French Revolution to the 1848 European revolutions (its remnants were destroyed through the World War), when autocracy largely disappeared in Europe, constitutionalism superceding it. Ahaziah's death represents the death of Europe as an aggregation of independent states, completed in the early part of the World War. The death of Jehoram of Israel and the death of Ahaziah of Judah represent, respectively, the overthrow, in Armageddon, of Allianced Europe and Autocratic America helping Europe. 

(29) Ramoth-gilead (rough or rocky height) represents the place of chief prominence, especially in European affairs. Jehoram's holding it represents Allianced Europe, as the European combination, holding now and for some time past the place of chief prominence in Europe. As Hazael sought to take Ramoth-gilead, so have the Syndicalistic Soviets sought to gain the place of chief prominence in Europe. As Jehu supported Jehoram and Ahaziah against Hazael, so Conservative 

Elisha's Later Independent Acts. 

365 

Labor has supported Allianced Europe and Autocratic America, against the Syndicalistic Soviets. And this combination of Allianced Europe, Autocratic America helpful to Europe and Conservative Labor has prevented the Syndicalistic Soviets from gaining the place of chief prominence in Europe, even as Jehoram, Ahaziah and Jehu prevented Hazael from taking Ramoth-gilead. Hazael's wounding Jehoram types the post-war injuries that the Syndicalistic Soviets have inflicted on Allianced Europe. Jezreel, the place where Ahab lived in forbidden wedlock with the heathen Jezebel, types the European union and cooperation of state and church. Jehoram's going to Jezreel for healing represents Allianced Europe seeking recuperation through an approach to, and working understanding with, the Roman Catholic Church, which for the past fifteen years has, on the one hand, been going on, while, on the other hand, various of the European states (Italy, Spain, Lithuania, Germany, etc.) have been eating her flesh. Ahaziah's visiting Jehoram in his wounded condition represents Autocratic America, joining into a working alliance with Rome and coordinately giving wounded Allianced Europe succor, e.g., in debt and interest reductions, loans, counsel, largely closing its eyes at the European nations' debt defaulting, etc. Elisha's sending the son of the prophet to anoint Jehu represents the Societyites by their message on the overthrow of clergy, rulers and aristocrats at Armageddon arousing, especially certain sympathetic secretly-working labor representatives, attending on the Societyites' pertinent meetings, radio talks, lectures and literature, to instruct and to incite Conservative Labor to revolt (the anointing of Jehu to revolt against Jehoram) against Allianced Europe, which anointing has been completed. 

(30) We are in possession of certain facts which prove that not only has Conservative Labor been anointed, qualified by instruction and arousement, to 

Elijah and Elisha. 

366 

revolt, but is now well advanced beyond the conspiracy typed in 2 Kings 9:11-15. Hence, we are looking for Armageddon soon to break out suddenly, following antitypical Jehu's sudden, rapid and well advanced drive. The three efforts to prevent Armageddon are typed by the three goings forth to meet Jehu. The third will be interrupted by Armageddon, which will first strike, and that fatally, Allianced Europe (Jehoram was the first to be shot and killed) and then America, which will resist the onslaught longer, but will finally, after serious wounding, succumb (Ahaziah's long-drawn-out flight, capture, escape, wounding and death). Jezebel's death types the destruction of Romanism, only the memory of her teachings (skull), practices (hands) and conduct (feet) remaining after the revolutionary "dogs," partisans, will have done with her. The destruction of the whole seed of Ahab represents the overthrow of every government in the eastern hemisphere, more particularly in Europe; and the destruction of Ahaziah's brethren represents the overthrow of every government in the western hemisphere. The destruction of the Baal priests and worshipers represents the destruction of the power-grasping and tyrannous rulers, clergy and aristocrats (including capitalists), with their ardent supporters. All of this is involved in the earthquake of Rev. 16:18-20. The kingdom that Jehu established represents a form of labor government, quite likely some kind of socialism, which will progress through four forms, typed by the four kings of the Jehu dynasty. The type, so far as due, i.e., up to and including the three goings forth to meet Jehu, the third meeting being imminent, having in the minutest details, as outlined above, already been fulfilled, we have the assurance of faith that the above factual and reasonable interpretation of the type is correct. From here on in this chapter we will give some details on certain matters merely touched upon in paragraphs (28)-(30).

Elisha's Later Independent Acts. 

367 

(31) We continue the discussion of our subject by a study of 2 Kings 9:1-10 which types the anointing of Conservative Labor—antitypical Jehu—by antitypical Elisha through the members of a secret labor organization—the antitypical son of the prophets. There is in antitypical Elisha's ministry a blank of about nine years, beginning with the renewal of his public work in 1920, i.e., from 1920 and lasting to about 1929, when antitypical Jehu's anointing began. At first sight it seems strange that there should be so many acts of antitypical Elisha from 1917 to 1920 typed in the Bible and none for the next nine years typed there. Then one event, and thereafter none until just before antitypical Elisha's death. The reason is this: Antitypical Elisha supinely allowed himself in 1920 to be pushed off the stage of controllership by surrendering to J.F.R. his power; and the latter then took to himself the whole stage of the Society controllership. But J.F.R.'s ministry from 1920 onward being solely an Azazelian one, God could not honor his service, nor antitypical Elisha with special opportunities, except when he shook himself free from J.F.R.'s control, i.e., on only one occasion, that connected with Jehu's anointing; and he will again so do in the act that will be connected with his final sickness, though after his ceasing to be the Lord's mouthpiece to the public (Elisha's death) his memory (bones) will resuscitate the antitype of the dead Moabite robber that was cast into his grave (2 Kings 13:22). This fact shows that one entrusted by the Lord with a special mission must not allow himself to be set aside from that mission by ambitious usurpers, regardless of how severely he is pressed by such usurpers to yield his prerogatives. 

(32) In 1929 antitypical Elisha's teachings and literature, not J.F.R.'s, became a call to members of a secret labor organization (Elisha … called one … of the prophets, v. 1) to teach (anoint, v. 3) Conservative Labor (Jehu, v. 2) the features of God's Word

Elijah and Elisha. 

368 

(box of oil) that arranged for it to overthrow Satan's Empire in its earthly phase (vs. 7-10). This secret labor society, seeking to keep its identity in the dark, would not even give itself a name. Its members advised thereto by its leaders, attended the public and parlor lectures of the Societyites and got from these the thought that God desired Conservative Labor (Jehu) to overthrow the earthly phase of Satan's Empire. They likewise from the Societyites obtained especially Vols. 1, 4 and 7 whereby they learned details on this Divine purpose. In these ways they received from antitypical Elisha the antitypical box of oil, and thus received from him the commission (gird up thy loins) to perform the service of anointing Conservative Labor to perform the pertinent Divine design; for as the pertinent truths were unfolded to them, they were by them aroused to perform that service. Hence, antitypical Elisha was by his ministries to these, arousing them to that service. Conservative Labor was then defending against the Syndicalists (antitypical Hazael, 2 Kings 8:28, 29), the place of chief prominence (Ramoth-gilead, rocky or rough height) in Christendom held by Allianced Europe (Jehoram of Israel) and America (Ahaziah). Here were the members of the secret labor society (son of the prophets) to find antitypical Jehu (when thou comest thither, look out there Jehu, v. 2). Jehu means He is Jehovah; Jehoshaphat means Jehovah judges; and Nimshi means selected. Conservative Labor was therefore Divinely selected (Nimshi) truly to vindicate (Jehovah judges) Jehovah's existence and attributes (Jehu) especially His justice and power in the overthrow of Satan's Empire. The nature of the work required secrecy (make … arise … to an inner chamber). The antitypical son of the prophets was thus in secret to give to antitypical Jehu the qualities of heart and mind through the pertinent truths (pour it on his head, v. 3), fitting him to undertake the

Elisha's Later Independent Acts. 

369 

Divinely prearranged mission (I have anointed thee king over Israel). The mission performed, the antitypical son of the prophets was immediately to leave and hasten away (open … door, flee, tarry not). 

(33) The antitypical son of the prophets, himself an antitypical prophet (v. 4), i.e., a company devoted to propaganda, undertook the mission by mingling with the leaders of the Conservative Labor party—men like Messrs. Green, Lewis, Morrison, Tobin, Woll, etc., in America; in Britain, men like Henderson, Lansbury, etc.; men like Blum in France and others elsewhere. These mingled among various labor parties (captains of the host, v. 5) who are fighting against Syndicalism; but singled out Conservative Labor (Jehu) as the party for whom his mission was intended (an errand for thee … Jehu … to thee). These indicated secrecy (went into the house), since to tell it to all would have endangered the messenger and the cause. They then verbally and by literature told antitypical Jehu the Societyites' view of the world situation in Christendom, which Conservative Labor absorbed and endorsed (poured the oil … head, v. 6). They told Conservative Labor that God and right principles dictated that they should assume control of governmental affairs throughout Christendom, yea, all Christendom (anointed thee king, even over all Israel). Then explaining the Armageddon feature of antitypical Jehu's work, they declared to Conservative Labor that God designed that it should extirpate every vestige of autocracy, dictatorship and aristocracy, both of nobility and wealth (the house of Ahab, v. 7). This was in justice necessary as retribution for the persecution of which they have been guilty against God's servants and people (avenge … the prophets and … the servants of the Lord), instigated by the nominal church, especially the Romanist Church (at the hand of Jezebel). Proceeding, they said that every government (whole house, v. 8) coming out of autocracy

Elijah and Elisha. 

370 

(Ahab) must be overthrown (perish), which means every government in and outside of Christendom, declaring that God would additionally cut off from the defense of the descendants of autocracy every advocate of it who by his foul errors defiled the theory powers of true government (him that pisseth against the wall), as well as autocracy's supporters who are more or less restrained (shut up), and who are more or less privileged and free (left, at large). 

(34) The antitypical prophet elaborated on his theme still further to antitypical Jehu. He declared by the Word of the Lord (I will make, v. 9) that every vestige of the governments descendent from autocracy would be utterly extirpated, as completely extirpated as certain irreformably wicked kingdoms of past history (the house of Jeroboam and the house of Baasha), and that antitypical Jehu should be the agent to work out this deed of destruction. Then stressing to the utmost the thought that wrath must be wreaked upon antitypical Jezebel unto the limit, he declared that after the Nominal Church, especially in its Romanist part, had been destroyed, those possessed by the party spirit (dogs, v. 10) shall devour her. They particularized the thought that she would meet her annihilation in connection with the union and cooperation of State and Church (in the portion of Jezreel), which would make her especially exposed to the ravages of the party spirit—partisanship (dogs). They further affirmed that there would none do her the honor of a figurative burial after her destruction. After making clear this stern decree of God's justice against corrupt Christendom, corrupt in state, church and aristocracy and fully fit for destruction, they left Conservative Labor in a hasty flight. This anointing was completed by June 11, 1932. With this episode antitypical Elisha sank out of sight so far as doing new notable things for the Lord until he will come to his deathbed, when again he will be honored with the 

Elisha's Later Independent Acts. 

371 

privilege of performing a final prophetic work for the Lord. 

(35) 2 Kings 9:11-14 brings to our view a conspiracy between Jehu and his captains. The conspiracy was, of course, a secret thing in the type, witnessed by only Jehu and the captains. Hence, its antitype would also be secret, as the nature of a well-managed conspiracy requires; for conspirators do not sound a trumpet, informing everybody that they are conspiring, but usually hide themselves behind closed doors and darkened windows, and often have the place of their conspiracy guarded and sealed against the curious. Thus from the nature of this conspiracy we, an outsider, could not be an eye or ear witness of it. Manifestly, the only way open for us to have knowledge of, as distinct from faith in, the conspiracy's existence, would be to observe some acts of antitypical Jehu that would presuppose its existence. We, therefore, kept our eyes open to catch sight of such conspiracy-revelatory acts, but had to wait nearly five months after June 11, 1932, when the anointing was completed, before the first convincing pertinent act became known to us. It was as follows: the railroad brotherhoods had decided (1) to call a general strike in protest against the railroad executives' violation of their agreement not to reduce wages and discharge their employees; (2) to use violence against strike breakers who would not by moral suasion desist from strike breaking; and (3) to fight the soldiers, if the government would by them seek to defend the strike breakers. This was the first fact that we learned that revealed the existence of the conspiracy, whose existence presupposes the completion of antitypical Jehu's anointing. 

(36) But a still stronger evidence of the conspiracy's existence came to us in Feb., 1933, three months after the preceding piece of evidence thereof came to our knowledge. It was the plan of the American Federation of Labor, goaded on by the sufferings of its members 

Elijah and Elisha. 

372 

and others due to the depression, to use force to compel state and capital to accept its plan for the solution of labor's problems, if moral suasion failed to make them accept it. This was stated very plainly by Mr. Green, the president of the American Federation of Labor, in an interview that he gave to the press, the interview appearing in six parts, each successive one coming out a day later than the preceding one in many newspapers of the country. These two facts involved the two largest conservative labor bodies in America; and it must be remembered that Jehu represents conservative labor. A little later the secretary of the American Federation of Labor, Mr. Woll, expressed himself similarly, urging labor to prepare itself for the conflict. The evidence of conservative labor's pertinent conspiracy in Europe is equally strong. The whole world knows that the Italian exiles are in such a conspiracy against the Mussolini regime. When the dole was reduced in England threats of revolution were heard on all hands. In Poland the discontented—there indiscriminately called communists—are so feared that they are not allowed to meet or agitate. The whole world knows of their activity in France. We may be sure that in Germany the suppressed Social Democrats and Communists, who numbered about 16,000,000, are more or less conspiring against the Hitler government. The situation in Belgium, Holland and Denmark is very much of the same complexion. The Fascistizing of Austria is producing the same situation. Europe is standing on a volcano whose rising lava will soon overflow its sides, burying in ruin state, church and capital. The evidence of antitypical Jehu's conspiracy, and, consequently, of his anointing as preceding his conspiracy, is, therefore, large and general. 

(37) But we are further along on the stream of time, as to the Jehu antitype, than the conspiracy. We are now at the time of antitypical Jehoram's and Ahaziah's riding forth to meet antitypical Jehu. We will

Elisha's Later Independent Acts. 

373 

now proceed to explain such features of the antitype as follow the conspiracy up to the death of antitypical Ahaziah. Jehu's keeping his kingship purposes secret from Jezreel (2 Kings 9:15) types the secrecy of antitypical Jehu as to his intentions against state, church and capital in their mutual cooperation in Europe and America. His riding his chariot rapidly (and his followers with him) toward Jezreel (v. 16) types the rapid strides that conservative labor has been and is making toward Armageddon as against the union and cooperation of state and church, with capital acting in harmony with them. Jehoram's and Ahaziah's being there represents Allianced Europe and Autocratic America in union or cooperation with church. Ahaziah's coming there to see Jehoram types Autocratic America while working cooperatively with Rome, condoling with Allianced Europe in the evils she has suffered from the Soviets. The watchman in Jezreel (v. 17) types Christendom's observers of the trend of current events as related to world movements, such as editors, political economists, sociologists, sectarian leaders, statesmen, capitalists, etc. His standing on the tower types their vantage position for observing the trend of world events. His seeing Jehu's company coming up the valley of Jezreel types their observing the threatening aspect of conservative labor toward church, state and capital in their cooperation. His reporting his observations to Jehoram types their reporting the labor movement as becoming menacing to the established European order. 

(38) Jehoram's commanding to send a horseman to meet Jehu (v. 17) types Allianced Europe charging that military and naval doctrinaires riding their military and naval theories to proceed to meet menacing conservative labor in an effort to learn whether they desired prosperity (the Hebrew word, shalom, means primarily prosperity) and in an effort to conciliate them. This antitypical horseman in the form of the 

Elijah and Elisha. 

374 

second disarmament conference, which met from March to June, 1933, sought as the mouthpiece of Allianced Europe, to find out whether conservative labor, making progress toward Armageddon, was favoring prosperity, and also sought to conciliate them by promises of lower taxation and prices through disarmament. But as the typical horseman failed to find out for unprosperous Jehoram whether Jehu was prosperously inclined ("What hast thou to do with peace, prosperity?" v. 18), and failed to conciliate Jehu, but rather succeeded in getting his overtures on prosperity rejected ("turn thee behind me"); so the war party (for the disarmament conference did not really seek peace or prosperity) failed to impress antitypical Jehu with the fruitfulness of its program for prosperity, nor did it find out whether he favored their ways of achieving prosperity. Moreover antitypical Jehu rejected this conference offer of better times, reasoning that disarmament would increase unemployment by decreasing work, through reducing the manufacture of armament, and by throwing discharged soldiers and sailors into the ranks of the unemployed. The watchman's reporting the horseman's meeting, but not returning from Jehu, types the students of current political, labor, social and business trends, reporting to Allianced Europe that the disarmament conference made its efforts with conservative labor, but was failing to bring back results. Jehoram's sending the second horseman (v. 19) types Allianced Europe launching the London Economic Conference, which had, among others, the purpose of sounding out labor as to its disposition toward Europe's prosperity and of bettering times for labor by restoring business prosperity to the world. Conservative labor, recognizing the state and capitalistic control of the policies of the conference, denied that it was favoring real prosperity and rejected its overtures as impractical. The watchman's reporting the horseman's meeting with, but not 

Elisha's Later Independent Acts. 

375 

returning from Jehu (v. 20), types the students of world trends reporting the ill success of the London Economic Conference in so far as it concerned labor. This conference as well as that on disarmament had other purposes than those above indicated, but they are not shown in the type, which is limited to the relations of these conferences to labor. The watchman's reporting that the driving was like that of Jehu types the observers of world trends reporting to Allianced Europe that conservative labor was advancing rapidly to what (unknown to all concerned) will prove to be Armageddon. His saying that Jehu was driving with madness types that the observers of world trends proclaimed that the pertinent course of conservative labor was an evidence of an unsound mind. 

(39) Jehoram charged that his chariot be made ready. A like charge, as implied, but not stated in v. 21, was also made by Ahaziah. What is typed by these charges? This will appear from an explanation of the details. The horses which were hitched to the chariots we understand to type theories on dictatorships in so far as their use toward conservative labor is concerned. Such theories have spread rapidly in Europe of late, as allegedly the only means of coping with the evils in the political, financial, industrial, commercial and labor worlds. Jehoram's chariot represents the governmental organizations of Allianced Europe. His hitching the horses to the chariot and the chariot to the horses types the uniting of European governmental organizations (whether they were previously dictatorships or not) to such dictatorship theories as are applicable to dealing with menacing conservative labor. This is now agitated even in such liberty-loving European countries as England and France. Between the middle of March and the middle of June, 1933, Congress voted similar theory powers to the President of the United States, the present

Elijah and Elisha. 

376 

leader of antitypical Ahaziah—put such symbolic horses at his disposal. He did not unite such theories with U. S. governmental organizations, put them into practical operation together, until after Congress had adjourned. They are now hitched to U. S. governmental organizations; and they turned our government into a semi-Fascist rule. Mr. Di Silvestro, one of Mussolini's lieutenants in America, early in September, 1933, published an interview in which he endorsed the present U. S. governmental policies on the ground that they were Fascistic! It will be noted that these are thoroughly permeated with the thought that labor is to seek the country's prosperity and that the country is to seek labor's prosperity, even if business and the consuming public are to carry resultant heavier burdens. Romanist mouthpieces are truly claiming the papal origin of the policies called the "new deal" (2 Chro. 22:2, 3). There can be but little doubt of their being more or less autocratic and foreign to America's pristine ideals of avoiding European ways and her previous ideals on freedom (2 Chro. 22:4, 5, 7; 2 Kings 8:26-29). Permeating the new deal's policies is the thought: Capital must make government-guaranteed concessions to labor to prevent labor from arising in revolution. This thought must be kept in mind, if one would make a true appraisal of Mr. Roosevelt's policies. The boycott of those who did not join the NRA is not only a Romanistic principle, but seems to be a plain violation of the Golden Rule, which saints cannot endorse. Yet there are many good things aimed at in this American semi-Fascism; and undoubtedly extraordinary emergencies call for the temporary application of drastic measures, which, as natural, in distinction from consecrated people, our citizenry should support as long as they do not forbid right or command wrong. Papal and certain governmental mouthpieces are advocating that this papally advised and temporarily adopted

Elisha's Later Independent Acts. 

377 

semi-Fascism be made permanent, even agitating that its theory be taught in the public schools. Hence we look upon this offspring of the designing beast, backed by the unsuspecting image of the beast and certain unsuspecting statesmen who are being used as papal catspaws, as the entering wedge of Rome's attempt to subvert our form of government and our constitution, preparatory to establishing a churchianityized Fascism, i.e., a nominal Christian absolutism. Rome has always preferred absolute governments as being more easily manipulated for its designs. Hence Rome's Jesuitical course: using an emergency cunningly to introduce measures intended by her as permanent to subvert our Democracy. We fear that this churchianityized Fascistic manifestation, manipulated doctrinally and factually by the beast, sanctioned by its image and authorized by the civil power, is quite likely the antitypical golden image in its second application—an application that for years we have been expecting to come to pass, even as in the war militarism was its first application. If this be the true view of the situation, the consecrated as the antitypical three Hebrew youths can not bow down in subjection to it, even as the pertinent type proves. 

(40) Thus we see that antitypical Jehoram and Ahaziah have made ready their chariots. Jehoram's and Ahaziah's riding forth to meet Jehu (v. 21) types Allianced Europe and Autocratic America setting into activity their governmental organizations controlled by dictatorship or Fascist policies, in an attempt to conciliate antitypical Jehu. This is as far as we have at the date of our going to the press advanced in the antitype of 2 Kings 9, so far as America is concerned. Europe has in Germany, Russia, Poland, etc., entered Naboth's field, i.e., begun a persecuting course toward God's people. The rest of the type refers to future things, of which we present our tentative understanding. First, the two kings come to the field of Naboth 

Elijah and Elisha. 

378 

and traverse it in part before meeting Jehu. We recall that Naboth represents the Huguenots, who were a persecuted people of God, among whom were many of God's faithful children. Naboth was killed in his own field (1 Kings 21:13, 14, 19; 2 Kings 9:21, 25, 26). This field seems to represent, therefore, the sphere of persecution. The two kings' entering this field and their passing over a part of it before meeting Jehu seem to type Allianced Europe and Autocratic America entering into and proceeding with the persecution of God's people of the Little Flock, the Great Company and the Youthful Worthies. 

(41) This persecution of the Little Flock is typed by John's beheading, while the persecution of all three classes seems to be typed by the fiery furnace experience of Daniel's three companions in the second application of that type. This particular persecution seems to be not far ahead of us, even as the type shows that the first thing to follow their riding forth was to enter Naboth's field and then to meet Jehu, which they did shortly after they entered Naboth's field. This field, as the passages just cited show, was some distance outside Jezreel. The Truth people's being unwilling to bow down—submit to—the antitypical golden image, autocracy, will be the occasion of bringing the persecution upon them, At any rate, it comes to them through the exercise of dictatorial powers on the part of antitypical Jehoram and Ahaziah, which will override them. These experiences and their outcome we leave with the Lord. His grace, which may we all implore and receive, will be our sufficient strength. The one like the Son of Man will be with us in the fiery furnace! "Fear not, Little Flock, it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom!" Let us help one another and by no means betray one another. We are living in a solemn pause before a very hard set of experiences. Therefore let us watch and pray, keeping ourselves in the love of God and in the patient 

Elisha's Later Independent Acts. 

379 

waiting for the mercy of Christ unto eternal life. So doing, we will emerge as overcomers. 

(42) God's answer to the persecution will be quick and thorough: "So far and no further!" This will limit the persecutors. Jehoram's question (v. 22) has the same typical significance as the same question put by the two horsemen (vs. 17, 19). Jehu's answer to Jehoram is a different one from what he gave to the two horsemen. His denial of the possibility of prosperity while Jezebel's whoredoms and witchcrafts were so many, types conservative labor's denial of the possibility of prosperity while the union and cooperation of the Romanist Church and the Federation with the state (symbolic whoredom) and their false teachings (witchcrafts) are so multiplied. This will be a direct blaming of antitypical Jehoram and Ahaziah on the part of conservative labor with guilty cooperation in these evil deeds. As Jehu's answer frightened Jehoram into flight, in which he, to Ahaziah, charged Jehu with treachery; so conservative labor's answer will frighten Allianced Europe into an attempt to escape conservative labor's attack, in the meantime, to Autocratic America, it will charge conservative labor with treason. Jehu's slaying Jehoram represents conservative labor overthrowing Allianced Europe in Armageddon. Ahaziah's long-drawn-out flights (about 35 miles in all), hiding in Samaria, capture, escape, wounding and death (vs. 27, 28; 2 Chro. 22:9), represent the same result for Autocratic America, only it shows that American resistance in Armageddon will be much more prolonged, which will be due to the more patriotic support that the American people will give to their government than that which the Europeans will give to their governments. Armageddon is typed in a summary way by the attacks on, and deaths of the two kings. Many of its details are brought out typically in 2 Kings 9:30—10:28. These we hope to present to the Church in due time. 

Elijah and Elisha. 

380 

(43) Our study of Elijah and Elisha is finished. There are only two more events on Elisha set forth in the Bible: His dying experience and contact with his bones resuscitating the dead Moabite robber (2 Kings 13:14-21). As the antitypes of these events are future, we leave their interpretation until their fulfillment. We have found the antitypes of these two prophets to be remarkably fulfilled prophecies of the types. The antitypical prophets being mouthpieces of God to the world, the fulfillments have much to do with world events; and their types are interspersed amid certain secular events, in some cases even when the antitypical prophets took no direct part in such events. Certainly such a study convinces us that the typical histories of the Bible are at the same time prophesies, as much so as the Bible prophecies that are not given as types. They thus are a remarkable demonstration of God's wisdom and power. To all of the new creatures in the Truth in our times and to most Truth Youthful Worthies one of the marvelous features of the antitypes is this, that such have been privileged to share in the antitypes. Such a thought is most impressive; and if we were faithful therein, is most encouraging; for it has given us a praiseworthy part in advancing God's Plan. We can think of no greater honor and privilege accorded any being than this. If we have been faithful therein, let us thank God and take courage, and in this spirit press on to our future experiences. 

‍

BEREAN QUESTIONS

(1) What will next engage our attention? How? What will help to a better understanding of 2 Kings 5-9? What, in general, do the Syrians, Ben-hadad II and Hazael type? In particular, what is typed by Ben-hadad II in later 1 and earlier 2 Kings? By Ahab? By Jehoram of Israel? Why these various antitypes of these types? In 2 Kings 5, what is typed by the kings of Israel and Syria? By Hazael in contrast with Ben-haded II? By Ben-hadad III and the Israelitish kings of the Jehu dynasty? Why 

Elisha's Later Independent Acts. 

381 

should these various antitypes be kept in mind? How do we know that these kings are typical? 

(2) What does the word Naaman mean? Why is it given to him? Whom does he type? What remarks will clarify this class? Who were the chief representatives of these? To what two classes did J.F.R. belong? From the standpoint of 2 Kings 5, whom does Ben-hadad II type? How did Society Radicalism regard antitypical Naaman? Why? What was the latter's handicap? What in reality was this handicap? How did it make him appear to the priesthood, the Society and the secular conservatives? What is the antitype of the Syrian bands invading Israel? Capturing the young damsel? Naaman's wife? Giving the damsel to her? What resulted from antitypical Naaman becoming despicable to the secular conservatives? In what did this effect result? What is the antitype of the maid's speaking to Naaman's wife of his leprosy? 

(3) What did antitypical Naaman do on the matter mentioned by the antitypical little maid? What did this report move antitypical Ben-hadad II to do? What is typed by each of the three kinds of presents proffered? What is the antitype of his sending these gifts, letter and Naaman to the king of Israel? What is typed by the effect of their receipt by Israel's kin? As what did the request strike him, type and antitype? 

(4) At the antitypical time, what two parties were there then in the Society? When did these parties originate? In what did the dominance of radicalism in the Society result? Which two of the imprisoned brothers were conservatives? To which of these two parties did the brothers belong who were in charge of Society matters during the imprisonment of the others? Who were these mainly? What occurred during the period of imprisonment between the representatives of these two Society groups? In what three ways did these clashes manifest themselves? How did J.F.R.'s ill feelings show themselves at the Pittsburgh meeting of welcome accorded the freed brothers? How did Bro. Spill describe his experiences in these clashes? Why did he not make the exposures?. What do these facts prove? What did each side, especially the radical, do as to the other? By what is this 

Elijah and Elisha. 

382 

typed? How is this situation related as antitype to Jehoram's reaction to Ben-hadad's demand? 

(5) With which of these two Society parties did Elisha, stand? How does this follow from the names of antitypical Elisha's leading representatives? What did he know as to the feeling in Christendom toward antitypical Naaman? What is antityped by Elisha's slight rebuke of the king for his rending his garments? By his asking that Naaman be sent to him? His saying that Naaman would experience that there was a prophet in Israel? What antitypically was just then starting? In whom was Elisha antitypically especially active in this matter? What did these counsel and practice? Who did not so do? With what result? What is typed by Naaman's going to Elisha with his horses and chariot? His standing outside? Elisha's remaining in his house? Elisha's and Naaman's aloofness? Elisha's sending a messenger to him? What is typed by the message? What does the antitype mean? 

(6) What do vs. 11, 12 show? What do they forecast? What was the source and expression of antitypical Naaman's resentment? What most of all did he resent? What is proved, negatively and positively, by the expression, "over the place"? What else offended antitypical Naaman? What did he think superior to dipping seven times in antitypical Jordan? What did these things move him to do? What did some of his supporters thereupon do? How did they do it? In what did their tactfulness consist? What good lesson can we learn therefrom? 

(7) What effect did this tactful advice have? How did they act toward the public, negatively and positively? What resulted therefrom? In what spirit did he seek to make a return? What was the attempted return? What was it in other words? What pertinent discussion occurred? How long did it last? What did antitypical Naaman confess? What did he then do? In whom did antitypical Elisha act in answer to the offer? What did he refuse? How long was it sought to change his mind? 

(8) What did Naaman request? Why? What does an altar type? What two altars show this? What do the two mules' load type? What, accordingly, did antitypical Naaman determine to do? What is typed by Naaman's asking for earth of Canaan? What only is true sacrifice?

Elisha's Later Independent Acts. 

383 

How does the cited Scripture show this? How is service offered in any other way to be regarded? What does this show his former service to have been? For the future service on what was he determined? What did his place as the fighting leaders of the radicals require of him? What did this antitype? What did he crave for such practice? In other words, what did he crave? How did he look upon this course? How could he have avoided it? How did antitypical Elisha compromise principle by his answer? How would antitypical Elijah have treated such a condition? What resulted from antitypical Naaman's following antitypical Elisha's advice? What might have resulted had antitypical Elisha properly advised? 

(9) Contrasted with antitypical Elisha's course, what did antitypical Gehazi do? What did he then do? What coming Society event spurred him on thereto? How is his purpose to be described ethically? Who partially divined his purpose? With what attitude? How did he do this apart from his organization? At first what did he not fully understand? How did he respond? From J.F.R.'s manner, what did he recognize? Thereupon what did he ask? What answer did he receive? What falsehood did J.F.R. tell him? What were the power and authority desired for the Society's officers? What was the authority desired for the Society's directors. What offer did antitypical Naaman make to antitypical Elisha? How much less power and authority was sought by J.F.R.? What difference was there between his request for the directors and his request for the officers? In ultimate analysis, for whom did he make request? What in him does this manifest? What deception did he practice therein? 

(10) By what means was antitypical Naaman persuaded to take J.F.R.'s pertinent view? What did he through Bro. Driscoll do? When and where? What was done with Bro. Driscoll's resolution by the rest of antitypical Naaman? After what? Into what were the pertinent power and authority put? Into whose care was this double resolution put by typical Naaman for passage? What did they do therewith? What did J.F.R. then do as to them with the board? What did he do with the supporters of these resolutions? What in J.F.R. was manifested in this course of action? What did he claim as to

Elijah and Elisha. 

384 

the election of directors in 1917? As to those not previously annually elected? Had his position then been true, what condition as to the Society's directors would then have prevailed? Why? What conclusions result from this? What did J.F.R. do with the whole situation? Why were the charter's pertinent provisions legal from the standpoint of the very law cited by him? 

(11) What in 1917 did not exist in the Society's board? How is J.F.R.'s ousting the four directors to be regarded as to Divine and human law? As to motive? By what means was it accomplished? What opinion would no honest lawyer conversant with the law have given J.F.R.? How did the involved lawyer explain his pertinent course to a Truth brother, in answer to the latter's pertinent question? What proves that those pertinent resolutions and by-laws were illegal, according to which the three years' directorate and officiary terms were claimed? Wherein does J.F.R.'s gross hypocrisy appear in this matter? Actually, how did the pertinent action of 1917 and 1920 stand in the eyes of the law? Why? What did the law, therefore, require as to the election of the Society's directors and officers? What does this do with J.F.R.'s involved hypocrisy? What dominated him in both acts? How do we know this to be true of the second? 

(12) Whom did J.F.R. have to face? What did antitypical Elisha know? What did he ask antitypical Gehazi? What was the character of J.F.R.'s answer? Why? What is the antitype of each feature of Elisha's reply as given in v. 26? What does the language of v. 26 do as to J.F.R.'s pertinent deeds? What did antitypical Elisha express in v. 27? Who were J.F.R.'s symbolic seed? Of whom is there some doubt as to this? What was the Lord's decision as to antitypical Gehazi and his seed? What do facts show as to the execution of this sentence? When was this feature of the type clarified to the writer? For what does that understanding account? What do this type and that of Ruth's nearest kinsman prove? What is the contrast in antitypical Gehazi's and Elisha's work? 

(13) What is a summary of the antitypical teachings of 2 Kings 6:1-7? How did Society supporters feel the first half of 1917? In what sphere? Why? To what did this lead them? What did this imply? What naturally could 

Elisha's Later Independent Acts. 

385 

have been expected as antitypical Elisha's reply? From when onward? Who desired his cooperation? What did this lead them to do? What and how was the response? What did he do from the fall of 1917 to the late spring of 1918? What did the leaders do in this matter? What is typed by an axe according to Ps. 74:1-11? What is the antitypical axe of v. 5? What happened to the antitypical axe according to v. 5? What was the effect on the Society leaders of the ban on Vol. 7? Why? What is the proper translation of the word rendered "borrowed" in v. 5? What did antitypical Elisha ask as to Vol. 7? What was done in answer? What did antitypical Elisha then do? What are the properly applicable principles? What is the antitype of Elisha's throwing the stick into the water at the right place? Of the iron swimming? Of Elisha's charge to take it up? When was this done? What is 2 Kings 6:1-7 thus shown to type? What does this do with all four of J.F.R.'s views on Elijah and Elisha? 

(14) What does 2 Kings 6:8-23 in general type? What also as to Elisha and Gehazi? When did the antitype of this section take place? What did the Radicals under Mr. Wilson's lead do from July 10, 1919? Of what is this the antitype? What is typed by Elisha's message of v. 9? By Israel's king's consequent investigation? By his avoiding the place "not once nor twice"? By the Syrian king's suspicion of treachery? By his servant's denial and charge against Elisha? By the king's charge to spy out Elisha's whereabouts? By Elisha's dwelling at Dothan? By the Syrians coming with horses, chariots and a host to Dothan? By night? Besieging the city? 

(15) What is typed by Gehazi's rising early and seeing the Syrian host? By his fear, negatively and positively Why was the antitype's fear greater here than in 1917? What is typed by Gehazi's being nonplussed? By Elisha's efforts to calm him? By his statement to the effect that the majority was with them? By Gehazi's seeing only the Syrian host? By Elisha's prayer for the opening of Gehazi's eyes? By the answer to the prayer? By the prayer of Elisha for blindness on the Syrians? By Elisha's statements, this is not the way, and this is not the city? By his saying, Follow me and I will show you the man? By his leading them to Samaria? 

Elijah and Elisha. 

386 

(16) What is typed by the Syrians' coming to Samaria? By Elisha's praying for the opening of their eyes and concordant words? By their eyes being opened? By the king earnestly desiring to smite the captured Syrians? By Elisha's not desiring this but conciliating measures? By Elisha's tactful answer? By its results? By the feast? By the return of the Syrians to their master? By the Syrian bands' no more coming to Israel? 

(17) What is a summary of the antitype of 2 Kings 6:8-23? Of 2 Kings 6:24—7:20? What is typed by laying siege to Samaria by Ben-hadad? By the great famine of v. 25? By the high price of almost worthless provisions? What were some of the main acts of the antitypical besiegers? Of the effects on the besieged? What is typed by the two women and their agreement as to eating their sons? By the eating of the son of the first? By the refusal of the second woman to give her son, and hiding him? 

(18) By the first woman's appeal to the king for help? By the king's answer before he knew the situation? By the king's horror and rending his garments? By the exposure of his wearing sackcloth? How, among others, did Mr. Borah's course illustrate the antitype? What was really involved in the debate? What kind of defenses of Americanism were made in it? In the meantime what was Mr. Wilson's tour achieving? 

(19) What is typed by the second effect of the episode of the two women on the king? By the threat to behead Elisha? By Elisha's recognizing and declaring the king's purpose before the elders? By the messenger? By the charge to shut the door? And hold the door? By saying the sound of his master's feet came after the messenger? By the messenger approaching? By Elisha's telling the messenger the evil was from the Lord? By his saying he would cause them to wait no longer (in uncertainty)? By Elisha's words, "thus saith the Lord"? By his announcing a great abundance of cheap food? By the answer of the lord on whose arm the king leaned? 

(20) What is typed by the four lepers? By their position at the gate in the siege? By their reasoning on the possibilities of their position? By their conclusion to fall to the Syrians? By their view of the resultant possibilities? 

Elisha's Later Independent Acts. 

387 

By their deciding to take the risk? By their being oblivious of the situation among the Syrians? By the Lord's causing the Syrians to hear the three noises? By the Syrians' thinking that the Hittite and Egyptian armies were upon them? By their fear and flight? 

(21) What is typed by the four lepers eating and drinking? By their taking silver, gold and raiment? By their hiding them? By their becoming conscience-stricken? By their fearing some mischief coming with the daylight? By their decision to make known to the king's house the turn of affairs? By the porter of the gate? By the porters of the king's house? By the lepers' telling them of the Syrians' flight? By the suspiciousness of the king? By one of his servants? By his suggestion? By sending a two-horsed chariot to investigate? 

(22) When and in connection with what did the antitypical retreat set in? By what was it increased? What did it evidence from then on? What is typed by the Syrians' casting away their belongings? By the messenger's answer? Wherein were the anti-radicalism theories set forth? What did they do with the Treaty and League's Covenant? Who saw through this? What was the result on the Radicals? What related effort failed? What were the two acts of the antitype? What is typed by the Israelites' spoiling the tents of the Syrians? By the cheapness of wheat and barley? By the king's appointing his supporting lord over the gate? By the people treading him down? How did real Americans act in this matter? What was fulfilled by this antitype? With the above remarks what is concluded? 

(23) What is an antitypical summary of 2 Kings 8:1-6? When and where was the resuscitation of the antitypical Shunammite's son completed? Before what acts of liberation were enacted? According to the antitypes of 2 Kings 6:8-23, whom did antitypical Elisha favor? As against whom? In what did this result? After what and amid what, did this immediately set in? What does the famine of v. 1 type? Elisha's counsel to the Shunammite as to herself and household? What is typed by the famine lasting seven years? By the Shunammite and her family going to Philistia? What are examples of such Truth people? What is typed by their sojourning there

Elijah and Elisha. 

388 

the seven years? When was the antitypical sojourning completed? What is typed by the Shunammite's return, etc.? By her seeking the restoration of home and land? 

(24) What is typed by the king's talking with Gehazi at the same time as the Shunammite sought the restoration of her property? What was the occasion of the antitypical discussion? What is typed by the king's request? What is typed by Gehazi's stressing Elisha's resuscitating the Shunammite's son? By the Shunammite at that time making request for the restitution of her property? What rights were urged in support of the antitypes' position? What did the petition request? What is typed by Gehazi's telling the king that the mother of the resuscitated son was the petitioner? By the king's asking her if the story of Gehazi was true? By her answer? By the king's charging an officer to restore the woman's property? By restoring the fruits of the seven years? What followed this antitypical restoration? What was this work calculated to do and what did it actually do? When did the episode of 2 Kings 8:1-6 have its antitype? 

(25) What is a summary of the antitype of 2 Kings 8:7-15? In it what does Elisha type? Ben-hadad and Hazael? With what difference? What is typed by Elisha journeying to Damascus? When? By Ben-hadad being sick? To what was the antitypical sickness due? What was Syndicalism then doing in Russia? What is typed by Ben-hadad considering Elisha a man of God? What is typed by Ben-hadad sending Hazael to enquire from Elisha as to his prospects of recovery? Who were then the main representatives of antitypical Hazael? What is typed by Hazael being told to take to Elisha a present? By his being told to enquire of the Lord by him? 

(26) What is typed by Hazael's going to Elisha? By the 40 camels' burden of presents being brought to Elisha? By Hazael's standing before Elisha? By Elisha's twofold answer? When was the antitypical study done? How do we know this? What do we conclude from these facts? What is typed by Elisha's settling his countenance and weeping? By Hazael's shame? By Hazael's asking why Elisha wept? By Elisha's answer in general? By Hazael's answer? By Hazael's burning Israel's strongholds? 

Elisha's Later Independent Acts. 

389 

Slaying Israel's young men? Dashing Israel's children? Ripping up Israel's pregnant women? 

(27) By what was Hazael, type and antitype, anointed? In fulfillment of what? What is typed by Hazael's departing from Elisha? How also might part of the anointing have been done? What is unknown to the writer thereon? What is typed by Hazael's return to Ben-hadad? By the latter's question? By Hazael's ambiguous answer? Why was it made ambiguous? What would be here in place? What is the difference between Communism and Syndicalism? How are Syndicalism and Fascism related? Despite what? Before what event and time did antitypical Hazael give his answer to antitypical Ben-hadad? With what and when did the suppression of antitypical Ben-hadad begin? By what kind of a process? Through what measures did it pass? What was thus achieved? 

(28) Who in the 1932 Towers gave new views on Ahab, Jezebel, Jehoram, Ahaziah, Hazael and Jehu? What does he claim each of these types? Jehu's work? How are these views related to our Pastor's view? What did a 1933 Present Truth do with these new views? What has occurred on these matters since our Pastor's death? What is done with them in this book? Whom does Ahab type? Jezebel? Naboth? Ben-hadad? Hazael? Ahaziah of Israel? Jehoram of Israel? Jehoram of Judah? Ahaziah of Judah? Jehu? The participants in the death of Naboth? Elijah's denunciations of Ahab and Jezebel? Ahab's death? Ahaziah's death? Jehoram's death? That of Ahaziah of Judah? 

(29) What does Ramoth-gilead mean and type? What does Jehoram's holding it type? Hazael's seeking to capture it? Jehu's supporting Jehoram and Ahaziah in defending it? Their successful defense? Hazael's wounding Jehoram? Jezreel? Jehoram's going there for healing? His healing there? Despite what? What is typed by Ahaziah's visiting him there? By Elisha's sending to Ramoth-gilead a son of a prophet to anoint Jehu? By the anointing of Jehu? 

(30) What do facts show as to how far the fulfillment of the Jehu type has advanced? What is typed by the three goings forth to meet Jehu? By what will the third be interrupted? What is typed by Jehoram's death? By

Elijah and Elisha. 

390 

Ahaziah's pertinent experiences? Jezebel's death? Her remains? The destruction of Ahab's entire seed? Ahaziah's brethren? Baal's priests and worshipers? Wherein is this involved? What is typed by Jehu's kingdom? Its four kings? What do the facts of the antitype so far fulfilled give as to the rest of the fulfillment? What will be given later in this chapter? 

(31) What will be done with vs. 16-24? For what two reasons? Where are these verses explained antitypically? What will be done with vs. 25-29? For what two reasons? Where are these verses explained antitypically? What will be done with 2 Kings 9:11-21? For what two reasons? Where are these verses explained antitypically? With what will we continue the study of our subject? What is a summary of the antitypical acts and actors of 2 Kings 9:1-10? What was there as to antitypical Elisha's ministry between 1920 to 1929? Why does this at first sight seem strange? What two acts only are there in his history after the renewal of his public ministry? Why this blank and its following blank lasting until just before his ceasing to be the Lord's mouthpiece to the public? In what act since the first blank did antitypical Elisha assert his prerogative as against J.F.R.? In what one will he yet so do? What post-mortem event will attest his having been God's mouthpiece to the public? What lesson should God's agents learn from this? 

(32) What is typed and what is not typed by Elisha's calling one of the sons of the prophets? By the son of the prophets? By the box of oil? By Jehu? By Jehu's commission? In what two ways came this secret labor society to be interested in antitypical Elisha's teachings? What thought did they thereby get? In what two things did this result? Why? What does this prove as to the effect of antitypical Elisha's ministries to this son of the prophets? What is typed by Jehu with Jehoram and Ahaziah in defending Ramoth-gilead against Hazael? By the command to the son of the prophets to go to Ramoth-gilead to find Jehu? By the meanings of the names Jehu, Jehoshaphat and Nimshi? By the commanded secret conduct of the son of the prophets? By the command for the secret anointing of Jehu? By the anointing itself? 

Elisha's Later Independent Acts. 

391 

By the charge to hasten immediately away after the anointing? 

(33) What is typed by the son of the prophet being a prophet? By his mingling among the captains, especially associating with Jehu? Who were some of the members of antitypical Jehu in America, Britain, France, etc.? Whom do the captains of the host type? Jehu? What is typed by the prophet announcing his having an errand? By his indicating Jehu? Secrecy? By his pouring the oil on Jehu? By his declaring him Israel's king? By his explaining Jehu's destructive work? By his declaring its retributiveness, especially on Jezebel? By his declaring the uprooting of the whole house of Ahab, including three classes of supporters? 

(34) What is typed by his declaring the destruction of every vestige of Ahab's house? Like what other houses? What is typed by his declaring Jehu to be the executor of this retribution? By his declaring Jezebel's fate, its agents, its locality? By his affirming that she would not be buried? By his leaving after delivering his message? With this episode what became of Elisha? Until when? What did he then do? What does this sinking into temporary oblivion and again coming into activity type? How do we leave the subject? With what spirit do we leave it? Why? 

(35) What does 2 Kings 9:11-14 disclose? How do conspirators not act in conspiring? How do they act therein? What did this effect in this case? How only could the author get the facts? What did this move him to do? How long did he have to wait before getting his first set of facts? How many were they? What were these? What does the existence of the conspiracy presuppose? 

(36) How long after this did a second fact manifesting the actuality of the conspiracy come to his knowledge? What was it? By whom was it expressed? By what means? What is the third conspiracy-manifesting fact? What organizations were involved in these manifestations? What in this connection must be remembered as to the typical meaning of Jehu? Where else is as strong evidence furnished as to antitypical Jehu's conspiracy? What are the pertinent facts as to Italy? France and

Elijah and Elisha. 

392 

Poland? Spain, Germany? Belgium, Holland, Denmark and Austria? What is Europe's actual condition? What follows from the proof of antitypical Jehu's conspiracy? 

(37) Where do we stand on the stream of time relatively to antitypical Jehu's conspiracy? Where are we now in the antitype? What will be unnecessary here? Why so? What will we now proceed to study? What is typed by Jehu's keeping the conspiracy secret from Jezreel? His and his companions' riding to Jezreel? Jehoram's and Ahaziah's being at Jezreel? Ahaziah's coming to Jehoram there? The watchman there? His standing on the tower? His seeing Jehu's company? His reporting his observations to Jehoram? 

(38) What is typed by Jehoram's commanding to send a horseman to meet Jehu? In what form did this antitypical horseman act? To what end? In what respects did the typical horseman fail? What did this type? What is typed by Jehu's charge, "Turn thee behind me"? What influenced him so to do? What is typed by the watchman's reporting the horseman's meeting with, but not returning from Jehu What is typed by Jehoram's sending out the second horseman? What was his antitypical purpose? What is typed by Jehu's treatment of the second horseman? The watchman's reporting thereon? Despite the London Economic Conference having other purposes, why is its course toward conservative labor here stressed? What is typed by the watchman's reporting the riding to be like Jehu's and with madness? 

(39) Who, type and antitype, charged the hitching of their chariots? What do the pertinent horses type? What has been their course in Europe? What is typed by Jehoram's chariot? By the hitching of the horses to his chariot? Even in what two European countries has this been discussed as desirable? What did Congress vote the President of the United States between March 15 and June 15, 1933? When did he put them into practical operation with U. S. government organizations? How are they now used? Into what kind of a government has this turned the U. S. government? What did one of Mr. Mussolini's U. S. lieutenants say of it? How are these theories permeated? To what degree? What are Romanist mouthpieces claiming? How does 2 Chro. 22:2, 3 

Elisha's Later Independent Acts. 

393 

prove them right in this claim? What is the thought permeating the new deal's policies as on capital and labor? How do these arrangements contrast with three American policies? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? What feature of this program will saints not endorse? What may be said in defense of their temporary use? How are certain ones seeking to make it? What even do they advocate to this end? As what should we regard it? Why does Rome prefer absolutism? Of what is this Fascist manifestation likely an antitype? Which application of it? What was its first application? What can we not do to it? 

(40) In harmony with the foregoing remarks, what do we now see? What is typed by Jehoram's and Ahaziah's riding forth to meet Jehu? How far has the antitype of 2 Kings 9 advanced? When in time does the rest of its antitype belong? What kind of an understanding of its future unfolding do we submit? What does Naboth represent? Where was he killed? What is represented by Naboth's field? The two kings' coming to, and traversing a part of it before meeting Jehu? 

(41) By what two things is the Little Flock's pertinent persecution typed? That of the three consecrated classes? How far ahead of us does it seem to be? How is this typed? What may bring it on? How will it come to them? What should we do with it? What will strengthen us therein? 

(42) How will God regard it? What does Jehoram's question type? What is typed by Jehu's answer? What will it do to the antitypical kings? What is the effect, type and antitype, of Jehu's answer? With what was he charged, type and antitype? What is typed by Jehu's slaying the two kings? The long-drawn-out resistance of Ahaziah? Why this difference in the respective overthrows? What kind of a type is given of Armageddon in the death of the two kings? In 2 Kings 9:30—10:28? What is expected to be done with these details later on? 

(43) What events as to Elisha have not yet been antityped? Why are their antitypes not here explained? What have we found these types to be? With what should we expect the works of the two antitypical prophets to be connected? Even when? Of what should the study convince us? 

Elijah and Elisha. 

394 

What to Truth new creatures of our times and to most Truth Youthful Worthies is a marvelous feature of these antitypes? What is the character of such a thought? Especially if one was faithful in the antitype. Why? How are we to think of such participation? How should it affect us? 

‍