THE THIRD FALSE VIEW. UNSTEWARDLY. UNBIBLICAL. UNREASONABLE. UNHISTORICAL. CONTRARY TO FULFILLED FACTS. A FOURTH FALSE VIEW. MISAPPLICATIONS AS TO ELIJAH. GREAT COMPANY CHARACTERISTICS TYPED BY ELISHA. SOME ALLEGED PROOFS EXAMINED. TWO CLASSES MEANT BY THE "DOUBLE PORTION." OTHER ALLEGED PROOFS EXAMINED. A BIT OF HISTORY OF THE CONTROVERSY. THE FIFTH FALSE VIEW. 

‍

IN THE foregoing chapter two false views on the last related acts of Elijah and Elisha—that of J.F. Rutherford and that of Bro. McGee—were refuted. Since that time, driven by our refutations from one position to another, the former has presented three successive false views thereon, each of which we will answer in this chapter successively. Nearly six weeks after The Present Truth, No. 1, containing the foregoing chapter, was mailed, an article of J.F. Rutherford, who said his six companions in bonds approved of it, appeared in the "Labor Tribune" of January 16, 1919. We wondered why this article was not published in The Tower. Was it because The Tower editors could not approve of it, and therefore declined to publish it? We do not know. [We later learned that this was the reason.] We sympathized with, and daily prayed for, these dear brothers in bonds. When we read this article we wondered whether the rigors of imprisonment were not impairing their spiritual vision. The article begins with the remark that "that Servant" was in doubt as to Elisha being a type of the Great Company. We answer, the fact that he did not with the same positiveness assert that Elisha represented the Great Company, as he did that Elijah represented the Church, was not due to his being in doubt on the matter; rather it was

Elijah and Elisha. 

156 

because—both Scripture and facts proving that Elijah represented the Little Flock and only facts proving that Elisha represented the Great Company—there is stronger evidence for the former than for the latter proposition. The Tower shows that "that Servant" was convinced that Elisha typed the Great Company. See articles beginning Z. 1904, p. 251; Z. 1915, p. 285; Z. 1916, pp. 3, 38, 263. 

The third paragraph of the article, to give a plausible time setting to the new view, claims, contrary to 1 Kings 19:11 and Rev. 7:1 (see Berean comments), that the World War was not "the wind" of Rev. 7:1, but that it was the "whirlwind" of 2 Kings 2:1, 11. We will quote the article, except the first three paragraphs and the last paragraph, and then offer some comments. This long quotation follows: 

"Elijah typifies the consecrated people of the Lord, and more particularly that part of the members of the Body of Christ in the flesh acting as the head or directors of the Lord's Harvest work. Elisha, who walked with Elijah, recognized Elijah as the head, and so all of us have long recognized that the W.T.B. & T.S. was organized by the Lord for the purpose of conducting the work of the Harvest, and that it has done so. Instead of Elisha representing the Great Company class, therefore, as has been suggested [taught by "that Servant"] it seems more reasonable to conclude that Elisha pictures that portion of the members of the Society or organization which has been working in harmony with the official Board of the Society to carry on the Harvest work. Hence, Elijah and Elisha picture the Little Flock, but two separate divisions of it. We remember that John the Baptist fulfilled the type of Elijah in a measure. He was imprisoned by Herod, and at the instance of Herodias and Salome his head was removed. This suggests that in the greater fulfillment of the type the head of the Elijah class would be removed and that the remaining members of the 

Three False Views on Elijah and Elisha. 

157 

body pictured by Elisha would remain. Seven in the Scriptures is a symbol of perfection [sometimes a counterfeit perfection, Rev. 12:3; 13:1; 17:3]. On the 21st day of June, 1918, seven [eight] members of the W.T.B. & T.S., symbolically representing the official Board of the Society, as a whole were sentenced to imprisonment. They were removed to Raymond street jail and remained there seven days in dungeons. They were removed to the Long Island City jail and remained there seven days in light cells. While in these jails the officers, constituting the head of the Society, and therefore pictured by Elijah, had daily communication with the members of the Society at the office, and were able to direct the work. It will be recalled that it was on Herod's birthday that Salome danced before Herod at the instance of Herodias, and that the head of John the Baptist was called for and removed that day. On the 4th of July, 1918, seven nations, allies of the United States, as reported in the public press, celebrated the 4th of July, the seven nations therefore symbolizing civil and ecclesiastical powers unitedly celebrating Herod's birthday. For some days prior thereto others had suggested to members of the Bethel family: 'Do you not know that your brethren, who constitute the head of the Society, will be removed to another prison?' To this they responded, 'Yes, we know it; why do you make this suggestion?' On the 4th of July, 1918, on Herod's birthday, these seven brethren, constituting the official Board of the Society, were removed from their cells and taken to the Atlanta, Ga., prison, there to serve a term of twenty years, according to the sentence, thus definitely severing them and their official connection with the Society. They left behind them other brethren who will continue the work of the Society without an official head. Those having the spirit of Elijah will go forth and do even a more wonderful work than has heretofore been done." 

Elijah and Elisha. 

158 

After reading this quotation two thoughts will doubtless strike our readers: (1) How different this interpretation is from our Pastor's thought, and from J.F. Rutherford's views published just eleven months before, and (2) whether this interpretation is Scriptural, and thus worthy of acceptance! The fact that this interpretation contradicts that of "that Servant" as well as the one that J.F. Rutherford gave, while he yet had charge of the work, proves that it is unstewardly, whether we think that the former or the latter was the Steward of Matthew 20:8. To us it seems unscriptural, self-contradictory and contradictory to facts. We will briefly touch on its main points in the light of Scripture, Reason and Facts. 

(1) This interpretation contradicts the setting of Rev. 2:20. (See Berean comment, and the type and antitype parallel of Elijah and the Church, B 256.) In this passage and connection Jezebel, persecuting Elijah through Ahab, is shown to type the Roman Catholic Church in the Dark Ages, persecuting the true Church through the civil power. Therefore Elijah does not represent the leaders of the W.T.B. & T.S. The type of the 1260 days and subsequent acts of Elijah, we know, as shown in the parallel of B 256, certainly cannot fit the Society leaders. Nor does Elijah represent particularly the leaders of the Church throughout that or any other period; for when the leaders as distinct from the whole Church are typed, this is done by separate persons, e.g., the prophets that Jezebel killed, as well as those that Obadiah hid. (1 Kings 18:3, 4, 13.) Certainly in those days there were no officers of a corporation that were the "official head" of the Lord's Faithful. 

(2) Matt. 17:12, 13, compared with Luke 1:17, likewise contradicts the setting of things that J.F. Rutherford gives in the article under review. If Elijah typed John's head and Elisha typed John's body, Jesus would have said, "Elijah and Elisha are come already"; 

Three False Views on Elijah and Elisha. 

159 

but His saying, "Elijah is come already," shows that Elijah alone typed John the Baptist. 

(3) Matt. 11:14: This verse is quite well rendered in the Am. Rev. Ver. as follows: "This [one, John] is [represents] Elijah that is [literally, the one being about] to come." See also Diaglott. What John did on a small scale for Israel in preparing them for the Lord's first advent makes him an antitype of Elijah, according to Matt. 17:12, 13; Luke 1:17. According to Matthew 11:14, the work of John types the larger work of the Church in the flesh, preparing especially antitypical Israel for the Lord's second advent; therefore, from the standpoint of this text he is a supplement of the Elijah type, and is therefore the type of the antitypical Elijah; i.e., the whole Church. If, as J.F. Rutherford and his six companions hold, John's head represents the antitypical Elijah, whom they hold to be the official head of the Little Flock, and John's body represents the antitypical Elisha, whom they hold to be the rest of the Little Flock, this passage ought to read: This [one, John the Baptist] is [represents] Elijah and Elisha that are [literally the ones being about] to come. Its reading as it does proves our Pastor's view to be correct; and its not reading as now required by J.F. Rutherford's view proves him incorrect. 

(4) Col. 1:18: "He [Jesus] is the Head of the Body, the Church." Eph. 1:22, 23: "God gave Him to be Head over all things to the Church, which is His Body." The only Head of the Little Flock is Jesus, whose Head is God. (1 Cor. 11:3.) The thought that the Lord's people have another Head than the Lord is a part of the doctrine of every Antichrist, i.e., counterfeit Christ, in the world; and is one that the Lord's faithful people should not endorse, or in any way forward, but uncompromisingly oppose. While the Lord uses leaders under Him to serve the Church, He and He alone is "Head over all things to the

Elijah and Elisha. 

160 

Church, which is His Body." J.F. Rutherford's new view certainly contradicts these passages on headship. 

(5) Eph. 4:4: "There is one Body." This Body consists of God's faithful saints and of none others. This Body was in existence before there was a W.T.B. & T.S.; therefore the W.T.B. & T.S. cannot be the one Body of Christ. Apart from this consideration, J.F. Rutherford's proposition, involving the thought that the non-official members of the Society are the Body of Christ, implies the thought that all in it are of the Very Elect and that none of the Very Elect are out of it—propositions that he would hardly wish to defend, and that are certainly untrue. It seems to us that some of its adherents are of the Very Elect, some are of the Great Company, some are of the Youthful Worthies, some are of the justified and some are hypocrites, just as was the condition in the nominal church before all the Very Elect were sealed in their foreheads and came "out of her." Therefore, his claim that the non-official members of the Society are the Little Flock, which he says is the antitypical Elisha, is contrary to this passage. 

The Scriptures do not use of the true Christ the figure of the Head and Body in the way that J.F. Rutherford does. When The Christ as a whole is represented by the figure of the Head and Body it is as one man; i.e., the "One New Man" (Eph. 3:15), "a perfect man" (Eph. 4:13), and not by two men. Hence, Isaac, Joseph, Moses, Aaron, etc., are used singly to represent the Head and Body; while when The Christ is referred to separately as the two parts of the one Body, we find that Jesus and the Church are respectively represented by a man and a woman; e.g., Isaac and Rebecca, Joseph and Asenath, Moses and Jethro's daughter, etc. (Eph. 5:22-23). Where two men are used, apart from cases where individual antitypes are meant, two classes or systems are meant, e.g., the two angels of Sodom, the two spies at Jericho, 

Three False Views on Elijah and Elisha. 

161 

etc., represent the Little Flock and the Great Company; Nadab and Abihu, Jannes and Jambres, etc., the Second Death and Great Company sifters; Dathan and Abiram, Hophni and Phinehas (sons of Eli), etc., the clergy of the Papacy and Federation of Churches. And in cases where more than two men are used to represent The Christ, Jesus and no one else is represented by the head one and the Church by the others; e.g., the high priest and under-priests. Joshua and the Israelites, Gideon and the three hundred, etc. We never find in the Scriptures that the leaders in the Church are set forth as the Head and the others as the Body. J.F. Rutherford in this matter follows the teachings of the Papacy, not those of the Bible. Doubtless he has unwittingly fallen into the error of teaching an Antichrist conception of The Christ, the Society's head corresponding to the Pope and the Society's body to the Catholic Church. Of course, he did not mean to do this; but this is what his erroneous view has led him to do. 

(6) Rev. 2:4: "I saw the souls of them that were beheaded." This passage contradicts his view of the beheading of John the Baptist. As the Berean comment on this verse shows, beheading is done in two ways, i.e., (1) by one taking his own rights away from himself, by one giving up his own will in consecration, and (2) by others taking his rights away from him. Herod's beheading John did not represent the Church taking her own rights away from herself; for that would be represented by some picture showing her consecrating herself. Consequently, Herod's beheading John represents the civil power taking away the rights of the true Church. Never in the Scriptures is beheading used to represent taking leaders away from the rest of the brethren. Hence, J.F. Rutherford's interpretation of Herod's beheading John is unscriptural and flows from his fundamental mistake 

Elijah and Elisha. 

162 

of making another head and body than the Christ as the Head and Body. 

(7) 1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11-13: In these verses the leaders under Christ the Head are called Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers and the connections show that the Body figure is used; but they are not here or anywhere else called the Head and the others the Body; rather the connection shows that they are parts of the Body in which Christ Jesus is Head. 

J.F. Rutherford seeks to give plausibility to his argument on Elijah's headship and Elisha's bodyship by referring, in the first paragraph of his article, to the question of the sons of the prophets: "Knowest thou that the Lord will take away thy master from thy head today?" and to Elisha's answer: "I know it." We answer that the word rosh, here translated head, should here have been rendered chief or leader. (See Strong's Concordance, Hebrew Dictionary, page 106, No. 7218.) We might render the sentence thus, "Shall take away thy master from [being] thy chief [leader] today." Certainly, while the Little Flock is not the Great Company's head, it was its chief or leader, but is not so now. These and numerous other Scriptures show that the new view of the eight imprisoned brothers is unscriptural; and one cannot but wonder how they could have fallen into so obvious an error. Then, if we reason on the thought that Elijah represents John's head, and Elisha John's body, we find ourselves involved in contradictions and absurdities. We do not find that the Society leaders had been put into the possession and control of the Federation, and were then by the latter put on exhibition before the Catholic Church July 4, or any other time. Nor do we find that those who are called by J.F. Rutherford the body of John were figuratively buried after the separation from those whom he calls their head. In this article he suggests their doing a very great work—a rather 

Three False Views on Elijah and Elisha. 

163 

unusual thing for a corpse to do! How out of all harmony with Scripture, Reason and Facts to parallel as type and antitype the energetic work of Elisha with the inactivity of a corpse in a tomb! 

Further, in four particulars this interpretation is in complete disharmony with facts: (1) The Board, to which but four of the seven imprisoned brothers belonged, is the head of the W.T.B. & T.S., not the seven [eight] brothers in bonds. 

(2) J.F. Rutherford's claim that the Lord directed the work of the Harvest through the W.T.B. & T.S. is not true. He directed the Harvest work, not through the Society, neither by its shareholders, nor by its Board, but by one individual alone; i.e., "that Servant," who was placed by the Lord (a) not only over "the house" (made the director of the work of the Church as the Lord's Special Steward), but was (b) also made "ruler over all His goods" (the Scriptural teachings, as the Lord's special mouthpiece), to give the meat in due season (Matt. 24:45-47; Luke 12:42-44). All this is evident, not only from the Scriptures, but also from the facts of the case, as these are recognized by all who know how the Harvest was conducted. We can make this matter clear by the recital of a bit of history. Our dear Pastor formed, in 1881, a Society under the name Zion's W.T.T.S., changed later to W.T.B. & T.S., with himself in control until death, to further the work of the Truth by providing "a financial channel or fund" through which the friends could contribute to the work, but not to organize or control the Harvest work. In 1884 he had this Society incorporated, having previously expressly stipulated with his fellow incorporators that he should control all its business and affairs done in or without its name until his death. This controllership stipulation was renewed with each new director. 

Further, on his giving his copyrights to the Society, he did so, as per his will, under the express condition, 

Elijah and Elisha. 

164 

to which the Board acceded, that he should control the interests of the "Studies," "Towers," etc., etc., until death, and dictate by his will and charter their uses after his death, as well as the policy of the Society. In harmony with these stipulations he did control until death. This control was made an actual fact until 1908, up to which time he had owned the majority of the voting shares of the Society, by his electing all directors and officers and appointing all colaborers and initiating and directing all policies, etc., and since that time, when he ceased to own the majority of the voting shares, by the general acceptance of the thought, on the part of the voting shareholders, that the Lord wanted him as "that Servant" to control. Therefore, after 1908 also his directorship nominees alone were elected; and he required of them immediately after their election that they write out their resignations in full, except the date, over their signatures, upon the express stipulation that, if he considered it the Lord's will, he would fill in the date, and thus terminate their directorship. Such resignations were signed, e.g., by Brothers Ritchie, Rockwell, Hoskins, etc. Whomever he desired to dismiss from any branch of the service he dismissed from that service without consulting the Board for approval. While at times he would consult with the directors individually and in meetings, and while they would sometimes vote, they voted on what and how he wanted them to vote; for he controlled and directed everything, as the directors and many others know. 

He spoke of the Pilgrims as first the Lord's, and second as his representatives. He did these things, and all cooperated with him therein, because he and they believed, and that rightly, in harmony with Matt. 24:45-47 and Luke 12:42-44, that the Lord willed it so. Therefore the facts prove that the Society, neither as shareholders, nor as directors, organized or in any other way, controlled the Harvest operations. Unorganizedly 

Three False Views on Elijah and Elisha. 

165 

the churches and individuals, including the shareholders, contributed to the work; as unorganizedly and individually apostolic churches and individuals contributed to the expenses of the servants of the Truth in their time. But what was to be done—how, when, where, and by whom it was to be done—was decided, not by the shareholders, nor by the directors, but by "that Servant" and by him alone, in harmony with what he considered to be the Lord's will. And when in print or orally he spoke of the Society deciding thus and so, he modestly hid himself under that name, as on one occasion he told one of the Lord's people, "I am the Society," and as on another, when one of "The Tower" proof-readers called his attention to the fact that his writing of himself and of the Society interchangeably would be used by his enemies against him, he answered to the effect that it was written that way designedly, and he did not change it. 

What, then, is the difference between the status of the Society before and since his death: We answer that it was then only an embryo society; now it is a born society, or organization. In the language of corporation lawyers it was then a "dummy corporation," having "dummy directors"; whereas, since his death it is an independent corporation. Like the "image of the beast," it was then without life; it is now alive. Like justification before and after the imputation of Jesus' merit, it was then tentative, it is now vitalized. In other words, its charter was in existence, but not operative; its directors were in existence, but not directing. Its professed work was being controlled, but not through its directors, as required by the charter. The machinery was all there, and adjusted ready for use; but it had to await "that Servant's" death before the power came to make its machinery operate as an organization. The same remarks apply in part to the People's Pulpit Association and the I. B. S. A., though 

Elijah and Elisha. 

166 

the idea connected with them was that they be perpetually controlled by the Society, i.e., that they be "dummy corporations" with "dummy directors" perpetually, when it would take control; as during his life he controlled them. Hence, we see that the W.T.B. & T.S. did not conduct the work of the Harvest. Therefore, neither "the official head of the Society," the Board, nor the seven imprisoned brothers, are the antitypical Elijah, nor is the body of the Society the antitypical Elisha, nor as such have they conducted the work of the Harvest. If J.F. Rutherford's view of the headship were correct, "that Servant" would have been antitypical Elijah and his death would have separated Elijah from Elisha and thus would be the chariot, as Brother Ritchie taught after "that Servant's" death until May, 1917, when he came to see its error. 

(3) In as far as J.F. Rutherford's interpretation is connected with the fourth of July celebration of 1918, it is totally out of harmony with facts. The civil rulers had decided before July 4th to send these brothers to Atlanta on the fourth, the supposed birthday of the antitypical Herod, while Herod did not pass sentence before, and did try on his birthday to prevent John's execution. The following things which had not yet taken place would have had to take place before or on July 4, 1918, if J.F. Rutherford's new view were to be entertained: the Papacy greatly exalted by the civil power, and rebuked by the true Church because of illicit relations with America's civil rulers, the Federation giving for a long time its support (dancing) to the pleasement of the governmental representatives, the promise of anything wanted, short of equal rulership, by the politicians to the Federation, the uncertainty of the Federation as to what of power to ask, its consulting the Papacy as to how to use the power promised, its accepting the Papacy's advice, its asking for the complete repression of the true Church's 

Three False Views on Elijah and Elisha. 

167 

rights to public work, which will for some time have been restrained (John in prison), the civil power's great sorrow for making the offer, its final acquiescence, the framing of the law that would describe the offense and fix the penalty, commanding the enforcements of the law, enforcing the law, giving the rights of the true Church into the control of the Federation, and the Federation acquainting the Papacy of her having by law control over the rights of the true Church. In the above particulars we have indicated the antitype of the story. All of them follow July 4, 1918. 

Even most of the things implied in J.F. Rutherford's misunderstanding of the type did not and could not have occurred July 4, 1918. The Federation did not by giving it support specially please the civil power and its representatives that day, and receive in consequence a promise of special powers; she was not on that day perplexed as to how to use the powers that were not promised her that day. On that day, in the perplexity that she did not have, she did not consult the Papacy as to how she should ask for powers that were not yet promised her. Nor did she on that day ask for the removal of the brothers to prison, nor, at the request that she did not make, was it on that day decided to send them to prison. What is ailing these brothers that they indulge in such "fanciful interpretations and wild speculations"? Beloved brethren, do not these dear brethren need our prayers that they may be recovered from "nocturnal hallucinations"? To what pass have conditions in the Church come that leading brothers can presume to offer such nonsense to the Church expecting it to be accepted? In view of this may it not be profitable for all of us soberly to examine ourselves to see whether there is not a running sore afflicting the daughter of Zion? 

(4) The facts of the fulfilled type of 2 Kings 2:15-25 disprove J.F. Rutherford's interpretation. To 

Elijah and Elisha. 

168 

prove this we now offer a brief statement of the antitypes of this Scripture. V. 15 shows how some people who were interested in the Truth, claiming that those who were really the Great Company had the spirit of the Little Flock, supported them and continued with the Society, which but recently was formed into a religious government, i.e., a symbolic city, Jericho (1 Kings 16:34). V. 16 shows how these entreated that the separated brethren be sought, that they be not lost to the Great Company, and how the genuine Great Company members discouraged this effort. V. 17 shows that the latter finally, in sheer shame, gave way; the three days seem to represent the three months from October 7, 1917 (when "Harvest Siftings," Part II, which invited the "opposition" members back, was first distributed, and that to the members of the Brooklyn Tabernacle) to January 7, 1918 (two days after the annual election and the last night of the Pittsburgh Convention, where the final but vain effort was made to win "the opposition" to matters as J.F. Rutherford wanted them). V. 18 shows how the Great Company brethren, active in the Society (Jericho), told those who sought to bring back the separated brethren that they warned against the effort—"I told you so!" V. 19 shows that much of the spirit and teaching of Vol. VII caused the Society, which was, in some ways, in a good condition, to have much of error in its teachings and much unfruitfulness in its work; these complaints began in early Fall of 1917. V. 20 shows that the recently published Vol. VII could bring a cure by revision through putting more of the Truth and its spirit into it. The revision was begun in corrections made in editions of Vol. VII that appeared before Dec., 1917, and was brought to the Great Company in many changes in the form of the abridged notes on Revelation published in vestpocket form. No doubt other revisions will be made. Vs. 21 and 22 show that as the revision goes 

Three False Views on Elijah and Elisha. 

169 

on from time to time a corresponding healing of the message of antitypical Jericho (not Zion or Jerusalem) will go on from time to time, with an ever-increasing fruitfulness of their efforts in presenting its repeatedly revised message. V. 23 shows how the Great Company brethren, as they were engaged in their activities toward the nominal church, were greatly reproached and in part misrepresented by various of its parts as lacking the right teaching and its spirit. V. 24 shows how, giving their attention to those denominations which were reproaching and in part misrepresenting them, the Great Company brethren, by "The Fall of Babylon," "The Kingdom News," their sermons, etc., pronounced as the Lord's messengers woe and evil upon them. These reproaching and partly misrepresenting denominations will later be greatly torn by two false doctrinal policies that are now [in 1919] issuing forth from many of the great ones connected with the nominal church. V. 25 shows that after the election of January 5, 1918, the Great Company class became like a fruitful (Carmel) kingdom, in that many who before were opposed to J.F. Rutherford accepted the election as an indication of God's approval of "the present management's" course as proper for the Little Flock. In February the Great Company began to become involved with the civil powers, Samaria. 

This brief interpretation is in harmony with the thought that the separation of Elijah from Elisha was first attempted June 21, 1917, when J.F. Rutherford tried to expel us from Bethel when ill health compelled us to decline a pilgrim trip intended by him to send us home, there to stay, just one year to the day before the sentence of the eight brothers (nor are this and other anniversaries accidental). Hence J.F. Rutherford's date and view are out of harmony with the facts. 

God's people are peaceably inclined; nor do they

Elijah and Elisha. 

170 

willingly break the peace. They "seek peace and ensue it." Therefore contentiousness is foreign to them as new creatures and they will have none of strife-breeding. But while they are peaceable, they are not primarily peaceable. They are primarily pure; and to maintain purity of doctrine and life, they will break peace rather than keep it at the expense of principle. Surely all of us have been deeply saddened by the breaking of peace among the Lord's people for the last twenty-two years. We would fain keep peace, could we do it in harmony with principle. But this is impossible with Truth lovers who see the introduction of manifest and evil changes from the faith once delivered to the saints, as the Society leaders (particularly J.F. Rutherford) are introducing these changes. We cannot remain silent while these things are going on, lest we fail to heed the charge of the text: "Contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." To contend earnestly for this faith is a duty and a great privilege, necessary for the Lord's glory, the safety of the saints, the purity of the faith and the faithfulness of the Truth servants. While contending for this faith, we trust to do so charitably and not contentiously; for it is undeniably true that J.F. Rutherford and his coworkers are "teaching perverse things," i.e., things changed for the worse, as to our dear Pastor's views on the Elisha type, and are seeking to set aside not a few of his applications of the Elijah type. The writer is not surprised at this, since he recognizes such a procedure as the logical outcome of a series of errors that these brethren have set forth; for to defend a newly acquired error always requires the denial of formerly accepted opposing truths. Such denials on his part will doubtless continue, until he shall become entirely confused on truths as to the Little Flock, the Great Company, the Youthful Worthies and the faith justified, though, we believe, he will 

Three False Views on Elijah and Elisha. 

171 

retain most of the Restitution truths that he has learned. 

We are now writing against another of J.F. Rutherford's "new views," which from various standpoints we refuted in several issues of The Present Truth, because of new twists that he has since introduced. We would refrain from further discussion of this subject, if his statement of his third "new view" on Elijah and Elisha in the August 15, 1919, "Tower" did not teach further errors, while he passes over in silence those features of his second "new view" that we refuted. Hence he has nothing to say on the difference between antitypical Elijah and Elisha, let alone setting forth anew Elijah as typing the official leaders of the Society, i.e., the head, and Elisha as typing the other Society adherents, i.e., the body. His third "new view" of this feature of his subject is vagueness personified, the surest proof, we are sorry to say, of the unclearness of his mental vision on the subject. His statement of these matters in his article published in the Labor Tribune and the St. Paul Enterprise had at least the merit of attempting clearly to distinguish between the two, while his latest statement entirely neglects to give reason for making both Elijah and Elisha, who act differently toward one another, represent the same class, and not various groups of the same class acting different parts in the same transactions. Why did he not at least offer some Scriptural example to prove that his treatment of Elijah and Elisha (acting different parts in the same events) to represent the same class (and not various groups of the same class), is in harmony with Scriptural precedent? The answer is simple: there is no such Scriptural example! Hence his procedure in this particular is wholly unscriptural and arbitrary, and seems to be forced upon him as an effort to escape the clearly proven fact that he and his ardent partisan supporters have been demonstrated to be of the Great Company. 

Elijah and Elisha. 

172 

Here we expect to discuss only salient features of the August 15, 1919, "Tower" article, omitting those points that we previously discussed. Every Bible Student familiar with our Pastor's treatment of Elijah in Vols. II and III and in "The Tower" knows that he applied the events in Elijah's experience prior to the rain of 1 Kings 18:45 as types of events in the Church's experience before 1799, and that he applied the events of 1 Kings 18:45—19:3 as types of events prior to the Miller movement. Utterly ignoring this, J. F. Rutherford applies all of the events of Chapter 18 (except a one-line reference to the rain, Z. 1919, top of p. 244, as typing in part the spread of Bibles), and the events of 1 Kings 19:1-4 as types of things occurring in the years 1917 and 1918. In proof, he quotes certain of our Pastor's writings wherein the latter does not give the antitype, but only the principle involved in certain of these events as teaching lessons for us in the Harvest time. Thus he confounds the typical teachings of certain events with lessons (applicable to Christians at all times) based on the same principle exemplified in those events; and seeks to make it appear that our Pastor's view on the type and antitype coincides with his, whereas they are widely apart on the subject under discussion, as even a surface reading of them proves. J.F. Rutherford well knows the difference between an antitype and a practical lesson. Why in this instance does he treat them as the same thing? 

Furthermore, attentive Bible Students know that our dear Pastor applied the events of 1 Kings 19:5-8 as types of the Miller and the Harvest movements, though he modestly used in part another to state the matter, because he himself was involved in the picture, as can be clearly seen from Z. 1908, top of p. 223, and Z. 1915, p. 46, col. 2, pars. 1, 2, 3. J.F. Rutherford has made a mistake (top of the second col., 

Three False Views on Elijah and Elisha. 

173 

p. 243, Z. 1919) in stating that God directed Elijah to appear before King Ahab, after the end of the 3 1/2 years, which would be after the middle of the fourth year, whereas 1 Kings 18:1 states that it was in the third year, antityping 1259-1619 A. D. While this blunder fits in with, and is necessary for his applying the events of 1 Kings 18 (with the exception above noted) to 1917 and 1918, it does not fit in with the type and antitype of the sections under consideration. Hence all that he says on the antitype of 1 Kings 18, except one line (where he mentions the distribution of the Bible, first line, page 244), is incorrect, contradicting the Scriptures and facts, as well as our Pastor's explanations. This covers his understanding of the antitype as treated up to the first paragraph of page 245. In past numbers of The Present Truth we gave the details of the antitypes of Elijah, not already given by "that Servant," as these became clear to us at Bethel in the Spring of 1917 and since. However, what has just been said is sufficient to prove the error of J.F. Rutherford's view of the antitype. 

Nor ought we to pass by in silence what he says about "the point of the sword" and doubling the sword the third time—explanations that he used quite effectively in 1917 to spread false views of the importance of Vol. VII. His interpretation ought to strike every one schooled in our Pastor's sober interpretations as thoroughly mechanical. The corresponding word for "point" is not in the Hebrew; and the word translated "point" means "glittering," "threatening" (see Drs. Strong and Young as well as all translations except the A. V.). Hence, J.F. Rutherford's "point" is not in the Bible! The connection shows that the allusion is to Nebuchadnezzar turning his arms against Jerusalem; and, of course, Nebuchadnezzar does not type the Truth people nor HIS sword the "Studies in the Scriptures." What is meant by doubling the sword the third time? The answer is suggested by the history of the 

Elijah and Elisha. 

174 

three invasions of Judah and the three captures of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar (2 Chro. 36:6, 10, 17). The expression, the third time, alludes to the third of these invasions, which resulted in the utter destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, and in the complete desolation of the land. The doubling of the sword the third time means the antityping of the third attack of Nebuchadnezzar upon Judah and Jerusalem, resulting in their destruction, which we know types the destruction of Christendom in the Time of Trouble. An antitype is a double, a repetition (on a larger scale) of its type. Thus, in this prophecy of Ezekiel 21:14, 15 the Time of Trouble, the double or antitype of Jerusalem's destruction by Nebuchadnezzar, is set forth; and those who bring this trouble upon Christendom are addressed as doubling, antityping, Nebuchadnezzar's third attack and capture of Jerusalem. How accordant with Facts, Reason and Scripture this interpretation is! How unfitting to Facts, Reason and Scripture is the interpretation under review! Why do not this and similar mechanical interpretations of him and his associates arouse the distrust of "Tower" readers? "How readest thou? Carefully or carelessly?" 

On page 245, of the 1919 Tower, beginning with the first paragraph, by statements and by misapplied quotations from our Pastor, he seeks to set forth Jezebel's anger at Elijah for the slaying of the prophets of Baal as typing the wrath poured out upon the Society brethren in 1918. Our Pastor's references in Z. 1908, top of page 223, and Z. 1915, p. 46, col. 2, pars. 1, 2, 3, prove that this instance of Jezebel's anger typed events after 1799 and before 1829, when the Miller movement began. Furthermore, nothing in this account of Jezebel's anger indicates the co-operation of her daughters, of whose persecution of the antitypical John, instigated by antitypical Jezebel, our Pastor writes in the quotation made by J.F. Rutherford. In the next chapter we will show that Elijah's letter

Three False Views on Elijah and Elisha. 

175 

to Jehoram of Judah, whose wife was a daughter of Jezebel (2 Chro. 21:12-15), types something related to John's rebuke of Herod and Herodias. It is in connection with the antitype of this rebuke that we are to expect the persecution to come from Jezebel's daughters, typed by Salome asking for John's head. Furthermore, by the use he makes of it, he misapplies entirely the story of Elijah dealing with Ahaziah and his various messengers, in making it refer to events after the discouragement of the Society adherents in 1918; whereas the antitype of this story occurred between the Fall of 1914 and the death of our Pastor, as shown above. His application of this story contradicts the time setting that his "new view" gives to events; for as he applies it, its antitype occurs after his separation of antitypical Elijah and Elisha and the former's whirlwind experience, whereas it should precede these antitypes, as the story and the run of events prove. What a strong delusion has seized him that he should be guilty of such blunders! 

Next, he (p. 245, col. 2, par. 1) indulges in some vague remarks on various things about types in general and on some possibilities of the whirlwind antitype. To his first remark we would say that if Elijah and Elisha did type the same class, there was no call for introducing Elisha as acting in connection with Elijah for a number of years. We would further remark that Elijah could as easily have been used in doing what Elisha did subsequently to their separation as Elisha was used in doing these things. What was there impossible about one person being manipulated into doing these two sets of things, since they were not done at the same time, if, as is claimed, the two type the same class? We agree that it is well to mark the different pictures so as not to confuse them; and would add that they are to be so marked as not to confuse the two 

Elijah and Elisha. 

176 

different classes who antitypically take part in their fulfillments, as J.F. Rutherford does. 

Next, he describes "Great Company characteristics." What he says of them is right as far as it goes, and what he quotes on them from "that Servant" is true. But he errs in not telling of another set of their qualities, of which in other places our dear Pastor treats—i.e., their good qualities. He stresses their bad qualities only, then refers to good qualities of Elisha, omits mention of shady features of character, and then concludes that Elisha's does not type any of the Great Company's characteristics; and hence he concludes that he represents the Little Flock! Of course, such logic would prove anything that one might desire to prove. But Truth is gotten, not by such a course, but by a consideration of all the pertinent facts, and not by the suppression of those parts of them which are opposed to one's theory. The Great Company has much in its character that is admirable; hence Elisha, who represents them, had much in his character that is admirable. But the Great Company has some unadmirable qualities; hence Elisha has some unadmirable qualities. On these the article under review says nothing, and writes as though Elisha did only good things. We do not believe in the propriety nor in the conclusiveness of such methods of argumentation. We believe in giving as far as we can a well-rounded presentation of the data on various subjects, in order that the Lord's people may be helped to correct conclusions. 

Since Elisha does not represent the Great Company in all its relations, but only as God's mouthpiece toward Nominal Spiritual Israel, and since as a rule the Great Company's course toward the nominal people of God is a proper one, there would as a rule of necessity be an absence of wrong doing in Elisha, who types the Great Company in this office and work. The wrongs of the Great Company are usually committed in their 

Three False Views on Elijah and Elisha. 

177 

relations to God, Christ, the Little Flock, and one another; hence Elisha is not used particularly to represent these. These wrongs are pictured, as a rule, by other types of the Great Company. Yet Elisha did do some things that type Great Company characteristics. His conduct was not of so high a degree of loyalty as Elijah's. Let us look at some of those characteristics of Elisha that are uncomplimentary, and that the article under review does not mention, and we will see that they type parts of Great Company characteristics. 

The first of these is connected with his anointing, which was performed by Elijah's throwing his mantle over him. The account shows that he was worldly-minded, somewhat like the man who wanted to delay following Jesus until his father died and was buried (Matt. 8:21, 22). Elisha did not want to follow Elijah at once. He had first to satisfy his love for his parents and friends before he would follow Elijah, for which the latter rebuked him (1 Kings 19:19-21). How much like Lot (another picture of the Great Company, but from a different standpoint) Elisha was in this event! This story types the worldly-mindedness of the Great Company. 

Next we meet Elisha in the experiences of 2 Kings 2:1-6 and find him here set forth as separate and distinct from Elijah and contrasted with him (therefore not typing the same class). Elijah was not sorely tested at Gilgal, then at Bethel, and finally at Jericho, as was the case with Elisha. Antitypical Elisha here is pictured forth as having to exercise great effort amid siftings in order still to continue following after antitypical Elijah. Z. 1904, p. 252, and 253, etc., properly represent this as typing the fact that the brethren who are now in the Great Company were almost driven away from the Little Flock on account of the course the latter took, and were only, by dint of hard effort (typed by Elisha's oath, "as the Lord liveth, and as my

Elijah and Elisha. 

178 

soul liveth, I will not leave thee,") kept from falling away from them into the Second Death class, which did leave the Little Flock. We will cite several well-known cases of brothers who have been manifested as of the Great Company, who had such severe trials, and who amid them almost fell away into the Second Death class. We would not refer to these, if they were not well known as having had such sore trials. In 1908 A. H. MacMillan for a time joined A. E. Williamson and others in a vicious attack on Brother Russell in an attempt to set him aside as controller of the Harvest work; and it was only after a very severe trial that he was able to recover himself. A little later C. J. Woodworth sought in a different way to set Brother Russell aside as controller of the Harvest work, and was engaged in putting through the press a tract against him and his views on the Covenants, etc., when he was providentially restrained from his course; and after a difficult experience was recovered, and thus was kept from falling into the Second Death class. Because W. E. Van Amburgh was so lukewarm, not defending Bro. Russell from the attack made on him when A. E. Williamson and others tried to displace him from his controlling position in the work, he dismissed W. E. Van Amburgh as office manager, which made it a very hard trial for him to remain with the Elijah class. Jesse Hemery temporarily, in 1908 and 1909, fought the vow and the Truth on the New Covenant, and had a very hard time to recover himself. Thus and in other ways their struggles above described are illustrated in part by Elisha's struggles to remain with Elijah, and are examples of experiences of others of the Great Company class. We could mention the experiences of other brethren prominent in the Society who had similar hard struggles to remain with the Little Flock; but as their cases are not well known, we will refrain. However, Elisha's course in this event clearly types Great Company experiences,

Three False Views on Elijah and Elisha. 

179 

while Elijah's types Little Flock experiences. Hence we see Great Company characteristics pictured in Elisha. 

Next we find Elisha not co-operating with Elijah in the first smiting of Jordan (2 Kings 2:8), though he walked along with him. This types a lack of zeal, and hence Elisha types in this act another Great Company characteristic of marked prominence in this class. Again, shortly afterward we find Elisha desiring and grasping for power, Elijah's office, as mouthpiece to nominal Israel (2 Kings 2:9, 13). This is surely typical of a Great Company characteristic. Next we find him rending his garments, which, among other things, types gross wrong-doing. See the preceding chapter. Next we find Elisha seeking to dissuade the sons of the prophets from searching for Elijah. The antitype of this proves that Elisha wanted no rival before the people. Again, we find here a characteristic illustrative of Great Company qualities. 

Any one reading the histories of Elijah and Elisha recognizes the great differences in their characters. Elijah is the bold, uncompromising Reformer who does not mingle with the worldly except to reprove them, and to exhort them to repentance, especially keeping himself free from the company of idolatrous kings and their supporters, while Elisha mingles with such kings and nobles as well as with the poor, and has great influence with the former, and frequently in his dealings with them acts compromisingly. Heavenly-mindedness is here contrasted with worldliness. Elijah's characteristics are shown to be typical of those of the Little Flock, while Elisha's of those of the Great Company. With certain protests we find Elisha favoring the wicked Jehoram of Israel (2 Kings 3:12-19), pictorial of how the Society leaders compromised their publicly known principles in the Spring of 1918, and prophesied victory for the allies (notably at the 1918 Passover Convention at Brooklyn), on whose side they 

Elijah and Elisha. 

180 

henceforth stood and measurably acted. Again Great Company characteristics! Elisha's consorting so much with, and conceding so much to the Sons of the Prophets (typical of unconsecrated persons, 2 Kings 2:3, 5; 6:1-4; 9:1-3, etc.), show a characteristic of the Great Company in seeking unconsecrated associates, and letting them largely influence their activities. Elisha's misrepresenting the facts of the case to the Syrians (2 Kings 6:19) types some more Great Company "spots." 2 Kings 6:32 shows how Elisha could secretly speak evil of his king, and could command disobedience to his orders—some more Great Company characteristics. Elisha's arranging for one of the Sons of the Prophets to anoint Jehu, and that secretly, to rebel against his own king amid his army and in seeming to stand for the government, yet aiding the revolutionists, shows cowardice and duplicity, also Great Company characteristics. Finally, the fact that Joash (king of Israel and a descendant of Jehu, typing an aspect of the Socialistic Government which will follow "the earthquake") thought so highly of Elisha (2 Kings 13:14-19), again shows the worldly-mindedness of Elisha, and hence that his antitype will become popular with rulers, a thing impossible for the Little Flock. Hence, we conclude that as the Great Company has good as well as evil characteristics, so Elisha's good and evil characteristics fit him to be a type of the Great Company—not in all its relations, but in its official relations to Nominal Spiritual Israel as God's mouthpiece to them. 

Another fallacy of the argument under review is this: he reasons as though the whole of the Great Company throughout its course has all the faults of various of its members. For example, he cites fear as a universal Great Company characteristic. We answer: all of the Great Company are not especially fearful. That part of them who remain in Babylon until the end are especially fearful; but those who left 

Three False Views on Elijah and Elisha. 

181 

Babylon during the Harvest (and these especially, though not exclusively, are typed by Elisha) are not especially fearful. Hence, what he says on fear as a Great Company characteristic does not especially apply to antitypical Elisha. Again, they individually gradually overcome their weaknesses, else they would go into the Second Death; this will account for some of them once having wrong characteristics which they later do not possess. 

Another proof that he suggests for his thought that Elisha types the same class as Elijah is the Lord's command to Elijah: "Elisha … shalt thou anoint to be prophet in thy room," rendering the last phrase "in thy stead," a very proper translation, meaning the same as the words "in thy room." People who reason normally would conclude from this statement the reverse of his contention to be true. For to take another person's office cannot mean that that person takes his own office; neither can a story that shows one person taking another's office type the same class taking its own office! Dr. Strong has given the definition of the Hebrew expression tachtecha, i.e., "in thy room," "in thy stead." It is true he omits the reference in his main Concordance, but it will be found in its appropriate place in the Addenda. In the following passages, where tachath, i.e., "in the room of," "instead of"—occurs, it is manifest that it is used to indicate that one person is put into the office of another; and hence by parallel reasoning they prove that Elijah types one class, while Elisha types another class, which gets the former's office (2 Sam. 19:13; 1 Kings 2:35; 5:1, 5; 8:20; 2 Kings 15:25; 23:34; 2 Chro. 6:10; 26:1). How desperate must one's need for arguments be when he uses one that directly contradicts his position! We opine, however, that some of his followers accepted his point on this subject as true, "because it came through the [alleged] Channel." 

Further, he gives as another argument for his third 

Elijah and Elisha. 

182 

"new view" the statement that "nowhere in the Scriptures is the Great Company given such prominence as the anointing of a prophet [Elijah's throwing his mantle over Elisha] in representation of that class." We beg leave to differ. The consecration of the Levites to their office (Num. 8:5-22) was by far a more prominent and public event, and does type (Mal. 3:2, 3) the Great Company's consecration as such. 

Again, he tries to bolster up his case by pointing out that the foolish virgins were sent away from the wise virgins with an unfulfilled request, while Elisha was invited to make request, and was conditionally assured of its granting. Here he seems to forget the difference between the foolish virgins and Elisha. While both represent the Great Company, they do so from totally different standpoints since they represent different groups of that class; the foolish virgins represent those of the Great Company who did not come into the Truth during the Harvest, but who were repeatedly told during that time that they had to do certain things, symbolized by buying oil, if they would get the Truth, while Elisha represents especially, though not exclusively, those of the Great Company who came into the Truth during the Harvest. The Scriptures represent the Great Company under different aspects by different characters. Lot represents the Great Company in Babylon protesting against some of their wrongs, but not coming out of her until just before, and early in the trouble (Luke 22:29, 30; 2 Pet. 2:7). Rahab, the harlot, represents the same class as in the nominal church to the end, and as unchaste to the Lord. The foolish virgins represent the same class as in the nominal church, and as being in error at least to the end of the Reaping. Eli represents the same class, especially the crown-lost leaders, as in the nominal church, and as weak with respect to restraining the Catholic and Protestant clergy and people. Elisha represents the Great Company, first as following after

Three False Views on Elijah and Elisha. 

183 

and ministering to the Little Flock, and later as the Lord's mouthpiece to Nominal Spiritual Israel, successor therein to the Little Flock. Had J.F. Rutherford had these distinctions in mind he would not have blundered into finding a proof for Elisha typing the Little Flock in the fact that the foolish virgins were refused their request for oil, while antitypical Elisha, who had "bought" the "oil" before coming into the Truth, was long after coming into the Truth promised a different request by the Little Flock. 

It will be recalled that in his second new view, published in the Labor Tribune, etc., he stated that the word translated "double" in 2 Kings 2:9 means a "duplication," a "repetition." Page 247, about the middle of the first column, he denies this, adding that it means "twice as much." How has this word, in a language dead for many centuries, changed its meaning in about six months? While opinions change frequently, as the case in point proves, the meaning of words in a dead language does not. Our answer on this point is as follows: the word shenayim, here translated double, occurs over 800 times in the Old Testament. In only two of these does it undoubtedly have the meaning of double. Its usual meaning is "two"; and whenever it is used in direct connection with, and in limitation of a noun, as in 2 Kings 2:9, it is used always as a cardinal numeral, and never then means double, but always then means two. 

The explanation of the expression "double portion," as given by him, betrays his reason for stressing so greatly "fear" as a Great Company characteristic and "courage" as a Little Flock characteristic. At least he must admit that the Scriptures do not state nor imply that Elisha was twice as fearless as Elijah, and hence that it is a suggestion not coming from the Bible. Elijah was certainly more fearless than Elisha. J.F. Rutherford's own remarks with which he introduces the quotation from Psalm 27:1-3 betray his fear that 

Elijah and Elisha. 

184 

his application to Elisha of a passage that describes David's, and not Elisha's experiences, would seem farfetched. What a confusion of David and Elisha as types his use of this passage makes! A child should have known better in the face of the fact that the heading of the Psalm shows that David's experience is here given. This argument is only another evidence of the dearth of real proof of his position. While denying that the expression translated "double portion" means "twice as fearless," we are glad to note that with a few exceptions Elisha was brave (though certainly not twice so brave as Elijah, nor even so brave); and that, because bravery is a characteristic of those Great Company members who, leaving Babylon, came into the Truth, and served antitypical Elijah during the Harvest. 

Let us examine the expression translated "double portion" in 2 Kings 2:9, 10; "And Elisha said, I pray thee, let a double portion of thy spirit be upon me. And he (Elijah) said, … it shall be so unto thee." That there is something wrong with the translation, "double portion of thy spirit," is manifest from the fact that the Lord will not give twice as much of His Spirit to others as to His Faithful Little Flock, to whom, of all His creatures, He gives the largest measure of His Spirit. The expression, pe shenayim, translated here "double portion," occurs in but two other passages of the Old Testament (Zech. 13:8; Deut. 21:17). In the former passage it is translated "two parts," i.e., two classes, the Little Flock and the Great Company (see Berean comments); in the latter passage, as in 2 Kings 2:9, it is translated "double portion." This translation is manifestly incorrect; for if, for example, a father in Israel had five sons, he did not divide the inheritance into six equal parts, and give two parts to the firstborn, and one part to each of the other four sons; for the firstborn usually received the bulk of the inheritance, and 

Three False Views on Elijah and Elisha. 

185 

that legally, as now among the nobility of Britain, etc. The following is what took place in Israel in the case of Israel's firstborns: They formed two classes; they became at their father's death the heads of their families, i.e., they became the fathers of the families; and they remained sons also. These two relations, constituting the firstborns as two classes, seem to be meant by the expression pe shenayim in Deut. 21:17. Thus we see in these two passages, the only ones in Scripture, apart from 2 Kings 2:9, where the expression pe shenayim occurs, it means two classes. And this seems to be its meaning in 2 Kings 2:9, which may well be rendered as follows: "Let there be of me two classes [acting] in thy spirit" [power, i.e., office as God's mouthpiece to Israel]. 

We are familiar with the fact that "that Servant" taught that Elisha typed the Great Company and the Ancient Worthies, i.e., two classes. Accordingly, 2 Kings 2:9, properly rendered, teaches the thought that Elisha types two classes. We are also aware of the fact that "that Servant" taught that the unbegotten consecrated, the Youthful Worthies, who will be faithful, will be associated in reward and office with the Ancient Worthies in the next Age. (F. 157, par. 1, 2.) This thought of his gives us the connecting link to interpret this passage fully. Certainly in the antitype of 2 Kings 2:9, 10, the Ancient Worthies personally took no part; for these verses were antitypically fulfilled after September 21, 1914, and before June 21, 1917, while the Ancient Worthies are not yet recovered from the tomb. How then could we construe the facts harmoniously with this Scripture? We answer: They were present and spoke representatively in their associates, the "Youthful Worthies"; as they will representatively also in these partake of the rest of the antitypes of Elisha's acts, all of which type things that will primarily occur before and secondarily after the Ancient Worthies shall

Elijah and Elisha. 

186 

return from the dead. So viewed, we recognize that 2 Kings 2:9, 10 teaches us that the Youthful Worthies share with the Great Company in being God's mouthpiece to Nominal Spiritual Israel—share with them in the powers symbolized by Elijah's mantle. Hence the expression pe shenayim proves that Elisha does represent the Great Company and additionally the Youthful Worthies. In other words, it completely disproves J.F. Rutherford's third "new view" on Elisha. 

The question arises, Did Elisha know what he was talking about when he said (2 Kings 2:9), "Let there be of me [or let me be of] two classes in thy office?" We answer, He knew what his language meant so far as he was concerned; but he did not know what his language typed. What he requested for himself was really the firstborn's share (Deut. 21:17). As we have already shown, the firstborns in Israel became at their father's death two classes—they became the heads or fathers of their families while also remaining sons. Figuratively speaking, Elisha had become Elijah's son (2 Kings 2:12), because of Elijah's office as the Lord's special prophet and Elisha's recognition of and subjection to the former in his official capacity. Compare 2 Kings 6:21; 8:9; 13:14. As compared with the other servants of Elijah—the other prophets and the sons of the prophets—who thus were figuratively Elijah's sons, Elisha's request meant that he desired to be considered as the firstborn and the others, by inference, he desired to be considered as the younger sons—the afterborns—of the prophet family. Hence Elisha's request would mean that he be given (1) Elijah's place as a figurative father to the other prophets, especially to the sons of the prophets; and yet (2) that he remain as a figurative son of Elijah. This would mean (1) that he have Elijah's office as the special mouthpiece of the Lord and thus the leadership of the prophets and the sons of the 

Three False Views on Elijah and Elisha. 

187 

prophets, and (2) that he exercise this office as a son of Elijah, i.e., with due filial respect for, and obedience to, the spirit of Elijah. Thus he requested for himself the privilege of being of two classes—in the sense in which after their father's death the firstborns were of two classes. We may be sure that the Lord overruled the form of speech in which Elisha's request was framed, because of His purpose to type the fact that antitypical Elisha would consist of two classes—those of the Great Company and the Youthful Worthies who are connected with the Society, as the fulfilled events prove (P '20, 53, pars. 1, 2). 

Another argument that he gives to prove that Elisha types the Little Flock is the fact that, though Elijah was commanded to anoint Jehu and Haziel as well as Elisha, not he, but Elisha anointed the first two. Our answer to this is that Elijah did anoint them, not personally, but representatively, in his successor; for what one does through another he does himself, as all will admit. This proves that the Little Flock anoints those classes represented by these two men through its successor, the Great Company. The principle on which this proposition is based J.F. Rutherford himself is forced to admit, when he says of Jehu's anointing: "Elisha did, or had it done under his direct supervision, and therefore did it himself." For if this principle would not apply, we would be forced to say that an antitypical son of the prophets, an unconsecrated class deeply interested in the Truth, will [did; this was written in 1920] anoint Jehu, and thus a thing commanded the Little Flock would be done by an unconsecrated class, which according to his logic, used on this point, would prove them to be the Little Flock! Wonderful logic indeed! 

His changes on the antitype of the chariot are kaleidoscopic. With advocates of Vol. VII he first taught that it typed Vol. VII; in the February 15, 1918, "Tower" he taught that it typed the Society. 

Elijah and Elisha. 

188 

In the statement of his second new view, in the Labor Tribune and St. Paul Enterprise article, he changed his understanding of the chariot's antitype again to Vol. VII, and in the August 15, 1919, "Tower" he changed again to the Society. A worldling would likely describe these mental gymnastics as backward and forward somersaults, by which in the backward ones he landed on his head! This changeableness on his part ought to convince his readers of his unreliableness and uncertainty in the entire matter, as also on other matters. 

He asserts again that the whirlwind types the war. This statement we desire to correct again. A wind symbolizes war, as our dear Pastor correctly taught (1 Kings 19:11; Ps. 48:7; Rev. 7:1), while a whirlwind represents revolution and anarchy; as our dear Pastor also taught (Jer. 23:19; 25:32, compare with vs. 29-38; Ps. 58:9; Is. 41:15, 16, where the symbolic wind and whirlwind are clearly distinguished). Why is he teaching "perverse things" on this point? To lend plausibility to his vague thought about Elijah antitypically ceasing in their supposed whirlwind experience, great trouble on them during the war. The whirlwind experience types the Little Flock leaving the earth, as "that Servant" taught, and not as J.F. Rutherford claims, its ceasing to act in a certain aspect of its work in the flesh, preparatory to entering on another aspect of its work in the flesh. A greatly changed aspect occurring in the work of the Truth people took place in 1917, shortly after the separation of the Little Flock from the Great Company began. And the changed and inferior spirit, kind and quality of the work are due to a different and inferior class having wrongly seized control of the work. 

Thus we have reviewed all the reasons that he has given for "teaching perverse things," i.e., changing correct into incorrect interpretations of the Word on Elijah and Elisha. Not one of his reasons proves his

Three False Views on Elijah and Elisha. 

189 

position; nor do all of them combined prove it. Rarely have we seen such weak arguments as he gives employed to defend a cause! 

Above we have given the reasons why Elisha does type the Great Company, i.e., because of a mixture of good and bad qualities, double-mindedness (Jas. 1:8). That he does not represent the same class as Elijah doing a different and subsequent work is manifest from the fact that he would then not have come upon the scene of activity until after Elijah had left it. His being called by Elijah and acting differently from him and in some things separately from him, while they were together, proves that he represents another class than Elijah does. While it is possible to represent two groups of one class by two persons acting differently toward one another, they could not then without confusion be said to represent the same class, as J.F. Rutherford claims now for Elijah and Elisha; but two different groups of one class, acting differently toward one another. His attempt to mark such a difference as that of head and body in the two we proved thoroughly wrong in the foregoing chapter. He claimed in the publication of his second "new view" that the removal of the convicted brothers on July 4, 1918, to Atlanta was the antitypical beheading of John the Baptist. Will he kindly tell us how John the Baptist got his head put on again? Let him explicitly tell us what the difference between antitypical Elijah and Elisha was before their separation, if he holds that they were one class; and give Scriptural, reasonable and factual proof for the distinction, if he can; and not pass the point by in utter vagueness, as he does in the August 15, 1919, "Tower." We await such a distinction and proof. Can he give it? We feel confident that he cannot, let alone overcome the proofs above given, that Elisha represents the Great Company, not in all of its relations, but in its relations as God's mouthpiece to Nominal Spiritual Israel. The

Elijah and Elisha. 

190 

reason why much of the wrongdoing of the Great Company is not put in the Elisha picture is, as before given, because the chief wrongdoings of the Great Company are not connected with its office of being God's mouthpiece to Nominal Spiritual Israel, but in its relations to God, to Jesus, to His prospective Bride and to one another; hence these wrongs are pictured under some of the other types of the Great Company. Usually the things that the Great Company does in its mission to Nominal Spiritual Israel are good things; hence the propriety of picturing these by Elisha, who usually did good. 

As said above, there are many things in the article just reviewed on which we do not reply in this chapter, because we have treated on these points sufficiently in the preceding chapter. We believe that we have given enough to prove that the express chief purposes of the article under review—i.e., "to prove that Elisha typifies the Little Flock, … and also to prove what constitutes the double portion of the spirit of Elijah"—have failed of realization, and that his claims are unscriptural, unreasonable and unfactual. 

Finally, his article as well as numerous of his approved associates' writings, prove that he and they are "teaching perverse things," the evident purpose of which is "to draw away disciples after them." For few Truth people have perverted the Lord's teachings and arrangements as given in our dear Pastor's writings, charter and will more than he and some of his associates have. Taken all in all he has done this at least as much as any other leader among the Truth people. Hence his warnings against those who are spoken of in his quotation of Paul's language to the Ephesian Elders—"of your ownselves shall men arise speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them"—apply preeminently against him; and some of the very Elect do now, and all the rest of them in due time will, give heed to and act on this warning as against him. 

Three False Views on Elijah and Elisha. 

191 

We desire here to quote with our endorsement his statement made in Z. 1918, p. 51: "Where a brother gives an interpretation of a Scripture which differs from that given by our Pastor, and the latter's interpretation seems reasonable and in harmony with the Plan of God, then we believe it a safe rule to follow his interpretation; for the reason that he is the servant of the Church, so constituted by the Lord for [the Parousia part of] the Laodicean period; and therefore we should expect the Lord to teach us through him. Where there arises a doubt in the mind as to which interpretation is correct; then it is always safer to resolve that doubt in favor of our Pastor's interpretation. We believe such to be in harmony with the Lord's will." Amen, say we. Hence, in view of his conviction of the Lord's will we ask, Why then does he not act in harmony with what he believes to be the Lord's will, and why then does he not cease from violating his convictions of the Lord's will, as he does in all his "new views"? Why? Will the only answer be the echo of our question, "Why?" 

POSTSCRIPT.—The above review of J.F. Rutherford's third "new view" on Elijah and Elisha first appeared in the October, 1919, Present Truth. The numerous calls for it led to its republication in May, 1924. And a third time the same condition has brought about its third publication. Our preaching on the separation of 1917 as the antitype of Elijah's and Elisha's separation, Elijah typing those who lost mouthpieceship toward the public—the so-called "opposition," as the Little Flock, and Elisha typing those who got it—the Society partisans, as the Great Company, became the occasion of J.F. Rutherford's setting forth in the February 15, 1918, "Tower," his first new view, i.e., that he and his partisans were not antitypical Elisha, the Great Company, but antitypical Elijah, the Little Flock, and that the so-called "opposition" was not antitypical Elijah, but antitypical 

Elijah and Elisha. 

192 

Elisha. In the first issue of The Present Truth we so completely proved our interpretation of the facts in the light of the Bible and Brother Russell's view as showing J.F. Rutherford and his partisans to be the antitype of Elisha, e.g., their having the mantle after the antitypical separation, as Elisha had it after the typical one, that he, to evade our conclusion, six weeks later came out with a second new view, entirely contrary to that of our Pastor, i.e., to the effect that Elijah typed the leaders in the Society and that Elisha typed their [partisan] followers, reviewed above. 

This second new view we so completely refuted in the May, 1919, Present Truth (published in July, 1919), that six weeks after its appearance he brought out his third new view, the one that we refuted later above. After our refutation of this third new view, he brought out a fourth, i.e., that Elijah and Elisha do not type persons or classes at all, but two different works: Elijah typing the Lord's work up to 1918 and Elisha typing the Lord's work since 1918. The fact that under our successive refutations he has had to change his view four times successively, ought to prove to any sober non-partisan mind that he has all along been in error. 

But what shall we say of this twist: that Elijah and Elisha do not represent classes, but works? To this twist we will give several answers: (1) Being the fourth twist necessitated, like the other three, by the overwhelming refutations of his previous errors, it comes marked with the stigma of being originated by a proven errorist desperately seeking in retreat to beat off annihilation. It, therefore, in all probability, is erroneous. (2) Nowhere in the Scriptures are persons used as types of works, as distinct from classes or persons, which proves that his fourth new view is unscriptural. (3) Its being unscriptural proves that it comes without any right to a claim on our faith; since, not originating in, or suggested by the Scriptures, it 

Three False Views on Elijah and Elisha. 

193 

cannot be a part of the Lord's Truth (Is. 8:20). (4) Fulfilled facts of every detail, except one (the whirlwind ascent) in Elijah's life prove that he represents the Little Flock; therefore, he cannot represent a work as distinct from a class. (5) Fulfilled facts of every detail, except one (his final experience) in Elisha's life, prove that he represents the Great Company; therefore, he cannot represent a work as distinct from a class. (6) If they represented two distinct works, one following the other in time, as the theory under review claims, Elijah and Elisha would not have acted together for years in the type. (7) The Scriptures prove that Elijah represents (1) an individual person, John the Baptist, who was not a work, though he did a work (Matt. 17:12; Mark 9:13; Luke 1:17); and (2) a class, the Christ class, that (also as the antitype of John the Baptist) was about to come as God's mouthpiece to the public (Matt. 11:14 [the Greek: "This one is (represents) Elias that IS ABOUT to come"—see A. R. V.]; Mal. 4:4 [the antitypical Elijah according to these passages is a multitudinous prophet who was to do a great work]). Therefore, a class, not a work; is the antitype of Elijah. Hence, antitypical Elisha must also be a class, not a work. These considerations prove the fourth new view to be false. It is but a foolish evasion, so transparent as such that only those who are bewitched by symbolic sorcery could be its acceptors. 

‍