Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
the top of the step and the projected vertical line of the Grand Gallery's south wall, June 27, 1917, and July 18, 1920, as the exact days and years of antitypical Elisha's and Elijah's appearances, respectively, as separate and distinct from one another. For details please see the last chapter of this book. Hence the Elijah functioned centuries before 1874.
(42) Having thus disposed of these twists, we now take up the more pleasant task of explaining the antitype of 2 Kings 1: 1-18. Our dear Pastor gave us the clue to this chapter when he applied Ahaziah in his sick condition as a type of Europe diseased by politics and war. We have already pointed out that Ahab represents Europe in its autocracy; that Ahaziah (of Israel) types Europe as divided into countries acting independently and separately from one another; and that Jehoram (of Israel), who for a while was a coregent of Ahaziah, represents Europe in its countries acting in concert with one another. We will later point out that Moab in 2 Kings—not everywhere else—represents the Central Powers. Its rebellion against Ahaziah (v. 1) represents these powers with Italy, forming and maintaining the Triple Alliance and using it against the separated and concerted European powers, which was a rebellion against Europe as consisting of powers acting separately from one another and in concert—antitypical Ahaziah and Jehoram. It will be noticed that in the type, not so much Ahaziah as Jehoram warred against Moab (2 Kings 3: 4-27). Accordingly, in the antitype, not so much individual nations as the European concert, helped by Labor—Edom—and America—Jehoshaphat—warred against the Central Powers, though all these countries entered the war individually, e.g., Austria, Servia, Belgium, etc. Thus they began as separate nations (antitypical Ahaziah) to war. Ahaziah's fall (v. 2) types these separate European governments while pursuing high ambitions (upper chamber) in politics (Samaria) falling
through their half concealed and weak fabric (lattice) into the conditions threatening the World War; his landing represents the events leading to, and bringing about the archduke's murder, and his early sickness types the resultant unmanageable crisis into which Europe came in its separate countries acting independently. His calling for the messengers represents Europe's turning to the military party in each country for help, and his sending them to Baal-Zebub of Ekron for a solution of his condition represents European countries appealing to militarism, or war—actually Satan (Matt. 10: 25)—for a solution of their sick condition and for some assurance of continued existence as independent countries. Baal-Zebub—Lord of flies, so-called, because Baal [Satan in disguise] was supposedly the destroyer [Ekron—destruction] of plaguesome flies—types militarism [actually Satan] the supposed destroyer of plaguesome and otherwise unsolvable conditions. In making an appeal to militarism— Satan—Europe sinned. It should have appealed to God, that is to Him as He is represented in the principles of Truth, Justice and Love; and had the appeal been heartily made to God, which implies subjection to His will, the death of antitypical Ahaziah in a childless condition would not have set in—God's Kingdom would have been established as his peaceful successor, or figurative son.
(43) It was because the European nations refused to act in accord with the Golden Rule, and because they acted in accord with selfishness—Satan's spirit—that they ruined themselves as independent states through selfish politics and the World War—antitypical Ahaziah died. The gross violations of Truth and Righteousness involved in an appeal to militarism instead of to Truth and Righteousness for an assurance of continued existence, occasioned the messenger of the Lord—"that Servant"—to arouse the antitypical Elijah to send, through the military parties in the
pertinent countries, a rebuking message to Europe and a prophecy of Europe's independent national dissolution (v. 3) as a precursor of their final destruction altogether. This message was certainly given immediately after the war began, especially through the published sermons and the public lectures, and through the conversations of the Truth people with outsiders on the subject of the World War. The question which Elijah asked (v. 3) is mis-rendered in the A.V. It should read: "Is there really not a God in Israel that ye are going to inquire of Baal-Zebub, a god of Ekron?" The rebuke contained in this question implies antitypically that in Christendom, Truth, Justice and Love, as the principles of Jehovah's government and people, were to be found and acted out with respect to the conditions, but that despite these things Christendom was making an appeal to Satan's principles of error, injustice and selfishness to solve its troubles and obtain assurance of continued existence in its separate states. Therefore, the Lord's message by antitypical Elijah to Christendom was that it had sinned so greatly as to make its evil plight fatal to the independence of the separate states of Europe, through weakening them preparatory to their utter destruction in the revolution following the war, which destruction is to occur in their united capacity, as is typed by Jehoram's death at Jehu's hands.
(44) This message was proclaimed throughout Christendom and thus came to the attention of the war parties of the involved countries, and from these it came to the governments themselves, typed by Elijah's address to the messengers and their telling its contents to Ahaziah, whose question (v. 5), "Why are ye turned back?" shows that antitypically the war parties were taken aback by the rebukes that came from antitypical Elijah to the extent that mentally they were halted in their mad war spirit. From them antitypical Ahaziah learned the criticisms that God's faithful
Saints made against Europe's committing the great sins of entering and prosecuting the World War, and he also learned from them that Jehovah sentenced Europe in its independent national activities to death, through a weakening of each one of the involved nations to such an extent that they had further to combine for their preservation (Zeph. 3: 8), and as its price had to give up independent national activity (v. 6). Ahaziah's question as to what kind of a man came up to meet them and to deliver to them such a message corresponds to the question that the national rulers asked the war parties, "What kind of people have presumed to intercept your war spirit and criticize our resort to war as against the principles of Truth, Justice and Love?" The messengers' answer that it was a hairy man types the thought that the war party answered that the interceptors and reprovers were recognized as powerful (hair represents power as can be seen from Samson's hair) in their use of the Bible—Bible Students; and their answer that he was girt with a girdle of leather, types the thought that the war parties described antitypical Elijah as one who was engaged in a service of reproof of wrong-doing because of its opposition to God's Law and of proclaiming the coming of the Kingdom of God. That this is the symbolic meaning of being girt with a leather girdle seems to appear from the fact that John the Baptist, whose whole mission was one of reproof for wrong-doing and of declaring the coming of God's Kingdom, was so girded to symbolize his special work (Matt. 3: 4). As from the messengers' description Ahaziah recognized their interceptor and his reprover as Elijah, so the European powers recognized in their reprover and judge the same class as throughout the Age has reproved for Sin, Righteousness and Judgment to come (v. 8). It will be seen that this activity of antitypical Elijah is set forth in part from another standpoint in antitypical Aaron's confessing Christendom's
sins over Azazel's Goat and in the judgments of Ps. 149: 59.
(45) To be reproved for gross sin was something that the pride of Ahaziah resented; accordingly, antitypical Ahaziah resented the rebuke. Three times typical Ahaziah sought to possess himself of Elijah (vs. 9, 11, 13). These three attempts to capture Elijah, type three different efforts of the warring powers to justify their course, and by such attempted justification to capture antitypical Elijah in the sense of restraining him from his criticisms and judgment of the warring powers by their supposed refutations of his accusations. The first line of thought that was advanced to justify certain European states, e.g., Russia, Servia, Germany and Austria, etc., in their war course, was the argument of the Divine Right of kings, which they claimed was being overridden by their opponents. Thus they claimed justification for their part in the war. The first captain of fifty (v. 9) represents the leaders among those who made this claim, and his fifty represent those who supported them in the claim of the Divine Right of kings. The first captain and his fifty found Elijah sitting on the top of a hill, literally the mountain. This mountain represents the kingdom, and Elijah's sitting on its top types the fact that at that time, from early Fall of 1914 onward, the entire eventual Elijah class was in the embryo Kingdom, i.e., the last one of those who would prove faithful had been begotten of the Spirit, and henceforth no one else would be invited to the high calling; for all embryo new creatures who will overcome are by us to be regarded as already in the highest or heavenly phase of the Kingdom—sitting on the top of a mountain (Rev. 14: 1); and certainly by October, 1914, almost all of us understood that the last one of the Faithful had been begotten of the Spirit, and a little later came to see that the harvesting that yet remained was of a gleaning character. Moreover,
the fact that Elijah was then on the mountain's top, implies that he had previously reached and ascended the mountain. His reaching the mountain also types the fact that the Church somewhat before early Fall, 1914, reached the time when the Kingdom beyond the vail would be working to overthrow Satan's Empire, which working began September 21, 1914, after the outbreak of the World War. This is in harmony with our Pastor's secondary thought on the antitype of Elijah's coming at the end of the 40 days—1914—to Horeb, the Mount of God (1 Kings 19: 8), i.e., that the Church in the flesh would at that time come to the time when the Kingdom beyond the vail would stand up to overthrow Satan's Empire through the great tribulation (Dan. 12: 1). Thus when the would-be justifiers of Europe's war from the standpoint of the Divine Right of kings sought by their supposed refutations of antitypical Elijah's criticisms and sentence, to capture— restrain—the Faithful in their criticizing and judging, they came upon this class lifted above them by the glorified Kingdom battling against Satan's Empire. The captain's addressing Elijah as a man of God, types the fact that the accuser and judge of Europe (Ps. 149: 5-9) was recognized by the Divine rights advocates as a people who were devoted to the Lord. The captain's statement, "The king hath said, Come down," was antitypically given in pantomime: the arguments on the Divine Right of kings used by its defenders in pantomime demanding from antitypical Elijah to permit himself to be restrained from his rebukes of, and judgment against, the "kings" and "nobles."
(46) Elijah's answer (v. 10), "If I be a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven and consume thee and thy fifty," was also in the antitype enacted in pantomime. Actually the Truth people did not so address the defenders of the doctrine of Divine Right of kings. But their actions expressed those
thoughts. As servants of God earnestly desiring to refute the arguments of the Divine Rightists, they drew down from God's Word the truths that devoured the Divine Rightists—destroyed them as defenders of that doctrine, but, of course, not as individuals. Accordingly, we understand the fire of v. 10 to be truths derived from the Bible, which is found in and is externally at least accepted by the symbolic heavens. The following are some of the truths that antitypical Elijah drew down from the Bible, kept in the symbolic heavens, and thereby overthrew the Divine Rightists: (1) The kings of the earth were not Jehovah's special appointees, vicegerents and representatives, but while permitted by God for a time, they were actually officials of Satan's Empire; (2) Not a few of their acts, especially their war acts, and not a few of their policies, laws and characteristics were thoroughly contrary to God's principles—Truth, Righteousness and Love; therefore God did not sanction their acts, especially their war acts, etc.; (3) They had for centuries at the behest of, and in fellowship with, apostate church systems, persecuted and oppressed God's faithful people and crushed the Truth that they proclaimed; and (4) The Divine Right doctrine was evidently an error, because nations on both sides were basing their claims on it as against one another. These four general lines of thought with corroborative Bible passages and historical facts the Faithful used in opposing the arguments for the Divine Right of kings, and thereby as with a symbolic fire—destructive truth like any other destructive agency may properly be symbolized by fire— symbolically destroyed—overthrew—the Divine Rightists, who were especially, though not exclusively, Catholics, particularly their clergy.
(47) But all of the war-waging nations did not claim the Divine Right for their rulers. Those of them that rejected the Divine Right of kings set up another
claim—that they were warring to maintain Democracy and national Self-determination, i.e., The Divine Right of Democracy, and that, therefore, they were justified in waging war. Ahaziah's sending the second captain with his fifty, types these countries sending their mouthpieces on the subject of Democracy and national Self-determination with their supporters on the mission of restraining, by arguments on those lines of thought, antitypical Elijah from his criticisms and judgment of the kings and nobles (v. 11). This second captain's speech, generally speaking, types the same lines of action that we saw pantomimed in the antitype of the first captain's speech, though the antitypes appealed, of course, to different lines of thought. The first said, "Come down"; the second added to that charge the word "quickly." This addition types the greater assurance and earnestness that the Democracy and Self-determination advocates had in their arguments, and their confidence in being able by their arguments quickly to restrain antitypical Elijah's criticisms and judgment of the kings and nobles.
(48) Elijah's answer types the same general lines of action in antitypical Elijah as characterized his course toward the Divine Rightists; but, of course, this appeal was to different lines of Biblical truths in overthrowing those who claimed that the national aspirations for Democracy and Self-determination were of Divine Right and, therefore, justified their waging war in their preservation. The symbolic fire that antitypical Elijah used to destroy symbolically antitypical Ahaziah's second set of mouthpieces and their supporters was especially the following truths: the Times of the Gentiles were ended; the lease of authority given the Gentile powers to rule the earth having expired, they no longer possessed even the limited right to rule and carry on governmental functions. Therefore, while they would previously have been justified to wage a defensive war for their right to national
Self-determination and Democracy, they no longer had that right; for their lease had expired; the lease—the right to rule—was given to another—God's Kingdom—the owner was evicting them as undesirable and rightless tenants, and their fighting to hold on was in violation of the rights of the owner and of the rights of the Ruler to whom He had given earth's dominion. The advocates of national Self-determination and Democracy could not answer this line of truth—this symbolic fire destroyed them as successful defenders of their claims. Such advocates consisted especially, but not exclusively of Protestants, particularly of their clergy.
(49) There was a third set of reasons given, not as a justification, but as a palliation of Europe's waging the World War. And those who set this view forth were typed by the third captain, and their supporters were typed by his fifty. As it was in the cases of the other captains' antitypes, so it was in the case of the third captain's antitypes: they in pantomime acted out the humble conduct and speech of the third captain. Those who antityped the third captain did not manifest the pride and arrogance of the Divine Rightists and Self-determinationists. They admitted that the pertinent Bible truths condemned the views of the first two sets of advocates, "fire came down from heaven and burnt up the two captains of the former fifties with their fifties" (v. 14). The third captain's falling down on his knees before Elijah types the fact that the third set of advocates subjected themselves to the views of the Elijah class to the effect that the war was not to be justified from the standpoint of Truth and Righteousness, that therefore the war was wrong, and that participation therein was wrong, so far as Truth and Righteousness were concerned. The third captain's plea for mercy for himself and his fifty, types the fact that the palliationists' course of argument showed that they did not want the principles
of Biblical Truth and Righteousness to be used as the measuring rod of their excuses; for they realized that they could not come out of such a measuring process otherwise than by being overthrown. The palliationists conceded that the causes of the war were on both sides contrary to Christian Principles and Truth, and that the war acts and policies of both sides were likewise contrary to Christian Principles and Truth, which Principles they, therefore, did not desire to have used against them, as they pleaded guilty of their having been, and of their continuing to be, violated. But in palliation they argued that the stress of national, racial, territorial, economic, financial, commercial, political, cultural and psychological conditions made the war unavoidable for imperfect, sinful beings under the evil conditions and in the evil spirit in which the nations of Europe had been living toward one another. That antitypical Ahaziah sent forth these palliationists, not to justify, but to extenuate his course, shows how clearly and unanswerably the principles of Truth and Righteousness in their condemnation of the war had been presented by antitypical Elijah. These palliationists were more especially, but not exclusively, certain financiers, politicians, economists, scholars and labor leaders. "That Servant" well knew the truthfulness of these palliating conditions; for nobody ever set them forth more clearly and sympathetically than he did, and that in Vol. 4, nearly 20 years before the war began. Therefore, when the palliationists set forth these extenuating circumstances, he saw at once that their attitude in the matter and their statement of the case were correct for the conditions. Hence, he counseled the Church by his speeches and actions not to oppose or fear such pleas, but to accept and set them forth (as evidenced by special tracts, Vol. 4 renamed and featured, etc.) as the proper explanation of the actual conditions from man's standpoint—"Go down with him; be not afraid of him."
(50) Elijah's going with the third captain and his fifty to the king types the fact that the true Church accepted the restraint imposed on it by these pleas, and faced the rulers throughout Europe with these palliationists, and set these palliations forth as the extenuating circumstances of the war. Such a course was proper in a Priesthood touched with sympathy for fallen man and the woes that his own follies and sins bring upon him. But while the antitypical Elijah set forth these palliations, they did not make him alter his criticisms of the unrighteousness of the war, nor make him alter the judgment that he had as the Lord's mouthpiece pronounced upon the kings and nobles, whose course of appealing to Satan (for such is exactly what their resorting to arms was) for an assurance of a continuance of their existence, Jehovah had decided would result in Europe's death so far as independent national political activity is concerned, and additionally would result in such a weakening of the nations as would insure their destruction in the coming revolution (v. 16). And it has proved in fact to have been so fulfilled. The war led to such conditions that European nations had to enter combinations; and to secure guarantees of their existence they must act in harmony with these combinations, as they have increasingly been doing since shortly after the war began. This has meant the curbing, the diminishing and finally the extinction of the isolated, independent action of European nations in European problems—antitypical Ahaziah, gradually dying, is now dead. We need, therefore, not expect such an isolated national European policy to be reestablished until after the Revolution; antitypical Jehoram (v. 17)—Europe acting in concert—has succeeded antitypical Ahaziah and will remain active until antitypical Jehu destroys him.
(51) The above interpretation of 2 Kings 1: 1-18 is not at all forced; it is natural, harmonious and factual.
It fits perfectly into the Biblical setting of the Elijah type; and we may well have the assurance of faith in its truth. We are satisfied that the key that our Pastor gave us to the chapter—that the sick Ahaziah represents Europe diseased by its political activities previous to and leading up to the war and dying from certain standpoints as a result of the war—is the correct one, and that thereby we have been enabled to unlock the entire chapter by the Lord's grace. We may also be very sure that J. F. Rutherford's placing the antitype of this chapter (Z '19, 245, pars. 5, 6) after our Pastor's death, yea, after the release of the seven brothers in 1919, is false. Indeed, he has woefully confused the entire Elijah picture—just as we should expect of one who is eating and drinking with the drunken, and whose right eye is ever increasingly darkening.—Matt. 24: 48-51; Zech. 11: 17.
(1) Whose views will be reviewed in this chapter? Whom does Elijah type, and in what respect? What two things materially help us to construe the antitype of Elijah's experiences? Give the various chronological periods of Elijah, type and antitype.
(2) Of what period does 1 Kings 17: 1-24 treat? Prove this, and refute an opposing view both as to its beginning and ending. What is the antitype of verse 1? Why? Why is an opposing view not true?
(3) Give a brief statement of the antitype of 1 Kings 17: 2-4. Give details of the course of error up to A. D. 539. Who were the antitypical ravens? What did they do to antitypical Elijah? What occurred to Arianism between 539 and 799? Refute an unhistorical view of Arianism.
(4) What is typed by Cherith and Jordan and Elijah's being there?
(5) What four controversies occurred between 539 and 799? What were their results for Truth and error? Give some particulars of the last controversy. What three events immediately followed its end?
(6) What helps us to trace the antitype of 1 Kings 17: 8-24? What had to precede the Papal Millennium? Why?
What resulted to antitypical Elijah from the advent of the Papal Millennium? Where was there a protesters' movement? Who were its leaders? Against what did they protest? Who belonged to this party? Whom did they antitype? Why? Show how certain leaders of antitypical Elijah came to this party. What were the relations of this party and these leaders?
(7) What are typed by Zarephath? Its belonging to Zidon? The widow at the city's gate? The two sticks? Her gathering them? Elijah's finding her? His request? Her son? Elijah's promise? The barrel? The meal? The cruse of oil? Giving Elijah the food? And the continuance of the oil and meal?
(8) Show the activities of antitypical Elijah in the ninth century; its effect upon the Papacy, the protesting party, and upon the Church life of Lombardy, France and Germany. Cite several cases showing this.
(9) Contrast the condition of reform movements in the ninth and tenth centuries. Of what was this antitypical? Who did not and who did seek to arouse reform movements? Of what was this antitypical? How many efforts were required to arouse a permanent reform movement? Of what was this the antitype?
(10) What typed the effort to arouse a reform movement? Give the facts of the antitype in its two forms. What were the effects? How were they typed?
(11) What was the antitype of Elijah's second attempt to awaken the widow's son? Who was the leader in the antitype? In what two ways was the second attempt at arousing a reform movement active? Who took part in them? What was the result?
(12) What antityped Elijah's third effort to awaken the widow's son? Describe its two parts. What was done in opposition to it? What was the outcome, type and antitype?
(13) What is the vocal and silent testimony of Church history on the antitype? State and refute another view on the antitype of Elijah's efforts to awaken the widow's child.
(14) What two things must be kept in mind, if one would understand 1 Kings 18: 1-46? How do these things refute an erroneously given antitype?
(15) What is the date for the following reformatory activity of antitypical Elijah? What two lines of evidence prove this? Through whom was it inaugurated? Show the relation of these antitypes to 1 Kings 18: 1, 2 and point out inconsistencies of a contrary view.
(16) Give the facts and results of the controversy between Boniface VIII on the one hand, and Philip IV of France and the French ecclesiastical and civil parties on the other hand. Show how these facts antitype 1 Kings 18: 2 (last clause)-6. In what other countries did Boniface and his successors wage a similar controversy? What were the results? What did those conditions manifest? What are the antitypes of the famine, of Ahab and Obadiah, of the horses and asses, of the fountains and brooks, and the search for them? What is the antitype of Obadiah's shielding the prophets, and of his general course? How does this refute an opposing view?
(17) What persons were the leaders in antitypical Elijah at the time of these events? Describe, type and antitype, the meeting and conversation of Elijah and Obadiah. Describe, type and antitype, Obadiah's telling Ahab of Elijah's presence, and the meeting and conversation of Ahab and Elijah. What was the result of the conversation, type and antitype?
(18) Describe the great Papal schism. What effect did it have on antitypical Elijah, on the two and three Papal groups, on the civil rulers, on the rather liberal clerical party? What two reform parties rose as a result? Who were the chief representatives of each? What did each strive to attain? Trace these things, type and antitype.
(19) What did all classes except the Papal Court desire? How did the people stand? What did antitypical Elijah do in these circumstances? Explain, type and antitype, the assembling at Carmel of Elijah, of the prophets of Baal, of the king, of the people, Elijah's address to the people, the proposition of an answer by fire to the suggested sacrifices, the two bullocks, their pieces, the wood, the absence of fire, and Elijah's giving the first opportunity to the priests of Baal to sacrifice?
(20) By whom was the Catholic reform party impeded and foiled? Describe their reform efforts before and during the Councils of Pisa, Constance and Basel? What
was the character of their reform efforts and the real cause of their unfruitfulness? Describe, type and antitype, their dressing the bullock, calling upon Baal, the lack of an answer, their trampling on the altar.
(21) Explain, type and antitype, Elijah's mocking Baal's prophets, their crying aloud, cutting themselves, their bleeding, their prophesying until evening and the lack of a response.
(22) Explain, type and antitype, Elijah's inviting the people to come near him, his repairing the altar, his making the altar of twelve stones, the trench and its capacity, the wood, cutting the bullock in pieces, pouring four barrels of water on the wood, and its threefold repetition.
(23) Explain, type and antitype, the water covering the altar and filling the trench, Elijah's prayer, the fire consuming the bullock, wood, stones, dust and water.
(24) Of what twofold character was the reformation work? How were the Romish mouthpieces captured? Explain, type and antitype, the Kishon and the slaying of the prophets there. When did the antitypical slayings begin?
(25) Explain, type and antitype, the sound of the abundance of rain, Elijah's charge to the king to go up and eat and drink, Elijah's climbing to the top of Carmel, and Elijah's prayer for rain. When did these antitypes begin?
(26) What does Elijah's servant and his sevenfold quest for rain-signs type? Why is Quakerism ignored?
(27) What is typed by the sea, in 1 Kings 18: 43, by looking at it, and by the seventh going of Elijah's servant? When did, and when did not this antitype begin? What is typed by the little cloud, its likeness to a human hand, and the clouds covering the heavens? What is typed by Elijah's message to Ahab, by the rain from the little cloud and the rain from the clouds, by Ahab's chariot and his flight to Jezreel, and Elijah's preceding him to Jezreel?
(28) Compare and contrast this view with another view of the antitype of the little cloud and the clouds, and show why this view is more exact and complete.
(29) What was sought in each of the seven sectarian reform movements? When did it attain success? Who were the two persons especially antityped by Elijah's
longing for rain during the seventh quest of rain-clouds? Tell of Mary Jones' saving, journeying and successfully asking for a Bible. How and with what near and remote results was this incident used in appeals for Bible Societies?
(30) What was the duration of the antitypical third year? How long did the typical and the antitypical famines last? Give the proof that the sacrificing and the rain occurred on two different days.
(31) Explain, type and antitype, Jezebel's anger, its cause, its two results, Elijah's coming to Beer-Sheba, the dismissal of his servant, his despondency, the sleep under the juniper tree, the angel, his twice awakening Elijah, the two cakes and two cruses of water, his twice eating and drinking, and his 40 days' journey to Mt. Horeb. What course, illustrated by four distinct acts in 1 Kings 18: 40, 41, 42, 43, does the antitype of 1 Kings 19: 9-21 take? What does the cave scene type? What is typed by Elijah's seeing the vision outside the cave? What is typed by the anointing of Hazael, Jehu and Elisha? How do the time order of the statement of the command enjoining their typical anointing and the time order of the typical and antitypical fulfillments differ? What is typed by Elisha's hesitation to follow Elijah, the latter's rebuke, Elisha's plowing with twelve yoke of oxen, being with the twelfth, and his sacrificing one of them, feasting the people, and then following after, and ministering to Elijah?
(32) What is the first fact connected with antitypical Elijah's anointing antitypical Elisha? What is meant by the latter's anointing? How was it done? How did God reveal to antitypical Elijah that he was to anoint antitypical Elisha? What does Bro. Miller say on this point? How do we know that these younger men were members of antitypical Elisha?
(33) What is the second of the three pertinent facts? Of what fact was Bro. Miller's pertinent act a part? What is a summary of Bros. Miller's and Buckley's pertinent acts from Sept. 8, 1846, to Sept. 27, 1846, as given in White's Life of Wm. Miller? What seven points are to be noted in this record? What work was begun as indicated in points (6) and (7)?
(34) What was the third pertinent fact? How did this drawing back occur in Bro. Buckley's case? Of whom was he in such a spirit a representative?
(35) What is typed by Naboth, Jezebel, the two false witnesses, Naboth's vineyard, Ahab's coveting it, Naboth's murder in 1 Kings 21? By when was the antitype completed? What do Ahab and Ben-hadad in 1 Kings type? In 1 Kings 20? Their first battle? By when was it completed? What is typed by their second battle? What compromised the results of the victory? To what prediction did this compromise lead?
(36) Whose conflicts are typed in 1 Kings 22: 1-40? Whom do its false prophets type? What did they do with autocracy? What is typed by Micaiah and his prophecy? By Zedekiah and his prophecy? By the battle following? By the wounding, the carrying out of the battle and the death of Ahab?
(37) What did Autocracy do after overthrowing the Huguenots? What did this arouse antitypical Elijah to do? Where especially were these denunciations made? Where else? Why in such countries? What was a false and a true source of these denunciations? What are the details of antitypical Elijah's denunciatory forecasts as typed in vs. 21-24? What do vs. 25, 26 type? V. 27? Vs. 28, 29? 1 Kings 22: 41-49?
(38) What parts of Elijah's history have been given antitypically in these columns? What is purposed in this article under study? What precedes this discussion? What has J. F. Rutherford been doing recently with the Elijah type? What other connected errors does he teach? Briefly refute each of these.
(39) What chronological error has he been teaching respecting antitypical Elijah's time of activity? From what two sources does he offer proof? Explain and refute his view on two times of restitution for antitypical Elijah. What two arguments refute his 1925 date for the Jubilee's beginning?
(40) What do these considerations sufficiently do with his new restitution views? Why are further arguments offered against his perversions on antitypical Elijah? What do the antitypes of 1 Kings 17: 1-19: 21; 21: 17-29 prove as to the time of antitypical Elijah's activity?
What do the antitypes of 1 Kings 19: 19-21; 2 Kings 2: 1-25 prove as to the time of antitypical Elisha's activities? What does the Bible Chronology prove as to the time of antitypical Elijah's activity? What are the three parallel events given in Revelation? When did they occur? How does the Jezebel type prove some of antitypical Elijah's activities to have been hundreds of years before 1874? What two facts prove that antitypical Elijah began to restore the Truth centuries before 1874? By what date preceding 1874 had he restored the main truths? What contemporaneous events prove antitypical Elijah's activities to have been many centuries before 1874?
(41) What is the Pyramid's testimony on this subject? How is this testimony given? What follows from the above arguments?
(42) What clue is helpful to open antitypically the related acts of Elijah and Ahaziah? Briefly point out the antitypes of Ahab, Ahaziah and Jehoram. What is the antitype of Moab's rebellion against Ahaziah and Jehoram? What pertinent peculiarity is seen in both the type and the antitype? How were the typical and the antitypical wars entered by the pertinent nations? What is typed by Ahaziah's walking, fall, upper chamber, Samaria, lattice, landing, early sickness, messengers, their call, their mission, Baal-Zebub, Ekron and their question? To whom should the appeal have been made in type and antitype? What should have been the result?
(43) Why was Ahaziah—type and antitype—ruined? Who was the messenger of the Lord to antitypical Elijah? How and to what message was antitypical Elijah aroused? Through what was his message delivered? What is the proper rendering of 2 Kings
1: 3? Explain the message—type and antitype. For what did the death of antitypical Ahaziah prepare?
(44) Where was this message given and to whose attention did it come? To whom did they give it? What is implied antitypically in Ahaziah's question to the returned messengers? What did Ahaziah—type and antitype—learn from the messengers' answer? What is typed by Ahaziah's question respecting his messengers' interceptor? What is typed by the various features of their answer? Prove the antitypical significance of the leather
girdle. What conclusion did Ahaziah—type and antitype—draw from the answer? How is antitypical Elijah's activity in this respect elsewhere Scripturally set forth?
(45) What was the direct and later the threefold indirect effect of this rebuke on typical and antitypical Ahaziah? What was the first line of thought by which certain European States sought to justify their participation in the war? What are typed by the first captain and his fifty? What by Elijah's being on the top of, and his reaching, the mountain? What is typed by the first attempt to arrest Elijah, calling him a man of God, and demanding his surrender?
(46) How was Elijah's answer to the first captain antityped? What was typed by the fire, the heaven from which it came, Elijah's calling for fire from heaven and its consuming the first captain and his fifty? What four lines of thought especially constituted this fire? Why could such truths be symbolized by fire? Who were the special defenders of the Divine Right of Kings?
(47) What second thing was advocated by certain countries in justification of their war acts? What is typed by the second captain and his fifty and their being sent by Ahaziah? What does the second captain's speech type and how was it antityped? Why was the word "quickly" used by him—type and antitype?
(48) How is Elijah's answer—type and antitype—related to his former answer? What are the differences in the antitype? What truths were the antitypes of the fire called down upon the second captain and his fifty? What was their effect? Who especially defended the Divine Right of Democracy?
(49) Whom does the third captain and his fifty type? How was his speech antityped? Show the contrast—type and antitype—between his and the other two captains' speeches. What is typed by his falling on his knees, his plea for mercy? What palliations did his antitypes offer for the nations waging the World War? What did such palliation pleas from antitypical Ahaziah prove of antitypical Elijah's presentations against the Divine rightists? Of whom did the palliationists especially consist? What is typed by the charge of the Angel of the Lord to Elijah?
(50) What is typed by Elijah's going down to, and with, the third captain? Why was Elijah's course in this—type and antitype—justified? What did that course not alter in his previous utterances—type and antitype? What condition did the war force upon the nations of Europe? In what has this resulted? Until what will this result last?
(51) What are the leading characteristics of the above explanation? How may we view it and J. F. Rutherford's view of the antitype and of antitypical Elijah in general, from the standpoint of Scripture, Reason and Fact?
On Horeb's rock the Prophet stood;
The Lord before him past.
A hurricane in angry mood
Swept by him strong and fast.
The mountain shook before its force,
The rocks were shiver'd in its course;
God was not in the blast.
It ceased. The air grew mute—a cloud
Came muffling o'er the sun;
When through the mountains deep and loud
An earthquake thunder'd on.
The frighted eagle sprang in air,
The wolf ran howling from his lair:
God was not in the stun.
'Twas still again, and Nature stood
And calm'd her ruffled frame;
When swift from the void a fiery flood
To earth devouring came.
Far in his depths the ocean sped,
The sickening sun looked wan and dead:
Yet God fill'd not the flame.
At last a Voice all still and small
Rose sweetly on the ear,
Yet rose so clear and plain, that all
In heaven and earth might hear:
It spoke of peace, it spoke of love,
It spoke as angels speak above,
And God Himself was here.
For, Oh, it was the Father's voice
That bade His trembling world rejoice.