Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;  Titus 2:13


in this passage? They certainly prove that the thought of the word "see" here is to recognize; for at times to recognize means to acknowledge, sympathize and cooperate with.


(29) F.H. McGee disputes that the word to recognize in the sense of acknowledging, sympathizing and co-operating with another is one of the meanings of the Hebrew word, raah, which is translated in this verse to "see." In this also he seems to be mistaken. That "that Servant's" explanation of the meaning of the word in this verse is in harmony with Biblical usage is evident from many Scriptures, one of the most notable of which is in Hab. 1: 13, "Thou art of purer eyes than to behold (raah, recognize, that is, acknowledge, sympathize and co-operate with) evil." Another very plain case is where Elisha, out of deference to the righteous Jehoshaphat, was willing to consider and to recognize the wicked Jehoram, as he himself puts it in 2 Kings 3: 14, "As the Lord liveth … I would not look toward thee nor see (recognize) thee." Raah is given this same meaning, among others, in the following passages: 1 Sam 24: 15; 1 Chro. 17: 17; Ps. 66: 18; 119: 27; 138: 6; Is. 17: 7, 8; 26: 10; 33: 15. While the word raah is not translated recognize in any of these verses, as indeed the word occurs nowhere in the Revised or Authorized Versions, nevertheless the idea "to recognize" is in all of them; and it is in this sense also that the word occurs twice in 2 Kings 2: 12, as will appear later in our discussion.


(30) Above we discussed the antitype of Elijah's and Elisha's walking and talking together beyond Jordan before the separation, and showed that it was their fellowshipping together and sympathetic co-operation in service and study as God's people. This thought, we believe, is the correct explanation of the typical walking and talking as these are set forth in 2 Kings 2: 11. Further, the Lord has given us an understanding of the antitype of Elijah's suggestion and



Elisha's reply, as these are recorded in 2 Kings 2: 9: "Elijah said unto Elisha, Ask what I shall do for thee, before I be taken away from thee. And Elisha said, I pray thee, let there be of me two parts [classes] in thy spirit [power, office]." This particular antitype does not contradict nor set aside our explanation of the antitypical walking and talking of v. 11; but that explanation is not the explanation of v. 9, which, praise God, we see in its wondrous beauty.


(31) As a preliminary to our explanation we desire to remind our dear readers that in giving a class type, God always, so far as we know, gives the type from the standpoint of the finished picture, so that those only are meant in the antitype who continue in the pertinent matter to its end. As good illustrations of this fact we may mention examples from the picture of the two smitings of Jordan. We know that some who have been proven to be in the Great Company took part temporarily in the first smiting of Jordan, but did not keep it up to the end, or did not smite in the spirit and power of antitypical Elijah. Hence, they not being participators in the completed act, are not a part of the antitype of Elijah's smiting Jordan—they are not in the finished picture. Again, not a few members of the Little Flock took part in the second smiting of Jordan, but did not smite in the Elisha spirit. Hence they are excluded from the finished picture of Elisha's smiting Jordan. This principle is also seen in the picture of the antitypical three hundred as consisting of the Little Flock only. Temporarily and in a spirit different from that of the Little Flock some crown losers did attack the doctrines of the Divine right of kings, clergy, aristocracy and labor during antitypical Gideon's First Battle; but they failed to keep it up until the end of the antitypical trumpet blowing, or they blew in a spirit foreign to that of the Little Flock. Hence they are not in the finished picture of the antitypical three hundred, but are in the finished



picture of the antitypical nine thousand and seven hundred. This principle can also be seen in the picture of the consecration of the priesthood. All consecrators were at the time of their consecration and Spirit-begettal in the priesthood as to their new creatures, and in the Lord's Goat as to their humanity; but those who later became measurably unfaithful (the Great Company) or altogether unfaithful (the Second Death class) are not typed as in the priesthood nor in the Lord's Goat in the finished picture. These illustrations are sufficient to prove that in class types only the finished picture is meant. Hence the types set forth what from God's standpoint is the finished picture, not a class of tentative members who fall out of that class. This principle will help us to construe the antitype of Elijah's suggestion and Elisha's reply now under study; and for this reason it was discussed here.


(32) Elisha's reply (2 Kings 2: 9), which we have correctly translated above, was a request to be Elijah's successor as the chief prophet of God to Israel. He wanted the firstborn's share among the prophets, considered as sons of a figurative family (Deut. 21: 17). This would have made him Elijah's successor; for Elijah was the chief prophet of the Lord to Israel, and Elisha, as having the firstborn's share, would be the chief one among the Lord's prophets to Israel, i.e., the prophets in Israel are represented as the figurative children of their chief—Elijah—and his successor would thus be the chief, and, accordingly, the figurative father of the other prophets, yet all the time remaining a [figurative] son [subordinate] to Elijah. This made him the firstborn in the prophet family, which is what his request meant. Details on this will be given later. Now the questions arise: How did antitypical Elijah suggest that antitypical Elisha request some boon from him before his separation from the latter? And how did antitypical Elisha make his reply? We answer that it was in both cases by acts,



not by words. This brings up the question: What were the acts that God regards as the suggestion to ask for a parting boon and as the reply to that suggestion? These speak plainly to our minds.


(33) We find the acts whereby antitypical Elijah suggested that antitypical Elisha make the request for a final boon before their parting in the efforts that antitypical Elijah made to secure a record of the Truth talents, experiences, trials and opportunities of those whom later events proved to be antitypical Elisha. The effort to secure this record was naturally begun by the earthly leader of the Elijah class at that time—"that Servant." He started that effort in the last three paragraphs of an article in Z '16, 141, entitled, Your Brethren That Hated You; and naturally the rest of the faithful Elijah class followed him in the work of encouraging those who later proved to be antitypical Elisha to send to him a report of their Truth talents, experiences, trials and opportunities, for recording under the file, I. H. S. [Jesus Salvator Hominum, i.e., Jesus the Savior of Men] at the office in Brooklyn. But one may ask, Why was this I. H. S. file desired? We reply, It was wanted that there might be on hand a card index of the brethren according to their capabilities for the various features of the service, so as to assemble them quickly for the work for which preparation was then going on. And what was that work? It was a future, hence the second, smiting of Jordan, since the first had been going on for a year and a half. Our Pastor wanted to know for which branch of the service each one had special talents so that he could expeditiously put him therein when that future smiting would start. And how did antitypical Elisha reply to the suggestion that he ask a parting boon before antitypical Elijah would leave him? First, by their desiring a share in what proved to be the second smiting of Jordan; second, by giving to Bro. Russell and to others of the Faithful a record



of their Truth talents, experiences, trials and opportunities for what proved to be the second smiting of Jordan; and, third, by holding themselves in readiness for what proved to be the second smiting of Jordan. It was thus done by acts.


(34) But one might object that in seeking such a record of antitypical Elisha, antitypical Elijah did not understand that he was offering to bestow a parting boon or was mustering antitypical Elisha for the second smiting of Jordan, and that in engaging in the three above-mentioned activities antitypical Elisha did not think that he was desiring a parting boon and to engage in the second smiting of Jordan. We concede that the objections present a difficulty at first thought, but add that the lack in the pertinent understandings does not determine the question, but God's view of the matter determines it. Whether antitypical Elijah understood or did not understand that he in the pertinent acts was offering a parting boon to antitypical Elisha, God did know it to be such, and therefore adjusted the type in the way that would express His understanding of what that pertinent effort of antitypical Elijah really meant according to the finished picture. And whether antitypical Elisha understood or did not understand that he was in the pertinent acts asking to engage in the second smiting of Jordan, which implies successorship to antitypical Elijah as mouthpiece to the world, God did know this as what that would actually prove to be which He desired, and that it would mean successorship to antitypical Elijah and the second smiting of Jordan, and therefore adjusted the type in the way that would express His understanding of what that pertinent factual reply of antitypical Elisha really meant in the finished picture.


(35) God's view of the situation is therefore the dominating factor in the matter. He knew that it would be antitypical Elisha, as the successor of antitypical Elijah, who would smite Jordan the second



time; and since He knew that the record that antitypical Elijah sought was in reality to enroll the second smiters of Jordan and since He knew that antitypical Elisha, as the successor of antitypical Elijah in mouthpieceship to the world, would do the second smiting of Jordan and since what antitypical Elisha from God's standpoint desired was realized in the second smiting—successorship to antitypical Elijah as mouthpiece to the world—God put into Elisha's mouth the request that corresponded to what the thing desired would really prove to be, viz., the second smiting of Jordan, as the first public activity of the successor of antitypical Elijah as God's mouthpiece to the world. This transaction proves that God adjusts the types to what the facts of the antitype would be and not to any lack of our understanding of what the antitypes might mean. Who, without the Lord's enlightenment, would have thought that tucked away in the acts of asking for a record of the brethren's Truth talents, experiences, trials and opportunities would be hidden the antitype of Elijah's suggestion that Elisha ask a parting boon of Elijah? And who, apart from the Lord's illumination, would have thought that tucked away in antitypical Elisha's response to the request for such a record would be hidden the antitype of Elisha's request? It is of the Lord's doing and is marvelous in our eyes! Praised be the Lord for another ray of the advancing light!


(36) Keeping in mind, therefore, that Elijah's and Elisha's walking and talking together, up to the very moment of their separation, represents the unbroken and sympathetic harmony of their antitypes in heart, mind and work, we remark that what was said above must be here emphasized again: that which broke the harmony of heart, mind and work among the Lord's people must be the antitype of that which separated Elijah and Elisha. Undeniably the breaking of the harmony in heart, mind and work, existing among



the Lord's people after the first smiting of Jordan, was the trouble that involved the organization through which the work of the Lord's people was being conducted; and this trouble began organizationally June 13-20, 1917, in the Board, on account of the writer's British work and J.F. Rutherford's usurpation of power resisted by the four Directors. The only evasion of this fact is the manifestly erroneous opinion which was advocated from different standpoints by J.F. Rutherford on the one hand, and Menta Sturgeon on the other, J.F. Rutherford affirming that the so-called "Opposition" were of the Second Death Class, and Menta Sturgeon affirming that J.F. Rutherford and all others heartily supporting him were of the Second Death class.


(37) Therefore the proposition is undeniable by all who know the facts, that the trouble which destroyed the harmony between the Lord's people, and separated them into two classes, resulted from an organizational trouble which broke out in the W. T. B. & T. Society's Board during the week beginning June 13 (when the writer's petition to have his English work investigated was considered in a special Board meeting, and four of its members were appointed a committee to conduct the investigation, which they did from June 14-19) and ending June 20 (when the Board met, and its committee reported favorably on the writer's English activity, and later sought to rescind the by-laws which J.F. Rutherford was using wrongly to justify his usurping complete controllership of the work). It was this discussion and trouble in the Board that proved to be the foundation of the separation. Where there is the necessary candor and honesty with reference to the facts, this presentation of the matter will be admitted as being true as respects the facts.


(38) In the type the fiery chariot is shown to be the instrument that separated the two prophets. The language describing the separation in the authorized version



is as follows: "Behold there appeared a chariot of fire and horses of fire and parted them both asunder." Let us keep in mind the thought that the separation—that is, the taking away of Elijah from Elisha—was caused by the fiery chariot running between them and not by the whirlwind; for the whirlwind took Elijah up; and if the idea of taking up had been intended in the Hebrew of 2 Kings 2: 10, the word used would be nasaah; while the word the Bible uses to indicate the taking of Elijah from Elisha is the Hebrew word lakach. Elijah was "lakached" from Elisha by the chariot running between them, after which they never were together again; and not by the whirlwind, which occurred after Elijah was "taken"' (lakached) from Elisha, thus the taking away from one another was done not by the whirlwind, but by the chariot alone before the whirlwind occurred, though the latter followed the former shortly. In testimony that this was "that Servant's" understanding as to the "taking," and was used so by him to explain the antitype, we quote from his statement of the matter respecting the antitype in Z. 1916, p. 264, col. 1, par. 1: "It will be after the smiting of Jordan—after the division of the people by the Message of the Truth and the mantle of Elijah's power—that the separation of the Church into two classes will take place. Thereafter the Elijah Class, the Little Flock Class [a comparatively small number] will be clearly manifested, separate and distinct from the Great Company Class. The division, be it remembered, will be caused by the fiery chariot—some very severe, trying ordeal, which the Elect Class will promptly accept and enter into; the Elisha Class holding back from the persecution, but not drawing back to sin or to a repudiation of the Lord. It will be but a little later on that the whirlwind (probably anarchy) will bring about the change of the Elijah Class." Very clear indeed is this.



(39) This quotation proves that the division caused by the antitypical fiery chariot was antitypical Elijah's taking away from the Elisha Class, and henceforth he stands "clearly manifested, separate and distinct"; i.e., he would while in the flesh be recognized as separate and distinct from the Great Company. Then it also shows that some time later, after they are separate and distinct (lakached), the whirlwind experience will take place. So also, if his being taken up by the chariot had been meant by the expression, "if thou see me when I am taken [lakached] from thee," the Hebrew word nasaah would have been the proper word to use and not lakach. Let this thought be kept firmly in mind and everything will become clear in the antitype, as it is clear in the type.


(40) Now as to the meaning of the fiery chariot. The writer understands it to represent the Society, in its organizational aspects, itself involved in, and then producing, a fiery trial among God's people. This thought became clear to his mind as early as September, 1917; but influenced, as many others were, by "that Servant's" latest expression on the smiting of Jordan as being future, and like many others, forgetting his statements in the comments quoted-above to the effect (1) that at New Year, 1916, the smiting was going on, and (2) that somewhat after the Fall of 1914, we had been walking and talking, beyond Jordan, he could not see his way clear to endorse this view, until early in December, he came to see clearly that Jordan had been smitten from 1914 to 1916.


(41) Some may object that "that Servant" never said that the Society, organizationally considered, would be the chariot; but rather defined the fiery chariot as a sore trial. Our answer is: It is true that he sometimes defined the fiery chariot as a sore trial, but at other times he tells us that he did not know what the chariot would be. Z. 1915,.p. 286, col. 2, par. 7, "We may not hope to clearly understand in advance the full



import of the fiery chariot, nor of the whirlwind"; and Z. 1916, p. 39, col. 2, par. 1, "But here is the way the Lord pictures the matter: first, there will be the chariot of fire. We do not know what this will be; but we understand that some fiery experience will cause a separation between the two classes of the Lord's people." F.H. McGee, one-sidedly emphasizing the first set of expressions, ignores the second; and then tries to prove that we do not agree with "that Servant." Surely it is not fair to treat Brother Russell, nor the Church, nor his fellow-servant in this manner. Wherever in "that Servant's" writings we find an apparent contradiction, we should seek to harmonize, not ignore it, and dogmatically emphasize one set of expressions alone to refute an adversary, as J.F. Rutherford and F.H. McGee do.


(42) We offer the following as an harmonization of the apparent contradiction: The expression fiery chariot involves two conjoined ideas, first a chariot, and secondly, a fire. According to Scripture usage (1 Pet. 4: 12, see Diaglott) fire, burning, is used to represent severe trials, as well as destruction, while according to Scripture a chariot represents an organization. See Berean comments on Ex.

14: 9 and Is. 31: 1, as well as numerous other Berean comments. Keeping these two ideas of fire and chariot apart in our thoughts, we can readily see the harmony. When "that Servant" defined the fiery chariot as a fiery trial, the Lord used his mind to explain the fire in the picture, and not the chariot; and, when he said that he did not know what the chariot represented, the Lord used his mind to show that he did not know what the chariot as distinct from the fire represented. The reason for the Lord's keeping "that Servant's" mind in the dark on this phase of the subject is very apparent: it was not due to be understood; because it would have made the passage so clear as to have destroyed the experience as a trial to those who understood



its full import, whereas the Lord designed the experience to be one of the sharpest trials of His people in the end of the Age. Thus it will be seen that the writer by no means disagrees with "that Servant." The advancing light, after the trial was met, has permitted him by the Lord's grace to see what "that Servant" (in comparison with whom the writer considers himself as a pigmy is to a giant), was unable to see, because not "due."


(43) Let us look briefly at the word Society, as we used it above in the expression, "viewed in its organization aspects." From the standpoint of a society the word organization has at least two meanings. First, a set of individuals who have combined in a body to carry out some purpose described in their constituent articles or charter; and, second, their trustees or directors systematically arranged to further the purposes of the body, and to function its controlling, executive and managerial machinery as a body. The W. T. B. & T. Society, according to the first definition, means its membership, the shareholders, and, according to the second definition, means the Board systematically arranged and functioning its controlling, executive and managerial machinery as a body. Therefore the words Society and Organization properly have both meanings of the word; and usage in connection with the W. T. B. & T. Society's affairs proves this to be true. It is in the sense of the second definition that the word organization is more frequently used of the W. T. B. & T. Society; and the organization in this sense of the word we understand is typed by the chariot in the passage under consideration. The second definition is the sense in which we have constantly used the word organization in explaining the chariot; and proves how inapplicable F.H. McGee's remark is, when he says that, if the Society were meant by the chariot, Elijah and Elisha would have had to be in the chariot until their separation. The whole of the



Truth people never were, nor could be, in the Board organizationally, which fact overthrows his objection; and even if one should grant that the first definition of the word would apply here, his criticism would still be wrong; because the Society as the shareholders consisted of but one-tenth of the Lord's consecrated people; therefore would exclude nine-tenths of the Elijah and Elisha classes from the symbolic chariot. Moreover, as such driving of the chariot implies controllership, we see that they were not in the "chariot" at all; for they did not control it.


(44) On this point J.F. Rutherford's position is more logical than F.H. McGee's; for he properly recognizes the chariot to be the Society, a definition which the Society friends (repudiating their first definition, i.e., Vol. VII) borrowed from the writer, and to whose use the writer yields them the most hearty permission! We ought here to restrict ourself to the second use of the word; for it is not true that the Society as shareholders were themselves in trouble, and plunged the Church itself into trouble, thus dividing it. That it was itself in trouble, and then plunged the Church into trouble, is true of the Society, only as viewed from the standpoint of the second definition. But from the standpoint of neither definition is there appropriateness in J.F. Rutherford's exhortation to the friends to get into the chariot, the Society, as a means of mounting to the skies; for neither by entering the Board of Directors, nor by entering into shareholder membership (which can be done by money only!) would anybody be able to mount to the skies! It will be noticed that before the writer presented his definition of the chariot the Society friends, as their leaders taught, claimed that the Seventh Volume was the chariot by which to mount to the skies, a view of the antitypical chariot that is untrue and unthinkable, and has been discarded.



(45) F.H. McGee and J.F. Rutherford tax the writer with disagreeing with "that Servant's" teaching that the antitypical Elijah would ascend in the antitypical chariot to heaven; but they do this in keeping with their frequent indulgence in a one-sided emphasis on one set of Brother Russell's statements, and with their neglect of another. While "that Servant" does in places say that Elijah ascended in the chariot, he also has told us that Elijah did not ascend to heaven in the chariot; for example, in Z. 1904, p. 254, col. 1, par. 1, he puts the matter very emphatically as follows: "The record is that Elijah and Elisha were separated by chariots [the Hebrew is singular, a chariot] of fire; but that Elijah was taken up, not by these [this], but by a whirlwind into heaven." It is noticeable that the Bible says nothing at all about Elijah mounting the chariot, but implies that the speed of the chariot would have made this impossible.


(46) How should we treat these seeming contradictions in Brother Russell's statements? Our answer is that the fulfillment must determine the question, and its facts (as will later be given) prove that the opinion of "that Servant," quoted above, is the accurate one and not the one which J.F. Rutherford and F.H. McGee emphasize, the latter with so many capitals and italics.


(47) If they and their associates had more fully informed themselves on "that Servant's" writings on these matters, or, if so informed, would stress both sets of statements, it would have been better for themselves and for the brethren. In this particular, as in the others, wherein they have accused us of repudiating "that Servant's" teachings, it will be seen that we have not so done. We, therefore, have the good assurance that we are in harmony with "that Servant," when we say that Elijah did not ascend to heaven in the chariot. It was used for the separation and for the separation only. The type and antitype demonstrate that such an



ascent would be impossible; and the type not only neither mentions nor implies, but discountenances such a ride to heaven, and implies that the ascent to heaven was apart from the chariot—that is, in the whirlwind, after the chariot had speeded away.


(48) Having seen what is meant by the chariot, we call attention to the fact that J.F. Rutherford tells us that the horses represent "lurid prophecies," and the horsemen represent Ezekiel and John. Let us for a moment examine these definitions. By Ezekiel and John either the writers of the two books are meant, or the books themselves. If he means the writers, his horsemen would be dead; and therefore could not drive the chariot; and hence these could not be the antitypical horsemen. On the other hand, by the books, Ezekiel and John, we would have to understand either the prophecies of which these consist or the paper upon which these prophecies are printed. But according to his definition the prophecies of Ezekiel and John are his "lurid" horses, and therefore his horsemen must be paper. In either case, then, his horsemen are wrongly defined; for they give us either dead or paper horsemen! One wonders why he did not add Solomon to the horsemen! Was it because the Song of Solomon contains no "lurid, prophecies"? The writer never defined, as F.H. McGee and J.F. Rutherford claim of him, the horses as "lurid legalities."


(49) Again the facts of the case will not permit of J.F. Rutherford's settings of things, i.e., that after the big drive began, Volume VII began to divide the Church (this is necessary to his view that the big drive was the first smiting of Jordan), to be accepted as the true one; for the division began 20 days before Volume VII appeared and over two months before its teachings started to cause friction among the friends. Moreover it began to produce nausea a month before the big drive began, which again upsets his setting of things. The division had its first faint foregleams on



June 21, 1917, when J.F. Rutherford had the writer dismissed from service at the Tabernacle, and tried to send him away from Bethel; it reached a decided stage June 27, when after his further service was refused, he was officially informed that his British work was disapproved; and as far as his personal part was concerned, the division was completed in him July 27, when he was excluded from Bethel. Thus the separating process in his case lasted exactly a full calendar month.


(50) With some of the members of the Bethel family the division, as far as their personal part is concerned, began a little later, caused by the "present management's" starting to divide the "Bethelites" into two groups; it reached a marked stage July 17; and in August was completed in quite a number of them. The dividing work kept on in Bethel for some months later, its process being with some individuals of shorter, with other individuals of longer, duration before completion. After the ousting of the Board members July 17, the separating work more especially began from the Bethel to reach brethren on the outside, the separating process in each case being of varying duration until completed. On the other hand, the separating influence of Volume VII was almost indiscernible before September. As for the influence which that volume had on the friends in the separation, the following seems to be the actual situation: On account of the conflicting statements issued by the two contending parties, though very much disturbed and dissatisfied by the course of the present management, many were unable to decide to their own satisfaction as to the stand that they should take, and with many of these Volume VII proved to be a means that enabled them to make up their minds against the present management; thus they took their stand with those who apart from Volume VII had taken their stand on the basis of the principles involved, before Volume



VII had appeared and over two months before it began to affect the situation. Volume VII and its contents, therefore, could not be made a distinct part of the scene, summarized in the horses, horsemen and chariot. It was but one of the many means of propaganda to land brethren on Elisha's side of the chariot; but it had the opposite effect on quite a number. It is plainly evident that the division began before Volume VII began to exert influence on the situation among God's people. With this all of the facts of the case agree.


(51) We have already given our definition of the chariot; and now in harmony with "that Servant's" thought on the symbolic meaning of horses and horsemen found, for example, in the Berean comments on Ex. 14: 9 and Is. 31: 1, etc., we suggest that horses, representing as they do doctrines, secular or religious, in this type represent the doctrines, supposedly legal, but actually illegal, that J.F. Rutherford hitched to the Society. These doctrines were as follows: (1) that the shareholders can pass binding by-laws for the Society; (2) that Brother Russell's exercising controllership in the Society's affairs for over thirty years made it the Society's law that every president should do the same; (3) that the law requires an annual election of directors (the law that required such an election was passed after the Society's Charter was granted and expressly states that it was not retroactive. Hence it did not require that the Society's Directors be elected otherwise than provided for in the Charter. Hence J.F. Rutherford's contention on this and on all his other supposedly legal points was entirely illegal); (4) that, when this (annual election) does not occur, vacancies take place in the directorate; (5) that the president, therefore, had to fill these vacancies, which had been unfilled by the Board more than thirty days; (6) that no directors were ousted; and (7) that only vacancies were filled. Undeniably,



J.F. Rutherford hitched these symbolic horses to the Society, as the latter word is understood in the second definition.


(52) The horsemen, representing doctrinal leaders, symbolize the present management, i.e., J.F. Rutherford, A.

H. MacMillan and W. E. Van Amburgh, the directors of the course of these illegal doctrines; their controllership of the organization is indicated by the fact that the horsemen drove the horses and directed the chariot. This combination of things, the supposedly legal, but actually illegal, theories, "the present management" and the Society, both as constituted before the ousting of the four directors, and afterwards as changed, proved under the controllership of these three to be very trying (fiery) to both classes in the Church; and this combination, thus aglow with trials in itself, suddenly made its appearance before the Church; and rushing amid, and spreading trials among, the brethren, split them into two parts. What consternation it caused! Candor, truth, knowledge and honesty on the subject prevailing, everyone must admit this is actually what occurred in the Summer of 1917.


(53) It was this, and this alone, that brought to an end the harmony that previously prevailed among the two classes of God's people. The world over, this combination, forcing all the brethren to take sides for or against the W. T. B. & T. Society (in the second sense of that word), its policies and its management, ruthlessly split up one ecclesia after another. That these are the facts is undeniable. F.H. McGee for months on this subject believed as the writer; and for this belief's sake April 29, 1918, said that he would, and then actually did, vote to repeal the resolution of the Committee passed Feb. 23, forbidding its members on pain of being out of harmony with the Committee to preach especially on typical, symbolical and prophetical subjects not explained by "that Servant,"



in order that, against J.F. Rutherford's interpretation of Elijah and Elisha as given in the Tower of Feb. 15, 1918, the one which is held by the writer (which F.H. McGee then believed, and which, July 27, the writer first learned he had given up) could be presented to safeguard the brethren against falling away to the Society. He gave no special stress at that time to the thought that he wanted the resolution repealed because of desiring to put aside the appearance of disharmony in the Committee on the subject. Nor can he fairly contradict the fact that the peace prevailing in the Church was destroyed as just described, and that, on a larger scale than ever before in the end of the Age, dividing God's people into two classes. If the supposition which he tentatively suggests were correct, it would have been Nominal Spiritual Israel (how could these people unorganized as a society be a chariot?) drawn by the doctrine of the Divine right of kings, etc., that divided God's people into two classes in the Summer of 1917 after having destroyed the peace among them; for the peace has already been broken; and therefore as he offers us "a visionary interpretation of types" for the future, which implies that this peace has not yet been broken, his guess belongs to the domain of "fanciful interpretations and wild speculations"! Indeed, the facts demonstrate that such a combination did not then cause the division that marred the previous peace, which being broken, we must be living after the division, typed by the separation of the two Prophets; nor does his remark that the interpretation given above on the horses, horsemen and chariot is a step from the sublime to the ridiculous avail anything as against the facts. The facts show that in this way the previously existing peace and union were broken, and contention and division set in; and therefore we would have to state that it is only F.H. McGee's opinion that this interpretation is a step from the



sublime to the ridiculous, an opinion that is not only unprovable, but contrary to facts. It was no ridiculous, but a most painful experience that is here explained, as all acquainted with the facts know it to have been.


(54) We recall that our dear Pastor told us that the division of Elijah and Elisha would not be connected with differences on religious doctrines; in harmony with this statement we find the fulfillment to have been. It was questions of policy, law and rulership that were connected with the division. There is a slight reference to friction between the two Prophets implied in the word parad, translated in 2 Kings 2: 11 parted asunder as the word is defined by Gesenius, the ablest Hebrew lexicon, to separate by a breach, page 688, col. 1, par., 2, Bagster Edition. The reason why the type does not markedly suggest disagreement among the generality of God's people at the time of and after the separation seems to be due to several considerations: First, a division between the friends through a test, of itself implies personal differences; and secondly, to show that the fault lay not with the generality of God's people, but with the few who are pictured by the horsemen forcing the trouble upon the many. Nor are we to infer that the horsemen were not parts of God's people; for the expression, horsemen of Israel's chariot, implies that they were; but rather they are set forth apart from Elijah and Elisha to type that "the present management," in their relation to the Board and the general work, were not keeping the peace and unity that the rest of God's people as a rule were. We fear that they were seeking other things, which interested them more than Zion's welfare.


(55) A remark previously made bears repetition here: The separation of Elijah and Elisha, Elijah being "lakached" from Elisha, was completed by the chariot running between them, and before Elijah went up in the whirlwind. The remark that we made on the meaning of lakach, "taken," as distinct from



nasaah, "taken up," must be kept in mind, if we would see clearly on the subject before us; for the chariot's running between them took Elijah away from Elisha, even as in the antitype the Little Flock was taken away from the Great Company by the Society running between them; this and this only is meant by Elijah's being taken from Elisha.


(56) The whirlwind experience in the type followed the experience of the severance of the Prophets by the chariot. As we are all aware, "that Servant" interpreted the whirlwind experience to represent the Church leaving this earth. So considered, according to the transactions of the antitype, the time succession of the events in the story of what Elijah and Elisha did in 2 Kings 2: 11-14, is not intended to give the time succession of the happenings in the antitype of this story; rather, in harmony with a procedure often followed in the Scriptures, all that is said of Elijah is treated of unto a completion, before Elisha's acts are described at all, without regard to the chronological succession of the events in the antitype, in which there is a different time order of events from that of the type. Accordingly, we understand that in the antitype there is a parenthesis of a number of years' duration between the separation of the Little Flock from the Great Company, and the departure of the Little Flock from this world; and within this parenthesis, not only all that is the antitype of Elisha's acts in verses 12-14, but all that Elisha did later occurs. Doubtless the Lord arranged the type in this unexpected way; to hide the thought until after fulfillment, so as to test more thoroughly the hearts of all at the time of the fulfillment. And this test did occur.


(57) The Lord frequently inverts the time order of the events to hide the thought, as we all know, e.g., (1) in a doctrinal passage, Rom. 8: 30, F. 182, par: 1; (2) in a prophetical passage, Joel 2: 28, 29, E. 164, par. 1, and note, instanced by "that Servant," as