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


examples of such inversions. (In the latter passage the Lord describes the restitution blessings first, and then the Gospel-Age blessings afterwards, in a way that hid the matter very thoroughly, until the part of the prophecy that is given last was nearly entirely fulfilled, before the prophecy given first was understood as occurring at a later time.) And (3) in a notable and familiar typical passage, Lev. 16: 15-22. Here the Lord, disregarding the time order of the events as they would take place in the antitype, describes unto a completion one set of events followed by the description of another, without mixing up in the typical presentation both sets of events in a way that would mark clearly the time order of their happenings in the antitype; for instance: (1) the Lord's goat is first sacrificed and (2) its blood is sprinkled on the mercy seat; then (3) the procedure with the Scapegoat is enacted. In the antitype everything done with Azazel's goat after its binding at the door and the casting of lots over both goats will be completed before the blood of the antitypical Lord's Goat will be sprinkled on the mercy seat. We know this, because all of the Great Company will have to be dead before the blood of the antitypical Goat is sprinkled on the antitypical Mercy Seat; that is, before The Christ appears in the presence of God to make atonement for the world; for if The Christ would appear in the presence of God to make atonement for the world, before all of the Great Company were dead, those of them yet in the flesh would lose the covering of the blood of the antitypical Bullock, and would, consequently, have to be remanded to the Second Death; for the Great Company is "the house" of the antitypical Aaron, for which house, as well as "for himself," that is, the Body of the antitypical Aaron, the latter makes atonement through the imputation of the merit of the antitypical Bullock. For The Christ cannot receive from the hands of Divine justice the release of the imputed merit for use on



behalf of the world until all under the covering of that imputed merit are by the High Priest taken out from thereunder. The Little Flock comes out from under this merit by the completion of its sacrificial death; the Great Company by the completion of its constrained death. Here, therefore, we have a case exactly paralleling the case of Elijah and Elisha under discussion. Just as the acts connected with the Lord's goat were brought unto a completion before the scapegoat's experiences occurred, and yet the Azazel's Goat completes its experiences before the presentation of the blood of the antitypical Lord's Goat on the mercy seat; so in 2 Kings 2: 11-14, the events in Elijah's case were brought into a completion before the events in Elisha's case took place at all; nevertheless we will give clear proof that in the antitype all of the events in Elisha's experiences described in 2 Kings 2: 12-14 occurred in the antitypical Elisha's experience after the separation of the Little Flock from the Great Company, and before the taking of the Little Flock to heaven. Hence the events typed in 2 Kings 2: 12-14 occur during a time parenthesis between these two antitypical events.


(58) Before giving proofs of this it will assist to clearness of understanding to describe Elisha's seven activities at and after the separation, after which we will set forth the proofs of the time parenthesis between the separation of the Little Flock and the Great Company on the one hand, and the taking of the Little Flock from this earth on the other hand, in which parenthesis all of the events typed in 2 Kings 2: 12-14 take place. The first statement made of Elisha is "he saw it." First we note that the "it" in this expression is in italics, which proves that it has no corresponding word in the Hebrew text; and that it was inserted by the translators to give what they supposed was the thought intended. We believe the Lord purposely omitted using the proper word, to hide the



thought until due time; as e.g., he frequently did in 1 Cor. 15, notably verses 21, 23, 47, 48. According to our understanding the inserted word should be him, i.e., Elijah; and the word saw should have been rendered recognize, just as this is the force of the word "see" raah in 2 Kings 2: 10: "If thou see [recognize] me when I am taken from thee." We note that in this verse the words "when I am" are also in italics; thus they are inserted without having corresponding words in the Hebrew text. In harmony with our Pastor's explanation of this verse, given above, we think the passage should be completed as follows: "If thou recognize me until and when I am taken from thee." Our readers are requested to read again our exposition of this verse and the proofs offered on the translation of the word raah as meaning to recognize in this passage given above. Keeping in mind what Elijah told Elisha (2 Kings 2: 10) was the condition that the latter must fulfill to receive the blessings summed up in his successorship to Elijah, we see the propriety of the Lord's calling attention to the fact that Elisha did fulfill this condition, did recognize Elijah up to and during the separation; and thus this fact is stated by the Lord, as a matter of record that Elisha fulfilled the condition necessary to receive the desired blessing, to emphasize the propriety of Elisha receiving the desired office with its associated blessings.


(59) The antitype certainly shows that this feature of the type was fulfilled in the experiences administered to each individual while undergoing the separation process. In every case, before the break became complete, the Elisha class did recognize the separating brethren, during the period in which the separating process was proceeding; that is, they acknowledged and sympathized and co-operated with them, with decreasing fervor, however, as the separating process continued; and it was only after the separation was complete that the recognition was in each individual



case withdrawn. Such recognition is also implied in Elisha's exclamation, "My father! My father!" The writer will give his experience with J.F. Rutherford as illustrative of the general experiences of the separating brethren with the Society friends, as showing that there was such a recognition, decreasing in intensity, however, until the separating process was complete, when it ceased altogether. Repeatedly between June 27 and July 27 J.F. Rutherford and the writer had brotherly talks, and at least on two occasions prayed together, frequently embraced one another, and assured one another of their confidence in one another as children of God. Frequently during this time he asked the writer for his opinion on Bible questions in private, and at the Bethel table before the family, and on some things asked him his advice. This is in general true of our experience during that time with some other members of the Bethel family, who remained with the Society. Among others, acts of recognition were exercised by J.F. Rutherford July 18-24, when the writer sought to mediate between him and the ousted directors; and it was only after the writer suggested (July 24) as an indispensable thing for a reconciliation that J.F. Rutherford accept the four ousted brothers as directors, and as a necessary thing for future peace in, and safety for, the work, agree to two other brothers acting with him as an executive committee in the Society's affairs, that J.F. Rutherford finally became firmly set against him, excluding him from Bethel three days later. Thus repeatedly from June 27 to July 27 J.F. Rutherford recognized the writer as a part of the antitypical Elijah. Each one of the separated brethren will doubtless recall experiences with the Society friends throughout this separating process that were like those that the writer had with J.F. Rutherford from June 27 to July 27; many of the Society friends will doubtless recall their having performed acts toward



the separating brethren that were in kind like those that J.F. Rutherford performed toward the writer. These were the antitypical facts.


(60) The second thing that Elisha did at the separation was to cry out: "My father! My father! the chariot of Israel and the horsemen thereof!" The cry, "My father! My father!" is based upon and is in part an explanation of the thought, Elisha saw (recognized) him. J.F. Rutherford's acts of recognition toward the writer partly constitute his part toward the writer, as in the antitype he cried out, "My father! My father!" But the expression, "My father! My father!" implies more than such recognition. Additionally it is a statement of surprise, sorrow and discussion, and typifies the surprise and sorrow which the Society friends felt and expressed at, and the discussions which they held over, the fact that those who had been, as it were, the leaders (father here means leader) of the Church should act in a way which the Society friends mistakenly thought was wrong, and which they thought was leading the separating brethren into the Lord's disfavor. Surely all the Society friends will recognize that they expressed such surprise, felt such sorrow, and held such discussions with respect to the so-called "Opposition" during the separating process.


(61) The second thought in Elisha's exclamation was: "the chariot of Israel," i.e., an organization belonging to God's people, the W. T. B. & T. Society. Was there anything that the staunch supporters of the "present management" did corresponding to Elisha's crying out, the "chariot of Israel"? Assuredly! for this feature of the type represents the recognition of, the surprise and sorrow at, and the discussion of, the Society among its loyal supporters. Certainly the Society's advocates were surprised and saddened to find the affairs of the Society in the condition in which they were; and certainly did discuss and recognize the



organization of the Lord's people, the chariot of Israel, crying out, "the Society! the Society! the Society! the Channel! the Channel! the Channel! We must stand by the Society! We must stand by the Channel! We must defend the Society in its trial! We must be loyal to the Society, because it is the Channel! Whatever the wrong that has been done by the Society leaders, we must nevertheless remember that the Society is the Channel!" From this description all will recognize that the events beginning with the summer of 1917 were associated with such surprise and sorrow at, and recognition and discussion of, the Society; and this well antitypes Elisha's exclamation, "the chariot of Israel!"


(62) The third thought in Elisha's exclamation is contained in the words, "and the horsemen thereof!" Understanding horsemen to represent leaders of secular or religious doctrines, and understanding the typical horsemen to represent J. F. Rutherford, A. H. MacMillan and W. E. Van Amburgh, as advocates of the supposedly legal, but actually illegal doctrines above described, it would seem that the expression, the horsemen of Israel, indicates a recognition and discussion of, surprise at, and sorrow at, and for, these brothers. Certainly the friends, on the one hand, were surprised and saddened at the trials in which these were involved! but amid all this they certainly persisted in discussing and in recognizing them as the leaders who should be followed, because they controlled "the channel"; as a prominent brother and sister put it, "We must stand by the 'present management,' because they have the goods!" In these facts we, therefore, find a clear antitype of Elisha crying, "the horsemen thereof!" Again, the antitype is clearly factual.


(63) The third part of Elisha's activity (2 Kings 2: 12) is expressed in the statement, "and he [Elisha] saw [recognized] him no more." We give the word



raah in both its occurrences in this verse, as well as in verse 10, the same meaning, that is, to recognize, which here means to acknowledge, to sympathize, to co-operate with. We have already shown this to be "that Servant's" thought on the use of the word in verse 10; and also have shown that it has the same meaning in its first occurrence in verse 12. This passage seems to intimate that Elisha knew of Elijah's presence in the earth after his whirlwind experience, as will be shown hereinafter, and seems also to intimate the thought that Elisha was not disposed to be subject to Elijah in the way in which he had been; and from the desire not to be subject to Elijah he probably told the sons of the Prophets not to seek Elijah, fearing probably that he might return (2 Kings 2: 15-18). Underlying this mental state of Elisha was doubtless his thought that God wanted him, and not the separated Elijah, henceforth to be the Prophet to Israel. Elisha doubtless thought that it would be to the best interests of all concerned for him to have nothing more to do with Elijah, whose presence with him would undoubtedly have hindered the influence of his ministry with the people through their partisanship toward one or the other Prophet. This would enable us to see why he should no longer recognize Elijah as he had formerly done in harmony with the proprieties of the case.


(64) How appropriately in the antitype this disfellowshipment followed "the-chariot-of-Israel-and-thehorsemen-thereof" delusions! Let us look at the antitype and see whether any fulfillment of such a line of thought, as has just been set forth, has taken place. Surely it has in the disfellowshipment of the so-called "Opposition" by the Society people, which disfellowshipment was first of all exercised by W. E. Van Amburgh, July 31, 1917, at a meeting of the People's Pulpit Association, when he refused the writer's proffered hand. At the Boston Convention, Aug. 5, A. H.



MacMillan and others refused the hands of some of the other separated brethren at the love feast; a little later, under the influence of a sermon delivered by W. E. Van Amburgh, Sister Seibert refused to accept the writer's proffered hand. A. H. MacMillan and C. J. Woodworth treated him in the same way. The "avoid-them-that-causedivisions-among-you" campaign soon spread from Bethel to the outside, from Church to Church. So marked did this disfellowshipment become that many of the Society people think that the "Opposition" are in the Second Death class, and will not even notice them when they pass them on the street. In harmony with this disfellowshipment campaign "the present management" and many pilgrims, elders, etc., have driven the faithful Elijah from the association of the Society brethren. Surely the antitypical Elisha sees, recognizes, the antitypical Elijah no more! Thus again we recognize how the facts between type and antitype correspond in this case. From the above explanations it will be apparent how unfounded is F.H. McGee's criticism of the writer's view of raah.


(65) The fourth activity of Elisha was his rending his own clothes into two pieces. Clothing in the symbols of the Bible represents our graces of heart and mind. "Put on, therefore, as the Elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercy, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, etc." "Be clothed with humility." (Col. 2: 12, 13; 1 Pet. 5: 5.) Other passages along the same line will come to every Bible student's mind. To rend one's clothes would seem to represent doing violence to one's graces, and to rend them in twain would seem to represent such gross violence done to one's graces as to tear them in twain, and thus to expose one's double-mindedness, which is a quality of the Great Company (Jas. 1: 8). This action of Elisha's seems to find a fitting antitype in the violence to Truth, Justice and Love committed by J.F. Rutherford



and his supporters against the so-called "Opposition." As an illustration of this gross, unscriptural conduct we refer to J.F. Rutherford's "Harvest Siftings," cruel in itself and grossly deceptive as to facts. All over the world those who stood faithful for "that Servant's" arrangements were treated with gross injustice, lovelessness and misrepresentation by those who rallied to the battle cry, "the channel! the channel!" Yea, the antitypical Elisha very violently rent his own garments! Thus again we find the facts of the case clearly to harmonize with the picture that God has furnished us of these experiences. Garments also represent official powers, as illustrated in the garments of beauty and glory. And from this standpoint, a secondary antitype of Elisha's rending his garments from top to bottom, we understand antitypical Elisha giving up entirely his office as servant to antitypical Elijah preparatory to taking the mouthpieceship to the public.


(66) As his fifth activity Elisha seized the mantle of Elijah that fell from him. The five Board members, by permitting J.F. Rutherford to have his own way, and by declining to bring a suit, which would perhaps have been the only means of bringing a person constituted as he is, to time, let "the mantle" fall from them, i.e., let the powers typed by the mantle slip from their control, and thus from the control of the Elijah class, whose representatives in the exercise of this power they were; for these brothers, as the Board's majority, were the ones in whom representatively the Church held controllership of certain essential parts of the mantle, that is, the control of the general work, of the Truth literature, of the Truth agencies and of the Truth propagating finances. From 1 Kings 19: 15, 16 we see that it was the Lord's good pleasure that Elijah anoint Hazael, Jehu and Elisha; but as a matter of fact Elijah anointed the last only, Elisha anointing the other two, the first in person, the other by a representative (2 Kings 8: 7-14; 9: 1-10).



This charge of the Lord, however, to Elijah proves to us that Jehovah would have been more pleased to have had Elijah anoint all three; and this would therefore prove that, in the antitype, the Lord would have been more pleased, if the antitypical Elijah had retained the office of mouthpiece to Nominal Spiritual Israel, until he had anointed all three of the classes typed by these three men. However, foreknowing that the five directors would fail to restrain J.F. Rutherford's autocratic use of powers and to institute a lawsuit (a step that F.H. McGee and the writer urgently advised them to take as the only thing apparently that would have kept the controllership of the work in the hands of the Elijah class in its representatives, the Board's majority), God adjusted the type to what He foresaw would be the course of events in the antitype, knowing that He could overrule all things for the good of both Prophets concerned; hence God did not force His good pleasure; He consented to let the thing more pleasing to Him remain undone—that is, Elijah's anointing Hazael and Jehu—and to permit Elisha to do this as a picture of what He foreknew would came to pass nearly 2800 years later. When, then, the directors failed to resist J.F. Rutherford with sufficient resolution, and additionally failed to bring a lawsuit to force him to give up the fruits of his usurpation, the antitypical Elijah, in their representatives, the Board (which, being a deliberative and controlling body, would, for decisions respecting the work, in ultimate analysis, be the majority) dropped his power to be God's mouthpiece to Nominal Spiritual Israel. Elisha, picking up the mantle, represents the acts of the antitypical Elisha, in the Society leaders as their representatives, securing to himself the power to be God's mouthpiece to Nominal Spiritual Israel. Thus the falling of the mantle from Elijah and its taking up by Elisha we understand to have found its fulfillment in



the troublesome experiences among the Lord's people in 1917.


(67) As his sixth activity described in 2 Kings 2: 12-14 Elisha smote Jordan. The fact that nothing is said of Elisha's wrapping the mantle, as did Elijah, is in harmony with the thought that in the smiting of Jordan by the antitypical Elisha, everything in their power applicable for smiting was not used, e.g., many smiting tracts and sermons and Volume Four. The Photo-Drama was almost unused. These things, which would have "smitten" much better than what was used, were left unused. Elisha thus smote with an unfolded mantle. As in the antitypical Elijah's case, so in the antitypical Elisha's case, the smiting was done by the Great Company as new creatures approved by one another, laying hold of certain features of the Truth, of the controllership of the work (exercised by it representatively in J.F. Rutherford), of parts only of the appropriate Truth literature, of parts only of the pertinent branches of the work, and of the necessary finances; and using them to reprove those who claimed Divine right, and their supporters, they sentenced their institutions to destruction and them to dismissal from office and to punishment for their wrong doing. The conservatives and radicals in Christendom were by this smiting increasingly separated.


(68) The seventh activity of Elisha, according to 2 Kings 2: 12-14, was his crossing the river. From the fact that in the type nothing is said of Elisha's going over on dry ground, as was said of both Prophets at the first smiting, we may infer that the Great Company would not be unharmed as new creatures by their course in the smiting. Certainly the injury that the Great Company brought upon themselves as new creatures by the fanaticism, imprudence and misrepresentations connected with their smiting, proves that they did not cross over antitypical Jordan dry shod; and to indicate that they would not do their work without



injury to their new creatures, the Scriptures seem to omit saying that Elisha went over dry shod. His passing completely over represents his antitype finishing the smiting work. We understand that the "Great Drive" in which the Society people engaged beginning about Oct. 1, 1917, and ending about May 1, 1918, is the antitype of Elisha smiting the Jordan. F.H. McGee charges the writer with teaching that the antitype of the second smiting of the Jordan began July 17; here again he misstates the writer's thought. Nor was the publication of Volume VII the smiting of Jordan, as he again misrepresents us to teach. The second smiting of Jordan was the previously described reproving and sentencing work, on the part of the Society people during the seven months mentioned foregoing; it, therefore, began, as the writer has consistently taught from the outstart in the Fall of 1917, and not July 17. However, F.H. McGee probably has confused a part of Menta Sturgeon's interpretation of what occurred July 17, 1917, with the writer's understanding of when the smiting of Jordan began. Menta Sturgeon held that the first smiting of Jordan began in the Bethel dining room July 17, 1917, by the four ousted members of the Board, F.H. McGee and the writer reproving J.F. Rutherford and his associates for, and protesting against, their usurpation. The writer never has been able to endorse Menta Sturgeon's view on this subject. F.H. McGee devotes more than a column on page four to refuting this, his confusion of views as the writer's, thus setting up and kicking over this, another one of his straw men. He even puts in quotation marks statements that he says the writer made, but which the latter never made, to the effect that the second smiting of Jordan began on July 17!


(69) From the above discussion it will be seen that J.F. Rutherford and the writer agree that the work done Oct., 1917, to May, 1918, was a smiting of



Jordan. However, they disagree as to which smiting of Jordan it was. J.F. Rutherford affirms that it was the first; the writer, that it was the second. How can we determine this question? We reply that the facts give an unanswerable proof of the writer's view, and an unanswerable refutation of J.F. Rutherford's view. The type proves that there would be no interruption of the peace, harmony and fellowship between the antitypical Elijah and Elisha before their separation; consequently the peace, fellowship, harmony and co-operation between the antitypical Elijah and Elisha beginning to end just before June 21, 1917, the first smiting must have been over before this breach of peace began. The circumstances leading up to the start of the separation were the following: J.F. Rutherford refused to permit the writer at his request to return to England. He also over a week later refused to open the English case again, and to call a Board meeting for its consideration. Then the writer drew up a petition that the majority of the Board signed June 13, requesting J.F. Rutherford to call a Board meeting to consider the writer's British work. Thereupon the storm broke out in the Board, culminating June 20. An increasingly unfriendly attitude, starting with a small beginning, was meantime assumed toward the writer by

J.F. Rutherford, W.E. Van Amburgh, A.H. MacMillan, W.F. Hudgings and R.J. Martin and their supporters. On June 21 the first preparations were made to drive the "chariot" between the supporters of the "present management" and the "Opposition" in the person of the writer, first, by refusing him work at the Tabernacle, and, secondly, by attempting to send him away from Bethel. The chariot reached him June 27 and started to separate him from antitypical Elisha. As the news of the dispute in the Board spread among the Bethel family, the disharmony increased; and thus we find that by June 27 the division, whose prior step was the breaking of the



peace between Elijah and Elisha, had set in. This divisional work proceeded and was world-wide before the "Big Drive" commenced, Oct., 1917; consequently the "Big Drive," that began at this time, following, as it did by over three months, the beginning of the separation, must be the second smiting of Jordan, while the first smiting of Jordan must have been completed some little time before the separation between the two classes began. Thus, then, the facts of the case clearly prove that the "Big Drive" was the second smiting of Jordan; and just because it was zealously engaged in by a majority of the consecrated people of the Lord, even as "that Servant" showed that the Great Company would be in the majority in the Church, it was a work on a larger and more noticeable scale than that of the first smiting of Jordan; but otherwise was in every respect the latter's inferior, and would have been more so, but for some of the Faithfuls' help. The following argument also proves that the partisan Societyites are antitypical Elisha. Whoever after the separation had the mantle was antitypical Elisha, since in the type after the separation Elisha had the mantle. Facts prove that the separation set in beginning June 27, 1917, and was in an advanced stage by October. But from that time onward for years the partisan Societyites had the mantle; hence they are antitypical Elisha— members of the Great Company and Youthful Worthies. This follows from the proof just given that the separation between antitypical Elijah and Elisha has set in.


(70) In 2 Kings 2: 12-14, the question that Elisha asked while smiting the waters, "Where is the Lord God of Elijah?" should be translated as follows: "Where is Jehovah? He is even the God of Elijah." Compare the American Revised Version, text and margin. In this language we believe there is an intimation of the delusion under which the antitypical Elisha would suffer at the time of his smiting. It



will be recalled that the Society friends claimed that a sure evidence that Jehovah stood on the side of them as His antitypical Elijah was the great prosperity of their work, which they claimed came from God and was His way of owning them as "His very own." It is ever the habit of shallow religious theorists to ascribe their external prosperity to God as proof of their favor with Him. Throughout the smiting the Society brethren reiterated this, sometimes boastingly, to the so-called "Opposition" as a challenge that God was on their side, and was treating them, the supposed Elijah, as the object of His special favors. Instead of their proving thereby that they were the antitypical Elijah, they antityped Elisha in his asking the following question: "Where is Jehovah? [on whose side is He standing?] He is even the God of Elijah!" He is the prosperer (the God) of us, and thus approves of us as the antitypical Elijah; and He is thus shown to be on our side; therefore we must be Elijah. But the fact that they threw out this challengesome question and answer, is only another proof that they are the antitypical Elisha; and that as such they, while so questioning and answering, labored under the delusion that they were the antitypical Elijah. How wise is our God! How deep are His riches of wisdom and knowledge and how unsearchable His judgments and His ways past finding out until His purposes are accomplished! (Rom. 11: 33.)


(71) It is not to be understood that all who remained with the Society are of the Great Company, nor that all who left the fellowship of the Society's friends will ultimately be in the Little Flock; rather we are to understand that we have here only a general picture of God's people, showing only how mouthpieceship would be transferred from the one to the other class, without indicating in every case to which class the individuals belonged; and that of those only can we say of a certainty that they are of the Elisha



class who heartily co-operated in doing the seven things antitypical of what Elisha did in the type; while those only of the separated brethren are of the Elijah class who manifested from the heart the Lord's spirit in faithfulness. The writer has the good assurances that not a few of the "very Elect" are still with the Society, bewildered as they were by the extraordinary circumstances connected with the separation, and in their hearts and in many cases with their mouths disapproved of the "present management"; as there is ground for fearing that not a few of the so-called "Opposition" lack the Elijah spirit. Nor would we think that those who did some, but not all, of the seven things typed by Elisha's seven acts would necessarily be of the Great Company. It seems that only such as, generally speaking, have heartily joined unto a completion in all seven things antitypical of 2 Kings 2: 12-14 are represented in the finished picture. Our good hope is that in due time the Lord will open the eyes of all of the "very Elect," bewildered as many of them have been, and have consequently continued in measurable co-operation with the Society; and through opening their eyes effect their deliverance. The touchstone that will definitely decide the case for each one, we believe, is the true answer to this question: "Did I heartily and fully do the seven things typed by Elisha's seven acts in connection with his separation from Elijah?" As far as the leaders are concerned, who for one reason or other acted as agents to spread the delusion whereby the Society friends were misled on the situation, our fear for everyone of them is that he had lost his crown. The writer believes that the Lord's time has come that the friends with and against the Society should become familiar with the real condition of affairs; therefore plainly but lovingly he sets forth what seems to him and others to be meat in due season



on the situation. The Lord bless each one in his use of this meat!


(72) A number of the dear ones have asked us to harmonize our thought, that the separation of antitypical Elijah and Elisha has taken place, with our teaching that the separation of the Little Flock and the Great Company is not yet complete. Believing these inquiries to be an indication from the Lord, we give the following answer: In the Scriptures God gives various views of the same general work from different standpoints through divers types; e.g., Rahab types the Great Company from one standpoint, Lot from another, Eli from a third, the Foolish Virgins from a fourth, Elisha from a fifth, etc. See P. Vol. 1, p. 174, last par. If this principle is kept in mind the harmony between the two sets of statements will become apparent. The separation of Elijah and Elisha does not represent the separation of the Little Flock and the Great Company from all standpoints; and, hence, does not represent the separation of every individual of the two classes. Rather, as Elijah represents the Little Flock as a class in its office as God's mouthpiece to Nominal Spiritual Israel and as Elisha, while they were together, represents the Great Company as an unmanifested class, as the former's prospective, and after their separation, as his actual successor in the office as God's mouthpiece toward Nominal Spiritual Israel, we are to expect the antitype of their separation to show, not how every individual would do in the separation, but how as a class the Great Company would gain the mantle, the power to be God's mouthpiece to Nominal Spiritual Israel, in connection with a separation between the classes as such. Since classes as such are referred to, and not all the individuals of each class, in the above-mentioned office, we are not to expect to have witnessed every individual of the Little Flock to be separated from every individual of the Great Company while the antitypical



separation of Elijah and Elisha was being enacted. We sought to point this out in the preceding paragraph. But what we ought to expect and what we did see in the antitype were the following: (1) the Little Flock as such losing controllership of the public work; (2) the Great Company as such gaining such controllership; (3) a class separation of the two classes; (4) an individual separation of many individuals of both classes; (5) a heart's disapproval of the course of the Great Company's leaders by many Little Flock individuals who had not yet separated themselves from association with the Society leaders and their work, i.e., an internal separation; (6) the bewilderment on the part of many Little Flock individuals gradually giving way to an understanding of the conditions and events on their being Scripturally explained to them; and (7) finally, and especially, a class fulfillment of every detail of the type. We have seen every one of these things. Hence, we know that the antitype of Elijah's and Elisha's separation has indeed and in truth occurred, though not yet completed in all individuals.


(73) In other types the Lord gives us other aspects of the separation between the Little Flock and the Great Company. The World's High Priest leading Azazel's Goat forth is one of these; another is the consecration of the Levites (Num. 8: 5-26) and the general description of them and their work as distinct from the Priests and their work (Num. 3: 4; 7: 1-9). In the former the World's High Priest is represented as resisting the errors of doctrine and practice in Azazel's Goat class—i.e., their revolutionism—and by such resistance forcing them into the fit man's hands. Only they who faithfully take part in this work, not temporarily, but unto a completion, are a part of the World's High Priest. Whoever ceases to do this unto a completion is not a part of the finished picture. The antitype of the High Priest leading forth Azazel's Goat



is not yet complete, but has been in process of enactment since late in November, 1916, beginning in Britain. Some of the High Priest's members have not yet knowingly partaken in the work of leading Azazel's Goat forth. Ultimately, all of them will so engage in this work, until it is completed. The type of the Levites, which brings out more of detailed aspect of the antitype, though not an individual one, is likewise now in process of fulfillment; but is not yet completed. When it is complete every individual Levite will be in his place and every individual Priest will be in his place, and each will be recognized as such. Hence, we cannot now positively assert in every case who is an antitypical Priest and who is an antitypical Levite. However, every new creature who is a revolutionist or an ardent partisan supporter of revolutionists is a Levite; for the priests, as the very Elect are neither Baal worshipers nor kissers (1 Kings 19: 18; Rom. 11: 4).


(74) But we imagine some will say that the writer was judging when he set forth the thought that the Society leaders and all new creatures who heartily cooperated with them in the division, beginning June 27, 1917, were manifested as Great Company members. Such who so object, base their exception on 1 Cor. 4: 5. We heartily agree with this passage. Its injunction should be obeyed. Whoever judges before the Lord reveals His judgment is disregarding the Lord's command here given, and will surely reap unhappy consequences for his presumption; but this passage does not forbid but commands announcing the Lord's judgment after He has brought to light the hidden things of darkness and made manifest the counsels of hearts (1 Cor. 4: 5). The course of a faithful child of God will be to wait on the manifestation of the Lord's judgment, and when the circumstances require that the Lord's manifested judgment be announced, then a faithful servant of God may make such announcement.



For let us not forget that in the judgment beginning at the house of God (1 Pet. 4: 17, 18), throughout the Parousia period of Christ's Second Advent, the Lord, by manifesting the counsels of the hearts and by bringing to light the hidden things of darkness, manifested the consecrated who retained the spirit of consecration on the one hand, and those who lost the spirit of consecration; and demonstrated thereby who are in the Second Death class. There were leaders among the Truth people who in harmony with this manifestation were proven, by renouncing the Ransom and their share in the Sin-Offering, to be of the Second Death class; and "that Servant" on not a few occasions mentioned these by name with the remark that they were of the Second Death class. By this course, he exercised no forbidden judging; for he waited until the Lord had made His judgment manifest. Likewise throughout this (the Parousia) period of the Lord's Second Advent, He manifested the difference between the nominal and real Church; and it, therefore, was no forbidden judging to announce that the nominal Church and all of her agents had ceased to be God's mouthpiece. Nor was it forbidden judgment in the smiting of Jordan to announce the judgments of Ps. 149: 5-9; for duty required it.


(75) Since about the time of "that Servant's" death we have been living in the Epiphany period of the Second Advent exclusively; and as during the Parousia period God manifested the ungodly, the Second Death class, of 1 Pet. 4: 18; Ps. 1: 1, so now He is manifesting the sinner, Great Company Class, of these verses. Before this manifestation had been clearly made, it would have been sinful to point out anyone as a member of the Great Company; and in harmony with this our Pastor faithfully warned us to refrain from judging, until the manifestation would come. It is now here; and because it is necessary for the safeguarding of the flock against the leaders who have been manifested