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

CHAPTER III.

 

THREE FALSE VIEWS ON ELIJAH

AND ELISHA.

 

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

 

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

 

156

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

 

The third paragraph of the article, to give a plausible time setting to the new view, claims, contrary to 1 Kings

19: 11 and Rev. 7: 1 (see Berean comments), that the World War was not "the wind" of Rev. 7: 1, but that it was the "whirlwind" of 2 Kings 2: 1, 11. We will quote the article, except the first three paragraphs and the last paragraph, and then offer some comments. This long quotation follows:

 

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

 

157

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

 

158

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

 

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

 

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

 

159

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

 

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

 

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

 

160

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

 

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

 

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

 

161

etc., represent the Little Flock and the Great Company; Nadab and Abihu, Jannes and Jambres, etc., the Second Death and Great Company sifters; Dathan and Abiram, Hophni and Phinehas (sons of Eli), etc., the clergy of the Papacy and Federation of Churches. And in cases where more than two men are used to represent The Christ, Jesus and no one else is represented by the head one and the Church by the others; e.g., the high priest and under-priests. Joshua and the Israelites, Gideon and the three hundred, etc. We never find in the Scriptures that the leaders in the Church are set forth as the Head and the others as the Body.

J.F. Rutherford in this matter follows the teachings of the Papacy, not those of the Bible. Doubtless he has unwittingly fallen into the error of teaching an Antichrist conception of The Christ, the Society's head corresponding to the Pope and the Society's body to the Catholic Church. Of course, he did not mean to do this; but this is what his erroneous view has led him to do.

 

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

 

162

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

 

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

 

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

 

163

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

164

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

 

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

 

165

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

 

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

S. A., though

 

166

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

 

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

 

167

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

 

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

 

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

 

168

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

 

169

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

 

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

 

God's people are peaceably inclined; nor do they

 

170

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

 

171

retain most of the Restitution truths that he has learned.

 

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

 

172

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

 

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

 

173

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

 

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

 

174

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

 

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