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


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


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



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


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


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



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


The first of these is connected with his anointing, which was performed by Elijah's throwing his mantle over him. The account shows that he was worldly-minded, somewhat like the man who wanted to delay following Jesus until his father died and was buried (Matt. 8: 21, 22). Elisha did not want to follow Elijah at once. He had first to satisfy his love for his parents and friends before he would follow Elijah, for which the latter rebuked him (1 Kings 19: 1921). How much like Lot (another picture of the Great Company, but from a different standpoint) Elisha was in this event! This story types the worldly-mindedness of the Great Company.


Next we meet Elisha in the experiences of 2 Kings 2: 16 and find him here set forth as separate and distinct from Elijah and contrasted with him (therefore not typing the same class). Elijah was not sorely tested at Gilgal, then at Bethel, and finally at Jericho, as was the case with Elisha. Antitypical Elisha here is pictured forth as having to exercise great effort amid siftings in order still to continue following after antitypical Elijah. Z. 1904, p. 252, and 253, etc., properly represent this as typing the fact that the brethren who are now in the Great Company were almost driven away from the Little Flock on account of the course the latter took, and were only, by dint of hard effort (typed by Elisha's oath, "as the Lord liveth, and as my



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



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


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


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



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


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



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


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


Further, he gives as another argument for his third



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


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



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


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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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


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



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


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


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



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


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



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


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


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



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


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



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


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


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



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


FAREWELL! thou glorious Tishbite seer,

Finished thy work beneath the sun,

In faith and hope do thou now hear

From God the pleasing words "well done."

Thine earthly line we do not know,

Nor yet the place thy childhood trod,

But what are blood and fame below

To him who is a man of God?


He who in every age finds men,

His righteous judgments to declare,



Found thee within some Gilead glen,

And nursed thee into greatness there.

He talked to thee through every brook

That bubbled near thy mountain home,

And wild winds of the gorges spoke

His prophecies of storms to come.


When idols stood on every hill,

And thronged the groves on every plain,

When they who would not worship Baal

Were driven from their homes or slain;

When all the prophets of the Lord

Sought lonely caves in which to dwell,

That there they might escape the sword

Of those who fought for Jezebel;


God locked the clouds and gave the key

That opened them into thy hand,

And Ahab heard, But by thy word

No dew nor rain shall bless this land.

At Cherith thou didst walk with him,

Else it had been a drear retreat,

And morn and eve the Orebim [ravens]

Supplied thy wants with bread and meat.


Sarepta's widow saw thy faith,

It added daily to her fare,

And when her son was cold in death,

He rose in answer to thy prayer:

And Israel saw thy victory won,

On Carmel that o'erlooks the sea,

When at the wending of the sun,

The Lord by fire answered thee.


And from their camp a shout arose

That made the rock-built mountain nod,

And dumb with terror struck thy foes—

"The Lord of heaven alone is God!"

Thy work is done—the desert sand

No more thy weary feet shall tread;

By Orebim nor angel hands

Not here again shalt thou be fed.