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




2 Chro. 21: 1-20.




IN THE first chapter we called attention to the fact that in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles Judah's kings who come in contact with the kings of Israel, if Elijah or Elisha take part in such contact, type America from the standpoint of certain policies, while the kings of Israel type Europe from the standpoint of certain policies. Thus, while in 1 Kings 22: 440, Jehoshaphat types Britain as an Aristocracy, in 1 Kings 22: 41-53 and 2 Kings 1: 17; 3: 6-27, Jehoshaphat types America from the standpoint of maintaining the policies of freedom according to the law, of equality before the law, of the Monroe doctrine and of benevolent help of allied Europe, while Ahaziah of Israel types Europe consisting of various states acting more or less independently of one another, and Jehoram of Israel represents Europe allied in a concert of powers. From the fact that in 2 Kings and 2 Chro. Judah represents America and Israel represents Europe when Elijah deals with either of them and when Elisha deals with both of them (Elisha dealing with Israel alone, without Judah being in the picture, represents the Society adherents dealing with Christendom, either American or European as the connection would show), we conclude that as God favored Judah above Israel because of the former's great loyalty



to Him, so God has favored America above Europe because the former has held and practiced more Divinely pleasing political principles than Europe has. The political principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution of the United States are, apart from Divine inspiration, the nearest approach to the Divine ideals of governmental axioms for the human family organized nationally. Indeed, apart from the constitution that God gave through Moses to Israel, the governmental principles of the United States are the greatest and best ever held by any nation. And because America has been in the main true to these principles, she has been God's favorite among modern nations. Her whole history demonstrates God's favor to have rested upon her. Indeed the Bible speaks of America as being under the shadow, protection, of God's wings (Is. 18: 1).


(2) Our reason for believing that Jehoshaphat in 1 Kings 22: 41-53 and 2 Kings 1: 17; 3: 6-27 and Jehoram in 2 Chro. 21 are typical, is due to their being presented in connection with Elijah and Elisha, two undoubted types. We have repeatedly pointed out that Elijah types the faithful Church, both from Jesus' direct statement (Matt.

11: 14; see both Revised Versions) and from His identifying as type and antitype Jezebel, the persecutor of Elijah, with the Roman Catholic Church, the persecutor of the Faithful Church (Rev. 2: 20-23). We have also shown in the preceding chapter that Elisha is a type of that part of the Great Company which adheres to the Society. These typical persons, acting toward Jehoshaphat and Jehoram, are therefore in these acts typical; hence Jehoshaphat and Jehoram, being connected with these typical acts, must in them have taken a typical part. The fulfillment of 2 Kings 3 having taken place, as we will show later, we can see from the fulfilled facts that in that chapter Jehoshaphat types America; Jehoram of Israel, the European Allies; Edom, Conservative



Labor; Moab, the Central Powers; Elisha, the Society Adherents; the war between the typical powers, the World War; the distress of the opponents of Moab, the distress of the Allies, especially in the first half of 1918; Elisha's prophesying of victory against Moab, the Society adherents' forecasting, especially during their 1918 Passover Convention at Brooklyn, the Allied victory over the Central Powers. The facts of the case proved that Jehoshaphat in these events types the United States as benevolently and unselfishly helping the Allies against the Central Powers. From these facts we construe that the kings of Judah connected with Elijah and Elisha type America from various standpoints.


(3) In 2 Chro. 21: 12-15, the fact of Elijah's sending a letter to Jehoram of Judah and the letter itself are set forth. Because Elijah is a typical person we construe that the letter is typical, and that Jehoram is also typical; and that in harmony with the principles set forth above, he types the American Government, from a different aspect, however, from Jehoshaphat. From this letter we also infer that typical allusions are made to Ahab and his sons. These from their relations to Jezebel we also construe must be typical (see Chapter I, Elijah—Type and Antitype, on Ahab and Benhadad, etc.). Asa and Jehoshaphat for the former reason must likewise be considered typical. As we have already shown in the articles just referred to, Ahab types autocratic Europe; Ahaziah, nationally independent Europe; and Jehoram of Israel, allianced Europe. While Ahab, Ahaziah and Jehoram reigned in Israel, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram and Ahaziah reigned in Judah. Having already seen that the three kings of Israel just mentioned respectively represent autocratic Europe, nationally independent Europe, and allied Europe, it would be in order to state



the typical significance of Asa, Jehoshaphat and Jehoram of Judah.


(4) We understand that Asa represents America in isolation from alliances and associations with Europe, standing for liberty according to, and equality before, the law and for the Monroe doctrine, Latin America from this viewpoint antityping Benjamin, the consort of Judah; that Jehoshaphat types America standing for liberty according to, and equality before, the law and for the Monroe doctrine in benevolent association with Europe from 1861 onward; and that Jehoram represents America reactionary, following, in attenuated ways, the policies of Europe, autocratic, nationally independent and allianced. Ahaziah of Judah types America autocratic, pursuing a self-centered and co-operative policy toward Europe. The Asa aspect of America covers the period from the beginning of the Revolution until that of the Civil War. From the latter time until just before the Armistice, Nov. 11, 1918, the Jehoshaphat aspect was predominant; and from just before the Armistice, the Jehoram aspect of America became predominant, this policy ending with the Hoover administration. But as Jehoram was his father's coregent (see Chapter II of this book) for about seven years; so the Jehoram policies began to work while the Jehoshaphat aspect was predominant, i.e., during Mr. Cleveland's administration. In 1894 for the first time agitations were here begun for America to join Europe in a peace organization, which during Mr. McKinley's administration came into being at the Hague Conference of nations in 1899, and which functioned as the Hague Court for Arbitration of International Differences. This spirit of mixing in European affairs increased apace under the Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson administrations until, just shortly before the Armistice, it became the dominant American policy toward Europe. This is plainly to be seen in Mr. Wilson's involving America in many ways in



European affairs. And while his most extreme policies failed of realization, unquestionably America was by him, and since his second administration has continued to be, very greatly involved in European affairs and, sad to say, in more or less of Europe's spirit.


(5) The above gives briefly the general setting, type and antitype, of certain kings of Israel and Judah. We desire now to enter into the typical particulars set forth in 2 Chro.

21: 1-20 and to see their antitypes.


(6) In the first verse the death of Jehoshaphat is set forth. His death represents, not the thought that equality before, and liberty according to, the law, the Monroe doctrine and benevolent intervention in European affairs have ceased to exist; but rather that they have ceased to be America's predominating policies. Jehoram's accession to the throne (v. 1) represents reactionary America's selfishly and unwisely intervening in Europe's affairs and attenuatedly acting out European policies unto their becoming the predominant American policy toward Europe. David (v. 1), also here, represents the Christ class, the city of David being the Church as a religious government. Funerals and burials are held to honor the dead. Therefore Jehoshaphat's burial in the city of David types the fact that the Jehoshaphat aspect of America after having ceased to be the predominant American policy was nevertheless honored by the true Church as standing for policies of which the Kingdom embryo can, generally speaking, approve for human affairs under the curse. For Jehoshaphat to sleep and to be buried with his fathers (v. 1) types the fact that such policies are honored with those exemplified in antitypical Asa, etc.


(7) In verse 2 the six brothers of Jehoram, the sons of Jehoshaphat, are mentioned. It will be noticed that two of them had the same name—Azariah. It will also be recalled that Mary, our Lord's mother, had a sister by the name of Mary (John 19: 25). From these



facts we note that, unlike our Christian usage, among the Hebrews they sometimes gave two children in a family the same name. It will be also noted that v. 2 calls Jehoshaphat the king of Israel, whereas he was Judah's king, Ahab, Ahaziah and Jehoram occupying the throne of Israel during Jehoshaphat's reign in Judah. How then may the latter be called the king of Israel? We reply, in an accommodated sense—because during the time of his alliances with Ahab and Jehoram he had more power in Israel than the above-named kings of Israel had. And why is this peculiar title given him in this verse? We opine that it was done to point to the antitype—that there would come a time in the Jehoshaphat aspect of America when America would have more influence in Europe than European governments themselves. This began just before America entered the World War and lasted up to the Armistice. The Allies would do almost anything America desired in order to get America into the war on their side. And after America entered the war her word both with the Allies and with the Central Powers counted more than that of all the others. It is this fact that made the Jehoshaphat aspect of America a symbolic king—a powerful ruler—in Europe, antitypical of Jehoshaphat being called the king of Israel.


(8) But what do the six brothers of Jehoram (v. 2) represent? We reply, the six language groups of the European Allies. There are just ten language groups in Europe—Greek, Turkish, Slavic, Magyar, Scandinavian, English, Hispanic, French, Germanic and Italian. These ten language groups are prophetically referred to as ten symbolic men in Zech. 8: 23: "Ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the [European] nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, etc." This prophecy we understand began to be fulfilled when all the European peoples at the Berlin Congress of nations in 1878 accepted



the Palestinian policies and powers advocated by Disraeli, a Christian Jew and the Premier of Britain, and has since continued to be fulfilled. There were over twenty nations that took part in that conference; but they all belonged to the above-mentioned ten language groups. The expression, "ten men … out of all languages of the [European] nations," we, therefore, understand to mean the ten language groups of European peoples. On the allied side there were just six language groups of Europeans; English, Hispanic (Portugal as Britain's ally), French (France and Belgium), Italian, Greek and Slavic (Russia, Rumania, Serbia and Montenegro). These six language groups we understand to be represented by Jehoram's six brothers. In the Jehoshaphat aspect America could be called their father; for in that aspect America fathered—cared for, in part provided for, and rendered support to, the six allied language groups; while in the Jehoram aspect, sad to say, it has, doubtless unwittingly, acted the part, not of a helpful father, but of a selfish and injurious brother.


(9) V. 3 gives more details of what America as antitypical Jehoshaphat did to the European Allies. In the symbols of the Bible gold represents that which is Divine; silver, the Truth; and precious things, characteristics in harmony with Divine Truth (1 Cor. 3: 11-15). The Divine truths on international relations that America gave the Allies are typed by the gold and silver that Jehoshaphat gave his six sons—such truths as international justice, trust, friendship and beneficence as against the injustice, suspicion, enmity and rivalry which characterized the international relations of Europe; while the good characteristics that the Allies acquired as a result of these truths are represented by the precious things that Jehoshaphat gave his six sons. E.g., it was America's insistence that moved Britain to exercise the humility toward, and confidence in, France necessary to accept a French



Field Marshal as commander-in-chief of the Allied armies, and moved all the Allies to show more of the milk of human kindness in place of implacability toward their foes. By the fenced cities (v. 3) governmental powers exercised by the Allies in America seem to be typed. E.g., the Allies were permitted to establish recruiting stations in America— a governmental privilege never before granted a foreign nation by America. Various of the Allied Commissions— purchasing commission, propaganda commissions, etc.— were also officially stationed in, and recognized by, America. These seem to be the antitypical fenced cities— American sanctioned governmental powers exercised in America by the Allied Powers. The giving of the kingdom, not to any of the six brothers, but to Jehoram, types the fact that America did not commit her dominant policies to all or any of the Allied European nations, but to herself, and that in a course differing from what was typed by Jehoshaphat.


(10) V. 4: The rising up of antitypical Jehoram to the kingdom, i.e., to dominancy of the policies—reactionism— typed by Jehoram, set in with the advocacy of President Wilson's Fourteen Points and his advocacy of a League of Nations, which things he immediately sought to foist on a more or less unwilling Europe. The principles of these Fourteen Points were essentially good; but they were far too idealistic for Europe's political ideals, training and situation. Because of their more or less hypocritical pretentions of standing for Democracy, the Allies prepared in part the way for President Wilson, who accepted their democratic professions as thoroughly honest, to formulate and to seek to foist the Fourteen Points and a League of Nations on reluctant Europe. His Fourteen Points and his consequent ideals on a League of Nations—theories, the sword of v. 4—were based upon the assumption that the ideal institutions of Democracy operating so well in the American states individually,



and collectively as the United States, are adapted to all nations individually, and collectively in a League of Nations. These were most serious and costly errors, not only contradictory of reason and facts, but also of Scripture. God, who has arranged for each nation (Rom. 13: 1-7) that form of government best adapted to its political ideals, development and condition, wisely did not arrange for all nations, individually or collectively to have so highly a developed form of government as America in its individual states and as a whole, i.e., as the United States; because to backward nations such democratic institutions would be fatal. Therefore He arranged that some nations, because of their extreme backwardness in political ideals, development and condition, should have an absolute monarchial form of government, as Russia, Turkey, etc., had; that some nations, because not quite so backward in these respects, should have a limited monarchy, as Germany, Austria, etc., had; that other nations, rather progressive in their political ideals, development and condition, should have a semi-democratic government, as Britain, Japan, etc., have; that more progressive nations in these respects should have an almost pure democracy, as France, Switzerland, etc., have; and that the most progressive nations in these respects should have a pure democracy, as America has. It is proper, therefore, from the standpoint of God's "ordinance"—arrangement—in this matter, if moral suasion fails, for a nation that has outgrown the form of government once well adapted to its (at present) outgrown condition, to institute a revolution against that outgrown form of government. Hence it was not only right before man, but also before God, for our forefathers to revolutionize against Britain and to establish here a government of, for and by the people.


(11) It is a Divinely, as well as a humanly true principle that governments derive their powers from the



consent of the governed; for a nation is a mutual political association of many kindred people for their common political interests. God, therefore, arranged that those who consent to an absolute monarchy should have it, that those who consent to a limited monarchy should have it, that those who consent to a semi-democracy should have it, that those who consent to an almost pure democracy should have it, and that those who consent to a pure democracy should have it. And whoever attempts to set aside this very wise governmental arrangement of the Almighty heaps, to the degree that his influence in this particular extends, not only guilt upon himself, but also evil consequences upon himself and others. There is no doubt that the application of the Fourteen Points to all nations or even to all European nations grossly infringed against this ordinance of God. There is also no doubt that the idea of a League of Nations, not simply the form that the League of Nations has taken, militates against this ordinance of God; and therefore both are condemnable as against Scripture, Reason and Facts.


(12) While President Wilson fathered the Fourteen Points and the idea of a League of Nations, he was undoubtedly supported in these two particulars by the vast majority of the American people. None will deny that America as a nation upheld him in his theories on these matters before the Peace Conference assembled. Nor will anyone deny that his advocacy of these theories in Europe, in disparagement of European governmental arrangements and against the views of European statesmen, and that the popular European approval given to certain of his political doctrines on these matters, met the approval of the bulk of the American people. The latter's revolt against the Peace Treaty and the League of Nations, developed by European chicanery, does not alter the fact that Americans generally advocated for the world the Fourteen Points and a League of Nations. Such advocacy has



from a number of standpoints had fatal consequences for Europe. It greatly dissatisfied the masses in most European countries with their forms of government, leading to the frequent and general overthrow of all European ministries and to frequent and ineffective revolutions and governmental experiments not adapted to the European needs and conditions. These conditions have indirectly resulted in dictatorships in some countries; and such advocacy has indirectly produced a League of Nations that, when not impotent, is usually mischievous, and is to blame in part for Europe's unsettled condition, time and again rending asunder its member nations, and has very much cooled America's friendliness toward Europe. This advocacy has directly and indirectly produced such unrest, dissatisfaction, distrust, unsatisfiable aspirations, friction and tension as to have slowly been killing the European nations. To this advocacy, therefore, the chaos now reigning in Europe is in part due. The bulk of the American people, supporting these two things, which are reactionary as to American principles and policies, e.g., the principle of consent of the governed and the policy of our national isolation, are, therefore, responsible for Europe's bleeding to death, to the extent that, their course in this matter contributes to this result. And Jehoram's killing his six brothers and certain princes of Israel (not Judah) with a sword types America Reactionary, with the theories of the Fourteen Points and of a League of Nations, bringing the above-mentioned fatal results upon the Allies, consisting of the six language groups, and upon other European nations-the antitypical Israelitish princes of v. 4—e.g., Spain, Holland, etc.


(13) V. 5: If there is anything typical in Jehoram's age at the time of his ascension to the throne of Judah and at the time of his death and in the length of his co-reign of seven years and of his sole reign of



eight years, it is not known to the writer, though these reigns type what was said above.


(14) V. 6: This and v. 12 show that Jehoram forsook the example of his grandfather Asa and of his father Jehoshaphat, who did not walk in the ways of the Ahabic kings of Israel. The chief wrongs of the house of Ahab were, in Ahab and Ahaziah, Baal worship, exploitation and oppression of the common people in the interests of royalty, aristocracy and a heathen priesthood, Ahab's Divinely prohibited marriage and submissiveness to the heathen Jezebel, his persecuting the true religion and its mouthpieces at his wife's instigation, and upholding imperialism and rivalrous nationalism with their involved evils. In these wrongs Jehoram of Israel did not imitate his father and brother (2 Kings 3: 2); yet in some of their wrongs he walked—worshiped the two golden calves that Jeroboam had set up (2 Kings 3: 3; 1 Kings 12: 28-33). We are told that Jehoram of Judah followed after the wrongs of all three of these kings of Israel (v. 6). He did these things, however, in more attenuated forms than did the house of Ahab. In these matters he was typical of Reactionary America, even as Ahab, Ahaziah and Jehoram, (of Israel) in these matters type Europe from the above-mentioned three standpoints. As we have already explained, the worship of Baal (lord, i.e., Satan) represents serving—a conscious or unconscious advancing of the interests of—Satan by imitating him in grasping for power and lording it over others, i.e., usurpatory autocracy. Certainly Europe as a whole (antitypical Ahab) and in her independent states individually (antitypical Ahaziah) has been guilty of usurpatory autocracy times without number. So, too, has Europe from these two standpoints exploited and oppressed the common people in the interests of royalty, aristocracy and a heathenized priesthood; for the Greek and Roman Catholic priesthoods are heathen counterfeits of the



true priesthood. So, too, from both of these standpoints has there been a Divinely prohibited union of Church and State in Europe, accompanied with a Divinely prohibited submission of the State to the Church. So, too, from both standpoints at the behest of the Church has Europe persecuted the Lord's Truth, His faithful mouthpieces and their supporters. Likewise, from both standpoints has Europe been guilty of imperialism, rivalrous nationalism and all the wrongs that spring out of these evils, such as wars, unjust annexations, hypocritical diplomacy, financial cut-throatery, dog-in-the-manger tactics, envious overreaching, conquest, oppression of the vanquished, revenge, etc. The worship of the two golden calves of Jeroboam types Europe's submission to Sectarianism and Clericalism—based on two sets of supposedly Divine (golden) principles (creedal idols)—with all the wrongs springing out of such evils—wars, unjust annexations, hypocritical diplomacy, financial cut-throatery, dog-in-themanger tactics, envious overreaching, conquest, oppression of the vanquished, revenge, etc. These are the main sins of Europe from the three standpoints typed by the three kings of the Ahab dynasty.


(15) We are not to think that Reactionism in America ever showed or ever will show the extremes of wrong in the above-mentioned particulars of Europe's wrong-doing; for Jehoram of Judah did not go to the extremes of Ahab's house, neither will America Reactionary, the antitype, go to the extremes of Europe, the antitype of Ahab's house. But there has been more or less of wrongs in these respects. There was considerable of autocracy in some of Mr. Roosevelt's and Mr. Taft's executive orders against which as un-American many raised their voices at the time. But it was especially Mr. Wilson who was autocratic in not a few respects. Even his best friends bewailed the fact that he lived apart from others, that he would



not accept suggestions, and that he frequently refused to even entertain them; but self-opinionatedly sought to carry out his own will. His frequent coercive pressure upon Congress, a co-ordinate branch of our government machinery, smacked of the same quality. His snubbing and dictatorial course toward the Senate as to the League of Nations and the peace treaty, as well as his dictatorial demands in the peace negotiations, were autocratic. One of the main reasons for the overwhelming defeat of his party at the polls was his autocracy. Some of the executive orders of the kindly Mr. Harding and Mr. Hoover were somewhat autocratic, e.g., their ousting contrary to the civil service rules large numbers of Democratic government employees "for the good of the service" is a symptom of the same disease. Such autocracy is antitypical Baal worship. There is no doubt but that Reactionary America has favored Big Politicians, Big Business and Churchianity (in matters of taxation, etc.) as against the common people and the poor—a thing that is in spirit related to, though not so bad as, Europe's exploiting and oppressing the poor and the common people in the interests of royalty, aristocracy and priestcraft.


(16) During the World War Christian conscientious objectors were frequently imprisoned and tortured, resulting in death to a number of persons, to force them against their religious convictions to engage in combatant service, from which the law expressly exempted such conscientious objectors. This was done against not a few Mennonites, Seventh Day Baptists, Seventh Day Adventists, Bible Students, etc., and the Clergy as a rule put the weight of their influence against these conscientious Christians by their war advocacy and their denunciation of all who opposed combatant service, and thus encouraged in their evil course those who tortured and sent to prison these saintly men. In this the Clergy acted in a measure of



Papacy's spirit as an instigator and supporter of persecution, and those officials who ordered those imprisonments and those tortures acted in the spirit of European officials who imprisoned, tortured and put saints to death. There is no doubt that since the war with Spain, America has imitated in an attenuated form "Europe's imperialism," which accounts for America, the land of the free, now having "possessions." There is also no doubt that Mr. Wilson involved America in European national rivalries, which even yet prompt America more or less to take sides on various European questions with the Allies, even when she disapproves of their extreme and grinding measures against their vanquished foes, though we rejoice that she has sought to modify their severity. The working cooperation between statesmen and politicians on the one hand and of the Catholic Clergy on the other begun under Cleveland, furthered increasingly under Roosevelt and Taft, and brought to a climax under Wilson, strongly smacks of a union of Church and State, and is contrary to the United States' Constitution.


(17) So, too, has America Reactionary—antitypical Jehoram of Judah—in an attenuated form walked in the ways of antitypical Jehoram of Israel—Allianced Europe, especially in its allied aspect, is antitypical Jehoram, as the fulfilled facts of 2 Kings 3 prove. America's co-operating through her peace commissioners with the Allies in making the various peace treaties after the war, has made her in part responsible for those peace treaties, despite the fact that she has rejected these treaties and has negotiated somewhat different ones. She almost always threw her influence on the side of the Allies' demands as against the Central Powers, even though disapproving of the galling measures of the Allies. This made her participate more or less in Europe's rivalries, and co-operate with the Allies in many of their injustices toward the vanquished. She frequently protested against their



injustices, but later accepted them as accomplished facts, and worked along with the Allies in accepting them as accomplished facts, as can be seen from her co-operating with them as to conditions resulting from the partition of Eastern and Western Germany under French manipulations. As long as America works on the side of antitypical Jehoram of Israel, so long will she walk in his ways—in the ways of antitypical Ahab's house, and participate in its spirit and guilt.


(18) But one may ask, how did Jehoram of Judah come to walk in the ways of Ahab's house? V. 6 tells us that it was due to his having the daughter of Ahab, Athaliah, as his wife. Whenever any of Napoleon's officers would go wrong, he would immediately inquire, "Who was the woman in the case?" While this was an unjust slap at every good woman whose husband or friend had gone wrong, there was much pertinence in the remark as respects bad women. The evil that bad women have induced men to commit makes up a large amount of the wrongs committed in history. Jezebel, Athaliah, Ahab's daughter and Jehoram's wife, Herodias and Salome are striking examples of evil women who have induced their husbands and others to go wrong. Athaliah, according to v. 6, stirred up Jehoram to walk in her father's and brothers' ways. All of this is also typical. We understand that Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab, types the American Roman Catholic Church. In harmony with Biblical usage the American Roman Catholic Church can be called the daughter of antitypical Ahab, because as a national church of the Roman Catholic persuasion she is a daughter—a part—of antitypical Jezebel, antitypical Ahab's wife, even as the national branches of the Catholic Church are typed by the various sons of Simeon, while Simeon was used to type Roman Catholics and their Church, as we will show in another connection. She may also be called the daughter of antitypical Ahab because she is the product of



the Divinely prohibited union of State and Church in Europe—the offspring of antitypical Ahab and Jezebel. From Cleveland's, increasingly from Roosevelt's and Taft's, and culminatively from Wilson's administration on, the American Catholic Church was favored by statesmen and politicians in America. The expression, "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion," used in an address by a minister at a reception given Mr. Blaine during his campaign against Mr. Cleveland, turned the Catholics into voting in Mr. Cleveland's favor, which resulted in his election to the presidency. Since that time politicians and statesmen have bowed to the Catholic Church. They have co-operated in many ways and have vied with one another in winning her favor and support. In return for such favors and in expectation of others, she had given support to her helpers. While there is not a legal union of this Church and America, there is a working understanding, between statesmen and politicians on the one hand and the American Catholic Church on the other hand, amounting to a symbolic marriage, antitypical of the union and cooperation of Jehoram and Athaliah.


(19) But one may ask, How has the American Catholic Church made America reactionary and imitative of Europe's bad ways? The answer lies on the surface. The Roman Catholic Church is in spirit un-American; it is in spirit European in the bad sense of the term, reactionary, autocratic, sectarian and rivalrous in the extreme. It is Rome's history, doctrines, practices and organization that make Rome un-American. They breathe the spirit of reactionism, autocracy, sectarianism and rivalism; hence their votaries are impregnated with reactionism, autocracy, sectarianism and rivalism, and impregnate others with their spirit. In many ways Rome has been seeking to "get America." She has taught her children the doctrine of the union of Church and State, to profess a hypocritical appreciation of American institutions, to vote



for whom and what the Church favors; she puts her dependables into public office, and at all strategic points, works through her orders, clubs, etc., to win converts and to advance her policies, enters political bargains, compels recognition on the part of public officials, exacts favors from officials, works for the overthrow of all opposition, dominates news and information-dispensing agencies, secures financial support from the civil authorities for certain of her works, encourages Roman Catholic immigration and seeks domination of educational agencies. By these means she has introduced a spirit into America far removed from that for which our country stood during the first hundred years after the Declaration of Independence.


(20) In the above-mentioned ways Rome has impregnated vast numbers with reactionism, autocracy, sectarianism (which she seeks to break up in Protestantism as inimical to her) and rivalism. With the majority of civil offices in her hands she has, through dominating her children who hold these offices, virtually united Church and State; and she "makes" the politicians and statesmen respond to her demands. We, therefore, charge the American Roman Catholic Church (acting, of course, on orders from the Roman Pontiff) with having made America reactionary, autocratic, sectarian and rivalrous. It is this spirit begotten, born, nursed and grown large and strong by Rome, that has made America apostatize from those righteous phases of policy typed by righteous Asa and Jehoshaphat, and espouse and practice the policies typed by the wicked Jehoram in his imitating the ways of Ahab's house, led thereto by Athaliah, the wicked daughter of the wicked Ahab and Jezebel, the wicked sister of the wicked Ahaziah and Jehoram of Israel, the wicked wife of the wicked Jehoram of Judah and the wicked murderess of all but one of his and her grandchildren. This is the reason why this noble



country with its noble institutions has drifted into wrong ways against its cherished ideals.


(21) V. 7: It is wholly owing to the fact that many Divinely favored principles are still operative in America, principles of which the antitypical "David"—God's Faithful—can approve, and which still occasion them better opportunities to serve the Lord here than in any other land on earth, that in harmony with God's covenant with them God has refrained from destroying America Reactionary. It would already have been put aside by the Lord—"destroy the house [America] of David," if it were not for God's covenant with the David class to give them the Truth ("the light") and conditions in which to hold it up unto a completion ("forever") of their ministry—their work toward Azazel's Goat. As v. 7 teaches, God's covenant to these to enable them to complete their Divinely ordained work is the reason for His holding back from America Reactionary wrath that will come in the symbolic earthquake. Thus the Little Flock here proves to be the salt of the earth and the stayer of the second phase of the Great Tribulation in order to the completion of her work toward Azazel's Goat—her last general work on earth—just as the first phase of the trouble—the World War—was kept from each pertinent country until all the Elect were there first sealed in their foreheads (Rev. 7: 1-3).


So far we have covered the first seven verses of 2 Chron. 21. We therefore continue our study of the rest of 2 Chron. 21 on Jehoram of Judah, beginning with v. 8. The fulfilled facts of 2 Kings 3 prove that Edom represents Conservative Labor, as will be shown later. There can be no doubt that during the war Conservative Labor in the allied and associated countries strongly supported the latter against the Central Powers. We recall how after the Central Powers were failing in 1918, they unsuccessfully sought, and that in antitype of 2 Kings 3: 26, through a Labor



conference that they staged at Stockholm, Sweden, to undermine by pacifistic and socialistic theories the steadfastness of Conservative Labor toward the allied side. But Conservative Labor, led by Mr. Gompers in America and Mr. MacDonald in Britain, with likeminded and like-acting associates in other allied countries, seeing through the scheme, successfully opposed the purpose of the Central Powers. Not only did Conservative Labor support the allied side during the war, but in America for nearly four years after the war, as can be seen from Mr. Gompers' activity as its head. But the course of the American government in the summer of 1922 in connection with the American railroad shopmen's and the miners' strikes, especially in securing the injunction against Labor's illegal acts in the railroad shopmen's strikes and in those of their supporters, changed American Conservative Labor's attitude toward America Reactionary from a friendly into a hostile one. This change of attitude is typed by the Edomites revolting against Jehoram (v. 8). The King of Edom in 2 Kings 3: 9-12 types Conservative Labor as friendly and helpful to the allied and associated Powers; but the king that they elected when they revolted (v. 8) types American Conservative Labor as oppositional to America Reactionary. The memory of American Conservative Labor's resentment especially at the government's applying for and getting the injunction, which broke the backbone of the strike, is fresh in everybody's mind; and like all other genuine antitypes the above-given events most clearly correspond with their picture in v. 8. Certainly this symbolic revolt has occurred "in his [antitypical Jehoram's] days" in which we were from 1918 to 1933.


(23) V. 9 types the course of the American government during this strike. The parallel passage in 2 Kings 8: 21 adds two particulars, not mentioned in this verse, which throw additional light on the antitype.