Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
It adds the thoughts (1) that Jehoram "passed over to Zair" and (2) that "the people fled to their tents." We will find that these additions give increased scope for the antitype. Zair means littleness, insignificance, and is used to type the comparatively trivial acts complained of in the injunction suit as justifying the issuance of that injunction. The shopmen, refusing to accept the reduction in wages ordered by the government Labor Board, went on a strike. The miners, unable to agree with the operators on wages, etc., likewise went on a strike. Our national President sought by conferences to mediate between the pertinent leaders of Capital and Labor, but failed in his efforts, because of the non-conciliatory attitude of these leaders. For awhile events and conditions were strongly favorable to a Labor victory over the reactionary policy of the government and its representatives ["the Edomites … compassed him about and the captains of his chariots"] but as often happens in such strikes, a number of illegal acts were committed by the strikers, such as obstructing the transportation of mails and the necessities of life and committing acts of violence. These estranged from Labor a reactionary President, his cabinet officers and other influential advisors [the antitypical "captains"], the governmental commissions and departments—the Interstate Commerce Commission, as well as the Labor Board, the Cabinet, etc. [the antitypical "chariots"]. Jehoram's delivering a night attack ["he rose up by night and smote the Edomites"] types the secret working of anti-labor maneuvers on the part of the government. No one outside of inner government circles dreamed that the President, who with so much appearance of impartiality and conciliatoriness was seeking by many conferences to arbitrate between the contending parties, was having his Attorney General prepare such injunction petitions as, if granted, could not do otherwise than give the strike a death blow. The
application for an injunction with such sweeping petitions as the one in question contained was like a bolt of lightning out of a clear sky. And additionally, it certainly "smote" the antitypical Edomites—the Laborers—and certainly the latter were beaten and fled from the field of combat, submitting to the capitalists' terms ["and the people fled to their tents," 2 Kings 8: 21].
(24) V. 10 indicates the result of this historical episode. Judah was successful in escaping defeat at Edom's hands, but lost rulership henceforth over Edom, never again to regain it. So in the antitype, Conservative American Labor is implacably set against governmental reactionism. No more did one hear Mr. Gompers and his associates loudly advocating support of our government as he and they did so effectively from 1917 to 1922. On the contrary, Labor became sullen, oppositional, bitter and on the alert to smite governmental reactionism. Nor will this attitude change before the symbolic earthquake. On the contrary, Conservative Labor will continue in this frame of mind with corresponding actions until that symbolic earthquake in which as the antitypical Jehu it will throw its whole strength against the government. "So the Edomites revolted from under the hand [power] of Judah unto this day"—the time of Ezra, hundreds of years later.
(25) Additionally, v. 10 and 2 Kings 8: 22 speak of another revolt: "Then Libnah revolted at the same time" "from under his hand [power]; because he had forsaken the Lord God of his fathers." Libnah was a city of Judah and was assigned to the priests as a dwelling place (Josh. 21: 13; 1 Chro. 6: 57). Its being the abode of priests types the fact that its antitype is an abode of antitypical priests. The word Libnah means whiteness, brightness, transparency, and is the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek word epiphaneia, which we frequently use in its English form, Epiphany.
Libnah represents the Epiphany-Enlightened Saints as a religious government or community. As such, their work has the characteristic of manifesting clearly certain persons, principles and things that are revolutionary against God's teachings and arrangements, whether these persons, principles and things are connected with Truth Levites or Nominal Church Levites in their religious or political activities. These saints have continually resented and opposed such revolutionisms; and just as their types, the priests of Libnah, revolted against Jehoram of Judah, because he had forsaken the Lord God of his fathers, so have the Epiphany-Enlightened Saints resented and opposed governmental reactionism in America, because it has in practice forsaken certain Divinely approved principles of government: Liberty according to, and equality before, the law, isolation from Europe's politics, and help of European need, and has on the contrary followed certain Divinely disapproved principles. To give up Divinely approved principles and to practice Divinely disapproved principles are, of necessity, apostasy from God. The facts that we cited above proving that these two things have been done by governmental reactionism in America demonstrate that America Reactionary has apostatized from the Lord in these respects—and that contrary to the historic policies of the country since 1775. Hence, faithful antitypical Libnah's revolt.
(26) The Epiphany-Enlightened Saints have felt this resentment for a number of years, and began to exercise opposition to governmental reactionism here since September, 1922, when antitypical John's Rebuke was first begun to be given. Such opposition has been continued in Elijah's Letter. Not only did John rebuke Herod for his sinful union with Herodias (first part of Luke 3: 19), but also for all his other wrongs (last part of Luke 3: 19). The antitype of the former activity is what we usually designate as antitypical John's Rebuke, and the antitype of both activities is what
we usually call antitypical Elijah's Letter. As corroborating the correctness of our setting of these things please note the correspondence of the time coincidences of the types and of the antitypes. Libnah's revolt is in 2 Kings 8: 22 by the two time expressions, "then" and "at the same time," shown to have occurred while Edom's revolt was going on. The two strikes symptomatic of antitypical Edom's revolt began in the Spring and culminated in the Fall of 1922. Antitypical John's Rebuke began to go forth late in the Summer of 1922—"then," "at the same time" or period. This time agreement, like every thing else in Jehoram of Judah—type and antitype—as we view it, proves that our view of the subject is correct. Surely the Lord has given us the understanding of this matter, as He has also done with the other features of the Epiphany Truth.
(27) V. 11 gives what seems to be the worst wrong of Jehoram—type and antitype. High places were shrines with altars for sacrifice, built upon hills and mountains, and in Israel were of two kinds: those which were erected for sacrifice to Jehovah, apart from the tabernacle and later the temple, and those that were erected for sacrifices to heathen gods. Both kinds were forbidden, especially the latter, God requiring the people to sacrifice to Him only, through the priests at the tabernacle and, after its building, at the temple. The high places devoted to heathen gods usually had obscene and unchaste acts connected with their use as an integral part of their religious services. This made them all the more depraving in their influence on those who worshiped at these shrines, and led to their being all the more vehemently denounced by the Lord through His prophets. In times and places of apostasy, of oppression by foreign nations and of the division of Israel into two kingdoms true Israelites as a general experience were hindered from bringing their sacrifice to the tabernacle or the temple; and in their
cases and those of individual prophets under Divine inspiration, the Lord permitted the use of altars and high places for sacrifice to Him, and accepted the sacrifices offered thereon, apart from the Levitical priesthood and the tabernacle or temple, as appears from Gideon's, Manoah's, Elijah's, Samuel's, David's, etc., sacrifices. But these were on account of exceptional cases, circumstances, times and places, i.e., it being impossible to reach the Levitical priesthood and altar, or these men being inspired by the Lord to these exceptional acts, typical of the course of the Faithful during the days of the Gospel-Age apostasy when the Church was scattered among the various denominations. All other cases came under the prohibition of the Mosaic law on this subject.
(28) The high places mentioned in v. 11 were evidently such as were used for worship of, and sacrifice to, heathen gods; because obscene and unchaste acts were committed in connection with them ["he caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit fornication and compelled Judah thereto"]. As the tabernacle and the temple type the true Church, and the Lord's altar represents the Lord's people, so the heathen altars represent the nominal people of God and the high places represent the denominations of Christendom. Jehoram's building the high places types reactionary officials and their adherents officially rendering support, help and furtherance to the various denominations. As private citizens there can be no question as to their privilege to do or not to do such things; but to do these things officially is reactionary to the Divinely approved American principle of the complete separation of Church and State. It is a frequent thing for American national, state and municipal officials officially to take part in denominational services, celebrations and conventions, their presence being desired and given to lend prestige, influence and dignity to the occasion and cause. Thus, the Romanist Mayor of New York, as
such, marched with the local Catholic archbishop in a procession to, and took part in, the service of corner stone laying for a convent. A Protestant Mayor of Philadelphia, with the City Council, magistrates, etc., in a celebration of unprecedented size, represented the city officially, with hundreds of extra policemen, in welcoming the local prelate in his return from the papal consistory which made him a cardinal. A Protestant Governor of Pennsylvania, the next night, officially addressed a huge audience at a reception given to the same cardinal. A Protestant President, with his cabinet and a huge delegation of senators, representatives and other officials, attended officially the funeral of a cardinal at Baltimore. Almost every important denominational convention, general assembly, etc., finds a prominent national, state or municipal official as a drawing card of their most important sessions. Such participations inuring to the prestige, influence and furtherance of such denominations, these officials thereby build the antitypical high places.
(29) In v. 11, as elsewhere in connection with the reigns of Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram and Ahaziah, Judah represents the United States. We understand "the mountains of Judah," Judah being very largely a mountainous country, to represent the separate States of which the United States consists, the territories not being considered as symbolic mountains. In all of these States, the reactionary officials and their supporters were officially building these antitypical high places. This Jehovah disapproved, especially since sectarianism has been cast off from mouthpieceship and all other Divine favor. But in these high places antitypical fornication—a working alliance between prominent statesmen and politicians, on the one hand, and the Catholic and Protestant Churches, on the other hand—is being committed and has been committed for some time. That Rome can secure friendly courts to entertain her charges against, and can gain conviction
to prison of, her opponents, that she has stirred up politicians and statesmen to seek, as such, by legislation the overthrow of the K.K.K. and to seek the unseating of a K.K.K. senator, that she can secure immunity from legal punishment for perpetrators of mob outrages against anti-Catholic lecturers and orders, and that statesmen shut their eyes to Rome's un-Americanism and go out of their way to curry favor with, and grant favors to, Rome, sufficiently attest that there is a working alliance between prominent statesmen and politicians—antitypical Jehoram—on the one hand, and the American Catholic Church—antitypical Athaliah—on the other hand.
(30) But v. 11 points out another wrong: Jehoram "caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit fornication" in connection with the unchaste rites of the high places, "and compelled Judah thereto." What is the difference in the antitype between the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the inhabitants of the rest of Judah? The following will clarify this subject: Jerusalem was the capital of Judah—Judah's officialdom centered there. Therefore, Jerusalem would represent the government of America, as such, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem would represent the officials—national, state and municipal—of America, while Judah would represent unofficial America and its inhabitants would represent unofficial Americans. Keeping in mind that symbolic fornication (Rev. 2: 20-23; 17: 2-4; 18: 3, 9; 19: 2) is either a union of State and Church or a working understanding—an actual or tacit alliance—between governmental officials, etc., and a Church, we are prepared better to understand what the forcing of symbolic fornication means. It is a compelling of people to co-operate in and further the schemes or works or purposes of a verbal or tacit alliance between statesmen, etc., and a Church. Rome seeks by legislative, judicial and executive action to overthrow anti-Catholic policies and movements. Her securing Editor
Gordon's conviction to prison for reproducing from the Congressional Record and criticizing the alleged oath of the Knights of Columbus, her causing the New York legislature to enact a law intended to destroy the New York
K.K.K. and her arousing the Governor of Oklahoma to extirpate the Oklahoma K.K.K., are examples, among others, of her use of legislative, judicial and executive action to suppress her opponents. By exercising such acts the officials were not only themselves associated with the symbolic fornication between the State and the Roman Catholic Church, but in requiring one another legislatively to enact, judicially to apply and executively to enforce such laws, and in requiring their subordinates to act in harmony, like policemen to arrest, prosecutors and juries to convict, penal officers to punish, and police, militia, etc., to quell anti-Catholic movements and opposition, they force the inhabitants—officials—of antitypical Jerusalem to support and thus participate in this symbolic fornication; and when they force private citizens to cooperate in the advancement of such purposes of Rome through the officials, they compel the inhabitants of antitypical Judah to commit symbolic fornication. This forcing of symbolic fornication has been going on for some time in America. It began especially as a result of the papally organized newspaper propaganda against the K.K.K. But we rejoice to note the increased growth of the movements that are opposing this symbolic fornication and the compulsory acts thereto. Surely the evils committed by Jehoram and recounted in vs. 4-11 were very ominous and of particularly grave guilt.
(31) Vs. 12-15 describe the episode of Elijah's sending Jehoram a letter and give the letter itself. Jehovah did not look with indifferent eyes upon the wicked course of Jehoram of Judah. He sent a remonstrance to Jehoram through the prophet Elijah, of whose activities after his whirlwind ascent the Scriptures
say nothing until in vs. 12-15 they describe his sending to Jehoram a writing that epitomized the latter's chief wrongs, and that pronounced the Divine judgment upon him because of them. In the preceding chapter we discussed certain chronological features connected with this letter, which, among other things, prove that it was written and sent by Elijah, and which will repay review at this stage of this chapter. Not repeating these particulars here, we will now proceed to describe the "writing," type and antitype.
(32) The fact that this letter was written and sent by Elijah some time after Elijah's and Elisha's separation, and also after Jehoshaphat's death, but before Jehoram's death, proves that it would antitypically be written and sent after antitypical Elijah's and Elisha's separation and the end of the World War, but before the World Revolution, since the latter will not come until after antitypical Jehoram's death, Ahaziah being the type of the phase of dominant American policies at the time of the great Revolution. Therefore, sometime between the War and the Revolution—the period in which we are now living—the antitypical letter was to be expected to put in its appearance. Furthermore, since God no more by inspiration gives an understanding of future things, an understanding of future events now can come only from a Divinely given understanding of Biblical prophetic and typical passages treating of future events. The antitypical understanding of every detail in 2 Chro. 21: 1-11 would, therefore, have to be had before the antitypical "writing from Elijah" could have been produced; for as the typical "writing" presupposes the events of 2 Chro. 21: 111 as having already transpired, and as being understood by Elijah, and that in the near past so far as those of vs. 8-11 are concerned; so the antitypical letter presupposes the events antitypical of 2 Chro. 21: 1-11 as having already transpired and as understood by the member of antitypical Elijah writing the letter, and that in the
immediate past so far as concerns those events antitypical of vs. 8-11. And since the events antitypical of vs. 8-11 began to come to pass in their various stages from the Spring of 1922 to that of 1923, the antitypical letter was due to come not before the Spring of 1923; for its writer would have to witness at least some of the events typed by Jehoram's forcing symbolic fornication on the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judah before he could particularize them as having taken place. For about five years he had been carefully watching the gradual fulfillment one after another of the antitypes of 2 Chro. 21: 1-11, well knowing that the antitypical letter could not be written until at least a beginning of all the antitypes of those vs. had set in. By about May 1, 1923, the last set of these antitypes—those typed by v. 11—were sufficiently in evidence to furnish all the facts necessary to the composition of the antitypical "writing." Accordingly, it was then composed, and its first copies were in circulation May 16, 1923.
(33) V. 12 states the fact of the writing coming from Elijah the prophet to Jehoram; and as a message from Jehovah [Thus saith the Lord God of thy father David] it rebukes him for not imitating the conduct of his godly father and grandfather. The expression, "There came a writing to him from Elijah the prophet," proves that the letter left Elijah when it started on its journey to Jehoram. This, then, proves that Elijah lived for years after his whirlwind ascent following his separation from Elisha, and that he likely wrote the letter shortly after the middle of Jehoram's reign (vs. 18, 19). The typical letter begins with the claim that it is a message from Jehovah to Jehoram, and that because of His covenant relations with David [the God of David thy father]. Does antitypical Elijah's letter begin with these express words? We answer, No. How, then, are we to understand the antitype of the expression, "Thus saith the Lord?" We
reply, by antitypical Elijah's Letter basing its contents on 2 Chro. 21: 1-21 and other Biblical prophecies and types, and by presenting the events that it gives as the antitypes of those types and the fulfillments of those prophecies, it in pantomime sets forth the claim that it is a message from Jehovah to America Reactionary. And how does the antitypical letter claim to come from God because of His covenant relations with antitypical David—the Elect Church? By its showing that America is God's favorite among modern nations, because its fundamental principles are in such close harmony with the Divine ideals and the teachings of the Elect Church. But how can the verse antitypically imply that antitypical Jehoram is a son [David thy father] of this antitypical David? Because certain principles for which the Elect Church stands and has advocated have been accepted by America and have developed in America the good that is in her. For these reasons America is called the house of antitypical David (v. 7).
Having already explained—type and antitype—the acts of Jehoram recapitulated in the letter, to complete our study of the letter we only need show the correspondencies of these acts set forth in the typical and antitypical letters; and then show the correspondencies of the threatened punishments in them. [The reader will find the antitypical Letter after the Berean Questions on this chapter.]
(34) The typical letter proceeds to give the reasons why punishment was to be meted out upon Jehoram. These reasons are twofold—as manifold as the general kinds of sins are: (1) sins of omission ("Because thou hast not walked in the ways of Jehoshaphat thy father, nor in the ways of Asa king of Judah."—v. 12); and (2) sins of commission ("But hast walked in the way of the kings of Israel, and hast made Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to go a whoring, like to the whoredoms of the house of Ahab, and also hast
slain thy brethren of thy father's house, which were better than thyself," v. 13). The antitypical letter alleges the same two forms of sins—those of omission and those of commission—as the grounds of retribution coming upon antitypical Jehoram. Toward the end of the second column of the first page and in the bulk of the first column of the second page of the antitypical Elijah's letter, Jehoshaphat and Asa—type and antitype—are described. There antitypical Asa is shown to be America, Free, Equal and Isolate (as to Europe) in her policies and practices, and antitypical Jehoshaphat is shown to be America, Free, Equal and Benevolently Interventionary (as to Europe) in her policies and practices. For both these kinds of policies and practices she is, in the above-mentioned parts of the antitypical Elijah's letter, shown to have enjoyed God's special favor nationally. In the same connection antitypical Jehoram is defined to be America Reactionary in policies and practices, and further on represented as not following ("thou hast not walked") in the policies and practices of America, Free, Equal and Isolate, or Benevolently Interventionary (as to Europe). This is shown in the last paragraph of column one and in the first two-thirds of column two of the second page of antitypical Elijah's letter. The failure of America faithfully to adhere to the policies and practices typed by Asa and Jehoshaphat is the antitype of Jehoram's sins of omission. These policies and practices should have been observed with most jealous care and zeal as being specifically what is meant by the widely used term, "100% Americanism."
(35) Then, in harmony with what we have shown them to be, in the preceding portion of this chapter, the sins of the house of Ahab, type and antitype, with the similar policies and acts of Jehoram of Judah, type and antitype, were set forth in antitypical Elijah's Letter, from the last third of column two on page two to the top of the fourth page, column one. These sins,
type and antitype, were there shown to be autocracy, favoritism toward Aristocracy and Priestcraft as against the common people, persecution of religious dissenters, yielding to the wrong influences of the spouse, type and antitype, to suppress opposition, an alliance of a false Religion and State, forcing officials and non-officials to support and further this misalliance, and becoming a party to ultra-nationalistic and alliancistic policies and practices. Then about two-thirds of the first column of the fourth page of antitypical Elijah's letter described antitypical Jehoram slaying with the theories of the Fourteen Points and a League of Nations the six language groups of the European Allies; and the rest of that column, except its last four lines, summarizes antitypical Jehoram's sins of omission and commission. When v. 13 speaks of Jehoram's brethren as better than Jehoram, we are to understand this language in the antitype to mean that America's course as to the Fourteen Points and a League of Nations was less righteous than the course of the six language groups of the Allies as to the Fourteen Points and a League of Nations.
(36) Having compared the two letters in a way that brings out their relationship to one another as type and antitype in their parts pertinent to the rehearsal of sins of omission and commission, we will now proceed to give— not antitypical details, which cannot be understood before their fulfillment, but—antitypical generalities on the predicted punishment, being enabled to forecast these generalities from the nature of the typical language used, upon which also other Scriptures throw some parallel light. V. 14 tells of the punishment that came upon Jehoram from his enemies; and v. 15 tells of the punishment that he would suffer from his own person. Jehovah (v. 14) is mentioned as the source of both agencies of punishment. In the antitypical letter the antitypical punishments are set forth in the part of page four following
the heading, "The Overthrow Of Reactionism." It will be noticed that the first part of this section points out God as the source of the antitypical punishments which are shown to come from enemies of Reactionism and from within the ranks of Reactionism itself. The first punishment in the type was the smiting with a great plague which vs. 16 and 17 show was a destructive invasion by the Philistines and certain Arabians. This stroke was to fall upon Jehoram's people, wives, children and possessions. The antitypical letter points out how the antitypical possessions [prestige, influence, profit, credits, friendships and God's special favor], policies [sons], wives [arrangements for the support and cooperation of the churches] and people [supporters] would be taken away by the enemies of Reactionism. The typical letter forecast (v. 15) that Jehoram would be smitten "by many sicknesses through a disease of thy bowels" (literal translation), which would result in his bowels dropping out after a long period of illness. The antitypical letter points out how an internal disease would make Reactionism suffer in all its organizations, theories and acts, until all these would drop out of Reactionism after much and long suffering. Thus, we have shown the correspondences between typical Elijah's and antitypical Elijah's letters, giving such antitypical generalities as are necessary to see these correspondences.
(37) We will now, in discussing vs. 16-20, give what we think to be the antitypical generalities, again remarking that the details cannot be given until fulfilled. We are to avoid seeking, i.e., speculating, for future details. We have by our words, writings and example, repeatedly cautioned the brethren against attempting to pry into the details of future events referred to in the Scriptures. At most, only generalities can be seen beforehand, as can be seen from our Pastor's general forecasts as to the time of trouble, the separation of antitypical Elijah and Elisha, etc., and
from the antitypical fulfillments. And such forecasts the Lord usually gives through that particular part of antitypical Aaron whom He is using as such at the time, others attempting such forecasts almost always doing so to their injury and often to the injury of others, as can be seen from many examples from Parousia and Epiphany times (Ex. 19: 24). V. 16 again shows that Jehovah was the source of [stirred up] Jehoram's punishment, first through stirring up the spirit of the Philistines and those Arabians who dwelt beside the Ethiopians, i.e., not the African Cushites, but those Cushites who dwelt in Eastern Arabia (Gen. 10: 7; 1 Chro. 1: 9; Ezek. 27: 20-22; Num. 12: 1; Hab. 3: 7). We have repeatedly pointed out that the Philistines [villagers, inhabitants of a miniature city, typing the adherents of a miniature religious government, a sect, hence sectarians] represent sectarians, partisans. Our experience in Britain with the person whom we consider to be antitypical Geshem the Arabian (Neh. 2: 19; 6: 1, 2, 6) convinces us that Arabians [travelers, wanderers, i.e., unstable ones] represent treacherous, unstable friends. We, therefore, understand the Philistines to represent such partisan politicians, capitalists, clergy, etc., as are enemies of Reactionism, and the Arabians to represent such corrupt politicians, capitalists, clergy, etc., as are treacherous, unstable friends of Reactionism, who, as the antitypical Arabians who dwell beside the antitypical Ethiopians, represent such politicians, etc., as are especially corrupt, treacherous, unstable friends—those politicians, etc., who are in politics for corrupt purposes, the Cushites typing the most depraved sinners. Quite probably Reactionism's disastrous mistakes and wrongs will prove to be the means that Jehovah will use to stir up antitypical Philistines; and perhaps the instinct of self-preservation will be
the Divinely used means of stirring up antitypical Arabians.
(38) V. 17 shows the violent invasion of Judah by the Philistines and the Arabians and their plundering and destructive course. Their carrying away all the substance in the king's house seems to type the fact that partisan and corrupt politicians, etc., will take from Reactionism and as far as possible appropriate to themselves every valuable thing belonging to it, such as its prestige, influence, profit, credits, friendships and remaining favor of the Lord. The Philistines and the Arabians taking away Jehoram's sons seems to type partisan and treacherous politicians, etc., stealing Reactionism's policies. Their killing all of Jehoram's sons, except one, Jehoahaz, i.e., Ahaziah (2 Chro. 22: 1), seems to type that the partisan and treacherous politicians, etc., will destroy all of Reactionism's policies except one—antitypical Ahaziah. The Philistines and the Arabians taking away Jehoram's wives, except one, Athaliah, seems to type the partisan and treacherous politicians, etc., putting aside the arrangements for the cooperation of Protestant sects with Reactionism by alienating these sects from Reactionism. But the American Catholic Church as antitypical Athaliah will not be so alienated. She will stand by Reactionism to the end and then will support its successor—antitypical Ahaziah (2 Chro. 22: 2, 3).
(39) Vs. 18-20 show God's further punishment of Jehoram. The former punishment was from outside agents. But this one was from and involving himself, and seems to type internal [bowels] troubles—troubles that Reactionism will have within and from its own self and its own loyal adherents. Its theories, movements, aims, organizations, etc., will fall into many disorders, which will cause division, disruption and gradual loss of vitality until Reactionism will lose one movement after another, one aim after another, one organization after another, one theory after another,
etc., and with these all its supporters will drop out of it and leave it dead as a dominating American policy. Perhaps the two years of suffering by Jehoram type two time stages of Reactionism's internal troubles. The fulfillment will give us the certainty on the subject. The people's making no burning for Jehoram seems to type the fact that there will not be profound regret among real Americans at the exit of Reactionism's dominancy as there has been in connection with the cessation of the dominancy of antitypical Asa and Jehoshaphat. As stated above, we do not of a certainty know of any antitypes of the age of Jehoram at his accession to the throne and the length of his reign. The eight years of his reign may represent eight stages marking the dominancy of his antitype. His departing without being desired would seem to type the fact that Americans generally will not love or long for the policies and practices of Reactionism once it has ceased to be the dominant American policy. The statement in 2 Kings 8: 24 that Joram (an abbreviation for Jehoram) slept with his fathers seems to type the fact that Reactionism will take its place with the other, but better, American policies, e.g., antitypical Asa and Jehoshaphat, as no longer the dominant American policy. Jehoram's burial in the city of David seems to type the fact that God's Faithful will nevertheless esteem some of the things that antitypical Jehoram did, e.g., affording them favorable opportunities for their priestly work, rejecting the Peace treaty and the League of Nations, avoiding gross participation in European internal affairs, etc. And Jehoram's not being buried in the sepulchers of the kings types the fact that Reactionism will never by real Americans be regarded as a true American policy.
(40) We have thus completed our study of Elijah and Jehoram of Judah. As far as the antitypical events have come into fulfillment there has been a thoroughly harmonious agreement in the type with
what we have presented as the antitype. When Biblical types are antitypically fulfilled, there is to be found a most remarkable and soul-satisfying agreement between the type and the antitype; and this agreement leads to increased faith and good works. We trust that such will be the effect of our resent study. May we thereby be mightily energized as to our faith, and may our zeal in circulating antitypical Elijah's Letter be increased and ennobled; for surely a clear understanding of the Lord's mind respecting current events and our privileges connected with them should have a faith-increasing, and an enzealing and an otherwise ennobling effect on us.
(41) Postscript written December 29, 1937—The preceding part of this chapter, including its Berean Questions, except the last two questions, was written in two installments: (1) January 30-February 5, 1924, and (2) March 1-5, 1924. Hence it treated on 2 Chro. 21: 13 of things already fulfilled; the rest of the chapter being not due to be fulfilled yet; for antitypical Elijah's Letter, which we will reproduce as the end of this chapter, was written April 28, 29, 1923; and hence everything treated on in vs. 14-20 went into fulfillment after the preceding part of this chapter was originally written. Therefore, the comments on vs. 1420 had to be given as above, in the form of forecasts. These forecasts had all gone into fulfillment by the end of Mr. Hoover's administration, March 4, 1933. Our forecasts on vs. 14-20 were most remarkably fulfilled, as the following will show: During the rest of Mr. Coolidge's first, and the whole of his second administration, and during the first eight months of Mr. Hoover's administration, Reactionism continued on its evil course, unhindered by the punishments forecast in vs. 14, 15. These punishments set in with the stock market collapse, which began October 29, 1929, and which started the depression of the years 19291933. Amid and mainly through that depression
the forecast punishments came. As indicated in the forecasts, the punishment came from two general sources:
(1) From Reactionism's external foes; and (2) from Reactionism's internal condition. The external foes were the antitypical Philistines and Arabians (vs. 16, 17). As suggested in paragraphs (36) and (37), the antitypical Philistines were to be partisan politicians, capitalists, clergy, organized laborers, etc., and the antitypical Arabians were to be treacherous politicians, capitalists, clergy, organized laborers, etc.
(42) Did the suggested forecasts thus fulfill? We answer, yes; for partisan Democrats and treacherous Republicans (the so-called Progressives) in Congress, backed by capitalists, like the Duponts, Rascob, etc., the Romanist clergy, and organized laborers, opposed Reactionism, regnant from 1918 to 1933, especially as it acted in Hooverism, and devastated it in all its policies (thy sons), except autocracy, which survives as the present regnant American policy (antitypical Ahaziah). This combination of partisan Democrats and treacherous Republicans (Progressives), backed by capitalists, clergy and organized laborers, frustrated and defeated almost every policy that Reactionism, acting through Mr. Hoover, offered for healing the depression. All will recall how in Congress the Democrats, supported by the Progressives, out of mere partisanship blocked as reactionary almost every measure (sons) that Mr. Hoover suggested. Indeed, the autocratic features of Reactionism's polices were the only ones that they did not block. They did the same with every one of its arrangements, whereby they alienated the support and cooperation of the churches (thy wives), except the American Romanist Church (Athaliah). They made Reactionism so unpopular as to alienate from it the vast majority of the American voters (thy people), who consequently administered the worst defeat on it, as represented in Hooverism,
in the 1932 campaign, ever hitherto administered on a major party in American history. They destroyed Reactionism's possessions (all thy goods) [the prestige, influence, profit, credits, friendships and God's special national favor], so that Reactionism is now poverty-stricken in America. Moreover, through these oppositions and the distresses of the depression, its death was brought about. This happened through internal troubles (literally, by many sicknesses through a disease of thy bowels; see also vs. 18, 19). The Republicans who were the especial reactionaries fell into internal dissensions which made them internally (bowels) sick, as a party. The Republican Progressives among them caused all sorts of diseases in the party, whereby many were driven out of it into other parties. Some of these, like Senators Norris, La Follette, etc., openly campaigned against Mr. Hoover and for Mr. Roosevelt in the 1932 campaign. Mr. Borah and others sulked in their tents. Thus Reactionism was torn internally by many dissensions and great loss of supporters, and was thus fatally smitten in its movements, theories, practices, aims and organizations, and then it fell asunder in disintegration (bowels fell out) in the great defeat administered to it in the 1932 campaign, resulting in Mr. Hoover's defeat by the largest majority ever up to that time administered to a major-party's unsuccessful presidential candidate. And with the Hoover administration Reactionism, which had been America's supreme policy from 1918 to 1933, died as such (v. 19). And it died unloved, unwept and unmourned by the bulk of the American people (the people made no burning for him … and he departed undesired,—vs. 19, 20). It is to be remembered as a one-time policy regnant in America, but dishonored as such (they buried him, … but not in the sepulchers of the kings). The above postscript proves that our forecasts of 1923 (in Elijah's Letter)