Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
ELISHA'S EARLIER INDEPENDENT ACTS.
2 Kings 3: 4.
THE SETTING OF 2 KINGS 3. ALLIANCED EUROPE. THE CENTRAL POWERS. THE FORMER AND AMERICA MUSTERED. EDOM SOUGHT. THREE KINGS' FEARS ALLAYED BY ELISHA'S ASSURANCE OF VICTORY. A VICTORY DRIVE ENDING IN DEFEAT. A CRUSHING PEACE. A FRUITLESS ATTEMPT AND SACRIFICE. PRELIMINARY REMARKS ON 2 KINGS 4. THE WIDOW AND HER TWO SONS. THE SHUNAMMITE AND HER SON. THE POISONED POTTAGE. GIFTS FOR ELISHA. BEREAN QUESTIONS.
IN CHAPTER III it was shown how that after the separation of antitypical Elijah and Elisha, the latter from the late summer of 1917 to the late spring of 1918 antityped the events set forth in 2 Kings 2: 15-25. In this article it is purposed to study 2 Kings 3, in its antitypical respects. That this chapter is typical is manifest from the fact that Elisha—a typical character—takes an active part in its central feature. This is also evident from the fact that Jehoram of Israel and Jehoshaphat of Judah—two typical characters—take leading roles in its events. The frequent typical and prophetical references to Moab and Edom in the Bible confirms the same conclusion. These facts fully warrant our looking upon the entire chapter as typical. Its being in a book that forms a part of the Hebrew Bible called the Earlier Prophets proves the same thing. Furthermore, the time setting of the chapter locates its events antitypically as connected with the World War. The application of its events to the World War gives a natural setting to everything in it as typical of the World War, which proves that the facts of the case warrant our applying it typically.
(2) In previous studies in this book, particularly in Chapters I and IV, we have learned the typical significance
of Jehoram of Israel, Jehoshaphat of Judah and the king of Edom. With the helps derived from these typical meanings, 2 Kings 3 opens up very naturally and beautifully as a type of certain features of the World War. In the above-mentioned studies we saw that Jehoram of Israel represents Allianced Europe; Jehoshaphat of Judah, America free and benevolent, especially toward Europe; the king of Edom, Conservative Labor; and the king of Moab, the Central Powers. Let us with these definitions in mind examine prayerfully and carefully 2 Kings 3, expecting a blessing from the Lord on a study so conducted.
(3) V. 1.—Ahab represents Europe Autocratic. From Europe Autocratic two phases of European statecraft were developed, typed by the two sons of Ahab—Ahaziah and Jehoram, the former typing Europe nationally Independent and Separate, the latter typing Europe Allianced. The former phase of Europe was centuries old before its later phase came into existence, which occurred before the Napoleonic wars. The Ahaziah phase of Europe died in and as a result of the World War, while the latter phase still exists, and will continue so to do until the World Revolution will overthrow it. We have in Chapter II pointed out that Ahaziah at his father's death took his brother Jehoram as his coregent. It is their coregental reign whose beginning is mentioned as being in Jehoshaphat's eighteenth year as king. The antitype is the following: Europe Autocratic began to die [Ahab's wounding] during the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars. Europe consisting of independent and separately acting states began after 1848, when antitypical Ahab died, to add to itself the phase of Europe Allianced, and thus in the second part of the nineteenth and the first part of the twentieth centuries these two phases—Europe consisting of independent and separately acting states and Europe Allianced—acted together. The expression, "in Samaria," types
the political sphere. Thus Allianced Europe carried on in the political sphere. The reign lasting twelve years probably types twelve special lines of activity, through which the policy of Allianced Europe has unfolded itself. Certain it is that there are exactly twelve episodes in which typical Jehoram figured.
(4) V. 2.—Allianced Europe has wrought evil despite the fact that the principles of the Lord's Word (in the sight of the Lord) have been made clearer in its days than ever before. However, its evils have not been so enormous as those of Europe Autocratic and those of the Catholic Church (not like his father and like his mother). Grasping for power and lording it over others (Baal worship) was something that Allianced Europe set aside so far as it itself was concerned (put away the image of Baal), though European nations acting independently and separately [antitypical Ahaziah] did continue to grasp for power and lord it over others (1 Kings 22: 52, 53).
(5) V. 3.—Though Allianced Europe as such has not sought to grasp for power and to lord it over others, it has nevertheless wrought more or less of iniquity. In the type Jehoram is spoken of as cleaving to the sins of Jeroboam (strife of the people) the son of Nebat (view, ambition). As implied in the meanings of these last two names, and as shown by Jeroboam's history, the latter's sins were especially of two kinds: partisanship and clericalism in its form of reunion of State and Church. This is evident from his rebellion, resulting in the division of Israel into two kingdoms, expressing itself in partisanship and such clericalism against the Southern Kingdom. Certain it is that Allianced Europe has been guilty of these two wrongs. The two alliances of Europe—the Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance—were filled with partisanship and such clericalism against one another, and these qualities more than any other one thing
brought about the World War. If, e.g., we look at Europe's history since shortly after the Franco-Prussian War, 1870 and 1871, we find hundreds of evidences of the operation of these qualities. The various European conferences, crises, threats of war, war preparations, land grabbings, etc., etc., for 40 years before 1914, were more or less due to the operation of these two unholy qualities. Nor will Allianced Europe cease from such qualities and their expression in deeds (he departed not therefrom). We may, therefore, expect these wrongs to go on and bring forth their corrupt fruitage, until Allianced Europe is destroyed in the approaching World Revolution.
(6) V. 4.—Mesha (freed) king of Moab (from the father) we understand to represent the Central Powers, which by their forming the Triple Alliance rebelled against Europe nationally independent and separate—antitypical Ahaziah (2 Kings 1: 1). The fact that the king of Moab types the Central Powers is not to be understood as contradictory of what we said in the preceding paragraph on the two European alliances as being antitypical Jehoram of Israel. The following is the reconciliation of this seeming contradiction: When no contrast within Allianced Europe is intended to be shown in the type, Jehoram is used to type Europe as consisting of both of the alliances; but when this contrast is intended, it is brought out by opposing Jehoram to Mesha. That Jehoram in the contrast is used as typing Allianced Europe is justified by the fact that the Allies constituted almost all the European States, against which only four fought, on the principle that an overwhelming majority of the parts is often called the whole of a combination. Mesha (freed) types the Central Powers as seeking, and for awhile obtaining, freedom from the control of the European Concert. Moab here represents the sphere of operation in which the Central Powers moved, even as the Israel of Jehoram represents the
Elisha's Earlier Independent Acts.
sphere in which the European Concert moved and moves. The Central Powers were an antitypical sheepmaster in that they had a set of remarkably docile subjects. The wool of the lambs and rams rendered to the king of Israel represents the profit that the Allies got from the remarkable inventive and other productive abilities of the Germanic peoples, old and young; for in literature, learning, science, art, politics, manufacture, support and commerce, they obtained much profit from the Germanic peoples before the latter formed the Triple Alliance.
(7) V. 5.—But with the formation of the Triple Alliance much of these advantages were withdrawn from the European Concert by the former. The time setting suggested by the expression, "when Ahab was dead," as to when this happened, is worthy of note. As long as European Autocracy flourished these advantages flowed out to it and in its dying they flowed out to the European Concert measurably only; but when it ceased to be, the Germanic peoples began to assert themselves in a more selfish and less subservient manner than formerly. Note the advancement of Germany to unity, power and prominence under Bismarck, as an evidence of this symbolic rebellion.
(8) V. 6.—Jehoram's going out of Samaria to muster all Israel to war, represents the course that the Triple Entente entered to checkmate the Triple Alliance. Recognizing the menace of the Triple Alliance to Europe's general peace, first France and Russia entered the Dual Entente; a little later Britain entered into the Entente, making it a Triple Entente, and gradually other European nations in sympathy approached the Entente, until finally almost all Europe was on that side. This we understand to be typed by Jehoram's mustering Israel; while his going forth from Samaria represents Allianced Europe leaving the ordinary occupations of politics to undertake the extraordinary work of organizing the later phase of the
European Concert. This antitypical mustering continued far into the war time, when Italy, Portugal, Belgium, Romania, Serbia, Montenegro and Greece were brought into the Concert.
(9) V. 7.—This verse antitypically falls into the World War time. Jehoshaphat, we understand, here represents America Independent and Benevolent. We notice that the initiative to induce America to take the side of the Allies as against the Central Powers, came from the Allies, who conducted the most clever kind of a campaign of propaganda in America to secure this result. They bought up very influential papers and magazines for propaganda uses. They colored the news as against the Central Powers and in their own favor to secure their aims. They sent commissions here for the same purpose. They set forth very deceptive theories as to the causes and aims of the war. Flattery of America and a dishonest praise of her democracy were some of their favorite methods. Their immense borrowings from the bankers and their large orders for war and other supplies, enlisted the capitalists, manufacturers, etc., on their side. They arranged for lectures and speeches to arouse American sympathy and help for them. They harped upon and grossly exaggerated "German frightfulness" in their propaganda campaign. And the Germans were thoughtless enough to furnish them abundant real and exaggerative materials for such uses. This campaign was so cleverly conducted that shortly the bulk of the American people favored the Allies as against the Central Powers. It needed only another ruthless submarine campaign on the part of the Germans to force the American people, out of sheer self-respect and desire to save the world for Democracy, to enter the war. All of the above-described methods of propaganda and influence are the antitype—given, we note, in pantomime—to the question of Jehoram, "Wilt thou go with me against Moab to battle?" And
America's favoring the Allies and her declaration of war were in pantomime the antitype of Jehoshaphat's answer, "I will go up." The expression, "I am as thou art," types the hearty personal espousal of the Allied cause by America. The expression, "My people as thy people," types the hearty unison of the American people with the Allied peoples in the latter's announced, but, as shown by subsequent events, more or less hypocritical war aims. The expression, "My horses as thy horses," types the hearty endorsement of the Allied theories as to the Divine Right of Kings, Clergy and Aristocracy and their theories on Democracy—theories that they themselves only half believed.
(10) V. 8.—This verse types the conferences or war councils held by the representatives of the Allies and America. The text is not so clear as to which one of the kings asked the question of this verse; but the antitype seems to suggest that it was Jehoram; for the Allies asked America how the campaign should be carried out, after America had thrown her full weight of power into the scales of war. America's answer was that the war should be so waged as to enlist and keep the support of the labor class—the liberty-loving as against the privilege-loving class on the side that was against the Central Powers. America's appeal was a popular one, and received a generous response from Labor, typed by Edom. To go up by the way of the wilderness of Edom, therefore, would be so to wage the intellectual and military war as to have the wholehearted support of Labor in all its classes— conservative and radical, in the countries outside the Central Powers.
(11) V. 9.—By the king of Edom we understand Conservative Labor to be meant in contrast with Radical Labor. Both, however, are included in the typical term, Edom which in Biblical types represents the non-elect classes—Israel rejected from the Elect Church, the Great Company rejected from the Elect Bride, and Labor rejected from, humanly speaking,
the elect earthly classes, the well-to-do and the aristocrats. The three kings' marching with their hosts together types the fact that the Allies, America and Conservative Labor were in unison in their war endeavors. The seven-day journey represents the Allied war endeavors from the time that America entered the war in April, 1917, until July, 1918—a period of great disaster to the Allied cause, especially in its last three or four months. The number seven here seems to denote completeness—the full period of fruitlessness in the Allied endeavors. The lack of water referred to in this verse seems to type the lack of counsel, wisdom and truth, required for Allied success. There was no settled unified plan on the Allied side. Each involved Allied nation put its own interests above the common interests of the Allied side. Therefore, each had its own pet plan of campaign, which always proved unsuccessful, and would not sacrifice it in the interests of the Allied side as a whole. Divided counsel spells defeat when pitted against well-directed unified counsel (no water for the host or for the cattle that followed). And such was the condition in the World War until the Allied defeats of the Spring of 1918 induced the Allies to accept America's plan to have a Commander-in-chief for all the Allies. The host of this verse types the warriors, and the cattle type the civilians that supplied them with the necessities of life and warfare as their supporters.
(12) V. 10.—The despairing cry of Jehoram types the sense of despair that pervaded the Allies after their great defeat in the Picardy battle, before the Passover of 1918. It seemed then that the Germanic side would surely win the war. For three years the defeatists—those who looked for the Allied side to be defeated—had moaned in the Allied countries the wail of defeat; but the bulk of the leaders and peoples on that side would not give way to them, and applied drastic punishments to the defeatists to prevent their spreading
the spirit of defeat among their fellows. But by the Passover of 1918, the defeatist ideas were so generally prevalent as to make the leaders expect defeat. Hence their despairing wails antitypical of Jehoram's cry in this verse. His saying that the defeat would result in ruin to all three kings, types the fear that all supporters of the Allied side would be crushed. His saying that Jehovah had so manipulated their march as to bring them unto ruin types the fact that the Allies feared that God had turned against them and favored the Germanic side, and that because more or less of wrong and error was on their side.
(13) V. 11.—Jehoshaphat's inquiry for a prophet of the Lord represents America's quest for information along Biblical lines and along lines of proper principles for an answer to the question as to the war issues. It will be recalled that President Wilson frequently consulted the Bible and ministers for just such a solution. He thought he had found some information on the subject in Ezekiel, and the papers at that time published something of his thoughts. No satisfying answer came to him from his efforts and those whom he at first consulted. Therefore he sought further to find some one who could really give him a true answer—as from the Lord (a prophet of Jehovah). We understand that the servant of Israel's king who informed Jehoshaphat of the presence of Elisha (mighty deliverer), the son of Shaphat (he judges), in the camp represents the British Military Intelligence Bureau. This Bureau had gotten from the British brethren, in connection with their examination on their conscientious objections to combatant service, considerable information on our prophetic war views, among other things, how the very time of its outbreak was forecast by the faithful Truth people years before it came, while they under the leadership of "that Servant" were acting as God's mouthpiece (Elijah) to Nominal Spiritual Israel. America adopted the Allies'
methods of dealing with conscientious objectors. While America was trying to find some Biblical light on the situation and while consulting the British Military Intelligence Bureau on dealing with conscientious objectors, particularly with the Society adherents (Elisha), it got from this Bureau the knowledge that the Society adherents knew a great deal about the war prophecies, and that the American officials should consult them on this matter; even as the servant of Israel's king informed Jehoshaphat that Elisha was a prophet of the Lord and should be consulted by him. The expression, "Elisha … poured water on the hands of Elijah," poetically alludes to the fact that Elisha was the special servant of Elijah, even as the Great Company Society adherents had been the servant of the Little Flock while it had the office of mouthpiece to Nominal Spiritual Israel. Here in naming these the type points to the actual situation, even if the antitypical servant did not understand it clearly.
(14) V. 12.—Jehoshaphat's recognition of Elisha as a mouthpiece of the Lord (the word of Jehovah is with him) types how the American leaders recognized the Society adherents as Bible Students related to the great work that had been done by the Lord's people under the leadership of "that Servant." So pressed were the three antitypical kings that they gave their attention to the Society adherents (the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat and the king of Edom went down to him), hoping for some Biblical indication from the Society adherents touching the former's war prospects. They began to give their attention to antitypical Elisha at the time the Society leaders began to be involved in their trouble with the military authorities on matters pertaining to the espionage and conscription laws and previous to their arrest, which occurred May 8, 1918. They "went down to him" previous to the Society's convention at Brooklyn, March 23-26, 1918; for at
this convention especially the answer of antitypical Elisha was given.
(15) V. 13.—The episode connected with Elisha narrated in this chapter gives us the clue to its entire typical setting; for we know that Elisha separated from Elijah types the Great Company adherents of the Society after the separation of 1917. Elisha's sharp reproof of Jehoram types the Society adherents' strong disapproval of the European Allies, who had persecuted the European brethren and had carried on a course of action thoroughly hypocritical and wicked. This is the reason for their referring them for information to the mouthpieces of Autocracy (the prophets of thy father) and the mouthpieces of the Catholic Church (the prophets of thy mother). The Society leaders' derisive and challengesome course toward the Allies, Autocracy and Catholicism as connected with the causes of the war is antitypical of Elisha's asking these questions; while Elisha's question, "What have I to do with thee," is typical of their washing their hands clean of all Allied claims, pretentions and aims. Jehoram's answer types the hopeless despair of the Allies at this rebuff from the Lord's mouthpiece to Nominal Spiritual Israel.
(16) V. 14.—Elisha's continued and solemn disapproval of Jehoram set forth in this verse types the continued and solemn disapproval of the Allies by the Society adherents, especially by their leaders, almost all of whom favored the Germanic side as against the Allies before America entered the war; especially was this true of the Society's president. They knew that the Allies were as guilty of fostering war-provoking policies before the war as were the Central Powers. And the former's hypocrisy in palming themselves off as altogether innocent, and the latter as altogether guilty, disgusted them with the Allies, in favor of whom they would have done nothing, nor given them any recognition whatever (would not look toward thee,
nor see—recognize—thee) had it not been for the fact that they esteemed (I regard the presence of Jehoshaphat) and honored America in its unselfish participation in the World War. The publications of the Society, e.g., The Kingdom News, and the lectures of their pilgrims, give marked evidence that such was their attitude. The patriotic sermons at the Brooklyn Convention, March 23-26, 1918, declared these thoughts. And this fulfilled the type as set forth in v. 14.
(17) V. 15.—The minstrel of this verse types the Bible, whose parts pertinent to the World War's outcome became due to be understand at that time, in so far as mouthpieceship toward Christendom required it, and thus it gave its meaning on the subject (when the minstrel played). Remembering that antitypical Elisha was then God's mouthpiece toward Nominal Spiritual Israel, we should expect him to have received such light from the Word as applied to the situation at hand in Nominal Spiritual Israel, in so far as their ministry required it. This is actually what then happened, and what enabled the Society leaders at their 1918 Passover Convention to forecast the defeat of the Germanic side in the war, which, as all acquainted with the facts of the case know, they did. Thus "the hand [power to understand the pertinent subject matter] of Jehovah came upon him" antitypically.
(18) V. 16.—On this subject the Society leaders gave the Lord's Truth (Thus saith Jehovah). The valley here referred to types the condition in which the Allied side was, incidental to the great Picardy defeat just before the Passover of 1918. Their condition seemed desperate, yea, even undone, giving no promise of counsel (water) as to a way out. Yet this very condition aroused the Allies to take the counsel of wisdom and common sense—water—needed for their recovery from defeat, and for their gaining final victory: the truth that they needed a Commander-in
chief whose plans—waters—and whose orders would be accepted and carried out by the commanders of all the national armies constituting the Allied side. This truth, beaten into the Allies by the experiences of many defeats, was seized upon and translated into action by them, resulting in the selection of Field Marshal Foch as the Commander-in-chief; and this truth—water—with its subsequent plans—waters—laid hold on by the Allies, became the turning point of the war. The Society brethren forecast that there would be abundant counsel coming to the Allies to enable them to turn defeat into victory; and their forecast came true. The trenches referred to in this verse type the Allied leaders as receptacles of the counsels that would turn defeat into victory. When the Society leaders counseled the Allies amid their defeated condition—valley—to arm themselves with the mind that would receive such counsels, they were advising the latter to make the trenches that the prophet typically charged to be made.
(19) V. 17.—Wind and rain, of course, are the precursors of water. But as they were absent in the type, though the water did come, so in the antitype was there the absence of their antitypes. There was in the antitypical valley no promise—wind and rain—of the coming counsels that would make a way of escape for the Allies out of their defeat. So the Society mouthpieces admitted at that Passover Convention that there were no present indications of the advent of true knowledge and counsel among the Allies, but promised that it would come, and that their condition of depression and defeat would become to them full of truths applicable to, and solvable of the situation (the valley shall be filled with water). They further announced that such truths—counsels—would be accepted by the three Allied groups, their leaders and their solders—ye—their supporting civilians—cattle—and their governments— beasts. This forecast certainly
was made, and history attests that it was fulfilled.
(20) V. 18.—The Society's mouthpieces went further than foretelling that there would come to the Allies an abundance of counsel pertinent to, and coming out of their defeated condition. They forecast such a victory for the Allies as would crush the Central Powers and dethrone the Kaiser. They expressly said through their president at the public meeting March 25, that the next ruler to lose his throne would be the Kaiser, which forecast, made when such an eventuality seemed the last thing to be expected, was literally fulfilled. The giving of the needed counsel was to be considered a subsidiary matter (this is but a light thing in the sight of Jehovah). God would do something greater for them: He would deliver the Central Powers into their hand. This prophecy of theirs was literally fulfilled, even as its type was literally fulfilled.
(21) V. 19.—The Society mouthpieces foretold that the Allies would get into their power every strong government of the Central Powers (fortified city), even the very choicest of them, e.g., Germany and Austria (choice city); would overthrow every Central Power leader (every good tree); make inoperative all the Central Powers' war counsels, made through their High Command, and plans for putting Germany in the place of preeminence (stop all fountains of water); and make unproductive every source of war supplies, and inoperative every war sinew of the Germanic side (and mar every good piece of land with stones—the Allied theories as to how the Central Powers were to be dealt with). This prophecy was as surely fulfilled in the antitype as its type was surely fulfilled. For did not everyone of the Central Powers come into the control of the Allies, especially Germany and Austria? Were not all their leaders, including the Kaisers, overthrown? Were not the plans of the Central
Powers' High Command dried up and made inoperative? Were not their sources of war supplies, war sinews and other productive appliances and means, taken from them and reduced to harmlessness? A disarmed and defeated Germany and Austria are an impressive affirmative answer to these questions.
(22) V. 20.—As in the type water relieved the crisis for the three kings, so the crisis of the antitypical three kings— the European Allies, America and Conservative Labor— was relieved by proper counsels coming to them. The first of these was the advantage of having a single Commanderin-chief for the Allies. This was begun on April 14, 1918, by Britain agreeing to accept Field-Marshal Foch as the commander of their armies, as well as of the French armies. A little later the other Allied powers did the same thing, Italy the last of these accepting him as such on May 1. And soon a plan was evolved that first halted the furious Germanic July, 1918 attack, and then began to roll back the Germanic lines, until complete defeat was inflicted upon them. The counsels, plans, knowledge that accomplished this antitype the waters that came from the way of Edom. The morning sacrifice began in the third hour—from 8 to 9 A. M. Taking a day to represent a year, and the year beginning Nisan 1, i.e., March 13, 1918, the third hour would be from the first to the middle of the second month of such a day. The first hour of that day, therefore, ended March 28, the second ended April 12, and the third hour— corresponding to the hour of the morning sacrifice—began April 13. On the very next day, April 14, Field-Marshal Foch was appointed Commander-in-chief, at least of the armies of Britain and France, as the execution of the first element of the counsels that turned defeat into victory for the Allies. The water coming from the way of Edom seems to indicate that it was from the Labor group that the insistence on having unity of command, and its resultant
plans, came. As is well known, the Labor leaders both of Britain and of America insisted on this procedure; and so the waters came from the way of Edom.
(23) V. 21.—The Germanic side on learning that the Allies were thoroughly backed by great reinforcements from America and from Labor, made, after their early Spring successes in 1918, extensive preparations to the limit of their strength to renew their offensive in what they called "the victory drive," which they began in July, 1918 (gathered themselves together all that were able to put on armor, and upward). Their Picardy and other victories in France, and their victories in the Flanders, encouraged them to make this supreme effort with which they hoped to end the war. In this hope the leaders, soldiers and civilians shared and boasted. The Moabites' standing on their border types the Germanic side standing on the extreme West of their positions in France, that therefrom they might launch the offensive that they thought would end the war in their favor.
(24) V. 22.—If the waters came between 8 and 9 o'clock in the morning, which, as we showed above, would be antitypically not sooner than April 13, 1918 (the next day Field-Marshal Foch being recognized by the first two Allied nations as the Commander-in-chief), then the special preparations of the Germanic side for the final victory drive would be later than April 14; and it may properly be regarded as due to come after May 1, when Italy, as the last Allied nation so to do, accepted Field-Marshal Foch as the head of the Allied armies. This latter view is the better of the two as conforming to the facts; for it was about June, 1918, when the special preparations for "the victory drive" on the Germanic side set in. To the Germans the new counsels accepted by the Allies seemed to be an evidence of despair and a confession of expected defeat. To them these counsels seemed to be not truth and common sense (water) applied to
the situation, but the evidence of death (red as blood; This is blood). The sun's rising upon the waters represents the new Allied plans coming into general knowledge—light; for it was not long after these new counsels were accepted that they were heralded worldwide; and, of course, came in part at least to the knowledge of the Germanic side.
(25) V. 23.—To the Germanic side, already flushed with their Spring victories and confident of speedy final victory, these plans, as the counsels of despair, were a certain evidence of Allied defeat and overthrow—death as combatants. ("This is blood!")—these new counsels, etc., represent the death of the Allies. The following was their thought: "By taking these new measures the three groups— the European Allies, the Americans and Conservative Labor—have destroyed one another (the kings are surely slain). They have by these plans so insulted and alienated one another as to make defeat certain for them (they have smitten one another). Let us now organize our victory drive, making it invincible in its shock blows; and thereafter it will be simply a matter of our dictating a peace that will crush for a century all our enemies. We will put upon them such crushing indemnities, etc., as will overburden and enslave them, and more than reimburse our war losses. We will make the terms more grinding than were ever put upon a defeated side. To the victor from time immemorial have belonged the spoils; and we as victors will make these spoils unexampled in all history, even as this war has been the greatest of all history." (Now therefore, Moab, to the spoil!) In this case, man proposed, but God disposed, as the sequel proves.
(26) V. 24.—The July attack of the Germans was launched with vigor (they came to the camp of Israel), but pressed back the Allied line only slightly, to the great disappointment of the Germans. It was the Americans who refused to follow the French in
retreat beyond the Marne. On the contrary, rallying, they counter-attacked the Germans, driving them back across the river. This heartened the French, who then joined in the counter attack, and helped drive back the Germans (the Israelites rose up and smote the Moabites). The success of the Allied counter attack was marked; then for a short time there was a lull, broken by the September smash into the German lines, "bitten at" here, then there, then elsewhere, everywhere surprising and driving back the Germans, who soon were compelled to beat a general retreat all along the Western front (so that they fled before them). The crumpling up of the German line in spite of their most marvelously strong positions and brave and stubborn defense, was the supreme accomplishment of the whole World War. This continued steadily for two months, when the armistice put a stop to the active warfare on the Western front. Surely the Allies in those two months advanced all along the line into the country captured by the Germans (they went forward into the land, smiting the Moabites). Through the armistice terms they advanced into the Germanic territory itself.
(27) V. 25.—Their beating down the Moabite cities types the Allies forcing the Central Powers in their separate countries—governments—to surrender and submit to the devastating peace terms imposed upon them. Certainly the peace terms imposed upon Germany, Austria, Hungary, Turkey and Bulgaria, broke down these powers (cities). Commercial, economic, financial, political and national ruin was heaped upon these nations (cities). Certainly the peace treaties imposed every kind of a handicap on the productive machinery, especially of a military kind, of every one of the Central Powers. Look at what has been done to the German army, navy and air service, as proof of this. Look at the broken up Austrian Empire as a proof of this. Look at the taking from them of their most valuable mineral and coal lands, and the imposing of the
strictest restrictions on those yet remaining in their hands. See what has been done to Germany's naval and commercial fleets, its railroads, cattle, sheep, horses, etc., as a further proof of this. Note the restrictions imposed by the various commissions appointed to see to the carrying out of the various terms of the peace treaties, for further confirmation of this. Surely every Allied nation (every man) hurled at the antitypical Moabites' sources and agencies of power and supply such severe burdens as a result of their peace theories (stones) as made the latter unfruitful in their productive instrumentalities (and on every good piece of land they cast every man his stone and filled it). They surely stopped up every antitypical fountain—they dried up all the plans of the German High Command, the source of her war plans, and made every source of national aggrandizement of the Central Powers an infertile thing; so that, among others, Germany is not now  preeminent (they stopped all the fountains). Surely they felled all the good trees. Trees symbolize great ones (Rev. 7: 2, 3; see Berean Comments). To fell these would mean to cut them down from their high positions. Note how one of the outcomes of the war was the abdication of the thrones of Germany, Austro-Hungary, Turkey and Bulgaria. What became of the Hindenburgs, Ludendorfs, Mackenzens, Goltzes, Falkenhayns, Tripitzes, and the rest of the war heroes of the Central Powers? The Allied list of these and other leaders, drawn up, in order to have them punished for their war "frightfulness, etc.," frightened them into oblivion; and it took many a maneuver, after these were felled—cast down from their positions of power—to prevent their falling into the hands of the Allies for trial. We all recall the strenuous efforts the Allies made to force Holland to deliver up the Kaiser for trial and punishment. (They felled every good tree.) Only one country of the Central Powers measurably escaped the fate
of the rest—Turkey, antitypical Kirharaseth (brick fortress). Though Turkey was badly defeated, lost much of her territory and had to submit to other disadvantages (the slingers went about it and smote it), yet she emerged from the war and its subsequent peace wrangles with almost no added burdens placed upon her. Mustapha Kemal by war and diplomacy was able to reject the Allied peace treaty and later demands, and to bring his country out of the war and peace negotiation throes with many an advantage preserved and some new ones attained; her national theories were more or less preserved (only they left the stones thereof).
(28) V. 26.—The incident of this verse types the efforts of the Germanic side to separate Labor from the support of the Allied cause. The 700 men that drew swords type the German Socialists, whose arguments and influence with Labor in the Allied countries were depended upon by the Central Powers to divert Labor from the support of the Allied side. The climax of their efforts on this line was reached in the Stockholm Labor Conference, arranged for ostensibly by the Labor world, but actually by the Kaiser through trusted German Socialists. This conference was held in September, 1918. But Conservative Labor (the King of Edom) in the Allied world, especially in America and Britain, Mr. Gompers taking the lead in the matter, suspected the whole movement, and succeeded in keeping from the conference almost the whole of Allied Labor, thus nullifying its purpose. Thus this attack of the antitypical 700 men that drew sword failed to break through the rugged defense put up by Labor defending Conservative Labor (the King of Edom) from capture by the antitypical Moabites.
(29) V. 27.—We understand the eldest son of the king of Moab to type Germany. The eldest son in the Scriptures types the most important one of a class. E.g., Eleazar, Aaron's oldest living son in Num. 16,