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


Gehazi could have attempted so rudely to thrust their benefactress away. It will be noted that the word it is in italics, hence has no corresponding word in the Hebrew text. Thus it was not pointed out what the concealed thing was. Despite the first possibility's being the more natural of the two, we are more inclined to accept the second possibility, as certainly that antitypically was the thing emphatically hidden from antitypical Elisha, as the above story shows. The Shunammite's questions of v. 28 were a reminder to Elisha that she had not asked for a son and had asked not to be deceived. They had their antitypes in the statements and attitudes of the supporting Societyites, to the effect that the way things had turned out it would have been better had there not been a public witness movement, whose outcome certainly deceived the supporting Societyites, for it undoubtedly left the Society's public work and position in a far worse condition than they were before that movement set in. Doubtless these reproachful questions also implied antitypically that serious but easily avoidable mistakes had been made by the leaders, which greatly aggravated the Society's situation. The doubtful things that we have pointed out in vs. 27, 28, imply the excitement and nervousness experienced in the typical scene, for under excitement and nervousness abbreviation of expression usually occurs. Notice that v. 28 does not state that the son was dead; it only expresses in an indirect way that it would have been better had the son not come, that the whole affair had resulted in greater loss than the gain was. We are nowhere told in this story that the Shunammite told Elisha that her son was dead; it rather implies that Elisha had known it.

(48) His commission to Gehazi (v. 29), without the Shunammite's telling of the death of her son, is also in line with the thought that he had before known of that death, and that that death was not referred to as the



thing that the Lord had hid from Elisha (v. 27). While J.F.R. was in prison when he antityped Gehazi attempting to thrust aside the Shunammite, in the antitype of v. 29 he was no longer there. The expression, "Gird up thy loins," is an exhortation to service; and shortly after J.F.R.'s recovery to health from the sickness that followed his release from prison, he received such an exhortation from the Societyites acting as God's mouthpiece to the public, antitypical Elisha. Elisha's staff, or rod, stood for his office powers, even as Moses' and Aaron's rod did for theirs (Ex. 4: 4; 7: 9; 9: 23; 10: 13; Num. 17: 2-8). Elisha's giving his rod to Gehazi (v. 29) types antitypical Elisha's delegating his office powers to J.F.R., which he did when he made him his mouthpiece in the following agitation to arouse the Societyites to take up the public work again. His charge not to salute anyone or return anyone's salutation (v. 29), which salutations in the Orient are lengthy affairs, types the fact that antitypical Elisha charged him to pay no attention to flatterers, congratulationists or critics, but to direct his whole attention to the mission entrusted to him, arousing the Societyites to take part in public work again. The charge to set Elisha's rod (v. 29) on the child's face represents the charge that antitypical Elisha gave J.F.R. to use Elisha's office powers as God's mouthpiece to the public to revive the dead public witness movement.


(49) Please note the excitement and intensity of the Shunammite's feelings, as indicated in the abbreviated expression of v. 30. To what she said, something like the following should be added to fill out the sense—"but will remain with thee here, unless thou go with me to the child." Her adjuring Elisha by the life of Jehovah and the life of Elisha (v. 30) also shows the intensity of her feelings. She evidently did not trust Gehazi as having sufficient power to do an effective job. Perhaps also his attempting to thrust her aside



made her also distrust him. Antitypically, the supporting Societyites felt very deeply in the matter of a dead public witness movement and deeply desired its revival; and, therefore, expressed themselves more feelingly than clearly to antitypical Elisha. Their experiences with a number of J.F.R.'s blunders made them distrust his boasted efficiency. His last blunder, described in paragraph 15, increased this distrust. They, therefore, desired this revival work to go on under the ministry of the more conservative leaders, like Bros. Spill, Page, Fisher, Robison, Barber, Bohnet and others of the more sober Society pilgrims. Hence they insisted on these participating in this work of reviving the dead public witness movement. In this they antityped the Shunammite, insisting so strongly on Elisha's going with her to revive her son. Elisha's arising and following after her types, especially the leading Societyites as God's mouthpiece toward the public acceding to the earnest entreaties of the supporting Societyites to participate in reviving the Society's public witness movement. Gehazi's passing on before them (v. 31) types the fact that J.F.R. initiated as leader therein the work of reviving the public witness movement in the Society. Gehazi's placing Elisha's rod on the face of the dead child types J.F.R.'s using the official powers of antitypical Elisha as mouthpiece toward the public to revive the Society's public witness movement. This work he did, after his recovery from his nearly fatal illness of the spring of 1919. His efforts proved unfruitful, typed by the child's uttering no sound nor doing any hearing (v. 31). The last features of such failures were, first, his talk at the Cedar Point Convention, Blessed Are The Fearless, in which he elaborated his third new view—the transubstantiation of antitypical Elijah into antitypical Elisha. Many of the Conventioners had within the last six weeks read our article on The Last Related Acts of Elijah and Elisha and, knowing that



he was seeking to set it aside by his third new view, they recognized the failure that he made, which threw a wet blanket on his efforts. His second failure at that convention was agitating for the Golden Age as taking the place of volunteer work. His part, therefore, as typed by Gehazi's failure to awaken the child, proved a failure. And Gehazi's report of failure (v. 31) typed his factually, not verbally (which his pride prevented his doing) acknowledging failure to arouse the Society's public witness movement.


(50) We are familiar with the fact, already referred to in paragraph 12, that in types consisting of a number of episodes, one act must be completed before the next begins, but that in antitypes consisting of a number of episodes this is usually not the case; rather the succeeding antitypical episodes usually set in before the preceding ones are completed. This is the case in the one under study. While J.F.R. was during the summer of 1919, up to and during the Cedar Point Convention of Sept., 1919, seeking to revive the Society's public witness movement and meeting with no success therein, antitypical Elisha's efforts therein, beginning after J.F.R.'s had started, but not ended, were succeeding during that summer up to and during the Cedar Point Convention. And this work of his is typed in vs. 3335. V. 32 types, by Elisha's coming to the Shunammite's home and finding the child lying dead on his bed, that antitypical Elisha mingled with the supporting Societyites in their sphere of being and working and viewed the public witness movement as being lifeless, though laid in rest on his teachings (bed). Elisha's entering his room (v. 33) represents antitypical Elisha's setting himself aside to occupying himself with such matters of his office as pertained to the work at hand—prayer, meditation, planning on the situation, etc. His shutting the door on Gehazi and the Shunammite represents that antitypical Elisha excluded J.F.R. and the supporting Societyites



from cooperating with him in resuscitating the dead public witness movement. He would, in type and antitype, work on this matter alone with God. The expression, "prayed unto the Lord" (v. 33), types the prayer and ardent desire of antitypical Elisha for a revival of the public witness movement. This emphatic desire is indicated in the Hebrew verb form used, but appears not in the A.V.


(51) Elisha's lying on the child (v. 34) was to communicate his warmth to the child, which types antitypical Elisha's seeking to communicate his spirit to the public witness movement in its revival. His putting his mouth to the child's mouth represents antitypical Elisha's seeking to communicate his utterances as God's mouthpiece to the public witness movement in its revival. His putting his eyes upon the child's eyes types antitypical Elisha's seeking to give his insight of matters to the public witness movement in its revival. And his putting his hands upon the child's hands types antitypical Elisha's seeking to give his kind of service to the public witness movement in its revival; for in Biblical symbols the mouth represents utterance and mouthpieceship; the eyes, insight, knowledge; and the hands, service. Elisha's stretching himself on the child represents that antitypical Elisha put his all into the task of resuscitating the Society's dead public witness movement. The flesh of the child warming up under this treatment (v. 34) types the gradual warming up of the public witness movement, which occurred through antitypical Elisha's arousing interest in the public witness work. Dr. Young correctly translates the first part of v. 35 as follows: "And he turneth back and walketh in the house, once hither and once thither." This seems to type a less private dealing with the situation, a dealing with it before the brethren in general everywhere, as antitypical Elisha was everywhere exercising his office powers in the sphere of the Shunammite's being and work. This was, therefore, done



by Tower articles written by others than J.F.R and by the pilgrims and elders. As the expression, "once hither and once thither," means that he went the full length of the house each way, it would seem to type the fact that antitypical Elisha's pertinent activities covered the entire sphere of the supporting Societyites, i.e., throughout Societydom. In other words, antitypical Elisha did a thorough work of seeking to arouse everywhere the Societyites to the public witness work.


(52) Elisha's going a second time to his room, where the dead child lay, types the second effort to resuscitate the public witness movement. And this second effort took place at the Cedar Point Convention, in Sept., 1919. Here, apart from J.F.R.'s blunder of commending his third new view on Elijah and Elisha, which, as we said above, acted like a wet blanket, the efforts of the speakers were directed to arousing to vigorous life a public witness movement. They put their all into this work (stretched himself on the child, v. 35); and the result was that they aroused that public witness movement into real life. Sneezing is not only a sign of life, but is usually caused by the tickling of the nose's mucous membrane, due to mucus forcing its way through the mucous membrane in the process of discharging poison from the body. Therefore it is a symptom of good, for which reason some people congratulate the sneezer, wishing him health. Thus the child's sneezing signified both life, riddance of evil and health, which typed that the reviving public witness movement gave evidence of getting rid of evil and of having a sound basis of life. The sevenfold sneezing showed that it was a complete manifestation of life and health; and the opening of the child's eyes emphasized the fact of the completeness of restored life and health to the supporting Societyites'



revived and healthy public witness movement.


(53) Elisha's calling Gehazi (v. 36) and charging him to call the Shunammite types antitypical Elisha's charging

J.F.R. to assemble a convention meeting for hearing the announcement of the new life infused into the public witness movement, and also through the Tower to bring the Societyites everywhere into a symbolic convention meeting, one of spirit, not of body, hence worldwide, for the same announcement. Gehazi's calling her and her coming type J.F.R.'s fulfilling the antitypical charge and the supporting Societyites responding to it. Elisha's telling her to take her child represents antitypical Elisha's exhorting the supporting Societyites to receive, as their own for possession and use, the revived public witness movement. Her coming to, and doing obeisance to Elisha (v. 37) types the humble recognition, appreciation and obedience that the supporting Societyites exercised toward antitypical Elisha for his part in reviving the Society's public witness movement. And her taking the child and going forth represents the supporting Societyites accepting the revived public witness movement as their own and exercising it in their subsequent ministry. Most of us have with much appreciation seen this beautiful story of the Shunammite enacted in the very fine film of the Photo-drama of Creation. But who of us then thought that we would witness its antitype taking place, or thought that we would be privileged while in the flesh to understand this antitype? "It is the Lord's doing; and it is marvelous in our eyes" (Ps.

118: 23)! This wonderful antitype was finished at the time when, according to J.F.R.'s third new view, antitypical Elisha began his ministry; and when, according to his fourth new view, the alleged Elisha work began; but facts prove that it began fulfillment two and a fourth years before, immediately after the separation of antitypical Elijah and



Elisha in their two respective leaders, which facts demonstrate the correctness of our understanding of the last related acts of Elijah and Elisha, and completely contradict and refute all four of J.F.R.'s new views.

(54) The third episode of our study is found in vs. 38-41. It refers to the poisoning of the pottage by an irresponsible person and to Elisha's healing the poisoned pottage. Gilgal (rolling, circuit) seems to type the conditions of crises. This seems to be the thought in Elijah's and Elisha's coming there and leaving there for Bethel, as representing the crown-retainers and crown-losers coming to the crisis implied in our Lord's Second Advent and presence in 1874 and progressing from there to 1878 and its events (2 Kings 2: 1, 2). Elisha's returning there (v. 38) seems to type the Societyites as God's mouthpiece to the public returning to matters of a crisis. The big drive of 1917-1918 and the imprisonment of their leaders and other untoward events of 1918 bore in upon the Societyites, especially those who were made leaders while the former leaders were in prison, to the effect that they were in a crisis that recalled them to the Parousia methods and ways. And under the lead of brothers like Bros. Spill, Page, etc., they made a return to those ways. This showed itself in the articles in the Tower, the pilgrim talks, colporteuring the Six Volumes and the printing and circulating of some of the leading Parousia tracts. The famine in the land (v. 38) represents the fact that no new Truth was coming to the Societyites in those days. Not that they did not think they had gotten new Truth, which they supposed Vol. VII had brought them, but that in 1918 new Truth was not coming to them. The sons of the prophets who were assembled before Elisha represent various Truth-hungry Society adherents who were, after the middle of 1918, looking to antitypical Elisha to bring forth some advancing light, some spiritual food. Elisha's servant usually represents J.F.R., but



in this case he, being in prison, could not have been the one represented by Elisha's servant, since the servant here is exhorted to do what represents preparing and setting spiritual food before the sons of the prophets, a thing which J.F.R. could not then do in a sufficient quantity, and which the Tower editors and Truth people writing for The Labor Tribune and The New Era Enterprise could supposedly do. Hence he represents them in this case.


(55) The great pot (v. 38) represents the Truth. The pottage types those features of it especially suitable to the needs of the Society friends amid their trials toward the end of 1918. The boiling of it represents the preparation of such truths for the appropriation of the Society adherents. The one who went out into the field to gather herbs (v. 39) types J.F.R., who went into the world of speculation to get some new Truth for the Societyites. The wild vine that he found there was certain alleged members of the true Church, who were actually unclean Great Company brethren (a wild vine), like R. H. Barber, the original propounder of the basic thoughts of the symbolic wild gourds, and J.F.R.'s imprisoned companion leaders, who endorsed those symbolic wild gourds, each of them adding some feature to them. The symbolic wild gourds were thus the product of this symbolic wild vine, erroneous Great Company leaders. The wild gourds type the thoughts that went to make up what we have called J.F.R.'s second new view, i.e., that the Societyites were antitypical Elijah and also antitypical Elisha—both representing the Little Flock—in the sense that their imprisoned leaders were antitypical Elijah as the head and the rest of them were antitypical Elisha as the body, that this head by the imprisonment of the leaders was cut off from the body, and thus the body was left without a head, which things were supposed to be typed by John's beheading. Then this headless body was going to do a great public



work, etc.! There were other wild thoughts (gourds) in the theory which do not need to be given in detail here, as the above will be sufficient to show what the antitypical wild gourds were. The lap full (literally, garment full) represents that there were many of such wild vagaries in the pertinent theory. This unnamed person's shredding the gourds (v. 39) before putting them into the pot represents J.F.R.'s working up these thoughts into an article. He first sent it to the Tower editors for them to publish it in the Tower, which they, recognizing its erroneousness, refused to do. He then sent it to The Labor Tribune and the New Era Enterprise, which did publish it. The man's putting the gourds into the pot represents J.F.R.'s trying to palm off his wild gourds as Truth. The man's not knowing (being under deception as to) the poisonousness of his gourds types J.F.R.'s not knowing (being under deception as to) the poisonousness of the theory of Elijah and Elisha set forth in his second new view. But not only he, but also others (they, v. 39) were under the same deception. The "they" types his companions in bonds and the editors and publishers of the papers that published it.


(56) The same parties, J.F.R., his companions in bonds and the above-mentioned editors and publishers, circulated (poured out, v. 40) the second new view among the Society adherents (men, v. 40) for their acceptance (to eat). Trouble began as they were eating. The poison in the type worked quickly (as they were eating) and so also in the antitype. The error made their symbolic mouths, throats and stomachs smart with pain. The typical cries (they cried out and said) represent the complaints that arose on all sides among the Society adherents against that second new view. It was at least one new view of J.F.R. that met a speedy rejection on all sides by the Societyites. The typical complaining to Elisha represents the general complaint made by Society adherents to their companions



acting as God's mouthpiece to the public, especially the leaders, like the Tower editors, pilgrims and elders. The cry, "Death in the pot," types the alarm and protests against the erroneousness of the second new view making themselves heard on all sides. Error leads to death (Jas. 5: 20), hence the cry, "Death in the pot," i.e., a deadly error is mingled in with the Truth. The Societyites were unable to accept and assimilate such error, transparent and foolish as it was (could not eat, v. 40). Elisha's charge (bring meal, v. 41) types the charge, especially of the leaders among God's mouthpiece toward the public, to put into those special Parousia truths represented by the pottage, that special feature of the Parousia Truth that was Bro. Russell's view of the last related acts of Elijah and Elisha, as the antidote for the wild special gourds' poison, that thereby the evil results of the antitypical wild gourds might be neutralized. And such was the case, for that reasonable view of the matter overthrew J.F.R.'s second new view. Antitypical Elisha made no attempt to show how Bro. Russell's pertinent view was fulfilled, since that would have required the acceptance of the view that he was the public mouthpiece of a Great Company movement. But the simple acceptance of that view sufficed to set aside the error of J.F.R.'s second new view. Elisha's charging that the pottage be poured out (v. 41) represents antitypical Elisha's charging that the Truth on the subject be spread by the Societyites among one another. The men eating and there being no evil in the pottage (v. 41) types the fact that the pertinent Truth was accepted and no evil resulted therefrom. The interpretation of this episode just given is a factual one, as all fair-minded brethren who know the facts will admit.


(57) The fourth episode of 2 Kings 4 found its antitype in connection with the article entitled, Calls—Siftings— Slaughter Weapons, in the August, 1919, Present Truth. The word Baal-shalisha (v. 42) means



lord (Baal) of the third part. At the time of the fulfillment the Great Company had already developed itself into three groups: (1) those who sought but failed to get control of our Pastor's three corporations; (2) those who sought to get and succeeded in getting control of his three corporations, and (3) those who refused to use corporations to control the general work. From the standpoint of the antitypical Levites these correspond respectively to the antitypical (1) Gershonites; (2) Merarites; and (3) Kohathites. The third group (Shalisha) of these in time order of development was the antitypical Kohathites. The brother who wrote the article on the Calls—Siftings—Slaughter Weapons had from shortly after the time of his return from England, April 10, 1917, among others, been mingling more or less with the antitypical Kohathites, especially with their leaders. But he broke with, and then left one after another of them, first Menta Sturgeon, then A.I. Ritchie and finally, R. H. Hirsh. The breach with the last named was setting in, though not completed, at the time the above-named article appeared. With the developing of that final breach he left antitypical Baal-shalisha, shalisha, third part or class, typing the antitypical Kohathites. The force of the word Baal in Baal-shalisha in this antitype is that of leadership, and this word indicates what the facts of the antitype show, that this brother mingled with the leadership (lord) of the antitypical Kohathites—with Menta Sturgeon of the Uzzielite Kohathites, A.I. Ritchie of the Hebronite Kohathites and R.H. Hirsh of the Amramite Kohathites— and that he left them, and of course he left their supporters.


(58) In the type the man who came from Baal-shalisha came to Elisha. Thus in that issue of The Present Truth (Aug., 1919) he came to the Societyites in their capacity of being God's mouthpiece to the public. The typical man brought gifts to Elisha, i.e., twenty loaves of bread made of firstfruit barley and



corn in its husks (v. 42). By the corn in its husks here we are not to understand our modern corn, usually called Indian corn, because the North American Indians were its developers. Such corn was unknown in Bible times. The corn of v. 42 was some kind of unwinnowed grain, since the word corn stands for the word grain in the Bible (Gen. 42: 2; Num. 18: 27; 1 Cor. 9: 9; Judges 15: 5; Ruth 2: 14; Amos 9: 9; Matt. 12: 1; Mark 4: 28; John 12: 24). Its chief Biblical kinds were wheat, barley, rye, fitches and millet (Ex. 9: 32; Is. 28: 25; Ezek. 4: 9). Bread in the Bible symbolizes the Truth as spiritual food (1 Cor. 5: 8; John 6: 35-48; Matt. 4: 4). It will be noted first that there were twenty loaves of bread. These represent the twenty lines of Truth found in the article entitled, Calls—Siftings— Slaughter Weapons, as follows. There is one line of Truth respectively contained in each of the three general remarks on Matt. 19: 26—20: 19; 1 Cor. 10: 1-14 and Ezek. 9; one respectively in each of the five calls, one respectively in each of the six siftings and one respectively in each of the six slaughter weapons. Thus a total of twenty truths. These are symbolized by the twenty loaves that the man from Baal-shalisha brought to Elisha. And there were also twenty truths used in that article to refute Clayton Woodworth's new view on the penny parable, which may be a secondary antitype. Barley is used to type the Great Company, also the Second Deathers as symbolic refuse barley. It also is used to represent truths on such. Inasmuch as only one of these twenty features of Truth refers to the Little Flock, represented in those called during the eleventh hour, and the other nineteen refer to the Great Company and Second Deathers, by reason of this preponderance of Truth on the Great Company and Second Deathers, the bread is represented as having been made of barley as distinct from wheat. Moreover, it is because the spiritual food in that article, as it was sent to antitypical Elisha, was



intended as spiritual food for the Great Company, that the loaves were made of barley. That firstborn ones are typed here is seen in the word firstfruits. The Great Company are among the firstborn of antitypical Israel (Heb. 12: 23), while the Second Deathers are the firstborn of Egypt. Corn in its husks is new corn, which here types the fact that a series of new truths were being presented to the Great Company.


(59) In the type Elisha commanded the food to be given to the people. Hence antitypical Elisha charged the antitypical twenty loaves and unwinnowed grain to be given the Lord's people, including, of course, the Societyites. Many of the Societyites enjoyed the bulk of that article and commended its reading to one another. This was true also of a number of leaders among them; and their so doing antitypes Elisha's commending the twenty loaves and the unwinnowed grain to the people for food (v. 42). Elisha's servant here (v. 43) types J.F.R., who in the time of the antitype was free from prison and was acting again as the Society's executive and chief editor. His contempt of the truths given in the pertinent article is typed by the language, "What, should I set this before an hundred men?" The number 100 is a multiple of 10, which in Bible numerics stands for natures and things below the Divine nature and things; and with its multiples it is frequently used in connection with the Great Company, as having a nature and things lower than Divine. We pointed this out in connection with the number ten, as entering into the multiples of itself, appearing in the numbers of the second half of the captive virgins, cattle, sheep and asses of Num. 31, as picturing forth Great Company matters during the Epiphany. This also appears in the 10,000 of Ps. 91: 7 and Deut. 32: 20. The hundred men here referred to type the Societyites, first, as of the Great Company; and since Youthful Worthies have a nature and things lower than Divine, they in their Society representatives may justly be regarded



as included in the antitypical 100 men, as from another standpoint they are included in antitypical Elisha. It is not to be understood that J.F.R. spoke of the Societyites as Great Company and Youthful Worthy representatives. Rather the matter is to be viewed as follows: Those to whom he referred were actually such; and, therefore, God put into the mouth of his type language that would type the actual standing of those of whom he spoke. That J.F.R. sought to prevent the Societyites from partaking of the spiritual feast offered in that article is an undoubted fact. Personally, by letter and by instructions to his pilgrims he not only counseled against reading that and other teachings that appeared in The Present Truth, but he specifically told his adherents, some of whom were burning the copies of The Present Truth that were being sent to them, not to burn them, but to send the papers back to the publisher unopened, with the word "refused" written on the wrapper. This counsel he gave, knowing that we would no more send papers to such refusers, and thus he sought to prevent their getting any more copies of this journal. Thus he fulfilled the pertinent antitype of Gehazi contemptuously seeking to prevent the article in question from being read and assimilated by the antitypical 100 men.


(60) Elisha's disapproving Gehazi's course (v. 43) types antitypical Elisha's disapproving the intolerant course of

J.F.R. The latter has succeeded in the years since the separation occurred in making many of the partisan Societyites almost as intolerant as the Roman hierarchy have made many of their adherents. Our Pastor inculcated Christian tolerance, while J.F.R. has inculcated an unchristian or Romish intolerance in his followers. We are glad to know that the genuine Elishaites have escaped this spirit, as we are also glad to know that they have avoided many other spiritual evils into which he has led his thorough partisans. Accordingly, Elisha reiterates his charge that the food be



given the people to eat, typing antitypical Elisha inculcating the examination of the teachings that the Lord's servants bring to them, even if they were not connected with the Society. There were very many brethren in the Society who at that time believed that the usurpatory and lording course of J.F.R., especially toward us, had been a wrong one. This view was held by not a few who were leaders in antitypical Elisha, and it was from such also that the antitypical charge went forth, "Give the people, that they may eat." Elisha's using the expression, "for thus saith the Lord," types antitypical Elisha's appeal to such Scriptures as charge God's people to try the spirits, teachings, whether they be of God (1 John 4: 1) and to prove all things and hold fast that which is true (1 Thes. 5: 21), as sanctioning the study of that article. Implied in these exhortations is the charge to reject what one considers untrue. This view as taught here is strengthened by the infinitive forms of the Hebrew verbs, here incorrectly translated, "They shall eat, and shall leave thereof." The rendering should be: [It is] to eat and to leave; i.e., the Lord commands us to prove the teachings presented to us, accepting what we regard as true and rejecting what we regard as false. J.F.R. has all along told his adherents not to examine what comes from non-Society sources. Against this teaching the real Elishaites have taught: Prove all teachings that come from Truth people who have been recognized as Truth teachers in the Church, holding fast what appears to you as true and rejecting what after proving strikes you as false. This is doubtless the right view, while J.F.R.'s view is the counterpart in Little Babylon of the pope's pertinent view in Great Babylon. This correct view antitypical Elisha taught as the antitype of Elisha's saying, "Thus saith the Lord: [It is] to eat and to leave," accept what strikes one as true, reject what strikes one as false.


(61) At first reading one would think that it was



Gehazi who set (v. 44) the food before the people. But when we look at the antitype we see that this cannot have been the case; for J.F.R. certainly never encouraged nor helped the Society friends to partake of that article. On the contrary, he sought to prevent their partaking thereof. We therefore think that the one who set before the people the food was the man who brought it as a gift to Elisha, and his antitype certainly set the antitypical food—the Truth on the calls, siftings and slaughter weapons—before the Society friends, by sending to them the pertinent papers, encouraged by various members of antitypical Elisha so to do. That particular issue has gone through four editions and has been circulated to the extent of about 30,000 copies among Truth people, mainly Society brethren. And it has been sent to all the friends whose names and addresses he has been able to get. Certainly it has been read with profit by many, some thereby coming into the Epiphany Truth, others enjoying it who still remained in the Society or other Levite groups. Some of these accepted all of it, others all of it except the sixth sifting and the sixth slaughter weapon; for it will be recalled that the sixth sifting has had as a part of it the Society's revolutionism in power-grasping in 1917, the murmuring at getting no more than those who labored from the eleventh hour onward, as well as the Society's subsequent revolutionisms. These put it into a bad light as to the sixth sifting and the sixth slaughter weapon. Hence they rejected this, thinking that that part of the article could not be right as to "the channel's" part in that matter. And, of course, thinking it wrong so to describe "the channel's" course, they rejected the view there presented. They "left" uneaten that part of the article, according to the Word of the Lord, which commands one to reject a thing that one considers erroneous, regardless of whether it is or is not erroneous. We are not to understand the expression, "according to the



Word of the Lord," to mean that that interpretation was not according to the Lord's Word, for it is the true interpretation of the sixth sifting and slaughter weapon; but we are to understand it to mean that it is according to the Word of the Lord not to accept what one does not see to be Truth. With this we close our discussion of the fourth and last episode of 2 Kings 4; and we find the interpretation a factual one. Like the antitypes of the first and second episodes of this chapter, the antitypes of its third and fourth episodes contradict J.F.R.'s third and fourth new views, for they occurred before the Elisha of his third and fourth new views began to work separate and distinct from the antitypical Elijah of his third and fourth new views, i.e., in the late summer of 1919, while the antitypes of the third and fourth episodes of 2 Kings 4 prove to be a prior activity of separated antitypical Elisha.


(1) Where are details given on antitypical Elijah and Elisha? What is typed in 2 Kings 2: 15-25? What is to be treated in this chapter? How do we know, in the first place, that 2 Kings 3 is typical? What second set of facts proves it to be typical? What third set of facts proves it? What fourth fact proves it? What do these four sets of facts warrant? What is the time setting of its antitype? Why? What great event does the chapter type? Why do we so apply it?

(2) Of what character do Jehoram of Israel, Jehoshaphat of Judah and the king of Edom partake? Where has this been proven? What do these facts do to 2 Kings 3? What do these kings of Israel, Judah and Edom and the king of Moab type? What should these thoughts induce us to do with 2 Kings 3?

(3) What does Ahab type? What are typed by his two sons? What is the time relation of these two antitypes? When, and as a result of what did antitypical Ahaziah die? How long will antitypical Jehoram continue? How were Ahaziah and Jehoram related in kingly office? Which phase of the latter's reign is referred to as beginning in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat's reign? When did antitypical Ahab begin to die? What did antitypical



Ahaziah add to itself at that time? How long did this combination last? What is typed by reigning in Samaria? What is probably typed by the twelve years of Jehoram's reign?

(4) What did Allianced Europe work? Despite what was this done? How did its evils compare with those of Autocratic Europe and the Catholic Church? What did Allianced Europe set aside? What contemporaneous phase of Europe did not so do?

(5) To whose sins did typical Jehoram of Israel cleave? What do the names Jeroboam and Nebat mean? What were Jeroboam's chief sins? How is this known? What is typed by Jehoram cleaving to these sins? What were the two alliances of Europe? Of what were they guilty as against one another? To what did this in part lead? From what time especially were these sins committed? To what evils did these two bad qualities lead? How long will they continue?

(6) What do the words Mesha and Moab mean? What does Mesha type? How did he rebel against antitypical Ahaziah? How harmonize our definition of antitypical Mesha with the fact that both European alliances were typed by Jehoram? On what principle are we justified in calling the Allies antitypical Jehoram? In what respects does Mesha type the Central Powers? What are typed by Moab and Israel in this picture? Why were the Central Powers an antitypical sheepmaster? What is anti-typed by Mesha rendering to Israel's kings the wool of the rams and lambs?

(7) What resulted from the formation of the Triple Alliance? What antitypical time setting is indicated in the expression, when Ahab was dead? How did the Germanic peoples thereafter act? Under what German statesman did this especially come to pass?

(8) What is represented by Jehoram going forth to muster all Israel? Describe the antitypical acts. What is typed by his going forth from Samaria? Until when did the antitypical mustering continue? What nations joined the Entente during the World War?

(9) To what period does this verse apply? In what respects does Jehoshaphat type America? Where did the effort to win America for the Allies originate? By what



general means was this attempted? What particular, means were used for this purpose? How did the Central Powers contribute to this Allied purpose? In what did this campaign result? What gave it its finishing touches? In pantomime what did such propaganda antitype? In pantomime what did America's war declaration antitype? What three things are typed by Jehoshaphat's three answers?

(10) What does verse 8 type? Apart from the antitype, what is not clear as to the questioner in this verse? What does the antitype suggest on this point? Why? When was this done? What was the antitypical answer? Why was this answer wise? What is typed by going up by the way of the wilderness of Edom?

(11) What is typed by the king of Edom? What does Edom here type? On what relation of thought is this answer harmonized with other antitypes of Edom? What is typed by the three kings marching together? What is typed by the seven day journey? With what was this period, especially its last three or four months, accompanied as respects the Allies? What is represented by the seven in the expression, seven days? What is typed by the lack of water? Why was there a lack of antitypical water? To what would this naturally lead? How long was this antitypical water lacking? What is typed by host, and the cattle?

(12) What is typed by Jehoram's cry? Why was it uttered? What led up to it? What is typed by his bewailing disaster for all three kings? What is typed by his attributing the situation to Jehovah's ordering?

(13) What is typed by Jehoshaphat's query for a prophet of Jehovah? Who, among others, shared in this antitype? How? What was the result of his earlier efforts in this matter? What did he further do? What is typed by the servant of Israel's king? His reply to Jehoshaphat? How did the antitypical servant of Israel's king come to refer to the Society adherents as a mouthpiece of Jehovah? How did antitypical Jehoshaphat come to get this answer from the antitypical servant? What is typed by the expression, "Elisha … poured water on the hands of Elijah"?

(14) What is typed by Jehoshaphat's recognition of