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




2 Kings 5: 1—9: 21.




THE STUDY of 2 Kings 5 will next engage our attention, and that less detailedly than 2 Kings 4. Some general remarks on the Syrians and Israelites will help us to gain a vantage point from which we can better understand the antitypical teachings of 2 Kings 5-9. We have in our study of the Syrians seen that they type the radicals and that Benhadad II, the one active in the later part of 1 Kings and the earlier part of 2 Kings, and Hazael type the various phases through which radicalism has passed. We saw that the Benhadad of the later part of 1 Kings, Ben-hadad II, types Democracy, as radicalism, in contrast with Autocracy, as conservatism, from the first to the nineteenth century, typed by Ahab (P '36, 123, 124). The Ben-hadad of 2 Kings 5-8, Ben-hadad II, represents various forms of radicalism, sometimes among the Societyites, sometimes in political America and sometimes in Bolshevik Russia, while Jehoram, the king of Israel, in contrast with Ben-hadad II, represents conservatism, sometimes among the Societyites, sometimes in political America and sometimes in political Europe. It depends on the episode as to which set of antitypes is pictured in the type. In 2 Kings 5 the king of Israel and the king of Syria represent respectively conservatism and radicalism in the Society



in 1919 and 1920. Hazael, in contrast with Ben-hadad II, types Russian Syndicalism, in contrast with Russian Bolshevism (Communism). The antitype of Benhadad III refers to the radicalism that will follow Armageddon, as the Israelitish kings of the Jehu dynasty represent the various phases of conservative Labor in and after Armageddon. It is necessary for us to keep these varying viewpoints in mind in order to understand the involved antitypes. That these kings are typical is evident from the fact that they act in connection with Elisha, an acknowledged genuine type; for one of the ways by which we know whether a character is typical, when the Bible does not expressly call him such, is his acting in connection with one of its expressly mentioned types. Hence Elijah being Biblically called a type (Mal. 4: 5, 6; Matt. 17: 12, 13; 11: 14—literal translation: He himself is [types, represents, the] Elias, which is about to come) and his contacting Elisha proves Elisha to be a type; and the latter contacting Jehoram, Benhadad, Hazael and Jehu, all of these must be types. These remarks prepare us to study 2 Kings 5 advantageously.


(2) Naaman (pleasantness, in allusion to his antitype's agreeableness to radicalism) represents the radical controversialist leaders of the Societyites as propagandists. They were those on whom the radical Societyites depended to present controversially the Society's theory of matters before the public, and who before the public gave the radicals in the public, Socialists and Reds, more or less sympathetic support and comfort, and who before the public too roundly and bitterly denounced state, church, capital and aristocracy, e.g., Clayton Woodworth's denunciation of patriotism in Vol. VII. Among others, the leaders were J.F.R. (who was at times radical, at other times conservative), W.E. Van Amburgh, A.H. MacMillan, Clayton Woodworth, W.F. Hudgings, R.J. Martin, G.E. Driscoll (Bro. Russell's publicity agent), etc. The



king of Syria (Ben-hadad II was the typical king of Syria alluded to in 2 Kings 5) represents radicalism as such, as it ruled in the Society. To radicalism in the Society the above-mentioned leaders were great and in high favor (v. 1), because they had in argument refuted the leaders in state, church, capital and aristocracy, and thus wrought deliverance for radicalism in the Society. But while able and victorious as controversialists, they were symbolically leprous (v. 1), contaminated with Great Company uncleanness, an uncleanness that not only made them obnoxious to the priesthood, yea, even to the conservatives in the Society, but also to the leaders in state, church, capital and aristocracy. The Society radicals (Syrians, v. 2) in groups made various inroads among the Society conservatives (Israel) and won over some of the latter (a little maid, v. 2) to the members of their party associated (Naaman's wife, v. 2) with the radical leader controversialists. The Great Company uncleanness that made antitypical Naaman despicable to the secular conservatives—those in state, church, capital and aristocracy—was a serious hindrance to their fruitfulness in service among those conservatives. This, after the war and after the freeing of the imprisoned leaders, especially after the public witness movement was revived, caused great concern among the radical Societyites and among those who had been won over to Society radicalism from Society conservatism (the little maid, v. 3). These latter expressed this concern to the helpers (her mistress, v. 3) of antitypical Naaman and at the same time expressed their wish that antitypical Naaman would put himself under antitypical Elisha's curing power, which would recover him from such (Great Company) uncleanness as hindered his usefulness toward the conservative public (v. 3).


(3) Antitypical Naaman, hearing this, reported it to Society Radicalism by telling it to Society radicals in general (v. 4). Radicalism, as represented by Society



radicals, desirous of removing antitypical Naaman's handicap to public service, undertook to secure his healing by pertinent requests and presents (letter, etc., v. 5). The ten talents of silver represent the totality of powers to be offered to the Great Company for its public work as mouthpiece to the public. The ten changes of garments represent the totality of authority to be offered for such public work; and the 6,000 pieces of gold represent the imperfection of the channel view as to full Divine power from which the gifts were alleged to have emanated. Society Radicalism, in various of its representatives, sent a request (letter) with antitypical Naaman (v. 6) to Society Conservatism, in various representatives, asking that he be cured of the uncleanness (actually Great Company uncleanness) which hindered his usefulness in the controversial aspects of the Society's public work. The receipt of this request occasioned Conservatism in various of its representatives (king of Israel, v. 7) to do violence to their graces (rent his garments, v. 7), charging that the Society radicals were asking them to do what God alone can do (v. 7). Of course this struck Conservatism, as represented by the conservatives in the Society, as a deliberate attempt to the Society radicals to start a quarrel with them (v. 7).


(4) As all who are conversant with Society conditions know, there were two parties in the Society in those times. Indeed, from shortly after the separation set in, during 1917, this division of sentiment as between Society radicalism and Society conservatism set in. The dominance of the radical policy in the Society undoubtedly plunged the Society into its trouble with the U. S. Government, resulting in the imprisonment of the main radical leaders, though Bro. Fisher and F. H. Robison, conservatives, were also imprisoned. Those in charge during the imprisonment of the above, like Bros. Spill, Page, etc., belonged to the conservative section of the Society. There were clashes of policy



between the imprisoned radical leaders and the free conservative leaders who were in charge, and that even before the former were released. It has already been pointed out how the conservatives refused to publish in the Tower J.F.R.'s second new view, and how when the former refused to sanction the publication of more copies of Volume VII while it was under the ban, without their knowledge J.F.R. from prison ordered an immense quantity of them printed, which order Bro. Spill, etc., cancelled just in time to prevent the closing down of headquarters altogether, as was shown in the preceding chapter. There was also friction due to the conservatives' not giving at the demand of the radicals $10,000.00 to secure the freedom of the imprisoned ones. So strong was this friction that when J.F.R., etc., were liberated and a welcome meeting was arranged for them at Pittsburgh before the Pittsburgh Society Church, J.F.R. so pointedly snubbed Bro. Spill as to arouse more distrust of him among the conservatives. We have been reliably informed that this snubbing included J.F.R.'s refusal to greet Bro. Spill with a handshake before that welcoming assembly. Bro. Spill, we have also been informed, said that he had been so shabbily treated by J.F.R. and his radical fellow leaders and that he had witnessed so much of their wrongdoings, that he could have written a paper thereon that would truthfully have manifested worse conduct on J.F.R.'s, etc., part than Light After Darkness, Harvest Siftings Reviewed and Facts for Shareholders manifested. He declined so to do, thinking that it was not the Lord's will. Thus we see that there was much friction between these two Society groups. Each, of course, sought to win over from the other supporters for itself, implied in v. 2. Accordingly, when the radicals demanded that the conservatives rid their leaders of the odium which their (Great Company) uncleanness brought on them from the conservative public, the



Society conservatives saw in this a pretense for arousing more conflicts between these two parties in the Society (v. 7).


(5) Antitypical Elisha in the main stood with the Society conservatives (the prophet in Samaria, v. 3), as the names of the Elisha leaders already given indicate. Of course, antitypical Elisha knew that this odium in conservative Christendom against the leading Society radicals as controversialists was due to their unbridled denunciations of state, church, capital and aristocracy. Accordingly, on hearing (v. 8) of the dismay of the Society conservatives at the Society radicals' demand, he addressed a mild rebuke to the former for their doing violence to their graces thereover (rent his clothes, vs. 7, 8) and asked that antitypical Naaman be sent to him for experiencing the instruction (shall know there is a prophet, v. 8) needed for his cure from such uncleanness as hindered his usefulness in the public work that was just beginning again. In this matter antitypical Elisha was especially active in Bros. Spill, Page, Sexton, Barber, Fisher, Robison, etc. These counseled and practiced moderation in speech and manner in dealing with the public, a thing that the others did not do, hence their unpopularity with the conservative public, an unpopularity actually due to Great Company uncleanness in the radicals. Antitypical Naaman came to these brethren with his theories (horses) and organization as a party (chariot), but not into intimate contact with them (stood at the door of Elisha's house, v. 9). As these stood somewhat aloof, so antitypical Elisha stood somewhat aloof from them (sent to him a messenger, v. 10). The antagonism of the antitypes to one another is thus seen in the aloofness of the types. Antitypical Elisha by various of his representatives (sent a messenger to him, v. 10) told antitypical Naaman that to overcome the odium of his antitypical leprosy, as the peoples of Christendom were making him feel it, he must thoroughly (seven



times) insinuate himself into the good graces of the peoples of Christendom (Jordan) by speaking and acting with becoming respect and tact as against his former denunciations, roughness and disrespect. In other words, by sympathetically mingling among, and ministering to the conservative peoples in the Lord's spirit he would rid himself of the uncleanness that made him odious to the conservative public and would develop a character that would make him helpful to them, as well as cure him of his evil qualities (thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt be clean, v. 10).


(6) Vs. 11, 12 show the effects of Elisha's aloofness on Naaman, hence forecast the Society radical fighting leaders' reaction to antitypical Elisha's remedy. These radical fighting leaders, with a sense of more or less self-importance, arising in part from pride and in part from a consciousness of their position and achievements, resented antitypical Elisha's lack of subserviency, manifested by his not fulfilling their expectations in dealing with them directly (will surely come out to me, v. 11), but through an agent (messenger), became angry and gave up their quest (was wroth and went away, v. 11). They greatly resented antitypical Elisha's not making a public demonstration over them in their healing (stand, and call upon the name of his God, and strike [literally, move up and down, as a bird flying moves its wings] his hand over the place, and recover the leper, v. 11). The expression, "over the place," proves that Naaman's leprosy did not cover his entire body, which would have symbolized Adamic depravity (Lev. 13: 12, 13), but was in a spot, which types Great Company uncleanness (Lev. 13, 14). That antitypical Elisha should advise a complete (seven times) sympathetic mingling with, acting courteously and tactfully toward, and placatingly addressing the conservatives in state, church, capital and aristocracy and their supporting groups of peoples (Jordan) also



offended antitypical Naaman, who thought that a sympathetic mingling with, a winsome acting toward, and a placating addressing of the radical peoples (rivers of Damascus, v. 12), the Socialists (Abana, perennial) and the Reds (Pharpar, swift), would be decidedly better for the work, and that he would, accordingly, do this (may I not wash in them, and be clean? v. 12) instead of doing this to the conservative classes of Christendom. Hence antitypical Naaman turned and left antitypical Elisha's vicinity in anger at the latter's disapproval of the past course of radicalism. Deferentially (my father, v. 13) some of his supporters (servants, v. 13) approached antitypical Naaman and tactfully sought to soothe his pride and sensitiveness (if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing), to the intent that he should follow antitypical Elisha's advice (wouldst thou not have done it? how much rather than when he saith to thee, Wash, and be clean? v. 13). Their tactfulness consisted in their deference, in their not disputing Naaman's counter-proposal, which would probably have made him all the more set in it and in diverting his attention to the insignificance of the requirement of antitypical Elisha—a new line of thought entirely. All of us may well learn from them the lesson of tact, especially with the proud and sensitive.


(7) Persuaded by this tactful suggestion antitypical Naaman humbled himself (went down, v. 14) and sympathetically mingled with, and used conciliatory and winsome methods in dealing with the conservative classes in Christendom (dipped himself). In their approaches to the public these radical controversialists ceased their blustering and bulldozing tactics with the conservatives. Their denunciations were very much toned down; a gracious and winsome manner of approaching the conservative public polished off their roughness, and thus as they thoroughly and completely (seven times) mingled with, and sympathetically approached



the conservative public, their Great Company uncleanness was washed away; and then the new creaturely graces grew (flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean, v. 14). Recognizing that antitypical Elisha had given the proper advice, and that obedience to the advice was effective unto a cure of his uncleanness, antitypical Naaman desired to make some return to antitypical Elisha; and that return was to give antitypical Elisha full power (ten talents) and authority (ten changes of clothes) and (supposed but not real) Divine channelship (6,000 pieces of gold) for the priestly work. In other words, he offered to give antitypical Elisha full and perpetual control of the work of the Society as that of a (supposed but not real) Divinely appointed priestly channelship, so that his, not radicalism's policies, would henceforth be the policies of the Society. The advisability of such overtures was discussed among the radical leaders and with antitypical Elisha from the late summer of 1919 to shortly before the voting shareholders' meeting in Jan., 1920 (returned … and all his company, and came, and stood before him, v. 15). He confessed to antitypical Elisha that the principles for which antitypical Elisha stood were the only right ones in God's service (no god in all the earth, but in Israel, v. 15). Then he gratefully and humbly offered to give him the above-mentioned position as to the Society's work (I pray thee, take a blessing of thy servant—the ten talents of silver, ten changes of clothes and 6,000 pieces of gold—vs. 5, 15). But antitypical Elisha, acting in such brothers as Bros. Spill, Page, Sexton, Fisher, Robison, etc., refused very positively to receive it, because of the mouthpieceship that they already had (as the Lord liveth, before whom I stand, I will receive none, v. 16). Almost up to the time of the election of the Society's directors and officers in Jan., 1920, did antitypical Naaman seek to induce antitypical Elisha to take these powers, which, if accepted,



would have been conferred at that election, but he firmly refused (urged him … he refused, v. 16).


(8) In the type Naaman desired two mules' load of earth from Canaan, with which to build an altar for offering to Jehovah as the only God to whom he would render sacrifice henceforth (v. 17). An altar represents the sacrificer from a certain standpoint, e.g., the brazen altar types the humanity of the Christ and the golden altar represents the new creatures of the Christ. In this case, the humanity of antitypical Naaman is represented; and the two mules' load represents the humanity of certain radical Societyite Great Company members and of the Youthful Worthies. Accordingly, antitypical Naaman determined to sacrifice on his humanity to Jehovah alone, i.e., serve the Lord according to Truth and righteousness. His asking for earth from antitypical Canaan (the Truth and the Spirit of the Truth) was a request that antitypically Elisha ministerially give such to him for his future service of God in Spirit and Truth; for we are to remember that only such service is a sacrifice to God which is offered in Spirit and Truth (John 4: 23, 24), and that service offered in any other way is a sacrifice to devils. Thus antitypical Naaman recognized that his former service was to the antitypical Syrian gods and not to Jehovah, whom alone, and not the antitypical Syrians' gods, would he henceforth serve. His place as the fighting leaders of the radical Societyites required him to allow these radicals to lean on his service, gain support from him (lean on my hand, v. 18), while they served their god, success (Rimmon, pomegranate fruit); and antitypical Naaman desired God to forgive him for his supporting this class while they served antitypical Syria's god. In other words, he desired God's forgiveness for the support that he would be giving radicalism, while serving among radicals in a religious way. He recognized that it was not the ideal thing, but he thought he could not avoid it. Had he



joined antitypical Israel, he could have avoided it. Antitypical Elisha compromised principle in his assuring antitypical Naaman that he could be at peace with the Lord and yet render support to radicalism, even in its attenuated Society form (he said … Go in peace, v. 19). Antitypical Elijah, loyal to the core to principle, would not have given such advice. He would have suggested that antitypical Naaman leave the radicals and join the conservatives in the Society. With antitypical Elisha's advice antitypical Naaman went measurably, not fully yet, back to radicalism, whereas had antitypical Elisha advised in harmony with principle, antitypical Naaman would likely have gone over to the Society conservatives (he departed from him a little way, v. 19); please see Luke 4: 23-27.


(9) Thus, while antitypical Elisha refused to take a reward for helping the Society fighting radical leaders to overcome their Great Company uncleanness, J.F.R. (Gehazi, v. 20), disapproving this course (Behold, my master hath spared Naaman, this Syrian), saw that there was a chance of gaining power and authority for himself out of the above-described set of conditions and made the strong resolution (as the Lord liveth, v. 20) to seek (run after him) his backing to obtain some of the power, authority and channelship toward the Society adherents that antitypical Elisha refused to accept. Therefore, J.F.R., seeing that the election of the Society's directors and officers was drawing near, sought (followed after Naaman, v. 21) to enlist the support of antitypical Naaman for his selfish ambitions in the Society's affairs. His efforts to influence antitypical Naaman were partly recognized by antitypical Naaman (saw him running after him, v. 21) and were greeted with a readiness to listen, in secret, apart from his organization hearing, to what was wanted, though its exact nature was not yet known to antitypical Naaman (lighted down from the chariot to meet him, v. 21). From J.F.R.'s manner antitypical Naaman



recognized that somewhat unusual was in the wake, and, therefore, asked whether everything was going well (Is all well? literally, [Is it] peace, prosperity? v. 21). J.F.R. answered, All is well; literally, peace, prosperity. Then he falsely told antitypical Naaman that antitypical Elisha favored that the Society's officers (one of the young men from Mt. Ephraim, v. 22) should have some of the power and authority (one talent of silver and one change of clothes, v. 22) and that the directors (the other young man from Mt. Ephraim, v. 22) should have some of the authority (one change of clothes, but, mark! no talent). The power and authority that he desired for the officers is that they were henceforth to hold and exercise their office by their election for three years, and not for one year, and the authority that the directors were to have was henceforth to hold their office, actually with no power, by their election for three years, and not for one year. The offer made to antitypical Elisha was that he should have full powers and authority as the controller of the supposed Divine channel of the Little Flock for life (ten, completeness for natures lower than the Divine), the same power that Bro. Russell exercised in the Society. Some, not yet had, of such power J.F.R. sought to get, i.e., instead of for life, for three years. But note, please, while he asked for authority (two changes of clothes) both for the directors and officers, he asked for power for the officers alone, because in ultimate analysis this meant sole power for himself, since as the executive he alone controlled the other officers. Thus, his desire was that he be given by the election a lease of power like Bro. Russell's for three years and that the directors be reduced to dummy directors, as they were in Bro. Russell's day. This shows the selfishness and power-love of the man. And a prominent part in his wicked design was that he deceived antitypical Naaman on antitypical Elisha's desires.



(10) Not only did antitypical Naaman become convinced through J.F.R.'s persuasions, made suggestively in person and more plainly through others, that it would be in the interests of better service by the directors and officers, if they were elected triennially instead of annually, but antitypical Naaman, acting in Bro. Driscoll, went a little further and offered a resolution at the 1920 shareholders' meeting, giving both the directors and the officers power (take two talents, v. 23) and authority (two changes of garments) to function for three years. This resolution was seconded and passed by antitypical Naaman and his supporters (servants) at that meeting, after much debate (urged him, v. 23). Thus, this power and authority was put firmly into a double resolution (two bags, v. 23). Antitypical Naaman enlisted what were his Great Company and Youthful Worthy helpers (laid them upon two of his servants) to support this double resolution, and they did it and caused it to be carried both in the voting shareholders' meeting and in the board meeting (bare them before him to the tower, vs. 23, 24). These resolutions thus became bylaws of the charter and Society by the board's action, directed by J.F.R. (he [Gehazi] took them from their hand, and bestowed them in the house, v. 24). And he dismissed these supporters and let them go their way after they had caused the resolutions to be passed in the voting shareholders' meeting and in the board's meeting (v. 24). But the naked and almost unparalleled hypocrisy of J.F.R. is manifest in this course of action. In 1917, he claimed that the law required an annual election. Hence, he claimed that there were four vacancies in the board, which, he alleged, the charter required that he as president fill. If this position had been true there would have been seven vacancies; for the charter forbidding any but directors from being elected officers, and there having been no directors elected for years, except Bro. Pierson, who, under the theory, could not



have been elected a director by non-existent directors, no officers could have been elected. Hence, if the theory were true, there were no directors at all for years before July, 1917. Hence, there could be no president, and hence J.F.R. could not have ousted the four and appointed four others in their places. But J.F.R. misrepresented the entire situation, for the same law that required an annual election of corporation directors was passed after the Society's charter was granted; and that law specifically states that it was not retroactive, and that corporations formed before it was passed, and having charters granting longer than annual terms to their directors were exempt from the operation of this law.


(11) Hence, there were no vacancies among the Society's directors in early July, 1917. And J.F.R.'s ousting of four valid directors was not only against Divine and human law, but was done from the base, selfish motive of his retaining the powers of executive and manager that by much intrigue, by bulldozing the resolutions committee and intimidating the inexperienced directors, he had originally gotten. No honest lawyer conversant with the pertinent law would have given the opinion on whose basis J.F.R. alleged that he acted in 1917. After the transaction of some business for a client who was a Truth brother, during a conversation on Bible Students the lawyer who gave J.F.R. the above-mentioned opinion was asked by this brother why he gave it. The lawyer laughingly answered to the following effect: Lawyers give their clients what they want; and Judge Rutherford wanted that kind of an opinion; and he gave it to him for the fee he gave him. (!) But for the sake of the argument, granting that that utterly false opinion were true, since that law on the annual election of corporation directors has not been changed even to this day and was, therefore, the same in January, 1920, as it was in July, 1917, the said resolutions, afterwards made into bylaws,



on electing directors and officers triennially would have been a plain violation of that law. Hence, the gross hypocrisy of J.F.R. in having another lawyer assure the 1920 voting shareholders that the law sanctioned their passing the double resolution, afterwards by the board made into by-laws, on electing directors and officers for three years. As a matter of fact, both the action of 1917 and of 1920 were in violation of the law as it applied to the Society, a corporation whose charter, granted before the law on annual election of corporation directors and officers was passed, was expressly by the terms of its charter and that law exempt from the operation of the requirement of its annual election feature. Hence, the law required the Society directors to hold office for life and the officers to be elected annually. But in both cases the gross hypocrisy of J.F.R. stands out with noonday clearness. Selfish lust for power dominated him in both of his pertinent acts. And in the type under consideration God Himself reveals the wickedness of J.F.R.'s course in 1920.


(12) Antitypical Gehazi had to face antitypical Elisha (went in and stood before his master, v. 25). Antitypical Elisha knew what antitypical Gehazi had greedily done, hence asked him what he had done (Whence [from what activity] comest thou? v 25). J.F.R. falsified when he denied that he had (tactfully) intrigued to get the power and authority as director and president for 3 years, actually for 3 years and about 10 months by that election of 1920 (Thy servant went no whither, v. 25). Antitypical Elisha told J.F.R. that with grief did he behold J.F.R.'s intrigue and deception as to antitypical Naaman and the latter's succumbing to J.F.R.'s designs (Went not mine heart … when the man turned … to meet thee? v. 26). It surely was not a time for the Lord's people to seek to secure for self power (money), authority (garments), working positions in the Little Flock



(oliveyards), working positions in the Great Company and Youthful Worthies (vineyards), Little Flock members (sheep), justified ones (oxen), male subordinates (menservants), and female subordinates (maidservants). This language of antitypical Elisha disparages the unholy ambition and power-grasping and lording of J.F.R., antitypical Gehazi. Then antitypical Elisha expresses (v. 27) the Lord's mind on antitypical Gehazi and his symbolic seed—W.E. Van Amburgh, A.H. MacMillan, W.F. Hudgings, R.J. Martin, Clayton Woodworth, Jesse Hemery, etc.: The Great Company uncleanness that antitypical Naaman had would forever remain on them—they would never be cleansed of it. And antitypical Gehazi and his seed from that time onward proceeded into worse and worse Great Company uncleanness, seen, e.g., in their fierce denunciations of big business, big politicians and the clergy. Sometime in 1920 we came to understand the feature of the type just explained, which accounts for the severe handling that we have been giving J.F.R.; for this type and the Ruth type in its antitype of the nearest kinsman prove that, not God, but Satan uses J.F.R. and his symbolic seed. His work is under God's curse, as antitypical Elisha's work in its good Levitical features, which usually characterize his work, is under God's blessing.


(13) The story given in 2 Kings 6: 1-7 types the Society's public work from 1917 to 1920 centering in Vol.

7. In the first half of 1917 Society supporters, sons of the prophets (v. 1), felt cramped (too straight) in their sphere of service (place where we dwell), which then was as such certainly limited almost exclusively to Truth people (we … with thee). Hence they requested antitypical Elisha for an enlargement of their sphere of service, i.e., to extend it to the public (let us go … Jordan, v. 2). And thus they would prepare themselves for a ministry toward the public (take … and make us … a place there …



to dwell). Antitypical Elisha as mouthpiece to the public naturally encouraged them so to do, as we know he did from shortly after the middle of 1917 onward. The leaders (one, v. 3) in the Society desired greatly (be content) to have the Society brethren as a whole cooperate with them in this public (go with thy servants) work, and they therefore agitated that all cooperate in the work of circulating the message which smote Jordan (the second time). Antitypical Elisha certainly rallied with enthusiasm, pledging to take part in this work (I, I go, literal translation), which shows Elisha's strong and energetic promise to cooperate. He certainly did take energetic part in such public work from the fall of 1917 until the late spring of 1918 (he went, v. 4), as he also made energetic preparation for, and took zealous part in the public work (came to Jordan … cut down wood). But while the leaders (one, v. 5) were thus preparing for and engaging in such public work (felling a beam), Vol. 7, (axes represent refutative books, as is seen in the description of Ps. 74: 111 by their desolating the true Church in the Dark Ages) which as a refutative book, plaguing Babylon in State and Church, became lost to the leaders and to the led in the Society, sunk under the ban among the public (fell into the water). The banning of Vol. 7 caused consternation among the Society leaders (cried out … alas); for they considered it precious (not "borrowed" as the A. V. here, as in Ex. 11: 2; 3: 22; 12: 35, misrenders the word, but, desired, i.e., precious, valuable). Antitypical Elisha asked on what principle (where fell it, v. 6) was the book taken away from the leaders by the public acting through the authorities. This principle was then explained to him by the Society leaders (he shewed him the place). Then antitypical Elisha seized upon the properly applicable principles (cut down a stick), the truths that really applied to the case—liberty of press, speech, propaganda, assembly



and worship—and used these so dextrously (cast it in thither), so to the point, that the constitutional rights so advocated recovered Vol. 7 (iron did swim) from under the ban, by which the public acting through the authorities had taken it away from the possession and control of the Society leaders. Then antitypical Elisha had the leaders take Vol. 7 to themselves and use it again for propaganda purposes (v. 7), which was also done in 1920. 2 Kings 6: 17 is thus shown to have been antityped in the Societyites' public work with Vol. 7 from 1917 to 1920, which disproves all four of J.F.R.'s views and corroborates our view on antitypical Elisha, as we have seen in other episodes.


(14) 2 Kings 6: 8-23 types the first features of the conflict between Radicalism in political America (king of Syria, v. 8) seeking to enforce Mr. Wilson's internationalist policies after the war, and Conservatism in political America (king of Israel, v. 9) striving to maintain the policies of Americanism as against Mr. Wilson's efforts to internationalize America. This section also shows antitypical Elisha's and J.F.R.'s relations to this conflict. The antitype of this section occurred in the summer and fall of 1919. The Radicals under Mr. Wilson's lead started July 10, 1919, soon after his return from the Paris peace negotiations, to try to internationalize America on the matter of adopting the Versailles Treaty and the League of Nations with the World Court matter coming up later (took counsel … saying, in such and such a place … my camp, v. 8). The Societyites' troubles with the radical authorities on military questions had won for them friends and supporters among the Conservatives; and they sent the latter warnings against America's becoming involved in internationalism (camp), pointing out to them that the Versailles Treaty and the Covenant of the League of Nations were a part of a war by Radicals against Americanism (v. 9). Conservatism (king of Israel, v. 10) in the



person of its leaders—men like Senators Knox, Lodge, Borah, Johnson, Norris, La Follette, etc.—thereupon made a diligent study (sent to the place) of the Radicals' position and thus avoided falling into the trap of internationalism in (1) the treaty, (2) the League Covenant (not once) and (3) later the World Court (nor twice). Their not falling into the trap made Radicalism in its leaders suspect treachery in its own ranks as giving clues for their defense to the Conservatives (v. 11). Some of the Radicals denied such a thing, affirming that it was the Societyites—antitypical Elisha—who were keeping the Conservatives informed on the varied, even secret relations of the Radicals (v. 12). The Radicals (he said … spy where he is) gave the charge to find out what the position of the Societyites was that was giving them such a knowledge of their plans; and were informed that it was one based on the Bible (Dothan, two wells, the Old and the New Testaments, v. 13). It will be recalled that at this time, though their sentence had been set aside, the indictment still held against the Society leaders, the ban was still on against Vol. 7, and the Societyites were still under more or less restraint. The radical authorities, finding out that the Societyites were helping the Conservatives pressed to reopen the case against the eight indicted leaders, continued the ban on Vol. 7 and continued the restraints on the Societyites' work, using their legal doctrines (horses, v. 14), legal organizations (chariots) and many legal authorities and lawyers (a great host) to accomplish these things secretly (by night) and besieged them in their Scriptural position (compassed the city about), in the hope of capturing it.


(15) J.F.R. (Gehazi, the servant of the man of God, v. 15) early became apprised of the intentions of the Radicals' representatives (early … behold a host). As when arrested and under arrest in 1918 he showed great fear, so at the reopening of the matter



in the summer of 1919 he became greatly frightened (alas). His fear in neither case was that of a member of antitypical Elijah, as he claimed, but was in both cases that of antitypical Gehazi. His fear in this case was doubtless greater than that experienced in 1918; for his nine months' imprisonment, in the meantime, gave him no appetite for prison life. Hence his fear. Moreover he was nonplussed as to what to do in the situation (how shall we do?). Antitypical Elisha sought to calm him (fear not, v. 16), assuring him that those for them, not only the Lord and the guardian angels, but the organizations and theories of the Conservatives, though under trial as organizations and as theories (fiery chariots and horses, v. 17) were in a majority (more than they, v. 16) in political and legal America, and were on their side to defend them against the Radicals' organizations and theories. J.F.R.'s viewpoint was a pessimistic one, which saw only those on the opposing side and failed to see those on the Societyites' side. Antitypical Elisha labored (prayed), as God's mouthpiece to the public, to open J.F.R.'s eyes to the real situation, of which he as God's representative convinced him (opened the eyes), whereby J.F.R. was enabled to see that the tried organizations and theories of the Conservatives were on antitypical Elisha's side (round about Elisha). Antitypical Elisha as God's mouthpiece to the public with great desire (prayed, v. 18), and his word (word of Elisha) procured from the Lord the power of convincing the legal representatives of the Radicals that their viewpoints were erroneous and thus blinded them as to what to do in the case (smite … with blindness … He smote with blindness). The arguments that antitypical Elisha used were Biblical, which threw the government's attorneys into confusion; for their own Biblical points were inapplicable to the situation, and were shown to be such by antitypical Elisha (this is not the way, v. 19). Antitypical Elisha insisted that