Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
dinner, June 22, we affectionately suggested that an effort at a reconciliation be made; and (5) 3 P. M. that day was the time, and his office was the place agreed upon to make the effort. About 3 P. M. he sent his secretary to us with the message that he could not see us at that time. Later he told us that he used the time to discuss some repairs on Bethel with a contractor. He neglected an opportunity of consultation over the repair of the real house of God (Bethel, house of God) for one over a building made by hands. (6) About 8.35 A. M., June 23 (Saturday after breakfast and after he had given the usual instructions to the department heads, etc.), we approached him to find out when we could have our peace conference. He replied that it could not be, until he returned from a trip of four days. In view of the delay of our conference we then, June 23, briefly told him what in our judgment in his conduct had displeased the Lord: (a) his making and executing a plan for his getting exclusive executive and managerial authority in the Society, and (b) his using his position as such to usurp authority over the Board, the controlling body in the Society. (7) These remarks, quietly and lovingly made, greatly angered him, and he charged us with being in a conspiracy against the Society (himself!). He then sought to make capital of the situation, which we prevented. This scene, finished between 8:45 A. M., and 8:50, June 23, according to our watch, brought him into an irreconcilable position toward us, and marks the climax of the series of acts that constituted the first scene in the drama of antitypical Elijah's and Elisha's separation in its two representatives. Brother Martin sat near by, seeking to eavesdrop on our conversation. We desire to emphasize the time of this event, June 23, from about 8:35 to about 8:50
A. M. On approaching and leaving him we noted the time. In our present light we believe this was providential. That day according to God's reckoning was the first
full day of summer (Whitaker's Almanac, 1917, p. 19). The sun passed the equator at 12:15 noon, June 22, 1917, at 180 degrees East Longitude, where the whole world begins the day at midnight. Hence the first full day of that summer began at the midnight which introduced June 23. Let us again emphasize the time between 8:35 and nearly 8:50 A. M., June 23, 1917, the first full day of summer, when J.F.R. took toward us a fixed irreconcilable attitude, an attitude, which, as above described, gradually grew into fixity from June 21 to June 23.
(18) From page 16 of Harvest Siftings Reviewed, our answer to J.F.R.'s Harvest Siftings, which was written in the summer of 1917, and of which we still have a few copies for free distribution, we quote to prove that we set forth these facts in print over 2½ years before we ever thought that these events and this date were symbolized in the Pyramid: "Shortly [the next day] after the above-mentioned Board meeting I was told, June 22 [June 21; June 22 is a printer's error, as the Board meeting occurred June 20, and the next day the sequel occurred. In P '18, 7, col. 2, par. 4 and P '19, 88, col. 2, par. 4 we corrected this printer's error and gave June 21 as the proper date, and that nearly 16 months before we learned of the Pyramid's testimony on the matter], there was no more work for me at the Tabernacle. … Instead I was told that J.F.R. wanted to see me. He proposed a Pilgrim trip … I hesitatingly assented. The next night my sleep was very poor. I concluded that a week or two in the Pilgrim work would put me back where I was four months before. … I respectfully told him this the next morning. [June 22] … Remembering our old friendship … I sought … peace with him. This prompted me …, June 22 [just before dinner], to put my arms around him and say, 'We have been such good friends, surely we can … adjust our difficulties. When shall we make the effort?' He agreed to 3 o'clock that
afternoon, but at that time sent his secretary to me saying that he would have to see me at another time. The next morning [Saturday], June 23, … I asked when it might be; but I received reply that it could not be before a trip that he had in view. We then had a short conversation [about 10 minutes] in which I briefly mentioned the following things that in my opinion in his conduct were displeasing to the Lord. [Here follow in two paragraphs the two things, above summarized and omitted here for lack of space, that in his conduct we thought displeased the Lord]. … I pleaded with him in God's name almost with tears in my eyes to desist from his course, as it was self-exaltation, like Lucifer's, and was causing the trouble that was now common property in Bethel. Had he heeded this plea the present world-wide trouble in the Church would not have occurred. It was on this occasion that I stated that we had opposite legal opinion and that he cried out, 'you are in a conspiracy.' Referring to this same conversation, on page 15 we said the following: "I replied we also had legal opinion, and it said the opposite … He became angry, crying out loud enough to be heard at least 50 feet away: 'You are in a conspiracy.' Then he shouted out to Brother Eschelman who was about 20 feet away, to come, and to me to repeat my statement in the presence of a witness. Seeing that he was intent on proving me guilty of what I was innocent, I declined to repeat my remark." Seeing that he was irreconcilable we immediately left him. Permit us again to repeat the thought: this irreconcilable attitude was fixed between 8:45 A. M. and 8:50 A. M., June 23; and was described by us in August, 1917, in the above quotation, over 2½ years before we ever thought of connecting that conversation with the Pyramid's symbols. Let us note what the Pyramid in its symbols teaches thereon.
(19) Above we pointed out that the deflected line from the foot to the top of the step at the point of
intersection of the vertical line of the south wall of the Grand Gallery was 70.75995 Pyramid inches and showed that this measurement in a general way marked about July 1, 1917. We will now proceed to prove that, since the Pyramid records solar years whose days God counts as beginning at 6 P. M., the point of intersection points to the solar day that began 6 P. M., June 26, 1917. The first full day of the autumn of 1846 began 6 P. M., September 23. (See British Almanac for 1846.) This is the exact date at the foot of the step. 70.75 Pyramid inches represent 70¾ years and .00995 of a pyramid inch represents 3 days, 15 hours, 13 minutes and 10 seconds; for .00995 divided into an exact solar year, 365.242 days, yields that result. The first full day of the summer of 1917 began with that evening with which June 23 was introduced, beginning the summer with the first full day after the sun passed the equator at 180 degrees East Longitude. (Whitaker's Almanac for 1917, p. 19); for so the world counts the first full day of summer. This date according to precise solar (not calendar) years was exactly 70¾ years from September 24, 1846. Let us assume that the event whereby antitypical Elisha in his first member began to deviate from antitypical Elijah (1 Kings 19: 20) occurred between 8:35 and 8:50 A. M., September 24, the first full autumnal day of 1846. 70¾ exact solar years would bring us to the first full summer day between 8.35 and 8.50 A. M., which was June 23, 1917; and 3 days, 15 hours, 13 minutes and 10 seconds would bring us to that midnight 6 hours before which, as God views the matter, the solar day June 27, 1917, began. Adding 9 months, symbolized by the ¾ Pyramid inch from the point of intersection to the projected floor line of the King's Chamber directly above, and we reach that midnight 6 hours before which God's day, March 27, 1918, began. What was that day? It was Nisan 14, which as God's day began at 6 P. M.,
March 26, 1918. That day is the day that the Society leaders for nearly 9 months taught would be the day, when the door of entrance into the Harvest gathering and the begetting would close. And Brother MacMillan in his discourse the afternoon of March 26, 1918, at the Brooklyn Convention (Z '18, 111, col., 2, par. 5) gave what he thought was Scriptural evidence that during Nisan 14, 1918, the door would close! Hence the Pyramid, God's "Bible in Stone," symbolized the very day in which according to the Great Company the door to Spirit-begetting would close!
(20) What follows from this? Especially two things: (1) That Nisan 14, 1918, is the counterfeit date of Great Company members for the close of the door to the Harvest and spirit-begetting and (2) that The Present Truth and Herald of Christ's Epiphany has rightly interpreted the Divine mind on Elijah and Elisha (P '18, 1-17; P '19, 82100; 171-177; 210, 211, etc.), Calls, Siftings and Slaughter Weapons (P '19, 137-147), The Church Completely Organized, The Society as Channel (P '19, 151-161), The Time of Reaping (P '19, 185-194), The Epiphany (P '19, 203-207), Confessing the Sins over Azazel's Goat (P '20, 610), etc. Who could reasonably ask the Pyramid for a stronger confirmation than the above? "This is the Lord's doing; and it is marvelous in our eyes!"—Ps. 118: 23.
(21) Our last service under the auspices of the Society was connected with a pilgrim appointment at Passaic, New Jersey, June 24, afternoon and evening. In the afternoon we gave a lecture to a public audience on "The Overthrow of Satan's Empire," the main lecture that from the fall of 1914 to that of 1916 we used in our work connected with the first smiting of Jordan. In the evening we preached to the brethren on "The Glorification of the Church," a discourse that we first delivered the evening of June 18, 1916, at
the New York Temple, as the third lecturer in a series of four lectures. Two weeks before Brother Russell opened the series with a lecture on Justification; one week before Brother Rockwell followed our Pastor with the second lecture in the series, on Consecration, while a week afterward we were followed by Brother MacMillan with the closing lecture of the series, on Restitution. Brother Sturgeon immediately followed up the lectures with a series of illustrated chart talks to round out the series. Please mark the date of the Passaic appointment, June 24, afternoon and evening, which with the report thereon that we made out, and handed in to the Pilgrim Department June 26, P. M., was our last official work under the Society's auspices. As we were on June 23 irreconcilably repulsed by J.F.R., so the Pilgrim Department was ordered to cancel our appointments made for dates after June 24. Hence our cutting off from service was completed in the afternoon of June 26, when we finished and handed to the Pilgrim Department our report of the Passaic visit: The head of the Pilgrim Department, Brother Hooper, told us he had no more appointments for us. Thus as shown by the Pyramid, at 8 A. M., June 27, for the first time various members of antitypical Elisha began to work at the Tabernacle forever separate and distinct from antitypical Elijah in his first and representative member; and on that day, therefore, the Elisha class as such began to emerge into the open, separated from the first member of antitypical Elijah, whose service they in their first representative member had rejected the day before. It was some time later before any others of "the opposition" were refused service. In fact the four ousted Directors and Brother Sturgeon at the Temple took part in our Pastor's Memorial Service, October 31, 1917, which was held under the Society's auspices; but we were in the audience, and were ignored, while standing and waiting an opportunity
to testify, even as the same humiliation at W. E. Van Amburgh's instigation was twice heaped upon us at the Boston Convention, i.e., August 4 and 5, 1917, the second time through Pilgrim Brother Barker.
(22) Some may object that it is unreasonable to expect to find the experiences above described in the Pyramid. For at least three reasons we answer not so: (1) The Bible itself refers in very many passages to these events, why should its Stone Witness not refer to them? (2) Since the Bible refers to less important events, with the Pyramid's corroboration, why should it not refer to a more important one? (3) The experience connected with the separation of antitypical Elijah and Elisha was one of the most important events, and the most crucial event ever undergone by a single generation of the consecrated. Why should it not be symbolized in the structure that symbolizes less important and crucial experiences?
(23) But some might object, "It is pride in the author to think that he could be used by the Lord as the representative of the Elijah class in events symbolized in the Pyramid." We answer: We assure you, beloved brethren, in the language of the one who spoke of himself as both the least and the chief apostle: only "by the grace of God I am what I am." O, beloved, it is not our worthiness; for we feel very unworthy. It is only the grace of God which we have from our early consecration at 14 years of age sought faithfully and unselfishly to use to the glory of God and the blessing of His people that wrought mightily in us! We heartily trust Christ's robe to cover our unavoidable blemishes, and the rod to correct other blemishes. Out of the deepest recesses of our heart wells up the sentiment of the sweet singer of Israel: "Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto Thy name give glory, for Thy mercy and Thy Truth's sake" (Ps. 115: 1)! May it not be envy in one that thinks it pride in another to declare the Lord's mind of him
as God's grace is measured to him, when the interests of the Truth requires the declaration to be made? (Rom. 12: 3). Brethren, will we not let the Truth sanctify us, and rejoice in the Lord's favors, whether we or others are their recipients?
(24) J.F.R's absence from Bethel on the above-mentioned four days' trip prevented ourself from receiving before the evening of June 26 the copy of the Board's minute on our British activity. The story of how a copy of this minute came into our possession, as well as the effect itself we desire to give below as a matter of record that the Church ought to have, because it was the official act betokening the separation. June 21, during our first conversation on our proposed pilgrim trip, J.F.R. told us of the minute that the Board had accepted the day before on our British work. He asked us whether the Society's Secretary, W. E. Van Amburgh, had, as he had been instructed, given us a copy of it. On being assured that we had not received it, he said he would have it delivered to us. On the evening of June 26, with a companion with whom we had taken a walk, as on our return we were passing through the hall of floor A in the Bethel Annex, we passed J.F.R., who remarked that he had just left something in our room for us. His cold eyes, his firm lips, his unsympathetic voice and his general look of triumph over a feared foe made us feel sure that it was not something that he thought would gladden us. Entering the room, Brother Sargent, our room-mate, told us that J.F.R. had left a note for us. We opened the envelope, and read the minute of the Board on our British activity, which J.F.R. had dictated, and which he was forced to make seem charitable in order to prevent the four Directors from voting it down, while his real sentiments toward us are seen in Harvest Siftings, published without having to submit it to the vote of a hostile body that he had to conciliate before he could publish it. The minute
that the Board accepted is one that put under a cloud that part of the World's High Priest's work that in Britain led to the door of the Tabernacle the first sections of those parts of Azazel's Goat whose new creatures are reckoned as parts of the Gershonite Levites, H. J. Shearn and his partisan supporters, and as parts of the Merarite Levites, Jesse Hemery and his partisan supporters. The minute (compare with the report of the Board's committee above) follows:
"The matter of the visit of Brother Paul S. J. Johnson to Great Britain in behalf of the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society being before the Board for examination and hearing; and it appearing to the Board that the President of the Society cabled a cancellation of his authority, and asked him to return to America; and the President now here states that he did so upon the strength of cablegrams which he had received from Brother Johnson, as to what he was doing and the position he took; and, furthermore, upon the ground that he had dismissed Brothers Shearn and Crawford, who were in the office in the capacity of officers of the International Bible Students Association, and knowing that Brother Johnson had no legal authority, regardless of his credentials, to take such action; and believing further that he was mentally disturbed because of a nervous breakdown, having previously had one, and believing that it was for the best interests of Brother Johnson and for the work for him to return to America— asked him to return. That upon returning to America and hearing Brother Johnson's statement it appears from Brother Johnson's statement that he did not dismiss Brothers Shearn and Crawford as members of the council of the I. B. S. A., but dismissed them from their position in the office, and thereupon the President stated to him and the members of the Board, to this effect: Brother Johnson, we will concede you understood that your credentials gave you full power and authority to do
all you did; we will concede that you thought you were acting fully within the scope of your authority, and that you were acting honestly; but we are of a different opinion as to your authority, and therefore we will let the matter drop; not wishing to judge you, leaving that with the Lord; and wish to assure you of our love, esteem and respect as a brother in Christ and the determination always to treat you as such. [Did J.F. Rutherford do this from June 21, 1917, onward, including his writing and publishing his Harvest Siftings, which sober brethren familiar with the facts consider the most cruel and deceitful piece of literature ever circulated among the Truth people?]
"The President further has stated to Brother Johnson that it is not the purpose of the Society to send him back to England, believing it is not for the best interests of himself, nor the work; and it is not the sense of this Society that he should return.
"This statement being made by the President to the members of the Board is received and accepted by them.
"Following discussion, motion made by Brother Van Amburgh, and seconded by Brother Pierson, that the statement be accepted and spread upon the minutes of the Society. Carried unanimously."
(25) At the reading of the minute our heart was inexpressibly pained; for we then believed that the Board had at Brother Russell's death become the channel for directing the Harvest work. With Job we groaned: "Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him!" Only the Lord and ourself really know of the over five months' Gethsemane into which we were plunged, during the latter part of which, despite a good conscience in all our work, we had fears that we were Divinely disapproved, until early in December, 1917, God sent to His almost despairing servant, as a veritable sunburst, as a Gethsemane angel of His separated antitypical Elijah class: clearness of understanding
on the antitype of "The Last Related Acts of Elijah and Elisha"! Beloved Brethren, is it to be regarded as a strange thing that we have sought ever since, despite the opposition of men and devils, to comfort the brethren everywhere with the comfort wherewith God comforted us? (2 Cor. 1: 4). Has The Present Truth and Herald of Christ's Epiphany made a mistake in its world-wide stand before the Church of the Living God, when in faithfulness to the Lord, the Truth and the Brethren, with the unbreakable strength of God's Word backed by Reason and Facts as its offensive Weapon, with the whole armor of God as the defensive equipment of the Holy Spirit, and with the Providence of God, as its Guide and its Protection, and as, "free from all sects, parties, organizations and creeds of men, but bound to God as it understands His Word, this Magazine stands for the defense of the Parousia Truth given by the Lord through 'that Servant' as basic for all further development of the Truth; for the defense of the Charter, Will and Arrangements [directly stated or implied in them] given by the Lord through 'that Servant' as binding on controlling corporations and associations among the Truth people; and for the exposition and defense of the unfolding Epiphany Truth, as meat in due season for the Lord's people of all classes and groups, as the Lord is pleased to provide it"? Has it indeed in this stand made a mistake? The Bible says no; Reason says no; Facts say no; "that Servant's" writings say no; the Charter says no; the Will says no; and now, as a seventh witness, the Pyramid says no!
(26) The foregoing was providentially hindered from completion until in rough draft it was finished Sunday A. M., April 4, 1920, the true Nisan 14, just two lunar years after the Society adherents from 6 P. M., March 26, to 6 P. M., March 27, on the true Nisan 14, of 1918, in harmony with previous teaching, believed that the door to the High Calling was closed
on that day. "It is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes!" "Great and marvelous are Thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are Thy ways, Thou King of saints … for Thy righteous works are manifest!"
(27) Foregoing we showed that the Lord indicated, by the length of the line from the foot of the large step in the Grand Gallery to the point of intersection of the projected vertical line of the South wall and the floor line of the step, the exact date when the antitypical Elisha would be separate and distinct from the antitypical Elijah in his representative member. This date was shown to be June 27, 1917. Among other things it was also in this chapter shown by the distance from that point of intersection to the projected floor line of the King's Chamber that March 27, 1918, would be antitypical Elisha's mistaken date for the end of the Spirit-begetting and the saints' forehead-sealing.
(28) There are a number of reasons for the thought that antitypical Elijah would reappear in activities before the world. Some of these we will now discuss: The fact that typical Elisha with the mantle appeared separate and distinct from typical Elijah implies that the typical Elijah as such, for awhile at least, would not be in evidence at all; and hence the antitype implies that the Little Flock as such, for awhile at least, would not act as a mouthpiece, a prophet, of the Lord toward the world. Therefore, according to the Bible account, for a long time typical Elijah after his separation from typical Elisha was not in evidence on the stage of activity in fleshly Israel, though later, through the single episode of his sending his letter to Jehoram of Judah, he does appear again in public activity as a prophet (2 Chro. 21: 12-15). The episode of the letter in the type proves that in the antitype the Little Flock would officially, long after the separation of antitypical Elijah and Elisha, act as a mouthpiece,
a prophet, of the Lord to Nominal Spiritual Israel. This thought will become clearer to us, if we remember that Elijah is used Scripturally, not to type the Little Flock in every one of its offices, but solely in its office as God's mouthpiece to the world. That during the time the Little Flock would not be acting as antitypical Elijah, i.e., as the Lord's mouthpiece, prophet, to the world, it would be active as the body of the World's High Priest, leading the Truth section of Azazel's Goat to the gate, is manifest both from Lev. 16: 20, 21 and the fulfilled events of the antitype since late in 1916. But as typical Elijah temporarily disappeared, i.e., did not for awhile act toward Nominal fleshly Israel as a mouthpiece, a prophet, of the Lord, so antitypical Elijah was temporarily to disappear, i.e., the Little Flock was temporarily to cease acting as a mouthpiece, a prophet, of the Lord to the world, though it was not to cease from all other activities. Then as later typical Elijah sent his letter to Jehoram, and thus again stepped forth as a mouthpiece, a prophet, of the Lord to fleshly Israel, so after antitypical Elijah had for awhile ceased to act in his office as a mouthpiece, a prophet, of the Lord to Nominal Spiritual Israel, he was again to resume such an office toward Nominal Spiritual Israel. Thus we are warranted in concluding from the episode of Elijah's letter (2 Chro. 21: 12-15) that antitypical Elijah's reappearance is a Scriptural teaching. On this episode Chapter IV treats.
(29) This same fact is also apparent from the story of John the Baptist. John the Baptist, according to the Bible, sustained a twofold relation to Elijah: (1) He was on a small scale the antitype of Elijah, in some measure fulfilling in his reformatory work in Israel as Christ's forerunner the antitype of Elijah's reformatory work in Israel (Matt. 17: 12, 13; Luke 1: 17); and (2) he was an elaboration of the Elijah type, and as such by his activities furnished for a completion of
the Elijah type some pictures that could not be performed by Elijah without interfering with some of the Lord's purposes with the Elijah type. This is the viewpoint of Matt. 11: 14. See the Am. Rev. Ver. and the Diaglott. Accordingly, like Elijah, John types the Little Flock as a mouthpiece, a prophet, of the Lord to Nominal Spiritual Israel. Therefore John as the Elijah-type-elaboration types the antitypical Elijah. Scriptures, Reason and Facts prove that antitypical Elijah and Elisha have been separated (Chapter II), and that for awhile antitypical Elijah ceased his official work—the work of being mouthpiece to the world. [Scriptures, Reason and Facts prove that the antitype of John's reproof of Herod and Herodias began in Sept., 1922, and his imprisonment began Aug., 1927, though his beheading is yet future; therefore some of this antitype is future.] And since from the standpoint of typing the Little Flock as mouthpiece to Nominal Spiritual Israel the Elijah and John types are parts of one another, the two giving the entire picture of antitypical Elijah, the antitype of John's reproof of Herod and Herodias and his imprisonment and also his beheading will be fulfilled in antitypical Elijah; for "this one [John the Baptist] is [represents the] Elijah [the Church] that is about to come" (Matt. 11: 14). Therefore antitypical Elijah would have to reappear and conduct a ministry that would involve antitypical Herod and Herodias, after his separation from antitypical Elisha.
(30) Further, the second battle of antitypical Gideon implies a reappearance of antitypical Elijah; for the battle in which the men of antitypical Naphtali, Asher and Manasseh took part (Judg. 7: 23) presupposes the separation of the Great Company from the Little Flock, and therefore implies that it took place after antitypical Elijah had dropped, and antitypical Elisha had picked up the mantle. Hence the second battle coming later than that battle which
followed the separation of the Little Flock and the Great Company implies that the Little Flock would appear again in public work in conflict with Nominal Church teachings, i.e., that antitypical Elijah would reappear in activity toward Nominal Spiritual Israel.
(31) There is a fourth Scriptural consideration that proves the reappearance of antitypical Elijah: the cooperation of the Body of the World's High Priest with the Head in leading the Nominal Church section of Azazel's Goat from the door of the Tabernacle to the gate of the Court. In the next volume of this series we will show how the Body of the World's High Priest co-operated with the Head in leading all the Truth sections of Azazel's Goat under bad Levite leadership from the door of the Tabernacle to the gate of the Court. Such activity, of course, implies the separation of the Little Flock and the Truth section of the Great Company. After leading that part of Azazel's Goat to the gate, the next thing for the World's High Priest to do would be to lead the Nominal Church section of Azazel's Goat from the door of the Tabernacle to the gate of the Court. This would imply a work among the Nominal People of God on the part of the Little Flock after its separation from the Truth section of Azazel's Goat under bad Levite leadership. To do this work implies a reappearance of antitypical Elijah after disappearing from activity toward Nominal Spiritual Israel.
(32) Thus the episode of Elijah's letter, John's final experiences, those with Herod and Herodias, Gideon's second battle, and the High Priest leading the Nominal Church section of Azazel's Goat to the gate are Scriptural proofs that there would be a reappearance of antitypical Elijah, i.e., that the Little Flock, after ceasing for awhile to act as a mouthpiece, a prophet, of the Lord to Nominal Spiritual Israel, would resume the use of that office, though while not using that office the Little Flock would be
active in other official capacities. We are to remember that while the Little Flock ceased to function as antitypical Elijah, whose office work is limited exclusively to mouthpieceship to the world, it did not cease from all official work; for during the time of its ceasing to work toward the world, i.e., while ceasing to act in its Elijah capacity, it worked with the Truth section of Azazel's Goat.
(33) The fact of a reappearance of typical and antitypical Elijah is fatal to J.F.R.'s third and fourth "new views" on the relation between antitypical Elijah and Elisha. It will be recalled that in The Present Truth, No. 6, reproduced in Chapters II and III, we refuted his first and second "new views," which made Elijah type successively those Societyites and then the Society leaders as head and Elisha type their followers as body, and which seem to have been invented to meet our explanation—harmonious with that of our Pastor—preached orally by us for a year, and then first published Dec. 9, 1918, in The Present Truth, No. 1, six weeks before the second "new view" came out. It will be further recalled that after The Present Truth, No. 6, appeared refuting the second "new view," J.F.R. invented a third "new view" of Elijah and Elisha, according to which Elijah typed the Little Flock until 1918, and then antitypical Elijah forever disappeared in the troubles of the Society leaders, and from then on Elisha (who previously had acted with Elijah!) types the Little Flock. Our refutation of this third "new view" (P '19, 171-177, reproduced in Chapter III) he has attempted to answer by claiming that these prophets did not represent classes, but two works of the Little Flock. Our refutation of this fourth view (also reproduced in Chapter III) he has not attempted to answer, doubtless because he cannot answer it from the standpoint of his fourth "new view," and because he doubtless fears to invent a fifth "new view" as an evasion of it! If his third and
fourth "new views" were right, Elijah's sending the letter could never have occurred. In the August 15, 1919, Tower, containing the third "new view," J.F.R., realizing how the letter episode contradicted his second "new view," cautiously evades discussing it and that for good reason. If his third and fourth "new views" were correct, Elijah could have had no further activity like his sending the letter after his separation from Elisha. The final work and suffering of John the Baptist would be impossible as typical of antitypical Elijah's final work for, and experience at the hands of, Nominal Spiritual Israel, if the third and fourth "new views" were correct. Thus we see the complete fallacy of the third and fourth "new views." Like every other weapon formed against the Lord's faithful servants this weapon, the third and fourth "new views," will not prosper, even as the Lord declares (Is. 54: 17).
(34) Having hitherto proven that the Scriptures teach that there would be a reappearance of antitypical Elijah, i.e., that after the Little Flock for awhile would have no mission as the Lord's mouthpiece toward Nominal Spiritual Israel, it later would again have a mission as such, we will now proceed to prove that the reappearance of antitypical Elijah has occurred. First we will offer two clearly attested and fulfilled Scriptural types with their antitypes to prove it; then we will give the Pyramid's corroboration of this fact.
(35) There are especially two Scriptures that prove that antitypical Elijah has reappeared, i.e., that the Little Flock has again become active as a mouthpiece, a prophet, of the Lord to the world. The first of these is that which treats of antitypical Gideon and His Three Hundred engaging in the second battle. As we showed above, this battle is against the two king errors of Nominal Spiritual Israel—eternal torment and the consciousness of the dead. In fighting against these two king errors the Little Flock has been acting
as a mouthpiece of the Lord to Nominal Spiritual Israel. This battle now going on, [and having been going on for eighteen years], antitypical Elijah has reappeared. Moreover, the events preceding the second battle, type and antitype, indicate the time relation of the events, and by their order suggest that now is the time of antitypical Elijah's reappearance. The type shows that before the second battle the men of Naphtali, Asher and Manasseh would pursue the Midianites; that the men of Ephraim would cut off many of them, including their princes, and would complain against Gideon; that the men of Succoth and Penuel would refuse Gideon succor for his three hundred; and that Gideon would pass by and leave behind him the tent dwellers. Consequently the antitypes of these events were to occur before the antitypical second battle. In the April, 1921, Present Truth we showed how all of these antitypes were fulfilled before the antitypical second battle began, the last of these antitypes—the Lord's passing by and leaving behind Him the Amramites in two classes, as the representative classes of their two groups—occurring during June, and the first eleven days of July, 1920. A week thereafter the second battle in antitype began. This type with its antitype not only proves that antitypical Elijah has reappeared, but likewise indicates by the time order of the events that the time had come for his reappearance.
(36) A second Scripture with its antitype also proves that antitypical Elijah has reappeared: the High Priest leading the nominal church section of Azazel's Goat to the Gate. The type does not indicate the fact of a time difference in dealing with the Truth section and the nominal church section of Azazel's Goat. Accordingly, we would not know from the type whether Azazel's Goat in antitype would in all the steps be dealt with as one undivided whole, or whether it would be dealt with in two general sections having
various subdivisions. We have had to wait for the antitype to find this out; and the antitype proves that in the steps following the confession of the sins, which was done over both sections of Azazel's Goat at the same time, first its Truth section in eight subdivisions was to be dealt with; then afterward its Nominal Church section was to be dealt with. If this variation of dealing had not set in, antitypical Elijah would not temporarily have ceased to function. The antitype has proceeded so far as to have realized not only the High Priest's taking all the steps with the Truth section of Azazel's Goat under bad Levite leadership, but also the High Priest's taking the step of leading the Nominal Church section of Azazel's Goat to the Gate. This act on His part is His resistance of its revolutionism, particularly along the lines of its teaching eternal torment and the consciousness of the dead and the union of state and church. Such resistance to its revolutionism consists in a public testimony to the Nominal Church against these three doctrines [going on now for over eighteen and sixteen years, respectively], has been going forth. To give under Divine sanction to Nominal Spiritual Israel such a testimony implies mouthpieceship; hence the Little Flock has now a mouthpieceship to Nominal Spiritual Israel, i.e., antitypical Elijah has reappeared in his peculiar activities.
(37) [By this we are also to understand that antitypical Elijah has sent his letter to antitypical Jehoram; and that antitypical John the Baptist has reproved antitypical Herod and Herodias, and been imprisoned though not yet beheaded.] Hence antitypical Elijah is here now functioning in his office; but while he is functioning in his office, he has not now the mantle—the power of being God's special mouthpiece to the world. There is no record of typical Elijah ever getting back his mantle, and that for good reason, because it would imply that the antitypical Levites
would be cut off from their work toward the world—a thing that will not take place. Hence we are not to expect antitypical Elijah to get back the mantle. He has so far neither gotten it, nor is it necessary for him to have it in order to do his Divinely designed work. But it is assuredly refreshing for us to know that he is now here again functioning in his office work. Our hearts rejoice therein, as it is a sign of the times.
(38) All important features of God's Plan are with their chronology symbolized in the Great Pyramid. Above we showed that antitypical Elisha's appearance apart from antitypical Elijah is represented in the Pyramid together with its exact date. This, as already shown, is indicated by the length of the line that deflects from the projected Grand Gallery floor line, i.e., it is the line from the foot of the large step at the upper end of the Grand Gallery to the point of intersection of the top of the step and the vertical line of the Grand Gallery's south wall. We found the length of this line to be 70.75995 Pyramid inches; and at the above-mentioned point of intersection we found it to mark June 27, 1917. If antitypical Elisha's appearance separate and distinct from antitypical Elijah, with its exact date, is indicated in the Pyramid, surely we should all the more expect antitypical Elijah's reappearance separate and distinct from antitypical Elisha, and its exact date, to be indicated in the Pyramid. It is even so, as the following proves.
(39) It will be remembered that above we pointed out that any deflection from the angle of the Grand Gallery's floor line between its beginning and its end would symbolize a deviation from the narrow way of Truth and Righteousness. The line between the foot of the step and the above-mentioned point of intersection is such a deviation, and therefore symbolizes the measurably unfaithful course of antitypical Elisha from Sept. 24, 1846, to June 27, 1917. Antitypical Elijah's course could not symbolically deviate