NO. 15: HIRAM - TYPE AND ANTITYPE

No. 15

My dear Brethren: Grace and peace through our Beloved Master! In accordance with previous promise, we now present an analysis on Hiram – Type and Antitype.

Inasmuch as king Hiram ruled over Tyre, it would seem in order first of all to set forth the history of Tyre itself. In Gen. 10:15 we are told that Sidon was the firstborn of Canaan, the grandson of Ham, the great grandson of Noah (see Gen. 10:1 & 6). The mar­ginal reading for Sidon is Tzidon – he was the patriarch of the Zidonian Tribe of the Canaanites (note Gen. 10:15-18); and his settlement was at the outermost edge of Canaan – ­"the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon." (Gen. 10:19) Thus, Sidon comes into the Bible record more than 2,000 BC We present all this detail because it seems apparent that Tyre was a colony of Sidon; Isa. 23:12 says Tyre is "the daughter of Zidon."

It seems that Tyre had a rather rapid growth, and soon outshows the mother; it was probably at its pinnacle about 1035 BC, when Solomon began to "build the House of the Lord." At that time it was wealthy, and one of the most prominent seaports of the ancient world; and Hiram was one of its greatest sovereigns. But one of its chief assets was its location: It was on an island of rock a half mile from the mainland, which rose some 1968 feet above sea level, and was properly styled the "Queen of the Sea." Being surrounded by water, such a promontory was practically impregnable against the weapons of that time. After Shalmaneser vanquished the Ten Tribes of Israel, some 739 years BC, he lay siege to Tyre for five years, but failed to take it during that time; and the siege was lifted at his death. It was to have been a part of the inheritance of the Tribe of Asher (see Josh. 19:24-29), but they never occupied it – probably because they considered its conquest im­possible; although it should be noted these people were not among those specifically slated for extermination by the Jews when they moved into Canaan. This may have been one reason they were friendly to the Jews under David and Solomon. It also clarifies the reference in Josh. 19:29 re "the strong city Tyre." Furthermore, it was certainly policy for Hiram to be friendly with David and Solomon, because they could have seized the adjacent main­land any time they wished, which would have made life pretty miserable for Hiram in Tyre. Tyre actually paid tribute to Shalmanesor's successor to free themselves of that nuisance.

It should be noted that the mainland opposite Tyre held almost no strategic value, as it was often overrun by invaders. Therefore, Tyre itself occupied a position comparable to Gibraltar, although Tyre attained its ancient glamour by going "down to the sea in ships", rather than from its strong defensive position. The whole of Phoenicia, of which Tyre was the chief city, was about 150 miles long by about 30 miles wide – an area about one-­tenth the size of the State of Ohio. It consisted mostly of a succession of narrow valleys, ravines and hills. The whole political history of Phoenicia may be summarized thus: They never built an empire; each city had its little independent territory, assemblies, kings and government, and sent delegates to Tyre for general state business. They were strictly commercial, leaving no literature worthy of preservation. (Compare this statement with that of R. G. Jolly on p. 81, col. 2, bottom, of this September Present Truth.)

The male deity of Tyre was Baal, whose consort was Astarte. She was the Ashtoreth of the Bible, the Ishtar of the Babylonians – the same being the Moon Goddess, preeminently the Goddess of reproduction and sexual passion. She is thus readily identified with the depraved Semiramus, the one to whom the Jews "make cakes to the queen of heaven" (Jer. 7: 18), and to whom they "burn incense and pour out drink offerings" (Jer. 44:17-19). Tyre and Sidon called the sun Baal and the moon Ashtoreth; and they honored them with orgies and tumultuous feasts. It is pointedly worthy of note that as soon as Solomon became evil he "went after Ashtoreth, the Goddess of the Zidonians" (1 Kgs. 11:5, 33); so that his league with Hiram led to ultimate shame for Israel. An outstanding product of Baal – Ash­toreth is the wicked Jezebel, wife of Ahab. She was the "daughter of Eth-Baal, king (also high priest) of the Zidonians" ( 1 Kgs. 16:31); and she it was who vowed to slay Elijah after he had slain the prophets of Baal (symbolic of power-graspers) – 1 Kgs. 19:2.

It is to be hoped that the foregoing detail will help to clarify the following analysis of the two Hirams who were linked with Solomon. R .G. Jolly says we "fail to distinguish be­tween the two Hirams"; and we are grateful to him for allowing us this opening – it makes this analysis much easier for us. But we venture the opinion that, had he himself clearly distinguished between the two, he would not have effused the volume of nonsense that he has.

We consider first Hiram the Artisan: on p. 82, col. 1, of the Sept. PT, R. G. Jolly quotes our remark (re Hiram the King) that "Solomon did not so much as give him one guest room in Jerusalem." He says our statement is mere "conjecture for which we can give no proof". If the Bible is silent about it, and nothing can be found about it outside the Bible, is his conjecture not just some more of his nonsense? But he goes on to say "Hiram Ahib....... Undoubtedly was provided with living quarters in Jerusalem, for it would have been out of the question for him to commute." And the same R. G. Jolly makes this statement who accuses JJH of confusion! What proof does he have for his ''undoubted'' statement? We ask because we have pretty reasonable contradiction for it. We are told in 1 Kgs. 7:40-46 that the vessels, whose making required Artisan Hiram's skill, were cast "in the clay ground between Succoth and Zarthan." This locality is down beyond the River Jordan; and there would certainly be no more sense in Hiram commuting back and forth to Jerusalem, as there would be for him to do so to Tyre. It is well established that the Temple was constructed without the "sound of a hammer." The stones and timbers were all completely fashioned be­fore reaching the Temple site; so why not the vessels, too – just as the Bible indicates?

But let us assume that Artisan Hiram did "commute" to Jerusalem. He would have done so only while the Temple was abuilding, because 1 Kgs. 7:40 says he "made an end of doing all the work that he made King Solomon for the house of the Lord." There is nothing what­ever to indicate he stayed on to work on Solomon's House; and there is fairly sound reason to dispute it. Let us take a look at the antitype. Building Solomon's house means for Brother Johnson "establishing himself in his own sphere as the Lord's Epiphany Executive." Did antitypical Hiram help him do that? Certainly not! In 1923, during the heckling of Job, R.G. Jolly was "angry at him", threw "many misrepresentations" at him, ridiculed him, belittled him, and "R. G. Jolly was J's main opponent before the church." And in 1937-38 R. G. Jolly was again the ringleader in attempting to usurp Brother Johnson's authority as the Lord's Epiphany executive. In Brother Johnson's own words, "they tried to gain con­trol of J., the Lord's mouthpiece" (Vol.  E-10, p. 646 top). Thus, instead of helping The Epiphany Solomon to "build his house", instead of helping him establish himself as the Lord's Epiphany executive, R. G. Jolly was doing his level best to tear down the Epiphany Solomon's house – rather than helping him build it. And it is the same R. G. Jolly who re­peatedly accused the good Epiphany Solomon of being "impractical" that now charges JJH with confusion. Indeed, "the leopard cannot change his spots – nor does Azazel seem able to change his technique.

On p. 81, col. 2, par. 2 he goes into more profusion about types, and he says “it is hard to understand how JJH could become so blind" re types. Then he quotes Brother John­son's "general Scriptural rule when many individuals of a class are involved." Is he now contending that antitypical Hiram is a "class"? If not, then we ask again, Who is confused here?

Now we consider Hiram the King: In  par. 1,  col. 1,  p. 82,  he  says  JJH  should  "take the trouble to look up secular history." Indeed; and this JJH had done quite sometime back; and he is very much pleased to note R.G. Jolly's approval. However, in view of his own confusion, we wonder if he himself took the trouble to consult secular history. If he did, then we can only conclude that here is a man versatile indeed in the ways of Aza­zel: He "makes" secular history just as easily as he "makes" types and parallels. Of course, we shouldn't be surprised at this, because the large Evil Solomon has also "made" plenty of history!

He says our position (re Hiram passing out of the picture first) "might be somewhat tenable if we could prove that Hiram in the type died first." Then he says the Scriptures are silent about it – and this is right –; so we go to secular history for that part of it, just as Brother Russell and Brother Johnson often did in their search for truth. And secu­lar history tells us that the King Hiram, who helped Solomon, ruled for 34 years. There­fore, if he did not begin to reign until the very day Solomon began to build the Temple (which we are not contending), he would have died some three years before Solomon died. But it should be specifically noted that neither Hiram contributed one splinter – or had anything whatever to do with the Temple, the Temple Court or its fixtures once Solomon had "built the house of the Lord, and finished it." Everything they did during the Temple's construction was done under the express direction of Solomon; therefore, any attempt to "make" a type of either Hiram after Solomon finished the Temple can only be labeled as more nonsense.  Therefore, will R. G. Jolly please make a clear statement of just what feature of either Hiram he is now antityping?

As we said in our Epiphany Solomon article of July 2, there was to be an Epiphany Sol­omon, a son of the Parousia David. In the same sense that Brother Johnson was a son of the Parousia David, so also is R. G. Jolly such a son; and the latter is the only one who can now be identified to complete the Epiphany's Solomon's reign. Therefore, should us assume that all we have said herein is set aside, there remains only one simple question: Who has been sitting in Solomon's seat, using Solomon's powers, to complete the 4012-year parallel of the Parousia David? Let R. G. Jolly give a clear accounting for the Epiphany Solomon after October 22, 1950. All the building he claims he is to do has been just the reverse since that date. Like so many uncleansed Levite leaders, he inherited gold, and he has speedily turned it into ashes. We have repeatedly pointed this out; and his own figures on the Present Truth and Bible Standard subscribers tell only too clearly their pitiful story. At the recent Philadelphia Convention there was not even one candidate for immersion. Yet, there are still "great works to be done, and great numbers to win" – and this same R.G. Jolly still offers his big talk that he is the one who will supervise all this.

Before concluding this article it would seem appropriate to take note of R. G. Jolly’s statement (p. 86, top) that JJH is "more confused in his reasoning than a certain 1948-51 sifter." This is another of his cheap tricks to which he frequently resorts, all the while he himself is oozing confusion from his every pore. A typical instance of this is his con­tention that we show confusion by picturing him as Rehoboam in our July 2 treatise of The Epiphany Solomon (page 7) at the same time that we picture him as the Evil Epiphany Solomon. Nowhere in that article did we even hint that he is picturing Rehoboam – did not even use the word "type" or "picture" in what we said of R. G. Jolly. We merely spoke of the simi­larity between the foolish Rehoboam and the foolish R. G. Jolly – just as in that same article we also drew a comparison between the foolish R. G. Jolly and the wise Brother Russell. By the same process of nonsense, R. G. Jolly should also contend we are picturing, or antityp­ing him as Brother Russell. As we have previously observed, when crown-losers fall into the hands of Azazel they talk all sorts of nonsense; and here is another case at point. Azazel has R. G. Jolly so befuddled since October 22, 1950 that he cannot even read plain and simple English and understand what he has read after he reads it. From what we have presented herein, it should now be apparent that much of what he writes on pages 81-87 should be relegated to the ashcan; it comes well within the scope of what Brother Johnson said of some of the drivel published by That Evil Servant: "It is confusion worse con­founded."

And may the blessing that maketh rich indeed abide with one and all, and guide  you  in to all Truth.

Sincerely Your Brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim