Focus on Charles Taze Russell

"Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his master has set over his household, to give them their food at the proper time?" -- Matthew 24:45, Revised Standard Version
Matthew 24:35-30; Luke 12:35-48

According to a statement made to us by one with the "Jehovah's Witnesses" organization, Jesus is supposed to have clearly said he would appoint a "faithful and discreet slave" on the earth who he would "appoint over all his belongings". (Matthew 24:45-47) According to our JW neighbor, "there is ONE earthly 'slave' or organization."

Likewise, in The Watchtower 07/01/43 p. 204, we read this statement: "The Son has returned as King; he has come to his temple. He has appointed his 'faithful and wise servant', who is his visible mouthpiece."

In The Watchtower, October 1, 1967, issue, on page 590, we read: "Jehovah poured out his spirit upon them and assigned them the responsibility of serving as his sole visible channel, through whom alone spiritual instruction was to come. Those who recognize Jehovah's visible theocratic organization, therefore, must recognize and accept this appointment of the "faithful and discreet slave" and be submissive to it."

The above views assume a lot that Jesus never actually said. What is Jesus really saying in Matthew 24:45-47 and Luke 12:41-48? Is Jesus saying that for one to obtain truth when he returns, we need to identify who he has appointed as his "faithful and wise servant"? Is Jesus saying that we should base our entire faith and beliefs around the one believed to be this faithful and wise servant? Who is the faithful and wise servant? Some say that it is Jesus himself. Others claim this was fulfilled in one man: Charles Taze Russell. Another view is that this should apply to the elders in the ecclesia, since these are the ones appointed over the flock of God in spiritual matters. The Watch Tower Society today claims that the appointed "faithful and discreet slave" is the remant of the ones they believe to be of the 144,000 joint-heirs, which they claim has been appointed over the domestics, especially those who are not of this remnant, to dispense proper spiritual food at the proper time. We believe all of the above views to be incorrect.

Every Christian becomes a slave or servant for Christ when he receives the holy spirit; it is up to each individual Christian to prove whether he is faithful and wise or not; not all of the slaves or servants prove so -- those who do not, however, are not necessarily cast into the second death. (Luke 12:42-48; note especially verses 47 and 48) The reason for the statement of the faithful and wise servant is because of Jesus' exhortation to watchfulness. (Matthew 24:42-44) Those who prove themselves faithful and wise are said to be appointed over all his belongings; as a class they are appointed as such in the Millennial reign over all the belongings of Jesus.

Not all receive the exact same assignment, and rewards are meted out in varying degrees, but as a class the faithful and wise are appointed over all his belongings. -- Luke 19:17,19.

Thus seen, any servant of God who is faithful and wise in obeying the Master (Jesus) is such a faithful and wise servant. Not all Christians are represented by the faithful and wise servant, however, since Jesus speaks of other servants besides the faithful and wise servant. Each of these "classes" are represented in the singular, so if the faithful and wise servant is one singular person, then so we should look for other singular persons to fulfill "that servant" that "says in his heart, 'My lord delays his coming'" (Luke 12:45), as well as "That servant, who knew his lord's will, and didn't prepare" (Luke 12:47) and that servant "who didn't know, and did things worthy of stripes." (Luke 12:48) Actually each servant represents classes of Christians, some who are faithful and wise and others who prove less faithful, and are disciplined accordingly.

Matthew 24:45 Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his lord has set over [entrusted] his household, to give them their food in due season? Matthew 24:46 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord will find doing so when he comes.

Luke 12:42 - The Lord said, "Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his lord will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the right times? Luke 12:43 Blessed is that servant whom his lord will find doing so when he comes. Luke Luke 12:44 Truly I tell you, that he will set him over all that he has.

Neither Matthew nor Luke say that the faithful and wise servant will be set over the household of faith when Jesus returns. The idea has to be read into what is stated. After Jesus returns, a further reward is given after he returns.

We are each entrusted to each other to exhort, to give food to upbuild our fellow Christians in proper seasons. (Romans 14:19; 15:2; 1 Corinthians 3:2,5-7; 4:1,2; 14:26; Ephesians 4:11-15; 1 Thessalonians 5:11; 2 Timothy 4:2; Hebrews 3:13; 10:24; 1 Peter 1:1,2; 4:10,11; Jude 1:20; See also Matthew 4:4; John 21:15,17) It is in this manner that each individual "servant" provides spiritual food to the domestics -- identified in Matthew 24:49 as "fellow servants".

Jesus had just spoken of being watchful (Matthew 24:36-44; Luke 12:35-40). Peter asked if Jesus had spoken this parable about being watchful to them, or even to all. (Luke 12:41) Peter was evidently wondering if the parable applied to every disciple of Jesus or just to the twelve apostles. Luke does not record a direct answer by Jesus, but Mark does have Jesus saying: "What I tell you, I tell all: Watch." (Mark 13:37) Jesus answered by giving another parable concerning several servants, one who is faithful and wise, another who is evil, another who knew his master's will, but did not prepare or do according to his will, and another who who was aware of his master's will. All of the disciples of Jesus are included in the instructions to be watching since all down through the age since none would know when he returns.

Each Christian is set by the Lord to dispense food to fellow members of the household -- this does not make each of them the faithful and wise servant. The faithful and wise servant is found already faithfully and wisely dispensing food to fellow-servants at the return of the master. If this applies to Brother Russell and the parousia of 1874, then Brother Russell would have already proven to be that faithful and wise servant *before* 1874, and if the "return" spoken is the parousia that began in 1874, then it would follow that Brother Russell, due to his being faithful and wise in giving food to the household of faith in the past, was at that time made the servant of, not just the household which he had supposedly already been given charge of, but of all the Lord's goods. In actuality, an application of the parable to Russell himself would necessitate that at the time of the Master's going away in the first century, that Jesus in the first century had appointed Brother Russell as that servant to give food to the household, so that upon his return he would find Brother Russell faithfully and wisely still giving food to the household.

Please note that we are not saying that Brother Russell was not used by Jesus as a special channel to dispense food to the household of faith, for he most certainly was, even as were many others down through the Gospel Age -- none of their writings were perfect, and not everything they said was without error, and so it is also with Brother Russell. We also believe that the Edgars and others have been used as special channels of communication related to truths they brought forth, and yet we do not view any of their writings as totally without error, and there are many conclusions they present that we do not agree with. What we are saying is that this parable does not fit any one individual; this can be seen especially as evidenced by Luke 12:47,48.

An argument has been made that Jesus speaks of "that faithful and wise servant" (singular) who gives the food to "them" -- the household -- in due season. It is argued that this only makes sense if the faithful and wise steward is one person.

Actually, this argument would only make sense if one also has an individual identity for "that servant" [singular] spoken of in Luke 12:47, and the "the one" [singular] spoken of in Luke 12:48, as well as "that servant" spoken of in Luke 12:45,46.

The word "servant" [singular] is often used by Jesus to pictorially describe any "servant" who might be fulfilling the role being described. The context is overwhelmingly demonstrative that Jesus is giving a general description of any servant who might fulfill each role he describes. Each servant of God is appointed to dispense food, as we have already shown. As a result of the degree of his faithfulness, each servant is placed in the various descriptions given of the various servants described. It is true that the word "servant" represents each individual of the class; nevertheless, the singular "servant" can be used to represent more than one person as each individually of that class:

Matthew 10:25 - It is enough for the disciple that he be like his teacher, and the servant like his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more them of his household!

Is Jesus here saying that there is only one "servant" like him? The sentence following shows that Jesus is applying it singularly to each individual "of his household."

Matthew 18:28 - But that servant went out, and found one of his fellow-servants, who owed him one hundred denarii, and he laid hold on him, and took him by the throat, saying, 'Pay me what you owe.'

Does this servant represent only one person, or does it represent each individual singularly in that class? Note here also that this servant is contrasted with his fellow-servants.
http://www.agsconsulting.com/htdbnon/r3801.htm
http://www.agsconsulting.com/htdbnon/r2665.htm

Matthew 20:26 - It shall not be so among you, but whoever would become great among you will be your servant.

Mark 9:35 - He sat down, and called the twelve; and he said to them, "If any man wants to be first, he will be last of all, and servant of all."

Mark 10:43 - But it shall not be so among you, but whoever wants to become great among you, will be your servant.

Mark 10:44 - Whoever of you wants to become first among you, shall be servant of all.

It should be obvious here that Jesus is not saying that there would be only one such "first" servant. But taken out of context, and applied in isolation, one could also quote these scriptures and say that there is one servant appointed as "first" over God's people. This is closely related to the faithful and wise servant, for it is this faithful and wise servant, whoever it may be individually, that is the one who is "great" in God's eyes, and it is these who receive the highest reward in the kingdom. Please note that this servant does not necessarily need to be recognized as "great" by the fellow-servants in this life time, but that his reward will be great in the kingdom. -- Luke 6:23,35.

Luke 14:17 - He sent out his servant at supper time to tell those who were invited, 'Come, for everything is ready now.'

Luke 14:21 - That servant came, and told his lord these things. Then the master of the house, being angry, said to his servant, 'Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in here the poor, maimed, blind, and lame.'

Luke 14:23 - The lord said to the servant, 'Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.

Does this mean that in application that there is only one individual that Jesus selected as "that servant" to invite others to the supper? We don't know of anyone who would think so, and yet, taken in isolation, one could conclude that this could be so. However, this does illustrate the general charge given to each individual spirit-begotten son to be "that servant" in inviting others to the supper.

For usages of the expression "that servant" (singular) in the NT (WEB), see:
http://tinyurl.com/nf4xs

For usages of "wicked servant" (singular):
http://tinyurl.com/hy4qm

Other examples:

"wicked and slothful servant" (singular): Matthew 25:26.

"whoever would become great among you will be your servant." (singular) Matthew 20:26. Was Jesus here saying that there would be one singular person who would be great who would be the servant of the church?

After reading the above statements, some have wrongly concluded that we are claiming that all of the Lord's people are included in the faithful and wise servant. We suggest a closer reading of what we have stated, for what we wrote should not lead to such a conclusion. The Lord's people are being described by our Lord as fulfilling individually any of the roles that the Lord is describing, not just those who prove themselves to "faithful and wise" in doing so.

Some have confused the appointment as "ruler" with the appointment given to every Christian to provide food the household in due time. The appointment of "ruler" over all the Lord's belongings is not the same as the appointment the servant to give food to the household. Each servant is appointed first to give food to fellow-servants of the household; *IF* he is found faithful and wise in doing so, then the second appoint is giving over "all" his belongings, which implies "joint-heirship", a joint-lordship, with the Lord Jesus. No one is "appointed" to an office called "the faithful and wise servant" -- one becomes faithful and wise in his service by faithfully and wisely fulfilling the commission given to him.

The Greek is not as strong as it appears to be in most translations. The King James Version, for instance reads: "whom his lord hath made ruler over his household." While the Greek word, katesteesen (Strong's #2525), could be rendered "made ruler", it doesn't have to be so rendered. The Revised Standard Version renders it: "Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his master has set over his household, to give them their food at the proper time?" The The New Century translation renders it like this: "Who is the wise and loyal servant that the master trusts to give the other servants their food at the right time?"

Matthew 24:45
tis ara estin ho pistos doulos kai phronimos
WHO REALLY IS THE FAITHFUL SLAVE AND DISCREET
5101 0686 1510_2 3588 4103 1401 2532 5429
hon katesteesen ho kurios epi tees oiketeias autou
WHOM SET DOWN THE LORD UPON THE DOMESTICS OF HIM
3739 2525 3588 2962 1909 3588 3609_5 0846_3
tou dounai autois teen tropheen en kairw
OF THE TO GIVE TO THEM THE FOOD IN APPOINTED TIME?
3588 1325 0846_93 3588 5160 1722 2540
Westcott & Hort Interlinear as it appears on the Bible Students' Libary CD

Luke 12:42
kai eipen ho kurios tis ara estin ho pistos
AND SAID THE LORD WHO REALLY IS THE FAITHFUL
2532 1511_7 3588 2962 5101 0686 1510_2 3588 4103
oikonomos ho phronimos hon katasteesei ho kurios
STEWARD, THE DISCREET, WHOM WILL SET DOWN THE LORD
3623 3588 5429 3739 2525 3588 2962
epi tees therapeias autou tou didonai en
UPON THE CURING STAFF OF HIM OF THE TO BE GIVING IN
1909 3588 2322 0846_3 3588 1325 1722
kairw to sitometrion
APPOINTED TIME THE MEASURE OF GRAIN?
2540 3588 4620

The above is the general appointment.

Matthew 24:47
ameen legw humin hoti epi pasin tois huparchousin
AMEN I AM SAYING TO YOU THAT UPON ALL THE BELONGINGS
0281 3004 4771_6 3754 1909 3956 3588 5224 5225
autou katasteesei auton
OF HIM HE WILL SET DOWN HIM.
0846_3 2525 0846_7

Luke 12:44
aleethws legw humin hoti epi pasin tois
TRUTHFULLY I AM SAYING TO YOU THAT UPON ALL THE
0230 3004 4771_6 3754 1909 3956 3588
huparchousin autou katasteesei auton
BELONGINGS OF HIM HE WILL SET DOWN HIM.
5224 5225 0846_3 2525 0846_7

The above is the appointment after being found faithful; this is the reward for faithfulness.

Matthew 25:21
ephee autw ho kurios autou eu doule agathe kai
SAID TO HIM THE LORD OF HIM WELL, SLAVE GOOD AND
5346 0846_5 3588 2962 0846_3 2095 1401 0018 2532
piste epi oliga ees pistos epi pollwn
FAITHFUL, UPON FEW (THINGS) YOU WERE FAITHFUL, UPON MANY (THINGS)
4103 1909 3641 1511_3 4103 1909 4183
se katasteesw eiselthe eis teen charan tou kuriou
YOU I SHALL SET DOWN; ENTER INTO THE JOY OF THE LORD
4771_3 2525 1525 1519 3588 5479 3588 2962
sou
OF YOU.
4771_1

Here the word katesteesen is used, evidently again describing the appointment of the faithful and wise servant to joint-heirship. The word is also used on Matthew 25:23.

The same word, katesteesen, is used by the apostle in the describing man's appointment over the things of the earth:

Hebrews 2:7
eelattwsas auton brachu ti par aggelous doxee
YOU MADE LESS HIM SHORT SOMETHING BESIDE ANGELS, TO GLORY
1642 0846_7 1024 5100 3844 0032 1391
kai timee estephanwsas auton kai katesteesas auton
AND TO HONOR YOU CROWNED HIM, AND YOU SET DOWN HIM
2532 5092 4737 0846_7 2532 2525 0846_7
epi ta erga twn cheirwn sou
UPON THE WORKS OF THE HANDS OF YOU,
1909 3588 2041 3588 5495 4771_1

Notice that "man" is spoken of singularly, but in application, "man" and "him" represents mankind.

For more usages of this word, see:
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2525&version=kjv

In the first appointment, each Christian is set as a servant to give food to fellow servants as needed. For the ones who prove themselves faithful and wise in doing this, then they receive the reward of being set, not to give food to fellow-servants, but over all the belongings of the Master, which includes the world of mankind as well as the angels.

What many fail to note is that the servant has already been "set over", or entrusted with the job of giving food in due to season to the saints before the Master comes (Matthew 24:46, Luke 12:43; Erchomai, Strong's #2065). The servant who has been faithful and wise in doing so, then, some time after the coming spoken of, is made ruler over something else: "all" that the Master has. What is this "all" that the Master has? This could mean that the faithful and wise servant applies to the joint-heirs since they jointly-inherit what Jesus has received from the Father. Those who prove themselves faithful and wise are said to be appointed over all his belongings; as a class they are appointed as such in the Millennial reign over all the belongings of Jesus as, not just heirs of God, but also as join-heirs with Jesus.

What about the seven stars and seven angels (messengers) spoken of in Revelation. Aren't each of these, being singular, representative of only one person who was to give a certain message at various times in the church's history, and thus that the "seventh angel", the faithful and wise servant, is thus only "one" individual?

There is nothing in Revelation 1:16,20, or Chapters 2 or 3 of the Revelation about Jesus' appointing any of these as a faithful and wise servant to give food at proper times. The idea has to be confused with what Jesus said in Matthew and Luke, and then read into Revelation.

Regardless, to what extent are we to agree with any of the servants that God has used in the past? To what extent are we to agree and hold to whatever Arius wrote? Indeed, we do not even have his writings, for they were destroyed by the trinitarians (except for a few short letters). While I do believe that there was a single actual "angel" assigned to churches named, I am hesitant to add to this that this single angel is meant to represent any one individual. The seven churches are first of all applied to the literal churches that existed at that time. Likewise, the seven angels, (symbolized by the seven stars), I believe, first actually speaks of seven literal beings, symbolically spoken of as stars, that is, a guiding influence in the present darkness to each church (singular) respectively in each location (singular) described. Since we are told that the meaning of the stars is "angels", then we have the symbol and what it represents given to us. John, who, first of all, was a literal human being, is told to write down in a book what he saw and heard to send this to the seven churches. Thus he was instructed to write to the "angel" of the seven churches. The carrying out of these instructions, evidently was through the spirit by means of the actual angels written to by their influence of the angels over the churches being addressed. I have not been able to verify that these letters were actually sent to the churches by John himself, although it is possible that there were humman messengers that delivered these letters to each of the churches.

Notice, however, that, not only is there one star (one angel) assigned to each of the churches, each of the churches is represented as one church (singular) located at one place (singular). These were the actual churches that existed in the first century, each existing as a singular unit.

With this background, then, if we apply these to various time-periods in the history of the church, which I believe we should do, to what extent are we to keep the singularity of the literal application to singular individuals in the history of the church, or does it lose its singularity of application? It certainly loses it application of singularity of a single church in a specific location.

Then, also, we have the problem of trying to identify who these individuals might be. Not all Bible Students agree on who they are, and there are several different versions of "who" they might be, both from within the Bible Student movment and by writers not associated with the Bible Student movement. To what extent should we spend our time looking for each of these individuals and/or studying their writings? To what extent should we submit ourselves to their writings and not go beyond they wrote, even if we have what they wrote? To what extent should we hold ourselves to the writings of Martin Luther, for example, who wrote over 60,000 pages of material?

Further, we often here some say that they are fully in agreement with what Brother Russell, since he was the "last" messenger to the church. Is there anyone who is 100% in agreement with all that Russell wrote, or who actually does stay by everything he wrote, and not beyond? As far as that goes, where in his writings does he say to do this? Many have indeed added much to, and often contradicted, what Brother Russell wrote in their zeal to claim that we should follow only what Russell wrote.

To give an example, on several occasions Brother Russell spoke of the trinitarian as claiming that there are "three gods in one person", or "three gods in one God". He never corrected these statements in any of his later writings. Many Bible Students, in their zeal (which is misguided along this line), continue to make this same error to this day. Trinitarians have harped upon this mistake of his (and others) as grounds to disbelieving anything Russell wrote. It is an error on Brother Russell's part, and true Bible Students should be seeking to correct this error. But we are using this only as illustration. Do not think that we believe in the trinity.

For another instance, Brother Russell never claimed to be the man with the writer's inkhorn. This idea is a "new idea" that has to be added to what he wrote. He never actually claimed to the "faithful and wise servant" nor the Laodicean angel. These teachings, and many other teachings that are often presented concerning Brother Russell, or related to his teachings, were and are served as "food" for the household by others, not by Brother Russell himself.

The point is, if Brother Russell is represented as the singular star of Laodicea (or as for as that goes, the faithful and wise servant), to what extent should we go to either adding to the things he wrote, or trying to recognize or correct any errors he may have made? To what extent should we go to doing the same with others whom one might think were represented as an angel to a specific church? If you believe Martin Luther was one of the angels, should we accept all he taught, or should we recognize that in a general way God used him to present certain truths? To what extent did Brother Russell serve all the truth for our time, since he did not serve the idea that he was that faithful and wise servant, the Laodicean Messenger, or the man with the writer's inkhorn?

We do believe that God has used him in a very special way; at the same time, we do not believe that a Bible Student should be made to feel that his works are the end of it all. Indeed, to the extent that he believes this, such a Bible Student is failing to actually be a "Bible student".

What was Russell's last statement concerning trying to find Brother Russell in the Bible? As far as we have been able to determine, it was this:

"Another thing: Some of the dear brethren seem to find as much about Brother Russell in the Bible as they find about the Lord Jesus, and I think that is a great mistake. I do not find it there. Some of them say that I am blinded on that subject, that they all can see better than I can. Perhaps they can, I do not know, but I think, dear friends, that there is a danger in that direction, and I would like to put you all on guard. I think it is the Lord's will that we should recognize every agency God uses, but we are not to recognize any agency of God as being in any competition whatever with the Lord or with his divine arrangement. He is the fountain of blessing, he only is most to be praised. I think that is the right sentiment. I believe you all agree with that. And yet I think there is a danger of some dear friends preaching Brother Russell. Brother Russell would like for you not to do so.

"He thinks it would not be to the glory of God. Let me repeat, then, dear friends, that in my opinion we have so much of the Gospel of God, so much of his plan to study, so many opportunities of showing forth his praises, that we should employ all our time in that way. My advice, therefore, is that we give very little attention to anything outside of that.

"The Scriptures do indeed say that we may render honor to him to whom honor is due, and that is applicable to anybody and everybody; as, for instance, we look back and we see Martin Luther, and he did a grand work, and we thank God for him; and we might say the same of John Wesley, and very truthfully; I am glad in God's providence he lived, and that he was a faithful man. And there were others of the Lord's people in the past. Let us be glad and rejoice in every one, and be thankful to God he has used various agencies in helping us, and in helping others, and in bringing forward his great cause; but let us not go into anything that would be at all like man-worship, for I am sure that would be displeasing to the Lord and injurious to ourslves. I remind you again of the Scripture in Revelations where the Church is pictured, which we called attention to, I believe, thirty years ago. John, the revelator, who was seeing these things, fell down to worship the angel who showed them to him, and the angel said, 'See thou do it not; worship God; I am thy fellowservant.'

"And so, dear friends, if our Heavenly Father and our Heavenly Lord have used Brother Russell in any measure he is very glad and very thankful to be used. And if the Lord is pleased to use him any more, he will be glad to be used down to the last breath, but he does not want any worship, he does not want any undue adoration, he does not want any praise. He is glad to have the love of all those who are brethren of the Lord and to be considered a fellow-servant with all, striving to bring to pass all the glorious things that God has promised, striving to tell the good tidings of great joy to as many as the Lord, our God, shall call."
-1910; ("Convention Report Sermons", pg. 125)
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/russell/crs.pdf

Thus, Brother Russell did feel that many of his brothers were "preaching Brother Russell" and possibly getting into creature worship by doing this. The fact that many would be involved in such a worship was demonstrated in John's worship of the angel. Is it up to us to determine the heart of another, as to whether he is actually giving worship to creature should only belong to God? Do any of us, personally, have that power to know the hearts of others along this line?

Nevertheless, we believe that there have and probably are some who are fulfilling the symbolism of the Revelation by giving Brother Russell undue worship as represented in the act of John (singular - not that there would only be one person to do this, nor that the one true church as a whole would do this, but that individuals are represented individually in the act of John), which Brother Russell discussed. However, we note that John, when he bowed before the angel, was not cut off, not "disfellowshiped", etc., although he was rebuked, and responded to the rebuke. We believe that the words of Russell himself, as already quoted, provides such a rebuke to any of the church today who are so carried to such extremes concerning Brother Russell.

We do believe that if one has given his life, in word and deed, to Brother Russell, or any other "leaders" thought to be specially used by God, thinking thereby that he is serving God and Jesus, that this would be a deception of Satan. Many do speak of 'remaining faithful to Brother Russell', having 'faith in what Brother Russell said'. Such statements should make one feel uneasy. It is similar to many in the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and other groups, who, in deed, dedicate their lives to their leaders, thinking thereby that they are serving God and Jesus. "How dare anyone have the audacity to think they know more than 'the faithful and discreet slave," "if it was good enough for xxx, it is good enough for me." We can hear these expressions or similar expression said in several groups, each speaking of their respective leaders. Is it sectarianism? Is it carnal thinking? -- 1 Corinthians 1:12,13; 3:3,4.

Some years ago of one the JWs' Watchtower magazines told all that one must be faithful to "Jehovah's organization", really meaning, to be faithful to the leaders of the JW organization. Similar statements can be found in the Armstrong groups, as some of their leaders speak of being faithful to the teachings of Herbert Armstrong. Many will stand by the words of their faithful leader(s) even when they they have been shown facts or scriptures contrary to something said by their favorite leader(s). Where does one draw the line between giving due homage and/or worship that only belongs to the Creator? We cannot decide this for each individual -- we should simply leave that up to God through Jesus. The Bible, however, should be the standard of any true Bible Student, not the writings of this or that person.

Nevertheless, Russell's statements we quoted above somewhat contradict what he had stated a year before when he spoke of his "friends" defense against those enemies who claimed that Russell's friends were worshiping Russell. Many quote from his earlier statements, possibly not being aware of his later statements.

Our friends reply that they are in no danger of worshiping the Society or anybody else; that their experience in man-worship and sect-worship are things of the past. They declare that they were led out of those R4482 : page 293 forms of idolatry and into the proper reverence and worship of God and his Word by the Society's publications and no others, and that they have never heard of any teachings which, in so clear and unmistakable language, guard the Lord's people against every form of man-worship, sect-worship, etc., and that no others so fully and thoroughly set forth the rights and liberties of the Lord's people as against the enslaving tendencies of the great Adversary and bishops, ministers and elders.

Thus, a year later after writing the above, Brother Russell changed his mind so that he evidently did come to believe that he was seeing the spirit of undue creature worship in the various teachings floating around wherein some were seeing Brother Russell in this or that scripture, so much so that he felt a need to give a warning concerning this, even stating bluntly that he did not see himself in those scriptures.