Focus on Charles Taze Russell

Someone has just posted a page on a website directed toward “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” but which in reality is mostly concerning Charles Taze Russell. First, let us say that we have studied the works of Charles Russell very extensively for over forty years. (We are not with the JWs; we consider ourselves as associated with the Bible Students).

We have to state first that most of what is presented by the writer is from somebody’s imaginative mind.

The writer evidently assumes that Charles Taze Russell is responsible for the present-day Jehovah’s Witnesses organization and the disfellowshipping procedures of that organization. In actuality, Charles Taze Russell was never associated with, nor did he ever believe in, such an authoritative organization as the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The “Jehovah’s Witnesses” organization was formed after Russell died. There was no central authority in Russell’s day, and, although Russell presented scriptures concerning disfellowshipping, the present day method used by the JWs was not practiced in the days of Russell.

The site claims that in 1876 that Russell announced that he had found a “code” in the Bible that clearly showed that all dead Christians would be resurrected and returned to Earth in 1878. We do not know of any special announcement that Russell made to this effect in 1876, nor do we find any announcement of any “code” anywhere in Russell’s writings, nor do we find anywhere that he announced that such alleged “code” proved “clearly that all dead Christians would be resurrected and returned to the earth in 1878.” The author of the post needs to present exactly what is being referred to from Russell’s writings, but we doubt that such will ever be presented, since we highly doubt that such an announcement was ever made by Russell. We are sure that Russell did make some kind of announcement orally to the congregation he was serving in Pittsburg as to the studies presented by N. H. Barbour, but at the same time, we highly doubt that any such announcement included anything about his allegedly discovering any “code” or about the dead Christians returning to the earth in 1878. As best as we can determine, before 1878 Russell believed that the dead saints had already been raised in 1875, and that what he at time called the “rapture/translation” would take place in 1878. In 1875 (three years before 1878), N. H. Barbour wrote: “In the resurrection, the saints are ‘as the angels of God.’ If the angels can do their work, and yet remain invisible, are you sure the saints may not also be invisible to you? Remember, ‘it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.’” From what we know of Russell’s writings, even before Russell knew of Barbour’s statement, he was in basic agreement with what Barbour stated here, that the saints would be raised invisible to human eyes, with spiritual bodies, not physical bodies. Thus, it appears that neither Russell nor Barbour were expecting the saints to resurrected to the earth in 1878. However, we do believe that it may have been that there were others amongst the “Second Adventists” who were expecting the saints to be raised to the earth in 1878, but we have no reason to think that either Russell or Barbour had such expectations.

We are wondering what this “code” is that is being spoken of. Although we are sure that Russell did orally announce what he had found out from Barbour, we doubt that he made any announcement of an alleged “code” he had discovered. A search through his writings reveals no mention of his ‘discovering’ such a code, not in 1876 or any other time.

We are told that Russell, in 1878, went to the Pittsburgh 6th Street Bridge, dressed in a white robe, prepared to allegedly “witness the rapture” and wait for the resurrected Christians. At most, what Russell may have expected for 1878 was that the sleeping saints may have been raised invisibly and that he himself might have been raptured/translated, although it appears that Russell, at that time, believed that the sleeping saints had already risen in 1875. We know of no specific day or night that Russell could have expected such to happen. From what we know of Russell’s beliefs, the statement as given would be a self-contradiction. If Russell had been expecting to have been raptured in 1878, he would not have been there to “witness” such a rapture, for if he had been raptured, he would not have been still on earth to witness an alleged return of Christians to the earth (which he did not believe in). At any rate, evidently there were some Second Adventists at the bridge mentioned, but Russell was reported as stating that he was home in bed at that time. It is also reported that Russell stated that he was not expecting to be raptured/translated in 1878. Evidently, a reporter mistakenly thought Russell was amongst those assembled, and reported that Russell was there. As far as the other dates presented, most of which Russell never spoke of, he certainly had no reason to go to that bridge regarding dates that he never spoke of any rapture. Nor do we have any evidence from Russell’s writings that Russell ever even thought of going to a bridge, as though that or any other bridge held some kind of special signification related to the rapture/translation.

The writer states that “nothing happened.” Since Russell was not expecting anything “visible” to happen in 1878, one cannot simply state that “nothing happened” in 1878. If Russell had been expecting a resurrection to take place then, no one on earth would physically see the resurrection of the sleeping saints, since that resurrection was not expected to be physical, but rather spiritual, and thus invisible to the physical eye. We do know that later — after 1878 — he had become convinced that the sleeping saints had been raised in 1878, and held to that belief until his death. Nevertheless, as stated before, there may have been others in “Second Adventist” movement who were expecting the saints to return to the earth.

Through some manner, the author on the thinkscience.today.com site has some way of knowing that Russell was “decimated” because the dead Christians were not raised back to earth in 1878, for the writer states: “Decimated, Russell left the bridge.” Of course, if Russell was never at the bridge to begin with, he would did not leave the bridge, nor decimated. Although he had earlier thought that he would be translated in 1878, he evidently was less that convinced in his mind on this sometime before the spring of 1878, and he stated in 1878: “Doubtless all who understood the foundation upon which those hopes were based felt somewhat disappointed; yet we did not for a moment feel cast down. We realized that what God had so plainly declared must some time have a fulfillment.” (Herald of the Morning, “The Prospect,” July 1878) Our search through Russell’s writings revealed nothing about his speaking of himself as being decimated by any alleged “failed” expectations concerning 1878, or regarding any expectations regarding any other date.

We are then misinformed that Russell later announced that he had miscalculated while deciphering the alleged “code” and the alleged events he predicted were actually fated to occur in 1879. No reference is given for this, and we know of no such reference to be given. Why? Because we find no record that Russell believed that 1878 was a failure, or that he ever thought of changing what he had expected in 1878 to 1879. Our conclusion: Russell never ‘changed’ such to 1879 at all; the writer is evidently drawing things from the writer’s own mind, and presenting them as historical fact, when, in reality, such never happened.

We are further misinformed that Russell showed up again in 1879 on the 6th Street bridge with even more followers to witness the Rapture and welcome the resurrected Christians. Again, the writer is evidently using imagination to create a history that never happened. And in the writer’s imagination would have it that again, nothing happened!

According the writer’s evident imagination, several more events occurred with similar results, so much so, that eventually Russell stopped showing up at the bridge. Again, no record is presented of these alleged “events,” nor do we know of any such records of such repeated events. Our conclusion: these events are all in the imagination of the writer.

We are next informed that in 1881 Russell formed the Zion’s Watchtower Tract Society (which is partially true, in that Russell was one of the main founders) which the writer states is today’s Jehovah’s Witnesses (this is misleading, since the Watch Tower Society in Russell’s day did not serve the same function as the Watch Tower Society did in later years). One of the first things Rutherford did after Russell died was to have the by-laws changed, which restructured the Society into a functioning organization with the president being given full control, and then through the new “organization” teachings of Rutherford, Rutherford basically set himself up as the “central authority” over the congregations. While many individuals and congregations began to realize this as early as 1917, and thus began to withdraw support from Rutherford and his new “organization” doctrine, over the next 15 years more and more Bible Students congregations and individual Bible Students withdrew support from Russell as they began to realize where his new “organization” doctrine was taking them. By the mid-1930s, the majority of the original Bible Students movement was no longer affiliated with the Watch Tower. Rutherford, in the mean time, had built up a rather large following of loyal new converts.

The writer’s next imaginative assumption is that the “purpose of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is to be present at specified places and times to witness the Rapture and welcome the resurrected Christians.” While this is directed toward the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the surrounding information, although evidently being attributed to Jehovah’s witnesses, is actually an attack on Russell and the Bible Students. Of course, we know that this assumption of purpose is not true of the Bible Students, nor do we believe it to be true of the “Jehovah’s Witnesses.” The assumption given by the writer is just more of the writer’s imaginations running wild and being presented as though it were fact.

The writer next gives a long list of dates, with the claim that for each of these dates, the rapture was predicted, and that, for all the dates, nothing happened. Again, we are not given any references as to where the writer has obtained these dates; there may have been some Second Adventists who looked to all of these dates for the rapture, but we have no evidence that, for Russell, most of those dates ever held any specific prophetic significance. The string of dates given by the writer seems to imply that Russell had expected the “rapture” and the resurrection of the saints to the earth on all of the those dates, and that when one date failed, he chose another date, which, of course, is misleading. For instance, 1914 was known as the end of the Gentile Times even before the date 1874 had arrived. While Russell did change his views concerning what happened or occurred on certain dates, the dates did nor replace each other. The date 1878 did replace 1874; the date 1881 did not replace 1878; the date 1914 did not replace any earlier date, nor did 1915 replace any other date, as though the earlier dates were “failures.”

Nor do we know of any evidence that Russell ever placed any prophetic significance on the rest of the string of dates given. In other words, we do not know of any evidence that Russell ever place any special prophetic significance to the years 1879, 1880, 1882, 1885, 1891, 1893, 1894, 1896, 1901, 1904 or 1908 (dates being attributed to Russell as dates for the rapture); unless the writer or anyone else can verify from Russell’s writings regarding these dates, we would suggest that these dates came from the writer’s imaginative mind, not from Russell. Indeed, as we read Russell’s writings from 1879 onward, he consistently pointed to 1878 as the date of the resurrection of the sleeping saints.

Russell, however, gave his thoughts, not as prophecies, for he many times stated that his expectations should not be considered “prophecy,” but rather his own conclusions based on Bible prophecy. Russell was expecting the “time of trouble” to begin in 1914 (which we believe it did with the outbreak of the “Great War”), based on his belief that the Gentile Times would end then, allowing Jesus take up his reign, which, in the Bible, is prophesied to begin the “time of trouble”. Russell died in 1916, believing that Christ had returned in 1874, that the sleeping saints had been raised with spiritual bodies in 1878, that the time allotted for the high call ended in 1881, and that the Gentile Times had ended in 1914, and that “time of trouble” had begun in 1914 giving evidence that Christ had taken his throne over the nations, which was resulting their wrath. We believe that we are still in that time of trouble. (We are more or less in agreement with most of the dates except for what Russell believed concerning 1881.)

Russell had suggested (long before 1914 had arrived) that this time of trouble might be over by the end of 1915 (although he also stated that he had found nothing in the scriptures that indicated how long the trouble would last. Other Bible Students had suggested several dates for the end of the trouble, but these were all based on parallels, not time prophecy. Strictly speaking, however, even if we have a date for the end of time of trouble, it would not mean that the time of trouble would last until that date, since the days of the trouble are prophesied to be cut short; thus no one knows the day or hour in which the heavens and earth are to pass away).

Russell, however, was not expecting the saints to return to the earth, for he believed that they were to be raised with spiritual, celestial bodies, not earthly, terrestrial bodies. Indeed, until the day he died, he believed that the sleeping saints were raised with spiritual bodies in 1878.

Christian love,
Ronald