The Books That Redefined C.T. Russell's Beliefs

by Maat13 38 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Pistoff

  There is the continuing assertion by Sculz, et al, that Russell didn't read Miller and wasn't influenced by him; the evidence for this is said to be that Russell denies reading Miller.

  I don't buy this argument; Russell, like Miller, was obsessed with setting dates and with using Rube Goldberg constructions of timelines and dates, eventually using the pyramids to bolster his arguments.

  Russell denying he read Miller or being influenced by him is very hard to believe, but easy to understand; Miller was a complete failure, who would admit to following him, or reading him?

  Can we say that Russell was verifiably honest in all affairs? Can we trust that if he said he didn't read Miller, that he was telling the truth?

  Or can we draw inferences from his teachings?
• 

  Old Goat

  Setting dates is not unique to Millerism. If you read (and you should) Froom's massive history of millennialist thought, Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, you will find that the practice has an ages long history. Age to Come Believers (Literalists) were as prone to do that as Millerites, and in fact did it before Miller. One example is Aaron Kine, a Congregationalist clergyman, who focused on a date in the 1830s. Another is the German Lutheran expositor Bengel who predicted Christ's return for 1836. Both preceded Miller and did not hold Adventist doctrines. Speculation about dates appears in almost every era.

  Millerite evangelists read Literalist works. Any transfer of thought was from Literalists to Adventists, not in the other direction. Millerite Adventists tried to suck Literalists into Adventism.

  Joshua V. Himes recalled the attempt in terms that show the exchange as less than pleasant:

  The Millennarians [sic] holding these views and looking for the speedy coming of Christ have become very numerous in England, Ireland, and Scotland. Indeed some of the brightest lights of those countries are of that school. In 1840 an attempt was made to open an interchange between the Literalists of England and the Adventists in the United States. But it was soon discovered that they had as little fellowship for our Anti-Judaizing notions as we had for their Judaism, and the interchange was broken off.

  Himes defined the difference between Literalist and Adventist belief this way:

  The distinction between Adventists and Millennarians, is, – The Millennarians believe in the pre-millennial advent of Christ, and his personal reign for a thousand years before the consummation or end of the present world, and creation of the new heavens and earth, and the descent of the New Jerusalem. While the Adventists believe the end of the world or age, the destruction of the wicked, the dissolution of the earth, the renovation of nature, the descent of New Jerusalem, will be beginning of the thousand years. The Millennarians believe in the return of the Jews, as such, either before, at, or after the advent of Christ, to Palestine, to possess that land a thousand years, while the Adventists believe that all the return of the Jews to that country, will be the return of all the pious Jews who have ever lived, to the inheritance of the new earth, in their resurrection state. When Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with all their natural seed who have been of the faith of Abraham, together with all pious Gentiles, will stand up together, to enjoy an eternal inheritance, instead of possessing Canaan for a thousand years.

  The Millennarians believe a part of the heathen world will be left on the earth, to multiply and increase, during the one thousand years, and to be converted and governed by the glorified saints during that period; while the Adventist believe that when the Son of Man shall come in his glory, then he shall be seated on the throne of his glory, and before him shall be gathered all nations, and he shall separate them one from the other, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats. He shall set the sheep on his right hand, and the goats on his left. That one part will go away into everlasting (eternal) punishment, but the righteous into life eternal. They cannot see any probation for any nation, either Jew or Gentile, after the Son of Man comes in his glory, and takes out his own saints from among all nations. They also believe “God will render indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doeth evil, to the Jew first and also to the Gentile, in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men.”

  The Millennarians believe that the saints must have mortal men in a state of probation, for a thousand years, as their subject, in order for them to reign as kings; for, say they, how can they reign without subjects? To which the Adventists reply, If it is necessary for them to have such subjects for a thousand years to reign, by the same rule they must have them eternally; for “they shall reign forever and ever.” – Rev. xxii:5.

  As you should see, Millennairians (Another term for Literalists) held views Russell shared. Russell did not hold Adventist views. This is from Schulz:

  Russell did not read anything Miller wrote. “We have been unable to secure Mr. Miller's writings to compare his Interpretations,” Russell wrote. “We have merely learned the dates at which he applied the prophetic numbers.”[1]He accepted no doctrine unique to Millerism. “We are not endorsing the teachings of Brother Miller,” he wrote. Russell saw Millerism as the starting point of an intense scriptural examination, but the doctrines he pointed to as the favorable result were not at all those of Miller.[2]

  Russell made this his connection to Millerism clear in The Time is at Hand. He saw Millerism as a preliminary separating work, part of the fulfillment of the parable of the Foolish and Wise Virgins which he saw as prophetic rather than merely illustrative. Despite any “prophetic” role Millerism may have held Russell rejected the theology:

  While, as the reader will have observed, we disagree with Mr. Miller's interpretations and deductions, on almost every point, – viewing the object, as well as the manner and the time, of our Lord's coming, in a very different light, – yet we recognize that movement as being in God's order, and as doing a very important work in the separating, purifying, refining, and thus making ready, of a waiting people prepared for the Lord. And not only did it do a purifying and testing work in its own day, but, by casting reproach upon the study of prophecy and upon the doctrine of the Lord's second advent, it has ever since served to test and prove the consecrated, regardless of any association with Mr. Miller's views and expectations. The very mention of the subject of prophecy, the Lord's coming and the MillennialKingdom, now excites the contempt of the worldly-wise, especially in the nominal church. This was undoubtedly of the Lord's providence, and for a purpose very similar to the sending of the infant Jesus for a time to Nazareth, “that he might be called a Nazarene,” though really born in the honorable city of Bethlehem.

  ---

  [1] C. T. Russell: Thy Kingdom Come, 1898 edition, page 87.

  [2] C. T. Russell: Making Ready for the Reign of Righteousness, The Watch Tower¸ November 1, 1914, page 325.
• 

  Separation of Powers

  Good comments Pistoff,

  I think the excerpt added by OldGoat addresses your point very well. If the excerpt is taken from The Time is at Hand as noted, then by Russel's own admission "...we disagree with Mr. Miller's interpretations and deductions, on almost every point," is confirmation of his knowledge of Miller's position. If he had simply used the term "interpretations" then I would not think it so clear cut, but to include "deductions" and the expression "on almost every point" indicates a clear understanding of his writings.

  Thank you for posting this OldGoat. I think it clarifies the point well.

  It is obvious that he did not accept Miller. It is also quite apparent that he was shallow and deceptive. He took his audience for fools and his audacity to state "We have been unable to secure Mr. Miller's writings to compare his interpretations" and then write the excerpt noted above makes him an unrealiable and inauthentic just like the stuff he touted as truth.
• 

  Finkelstein

  Russell was caught up in the Adventist theology of the time influenced by ones such as publisher Nelson Barbour and at one time was the co-editor

  of the Herald magazine. These two separated with conflicting ideologies concerning the return of Christ and his presence and Russell went

  on his own publishing Zion's Watchtower.

  I think there was impart some individualistic ego present which drove him to start his own published magazine contained with his own idealogical thoughts.

  Maybe he thought that this could also resolve into a business opportunity as well, as its known both Barbour and Russell had business back grounds.

  A bit of info about the two ...

  As 1873 approached, various groups began advocating it as significant. Jonas Wendell led one, another centered on the magazine The Watchman's Cry and the rest were associated with Barbour. British Barbourites were represented by Elias H. Tuckett, a clergyman. Many gathered at Terry Island to await the return of Christ in late 1873. Barbour and others looked to the next year, which also proved disappointing.

  Led by Benjamin Wallis Keith, an associate of Barbour's since 1867, the group adopted the belief in a two-stage, initially invisible presence. They believed that Christ had indeed come in 1874 and would soon become visible for judgments. Barbour started a magazine in the fall of 1873 to promote his views, calling it The Midnight Cry. It was first issued as a pamphlet, with no apparent expectation of becoming a periodical. He quickly changed the name to Herald of the Morning, issuing it monthly from January 1874.

  Herald of the Morning, July 1878 showing Barbour as Editor

  In December 1875, Charles Taze Russell, then a businessman from Allegheny, received a copy of Herald of the Morning. He met the principals in the Barbourite movement and arranged for Barbour to speak in Philadelphia in 1876. Barbour and Russell began their association, during which Barbour wrote the book Three Worlds (1877) and published a small booklet by Russell entitled Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return. Beginning in 1878, they each wrote conflicting views on Ransom and Atonement doctrine. By May 3, 1879, Russell wrote that their "points of variance seem to me to be so fundamental and important that... I feel that our relationship should cease." In a May 22, 1879 letter to Barbour, Russell explicitly resigned: "Now I leave the 'Herald' with you. I withdraw entirely from it, asking nothing from you . . . Please announce in next No. of the 'Herald' the dissolution and withdraw my name [as assistant editor on the masthead]." In July 1879, Russell began publishing Zion's Watch Tower, the principal journal of the Bible Student movement. (Several years after Russell's death, the magazine became associated with Jehovah's Witnesses and was renamed The Watchtower.)

  By 1883 Barbour abandoned belief in an invisible presence and returned to more standard Adventist doctrine. He had organized a small congregation in Rochester in 1873. At least by that year he left Adventism for Age-to-Come faith, a form of British Literalism. He changed the name of the congregation to Church of the Strangers. In later years the congregation associated with Mark Allen's Church of the Blessed Hope and called themselves Restitutionists. A photo of Nelson Barbour appeared in the Rochester Union and Advertiser in October 1895.

  Barbour intermittently published Herald of the Morning until at least 1903, occasionally issuing statements critical of C. T. Russell. He wrote favorably though cautiously that he was persuaded 1896 was the date for Christ's visible return, an idea that had grown out of the Advent Christian Church. The last date set by Barbour for Christ's return was 1907.

  .

  So from Russell's history we can see that he was indeed caught up in adventist theology but he was also caught up in attracting the publics attention

  from his own theological teachings, thinking how compelling they were, he decided to sell them to the public by giving public talks and producing his own literature.

  .

  But like all of these proselytizing religious charlatans past and present and even the ones before his time such a William Miller, publishing a book with these engaging

  theological thoughts concerning the return of Christ were more based from emotion rather than strict adherence to the bible's writings and interpretations.

  .

  Those compelling instilled emotions which were originally created by Russell's own self assuming theology was exploited further throughout the 20th century by the WTS.,

  right up to this day in the present JW religion.
• 

  Separation of Powers

  Good points Finkelstein. It is difficult to argue that he wasn't influenced by the Adventist movement when you see what drew him to Barbour in the first place. One can say that Barbour broke away from strict adventism later in his religious career, but it is obvious where he originally stood. To say that Russel was ONLY influenced by a particular set of views is to reject the religious fervor of the times. People like Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, the Zionist movement, pyramidology, and mysticism. Heck, even the impact of someone like Houdini on the mindset of society at the turn of the century cannot be excluded from the consideration.
• 

  Finkelstein

  Russell like other speculative theorists of his era also got caught up in Pyramidlogy by noted British astronomer Charles Smyth and his book .

  Our Inheritance in the Great Pyramid

  .

  Pyramidological researches

  Smyth corresponded with pyramid theorist John Taylor and was heavily influenced by him. Taylor theorized in his 1859 book The Great Pyramid: Why Was It Built? & Who Built It? that the Great Pyramid was planned and the building supervised by the biblical Noah. Refused a grant by the Royal Society, Smyth went on an expedition to Egypt in order to accurately measure every surface, dimension, and aspect of the Great Pyramid. He brought along equipment to measure the dimensions of the stones, the precise angle of sections such as the descending passage, and a specially designed camera to photograph both the interior and exterior of the pyramid. He also used other instruments to make astronomical calculations and determine the pyramid's accurate latitude and longitude.

  This diagram from Smyth's Our Inheritance in the Great Pyramid (1877) shows some of his measurements and chronological determinations made from them

  Smyth subsequently published his book Our Inheritance in the Great Pyramid in 1864 (which he expanded over the years and is also titled The Great Pyramid: Its Secrets and Mysteries Revealed). Smyth claimed that the measurements he obtained from the Great Pyramid of Giza indicated a unit of length, the pyramid inch, equivalent to 1.001 British inches, that could have been the standard of measurement by the pyramid's architects. From this he extrapolated a number of other measurements, including the pyramid pint, the sacred cubit, and the pyramid scale of temperature.

  Smyth claimed that the pyramid inch was a God-given measure handed down through the centuries from the time of Shem (Noah's Son), and that the architects of the pyramid could only have been directed by the hand of God. To support this Smyth said that, in measuring the pyramid, he found the number of inches in the perimeter of the base equalled one thousand times the number of days in a year, and found a numeric relationship between the height of the pyramid in inches to the distance from Earth to the Sun, measured in statute miles. He also advanced the theory that the Great Pyramid was a repository of prophecies which could be revealed by detailed measurements of the structure. Working upon theories by Taylor, he conjectured that the Hyksos were the Hebrew people, and that they built the Great Pyramid under the leadership of Melchizedek. Because the pyramid inch was a divine unit of measurement, Smyth, a committed proponent of British Israelism, used his conclusions as an argument against the introduction of the metric system in Britain. For much of his life he was a vocal opponent of the metric system, which he considered a product of the minds of atheistic French radicals, a position advocated in many of his works.

  Smyth, despite his bad reputation in Egyptological circles today, performed much valuable work at Giza. He made the most accurate measurements of the Great Pyramid that any explorer had made up to that time, and he photographed the interior passages, using a magnesium light, for the first time. Smyth's work resulted in many drawings and calculations, which were soon incorporated into his books Our Inheritance in the Great Pyramid, the three-volume Life and Work at the Great Pyramid (1867), and On the Antiquity of Intellectual Man (1868). For his works he was awarded a gold medal by the Royal Society of Edinburgh, but in 1874, the Royal Society rejected his paper on the design of Khufu's pyramid, as they had Taylor's. The rejection of his ideas helped contribute to his resignation from his post as Royal Astronomer in 1888.

  Influence of Smyth's pyramid theories

  Smyth's theories on pyramid prophecy were then integrated into the works and prophecies of Charles Taze Russell(such as his Studies in the Scriptures), who founded the Bible Student movement (most visible today in the Jehovah's Witnesses, though Russell's successor, Joseph F. Rutherford, denounced pyramidology as unscriptural). Smyth's proposed dates for the Second Coming, first 1882 then many dates between 1892 and 1911, were failed predictions.

  .

  So one can see that Russell gravitated toward many different sources of information that he thought carried relevance or he could sell to the public.

  To this day there are ancient Egyptian images inside the Pittsburgh Freemason Hall, which makes one wonder if he had some influence in placing the

  images there or were they there before his time and they influenced him ???

  .

  Interesting enough C. Smyth also had a stone monument of a Pyramid place at his grave site just like Russell.

  
• 

  Old Goat

  Invisible parousia doctrine did not derive from the Advent Christian Church. It came from 17th and 18th century Millennarians. Most adventists rejected the doctrine.
• 

  Finkelstein

  Thinking reflectively one can see that the so called spirituality of todays JWS has its foundation complied in ignorance

  mixed with a bit useful commercialism for a religious publishing house.

  When Rutherford took over the WTS. he further hyped up the return of Jesus and what was to be in store for mankind

  and used that doctrine to sell and promote many of his books and magazines.

  These doctrines unfortunately created the core framework of this religious institution, which over time (100 + years)

  has proven a bit of a unveiling problem for the WTS. today.
• 

  Maat13

  Separation of Power, you said:

  He did not obviously agree with Miller's calculations but subscribed wholeheartedly to the belief that the epoch of time in which he was living was the "time" of God's greatest intervention. I think it goes without saying that THAT is exactly what Miller believed. Somewhat of a kindred spirit don't you think?

  Yes I agree, based on my reading lately, that Russell and Miller was of kindred spirits. Even though Russell disagreed with a number of Miller's points he reverently referred to him as Father Miller...suggesting some allegiance to other beliefs Miller may have held.

  I've had an opportunity to skim and/or read "Inside the story Jehovah's Witness" W.C. Stevensons; "People Who Were Important To Charles Taze Russell" Doug Mason (Thanks Doug); "Millions Now Living Will Never Die" Alan Rogerson. I am looking for a copy of "Four Major Cults" by Anthony Hoekema...This appears to be an interesting read. I found each of these works relevant and have led me to a much clearer conclusion of Russell's thoughts....

  Old Goat, you said:

  If you really had read Russell's Studies in the Scriptures you would have seen that he never read anything Miller wrote. (He says so, and it's obvious from content.)

  I am no so sure I agree with. Russell gave almost a point by point account of what he disagreed with that Miller subscribed to. Are you sure he never read anything Miller wrote?

  Also I have not found much on the Literalist movement as it relates to Adventists. Nonetheless, I found much of the information put forth by Barbour and Jonas Wendell (Miller as well) to be eerily familiar to information found in "Observations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel and Apocalypse of St. John" by Sir Isaac Newton, published in 1733....But then again there are those who believe that St. John's Revelations were actually an amalgamation of the Sybilline books...but that is probably best for another topic....

  At this point it's obvious Russell was reaching...and took upon himself to dissiminate a number of doctrinal beliefs to the masses of people who purchased Zions Watchtower...(Was he Jewish?....why the heck was it Zion's Watchtower anyway)....He had the money and seemed to be more famous or just as famous as Calvin Coolidge. Having money does help.

  Rutherford seems to have cherry picked a number of beliefs that had staying power, e.g. profitability and longevity.....Can you fault him? Is he not the quintessential preacher that drove a big caddy and lived in a luxurious home.

  Finkelstein: I'm still working on the reference material you provided...give me a few weeks....to comment back...

  DAGNIBIT!!!....I'm still working on getting my family out of this organization...

  Maat