https://youtu.be/4OTNShKQDBI?si=5iLzez_lXQsCp1ww
So, in the latest May 2025 Study Watchtower, the writers of this
Magazine, they have another go at revising Church history for their own ends. They take a well-documented historical event—the flight of Christians from Jerusalem before its destruction in 70 AD - and twisting it into a convenient narrative to reinforce blind obedience to organizational leadership. By cherry-picking sources, omitting key historical facts, and subtly reinterpreting scripture, the Watchtower seeks to create a precedent for Jehovah’s Witnesses today: obey the “faithful and discreet slave” without question, or risk divine disapproval.
In the past, the Watchtower has written about the account of Christians fleeing Jerusalem before the destruction of the city in 70 AD by the Romans under divine directions BUT now for the first time they introduce a new narrative that has never been published in the Watchtower, as far as i am aware. Let's see what paragraph 8 of Study Article 21 in the May 2025 edition has to say:
"A few years after receiving Paul’s letter to the Hebrews, Christians saw the Roman armies surrounding the city of Jerusalem. That signalled the time for them to flee; the city of Jerusalem would be destroyed. (Matt. 24:3; Luke 21:20, 24) But where would their flight lead them? Jesus had simply said: “Let those in Judea begin fleeing to the mountains.” (Luke 21:21). There were many mountains in the region. So, in what direction would they flee?"
One of the biggest issues with the Watchtower’s narrative is the implication that early Christians were confused about where to flee, that's the first time I'm hearing this, and needed centralized leadership to guide them. The text suggests, they now say, that because Jesus merely instructed them to flee “to the mountains” , Christians would have been uncertain about which specific mountains to choose. But this argument is simply unfounded. Is this even a justified argument?No, on the contrary, the Gospel accounts do not indicate any confusion about where to flee. Nowhere in Matthew 24 or Luke 21 do we see Christians frantically debating which mountain range to choose. The decision to flee was a straightforward one: get out of Jerusalem and into safer territory. Historical records indicate that many Christians fled to Pella, a city in the region of Perea. But contrary to the Watchtower’s implications, Pella was not an arbitrary or divinely chosen location—it was a logical destination because it was a known, established Christian community in a Gentile region, neutral to the Jewish-Roman conflict.
Let's read Paragraph 9, where they further make their case:
"Consider some of the mountains to which Christians could have fled: the mountains of Samaria, the mountains in Galilee, Mount Hermon and the mountains of Lebanon, and the mountains across the Jordan. (See map.) Some of the cities in those mountainous areas may have appeared to be safe havens. The city of Gamla, for example, was situated on the rough ridge of a high mountain and was extremely difficult to reach. Some Jews viewed that city as an ideal place of refuge. However, Gamla became the site of a vicious battle between the Jews and the Romans, and many of its inhabitants died."
The Watchtower presents the flight to Pella as though it were the result of last minute divine revelation given specifically to “those taking the lead” in the congregation, for that they quoted Eusebius’ account of Christians receiving a revelation to flee. Eusebius was a 3rd century Father of the Church who wrote the first Ecclesiastical History of the Church and which the Watchtower quotes further in paragraph 10. Let's see:
"It appears that Jehovah guided the Christians by means of those who were taking the lead in the congregation. Historian Eusebius later wrote:
“The people of the congregation in Jerusalem, by divine providence, received a revelation given to approved men; they were commanded . . . to migrate from the city before the war and to settle in a certain city of Perea called Pella.” Pella seems to have been an ideal choice. It was not far from Jerusalem, making it relatively easy to reach. It was primarily a Gentile city and, for the most part, unaffected by the fanatical Jewish freedom fighters and their battles with the Romans."
What the Watchtower fails to acknowledge here is a crucial fact: Pella was already home to an established Christian community.
Pella was part of the Decapolis, a group of ten Greco-Roman cities that had little to no involvement in the Jewish revolt. This made it a natural place of refuge for Jewish Christians who wanted to escape Roman reprisals without becoming embroiled in the conflict. The Watchtower, however, omits this important context, preferring instead to frame the event as a divine directive that came through appointed leaders. Why? It reinforces their modern teaching that Jehovah provides guidance only through organizational hierarchy.
Another glaring flaw in the Watchtower’s argument is its claim that early Christians might have mistakenly sought refuge in Gamla. The paragraph will have you believe that the city was a safe haven that later turned a stronghold of Jewish rebels. In fact history proves the exact opposite is true.What the Watchtower fails to mention is that Gamla was already deeply involved in the Jewish rebellion against Rome, and any Christian with basic awareness of the political situation would have known that fleeing there was not an option.Gamla was already a hot target for the Romans and it didn't miraculously become one after the rebellion of 66 A.D. broke out.
Josephus, the first century historian, suggests that Gamla was already a Zealot stronghold and that the city had long opposed Roman rule.Gamla was part of the kingdom of Herod Agrippa II, who was pro-Roman However, Josephus indicates that the people of Gamla revolted against him, an event that likely occurred before 66 AD. We read:
“Gamla revolted from King Agrippa, though he had put a garrison into it, and relied upon the fidelity of the inhabitants; those that were the authors of the revolt had seized upon it.(The Jewish War, 4.1.1)
This passage indicates that before the general uprising of 66 AD, Gamla had already turned against Agrippa II’s rule, suggesting anti-Roman resistance.
Also,Josephus describes how Gamla's rebellious leaders took control and fortified the city before the Romans attacked, implying that the city had become a center of anti-Roman resistance earlier.We read:"They compelled the people to join with them in the revolt, and erected walls for their security, and when they expected that the king would come against them, they prepared to fight him.”
(The Jewish War, 4.1.2)
So, it is obvious that this part of the Watchtower’s narrative is particularly disingenuous. It tries to paint early Christians as incapable of making rational decisions on their own, needing authoritative guidance to avoid disaster. But history does not support this claim. Early Christians were intelligent and resourceful. They did not require organizational oversight to recognize that Gamla was a dangerous destination. By creating a straw-man argument that Christians were in danger of choosing the wrong place to flee, the Watchtower falsely justifies the need for centralized leadership.
Even more troubling is the Watchtower’s claim that Jehovah provided direction through congregation leaders, citing Hebrews 13:7, 17 as proof that Christians should obey those “taking the lead.” This is a deliberate distortion of the biblical record.
We further read in paragraph 11:
"The Christians who fled to the mountains applied Paul’s counsel to “be obedient to those who are taking the lead” in the congregation. (Read Hebrews 13:7, 17.) As a result, God’s people survived. History confirms that God did not abandon those “awaiting the city having real foundations”—God’s Kingdom.—Heb. 11:10"
If only there was another example in the first century Christian history that shows that the so-called governing body in Jerusalem was the one that always took they lead like the Watchtower will have you believe! Hold on there is, in Acts 11:27-30 we read about a famine that threatened the Christian community in the area around 45-46 AD, and a divine intervention and a forwarning by God was important! Let's read the account :
"In those days, prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. 28 One of them named Agʹa·bus stood up and foretold through the spirit that a great famine was about to come on the entire inhabited earth, which, in fact, did take place in the time of Claudius. 29 So the disciples determined, each according to what he could afford, to send relief to the brothers living in Ju·deʹa; 30 and this they did, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barʹna·bas and Saul."
Did in this recorded occasion divine guidance come through prominent figures like Peter, James, or Paul? No. It came through a relatively unknown Christian named Agabus, who was not a member of the governing body in Jerusalem! So much for the Watchtower’s claim that the governing body in New York will be the only recipients of divine direction during the Great Tribulation.
This completely undermines the Watchtower’s premise that Jehovah always works through centralized leadership. In times of crisis, God’s direction has often come through unexpected sources—not exclusively through organizational hierarchy.
Why does the Watchtower go to such lengths to craft this particular narrative? The answer is clear: control. If they can convince Jehovah’s Witnesses that survival—both physical and spiritual—depends on unquestioning obedience to the organization, then they solidify their authority. The subtle message is that just as early Christians were saved by following the directives of “those taking the lead,” modern Jehovah’s Witnesses will only survive the “Great Tribulation” by adhering to Watchtower leadership.
This analogy is not only flawed but dangerous. It conditions Jehovah’s Witnesses to ignore personal discernment, historical facts, and even scriptural precedent in favour of whatever the Governing Body dictates. The organization wants its followers to believe that independent thinking is akin to rebellion and that questioning leadership equates to defying God. This is classic authoritarianism wrapped in religious rhetoric.
What the Watchtower fails to mention is often just as revealing as what it chooses to include.So to recap, why I think this article is disgenuous. Here are the 3 main omissions I refer to earlier:
The Christian community in Pella was already established. This undermines the claim that Christians needed special direction to go there.
Secondly, Gamla was an obvious no-go.The idea that Christians might have mistakenly fled to a war zone insults their intelligence.
Thirdly, Agabus, not church leaders, provided famine guidance in Acts. A direct contradiction to the Watchtower’s argument that Jehovah always speaks through hierarchy.
By selectively presenting history and scripture, Watchtower manufactures a self-serving narrative that reinforces their claim to exclusive divine guidance.
The Watchtower’s retelling of the Christian flight from Jerusalem is more than just bad history—it’s a calculated attempt to establish an unbiblical precedent for blind obedience. By portraying early Christians as confused and in need of centralized direction, the organization subtly conditions modern Jehovah’s Witnesses to think the same way. The historical reality, however, is much different. Christians fled because they heeded Jesus’ words and used common sense—not because they waited for official instructions from a centralized authority.
Jehovah’s Witnesses today should take note: history does not support the idea that survival hinges on unquestioning obedience to an organization. In fact, scripture itself contradicts this notion. Instead of promoting critical thinking and spiritual discernment, the Watchtower continues its long tradition of manufacturing crises to justify its own power. The question Jehovah’s Witnesses should be asking themselves is not “Where should we flee?” but rather, “Why does the organization want us to think we can’t decide for ourselves?