Larc
You said that Charles Taze Russell was "that faithful and wise slave" and then you added "nuff said." Well, it's not nearly nuff for me. I would like you to elaborate on your statement. Please provide some clear reasoning for such a unusual conclusion.
Well, I could take up a lot of space on this topic so I'll be brief.
Regarding our Lord's Great Prophecy of Matthew 24, it might be debated that the term, "faithful and wise servant" (vs. 45), could be applied to the Lord's people as a whole class. On the other hand, it may be applied to any individual who would serve others the Truth, "meat in due season" ["food at teh proper time" - NWT] when Jesus returns. In this passage, as well as the parallel account in Luke 12, it appears clear that "those servants [plural]" (vs. 37) who should be alert and watching refer to all the Lord's faithful people.
Another suggestion might be that the Watchtower Society itself would fill the role as "a faithful and wise servant." However, on close examination, within the same context in Luke 12, is a clear distinction between one who serves and those who are served:
"Blessed are those servants [plural], whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching. . . Who then is that faithful and wise steward [singular] whom the Lord would make ruler over his household to give them [plural] . . .meat in due season." (Vss. 37, 42) Although all should be watching, one servant would be a steward over the rest of the servants for dispensing the truth due at the end of the age.
This responsibility would not imply lordship, apostolic inspiration or even origination of truths. Although Brother Russell rarely discussed these texts, when pressed to identify himself as fulfilling this role, he did not deny it. As his friends would say, "A servant is known by his service" (R4483:2). If the content of his message and impact of his work are recognized as uniquely significant at the end of this age, then the conclusion that the Lord selected Charles Taze Russell as "that servant" is obvious.
The position carried risks; the office, specific temptations. One temptation described in Matthew 24 was that once having proclaimed the presence of the Lord, the "servant" might with the passage of time be tempted to reconsider and say the Lord after all had not come yet. The other temptation might be to become abusive in his peculiar position and "smite his fellowservants" (Matthew 24:48-51). No legitimate accusation of either of these sins could be laid at Brother Russell's feet. (Ironically, the Jehovah's Witnesses, which postponed Jesus' coming to later dates and have historically oppressively ruled over people, have accused Bible students faithful to the original writings of Pastor Russell as the "evil slave class.")
Still it might be asserted out that Br. Russell "did not originate" all the doctrines he taught and that he "made mistakes." But he disclaimed divine inspiration though he obviously possessed divine guidance in his writings. A "servant" might be allowed to make mistakes whereas the apostles' words in Scripture would allow no room for mistakes. Brother Russell, as a willing candidate for this role, merely organized the assorted beliefs of the "cleansed sanctuary" class of the nineteenth century— which had freed itself from the doctrines of the Dark Ages. He was not an originator; he was an organizer and a dispenser. He was not a lord over others; he was a servant—a faithful servant.
"People in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones"
Edited by - RR on 4 January 2001 20:56:22