Has The Watchtower Society Ever Claimed to be Infallible?

From the beginning, the Watchtower has said:

"We have not the gift of prophecy." - January 1883, page 425.

"Nor would we have our writings reverenced or regarded as infallible." - December 15, 1896, page 306.

"[the fact that some have Jehovah's spirit] does not mean those now serving as Jehovah's witnesses are inspired. It does not mean that the writings in this magazine, The Watchtower, are inspired and infallible and without mistakes." - May 15, 1947, page 157.

"The Watchtower does not claim to be inspired in its utterances, nor is it dogmatic." - August 15, 1950, page 263.

"The brothers preparing these publications are not infallible. Their writings are not inspired as are those of Paul and the other Bible writers. (2 Tim. 3:16) And so, at times, it has been necessary, as understanding became clearer, to correct views. (Prov. 4:18)" - February 15, 1981, page 19.

No, as the preface to every Watchtower magazine for the year 1972 (including, of course, the April 1, 1972 issue which had the article, "They Shall Know That a Prophet Was Among Them") says:

No, `The Watchtower' is NO INSPIRED PROPHET, but it follows and explains a Book of prophecy ....— Which Book? The Sacred Bible of the Holy Scriptures, written by inspiration in the name of the creator of heaven and earth, the only living and true God.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX  

Where And How Do Jehovah's Witnesses Meet?

Click on any of the following links to view:

Our Ministry - Gathering Together
Jehovah's Witnesses Official Media Web Site

Jehovah's Witnesses Building Kingdom Halls Around the World
Video From The Jehovah's Witnesses Official Media Web Site


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX  

Why have there been changes over the years in the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses?

Since the beginning, the Watchtower Society has NEVER claimed to be an inspired prophet of God:

"We have not the gift of prophecy." - Watchtower, January 1883, page 425

Nor to be infallible:

"Nor would we have our writings reverenced or regarded as infallible." - Watchtower, December 15, 1896, page 306

Even the prophets who were divinely inspired to write portions of the Bible did not understand the meaning of everything that they wrote. (Dan. 12:8, 9; 1 Pet. 1:10-12) Even the apostles of Jesus Christ realized that there was much they did not understand in their time. (Acts 1:6, 7; 1 Cor. 13:9-12)

The Bible has shown that Jehovah enables his servants to understand his purpose in a progressive manner. (Prov. 4:18; John 16:12) The Bible shows that there would be a great increase in knowledge of the truth during "the time of the end." (Dan. 12:4) Increased knowledge often requires adjustments in one's thinking. Jehovah's Witnesses are humbly willing to make such adjustments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX  

Why are Jehovah's Witnesses persecuted and spoken against?

Jehovah's Witnesses base all of their beliefs, their standards for conduct, and organizational procedures on the Bible.

Unfortunately, many people have some serious misunderstandings concerning Jehovah's Witnesses. Some people hate Jehovah's Witnesses and make up lies about them because of some misunderstandings. OR some may have had a bad personal experience with someone who claimed to be a Jehovah's Witness, and then unfairly associated this with the entire religion.

But probably the main reason Jehovah's Witnesses are so despised is because they have returned to what the Bible actually teaches and threw out all the trappings and borrowings from philosophies and pagan religions accumulated by most of Christendom over the last 1700 years or so. Since religion is such a personal and emotional thing, most people resent anyone who seems to threaten their long-held religious beliefs.

Whatever the case may be, this "hatred" is actually an identifier of true Christians. (John 15:19; 2 Timothy 4:3-5; 1 Peter 4:4)

Unfortunately, too many of the general public do not have enough accurate information to make an educated decision about Jehovah's Witnesses. The best way to find out more about them is through the pages of their official website:

Jehovah’s Witnesses—Who Are They? What Do They Believe?

Frequently Asked Questions About Jehovah’s Witnesses

What Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Believe?

Questions Often Asked by Interested People
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX  

How is the Work of Jehovah's Witnesses Financed?

Some opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses falsely claim that the Watchtower organization gets rich off of Jehovah's Witnesses. Yet this can easily be proved false.

The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, a legal religious corporation that is used by Jehovah's Witnesses, was incorporated in 1884 in accordance with the Nonprofit Corporation Law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, U.S.A. This means that, BY LAW IT CANNOT BE and it is NOT, A PROFIT-MAKING ENTERPRISE, nor do individuals make a profit through this Society. The Society's charter states: "It [the Society] does not contemplate pecuniary gain or profit, incidentally or otherwise, to its members, directors or officers."'

The work of Jehovah's Witnesses is primarily financed through voluntary contributions, as was true with the early Christians. (2 Cor. 8:12; 9:7) 

True Christians heed Jesus' instruction to his apostles:

“YOU received free, give free.” (Matthew 10:8) 

So no tithing or collections are ever taken at meetings of Jehovah's Witnesses; they do not beg for money from the public. Any donations from interested persons are used to further the worldwide work of Bible education conducted by Jehovah's Witnesses. 

Jehovah's Witnesses are not paid to go from house to house or to offer Bible literature on the streets. Love for God and for neighbor motivates them to talk about God's loving provisions for mankind.

For much more, see:

How Is Your Work Financed? (JW.ORG)

Do Jehovah's Witnesses Practice Tithing? (JW.ORG)

How Jehovah's Witnesses Are Organized / How are you funded? (Jehovah’s Witnesses Official Media Web Site)

Religion - How Should It Be Financed? Giving That Brings Joy (w02 12/1 pp. 4-7; Watchtower Online Library)

How Is It All Financed? - Not Serving for Personal Gain (Jehovah's Witnesses Questions and Answers; Excerpt from the Proclaimers Book - jv chap. 21 pp. 350-351 How Is It All Financed?)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX 

Disfellowshipping and Jehovah's Witnesses - Links to Information

Click on any of the following links to view:

DISFELLOWSHIPPING - Links to Information (INDEX; Watchtower Online Library)

EXPELLING (Insight-1 pp. 787-788; Watchtower Online Library)

Always Accept Jehovah’s Discipline - Why Are Some Disfellowshipped? (THE WATCHTOWER (STUDY EDITION) 2006-11-15; JW.ORG)

Do Jehovah's Witnesses Shun Former Members of Your Religion? (JW.ORG)

How to Treat a Disfellowshipped Person (lv pp. 207-209; Watchtower Online Library)

Would it be appropriate for Christian parents to sit with a disfellowshipped child at congregation meetings? (WATCHTOWER (STUDY EDITION) AUGUST 2013 QUESTIONS FROM READERS; JW.ORG)

Can a person be disfellowshipped from the Christian congregation for engaging in uncleanness as he can be for fornication or loose conduct? (w06 7/15 pp. 29-31; Questions From Readers;Watchtower Online Library)

What is expelling (disfellowshiping) and why is/was it used in the Christian congregation? (Defending Jehovah's Witnesses)

Is Excommunication, or Disfellowshipping, a Teaching Found in the Bible? (Defending Jehovah's Witnesses)

Is the practice of disfellowshipping (expelling) found in the Bible? (Defending Jehovah's Witnesses)

To what extent should Christians avoid fellowship with disfellowshipped ones? (Defending Jehovah's Witnesses)

What About Christians Living In The Same Household With a Disfellowshipped Family Member? (Defending Jehovah's Witnesses)

Do Jehovah's Witnesses Completely Ignore Those Who Have Been Disfellowshipped? (Defending Jehovah's Witnesses)

"Disfellowshipping is not done out of spite or hatred for that individual. Rather, it may have the effect of having that person demonstrate their sincere repentance." (Jehovah's Witnesses Questions and Answers)

Child discipline illustration (Jehovah's Witnesses Questions and Answers)

What about Christians living in the same household with a disfellowshipped family member and family Bible study? (Jehovah's Witnesses Questions and Answers)

Can someone be reinstated back to the congregation after being Disfellowshipped / Expelled? (Search For Bible Truths)

If a situation occurs which requires the assistance of law enforcement, should a Christian consult the police or the elders? (Jehovah's Witnesses Questions and Answers)

Is someone to be disfellowshipped for marrying an unbeliever? (Jehovah's Witnesses Questions and Answers, #3 in list)

Are repentant wrongdoers "placed" or "put on" public or private reproof as if placed on probation? (Jehovah's Witnesses Questions and Answers)

SEARCH THIS SITE:

Defend Jehovah's Witnesses

SEARCH JW.ORG:

JW.ORG

What About Christians Living In The Same Household With a Disfellowshipped Family Member?

In The Immediate Household

"Does this mean that Christians living in the same household with a disfellowshipped family member are to avoid talking to, eating with, and associating with that one as they go about their daily activities?"

The Watchtower of April 15, 1991, in the footnote on page 22, states:

"'If in a Christian's household there is a disfellowshipped relative, that one would still be part of the normal, day-to-day household dealings and activities.'"

"Thus, it would be left up to members of the family to decide on the extent to which the disfellowshipped family member would be included when eating or engaging in other household activities. And yet, they would not want to give brothers with whom they associate the impression that everything is the same as it was before the disfellowshipping occurred." - Our Kingdom Ministry, 8/02, pp.6 Heading: "Display Christian Loyalty When a Relative Is Disfellowshipped."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX

To what extent should Christians avoid fellowship with disfellowshipped ones?

The Bible commands Christians not to keep company or fellowship with a person who has been expelled from the congregation:

"Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man...Remove the wicked man from among yourselves." (1Cor. 5:11,13)

Jesus also said concerning this:

"Let [the expelled one] be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector." (Mt. 18:17) Because those listening to Jesus knew well that the Jew of that day had no fraternization with Gentiles and that they shunned tax collectors as outcasts, they realized that Jesus was instructing his followers not to associate with expelled ones. (See the Watchtower of Sept 15, 1981, pages 18-20.)

This shows that loyal Christians do not have spiritual fellowship with anyone who has been expelled from the congregation. Not only that, but the Bible says that we should "not even eat with such a man." (1 Cor. 5:11) Clearly, even social fellowship with an expelled person should be avoided. This would rule out joining him in a picnic, party, ball game, or a trip to the mall or theater or sitting down to a meal with him either in the home or at a restaurant.

Does this include even speaking with a disfellowshipped person? The Bible doesn't cover every possible situation, but 2 John 10 helps us to get Jehovah's view of matters: "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him."

Commenting on this, The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, page 25, says:

"A simple 'hello' to someone can be the first step that develops into a conversation and maybe even a friendship. Would we want to take that first step with a disfellowshipped person?" (Also see Our Kingdom Ministry, 8/02, pp. 2-4, Heading: "Display Christian Loyalty When A Relative is Disfellowshipped).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX

What is expelling (disfellowshiping) and why is/was it used in the Christian congregation?

Expelling (disfellowshiping) is the judicial excommunication of delinquents from membership and association in a community or organization.

"With religious societies, it is a principle and a right inherent in them and is analogous to the powers of capital punishment, banishment, and exclusion from membership that are exercised by political and municipal bodies. In the congregation of God it is exercised to maintain the purity of the organization doctrinally and morally. The exercise of this power is necessary to the continued existence of the organization and particularly so the Christian congregation. The congregation must remain clean and maintain God's favor in order to be used by him and to represent him. Otherwise, God would expel or cut off the entire congregation. (Rev. 2:5; 1 Cor. 5:5, 6)" -Insight Book, Vol. 1, "Expelling"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX

Is the practice of disfellowshipping (expelling) found in the Bible?

Disfellowshipping/Expulsion IS BASED ON THE PRINCIPLES FOUND IN THE SCRIPTURES. In order to maintain God's favor and to be used by Him and to represent Him, the congregation must remain clean. Otherwise, God would expel or cut off the entire congregation. (Re 2:5; 1Co 5:5, 6.)

Examples and precedents have been set by the apostle Paul when he ordered the expulsion of an incestuous fornicator who had taken his father's wife. (1 Cor. 5:5, 11, 13) He also exercised disfellowshipping authority against Hymenaeus and Alexander. (1 Tim. 1:19, 20)

The Christian congregation is ADMONISHED BY SCRIPTURE to stop socializing with those who are disorderly and not walking correctly but who are not deemed deserving of complete expulsion. Paul wrote: "Stop associating with him, that he may be ashamed. And yet do not be considering him an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother." (2 Thess. 3:6, 11, 13-15).

The Bible mentions some of the offenses that could merit disfellowshipping from the Christian congregation: fornication, adultery, homosexuality, greed, extortion, thievery, lying, drunkenness, reviling, spiritism, murder, idiolatry, apostasy, and the causing of divisions in the congregation. (1Cor. 5:9-13; 6:9,10; Tit. 3:10,11; Rev. 21:8) As a protection to the congregation, preventing it from becoming harsh and unforgiving, the principle enunciated in the law applies that that two or three witnesses must establish evidence against the accused one; and also for those who have been expelled, they may be received back into the congregation if they demonstrate sincere repentance. (2 Co 2:5-8; (1 Tim. 5:19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX

J. F. Rutherford and "Beth - Sarim"

"Beth-Sarim"

Opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses have occasionally made references (most of the details being incorrect) to J. F. Rutherford and "Beth - Sarim" in an attempt to discredit the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. A look at the context and actual records would be beneficial:

The 1975 Year Book tells us that

"Brother Rutherford had a severe case of pneumonia after his release from unjust imprisonment during 1918-1919 because of his faithfulness to Jehovah. Thereafter he had only one good lung. It was virtually impossible for him to remain in Brooklyn, New York, during the winter and still carry out his duties as the Society's president. In the 1920's he went to San Diego under a doctor's treatment. The climate there was exceptionally good and the doctor urged him to spend as much time as possible in San Diego. That is what Rutherford did ultimately.

"In time, a direct contribution was made for the purpose of constructing a house in San Diego for Brother Rutherford's use. It was not built at the expense of the Watch Tower Society. Concerning this property, the 1939 book Salvation stated: `At San Diego, California, there is a small piece of land, on which, in the year 1929, there was built a house, which is called and known as Beth-Sarim.'" - p. 194.

By November of 1941 Brother Rutherford's condition compelled him to return to Beth-Sarim for his final illness. He died there January 8, 1942.
However, the Salvation book (written by Brother Rutherford) quoted above goes on to say:

"The Hebrew words `Beth Sarim' mean `House of the Princes'; and the purpose of acquiring that property and building the house was that there might be some tangible proof that there are those on earth today who fully believe God and Christ Jesus and in His kingdom, and who believe that the faithful men of old will soon be resurrected by the Lord, be back on earth, and take charge of the visible affairs of earth. The title to Beth-Sarim is vested in the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in trust, to be used by the president of the Society and his assistants for the present, and thereafter to be for ever at the disposal of the aforementioned princes on the earth. .... and if and when the princes do return and some of them occupy the property, such will be a confirmation of the faith and hope that induced the building of Beth-Sarim." - p.311.

Apparently Brother Rutherford had earlier written that he expected the return of these princes in the year 1925. I don't have a copy of that, but I see no reason to doubt it. Note, however, that Beth-Sarim wasn't built until 1929.

Money had been contributed for the specific purpose of "constructing a house in San Diego for Brother Rutherford's use" during his illnesses. The money, of course, could not be legally (or morally) used for any other purpose.

It's not surprising that in his book Brother Rutherford didn't care to detail these conditions which would have necessarily put his physical illnesses on public display. His decision to also dedicate this ground and building to those princes whom he truly expected to soon return is certainly understandable.

The fact that the princes did not return as soon as he expected was obvious even before Beth-Sarim was even built and certainly does not make Brother Rutherford a False Prophet.

Related Article:

Beth-Sarim (1929 - 1947) (Pastor Russell)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX

Charles T. Russell and "Pyramid Chronology"

Pyramid Chronology

Opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses occasionally cite Charles T. Russell's interest in "Pyramid Chronology" as another one of their attempts to discredit the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. In order to address this subject properly, a brief look at the history of the subject and the broad general perception at that time would be beneficial. 

In 1859, an "eminently respectable Nottinghamshire Victorian" (Moffett quote) and respected London publisher, John Taylor, published his book, The Great Pyramid: Why Was It Built? And Who Built It?.

Taylor was also an earnest student of mathematics who had spent many long hours examining and analyzing the most accurate and detailed measurements then available for the Great Pyramid: Howard Vyse's survey in 3 volumes - Operations Carried On At The Pyramids Of Giza.

Taylor's eight-volume work claimed the Great Pyramid had been built through the inspiration of the God of the Bible. The various measurements of that pyramid were, he said, God-inspired messages to His people.

Then Dr. Charles Piazzi Smyth took over. He was

"a fellow of the Royal Society, Britain's august high command of the sciences, [and] his father, Admiral William Henry Smyth, had been one before him. At the time the younger Smyth encountered Taylor's theories, he was both professor of astronomy at Edinburgh University and Astronomer Royal of Scotland." - Moffett.

Inspired by Taylor's studies, Smyth launched into a fresh analysis of Howard Vyse's figures. His calculations and conclusions startled the world: not only was Taylor correct, he declared, but there were many new revelations to be found!

From 1864 until 1890 (at least) Piazzi Smyth was the greatest authority on the revelations of the Great Pyramid measurements. This respected scientist sincerely believed and taught, among other things, that the various measurements in and on the Pyramid were put there through inspiration from God by its Hebrew builders to encourage and inform God's modern people.

Many later studies by others came up with slightly different measurements and different interpretations, but Piazzi Smyth's were certainly the most impressive from the standpoint of scholastic authority, scientific sincerity, and world-wide endorsements. "As late as 1932," Moffett tells us, "there were still those ready to take up the cudgel for the Astronomer Royal." Others, however, also became popular in this field.

"The heyday of pyramidology was to dawn in 1924, with the publication of The Great Pyramid: Its Divine Message. This was primarily the work of an English structural engineer named David Davidson." - Moffett.

Many intelligent, knowledgeable people around the world were convinced that the Great Pyramid had been divinely constructed to reveal Biblical truths. True, there was some argument as to which of the many different measurements being reported were the proper measurements. And there were various interpretations as to what each measurement actually represented. And there were a number of stuffy "curmudgeons" who still wouldn't be convinced by what seemed to be overwhelming statistical proof. But "Pyramid Fever" ran high, nevertheless.

And in 1890 the respected Dr. Piazzi Smyth was the Pyramid Chronology expert!

So, when C. T. Russell began examining Dr. Smyth's work and comparing it to his own attempts at chronology based on the Bible alone, it is no wonder he became very excited at what appeared to be an exact proportional match between the lengths of various consecutive measurements in the Pyramid and the lengths of consecutive time periods in his own Bible chronology.
As a result, in 1890, Russell's "Pyramid" calculations and their interpretation by him were forwarded to Piazzi Smyth in England. Smyth heartily endorsed them in his Dec. 21, 1890 letter which was reproduced in Studies in the Scriptures when Russell published his Great Pyramid testimony. - see pp. 311-312, Thy Kingdom Come.

As Russell tells us in that very same work which Piazzi Smyth had reviewed and praised:

"The first work of importance on the subject, proving that the Great Pyramid possessed scientific features, was by Mr. John Taylor, of England, A.D. 1859, since which time the attention of many able minds has been given to the further study of the testimony of this wonderful `Witness;' especially since Prof. Piazzi Smyth, Astronomer Royal for Scotland ... gave to the world the remarkable facts of its construction and measurements, and his conclusions therefrom. To his scholarly and scientific work, `Our Inheritance in the Great Pyramid,' we are mainly indebted for the data made use of in this chapter....

"A few years after Prof. Smyth's return, came the suggestion that the Great Pyramid is Jehovah's`Witness,' and that it is as important a witness to divine truth as to natural science .... The suggestion came from a young Scotsman, Robert Menzies, who, when studying the scientific teachings of the Great Pyramid, discovered that prophetic and chronological teachings co-exist in it.

"Soon it became apparent that the object of its construction was to provide in it a record of the divine plan of salvation, no less than the record of divine wisdom relating to astronomical, chronological, geometrical, and other important truths." - pp. 319-320, Thy Kingdom Come, Studies in the Scriptures.

Later confirmation for Russell's "pyramid chronology" came from Dr. John Edgar, M.A., B.So., M.B., C.M., F.F.P.S.G., of Glasgow, Scotland, who, with his brother Morton, visited the Great Pyramid in 1909 to critically test Russell's interpretations.

"Their verdict, after a most elaborate investigation, was a thorough endorsement of Pastor Russell's interpretation" - p. 4953 [bound volume], Jan. 1, 1912 WT.

However, it must be noted that it was extremely difficult to determine exactly where to start (or end) many of the measurements in the Great Pyramid, and more and more differing measurements began to be made and promoted as Smyth's theories became more and more popular. It is even claimed that Smyth himself had used two different measurements for one of the passages - WT, p. 3451, Nov. 1, 1904, letters from readers.

Also, as Moffett, in his book debunking the various pyramidology theories, points out:

"if you took enough measurements and chose selectively, it would be possible to prove virtually anything." - p. 38, Secrets of the Pyramids Revealed.


I have no doubt that Taylor, Prof. Piazzi Smyth, and C. T. Russell (and thousands of others) were sincere, religious men who truly believed their interpretations of the Pyramid measurements. They were victims of statistical coincidences and multiple variables: it all honestly appeared to be mathematically precise proof - inescapably certain!

Although convinced of the accuracy of his pyramid chronology interpretations, Russell, nevertheless, considered it as merely corroborating the testimony of the Bible. It was "for a sign and a witness unto the Lord of Hosts." He wrote: "IF this, indeed, prove to be a Bible in stone; IF it be a record of the secret plans of the Great Architect of the universe, displaying his foreknowledge and wisdom; it should and will be in full accord with his written word." - pp. 317, 326, 341, Thy Kingdom Come.

Nevertheless, we must finally conclude, as with some other date interpretations, that Russell was incorrect. This does not make him a False Prophet. He was no more (or less) than what he continually proclaimed himself to be: a mere imperfect man striving (with the aid of God's Spirit) for the truth. That his imperfect flesh did not always allow him perfect accord with the Holy Spirit should come as no surprise. Otherwise we would be treating him as an Inspired Prophet and regarding his every word as "Scripture" (which, as we know, he strongly opposed). Instead, he is merely a brother, a fellow servant.


Related Article:

The Watchtower and the Great Pyramid, then and now (Pastor Russell)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX

Dates (1914; 1975)

It appears that some anti-Witness writers (especially the apostate ones) like to use such information as "proof" that the Watch Tower Organization is a "false prophet." Most often they concentrate on dates such as 1914 and 1975 which haven't had the fulfillment that was originally expected for them. Then they find one of the extremely rare instances where the Watch Tower Society apparently calls itself a "prophet" in some sense (such as one particular 1972 WT article) and then conclude that the Organization claims to be a Prophet, but its predictions fail to come true. Therefore, they reason, the WT Organization must be a False Prophet as defined in the Bible and must be strongly resisted by honest-hearted Christians. (See the PROPHET study paper)

At no time did Russell, Rutherford, or the WT organization claim to be an inspired prophet with the gift of inspired prediction like some of those mentioned in the Bible. In fact, Russell himself taught that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit (which include inspired prediction) ceased long before the beginning of the 3rd century! - WT, Sept. 15, 1911.

Russell himself taught this understanding of prophets: "There were a number of prophets (public orators) and teachers in the [early] church."

He continues,

"We see a distinction drawn in our lesson between prophets and teachers. The Greek word rendered `prophet' signifies a `forth-teller.' It might be understood to mean one who tells in advance, or foretells, or prophesies coming events; but in its general use in the New Testament the word seems to indicate one who tells forth, in the sense of proclaiming, giving public utterence to, or standing up before the people in declaration of the Lord's Message. The distinction between prophets and teachers, as here used, seems to be that the former were persons of natural talent and ability for teaching the truth in a public manner, in orderly discourse, etc., while the teachers would be those possessing talent as instructors, but not necessarily in a public, or oratorical manner; comparatively few have the qualifications for public speaking [prophets] .... some others, who have not ability as public discoursers, have talent for presenting the truth in a less public manner, as in Bible studies, etc. [teachers]." - p. 3005, May 1, 1902 WT.

Again, in the June 15, 1909 WT, Russell writes:

"We are not to despise prophecies, but to respect them and to heed them. But this is not what the Apostle refers to [1 Thess. 5:20]. By the word `prophesying' he meant teaching, public utterance. Do not despise what anyone may publicly utter as a child of God in the church of Christ....
"Nevertheless prove all things and hold fast to that which is good - that which stands the test. Because a brother is sincere, in earnest, does not prove that he is right in his Scriptural expositions .... Even if you cannot accept his proposition, the study of the subject, the searching of the Scriptures in the proving may be of lasting benefit to yourself, establishing you more than ever in the truth. But let us be sure that we hold fast to the good." - p. 4419.

So, by understanding what Russell (and Rutherford, et. al.) meant by the term "prophet" and that they certainly never considered themselves as inspired predicters of the future but merely imperfect, fallible men, we can see how their detractors twist their statements to make them appear to be "false prophets" in the Old Testament sense.

Russell wrote on pp. 5367, 5368 of the 15 Dec. 1913 WT (republished from an October 1, 1907 article):

"A dear Brother inquires, Can we feel absolutely sure that the Chronology set forth in the Dawn-Studies is correct? - That the harvest began in 1874 and will end in A.D. 1914....?"

"We answer," Russell continues, "as we have frequently done before in the Dawns and Towers and orally and by letter, that we have never claimed that they were knowledge, nor based upon indisputable evidence, facts, knowledge; our claim has always been that they are based on faith. We have set forth the evidence as plainly as possible and stated the conclusions of faith we draw from them....

"Many have examined these evidences and have accepted them; others equally bright do not endorse them....

"We neither urge nor insist upon our views as infallible, nor do we smite or abuse those who disagree; but regard as `brethren' all sanctified believers in the precious blood.

"On the contrary, it is those who differ who smite us and speak evil of us .... They are our critics who always claim the infallibility. We go humbly onward following the Apostle's example and words, `We believe and therefore speak,' whether others hear or forbear to hear. Is not this in accord with the Spirit of Christ? ....

"But some of those who come to a trifling point on which they disagree seem to imagine that the entire harvest work must be overthrown, or at least stopped, until they get their little jot or tittle satisfactorily adjusted." - p. 5367.

"But let us suppose a case far from our expectations: Suppose that A.D. 1915 should pass with the world's affairs all serene and with evidence that the `very elect' had not all been `changed' .... What then? Would that not prove our chronology wrong? Yes, surely! .... one of the strings of our `harp' would be quite broken!

"However, dear friends, our harp would still have all the other strings in tune and that is what no other aggregation of God's people on earth could boast. ....

"If, therefore, dearly beloved, it should turn that our chronology is all wrong, we may conclude that with it we have had much advantage everyway. If the attainment of our glorious hopes and present joys in the Lord should cost us such disappointment as our friends fear, we should rejoice and count it cheap!" - p. 5368.

And in the Jan. 1 1911 WT, Russell wrote:

"Suppose that our chronological calculations (never set forth as infallible) should prove to be fallible and in error. Our conclusion would merely be that the error could not be very great ....

"If, then, it should prove eventually that the crisis of earthly government will not be reached by the end of 1914, should we not be very faithful anyway, and remember that had it not been for that alarm clock which helped awaken us from the worldly stupor, we might not have been sufficiently awake to appreciate and enjoy the wonderful spiritual blessings which daily crown our lives?" - p. 4743
.
And in the Oct. 15, 1913 WT, Russell wrote:

"We wish still, however, to reiterate what we have said from the first respecting the date of the close of the Times of the Gentiles; namely, that the calculations as we presented them in Vol. II, Studies in the Scriptures, are the truth to the best of our knowledge and belief. Nevertheless, there is enough uncertainty about the matter of chronology to make it a matter of faith rather than of positive knowledge. We remind our readers that our consecration to the Lord is not to October, 1914, nor to any other time except that mentioned by the Savior - `Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.' - Rev. 2:10." - p. 5336.

Attempting to determine dates of future scriptural events in order to encourage fellow Christians was important to Russell (and Rutherford). If they did it honestly and publicly (which they did), it was a part of prophesying (in the sense of speaking out publicly), but it was obviously never considered as (nor promoted as) infallible inspired prediction! Nor was it considered to be an essential element of the essential work of a modern Christian "prophet." When it comes to proclaiming the truth of essential Bible doctrines, "where else is there to go?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX

Jehovah's Witnesses Use Bible's Account For Jerusalem's Destruction Date of 607 B.C.E. Secular Historians Prefer Their Own OPINIONS.

(More information about this topic can be found at the bottom of this article.)

The Destruction of Jerusalem - 607 B.C.E?

Some who wish to accuse the Watchtower organization of being a "false prophet" claim that the 607 B.C. date chosen by the Society for the time of the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon is proof. Christendom endorses and teaches the date of 587 B.C. (which is the opinion of secular historians today).

Most secular historians tell us that some captives were taken from Jerusalem in 598 B.C., but that the city was not harmed at that time. They also tell us that a later siege in 587 B.C. destroyed Jerusalem and that all but a handful of the inhabitants of all of Judah were deported from the land at that time.

"All archeologically studied towns of Judah (see Jer. 25:11, 17, 18) were DESTROYED at this time (587 B.C.)." - Encyclopedia Americana, 1957, v. 3, p. 9.

They also tell us that

"the edict of Cyrus in 538 B.C., substantially confirmed by modern archeological discoveries, permitted the Jews to return to their homeland." - Americana.

Now if we insist on perfection in the statements of God's inspired prophets of the Bible concerning time factors, then either the inspired prophets who warned of the desolation of Jerusalem by Babylon must have proclaimed a 49 (or 50) year desolation of Jerusalem - from 587 B.C. to 538 B.C. (or 537 B.C. if we properly allow for preparation and travel time after Cyrus' edict)! OR the secular historians of today are wrong about the 587 B.C. date which most of Christendom (and apostate ex-Jehovah's Witnesses) accepts.

Now Jehovah's Witnesses accept the 538 B.C. date for the edict of Cyrus since the evidence produced "by modern archeological discoveries" is probably better established for it, and it certainly correlates more properly with Bible chronology. And since the date 587 B.C. for the beginning of the desolation period is probably more doubtful than that of the "substantially confirmed" 538 B.C. date for the edict which led to the end of the desolation period and does not fit proper Bible chronology, Jehovah's Witnesses have decided that the date of the desolation of Jerusalem must have been 607 B.C. Why? Because Jehovah's Witnesses believe the inspired prophets Jeremiah and Daniel are more likely to be correct than secular historians! (Be sure to read pp. 186-189 in Let Your Kingdom Come, 1981 Watchtower publication.)

Daniel wrote that he was "reading the scriptures and reflecting on the SEVENTY years which, according to the word of the Lord [Jehovah] to the prophet Jeremiah, were to pass while Jerusalem lay in ruins." - Dan. 9:2, NEB. Also see Jer. 25:8-11, 17, 18.

Now isn't it interesting that Christendom (especially those most vocal dissident ex-Jehovah's Witnesses) condemns Jehovah's Witnesses as being false prophets for interpreting certain ancient dates (most notably the destruction of Jerusalem as 607 B.C.) based upon the clear statements of inspired Bible prophets which seem to contradict the conclusions of secular historians today?

Think about it. What's really happening when certain "Christians" insist that a figurative "prophet" be perfect in its interpretation of time and then turn around and say,

"Yes, Daniel was an inspired prophet (and so was Jeremiah), but, although he literally said Jerusalem would lie desolate for 70 years, HE REALLY MEANT 50 YEARS. We believe the authorities today who tell us it was really 50 years," these `Christians' say, "more than we believe the literal accuracy of the inspired prophet, Daniel (or Jeremiah)."?

In other words, it's o.k. to condemn those who have never claimed to be inspired prophets for an apparent error in the interpretation of a date and proclaim them false prophets, and, in so doing, indirectly (but necessarily) accuse the truly inspired Bible writers, who, they believe, made the very same kind of time "errors," of being false prophets .

Yes, those who insist on the secular historians' dates (which make a 50 year desolation) are, by necessity, insisting that the Bible prophets stated the wrong chronology (70 years of desolation). By their insistence on the 587 B.C. date they are saying the inspired prophets did not prophesy a literally accurate time!

The real difference is that Jehovah's Witnesses admit to being human, making nonessential errors at times, and not being an inspired "prophet." They truly believe the organization, as a whole, and over the long term, has the guidance of Holy Spirit, but this does not mean that every step, every thought, every utterance of every member will be perfect in this present system of things. The first Christians, who were obviously guided by Holy Spirit, admitted as much about themselves. And yet these Jehovah's Witnesses, imperfect as they may be, are courageous enough to say that Daniel and Jeremiah are inspired prophets of God and are certainly more likely to be correct than secular historians.

If Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong on this nonessential "time interpretation," does that make them false prophets because they have chosen the literal accuracy of God's inspired prophets over the statements of uninspired historians? I think not! I believe, instead, a strong statement of their obedience to proper authority (the Bible in this case) is being made in spite of the ridicule and dishonest accusations of many false Christians.

On the other hand, what if the actual inspired prophets (Daniel and Jeremiah) are literally correct? Where does that put those "Christians" who are, in actuality, saying that Daniel and Jeremiah were false prophets? It seems we have a real test of faith and proper heart condition here.

Related Articles:

When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One; Why It Matters; What the Evidence Shows (w11 10/1 pp. 26-31; Watchtower Online Library)

When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two; What the Clay Documents Really Show (w11 11/1 pp. 22-28; Watchtower Online Library)

Jerusalem 607 B.C.E. (Search Results From the Watchtower Online Library)

The Destruction of Jerusalem - 607 B.C.E.? (Search For Bible Truths)

'False Prophet' Claim and Jerusalem 607 B.C.E. (Search For Bible Truths)

Jerusalem - 607 B.C.E. (Jerusalem - 607 B.C.E.)

Was 607 B.C.E. Actually the Year Jerusalem Fell? (From God's Word)

Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C.E. (Pastor Russsel)

Seven Times - The Times of The Gentiles (Pastor Russsel)

1914—A Significant Year in Bible Prophecy (Pastor Russsel)

Appointed Times of the Nations (Pastor Russsel)

Links to more sources concerning 607 B.C.E. (Y/A)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX

'False Prophet' Claim

False "Prophet"

The Bible gives us some guidelines to help discern a prophet from a false prophet:

"Whosoever will not hearken unto my words which [the Prophet like Moses] shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. But the prophet, that shall speak a word presumptuously in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak ... that same prophet shall die. And if thou say in thy heart, How shall we know the word which Jehovah hath not spoken? when a prophet speaketh in the name of Jehovah, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing Jehovah hath not spoken: the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously, thou shalt not be afraid of him." - Deut. 18:19-22, American Standard Version.

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing [under false pretenses], but inwardly are ravening wolves [preying on others for their own advantage]. BY THEIR FRUITS ye shall know them." - Matt. 7:15, 16, ASV.

So we can recognize someone as a false prophet if he declares that he is speaking Jehovah's words actually revealed to him by direct revelation from God - an inspired prophet ("speaketh in Jehovah's name") and his message proves to be false. And we can also recognize a false prophet (even if something he says turns out to be correct) by the rest of his teachings, words, and deeds (his "fruits").

* * * *

This study concerns the 1 April 1972 Watchtower article, "They Shall Know That a Prophet Was Among Them," which so many anti-Watchtower critics and dissenting ex-Jehovah's Witnesses quote to "prove" that the Watchtower Society is a "false prophet." Dr. Walter Martin is a leader among these critics who use this article to accuse Jehovah's Witnesses of being "false prophets." We will see statements by Martin concerning "Christian" prophets later.

What do Jehovah's Witnesses believe was the basic meaning intended by the Bible writers when they wrote about a prophet? Here is a quote from one of their most-used reference books, Aid to Bible Understanding, 1969:

The English word `prophet' comes from the Greek `pro phe' tes.' `Pro phe' tes' literally means `a speaker out' [Gr. pro, `before' or `in front of,' and phe-mi, `to speak'], and thus describes a proclaimer, one who makes known messages attributed to a divine source. (Compare Titus 1:12.) Though the English word retains this same basic meaning, to many persons today it conveys only the restricted thought of a predicter of the future. But, as the foregoing information shows, the fundamental meaning of the word is not that of prediction. - p. 1347. (Also see p. 694, Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 2.)

But the true prophet was not solely or even primarily a prognosticator, as has been

shown. Rather, he was an advocate of righteousness, and his message dealt primarily with moral standards and their application. He expressed God's mind on matters. - p. 1348. (p. 696, Insight.)

Authorities of Christendom agree with the Watchtower definition of prophet:

Dr. Robert Young (author of Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible and Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary) writes:

PROPHET - is used of one who (professedly) announces the will or celebrates the works of God, whether these relate to things past, present or future, and it is applied to patriarchs, orators, singers, songstresses, priests, and preachers. - Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible, "Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation," #68.

Dr. Young also wrote: "The Hebrew idea of a prophet is not that of one who foretells future events, but one who receives a revelation [`God's disclosure ... of his will to man, as through ... laws, etc.' - Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary] of God's will and proclaims it to others." - Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary, p. 48.

The Encyclopedia Britannica explains that, although the idea of prediction gradually came to be attached to the word, it originally meant "one who speaks out":

Etymologically prophetes] denoted `forth-telling' [speaking out], not `fore-telling' [speaking before (in time)]. - Vol. 18, p. 586, 1956.

An Encyclopedia of Religion, Ferm, (ed.) states:

The prophets were not forecasters or philosophers, but ... preachers, moralists, ... and men of action who felt themselves to be mouthpieces of Yahweh ... and instruments of Yahweh's creative purpose in man's historic life. - p. 614.

Today's Dictionary of the Bible tells us, "we must regard `prophet' as a forth-teller, not a Foreteller." - p. 509, Bethany House Publishers, 1982.

A footnote for Matt. 7:22 in The NIV Study Bible states:

prophesy. In the NT this verb primarily means to give a messsage from God, not necessarily to predict.

And Richard Lattimore, "the eminent translator" (NY Times Book Review) and "one of the most distinguished living translators of Greek" writes in notes for 1 Cor. 11:4 and 14:1 -

`prophesies.' This is not here introduced as if it were an activity requiring extraordinary gifts, and presumably may mean nothing more than reading, quoting, or interpreting Scripture. See also 14:1 ff. - Acts and Letters of the Apostles, p. 281, Dorset Press, 1982.

C. T. Russell clearly taught this same meaning for "prophet" and applied it to all Christians who were able to teach the truth as "public orators" - May 1, 1902 WT. Even Christians who made honest errors in their public teaching (or "speaking forth") were still to be considered "prophets." Their statements must all be checked carefully against scripture, however, and the hearer must be sure that he holds fast only to the proven "good" or truth in their teachings - June 15, 1909. So, if Russell called himself a modern prophet (I don't know that he did), it would certainly be an accurate term according to his own teaching concerning that word!

Well, what does the Watchtower Society call those people in the Bible who received messages directly from God? They, too, are described as being prophets, or, more clearly, as being inspired prophets.

Does the Watchtower Society claim to be an inspired prophet, receiving information directly (and therefore perfectly) from God?



The

Watchtower has said:

"We have not the gift of prophecy." - January 1883, page 425.

"Nor would we have our writings reverenced or regarded as infallible." - December 15, 1896, page 306.

"[the fact that some have Jehovah's spirit] does not mean those now serving as Jehovah's witnesses are inspired. It does not mean that the writings in this magazine, The Watchtower, are inspired and infallible and without mistakes." - May 15, 1947, page 157.

"The Watchtower does not claim to be inspired in its utterances, nor is it dogmatic." - August 15, 1950, page 263.

"The brothers preparing these publications are not infallible. Their writings are not inspired as are those of Paul and the other Bible writers. (2 Tim. 3:16) And so, at times, it has been necessary, as understanding became clearer, to correct views. (Prov. 4:18)" - February 15, 1981, page 19.

No, as the preface to every Watchtower magazine for the year 1972 (including, of course, the April 1, 1972 issue which had the article, "They Shall Know That a Prophet Was Among Them") says:

No, `The Watchtower' is NO INSPIRED PROPHET, but it follows and explains a Book of prophecy ....— Which Book? The Sacred Bible of the Holy Scriptures, written by inspiration in the name of the creator of heaven and earth, the only living and true God.

C. T. Russell wrote in an October 1, 1907 WT article):

"A dear Brother inquires, Can we feel absolutely sure that the Chronology set forth in the Dawn-Studies is correct? - That the harvest began in 1874 and will end in A.D. 1914....?"

"We answer," Russell continues, "as we have frequently done before in the Dawns and Towers and orally and by letter, that we have never claimed that they were knowledge, nor based upon indisputable evidence, facts, knowledge; our claim has always been that they are based on faith. We have set forth the evidence as plainly as possible and stated the conclusions of faith we draw from them....

"Many have examined these evidences and have accepted them; others equally bright do not endorse them....

"We neither urge nor insist upon our views as infallible, nor do we smite or abuse those who disagree; but regard as `brethren' all sanctified believers in the precious blood.

"On the contrary, it is those who differ who smite us and speak evil of us .... They are our critics who always claim the infallibility. We go humbly onward following the Apostle's example and words, `We believe and therefore speak,' whether others hear or forbear to hear. Is not this in accord with the Spirit of Christ? ....

"But some of those who come to a trifling point on which they disagree seem to imagine that the entire harvest work must be overthrown, or at least stopped, until they get their little jot or tittle satisfactorily adjusted." ....

"If, therefore, dearly beloved, it should turn that our chronology is all wrong, we may conclude that with it we have had much advantage everyway. If the attainment of our glorious hopes and present joys in the Lord should cost us such disappointment as our friends fear, we should rejoice and count it cheap!"

And in the Jan. 1, 1911 WT, Russell wrote:

"Suppose that our chronological calculations (never set forth as infallible) should prove to be fallible and in error. Our conclusion would merely be that the error could not be very great ....

"If, then, it should prove eventually that the crisis of earthly government will not be reached by the end of 1914, should we not be very faithful anyway, and remember that had it not been for that alarm clock which helped awaken us from the worldly stupor, we might not have been sufficiently awake to appreciate and enjoy the wonderful spiritual blessings which daily crown our lives?"

So, how would a Witness who has read the preface to his Watchtower magazine, which clearly shows `The Watchtower' is not an inspired prophet, understand the 1972 article "They Shall Know That a Prophet Was Among Them"? Why, obviously something other than an inspired prophet was meant by the word "prophet" in that article, and what could be more obvious than that it was the basic meaning of the word as used by the ancient Bible writers that was intended, as `The Watchtower' has explained for many years in its reference works?

Notice how this Jan. 1, 1971 Watchtower magazine explains it, for example.

Jehovah's people today .... are having a share in the fulfillment of the prophecy, `your sons and your daughters will certainly prophesy.' (Joel 2:28) Not that these prophesy in the sense of foretelling events under inspiration, but rather in that they are making public proclamation of the inspired dreams and visions long ago recorded. They prophesy in the sense of being God's spokesmen. That this is one of the meanings of `prophesy' is apparent from the fact that Jehovah God appointed Aaron to be prophet to his brother Moses. Aaron did not foretell things to Moses, but he served as Moses' spokesman or mouthpiece - Ex. 7:1. - p. 32. (Compare WT, Oct. 1, 1961, p. 593.)

But to make it even clearer and less liable to misunderstanding, The Watchtower Society wrote the word in such a manner in that 1 April 1972 WT article that everyone should have known that "prophet" was being used in a special sense.

You see, quotation marks have a number of uses. There are two times when quotation marks are used around a single word (such as "prophet"). One is when you are talking about it as a word. For example: The word "is" was used as a verb in the last sentence. Or: we have discussed the fundamental meaning of the word "prophet." Another use for quotation marks around a single word is when the writer is indicating that he is using that word in a special sense, different from how the reader might ordinarily understand it.

The Handbook of Effective Writing, Moore, 1966, p.145, explains it:

Double quotation marks are used to enclose ... a word used in an unusual way.

And The Guide and Handbook for Writing, Griggs-Webster, 1964, p. 487, says:

Use quotation marks to indicate a word used in a different sense than someone else has used it.

For example, the Watchtower Society has also taught the importance of Christian women being "daughters" of Sarah. - p. 264, Life Everlasting in the Freedom of the Sons of God (Also see p. 162: "bride," "wife," "rock-mass"). Persons with no regard for truth (ravening wolves in sheep's clothing) could take such statements and insist that the Watchtower Society teaches that you must be a physical Jew (or at least a literal physical descendant of Sarah) in order to be a Christian woman. This is obviously untrue and the use of quotation marks around "daughters" helps show that the Watchtower Society intended a figurative meaning: that Christian women are to be similar to Sarah only in certain respects! (1 Peter 3:6)

In the 1 April 1972 Watchtower article in question the word "prophet" was enclosed with quotation marks at least 12 different times when the word was applied to the Watchtower Society. E.g.,

He had a "prophet" to warn them. This "prophet" was not one man, but was a body of men and women.... Today they are known as Jehovah's Christian witnesses. - p. 197.

The quotation marks alone tell the reader that "prophet" as applied to Jehovah's Witnesses in that article is not to be understood as an inspired Biblical prophet but in a different sense.

It is intellectually (and morally) very dishonest to accuse the Watchtower Society of being a false prophet in the complete Biblical sense of an inspired prophet (including inspired prediction of future events) if the accuser is aware of that society's teaching on the subject (or even understands the common meanings of quotation mark use).

You see, the Watchtower Society has also taught (from the beginning, I believe) that the miraculous gifts of the spirit (including the gift of inspired prophecy) were no longer given to earthly men after the death of the last Apostle.

Examine these statements found in the Aid book and a 1971 Watchtower magazine:



"Evidently, with the death of the apostles, the transmittal of the gifts of the Spirit ended, and the miraculous gifts of the spirit ceased altogether as those having received these gifts passed off the earthly scene." - - - - "Prophesying was a greater gift than speaking in tongues .... the particular ones having the miraculous gift of prophesying were able to foretell future events, as did Agabus." - Aid, pp. 655, 656.



1971 Watchtower, pp. 502, 503, 504: Speaking of the first century miraculous gifts of the spirit -

"The gift of `prophesying' included, besides speaking the magnificent things of God, the inspired ability to speak accurately of things to come. This inspired foretelling of events seems to have been generally limited, however, to things that affected the congregation at that time, enabling it to meet the foreseen situation, as in the case of the famine in the time of Emperor Claudius, foretold by the Christian prophet Agabus." - - - - "Are the miraculous gifts of the spirit necessary for the congregation to carry on its work and to maintain its cleanness, uprightness and unity? No, such gifts are not needed...." (p. 503) - - - - "Inspired prophesying today would be superfluous. The prophecies written in the Bible being complete as a guide to the congregation today, nothing needs to be added. Accordingly, since God's Word provides a perfect guide, there is no need to have the gift of discernment of prophecies in a miraculous sense, for there are no inspired prophets now authorized by God." (p. 504)

In other words, the Watchtower Society believes there ceased to be miraculous gifts bestowed when the "Church" reached "maturity" around 100 A.D. The "Church" was firmly established by this time and all the inspired scriptures had already been written and transmitted to the congregations. (1 Cor. 13:2, 8-11)

Others have taught this very same belief. Even W. E. Vine, "recognized as one of the world's foremost [NT] Greek scholars" and a favorite of many in orthodox Christendom, affirms the following quotation: "With the completion of the canon of Scripture prophecy apparently passed away, 1 Cor. 13:8, 9." - p. 893, Vine.

The Society has always taught this understanding. Even Russell taught it in his WT articles (e.g., WT Sept. 15, 1911). Since they have always believed that no Christian for the past 1800 years at least has been able to predict future events infallibly by direct inspiration, how could we honestly accuse them of being false prophets in that sense?

The Society also teaches that scripture shows that these gifts were only transmitted when one or more of the twelve Apostles were present. Now whether the Society is right or wrong in this understanding is not the point. What matters here is that this understanding governs the intended meaning of the word "prophet" as used by the Watchtower Society in the very rare instances when they may apply that term to themselves.

For any person who is familiar with Watchtower teachings to pretend that the Watchtower Society is calling itself an inspired predicter of the future in this 1 April 1972 WT article when it obviously figuratively applies the word "prophet" to itself is extremely dishonest!

But, even setting quotation marks and previous Watchtower teaching about prophets and prophecy aside, most Jehovah's Witnesses would have known (ALL should have known) what that 1 April 1972 Watchtower article intended at the time it was published merely because of the background they have in the organization and by reading the entire article with even ordinary care and objectivity. You see, this article was the fourth in a series of at least six articles that drew a parallel between the Book of Ezekiel and modern times.

Just as the first Christians drew upon Old Testament writings and pointed out how something there prefigured, in some ways, events or persons in New Testament times, so Witnesses like to do today.

For example, Paul calls Jesus our "passover": "For our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ." - 1 Cor. 5:7, ASV. This refers to the literal lamb of Ex. 12:1-11. This literal lamb was to have been a perfect 4-legged, woolly lamb that was only one year old. It was to be slaughtered and its blood spattered upon the door posts of the faithful Israelites. Its literal flesh was to be roasted with fire and then the followers of God were to literally eat the flesh and completely burn up any part of the lamb that was left. This was "Jehovah's passover" - Ex. 12:11.

Knowing this, no Jehovah's Witness would dream of insisting that since Paul called Jesus our "passover" he meant it in the literal Old Testament meaning as everyone understood it at that time. They know that Paul intended it in a figurative sense because they are familiar with the rest of Paul's (and the other Bible writers') teachings.

Witnesses know immediately that Paul was simply saying Jesus' sacrifice was prefigured, in certain respects only, by the passover lamb. They would not for a moment think that Paul meant Jesus had four legs, a woolly hide, or was only one year old at the time of his death. They would never even consider the possibility that his faithful followers literally drained his blood and spattered it upon their doorposts. They would never give a thought to the idea that his followers literally ate the meat off the dead Jesus' bones and then burned up all the rest of his body and that was why it was completely gone when Mary Magdalene came to the tomb to see Jesus' body! (You can imagine what dishonest deceivers would have you believe that Jesus meant at John 6:53-59!)

There are a few obvious parallels, however, between the passover lamb in Moses' time and the "passover" (Christ) that Paul was speaking of, but to insist that Paul meant every aspect of the Old Testament parallel was to be found in Jesus' sacrifice would be extremely dishonest!

If there had been punctuation marks in the time of Paul, he might well have used quotation marks around "passover" if he had thought anyone might have misunderstood his using the word in a different sense like that. So it is with most (if not all) of the persons, things, events in the Old Testament that prefigured later persons, things, and events. And Jehovah's Witnesses are thoroughly familiar with this scriptural method of teaching.

So, when Witnesses read the six Watchtower articles that drew parallels between the Book of Ezekiel and these modern last days, they knew that not every possible aspect of the parallels was to be taken completely literally.

In the first article they read how the "secretary" of Ezek. 9:2-4 prefigured modern Jehovah's Witnesses - (not as literal secretaries, of course). - p. 47, Jan. 15, 1972 WT. In the second article it was explained what the "mark" on the forehead (Ezek. 9:4) represents today - (not a literal mark, of course). - p. 50.

Then they read in the third article: "Wanted—A Messenger," pp. 189-190, 15 March 1972 WT:

`Therefore, when it came time for the name of Jehovah and his purposes to be declared to the people along with God's warning that Christendom is in her "time of the end," who qualified to be commissioned? Who was willing to undertake this monumental task as Jehovah's "servant"? Was there anyone to whom Jehovah's heavenly "chariot" could roll up and whom it could confront? More accurately, was there any group on whom Jehovah would be willing to bestow the commission to speak as a "prophet" in his name, as was done toward Ezekiel back there in 613 B.C.E.? What were the qualifications? [Notice the use of quotation marks around individual words within this article.]

`Certainly [continues the article], such a messenger or "servant" group would have to be made up of persons who had not been defiled with bloodguilt as had Christendom and the rest of Babylon the Great, the world empire of false religion, by sharing in carnal warfare. In fact, they would be a group that had come out from the religious organizations of Babylon the Great. More than that, they would be persons who not only saw the hypocrisy and God-defaming action of these religions, but in addition actually rejected them and turned to Jehovah God in true worship of him as set forth in the Bible. Who would they be?

`In identifying the group that is truly commissioned as God's messenger, these are points for us to consider seriously. God does not deal with persons who ignore his Word and go according to their own independent ideas. Nor does he recognize those who make a profession of serving him and at the same time associate with religions that teach God-dishonoring doctrines. No one can serve two masters, claiming to be a worshiper of God and meddling with the politics, the radical movements and other schemes of this world. (Matt.6:24) Jehovah's chief representative, Jesus Christ, said: "Not everyone saying to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will."—Matt. 7:21.

`It is of importance to every individual on earth to identify the group that Jehovah has commissioned as his "servant" or messenger. We must recognize and understand the warning that he brings. We need to take action on the warning to safeguard our lives, for they are in a danger as grave as that of the lives of Jerusalem's citizens as that city neared destruction. For this reason forthcoming issues of the Watchtower will further discuss the identity and work of Jehovah's commissioned messenger as revealed in his vision to Ezekiel.' (End of quote from 15 March 1972 Watchtower.)

We can see from this exactly which aspects of "prophet," "servant," or messenger are being applied to a modern-day parallel by the Watchtower Society. Inspired prediction is not being considered as an aspect of the modern-day "prophet" or messenger. And discussion of these same aspects continue in the follow-up Watchtower articles which are quoted below.

The fourth article in the series (the one which some apostate ex-Witnesses have used so dishonestly), "They Shall Know That a Prophet Was Among Them," pp. 197-200, 1 April 1972 WT, told us that this modern group

`doing a work in Christendom paralleling Ezekiel's work among the Jews, were manifestly the modern-day Ezekiel, the "prophet" commissioned by Jehovah to declare the good news of God's messianic kingdom and to give warning to Christendom.'

Again, the specific function of the modern "prophet" is clarified. It is to speak out the message that is already in the Bible. (Incidentally, the second use of the word "Ezekiel" in the above quotation could properly have had quotation marks around it if the writers had so chosen since it is also obviously used in a figurative sense.)

In the fifth article, "Your Life Is In Danger—How? Why?", pp. 252-255, 15 April 1972 WT, we read that the scroll given to Ezekiel

"represented all the declarations in the entire Bible that have to do with the judgments, spiritual plagues and tribulations that are to come upon Christendom and her religious and political associates in the `time of the end.'"

It is clear that the modern "prophet" is to declare the messages found in the Bible (not any new inspired revelations or predictions from God). This article goes on to explain about those members of Christendom who already claim to accept the Bible as the word of God:

`There is no excuse for them not to understand what the modern "Ezekiel" says. If they do not respond with hearing ears it is because they do not want to.'

Here we do see quotation marks around "Ezekiel" because only a certain aspect of Ezekiel is being considered. Obviously the Watchtower Society is not saying that the modern "prophet" is literally Ezekiel any more than it is saying it is literally an inspired prophet as Ezekiel literally was. (This is somewhat similar to John the Baptist's being called "Elijah" by Jesus Christ even though he was certainly not literally Elijah - cf. Matt.17:11-13 and John 1:21.)

Finally, in the sixth article, "Why Do Jehovah's Witnesses Call On You Repeatedly?", pp. 277-280, 1 May 1972, it is explained that Jehovah called Ezekiel a "watchman" even though he wasn't really a watchman in the literal sense of the word at that time (Ezek. 3:17-21). It is then pointed out that the modern "prophet" is also a "watchman," and the warning of Ezek. 3:17-21 also applies to them: They must warn others or be considered bloodguilty by God.

"Therefore," says this final article,

"Jehovah's Witnesses, having embraced God's name, and knowing his laws and judgments, are like a sentry who, if he should fall asleep and fail to guard his sleeping comrades, would lose his own life. Accordingly, Jehovah's Witnesses must call to give their fellow humans opportunity to know what God is going to do and what he requires, so that all who desire to live may do so and not die."

Then, on the last page, p. 280, this article says:

"They [Jehovah's Witnesses] do not claim any divine inspiration .... rather, they rely on God's word the Bible. They trust in God's spirit to aid them in having courage to speak."

So, no matter how others may choose to understand the article, "They Shall Know That a Prophet Was Among Them," all informed Jehovah's Witnesses know that their organization simply does not claim to be an inspired prophet in the sense that included inspired prediction, and, in fact, it is exceedingly rare that it even applies the term "prophet" to itself in any sense.

Therefore, while it seems to be an impressive accusation to members of Christendom for them to claim that the Watchtower Society has called itself a "prophet" (and also apparently been mistaken in some interpretations concerning dates), it is a tremendous waste of time and effort to expect a properly informed Witness to be impressed by such specious reasoning.

It also tells us a great deal about those ex-Jehovah's Witness dissidents who should know all this but still select such material to "prove" to others that Jehovah's Witnesses are "false prophets."

I would like to share some Bible facts about some men of the Bible who truly were God-inspired prophets and their use of time prediction.

King David said to Nathan the prophet, "See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of God dwells within tent curtains." - 2 Sam.7:2, NASB. It is obvious that David intended to build a house or temple to replace the tent over the ark. God's statements at 2 Sam.7:5-7 show that this is certainly what was in David's mind to do. And notice Nathan the prophet's reply to David at 2 Sam.7:3:

"And Nathan said to the king, `Go, do all that is in your mind, for [Jehovah] is with you.'" - NASB.

So we see that Nathan, the inspired prophet of God, told David to go ahead and build a house for the ark because Jehovah loves David and approves of what he does!

Now this information had not been received by Nathan directly from God but was Nathan's own reasoned interpretation based on his own knowledge of God and David and their relationship. And Nathan was wrong!! He was a prophet of Jehovah, and what he told David was wrong, but he still was not a false prophet because he had not spoken in Jehovah's name! (Deut. 18:20-22).

Jehovah later gave Nathan a direct, inspired message that King David was not to go ahead and build the temple - 2 Sam. 7:4-7, 12-13. Nathan relayed it to David, speaking in Jehovah's name. If Nathan had said in Jehovah's name "Thus saith Jehovah" (verses 5, 8) "I, Jehovah, tell you to go ahead and build the temple," he would have certainly been a false prophet. His original statement to David, however, was an interpretation (his very own understanding of God's will) and, even though wrong, in no way made him a false prophet!

If God had not given Nathan an inspired message on the subject, then Nathan's own interpretation (whether right or wrong) would have stood, and David would have built (or attempted to build) the temple. Of course, if it were not God's will, the temple would not have been completed by David anyway, no matter what Nathan or King David or anyone else thought.

Certainly King David understood that a man who is truly an inspired prophet of God can still make an error in his own interpretation: he had no thought of having Nathan put to death (or punished or reprimanded in any way) for being a false prophet. Nathan continued in the capacity of an inspired prophet of God. - 2 Sam. 12:25; 2 Chron. 9:29; 2 Chron. 29:25. Of course if he had made his initial interpretation in Jehovah's name ("Thus saith Jehovah, `Go, do what is in thy heart, build the temple'"), he would have made himself a false prophet and been liable to death!

I believe that Isaiah was an inspired prophet of God. I believe the account of 2 Kings 20:1-6. There may be aspects of a Bible account that I find strange or difficult to believe, but I am duty-bound to accept them all as the word of God unless or until such time as they might be proven to be improper additions or changes made by copyists in the past. So, when I read that Isaiah the prophet came to King Hezekiah and told him to get his things in order because Jehovah had said it was time for him to die (2 Kings 20:1), I must believe it. And when we see that Hezekiah repented and did not die at that time as Isaiah had prophesied, but 15 YEARS LATER (2 Kings 20:6) -- I must believe it. I most definitely, however, would not accuse this man of God, this truly God-inspired prophet, of being a false prophet because the literal TIME given in his initial prophecy proved to be wrong!

Again, we know that Jesus himself referred to Jonah as a prophet (Matt. 12:39). But what did Jonah predict and what actually happened? Jonah was told by Jehovah:

"Arise, go to Ninevah the great city, and cry against it, for their wickedness has come up before me." - Jonah 1:2, NASB.

When Jonah got to Ninevah, "he cried out and said, `Yet forty days and Ninevah will be overthrown.'" But God, after seeing the sincere repentance of the people of Ninevah, did not destroy them at that time. They were not destroyed until many generations later.

When you actually examine the account of Jonah you find it is not, as Dr. Walter Martin has publicly declared, that Jonah's prophecy was "conditional" and that God said, "IF you don't repent, Ninevah will be destroyed in forty days." If God told Jonah that it was conditional, then Jonah sure didn't proclaim it correctly: What he spoke in Jehovah's name, in that case, would still have been wrong!

Yes, if we actually examine the account, we find Jonah prophesied: "In forty days Ninevah WILL BE destroyed!" - Jonah 3:4, GNB. There's certainly nothing "conditional" there. Examine all Bible translations. None of them translate it as a "conditional" prophecy! Not even Christendom's Living Bible; BBE; NLV; ETRV; and GNB translations, which, being paraphrase Bibles, are able to (and often do) take great liberties with the actual original Bible texts in order to enhance trinitarian and other "orthodox" interpretations, translate Jonah's prophecy as though it were conditional!

Furthermore, we know Jonah didn't tell them that Ninevah would be destroyed in 40 days unless they repented (as Martin says) because of Jonah 3:8-10 -- the king of Ninevah believed what Jonah prophesied and said to his subjects:

"Everyone ... must give up his wicked behavior and his evil actions. PERHAPS God will change his mind; PERHAPS he will stop being angry, and we will not die!" .... So [God] CHANGED his mind and did not punish them as he had said he would." - GNB.

Jonah even became angry because his prophecy did not come true! - Jonah 4:1-4. He certainly would not have done so if he thought the prophecy was conditional!

None of Jehovah's Witnesses would ever say that Jonah was a false prophet because the literal time schedule mentioned in his prophecy was not fulfilled. But those who use that same argument against an organization that has called itself a "prophet" in a restricted, figurative sense must also use it against Jonah, a true, GOD-INSPIRED PROPHET.

We know that Jesus was not only a God-inspired prophet but was the Prophet of God. We know that, at Matthew 12:40, he prophesied: "for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." - NASB.

And yet Jehovah's Witnesses (as well as nearly all of Christendom) believe that Jesus died late Friday afternoon and was resurrected at or before sunrise Sunday morning (John 20:1). This means Jesus was in the tomb for a very short time on Friday day (first day) and all Friday night (first night) and all Saturday day (second day) and all (or at least some of) Saturday night (second night) and none, or at best only minutes or seconds of Sunday day although John 20:1 seems to rule even that out, (third day) and absolutely NONE of Sunday night (third night)!

According to this actual schedule of events, then, Jesus was not, as he literally prophesied, either in "the heart of the earth" nor was he in the tomb "for three days and THREE nights."

You know, then, what those who accuse the Watchtower Society of being a false "prophet" because of apparent literal "time" errors must necessarily (unhypocritically) also say about Jesus, the Prophet!

Jehovah's Witnesses would never make such a blasphemous accusation! -- (This example is one where Jehovah's Witnesses agree with most of Christendom that the "three days and three nights" really was parts of three days [at most] and two nights. But they agree, not because of secular historians but because of what the Bible actually says - John 19:31, 20:1; also Luke 23:54, 24:1.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX