Before starting this post, I would like to take this opportunity to "Thank" all you people for your great help. This is a good pool of knowledge and understanding.
In a previous Post, I asked about the change that Russell made to the dimensions of the Great Pyramid. The change, which was made around 1905, moved the start of the "Time of Trouble" from 1874 to the end of 1914.
It is my understanding that CTR expected 1914 to usher in an era of unprecedented peace, when man will learn to be still, under the auspices of the Jewish nation.
How can this be reconciled with a move of the start of the Time of Trouble to the end of 1914?
Doug
Did Russell change his expectations re 1914?
by Doug Mason 12 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Doug Mason
-
avidbiblereader
Doug my take on it is; I believe that all have taken a different veiw of 1914, I see the problem with the Society is that they are trying to fit God's day into their calenders. It is constant speculation instead of just sticking to the Bible, which is faith in God and Christ and his sacrifice, develope love of God and man and show it by positve actions and realize our need for Christ blood as we submit to him. They have missed the message of the Bible by trying to force their own.
abr
-
greendawn
Russell along with the adventists (Barbour) believed that the so called invisible presence had began in 1874 and the visible one would begin in 1878. When it failed Barbour moved the date to 1914 and Russell embraced it. Russell died soon after 1914 and later Rutherford moved the failed dates forward, the "invisible" presence from 1874 to 1914 and Armageddon from 1914 to 1925 etc The dubs are not aware that Russell did not calculate 1914.
-
stev
Yes, Russell did change his expectations re 1914.
One difference between the Millerite Movement and Russell's movement was that the Millerite movement expected everything to happen at once at Christ's coming in 1844, and when it did not occur, the movement collapsed. Russell's movement combined Millerism with Dispensationalism, which is explained in the book Countdown to Armageddon, which enabled his movement to last despite disconfirmation. Barbour, and then Russell, reapplied the Millerite time proofs. But they also believed that Christ would come in stages, first invisibly to rapture the saints, and then visibly with the saints to reign on earth. This is held by dispensationists, such as Tim Lahaye, writer of the Left Behind series.
Barbour had predicted based on time proofs that Christ would return in 1873/1874. When this did not occur, he took over the dispensationalist view, and taught that Christ had returned invisibly in 1874, and would rapture the saints in 1878, and would return visibly in 1914, the end of the Gentiles Times. The intervening period from 1874/1878 to 1914 would be the period of the Time of Trouble. Russell adopted in 1876 Barbour's views, and co-authored with Barbour in 1877 the book The Three Worlds, which can be found online.
They expected the rapture in 1878. When this did not occur, Barbour gave up the chronology, but Russell still maintained it, and they parted company. Russell expected vaguely the rapture in 1881, but this did not occur. He modified his view on the rapture, and held that all of the Little Flock would die (perhaps this was because some of the followers who had expected to be raptured alive had died). He gave up the thought sometime in the 1880's that Christ would later return visibly, and expected the saints to leave the earth sometime before 1914. He wrote 3 books, Vol. 2 The Time is at Hand, Vol. 3, Thy Kingdom Come, and Vol.4 the Day of the Vengeance, which explained his chronological views. In these books he very definitely and dogmatically taught that the Time of Trouble would last from 1874-1914.
Russell held that the TIme of Trouble would occur in three stages, corresponding to experience of Elijah,on the mountain, the first stage war ( wind), the second stage revolution (earthquake), and the final stage anarchy (fire). In 1904, there appeared an article in the Watch Tower on Universal Anarchy and 1914. Russell had two time proofs for the date 1914, the 2520 year period of the Gentile Times, and the parallel dispensations proof of the destruction of Jerusalem in 69-70 A.D. However, Russell noted that 70 A.D. would reach to the year 1915, after 1914. So he regarded it as a possibility that the final stage of the Time of the Trouble, anarchy, would reach to 1915. The books were changed to reflect this view that the Time of Trouble might not end by 1914, but might continue after that. Some changes were made years before 1914, and there were other changes made later. But the use of the phrase "Time of Trouble" was loosely applied, and sometimes Russell meant only the final stage of anarchy, and other times he broadly applied it. So a modern reading of the Studies of the Scriptures can be confusing because much of the books was written from the perspective that the Time of Trouble was occurring in the period of 1874-1914, but in other places in the books the wording was changed to the thought that the Time of Trouble would begin in 1914.
However, as 1914 approached, Russell became more hesistant and less dogmatic, and began hedging. He had expected much to have happened previous to 1914, and it became more evident that there was not enough time for these events to take place. However, the World War started in 1914. Since Russell had expected the first stage of the Time of Trouble to be war, foretold by type in the Bible, he saw the World War as a confirmation that indeed the Times of the Gentiles had ended in 1914, and that the next stages of revolution and anarchy would be imminent.
However, what happened to the period of the Time of Trouble from 1874-1914? This can still be seen from the Chart of the Ages from Russell's Divine Plan book, that Russell had expected this to have occurred in the period of 1874-1914. Russell, like a slide rule, kept moving his expectations forward in time. The World War convinced him that he was right about 1914, but that would also mean that he was wrong in the expectations of what would occur before 1914.
From the vantage point of 2007, it can be seen clearly that Russell was mistaken. Although 1914 did bring on a world war, it failed to end in world revolution and anarchy. Russell died before the war ended. But the basis of his movement had become so solidified around the date 1914 and the belief that he was that wise and faithful servant, that the movement continued on despite the unwise dogmaticism and speculation.
-
Leolaia
I enjoyed your post stev....you laid it all out very clearly.
-
stev
The original post asked the question how the change of 1914 to the start of the Time of Trouble can be reconciled with Russell's expectation that 1914 would usher in the era of peace.
Russell's view was that the Gospel Age and Millennial Age would overlap in time period. This can be seen by his Chart of the Ages, the two periods overlap. The Gospel Age would end in 1914, but the Millennial Age began , before the end of the Gospel Age, in 1874, with Christ's invisible return. The overlapping period between 1874-1914 would be the the period of the harvest and the Time of Trouble. This is the view presented throughout his books.
William Miller had no such period after 1844, and this is where Barbour and Russell differed from the Adventists that came before them. This was an innovation among the Adventists, and explains how Barbour and then Russell could continue on their beliefs despite Christ not returning visibly. This period between the invisible return for the saints and the visible return to the world was also taught by prophetic students, dispensationalists. Peters, a Lutheran minister, a friend of Russell's, wrote a 3 volume work The Theocratic Kingdom, regarded today by some as the outstanding dispensationalist work, held points in common with Russell, such as an invisible return, parousia, and various stages; but in his book points out that Russell's chronology was inconclusive, and Peters could not possibly accept that Christ had returned in 1874, because the rapture had not taken place.
Russell believed that he was living in the Millennial Dawn, this beginning period of the Millennium, which is why he originally titled his series of books "Millennial Dawn", later changed to Studies in the Scriptures. Russell saw the inventions of that day, and the "Miracle Wheat" as Millennial foregleams. So any change to the year 1914 would not have conflicted with Russell's views on the Millennium, since he expected an overlapping period, and already had placed the beginning in 1874.
However, the placing of the beginning of the Time of Trouble in 1914 does do damage to his whole chronological scheme. For example, he placed the beginning of the destruction of Babylon in 1878 to parallel the year 33 A.D. , and the end of the destruction in 1914, to parallel the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 69. However, in the volumes, in some places the "end" is replaced with "start" or "beginning", I forget which, but the passages which state the beginning occurred in 1878 were not changed. So there are two beginnings!
Russell never envisioned a long period of Time of Trouble after 1914. Shortly before his death, he extended the harvest period to 1918 to parallel the year 73 A.D. He thought that the Time of Trouble would be swift and total, worldwide, and last but a few years. Russell predicted future events based on his understanding of prophecy, but the world today is different than the world that existed in his day. Perhaps Russell and his followers were partially correct - the system of affairs, society as they knew it , ended in 1914. Many saw it coming for years, and the Victorian age, the European domination of the world, that era did end. Perhaps it was even God's judgment. But Russell and other prophecy buffs were wrong in predicting the end of the Kingdoms of this world.
Russell was dogmatic and overly certain in his chronology, and unwisely set dates and speculated on the future, and set up the course of events that was to follow after his death. No matter how wise and faithful and godly and well-intentioned, he was mistaken in his chronology, and the attempts to revise it and modify it and hold on to it have only added to the mistakes. Perhaps Russell and his followers can be excused for being too close to the events to see clearly, but now in the 21st century, it needs to be recognized that Russell was fundamentally wrong in his chronological views.
-
Doug Mason
Stev!
I am deeply indebted to you. Thank you!
Doug -
Lady Liberty
Dear Doug,
WELCOME to the forum!! I thought I would post a link to a site I discovered that has alot of info. regarding the things STEV posted. Hope it helps you.
http://www.catholic-forum.com/members/popestleo/jwhistory.html
Sincerely,
Lady Liberty
-
Doug Mason
Dear Lady Liberty,
Thank you for pointing out this site to me.
I am slightly familiar with a little of the material mentioned in the article, which I found very interesting. I have a photocopy of the chapter on the 2520 years from John Brown's book written in 1823. I am surprised that the article did not mention the eschatalogical writings of the Alchemist/Scientist, Sir Isaac Newton, who employed the year/day idea in his interpretations.
The concern I tried to express in my post is that CTR's prophetic framework presumed that the "Time of Trouble" commenced in 1874 but his "stretched" pyramid said that it began in 1914. And CTR's prophetic framework anticipated "peace" with 1914, not the start of the great "Time of Trouble".
Thank you for your welcome.
Doug -
greendawn
Very informative posts Steve, I now realise that Russell was a great bigot since he could see his prdictions failing over 30 or 40 years and refused to accept it. None of the expected phased great changes occured from around 1880 and right up to 1914 and the first world war though promising at first proved to be a false lead. He could see his failure all along.