Tag Archives: faithful and discreet slave

1915, Odd Doctrine, Watch Tower

100 Years Ago: July 1915 – Go to War, But Shoot Over Their Heads!

1 Comment

Main Points:

  • In 1915, the Watch Tower still supported going to war if drafted, a policy that stayed about the same from at least as early as 1898 to as late as 1939.
  • Watch Tower suggests that if drafted to serve (conscripted) the Bible Student should request non-combatant service but, if not given this option, could shoot to miss, or shoot over the head of the enemy.
  • An interesting story is offered in support of God’s blessing on this “tactic.” Based on the meeting between between two “Bible Student” combatants, armed against each other with bayonets, early in 1915.
  • The odds against this story actually occurring were so astronomical that the story is, in effect, a claim of a miracle – but a miracle in support of a doctrine that Jehovah never really approved.

________________________________

The 2015 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses as it appears on the jw.org site contains an article named “100 Years Ago – 1915.” http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/2015-yearbook/jw-history-1915/

The primary topic of discussion about 1915 in that article is World War I. Note these excerpts:

During 1915, some Bible Students battled with feelings of disappointment. Much of the world, however, fought battles of a different kind. The Great War, later known as World War I, was enveloping Europe. . . . On May 7, 1915, . . . U-boats sank the British passenger ship Lusitania. More than 1,100 people died.

 The following, however, is a more interesting point from the same 2015 Yearbook article:

The Bible Students wanted no part of this war. However, they did not then fully understand the Christian position of strict neutrality. While they did not voluntarily enroll in the army, some of them accepted conscription and endeavored to obtain noncombatant roles. If forced into the trenches, others felt that they could simply “shoot over the enemy’s head.”

This policy is confirmed in the July 1, 1915 and the July 15, 1915 issues of the Watch Tower. The article “A View from the Watch Tower” gives the view that this war was the prelude of Armageddon and was predicted to end in anarchy. (By this point in time, the year 1914 was described as the year running from the fall of 1914 to the fall of 1915.) Russell recognized that there would be true Christians fighting in the armies of each nation. The following are excerpts from p.495,496 of this July 1, 1915 issue:

At the same time it should not be forgotten that there are saints of God in every land, and that doubtless there are saints in every army–in these armies because of conscription–in these armies to fulfil the demands of the governments, but with fullest determination that they at the same time owe their highest allegiance to the kingdom of kindness, and fully determined that they will kill nobody. We are hearing from the front, that they are seeking to live up to the teachings of the Word of God, pointed out in the sixth volume of SCRIPTURE STUDIES, and that they are being blessed in so doing. What more could we ask?

 That reference is to the sixth volume of Studies in the Scriptures, The New Creation, and is found on pages 594-595, where we read the following:

True, government may not always exempt those opposed to war from participating in it, although a very gracious provision of this kind has in the past been made for some who, like ourselves, believe war to be unrighteous; viz., the Friends or Quakers, exempted from military duty under specially generous laws. We may be required to do military service whether we vote or not, however; and if required we would be obliged to obey the powers that be, and should consider that the Lord’s providence had permitted the conscription and that he was able to overrule it to the good of ourselves or others. In such event we would consider it not amiss to make a partial explanation to the proper officers, and to request a transference to the medical or hospital department, where our services could be used with the full consent of our consciences—but even if compelled to serve in the ranks and to fire our guns we need not feel compelled to shoot a fellow-creature.

That “sixth volume” was first published in 1904, and the idea seems very little changed in the July 1, 1915 Watch Tower magazine:

Inquiries come to us respecting the advisability of enlisting in hospital corps, rather than to be conscripted for the regular service later on. Our advice would be to wait for the leadings of the Lord’s providence and to take such steps only when fully assured of their wisdom. Now is a good time to remember the words of the Lord, “Wait ye upon Me, saith the Lord.” It would be a mistake, however, for any of the Lord’s people to think themselves called upon to interfere in any manner with the world’s course in respect to enlistment. Let the worldly use their own judgment, while God’s consecrated people use theirs. To be “subject to the powers that be,” implies not merely a willingness to serve under compulsion, but implies also that we will not oppose earthly governments in any public manner.

In other words, do not volunteer for hospital service in advance of being conscripted or drafted. Allow yourself to be conscripted even if this means you may inevitably end up fighting with guns, cannon, bayonets, and other armaments in the trenches and on the front lines. Most Bible Students would be expected to request a transfer to a non-combatant role, and then hope for the best.

Note, too, how the Watch Tower is also being very careful not to speak out against either the enlistment or conscription processes in the various countries where the Bible Students followed the advice of the Watch Tower. Before this war was over, however, that advice about not speaking out against conscription or enlistment would often be ignored when J. F. Rutherford took over the reins of the Watch Tower later the following year (1916). More specifically, it was the 1917 Finished Mystery (Studies in the Scriptures, Volume VII) with anti-war sentiment –actually anti-conscription sentiment– found on a couple of pages. Rutherford had the offending pages removed, by having them torn out of already-printed volumes. However, this wasn’t enough to appease the authorities. Papers from the 1917 FBI investigation also show that there were various letters collected from Rutherford’s offices which confirmed that Rutherford was regularly being called upon to help the Watchtower’s Bible Students avoid conscription. [Future post or article is planned on this subject.]

This idea had actually appeared well before Studies in the Scriptures, Volume VI, from 1904. It had also appeared when the United States was becoming involved in its first major international conflicts since 1879, when the first Watch Tower was published. Outside of wars with Native American tribes, 1898 was the time of a war in Samoa, resulting in a new territory: American Somoa. The most prominent conflicts in 1898 were due to the Spanish-American War involving fighting by U.S. soldiers in Cuba, Philippines, Puerto Rico and Guam.

Therefore, the July 1898 Watch Tower, p.204, had stated:

CHRISTIAN DUTY IF DRAFTED.. . . If, therefore, we were drafted, and if the government refused to accept our conscientious scruples against warfare (as they have heretofore done with “Friends,” called Quakers), we should request to be assigned to the hospital service or to the Commissary department or to some other non-combatant place of usefulness; and such requests would no doubt be granted. If not, and we ever got into battle, we might help to terrify the enemy, but need not shoot anybody.

That led to the questions printed in the August 1898 issue, p. 231:

Question. I was surprised to note your advice to any who might be drafted into the army. Would not your advice seem like compromising to avoid trouble?

Answer. It is proper to avoid trouble in a proper manner. It is proper to compromise when no principle is involved, as in the case mentioned. Notice that there is no command in the Scriptures against military service. Obedience to a draft would remind us of our Lord’s words, “If any man compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.” The government may compel marching or drilling, but cannot compel you to kill the foe. You need not be a good marksman.

Question. You suggested in a recent WATCH TOWER that, if drafted and in the army, we need not shoot to kill. Would such a course be right? Would it not be fraudulent?

Answer. No; it would be quite right to shoot, not to kill. You forget, perhaps, our provisos, which were that we explain our conscientious scruples against war, and seek to be excused; if not excused, that we seek non-combatant positions, as nurses, etc.; but if compelled to go a mile or many miles as a soldier, we still need not kill anybody.

None of these previous references from either 1898 or 1904 had specifically mentioned the idea or the term about “shooting over the enemy’s head.” Where did that come from exactly? The idea was first mentioned in the July 15, 1915, page 216, which also included the experience that is referenced in the recent 2015 Yearbook. Quoting from that Watch Tower, it states:

I have something to read to you. It is a translation of a letter. It was written in Hungarian, to a Slav brother in the United States, and was forwarded to us. A portion of the letter follows:

“A Hungarian soldier, injured on the battlefield, was returned home wounded. He was there met by some of our brethren, and later was led to diligent and earnest study of the Scriptures, and finally made his consecration to the Lord. This he symbolized last January, at the hands of our dear Brother Szabo. A few days later he was obliged to return to the front and to the trench, in Galicia. A cannon shot burned the cap from his head; earth caved in upon him. He was dug out by his comrades, and again sent to the hospital. This brought the dear brother into our midst again, but for a short time only. Presently he had to return to the firing line again.

“This time they came within 800 feet of the Russian line, and they received the command, ‘A bayonet charge!’ The Hungarian brother was at the end of the left wing. He sought only to protect himself from the enemy, hence endeavored merely to knock the bayonet from the hand of the Russian with whom he was confronted. Just then he observed that the Russian was endeavoring to do likewise; and instead of using his opportunity to pierce his opponent, the Russian let his bayonet fall to the ground; he was weeping. Our brother then looked at his ‘enemy’ closer–and he recognized a ‘Cross and Crown’ pin on his coat! The Russian, too, was a brother in the Lord! The Hungarian brother also wore a ‘Cross and Crown’ emblem–on his cap.

“The two brethren quickly clasped hands and stepped aside. Their joy was overflowing, that our Heavenly Father had permitted them to meet even on the field of the enemy! They could not understand one another’s speech, but by signs they conversed, taking out their Bibles–and the Russian had the SCRIPTURE STUDIES in his pocket with a song book, all bound in one volume, and a photo of Brother Russell. The Brother then took the bayonet of the Russian brother, and gave him over as a prisoner of war; and he still remains as such in Hungary, while the Hungarian brother has now been sent to the hospital for the third time.”

While there are not many rich or noble amongst the Lord’s brethren, yet when it comes to telling the Truth, they manage it very well!

In Germany, Great Britain, and all over Europe, our people have been conscious for years that this war was coming on. They have been writing to me and continually inquiring how they should proceed if they were drafted or went into the army. In Volume Six of SCRIPTURE STUDIES, the friends are instructed to avoid taking life. If they were ever drafted into the army they should go. If they could be sent to the Quartermaster’s Department to take care of the food, that would be desirable, or into the hospital work. They should endeavor to get such positions. They could not be expected to do service in the way of killing. If they were obliged to go on the firing line, they could shoot over the enemy’s head, if they wished.

And that is the way these brethren did; each had this same thought in mind. This letter shows the love of the brethren even on the field of battle, and in the enemy’s land, with carnal weapons. It made no difference that one was a Hungarian and the other a Russian!

I doubt that any readers were expected to question the story although the odds against it actually happening were overwhelming.

On the one hand, there were 15,000 or more active readers of the Watch Tower in 1915. The July 1, 1915 issue quoted earlier had stated:

Approximately 15,000 have already indicated to us that they have taken the Vow, and that therefore they belong to this great world-wide Prayer Circle which remembers each other and all the laborers in the Lord’s Kingdom daily at the Throne of Grace.

Other numbers provided for this time period would tell us that there could be as many as 18,000 or more associated with the Watch Tower and Bible Students in 1915. This means that with a world population of 1,800,000,000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, there may have been one Bible Student for every 100,000 people. (Today it’s more like 1 out of every 1,000 persons.)

But most of those were in the United States. Based on the distribution of literature worldwide, 98% or more of all Watch Tower followers were in North America, Australia, United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Italy, Greece, etc. Between 1% and 2% (max) could be expected in Hungary and Russia.

Even the 1% to 2% estimate is probably high, but also note the following number of “active” Bible Students from within just a few years during this same period. The “Jehovah’s Witnesses – Proclaimers” book says the following on page 425:

The actual number who were then sharing in that work, however, was small. Some who had fearfully held back during 1918 became active again, and a few more joined their ranks. But the records that are available show that in 1919 there were only some 5,700 who were actively witnessing, in 43 lands.

If we average the 5,700 with the 15,000 we come up with about 10,000. But about half of these were women, leaving only 5,000. That’s no more than 50 in Russia and 50 in Hungary. And we can assume that as few as 30% would have been conscripted to military service based on age and eligibility. That would leave 15 on each side. Also Russell claimed that reports from Europe showed that there had been good success in following the Watch Tower instructions that had included making a request for non-combatant roles. Assuming only one-third found re-assignment this way, we have only about 10 “cross-and-crown” wearing Bible Students on each side that might have found themselves battling each other in the front lines.

It’s fairly easy to imagine the odds of laying out two decks of cards in rows across from each other and testing whether, for example, the Ace of Spades from each deck happens to end up exactly across from each other. But still, it might happen often enough to make you think this is a fair possibility, even if not likely. But here we are looking for something more like dumping two haystacks on top of each other, each with a single needle in it, and then finding out that those two needles had fallen exactly against each other.

If you are looking for more mathematical accuracy, it seems even less likely than the haystack example. Here’s why:

Recall that the Hungarian and Russian “Cross and Crown” wearers are in a battle in Galicia just a few days after the Hungarian has converted to become a Bible Student in January 1915. A series of battles matching this description is known to have occurred between January and March 1915. Note the following from From http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/firstworldwar/index-1915.html :

March 22, 1915 – The Russians capture 120,000 Austrians at Przemysl in Galicia. This marks the culmination of a series of winter battles between the Austrians and Russians to secure the strategic Carpathian Mountain passes and opens the way for a Russian invasion of Hungary. Realizing this, the Germans and Austrians make plans to combine their troops and launch a major spring offensive.

That’s quite a large number of soldiers who must have been involved in this specific series of battles. But look at the size of the military population they were chosen from, based on this chart from http://spartacus-educational.com/FWWarmies1914.htm :

armies

Those battling against each other here were chosen from armies that ranged from 6 to 12 million on the Russian side and 3 to 8 million on the Austria-Hungary side. Therefore, Bible Students are not likely to make up more than one out of every million soldiers. (1:1,000,000). So now imagine those two card decks, not of 52 cards each, but of one million cards each with only one Ace of Spades in each deck. Now try to imagine the odds of those two aces ending up exactly across from each other.

The story of the two soldiers is repeated in the “2015 Yearbook” without any question, of course, about its authenticity.

The story, therefore, describes something no less than a mathematical miracle! And it was put to use in the defense of a doctrinal position that is now considered incorrect, and which wasn’t updated to its current form until as late as 1939. Note the “Proclaimers” book again, from page 191:

Though Jehovah’s Witnesses quickly discerned some issues that involve a Christian’s relationship to the world, other matters required more time. However, as World War II gathered momentum in Europe, a significant article in The Watchtower of November 1, 1939, helped them to appreciate the meaning of Christian neutrality.

This would mean that Jehovah, in effect, produced a miracle in support of a doctrine that he never approved. Oddly, no such miracle has ever occurred that would seem to support the Watch Tower’s stance on blood transfusion, for example. And for that matter, what should have been the odds for discovering a Greek manuscript of the “New Testament” with Jehovah’s name in it? Since the Watchtower claims that this was supposedly in all the correct originals, the odds in favor of such a find should be very high. It wouldn’t have even required a a miracle, and yet the miraculous protection of the accuracy of the Biblical manuscripts is often discussed in the Watchtower. Could not even one of these “accurate” manuscript examples have survived?

If Jehovah could make a miracle happen in support of a “false” doctrine, what would have made it so difficult for Jehovah to produce a miracle in support of a “true” doctrine?

2014-Year of the Kingdom, Centennial, Governing Body

More Evidence for 1914 Kingdom than for Gravity, Electricity, Wind — says JW Governing Body

1 Comment

[wpvideo 5YXeIEOd]

The source of this video is Stephen Lett, a member of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, at the “Seek First God’s Kingdom” International Convention for 2014.  A better version of the video is found here: [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJ6405yjZfo&w=640&h=480] I made a poor copy of it above just in case it gets removed from YouTube.

He says:

God’s Kingdom has been ruling in heaven as we’ve discussed during this convention for a hundred years, and it has produced tremendous effects — tremendous results. In fact, there is more evidence confirming the existence of the Kingdom than the evidence that would convince us that there’s gravity, electricity, wind.

I couldn’t just let that “blow over.” [wind] It was “shocking.” [electricity] I had to let it “sink in.” [gravity] All jokes, aside, though…

The first thing this reminded me of, was the fact that Rutherford blatantly overused claims about facts, proof and evidence (apparently as a reminder that he had a legal background). Rutherford loved to include the word “facts” in things like “Face the Facts” “Declaration of Facts” etc.  Rutherford would say things like, “the physical facts” “the Scriptures and facts” “indisputable facts” “beyond a doubt” and “distinctly indicated” even when he was not just wrong but indisputably wrong:

“The indisputable facts, therefore, show that the “time of the end” began in 1799; that the Lord’s second presence began in 1874.” — Watchtower 1922 Mar 1 p. 7.

 “The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the Scriptures than 1914.” — The Watchtower, September 1, 1922, p. 262.

“Bible prophecy shows that the Lord was due to appear for the second time in the year 1874. Fulfilled prophecy shows beyond a doubt that he did appear in 1874. Fulfilled prophecy is otherwise designated the physical facts; and these facts are indisputable.“ — Watchtower November 1,  1922, p. 333.

Note the underlined portion: “Fulfilled prophecy” as previously interpreted and as understood by Rutherford, was the same thing as “physical facts” that are indisputable and “beyond a doubt.”

There can be no doubt that Dagon the visible god of the ancient Philistines foreshadowed the Roman Catholic Hierarchy, of which the pope is chief. The Scriptural and the historical evidence fully agree upon this point. …This further supports the conclusion that the Philistines foreshadowed the Roman Catholic Hierarchy. — Riches, 1936, p. 241.

 “The Scriptures and the facts show that the work which the man Elijah the prophet did foreshadows a work done by the faithful servant class under Christ Jesus, and which work ended in A.D. 1918… Jehu came into contact with the prophet Elijah and lived for more than 28 years of the period of the prophet Elisha….Jehovah, during the Elijah period that is from 1878 to 1918, began to prepare a people …brought over into the Elisha period, which began in A.D. 1919. — Riches, 1936, p. 66

So it wasn’t just hyperbole with Rutherford. He defined his accepted understanding of fulfilled prophecy as the same thing as “physical facts” that are indisputable. In effect, if Rutherford believed it, this was the same as “evidence,” and you didn’t dare dispute it. The last quote above from the book “Riches” repeated an idea that Rutherford had been trying to convey in several different ways since Russell died. Russell’s time had been seen as a “Day of Preparation” that was supposed to have prepared the “faithful” to remain loyal to Rutherford’s ideas, just as they had previously remained faithful to Russell’ teachings. Russell was seen as “that faithful and wise servant” of Matthew 24 who had been serving “meat in due season” (“food at the proper time”).

We could go on an on with examples like this from Rutherford.

And what about Lett? It might not be fair to attack the specifics of an unfortunate choice of hyperbole. Apparently, however, it wasn’t really intended as merely hyperbole in Lett’s case, either. He is quite serious in the video. He clearly picked “gravity, electricity and wind” because they are supposedly invisible, just like the invisible kingdom of Christ that started in 1914. There is a strange logic among certain types of non-scientists that invisible things are not real. That it somehow takes “faith” to believe in things invisible to the naked eye. Galileo had a similar problem. Religionists have been heard to speak as if these things are unreal, miraculous or in some sense, “magical.”

It’s hard to know exactly what he meant that evidence was. Possibly he’s so impressed with the growth of Jehovah’s Witnesses, but this is on par with the growth of Mormons (LDS) and Seventh Day Adventists who have similar beginnings. But growth means Jehovah’s blessing (as long it is the growth of Jehovah’s Witnesses). It is likely some combination of a strong belief in the growth of JWs  combined with his own belief that so many other things he believes in makes him feel that the Watch Tower Society and Jehovah’s Witnesses are right.  Therefore all of it combines in his mind to become evidence. If he feels they are right about everything else, then they must be right about this theory about the Kingdom, too.

Similar to Rutherford, if Lett merely believes the interpretation of 1914 to be fulfilled prophecy, then Lett sees it in the same light as indisputable evidence.

But the real problem is that even if it was hyperbole, we couldn’t excuse it. That’s because the purpose of his speech is to imply that there is at least some evidence somewhere for an invisible kingdom that has been ruling for 100 years.  As it turns out, there isn’t any. Every bit of the evidence for 1914 has been shown to be false, mistaken, and in some cases, made up dishonestly.

So the question for Stephen Lett is not, “Where is this evidence that is supposedly greater than the evidence that would make us believe in gravity, electricity or wind?” No, the real question is:

WHERE IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL FOR 1914?

 

We could easily expose the inadequacy of any portion of that evidence. And if you look through the site, you’ll see that this has already been done by many others.

 

2014-Year of the Kingdom, Celebration, Centennial

1914-2014: Celebrating the End of an Error!

Leave a comment

A 100-YEAR ANNIVERSARY is usually something to take pride in — something to celebrate! And, yes, the 100-year milestone of the 1914 date truly is something to celebrate. But not for the same reasons that the majority of Jehovah’s Witnesses are giving special attention to the date. We’ll explain the reasons we are celebrating, of course. But first, some background:

1979wtIn 1979, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society* celebrated the 100-year anniversary of the Watchtower magazine, which was first published in July 1879 as “Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence.” wts-centennial-1984In 1984, the Watch Tower Society celebrated the 100-year anniversary of the charter of the Watch Tower Society itself.

“THIS IS THE YEAR OF THE KINGDOM”

And now, in 2014, the Watchtower celebrates the 100-year anniversary of 1914. A phrase that has been heard multiple times among Jehovah’s Witnesses from their headquarters (Bethel) is that 2014 is “The Year of the Kingdom.”

The following links (to jw.org) are examples of this kind of emphasis since the beginning of 2014.

kmaug14

(Something is just a bit ironic in this article. It’s in the ellipses, hidden in those three little dots after “Behold, the King reigns! ” . . . Give up? The answer is linked here.)

 

THE TRUTH BE TOLD

Many of us with years of experience among Jehovah’s Witnesses have yet another reason to celebrate 2014. Primarily, we’re celebrating Truth — finding “pleasure in truth.” Isn’t that what had attracted us to Jehovah’s Witnesses in the first place?

Psalm 51:6 says: “Look! You find pleasure in truth in the inner person.” (NWT, 2013)

It should become clear to anyone who spends much time looking at the research that has been reproduced, referenced and presented on these pages that the 1914 teaching was simply a mistake. So exactly why would we celebrate? Are we gloating?

For most of us, we are happy with the demise of the 1914 teaching because it corrects an error. And correcting an error is always a good thing.

Researching and studying about 1914 was, in fact, quite painful at first for some of those whose experience are available here. But it was a step to real progress. Many of us now have a much better understanding of the Bible, and we are now more conscious of our spiritual needs. We feel more empathy and better understand one another, especially those who, like ourselves, had found ourselves defending belief systems that required continual change and correction over time. And this empathy has often included our own families, friends and loved ones. For many of us, it was specifically the deep and sincere research into the 1914 doctrine that ultimately produced the proper humility that allowed us to make greater progress in our continued quest for truth.

A MILESTONE OR A MILLSTONE?

But wait! Aren’t we getting ahead of ourselves? Many readers of this article will surely think that the Watchtower’s celebration of this 100th Anniversary is just evidence that the 1914 teaching is not going away any time soon. Why are we acting like this anniversary is somehow a “death knell” for the Watchtower’s traditional 1914 doctrine?

There are plenty of reasons:

Any JW who has ever tried to seriously defend the 1914 doctrine has likely already discovered that there is no Biblical or secular evidence for pointing to that specific date. Worse than that, there are dozens of lines of evidence against it. (If you get to the level of studying the pivotal 607 BCE date, it turns out that there are literally tens of thousands of pieces of evidence against it. We might have thought that date was set in stone, and as it turns out, the very stones [link] cry out against it.) Every single claim about the doctrine turns out to be problematic from a doctrinal perspective. Defending it creates insurmountable contradictions, and this is something that many Witnesses have had to keep to themselves.

But the Watch Tower publications haveexplaining now asked Jehovah’s Witnesses to focus on 1914 one more time, and to try to defend it one more time. The October 2014 Our Kingdom Ministry states: “Realistically, we may find it challenging to explain deep Bible truths, such as how we know that the Kingdom started ruling in 1914.”

Most, but not all, Jehovah’s Witnesses who write for the Watch Tower publications believe the 1914 teaching, and some “cracks” have already showing up in the publications.

Even for those who still believe it, however, the renewed focus has clearly created some awkward discoveries. Claims that once appeared regularly in Watch Tower publications have almost disappeared, replaced with reworded claims that make it clear the writer discovered the problem with old claim.  Even some of the more recent doctrinal changes in just the last couple of years provide additional indications that Watch Tower writers have begun to see how the doctrine creates contradictions.

Luke 9:21 indicates the perils for a “man who has put his hand to a plow and looks at the things behind.” If you’ve ever tried to plow (or mow a lawn, at least) while continually looking back at where you’ve been, you will find that the lines aren’t straight. The Watch Tower’s own writers are looking back and finding out that the lines aren’t straight.

Most of us, whether JWs, ex-JWs, or non-JWs, already understand implicitly that the current 1914 teaching can’t last forever with world conditions going as they have been for the last hundred years. The teaching has already required adjustment in several ways, and it would be impossible to continue the current teaching without additional changes in the next couple of decades. The doctrine is like a sinking millstone. It can’t remain afloat.

KEEP ON TWEAKING FIRST THE KINGDOM

Remember this famous graphic from the 1968 “Truth Book”?generation_truth_book
 Someone (on another website) produced an updated version based on the 2010 “clarification” of the meaning of “that generation.” The image indicates, graphically, why there is very little room — or appetite — for further adjustments.overlapping-generations

If anyone isn’t up-to-date with some of these more recent changes to the “generation” doctrine, it’s also discussed here.

A decade before the most recent changes to the “generation” the January 1, 2000 Watchtower stated:

“In recent years, we have been encouraged to look again with deeper understanding at—among other things—the generation that will not pass away before the end comes…. It may be difficult at times to understand such updated explanations, but the reasons for them become clear in due course.” [emphasis added]

In due course, of course, the definition of that “generation” changed again. There was an explanation that worked up until 1995, and then the 1995 explanation that was considered potentially “difficult” in the quote above, which itself preceded a new explanation in 2008, which lasted only a couple of years before the currently accepted explanation first appeared in 2010. Historically, the Watchtower has offered 7 distinct explanations, as depicted in the graphic below, found at the following web address: http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/generation.php

THE TRUTH, 2014 REVISED EDITION

As already stated, one excellent reason for our celebration is simply “pleasure in truth.” Jehovah’s Witnesses are repeatedly encouraged to do as the Beroeans did:

“Now these [Beroeans] were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they accepted the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.” — Acts 17:11

As if to drive home the point even further, Paul later wrote to those in Thessalonica, telling them to “make sure of all things.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

That desire — that pleasure, that eagerness of mind — to “carefully examine” and “make sure” will be clear to anyone looking at those many experiences that many have shared here on this site. And if you have never seen Carl Olof Jonsson’s most comprehensive book, Gentile Times Reconsidered, take a quick look at the book here and you will surely be impressed at the level of research and scholarship.

CENSURED SENTRIES OF THE CENTURY

There’s another good reason to celebrate, and it’s in a more serious vein. We are all aware of how the Watchtower magazine often “celebrates” the lives of those persons in history who sacrificed much for the sake of truth and for the sake of their faith.

It’s a common theme found in many Watchtower articles — one that truly touches the hearts of those who have given up so much for their faith, their conscience, and especially for those related to them in the faith. That same theme was recently highlighted in the June 1, 2014 Watchtower article: Three 16th-Century Truth Seekers—What Did They Find? (links to jw.org) Another recent example is found the April 1, 2014 issue: Thomas Emlyn—Blasphemer or Advocate of Truth? (links to jw.org)

The parallels between experiences posted on this site and “16th-Century Truth Seekers” will likely seem quite unexpected to many Witnesses. We’ve included a short post about the Watchtower’s article on Thomas Emlyn, for example, because the similarities to the experience of Witnesses who studied the 1914 teaching are really quite amazing.

HOW WE ARE CELEBRATING

  • We’re celebrating the lives and experiences of many who suffered the consequences of speaking and writing honestly about their research. We have made an entire section devoted to such experiences and expect to add several more over the coming months.
  • Another way we’ll celebrate is by highlighting some of the excellent work and research that has been done to promote the truth about this matter. Some of that research has been contributed to this site, and much more will be referenced from a special section of the site: Websites, videos, books and discussions.
  • And for those with a strong historical or scholarly interest in the development of the doctrine, we’ll also will continue to add material to the section titled: Analysis of the1914 Teaching – Biblical, Secular, Historical.
  • Of course, the most important way we are celebrating is by an effort to help everyone understand each other a little better. For example:
    • Everyone can get a better understanding of the historical development of the doctrine and the religious organization itself and therefore more empathy for people who are confused by it or object to it.
    • The included experiences should help Witnesses and ex-Witnesses understand each other better, especially those who might now find themselves in “estranged” circumstances.
    • Witnesses and ex-Witnesses alike often find themselves believing they are “on their own” when doubts or concerns arise. Hopefully this site will show otherwise, and encourage discussion with an entire community of persons who would gladly offer support and encouragement.

Truth doesn’t always lead to peace, but where both sides give truth a chance, it can offer the most stable basis for peace, understanding, empathy and love. Who could ask for anything more?

70 years, Alan Feuerbacher, Archaeology, Daniel 4, Gentile Times, Max Hatton, Research, Watch Tower

Analysis of the 1914 Teaching – Biblical, Secular, Historical

4 Comments

See also:

The article below was contributed by Alan Feuerbacher and contains links to numerous additional web resources throughout, especially in its Appendix. Click here for full width. Also in PDF format: evidence_against_wts_chronolog.pdf.

Biblical Evidence Against Watchtower Society Chronology

Among the Watchtower Society’s fundamental doctrines are those concerning 1914. They are the basis for its leaders’ claim to spiritual authority over the community of Jehovah’s Witnesses. This essay briefly examines the biblical evidence, with a bit of secular support, as to why the Society’s 1914 chronology is wrong.

The Society teaches that in 1914, at the end of the “gentile times” (a.k.a. “appointed times of the nations”; Luke 21:24) Christ returned invisibly (Matt. 24:3) and was given the Messianic Kingdom. It claims that the “last days” (Acts 2:17; 2 Tim. 3:1; 2 Pet. 3:3; etc.) began, the “conclusion of the system of things” began, a great harvest work of true Christians began, and that between 1914 and 1919 a time of “spiritual inspection” by the returned Jesus occurred. It teaches that by 1919 the “true Christian congregation” had been restored, in 1919 the “faithful and discreet slave” was appointed over all Jesus’ “domestics” (Matt. 24:45), and that in 1919 “false religion” (a.k.a. “Babylon the Great”; Rev. 14:8) fell. These doctrines were crucial to its claim throughout the 20th century that in 1919 all “anointed Christians” were appointed as “the faithful and discreet slave over all Christ’s belongings” on earth (the Society changed this teaching in the July 15, 2013 edition of The Watchtower).

From 1876, the phrase “gentile times” and the 1914 date were doctrinal anchors for the Society’s founder C. T. Russell, and have been so for the followers of the organization ever since. 1914 remains the key date in Watchtower “end times” teaching even though the Society has revised or abandoned most of its early claims about 1914.

In 1879 C. T. Russell began publishing what became The Watchtower magazine and therein promoted the 1914 date. Even earlier, in 1876, he published an article in the small religious journal The Bible Examiner that advocated the 1914 date as the end of the gentile times. Russell borrowed these ideas from Nelson Barbour, a semi-independent “Second Adventist” who originated the combination of the 1914 and gentile times ideas in the June, 1875 issue of his magazine Herald of the Morning.

The 1914 date is determined as follows (cf. w14 10/1 p. 10; “When Did God’s Kingdom Begin Ruling? (Part 1)”). The Society interprets the dream of Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar described in Daniel 4 about a great tree in the center of the earth to mean that God’s direct rule over humans was interrupted, but would be restored after “seven times” had passed. The interruption is said to have begun in 607 BCE with the destruction of Jerusalem, and to have ended in 1914. Luke 21:24 is interpreted to mean that God’s rule, represented by Jerusalem, corresponds to this period, which is called “the appointed times of the nations” or “the gentile times.” The Society calculates the length as 2,520 years, based on Daniel’s statement that Nebuchadnezzar was mad for “seven times”, plus a statement in Revelation 12 that three and a half times equal 1,260 days. Then it applies a so-called “day for a year” principle. So 1,260 days (3 ½ times) x 2 = 2,520 days. A day for a year makes 2,520 years. 2,520 years forward from 607 BCE gets to 1914 CE (no zero year).

The Society derives the year 607 by beginning with the universally accepted date of 539 BCE for the conquest of the city of Babylon by the Persian king Cyrus the Great and noting that in his first regnal year he issued a decree that allowed the Jews to return to Judah. It then assumes that the Jews returned to Judah in the autumn of 537 BCE. Then the Society concludes that “the 70 years” Jeremiah spoke of (Jer. 25: 11, 12; 29:10) are a period of desolation of the land of Judah and exile and captivity of the Jews, and that this period ended when the Jews returned to Judah in 537. Working backward 70 years arrives at 607 BCE, when the destruction of Jerusalem caused the desolation of Judah to begin.

Of course, secular history—backed up by the Bible itself—shows that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE. So the Watchtower Society and its apologists go to great lengths to discount the secular evidence and to interpret the Bible according to Watchtower tradition. This essay outlines the biblical evidence that shows why Watchtower tradition is wrong. References in the appendix detail the voluminous evidence against Watchtower tradition, including secular, as do references to some excellent online resources.

Obviously, the 1914 date rests on a chain of questionable assumptions. Dubious scriptural interpretations such as equating the gentile times of Luke 21:24 to the seven times of Nebuchadnezzar’s madness, and so forth, do not lend themselves to objective resolution, so this essay will not consider them. Rather, it will examine the Watchtower’s claims about various dates and time periods derived from biblical passages that are capable of scholarly, objective resolution.

Watchtower chronology has multiple problems, many of which individually are fatal to the chronology as a whole and which, taken together, show unassailably that this chronology is wrong. Experience has shown that neither the Society nor its apologists can honestly address these problems. In many cases they simply ignore them.

This summary is in no sense a complete treatise on all the reasons Watchtower chronology is wrong. There are many excellent online resources for the interested reader, as well as the print copy of Carl Olof Jonsson’s book The Gentile Times Reconsidered. See the appendix for a list.

The 607 BCE Date for Jerusalem’s Destruction Has No Biblical Support

(1) There is no good evidence that 537 BCE was the year the Jews returned to Judah. The Society says only that “evidently” (All Scripture, p. 85) or “likely” (Insight, V. 1, p. 568) or “doubtless” (w64 2/1 p. 80) this was the date but supplies no evidence. In most discussions it simply glosses over the lack of evidence (cf. w11 10/1 p. 28).

(2) The synchronism between Josephus and the book of Ezra is solid evidence that the Jews returned to Judah in 538 BCE. Both refer to the laying of the temple foundations about half a year after the Jews were settled in their cities in the month of Tishri (autumn). Ezra gives only a relative date in Jewish terms, while Josephus gives a date in terms of the years of Cyrus’ reign, which is solidly established. This date is in the spring of 537 BCE; hence the Jews must have returned half a year earlier, in the autumn of 538. See the diagram below, and the appendix for an extended discussion.

Note that the Jews used a secular calendar beginning with the seventh month Tishri (Sep/Oct), and a religious calendar beginning with the first month Nisan (Mar/Apr). The Babylonian calendar began in Nisan.

Ezra 1 states that Cyrus, in his first year (using the accession-year system), decreed that the Jews could return to Judah. Cyrus’ first year was Nisan, 538 BCE through Adar, 537 BCE. Ezra 3:1-7 states that by the seventh month Tishri, the Jews were settled in their cities, and at that time they gathered in Jerusalem to initiate the rebuilding of the temple. So the year that ended immediately before Tishri was the first year of the Jews’ coming home, and the new year beginning in Tishri was the second year.

Ezra 3:8, 10 states that the temple foundations were laid in the second month of that second year. In Against Apion I,21, Josephus states that “in the second year of the reign of Cyrus [the temple’s] foundations were laid.” Therefore, this second Jewish year overlaps with the second year of Cyrus. Since Cyrus’ second year began in Nisan, 537 BCE, the second month was also in 537, and the first year of the Jews’ return was in 538 BCE—not 537 as the Watchtower claims.

The following diagram illustrates the above concepts.

alanchart

(3) Given (1) and (2), Watchtower chronology has no evidential foundation; on the contrary the available evidence is against it. If the Jews returned in 538, the Society’s 607 date is wrong and so is Watchtower chronology. If 607 is wrong, 1914 is wrong. If 1914 is wrong, Watchtower eschatology is wrong, and so are all the doctrines based on it.

(4) Linguistic, contextual and historical biblical facts show that Jeremiah predicted that Judah and the nations around it would, as a group, serve Nebuchadnezzar’s dynasty for 70 years (Jer. 25:8-12; 27:6-7). The key passage is Jer. 25:11: “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” The Bible and secular history show that Judah and various nations individually served less than 70 years, depending on when they were first conquered and how one measures “serving.” God, through Jeremiah and other prophets, gave each nation the choice whether to serve on their own land or in exile (Jer. 27:7-11, 17; 40:9-10). To serve in their own land they had to submit to Nebuchadnezzar. The Jews under various kings refused; hence they were taken into exile at various times from 605/4 through 582 BCE (Dan 1:1-2; Jer. 52:28-30). Thus there was no 70-year exile or captivity or desolation of Judah.

(5) The 70 years of Babylonian supremacy ended in 539 BCE when Jehovah “called to account” against, or punished, Nebuchadnezzar’s dynasty (Jer. 25:12) by allowing the Medo-Persian empire under Cyrus to conquer Babylon and put an end to Nebuchadnezzar’s dynasty. This is directly stated in Daniel 5, where verses 28-30 say: “Your kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and the Persians… in that very night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was killed.” In contrast, the Society claims that Nebuchadnezzar’s dynasty was called to account two years after its demise, when the Persians freed the Jews to return home (w79 9/15 pp. 23-24; g 5/13 p. 13), but this is ridiculous. You cannot punish a dynasty that no longer exists.

(6) 2 Chronicles 36:20 states that Nebuchadnezzar’s minions carried off Jews to Babylon, and these Jews remained servants to Nebuchadnezzar’s dynasty until the Persians under Cyrus took over, after which they were servants to Cyrus and his minions until Cyrus let them return to Judah. This confirms again that the 70 years were a time of Babylonian supremacy, not the term of the desolation of Judah. That desolation occurred during the 70 years. This is consistent with Jer. 25:8, 11, 12 which states that the Jews and nations round about would be servants to “Nebuchadnezzar and his sons” until God called them to account.

(7) Because Jeremiah spoke of Jerusalem being devastated or ruined (Hebrew chorbah; Jer. 25:18) shortly after Nebuchadnezzar conquered it in 605 BCE, the devastation of Judah began at that time. Even if the interpretation of that passage is disputed, the Hebrew word chorbah basically means “ruined” but does not specify in what sense something is ruined. It might be absolute, or relative. It might mean ruined in the sense of no longer being pristine, such as a city conquered by a foreign invader but not necessarily razed to the ground; the Bible often uses the word in this sense.

(8) Because Jews were taken into exile in 605/4, 597, 587 and 582 BCE, and released in 538, there was not a single period of exile or captivity. Therefore it is wrong to speak of a 70-year exile or captivity. Similarly it is wrong to speak of a 70-year desolation of Judah, because Jerusalem was ruined (chorbah) in a relative sense from the Jewish point of view when Nebuchadnezzar first took a few captives (including Daniel) in 605/4 BCE, and in a complete sense after most of the Jews left the land between 587 and 582 BCE.

(9) In the New World Translation Jer. 29:10 reads: “For this is what Jehovah says, ‘When 70 years at Babylon (Hebrew le-babel) are fulfilled, I will turn my attention to you, and I will make good my promise by bringing you back to this place.’ ” It has been demonstrated conclusively, in various publications, that in context, the phrase le-babel should be translated “for Babylon” not “at Babylon.” The latter is a mistranslation based on the King James Version. The Watchtower Society has laid great stress on its translation (cf. Appendix to chapter 14 in the 1981 book “Let Your Kingdom Come”) to make its claim that Jeremiah’s 70 years were a time of exile of the Jews (however, see w11 10/1 p. 27, where the correct translation is acknowledged but then ignored). Yet the translation issue, plus many other considerations, show that the Jews as a group were not in exile at Babylon for 70 years, but that various contingents were in exile for between 44 and 69 years.

(10) A careful consideration of Watchtower apologists’ (like Rolf Furuli) favorite scriptures to misinterpret, namely Daniel 9:2 and 2 Chronicles 36:21, shows that the passages are ambiguous about exactly what they mean with respect to 70 years. Because they are ambiguous, other scriptures and pieces of information that are not ambiguous must be used to determine what they mean, and when this is done the ambiguity is resolved. Watchtower apologists get this completely backwards. Following Russell and his spiritual forebears, they begin by interpreting the ambiguous passages in accord with Watchtower tradition, and then twist the meaning of the unambiguous ones to fit the tradition.

The above points prove that the Bible does not support the Society’s anchor date for the 1914 chronology—607 BCE—as the date of Jerusalem’s destruction. Rather, as scholars agree, Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE (some say 586, but the discrepancy is due to ambiguity in the Bible itself, and can be resolved in favor of 587; see the appendix for references). Therefore Watchtower chronology is wrong, as is every doctrine based on it.


Appendix

 

References

A great deal of material has been published in print and online that disproves the Watchtower Society’s 1914 chronology. Below are listed some of these references.

The most comprehensive look at the secular evidence, with much biblical commentary, is The Gentile Times Reconsidered (Carl Olof Jonsson, Fourth Edition, Commentary Press, Atlanta, 2004). Much of this book is available online:

http://kristenfrihet.se/english/gtr4/contents.htm

Jonsson’s extensive writings on Watchtower chronology are available online:

http://kristenfrihet.se/english/epage.htm

A summary of biblical and secular evidence can be found in Jack Finegan’s Handbook of Biblical Chronology: Principles of Time Reckoning in the Ancient World and Problems of Chronology in the Bible (Revised Edition, Hendrickson Publishers, 1998).

A classic work on biblical chronology is Edwin R. Thiele’s The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (New Revised Edition, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1994; Zondervan Publishing House, 1983; various editions back to 1951).

A comprehensive debunking of the Society’s scriptural claims, along with some secular material, is available at “Jeffro’s 607 pages.” This includes detailed debunkings of recent Watchtower articles:

http://jeffro77.wordpress.com/

Scholar Rodger Young gives proof of 587 BCE as the date of Jerusalem’s destruction:

http://www.galaxie.com/article/jets47-1-03

http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/jerusalem.pdf

http://www.rcyoung.org/papers.html

Seventh-Day Adventist scholar Ross E. Winkle offers these articles:

“Jeremiah’s Seventy Years For Babylon: A Reassessment. Part I: The Scriptural Data”:

http://www.auss.info/auss_publication_file.php?pub_id=755

“Jeremiah’s Seventy Years For Babylon: A Reassessment. Part II: The Historical Data”:

http://www.auss.info/auss_publication_file.php?pub_id=762&journal=1&type=pdf

Another look at the scriptural and secular evidence against Watchtower chronology is the article “Notes on the Gentile Times and 1914”:

http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-1-summary.html

Another debunking is: “Refutation of Appendix in Let Your Kingdom Come”:

http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/refutation-of-appendix-in-let-your.html

C. T. Russell originally used 606 BCE rather than 607 as the date of Jerusalem’s destruction and the beginning of the gentile times. While the latter date was known to Russell and his followers to be correct (in terms of Watchtower Society interpretations) as early as 1904, and was used in a handful of Watchtower and related publications after that, it was only in 1943 that the Society officially changed the date of the start of the gentile times, and in 1944 that it changed the date of Jerusalem’s destruction, to 607. Critics of the Society will not be surprised to find out-and-out lies at the heart of the change, shown in this article that examines the details of how the Society changed the dates, “The Evolution of 606 to 607 B.C.E. in Watchtower Chronology”:

http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/evolution-of-606-to-607-bce-in.html

The Society has produced much material claiming that the signs of the times prove the world has been in the last days since 1914. These claims are thoroughly debunked in the book The Sign of the Last Days—When? (Carl Olof Jonsson and Wolfgang Herbst, Commentary Press, Atlanta, 1987).

“The Watchtower Society and the End of the World” is a look at the Society’s extensive false predictions and distortions of biblical and secular evidence concerning its chronology:

http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-1-why-so-many-false-alarms.html

Josephus and Ezra Prove the Jews Returned in 538 Not 537 BCE

A synchronism between Josephus and the book of Ezra provides strong evidence that the Jews returned to Judah in 538 BCE. Both refer to the laying of the temple foundations about half a year after the Jews were settled in their cities in the month of Tishri (autumn). Ezra gives only a relative date in Jewish terms, while Josephus gives a date in terms of the years of Cyrus’ reign, which is solidly established. This date is in the spring of 537 BCE; hence the Jews must have returned half a year earlier, in the autumn of 538. Below are the details. The following diagram illustrates the concepts.

alanchart

Ezra 1 states that Cyrus, in his first year (using the accession-year system of dating kings’ reigns), decreed that the Jews could return to Judah. Cyrus’ first year was Nisan (Mar/Apr), 538 BCE through Adar (Feb/Mar), 537 BCE. The Bible does not say exactly when he issued this decree.

Ezra 3:1-7 states that by the seventh Jewish month Tishri (Sep/Oct), the Jews were settled in their cities, and at that time they gathered in Jerusalem to offer sacrifices and collect money for the rebuilding of the temple. From this we deduce that, whatever modern calendar year this was, the Jews returned in the preceding Jewish year, since the secular Jewish year began in Tishri (keep in mind that the sacred Jewish calendar began six months offset from Tishri, in Nisan, and the Jewish months were numbered beginning with Nisan). In other words, the year in which the Jews returned was the first year of their coming home, and the new year beginning in the Tishri mentioned in Ezra 3:1 was the second year of their coming home.

Ezra 3:8, 10 states that a little later in that second year the Temple foundations were laid (NASB):

8 Now in the second year of their coming to the house of God at Jerusalem, in the second month, Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel and Jeshua the son of Jozadak and the rest of their brothers the priests and the Levites, and all who came from the captivity to Jerusalem, began the work and appointed the Levites from twenty years and older to oversee the work of the house of the LORD.

10 Now when the builders had laid the foundation of the temple of the LORD, the priests stood in their apparel with trumpets, and the Levites, the sons of Asaph, with cymbals, to praise the LORD according to the directions of King David of Israel.

The crucial piece of information here is that the Temple foundations were laid in the second month (Iyyar; Apr/May) of the same year in which the Jews gathered in Jerusalem immediately after they returned to Judah.

The Bible does not explicitly relate these events to any event that can be firmly dated to our modern calendar. However, a careful examination of historical data indicates that it was Cyrus’ general practice to free captives from the nations he conquered shortly after he secured his authority. Since he captured Babylon in October, 539 BCE, and the inhabitants would have known of his general practice, they would have expected him soon to begin freeing Babylonian captives, including the Jews. It is a good bet that, for political purposes, Cyrus would have done this around the time of celebrating the beginning of his first regnal year. If the books of Daniel and Jeremiah contain valid historical information about the fall of Babylon (Dan. 9:1, 2; Jer. 29:10), the Jews would have anticipated being freed soon after Cyrus entered the city in late October, 539 BCE.

A careful reading of Ezra 1-3 indicates that there might have been very little delay between the issuing of Cyrus’ decree and the departure of the Jewish captives for Judah. Because Cyrus’ first regnal year began in Nisan, and the Jews arrived by Tishri, if this all occurred in 538 BCE, there would have been at most six months for the Jews to complete their preparations and journey, and get settled in Judah. Since the trip takes about three to four months for a normal caravan, there is just enough time for these events to happen in 538 BCE.

Based on its tradition, the Watchtower Society speculates that Cyrus issued his decree sometime in late 538 or early 537 BCE, still in his first regnal year. It then claims that the Jews journeyed back to Judah in 537 BCE.

How then, can one decide whether the Jews returned in 538 or 537?

Josephus provides the tie breaker.

In Against Apion I,21, Josephus states:

These accounts agree with the true histories in our books; for in them it is written that Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years; but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus its foundations were laid, and it was finished again in the second year of Darius.

The crucial piece of information is that the temple foundations were laid in the second regnal year of Cyrus.

Combining this with the information from Ezra that the temple foundations were laid in the second month (Iyyar) of the second year of the Jews’ return to Judah, we must conclude that this second year corresponds with the second year of Cyrus. Since Cyrus’ second year began in Nisan, 537 BCE and Iyyar was the second month of that regnal year, the first year of the Jews’ return was 538 BCE. This also works if one uses Tishri dating for Cyrus’ reign, as some might argue that Josephus did.

In other words, Josephus, with Ezra as a starting point, has provided the crucial information to determine that 538 and not 537 BCE was the year of the return of the Jews to Judah.

Governing Body, Matthew 24, Watch Tower

New! Important CHANGES in March 15th, 2015 Watchtower, Explained & Clarified

15 Comments

Articles in this series:

If you are one of those few people who REALLY keeps up with the recent changes to current doctrines among JWs, then you should appreciate the upcoming series of articles we are about to post on the subject. If you are one who does NOT always keep up with the recent changes to current doctrines among the JWs then you should REALLY appreciate these articles even more.

There are a some specific doctrinal changes spelled out in the March 15, 2015 Watchtower (the “Study Edition” available on the JW.ORG website).  But the biggest, most important change is about a method for explaining Scripture that will affect many more doctrines than the specific examples mentioned in the magazine.

With this issue, literally thousands of pages of previously printed doctrinal material are rendered obsolete. It also sets a new direction for Bible commentary in The Watchtower that has the potential to completely “reset” SEVERAL of the unique doctrines of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and MOST of the prophetic interpretations. Even the chronological interpretations are at risk of becoming obsolete.  (For example, until the last decade, “1918” was taught as a prophetically significant date that was once mentioned just about as often as 1919 was mentioned. Yet, many JWs are not even aware that 1918 has already been quietly dropped as a prophetically significant date, for reasons that are aligned with the changes set forth in this March 15, 2015 issue.)

To get an idea of how sweeping the general change already is, you would have to know just how much prior doctrine is affected by these sentences from the March 15th Watchtower:

“In times past, it was more common for our literature to take what might be called a type-antitype approach to Scriptural accounts.” (p.3) “Humans cannot know which Bible accounts are shadows of things to come and which are not. The clearest course is this: Where the Scriptures teach that an individual, an event, or an object is typical of something else, we accept it as such. Otherwise, we ought to be reluctant to assign an antitypical application to a certain person or account if there is no specific Scriptural basis for doing so.” (p.18)

The following is a list of 42 of these “prophecies” or “prophetic dramas” found in one of the Watchtower publications that we (JWs) actively taught and studied when I was a younger Witness. Most of these have never been dismissed and they still represented accurate doctrine until now. Learning these teachings took up a large portion of the curriculum for the students of the Watchtower Bible School of Gilead while I was at Bethel from 1976 to 1980. One of the weekly meetings, the “Congregation Book Study,” was often devoted entirely to discussions of this type.

3-15-15wt3-15-2

Also note that the 42 examples listed only include those that specified the “great crowd” who would have an earthly hope instead of the “anointed” with the heavenly hope. Because these “prophetic dramas” have been emphasized less, especially in the last couple of decades, many Witnesses didn’t realize that most of these explanations were still “on the books.” In other words they were still considered valid, correct doctrines. At least until now.

DIDN’T THEY TRY THIS BEFORE?

It probably sounds like hyperbole to attach such a potential significance to these new changes. However, we have an excellent reason to believe that these changes are indicative of more changes underway. What’s that reason? Simple. We saw what happened when they tried this before. The Watch Tower Society didn’t try it officially, because not everyone was on board with it. Nevertheless, beginning in the late 1960’s and 1970’s, several members of the Writing Department were already reading Bible narratives and writing and teaching about their meaning in the exact way described in this new issue of the Watchtower.

In fact, the idea of changing this teaching method already came up during the research and writing of the Watch Tower’s first Bible dictionary, Aid to Bible Understanding, completed in 1971. This “Aid Book” as we called it (now slightly revised as Insight on the Scriptures) is nearly devoid of types and antitypes. By 1972, the research behind the Aid Book had already resulted in major changes to the Watch Tower organizational structure, including a re-definition of what the governing body would soon become, and the new “elder arrangement,” which was just being put into place. The following is from an article in the August 15, 1972 Watchtower that reflects some of the thinking on this subject at the time:

*** w72 8/15 p. 502 God Readjusts the Thinking of His People ***
Another thing that has given rise to questions is the use by Jehovah’s witnesses of parallels or prophetic types, applying these to circumstances and to groups or classes of people today. Many people who read the Bible view its accounts all as simply history, but when they begin to study with Jehovah’s witnesses a readjustment of viewpoint takes place as they see that there is more to the accounts than history. …

The question that is sometimes asked is, Did Jehovah stage that ‘dramatic’ event, so that we would have a warning now? Well, would he cause such bad things to happen? Would he maneuver them himself? No. …

It helps us to understand more fully when we keep in mind that the people in ancient times were real, living their daily lives in association with their families and fellowmen, having hopes and desires as we do today, the same general problems with sin working in their members, and many of them faithfully waging a fine fight to serve God.

The article just quoted actually tried to play both sides of the issue in order to introduce the change but also dismiss the need to make too many changes at once. (The 1972 article tended to favor the “type-antitype” status quo.) During the late 1970’s, the brothers in Writing who were the most productive and who were the most capable of Biblical research included the brothers who had worked on the Aid Book, and by that point in time had already been getting assignments to write Watchtower articles on many Bible topics. These articles tended to minimize the “type-antitype” pattern.

Not all Watchtower writers agreed with this change. However, many letters were received that thanked the Watchtower Society for producing these “refreshing and clear” articles that “make it easier to apply the Bible in our daily lives as Jehovah’s Christian witnesses.”

The brothers in Writing who had helped with the Aid Book had become especially involved in those new articles with the “refreshing” style, as some called it. One of these brothers had an excellent knowledge of the Biblical languages, including not just Hebrew but also Aramaic and Syriac. Another other one could write an article in minutes on almost any Bible topic, pretty much from memory, and those articles could usually be used in the Watchtower without any edits or changes. Their work was approved through the appropriate review committee(s), including Governing Body members, and resulted in dozens of Watchtower articles, and several books, which are still easily identifiable by their style when looking through the bound volumes of the Watchtower from those years, or the Watchtower Library CD. Two books were written in this same “refreshing” style in a Bible commentary format. Those two books, Commentary on the Letter of James and Choosing the Best Way of Life (which was a commentary on 1st and 2nd Peter) were released at the summer District Assemblies in 1979. They became the first major examples of books that scrupulously avoided “type-antitype” patterns, even when touching upon subjects that had previously required it. This includes an “untypical” reference to the “faithful and discreet slave” that called upon all Christians to be this sort of person. A recently deceased brother who had been at Bethel during the period described it to Randall Watters like this:

 “There were a couple new books published that were nothing like the typical FWFranzesque prophetic calculus manuals. These books were not typical fare, and you could see the puzzled looks when they reached the book study groups and meetings. Biblical commentary within scriptural context…”

Unfortunately, the Watch Tower Society in general was not yet ready for this type of reading and writing about the Bible narratives. “Heads rolled” when the significance of those changes was noticed by “old school” supporters of these now obsolete doctrinal methods. This included the two mentioned above, and a few others, too, who were not disfellowshipped, but who were dismissed from Bethel. However, this March 15, 2015 issue of The Watchtower now renders that “old school” doctrinal pattern obsolete. The pattern utilized in the Aid Book and in subsequent Watchtower articles and books for the next 7 years, especially from 1976 through 1980 is now considered ‘the way Jehovah approved.’ (Watchtower 3/15/2015 p.7,8)

While we cannot vouch for the exact numerical claims in the quote below, one person has put it this way, on a site where JWs often discuss issues with other JWs:

Now, with this article, nearly half the Watchtower articles that Rutherford wrote (since about 1931) and about a quarter of the Watchtower study articles that Fred Franz wrote (since 1942 – under Knorr) have been downgraded. When I worked with the Gilead students we were still spending about half their time going over these old Bible stories to make sure they understood when the anointed class was meant and when the great crowd was meant. (Anyone who has a copy of the Gilead Notes from up to about 1980 will know what I mean.)

Historically, I find that very interesting, but from a progressive perspective, it was bound to happen now that there is less concern about distinguishing anointed from other sheep, I find it quite refreshing that we no longer need to be worried that we draw the right application to the various people in so many of these Bible accounts.

If you do not have the magazine in printed format, it is available at the following location on jw.org:

http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20150315/

That link (on the JW.org site) displays a page that has the following articles listed. Over the next few weeks we will provide a commentary on each of them and link the titles to our commented versions of these articles.

THE WATCHTOWER (STUDY EDITION) MARCH 2015

 

“This Is the Way You Approved”

Why have our publications in recent years often given simpler, clearer explanations of some Bible accounts?

 

Will You “Keep on the Watch”? 

Read this clarified understanding of Jesus’ parable of the ten virgins, which focuses on the parable’s simple, urgent message. 

 

Questions From Readers

In the past, our publications often mentioned types and antitypes, but in recent years they have seldom done so. Why is that? 

 

Learn From the Illustration of the Talents 

This article refines our understanding of the parable of the talents.

 

Loyally Supporting Christ’s Brothers 

How do those whom Christ judges to be sheep support his brothers?

In attempting to comment on those Watchtower articles listed above, this site will attempt to cover each of the articles listed above that cover the updated doctrines.

Watch for the following subjects to be covered across the five articles:

  • The Prior Importance of the “Type Anti-Type” Approach
  • The Good Samaritan – Type-Antitype method reviewed
  • Naboth, Ahab, Jezebel – Type-Antitype method reviewed
  • The Prodigal Son – Type-Antitype method reviewed
  • Elijah and Elisha – Type-Antitype method reviewed
  • The Ten Virgins – Type-Antitype method reviewed
  • The Talents – Type-Antitype method reviewed
  • What happened at Bethel when this same approach was used as an aid to Bible understanding?
  • How can this approach potentially change the explanation of the “Faithful and Discreet Slave”?
  • What will this approach do to the method of explaining all prophecies in Isaiah, Jeremiah and other prophetic books with a formula linking any mention of faithful kings, priests and prophets to the faithful anointed in our day, or linking unfaithful ones to Christendom, or linking any mention of captivity to the imprisonment of Rutherford and others in 1918/1919, etc.?
  • What can this approach do to the “anti-type” fulfillment of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and the 1914 teaching?
  • Will this ultimately make 1919 go the way of 1918? (As mentioned, 1918 was once a large part of Watch Tower doctrine and it has been gradually but effectively dismissed over the last several years.)
  • Will this ultimately make the current distinction between Great Crowd and Anointed less important?