Search This Blog

Sunday, September 27, 2009

Joseph F. Rutherford (1869-1942)


Additional Reading:

Rutherford himself was a courageous fighter for the truth. He was born of Baptist parents in Morgan County, Missouri, on November 8, 1869. From Sister Ross, the elder natural sister of Joseph Franklin Rutherford, A. D. Schroeder learned this: “Their father was a staunch Baptist out in Missouri where the family lived. Her younger brother Joseph never could accept the Baptist ‘hellfire’ teaching. This resulted in many heated debates in the household even before they had heard of the truth. Her brother always had been one of strong convictions with a deep sense of justice. From youth he wanted to be a lawyer and a judge. Their father wanted him to stay on the farm rather than go to college to study law. Joseph had to get a friend who would loan him money, not only to hire a replacement for him on his father’s farm, but also to finance his studies in law.”

Joseph Rutherford paid his own way through school. Among other things, he became an expert at taking shorthand, a skill very useful years later in quickly recording his thoughts for Biblical articles and other material. While still in school, Joseph Rutherford became a court stenographer. This enabled him to finish paying for his course and also gave him practical experience. After completing his academy education, Rutherford spent two years under the tutelage of Judge E. L. Edwards. At twenty years of age, Joseph Rutherford became the official reporter for the courts of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit in Missouri. When twenty-two, he was admitted to the Missouri bar. His license to practice law in that state was granted on May 5, 1892, according to the records of the Cooper Circuit Court. Rutherford began practicing law at Boonville, Missouri, as a trial lawyer with the law firm of Draffen and Wright.

J. F. Rutherford later served for four years as public prosecutor in Boonville, Missouri. Still later he became a special judge in the same Fourteenth Judicial District of Missouri. In this capacity, if the regular judge was unable to hold court, Rutherford sat as a substitute judge. Court records substantiate his appointment as a special judge on more than one occasion. Hence, he came to be known as “Judge” Rutherford.

Hazelle and Helen Krull remember hearing J. F. Rutherford tell how he first became interested in the truth proclaimed by Jehovah’s servants. They tell us: “During one of Brother Rutherford’s visits he suggested a walk in the moonlight out into the countryside. As we walked, he talked, telling of his early life and how he became interested in the truth. He was brought up on a farm but he wanted to study law. His father felt the need of his help on the farm but finally consented to let him go if he paid his own way in school and also paid for a helper on the farm to take his place. During summer vacation time he sold books in order to live up to his agreement. . . . He made a promise to himself that when he became a practicing lawyer, if anyone ever came to his office selling books he would buy them. That day came [in 1894], but his law partner talked to the caller. She was a ‘colporteur’—Sister Elizabeth Hettenbaugh—and was presenting three volumes of Millennial Dawn. His partner was not interested and dismissed her [and her associate colporteur, Sister Beeler]. Brother Rutherford, emerging from his private office, having overheard something about books and remembering his resolve, called her back, took the books and placed them in his library at home and there they remained for a while. One day as he was convalescing from a sick spell he opened one of the books and started to read. That was the beginning of a lifelong interest and a never-ceasing devotion and service to his God.”

Meetings of the Bible Students were not held in the immediate vicinity of the Rutherford home. However, Clarence B. Beaty says: “From 1904 on, meetings were held in our home. Sister Rutherford and Judge Rutherford came up from Boonville, Missouri, for the Memorial [of Christ’s death]. . . . He partook of his first Memorial and gave his first pilgrim talk to the friends in our home. They had no one in the truth in Boonville except themselves.”

But how did J. F. Rutherford get started as a preacher of the good news? Well, A. H. Macmillan largely was responsible for that. Macmillan met Rutherford in 1905 at Kansas City during a trip across the United States with Brother Russell. A little later Brother Macmillan stopped to visit Judge Rutherford for a day or two. One conversation between them went like this:

“Judge, you ought to be preaching the truth here.”

“I’m not a preacher. I’m a lawyer.”

“Well, now, Judge, I’ll show you what you can do. You go and get a copy of the Holy Bible and a small group of people, and teach them about life, death and the hereafter. Show them where we got our life, why we came into the condition of death and what death means. Take the Scriptures as a witness, and then wind up by saying, ‘There I have fulfilled everything like I said,’ just as you would to the jury in a court trial, and drive it home in conclusion.”

“That doesn’t sound too bad.”

What happened after that? Did Rutherford do anything about that advice? Brother Macmillan reported: “There was a colored man that worked on a little farm that was next to his city home, close to the edge of town. About fifteen or twenty colored people were there, and he went over there to give them a sermon on ‘Life, Death and the Hereafter.’ While he was talking they kept saying, ‘Praise the Lord, Judge! Where did you get all that?’ He had a great time. That was the first Bible talk he ever gave.”

Not long thereafter, in 1906, J. F. Rutherford symbolized his dedication to Jehovah God. Wrote Brother Macmillan: “I had the privilege of baptizing him at Saint Paul, Minnesota. He was one of 144 persons that I personally baptized in water that day. So when he became president of the Society, I was especially pleased.”

In 1907 Rutherford became the Watch Tower Society’s legal counselor, serving at its Pittsburgh headquarters. He was privileged to negotiate matters when the Society transferred its operations to Brooklyn, New York, in 1909. To do this, he made application and was admitted to the New York bar, becoming a recognized lawyer for that state. On May 24 of the same year, Rutherford was also admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court.

J. F. Rutherford frequently gave discourses as a pilgrim, a traveling representative of the Watch Tower Society. He journeyed widely as a Bible lecturer in the United States, speaking in many colleges and universities by request, and he also addressed large audiences throughout Europe. Rutherford visited Egypt and Palestine, and in 1913, accompanied by his wife, he traveled to Germany, where he addressed audiences totaling 18,000.


Jesus Christ said that all his followers were “brothers” and that ‘the one greatest among them must be their minister.’ (Matt. 23:8-12) Hence, no true Christian accords any fellow believer undue importance. Yet, the Bible reveals the traits of various servants of God. Moses, for example, was noted for meekness; James and John, the sons of Zebedee, for their fiery enthusiasm. (Num. 12:3; Mark 3:17; Luke 9:54) Since Joseph F. Rutherford was entrusted with much responsibility in God’s earthly organization, it is of some interest to note his traits and qualities.

“Rutherford had always manifested a deep Christian love for his associates,” said A. H. Macmillan, “and was very kindhearted; but he was not naturally of the same gentle, quiet-mannered disposition as Russell. He was direct and outspoken and did not hide his feelings. His bluntness, even when spoken in kindness, was sometimes misunderstood. But he had been president only a short time when it became apparent that the Lord had chosen the right man for the job.”

Further insight into Rutherford’s personality is gained from what took place in the Bible Students’ old London Tabernacle when he gave the Memorial talk there on April 18, 1924. Concerning this, Sister William P. Heath writes: “The Tabernacle was an old Episcopalian church that the Society had bought cheap, and they used it for Sunday meetings as we use a Kingdom Hall today. . . . The place for the speaker was way up at the ceiling, about twenty feet off the floor. Only his head would be visible when addressing the audience. Maybe this is why Brother Rutherford called it the ‘horse trough.’ He refused to speak from it; in fact, he shocked the brothers by coming down and standing on a level with them.”

When Brother Rutherford first assumed the presidency of the Watch Tower Society, there was a need for courage, faithfulness and determination. He manifested such qualities. For instance, Esther I. Morris recalls a talk Rutherford gave before a large audience as a pilgrim in what was then the biggest theater in Boise, Idaho. She states: “His exposé of false religion aroused the ire of several local clergymen, who tried to interrupt and challenge him, but his emphatic ‘Sit down! I demand the protection of the law!’ made him able to continue. Bible Students from adjacent towns came and we hired a hall and so had a small convention. He was most emphatic to let it be known that this message and ministry was no small thing.”

A rather touching reflection on Brother Rutherford’s nature is provided by Anna Elsdon. Recalling her youth, she writes: “We visited many times with Brother Rutherford. On one occasion several of us younger people were gathered together and Brother Rutherford came over to us. We asked many questions about school, flag-saluting, etc., and he talked to us a long time. When he was ready to say good-bye, he held the hands of all five of us in his two big hands so lovingly and he had tears in his eyes. He was so happy and touched to see us, so young and yet talking about the deep things of the truth. I’ve never forgotten it. Just as Brother Russell was loving, we also felt the love of this big Brother Rutherford.”

- 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, WTB&TS

Additional Reading:

Additional Reading:

A brief biographical sketch is in order as to the Society’s second president, Joseph Franklin Rutherford. He was born November 8, 1869, in Boonville, Missouri, of parents who were Baptists. He was 16 years old when his father consented to his attending college to study law, provided he would earn his own way, since his father was merely a farmer and could not afford to assist him. After completing his academy education, he spent two years under the tutorship of Judge E. L. Edwards and finally at the age of twenty became the official reporter for the courts of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit in Missouri. At 22 he was admitted to the bar and began to practice law at Boonville, becoming a trial lawyer for the law firm of Draffen and Wright. Later he served four years as public prosecutor for Boonville, and still later, as Special Judge in the same Fourteenth Judicial District of Missouri. For 15 years he practiced law in Missouri.

In 1894 he came in touch with Watch Tower Society representatives and twelve years later, in 1906, dedicated his life to Almighty God, thus becoming ordained for the Christian ministry. In 1907 he became the Watch Tower Society’s legal counselor at the Pittsburgh headquarters, to handle its court cases, and at the same time he was sent out to give public talks as a pilgrim representative of the Society. In 1909 he was admitted to the New York bar as a recognized lawyer for that state; in the same year (May 24, 1909) he also was admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States at Washington, D.C. He traveled widely as a public Bible lecturer in the United States, speaking at many colleges and universities by special request and before packed-out public audiences in this country and throughout Europe. He also visited Egypt and Palestine. In 1913, accompanied by his wife, he visited Germany, where he spoke to audiences totaling 18,000. In 1915 he won a series of Bible debates in Los Angeles, California, against the “Rev.” J. H. Troy, a Baptist, representing the clergy of southern California. In 1916 Rutherford was chosen to deliver the funeral talk at the death of his long-time, warm friend C. T. Russell.

- March 15, 1955 Watchtower, WTB&TS

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Creation Reveals God's Glory

Definition: Creation, as explained in the Bible, means that Almighty God designed and brought into existence the universe, including other spirit persons and all the basic kinds of life upon the earth.

In this modern, scientific world, is it reasonable to believe in creation?

“The natural laws of the universe are so precise that we have no difficulty building a spaceship to fly to the moon and can time the flight with the precision of a fraction of a second. These laws must have been set by somebody.” —Quoted from Wernher von Braun, who had much to do with sending American astronauts to the moon.

Physical universe: If you found a precision timepiece, would you conclude that it was formed by a chance blowing together of some dust particles? Obviously, someone with intelligence made it. There is an even more magnificent “clock.” The planets in our solar system, also the stars in the entire universe, move at a rate that is more precise than most clocks designed and manufactured by man. The galaxy in which our solar system is located includes over 100 billion stars, and astronomers estimate that there are 100 billion of such galaxies in the universe. If a clock is evidence of intelligent design, how much more so is the far more vast and complicated universe! The Bible describes the Designer of it as “the true God, Jehovah, . . . the Creator of the heavens and the Grand One stretching them out.”—Isa. 42:5; 40:26; Ps. 19:1.

Planet Earth: When crossing a barren desert, if you came to a beautiful house, well equipped in every way and stocked with food, would you believe that it got there by some chance explosion? No; you would realize that someone with considerable wisdom built it. Well, scientists have not yet found life on any of the planets of our solar system except the earth; available evidence indicates that the others are barren. This planet is, as the book The Earth says, “the wonder of the universe, a unique sphere.” (New York, 1963, Arthur Beiser, p. 10) It is at just the right distance from the sun for human life, and it moves at just the right speed to be held in orbit. The atmosphere, of a kind found only around the earth, is made up of just the right proportion of gases to sustain life. Marvelously, light from the sun, carbon dioxide from the air, and water and minerals from fertile soil combine to produce food for earth’s inhabitants. Did it all come about as a result of some uncontrolled explosion in space? Science News admits: “It seems as if such particular and precise conditions could hardly have arisen at random.” (August 24 and 31, 1974, p. 124) The Bible’s conclusion is reasonable when it states: “Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.”—Heb. 3:4.

Human brain: Modern computers are a product of intensive research and careful engineering. They did not “just happen.” What about the human brain? Unlike the brain of any animal, the brain of a human infant triples in size during its first year. How it functions is still largely a mystery to scientists. In humans, there is the built-in capacity to learn complex languages, to appreciate beauty, to compose music, to contemplate the origin and meaning of life. Said brain surgeon Robert White: “I am left with no choice but to acknowledge the existence of a Superior Intellect, responsible for the design and development of the incredible brain-mind relationship—something far beyond man’s capacity to understand.” (The Reader’s Digest, September 1978, p. 99) The development of this marvel begins from a tiny fertilized cell in the womb. With remarkable insight, the Bible writer David said to Jehovah: “I shall laud you because in a fear-inspiring way I am wonderfully made. Your works are wonderful, as my soul is very well aware.”—Ps. 139:14.

Living cell: A single living cell is sometimes referred to as being a “simple” form of life. But a one-celled animal can catch food, digest it, get rid of wastes, build a house for itself and engage in sexual activity. Each cell of the human body has been likened to a walled city, with a central government to maintain order, a power plant to generate energy, factories to produce proteins, a complex transportation system, and guards to regulate what is permitted to enter. And a single human body is made up of as many as 100 trillion cells. How appropriate the words of Psalm 104:24: “How many your works are, O Jehovah! All of them in wisdom you have made”!

Does the Bible allow for the idea that God used evolution to produce the various kinds of living things?

Genesis 1:11, 12 says that grass and trees were made to produce each “according to its kind.” Verses 21, 24, 25 add that God created sea creatures, flying creatures and land animals, each “according to its kind.” There is no allowance here for one basic kind to evolve or change into another.

Regarding man, Genesis 1:26 reports that God said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness.” So he was to have godlike qualities, not traits that were simply a development of those of a beast. Genesis 2:7 adds: “Jehovah God proceeded to form the man [not out of some preexisting life form but] out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life.” There is no hint of evolution here, but, rather, description of a new creation.

Did God create all the millions of varieties of organisms that exist on earth today?

Genesis chapter 1 says simply that God created each “according to its kind.” (Gen. 1:12, 21, 24, 25) In preparation for the global Flood in Noah’s day, God directed that representative members of each “kind” of land animal and flying creature be taken into the ark. (Gen. 7:2, 3, 14) Each “kind” has the genetic potential for great variety. Thus there are reportedly more than 400 different breeds of dogs and upwards of 250 breeds and types of horses. All interfertile varieties of any animal are just one Genesis “kind.” Similarly, all varieties of humans—Oriental, African, Caucasian, those as tall as the seven-foot Dinka in the Sudan and as short as the four-foot-four-inch Pygmies—stem from the one original pair, Adam and Eve.—Gen. 1:27, 28; 3:20.

What accounts for the basic similarities in the structure of living things?

“God . . . created all things.” (Eph. 3:9) Thus everything has the same Great Designer.

“All things came into existence through him [God’s only-begotten Son, who became Jesus Christ when on earth], and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.” (John 1:3) Thus there was one Master Worker through whom Jehovah performed his works of creation.—Prov. 8:22, 30, 31.

What is the origin of the raw material of which the universe is made?

Scientists have learned that matter is a concentrated form of energy. This is demonstrated with the explosion of nuclear weapons. Astrophysicist Josip Kleczek states: “Most and possibly all elementary particles may be created by materialization of energy.”—The Universe (Boston, 1976), Vol. 11, p. 17.

From where could such energy come? After asking, “Who has created these things [the stars and planets]?”, the Bible states regarding Jehovah God, “Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them is missing.” (Isa. 40:26) So God himself is the Source of all the “dynamic energy” that was needed to create the universe.

Was all physical creation accomplished in just six days sometime within the past 6,000 to 10,000 years?

The facts disagree with such a conclusion: (1) Light from the Andromeda nebula can be seen on a clear night in the northern hemisphere. It takes about 2,000,000 years for that light to reach the earth, indicating that the universe must be at least millions of years old. (2) End products of radioactive decay in rocks in the earth testify that some rock formations have been undisturbed for billions of years.

Genesis 1:3-31 is not discussing the original creation of matter or of the heavenly bodies. It describes the preparation of the already existing earth for human habitation. This included creation of the basic kinds of vegetation, marine life, flying creatures, land animals, and the first human pair. All of this is said to have been done within a period of six “days.” However, the Hebrew word translated “day” has a variety of meanings, including ‘a long time; the time covering an extraordinary event.’ (Old Testament Word Studies, Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1978, W. Wilson, p. 109) The term used allows for the thought that each “day” could have been thousands of years in length.

- Reasoning From the Scriptures, Published by the WTB&TS

Also See: And:

Jehovah's Witnesses, not a form of Arianism

"We Worship What We Know”

“THE Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Eternal and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Incomprehensible.” One or three, Christendom’s God, as here defined by the Athanasian Creed, is truly a mysterious, incomprehensible, unknown God.

“We worship what we know,” said Jesus. (John 4:22) He was speaking as a member of a people to whom Moses had said: “Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.” Yes, faithful Jews worshiped a God they knew. As to Christians, not subject to the Jewish Law covenant but brought into a new covenant, it was prophetically said of them: “They will by no means teach each one his fellow citizen and each one his brother, saying: ‘Know Jehovah!’ For they will all know me, from the least one to the greatest one of them.” Such Christians do indeed know their God.—Deuteronomy 6:4; Hebrews 8:11.

“One God the Father”

Because they do not believe in the Trinity dogma, it has been said of Jehovah’s Witnesses that they practice “a form of Arianism.” But the fact that they are not Trinitarians does not make them Arians. In one of the few writings of Arius that has survived, he claims that God is beyond comprehension, even for the Son. In line with this, historian H. M. Gwatkin states in his book The Arian Controversy: “The God of Arius is an unknown God, whose being is hidden in eternal mystery. No creature can reveal him, and he cannot reveal himself.” Jehovah’s Witnesses worship neither the “incomprehensible” God of the Trinitarians nor the “unknown God” of Arius. They say, with the apostle Paul: “There is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are.”—1 Corinthians 8:6.

Showing how vital it is to come to know God, Jesus said in a prayer to his Father: “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God.” (John 17:3) The same apostle who recorded those words of Jesus also wrote: “We know that the Son of God has come, and he has given us intellectual capacity that we may gain the knowledge of the true one [Jehovah]. And we are in union with the true one, by means of his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and life everlasting.”—1 John 5:20.

Some translators give a Trinitarian twist to 1 John 5:20. The Living Bible renders the end of this verse: “Jesus Christ his Son, who is the only true God; and he is eternal Life.” Of course, both Catholic and Protestant Bibles differentiate between Jesus and “the only true God” in John 17:3. And in his Theological Investigations, reputed Catholic scholar Karl Rahner states that “in St. John’s First Epistle ὁ θεός [“the God”] so often certainly means the Father that it must be understood of the Father throughout the Epistle.” Also, the French Protestant Bible du Centenaire concedes in a footnote that the Greek allows for a non-Trinitarian translation. Incidentally, it should not be forgotten that, probably in the fourth century C.E., an overzealous Trinitarian Latin scribe added to 1 John 5:7 the words “the Father, the Word and the holy spirit; and these three are one.” This addition, known technically as the “Johannine Comma,” was protected by the Vatican until 1927, in spite of the fact that even some Catholic scholars had raised doubts about its authenticity as early as the sixth century. This dishonest insertion shows the lengths to which Trinitarians will go in their efforts to prove their doctrine.

God’s Name and the Trinity

Something that makes God very real to Jehovah’s Witnesses is their knowledge and regular use of his personal name, Jehovah. (Psalm 83:18) When a member of one of Christendom’s churches reads in his Bible the anonymous expression “the name of the Lord,” it means little or nothing to him. Similarly, when he prays “hallowed be thy name,” the chances are that he does not know what name he is praying about. Jehovah’s Witnesses know their God, they know his name and, like the psalmist and Jesus himself, they love their heavenly Father’s name.—Psalm 5:11, 12; John 12:28; 17:6, 26.

Since God’s personal name appears literally thousands of times in the original-language Bible, why has it been expunged from many of Christendom’s Bible translations, and why is it never used by the hundreds of millions of Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant “Christians”? Could the dogma of the Trinity have anything to do with this most extraordinary religious fact?

Interestingly, the Catholic Jerusalem Bible renders Deuteronomy 6:4: “Listen, Israel: Yahweh our God is the one Yahweh.” And a footnote, after giving another possible translation, states: “But it is more likely that we have here a declaration of monotheistic faith.” This, then, is the one God of whom Jesus, speaking as a Jew, stated: “We worship what we know.” (John 4:22) And this Catholic Bible admits that the name of that one God is Yahweh, or Jehovah. Now, according to Trinitarian theology, Yahweh, or Jehovah, is the name of the God of the Hebrew patriarchs and the Jews, the God whom Jesus came to reveal as “the Father,” or “God the Father.” It follows that for Trinitarians the divine name Yahweh, or Jehovah, designates only one of the supposed “Three Persons” of the “Godhead.” The “Second Person” has a name (Jesus), but the “Third Person” is the anonymous “Holy Spirit.” Christendom’s churches cannot logically use a name for God that does not designate the entire “Godhead.” So their members are condemned to worship a mysterious triune God that has no name.

Yet, instinctively, many Catholics feel the need to worship someone they can know and name. This, no doubt, explains why many of them worship Jesus or even Mary. This same instinct to worship a God one can name is even reflected in religious architecture. In scores of Catholic chapels, churches and cathedrals in France and other countries, above the high altar or elsewhere there is a gilded, rayed nimbus representing divine glory. In the center is a triangle, symbolizing the Trinity. Paradoxically, inside the triangle is the Tetragrammaton, the four Hebrew consonants of God’s name, Jehovah. But how many Catholics today realize that it is God’s name?

“One Lord, Jesus Christ”

After having stated: “There is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him,” the apostle Paul added: “And there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.” (1 Corinthians 8:6) Jehovah’s Witnesses subscribe to that further statement. Jehovah, the Father, is the Source; Jesus, God’s “only-begotten son,” the “firstborn of all creation,” is the means by which the Father accomplishes His will.—John 1:2, 3, 14; Colossians 1:15, 16.

Because the fourth-century dissident theologian Arius stated the Biblical truth that “the Son is not unbegotten,” and Jehovah’s Witnesses accept that truth, The New Encyclopædia Britannica states: “The Christology of Jehovah’s Witnesses, also, is a form of Arianism.” First, it must be stated that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not have a particular “Christology,” defined as “the theological interpretation of the person and work of Christ.” They share the view of the Christian layman who is recorded as having bluntly told the wrangling theologians assembled in Nicaea in 325 C.E.: ‘Christ did not teach us dialectics, art, or vain subtleties, but simple-mindedness, which is preserved by faith and good works.’ Apparently this man had suffered for his faith in Christ, even as many of Jehovah’s Witnesses have. Like him, they have no faith in theological philosophy. They accept with simplicity what the Bible states about God, Christ and the holy spirit, and they are willing to suffer for their simple faith and prove it by good works.

Secondly, Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot be accused of Arianism, inasmuch as they disagree with Arius’ views in many respects. For example, Arius denied that the Son could really know the Father. The Bible teaches that the Son ‘fully knows’ the Father and that the Son is “the one that has explained him.” (Matthew 11:27; John 1:14, 18) Arius claimed that the Word became God’s Son “by adoption” because of his virtue or moral integrity. The Bible says that he was created by Jehovah as his “only-begotten son.” (John 1:14; 3:16; Hebrews 1:2; Revelation 3:14) Arius taught that Christians could hope to become equal to Christ, whereas the Bible states that God gave him “the name that is above every other name.” (Philippians 2:9-11) Far from being modern-day Arians, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe what the Bible says.

“The Only-Begotten God”

Additional Reading:

Jehovah’s Witnesses do not deny Jesus’ godship, or divinity. But they do not share the Trinitarians’ philosophical understanding of these terms. When Trinitarians speak of the “divinity of Jesus,” they do not mean that he is “a god” or “godlike,” but that he is “God,” one of the three co-eternal persons of the “Godhead.” Perhaps this explains why many of Christendom’s Bibles render John 1:18: “No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.” (Revised Standard Version) The majority of the oldest Greek manuscripts show, not “the only Son,” but “the only-begotten god.” The Expositor’s Greek Testament admits: “The MS. [manuscript] authority favours the reading θεος [god]; while the versions and the [Church] Fathers weigh rather in the opposite scale.” Why? Because they feared anti-Trinitarians for whom “this appellation [‘only-begotten god’] happily distinguished Him [the Son] from the Father.”

Recognizing the Scriptural fact that Jesus is “a god” or “mighty one,” Jehovah’s Witnesses are not disturbed by John 20:28, where it is recorded that the apostle Thomas exclaimed to Jesus: “My Lord and my God!” For one thing, Thomas could have been using the word “God” like Manoah of old. (Judges 13:20-22) But even if this was not the case, there can be no confusion, for Jesus had recently sent a message to the apostles, stating: “I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.” (John 20:17; compare 2 Corinthians 1:3.) And John says he wrote down these details (including Thomas’ exclamation) “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.”—John 20:31.

Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe that Jesus was “God incarnate,” a “God-man,” according to the philosophical Incarnation theory of the “two natures,” human and divine. In line with the Bible, they believe “the Word became flesh.” (John 1:14) So doing, “he emptied himself” of his previous spiritual existence and became a man, “lower than angels,” so as to offer himself as “a corresponding ransom for all.” (Philippians 2:7, 8; Hebrews 2:9; 1 Timothy 2:6) The Trinitarian idea that “the redemption of man from sin and death is only then guaranteed if Christ is total God and total man” is unscriptural philosophy. To redeem what Adam lost for mankind, Jesus needed to sacrifice a perfect human life, no more, no less. (Exodus 21:23; 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45, 47; Romans 5:18, 19, RS, Catholic and Protestant editions; Matthew 20:28) This alone gives the lie to the Incarnation and Trinity dogmas.

Although “a god,” Jesus “did not count equality with God [Jehovah] a thing to be grasped.” (Philippians 2:6, RS, both editions) His submission to Jehovah is clear, now and in the future. (1 Corinthians 15:27, 28) He willingly recognized his Father’s superiority. (John 14:28; compare 1 Corinthians 11:3.) At his resurrection, he was “made alive in the spirit,” “crowned with glory and honor” and “exalted,” “so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth.” (1 Peter 3:18; Hebrews 2:9; Philippians 2:9, 10) This being the case, Jehovah’s Witnesses are not surprised to read in Hebrews 1:6 that the angels are invited to “do obeisance to him,” “pay him homage [The New English Bible]” or “worship him [JB].” (Compare Revelation 5:11, 12.) This in no way contradicts Matthew 4:10, where Jesus—quoting Deuteronomy—says that only Jehovah God must be worshiped. Interestingly, the Catholic Jerusalem Bible, that says “worship him” in Hebrews 1:6, refers in its marginal references to Deuteronomy 32:43 (Greek Septuagint) and Psalm 97:7, where it renders the same words, respectively, “pay him homage” and “bow down.” Why is this Catholic Bible inconsistent? Apparently for Trinitarian reasons.

“The Promised Holy Spirit”

At Pentecost, the apostle Peter declared: “This Jesus God resurrected, of which fact we are all witnesses. Therefore because he was exalted to the right hand of God and received the promised holy spirit from the Father, he has poured out this which you see and hear.” (Acts 2:32, 33) Just what is this promised “holy spirit”? Is it “the third person of the Trinity”? What do reference works reveal?

The Catholic Encyclopedia: “Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find any clear indication of a Third Person.”

A Catholic Dictionary: “On the whole, the New Testament, like the Old, speaks of the spirit as a divine energy or power.”—Italics ours.

The New Encyclopædia Britannica: “The emergence of Trinitarian speculations in early church theology led to great difficulties in the article about the Holy Spirit. For the being-as-person of the Holy Spirit, which is evident in the New Testament as divine power . . . could not be clearly grasped. . . . The Holy Spirit was viewed not as a personal figure but rather as a power.” (Italics ours.) [45]“Nevertheless, with Athanasius (died 373) the idea of the complete homoousia (essence) of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son was achieved.”

A Catholic Dictionary: “The true divinity of the third Person was asserted at a Council of Alexandria in 362, . . . and finally by the Council of Constantinople of 381.”

This was three and a half centuries after the holy spirit was poured out at Pentecost 33 C.E.!

Although Arius did not accept Athanasius’ theory that the holy spirit was of the same substance as the Father, he did consider the spirit to be a person. This provides further proof that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Arians, for they share the Biblical view of the early Christians, namely, that the holy spirit is God’s active force, which he uses in many ways to accomplish his will. (Acts 5:32) True, there are passages in the Bible where the spirit is personified. But this proves nothing. Even A Catholic Dictionary admits: “Most of these places furnish no cogent proof of personality. . . . We must not forget that the N[ew] T[estament] personifies mere attributes such as love (1 Cor. xiii. 4), and sin (Rom. vii. 11), nay, even abstract and lifeless things, such as the law (Rom. iii. 19), the water and the blood (1 Jn. v. 8).” On the other hand, the Bible speaks of the spirit as being ‘poured out,’ and of people being “filled with holy spirit,” receiving the spirit as a “free gift,” and being ‘baptized in holy spirit,’ none of which would make sense if the holy spirit were a person.—Acts 2:4, 17, 38; 4:31; John 1:33.

Let Us Proclaim the God We Know!

Paul stated to the Athenians who worshiped ‘unknown gods’: “What you worship but do not know—this is what I now proclaim.” (Acts 17:23, NE) How thankful we should be to have been delivered from the incomprehensible “mystery” of the Trinity and to be able to say, like Jesus: “We worship what we know”! (John 4:22) We worship Jehovah, under the leadership of His Son, Christ Jesus, and with the help of His spirit. May we continue zealously to make known our wonderful God, for “Jehovah is great and much to be praised. . . . For this God is our God to time indefinite, even forever.”—Psalm 48:1, 14.


See the subtitle “The Arian Controversy” in the article “How Christendom Came to Worship an Unknown God” on page 24 of The Watchtower of August 1, 1984.

Jehovah is the conventional English form of God’s name, just as Jesus is the conventional form of the Hebrew Ye‧shu′a‛ or the Greek I‧e‧sous′. In his over 600-page Grammaire de l’hébreu biblique, published by the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, Jesuit Professor Joüon writes: “In our translations, instead of the (hypothetical) form Yahweh, we have used the form Jéhovah . . . which is the conventional literary form used in French.”

Some of Christendom’s translators have similarly given a Trinitarian twist to Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1.—Compare footnotes in the Revised Standard Version (Catholic and Protestant editions) and the Catholic Jerusalem Bible.

For further information on the holy spirit, please refer to the book Holy Spirit—The Force Behind the Coming New Order, published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.

- September 1, 1984 Watchtower, WTB&TS

How Christendom Came to Worship an Unknown God

CHRISTENDOM’S mysterious three-in-one God is not the God of the Jews. Their daily Shema, or confession of faith, states: “The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” Neither is this triune deity the God of the nearly 600 million Muslims, whose Koran declares: “He, Allāh, is one.”

It is a historical fact that Christianity had Jewish roots. Jesus Christ himself was a Jew. He fulfilled the Law God gave to the Jews and was the Messiah whose coming was foretold by the Jewish prophets. (Matthew 5:17; John 1:45; Acts 3:18) His earliest followers were all Jews or circumcised proselytes. (Matthew 10:5, 6; Acts 2:1-11) And we have seen that the Trinity was not and still is not believed by the Jews.

Can it be said that Christ and the writers of the Christian Scriptures abandoned the monotheistic notion of one God and introduced a mysterious three-in-one Godhead? No, for the Encyclopædia Britannica (1976 edition) correctly states: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies.”

Apostasy and Philosophy

The Christian apostle Paul wrote: “The time is sure to come when, far from being content with sound teaching, people will be avid for the latest novelty and collect themselves a whole series of teachers according to their own tastes; and then, instead of listening to the truth, they will turn to myths.”—2 Timothy 4:3, 4, the Catholic Jerusalem Bible.

Evidence within the Bible itself shows that apostasy already was at work before the death of Christ’s apostles. (2 Thessalonians 2:3, 7; 1 John 2:18, 19; Jude 3, 4, 16, 19) Apostates from within the Christian congregation rose up as false teachers. Instead of following Bible truth, these ungodly men turned to “myths.” They carried off many Christians as their prey “through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men.”—Colossians 2:8.

Commenting on what happened, Oxford University Professor J. N. D. Kelly writes: “During the first three centuries of its existence, the Christian Church had first to emerge from the [monotheistic] Jewish environment that had cradled it and then come to terms with the predominantly Hellenistic (Greek) culture surrounding it.” Then, speaking of early teachers who later became known as church fathers, Professor Kelly continues: “Most of them exploited current philosophical conceptions. . . . They have been accused of Hellenizing Christianity (making it Greek in form and method), but they were in fact attempting to formulate it in intellectual categories congenial [suited] to their age. In a real sense they were the first Christian theologians.” These early “theologians” set about adapting primitive Bible-based Christianity to current philosophical ideas.

Philosophical Origins of the Trinity

Interestingly, the French encyclopedia Alpha states: “Most religious traditions or philosophical systems set forth ternary [threefold] groups or triads that correspond to primeval forces or to aspects of the supreme God.” Another French work points to the Greek philosopher Plato (of about 427 to 347 B.C.E.) and declares:

“The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—Dictionnaire Lachatre.

Naturally, Christendom’s priests and clergymen, for the most part, deny this pagan philosophical origin of the Trinity dogma. The authoritative French Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique devotes 16 columns of small type to its arguments against the relationship between Plato’s trinity and Christendom’s triune God. Yet, this work has to admit that Catholic “Saint” Augustine himself—said to have been “of decisive importance for the Western [Roman] development of the Trinitarian doctrine”—recognized this relationship. Moreover, the Encyclopædia Britannica (1976, Macropædia) states: “Such a Hellenization did, to a large extent, take place. The definition of the Christian faith as contained in the creeds of the ecumenical synods of the early church indicate that unbiblical categories of Neoplatonic philosophy were used in the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity.”

A Trinitarian “Unknown God”

Speaking to a group of philosophers in Athens, Greece, the apostle Paul declared: “While passing along and carefully observing your objects of veneration I also found an altar on which had been inscribed ‘To an Unknown God.’” (Acts 17:23) Interestingly, the French Pirot and Clamer Bible comments that the Greek philosophers “had not come to a knowledge of God the Creator. Even Plato saw in God merely the organizer of preexistent matter.” Plato’s God was a nameless supreme “idea” that his later disciples called “the One,” or “the Good.” It was such a mysterious, unknowable God tied in with Plato’s divine triad theory that apostate Christian church fathers set out to imitate. In a sense, therefore, Christendom has an “unknown God.”

Since “neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament,” the philosopher-theologians had to fish around in the Scriptures to find a semblance of justification for a triune God. The best they could come up with were a few texts that happen to mention the Father, the Son and the holy spirit in the same context, although not necessarily in that order. (Matthew 28:19; 1 Corinthians 12:4-6; 2 Corinthians 13:14 [13 in many Catholic Bibles]) Such texts were said to contain a “triadic formula.” On this point, the scholarly Theological Dictionary of the New Testament states: “Perhaps recollection of the many triads of the surrounding polytheistic world contributed to the formation of these threefold formulae.” Then, in a footnote, this work says that in the apocryphal Gospel of the Hebrews, the spirit (feminine gender in Hebrew and Aramaic) “is regarded as the mother of Jesus” and adds: “Thus we have the common family triad of antiquity, i.e., father, mother and son.”

Of course, this was a little too much like the pagan triune gods of Egypt, Babylon and Gaul. And if the holy spirit was Jesus’ mother, what would become of Mary? So the church fathers abandoned the pagan “father, mother and son” trinity and invented an original triune God composed of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But this caused further problems, as explained by the Encyclopædia Britannica: “The question as to how to reconcile the encounter with God in this threefold figure with faith in the oneness of God, which was the Jews’ and Christians’ characteristic mark of distinction over against paganism, agitated the piety of ancient Christendom in the deepest way. It also provided the strongest impetus for a speculative theology—an impetus that inspired Western metaphysics [philosophy] throughout the centuries.” Yes, the Trinitarian “unknown God” of Christendom is a product of theological speculation and philosophy.

The Trinity Controversy

In the early centuries of our Common Era there was “an astonishing plurality of views and formulations” regarding the Trinity. Historian J. N. D. Kelly, himself a Trinitarian, admits that the earliest church fathers were all firm monotheists. He writes: “The evidence to be collected from the Apostolic Fathers is meagre, and tantalizingly inconclusive. . . . Of a doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense there is of course no sign.”—Early Christian Doctrines.

True, such second-century “fathers” as Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus of Lyons expressed ideas that could be interpreted, at the most, as belief in a two-in-one God made up of the Father and the Son. But Kelly states: “What the Apologists had to say about the Holy Spirit was much more meagre . . . [They] appear to have been extremely vague as to the exact status and role of the Spirit. . . . There can be no doubt that the Apologists’ thought was highly confused; they were very far from having worked the threefold pattern of the Church’s faith into a coherent scheme.”

Those who held that there is only one God, the Father, of whom Jesus is the Son, came to be called Unitarians. We read: “The Trinitarians and the Unitarians continued to confront each other, the latter at the beginning of the 3rd century still forming the large majority.” (Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th edition) But as time went by and church fathers became increasingly influenced by a new form of Plato’s philosophy (Neoplatonism), the Trinitarians gained ground. Third-century Neoplatonic philosophy, with its complicated theories of substance or essence, seemingly enabled them to reconcile the irreconcilable—to make a threefold God appear like one God. By philosophical reasoning they claimed that three persons could be one while retaining their individuality!

The Arian Controversy

The Trinity controversy came to a head at the beginning of the fourth century C.E. The main protagonists were three philosopher-theologians from Alexandria, Egypt. On the one side was Arius, with Alexander and Athanasius on the other. Arius denied that the Son was of the same essence, or substance, as the Father. He held the Son to be really a son, who therefore had a beginning. Arius believed the Holy Spirit was a person, but not of the same substance as the Father or the Son and in fact inferior to both. He did speak of a “Triad,” or “Trinity,” but considered it to be composed of unequal persons, of whom only the Father was uncreated.

Alexander and Athanasius, on the other hand, maintained that the three persons of the Godhead were of the same substance and, therefore, were not three Gods but one. Athanasius accused Arius of reintroducing polytheism by separating the three persons.

The head of the Roman Empire at that time was Constantine, who was anxious to use apostate Christianity as “cement” to consolidate his shaky empire. For him, this theological controversy was counterproductive. He called the Trinity quarrel a “fight over trifling and foolish verbal differences.” Having failed to reconcile the two opposing parties by a special letter sent to Alexandria in 324 C.E., Constantine summoned a general church council to settle the matter either way. At this First Ecumenical Council held at Nicaea, Asia Minor, in 325 C.E., the assembled bishops eventually came out in favor of Alexander and Athanasius. They adopted the Trinitarian Nicene Creed, which, with alterations believed to have been made in 381 C.E., is subscribed to up to the present day by the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church and most Protestant churches. Thus it was that Christendom came to worship a mysterious, incomprehensible, three-in-one “unknown God.”

Far-Reaching Consequences

The Trinity controversy did not end at Nicaea. Arianism (which was not true Christianity) made several comebacks over the years. The German tribes that invaded the declining Roman Empire professed Arian “Christianity” and took it into much of Europe and North Africa, where it continued to flourish until well into the sixth century C.E., and even longer in some areas.

The Trinity doctrine divided Christendom for centuries. At various ecumenical councils, theologians philosophized on the precise nature and role of the Son and on whether the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father alone or from the Father and the Son. All these wranglings merely confused the notion of God in the minds of people.

The Trinity doctrine has, in fact, so confused the minds of many members of Christendom’s churches that their faith in God is shaky, if not completely shaken. But what about you? Do you wonder what the Scriptures really say about the Father, the Son and the holy spirit? These matters will be discussed fully in the next two issues of The Watchtower.

- August 1, 1984 Watchtower, WTB&TS

Thursday, September 17, 2009

A Radio Pioneer (WBBR 1924 - 1957)

"Radio Tells the World Millennium Is Coming,” declared the Philadelphia Record of April 17, 1922, continuing: “Judge Rutherford’s Lecture Broadcasted from Metropolitan Opera House. Talks into Transmitter. Message is Carried Over Miles of Bell Telephone Wires to Howlett’s Station.” So began a newspaper report of J. F. Rutherford’s first radio address, given on Sunday, April 16, 1922, at the Metropolitan Opera House in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The subject? “Millions Now Living Will Never Die.” His visible audience was a mere handful compared with an estimated 50,000 residents of Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware who heard the speech on primitive radios in their homes.

Those were the early days of radio communication. In the United States it was not until 1920 that regular commercial radio broadcasts were made from Pittsburgh’s station KDKA and WWJ of Detroit, Michigan. A person could then buy a factory-built crystal set with earphones, but not until the 1930’s were radios with built-in loudspeakers and aerials produced.

Jehovah’s servants of the early 1920’s were relatively few in number. By 1924 in the United States there were, on the average, only 1,064 Bible Students preaching from house to house weekly. So, during that period God’s people recognized the far-reaching effects of radio and considered it a fine means of reaching the masses with the Kingdom message.

In 1922 J. F. Rutherford and a few advisers first took claim to some twenty-four acres on Staten Island in New York city’s Borough of Richmond. Taking us back to that interesting time, Lloyd Burtch once stated: “One Saturday afternoon the president of the Society, Brother Rutherford, took some of us with him to Staten Island. Upon arriving at the property that had been purchased, he pointed to a spot in the heart of the woods on the land and said: ‘All right, boys. Here is where we start digging. We are going to build a radio station on our land.’ And did we dig! Every weekend during that summer we were at it.” Throughout the winter and on into the summer of 1923 construction went on apace, many young men from the Society’s headquarters in Brooklyn assisting on weekends.

In 1923 Ralph H. Leffler was teaching radio theory at the Alliance, Ohio, high school. One day he received a letter from the president’s office of the Watch Tower Society. It asked: “Noting that you are a teacher of radio . . . would you consider devoting all your time in the Lord’s service in this behalf?” Brother Leffler clearly saw Jehovah’s hand in this and could not refuse to accept this opportunity. By mid-October he arrived at Bethel and was put to work washing dishes! “Had I not had enough of washing dishes in the army? thought I,” he later wrote. “Then I remembered the scripture: ‘The LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.’ (Deut. 13:3, AV) Yes, this is another test, I concluded.” But a month later he got started on radio work. “A 500-watt composite radio transmitter was located in the city and purchased for the station,” Brother Leffler recalls. This he quickly installed and all was ready for the first broadcast.

“Emotions were running high,” admits Brother Leffler. “Would the first broadcast be a success? Would anyone be able to hear us? License from the government to broadcast had been obtained. And the call letters assigned were WBBR. All was now ready for the first broadcast. That occurred on Sunday evening, February 24, 1924. It was my privilege to throw the power switch on for that first broadcast and away we went, hoping for the best.”

That first program over WBBR continued for two hours, from 8:30 to 10:30 p.m. There were piano solos, singing, and in between was the feature of the program, the lecture by the Society’s president, J. F. Rutherford, on the subject “Radio and Divine Prophecy.” Each evening thereafter, from 8:30 to 10:30 p.m., and on Sundays, from 3 to 5 p.m., programs with good music and educational talks were radiocast.

Opportunities for dramatic work over WBBR presented themselves. Maxwell G. Friend shared in this. He had undergone intense dramatic training at the renowned City Theater in Zurich, Switzerland. Years later Jehovah favored Brother Friend with the unexpected privilege of producing and directing Biblical dramas and realistic reproductions of court trials of Jehovah’s Christian witnesses by clergy-influenced, prejudiced judges and prosecutors in America. These dramas exposed them to public shame and exonerated God’s servants. The trained performers and musicians who worked in these presentations made up “The King’s Theater.”

In 1928 at South Amboy, New Jersey, some of Jehovah’s servants were arrested for preaching the good news on Sunday. That marked the beginning of the decade-long “Battle of New Jersey.” “The King’s Theater” played a part in this. During court trials of true Christians, often local judges were Catholics who manifested prejudice in the courtroom, using uncouth language and even betraying ecclesiastical allies who sought to remain in the background. Courtroom exchanges were recorded in shorthand. Trained performers attended the trials and studied the voice and intonations of the judge, the prosecuting attorney, and so forth. A few days later “The King’s Theater” duplicated the courtroom scenes with astounding realism. Thus the air waves were used to expose the foe, and eventually the judges became so frightened that the spotlight had been turned on them, as well as upon misguided policemen and prosecutors, that many became more astute in handling cases involving Jehovah’s people.

For some thirty-three years WBBR brought glory to Jehovah and spread Bible truth far and wide. It began broadcasting with a 500-watt transmitter. Three years later, a new 1,000-watt transmitter was purchased. In 1947 the Federal Communications Commission granted WBBR permission to increase its power to 5,000 watts, providing this would not interfere with other stations operating on the same frequency in widely scattered parts of the United States. Installation of a three-tower directional antenna system solved that problem and this array increased the 5,000-watt power to more than 25,000 watts in the northeasterly direction where the population was the greatest. WBBR was heard in the area of metropolitan New York and the adjoining states of New Jersey and Connecticut. However, letters concerning its programs were received from England, Alaska, California and other distant places.

The Society sold the station on April 15, 1957. Why? Well, when the station began to operate in 1924, there was only one congregation of about 200 Bible Students covering all five boroughs of New York city, as well as Long Island and even parts of New Jersey. By 1957, however, there were 62 congregations within New York city and a peak of 7,256 proclaimers of the Kingdom, besides 322 full-time publishers of the good news. So a good witness was being given. Also, it is much more effective to speak to the people in their homes, where they can ask questions and receive further instruction from the Word of God. The money spent in connection with radio operations could be used in some other way to advance the interests of God’s kingdom.

There was more to the radio work of the Society, however. One day J. F. Rutherford came into Ralph Leffler’s room, laid a map of the United States on the table, and, pointing with his finger, he said: “I have in mind locating broadcasting stations here and here and here. Would you be willing to engineer the construction of these stations?” “I’d be happy to do so,” was the reply. So, when November 1924 arrived, Brother Leffler was on his way to the Chicago area to work on the construction of another Society-owned radio station, this one with the call letters WORD. Brother Leffler also installed transmitters for other stations, not directly owned by the Society but managed by its representatives.


During the 1920’s Jehovah’s people not only pioneered in establishing one of the early radio stations, WBBR. As already noted, radio history was made by Jehovah’s servants on Sunday, July 24, 1927, when J. F. Rutherford spoke over a network of fifty-three stations from Toronto, Ontario, Canada—the largest radio chain forged up to that time.

What led to this unprecedented network broadcast? A series of events. An agreement had been made between WBBR and the owner of New York city station WJZ to share time, but the agreement was not kept. Later, WBBR was assigned to broadcast on another wavelength, and still later reassigned to one less favorable. Under the Radio Act of 1927 the Society’s station began a proceeding before the Federal Radio Commission to be assigned a more desirable wavelength. At the hearing (June 14, 15, 1927) President Merlin Hall Aylesworth of the National Broadcasting Company testified to the great service rendered by New York radio stations WEAF and WJZ, apparently to show that it would not be right to permit WBBR to occupy part of the time, although both WJZ and WEAF had separate wavelengths. During cross-examination by J. F. Rutherford, this question was propounded to Mr. Aylesworth: “Your purpose is to give to the people by radio the message of the greatest financiers, the most prominent statesmen, and the most renowned clergymen in the world?” The reply was affirmative.

“If you were convinced that the great God of the universe will shortly put in operation his plan for the blessing of all the families and nations of the earth with peace, prosperity, life, liberty and happiness, would you arrange to broadcast it?” It would have been quite difficult to say No, and so the answer was Yes. Then Mr. Aylesworth voluntarily said that he would be pleased to broadcast a lecture by the president of the International Bible Students Association. Naturally, J. F. Rutherford accepted the offer.

So it was that as Brother Rutherford spoke to a convention audience of some 15,000 at Toronto, Ontario, Canada, on Sunday, July 24, 1927, millions more heard him by means of a hitherto unparalleled radio network. In a letter received by the Society from the National Broadcasting Company, it was stated: “I imagine that Judge Rutherford had as large an audience yesterday afternoon as any man living has had over the radio.”

The Bible Students were involved in another notable radio event in 1928. In Detroit, Michigan, on Sunday, August 5, when J. F. Rutherford delivered the public lecture “Ruler for the People” to an audience of 12,000, it was carried by a radio network that linked 107 stations, required 33,500 miles of telephone lines and 91,400 miles of telegraph lines, and it was rebroadcast by short wave to Australia and New Zealand.

The Watchtower or “White” network was organized in 1928, especially to serve that Detroit convention. It was so successful that the Watch Tower Society decided to operate a weekly network of radio stations throughout the United States and Canada. A one-hour program was arranged and it emanated from WBBR. These were live broadcasts, featuring a lecture by Brother Rutherford, with introductory and concluding music furnished by an orchestra maintained by the Society. Every Sunday from November 18, 1928, through the year 1930 radio listeners thus could tune in to “The Watch Tower Hour.”

Radio programs occupied much of Brother Rutherford’s time. A fine witness was given, but he was unable to travel or organize conventions in various parts of the earth. So in 1931 the Society decided to present transcribed programs. Two hundred and fifty stations were organized to present these fifteen-minute transcriptions, made by Rutherford at his convenience and played by the radio stations at times they chose. In 1932 this radio service (called the Wax Chain) was expanded to 340 stations. By 1933, the peak year, 408 stations were being used to carry the message to six continents, and 23,783 separate Bible talks were broadcast, most of them being these fifteen-minute electrical transcriptions. In those days, one might spin the radio dial and tune in Watch Tower broadcasts emanating from widely scattered stations at the same time. Often the air waves were filled with words of truth that glorified God.

- 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, WTB&TS


Radio Station WBBR Preaches the Word

Jehovah’s witnesses now declare “the day of vengeance of our God” and at the same time “comfort all that mourn”. (Isa. 61:2) This message of judgment upon the nations and of comfort to the mourners is being published in all the world unto all nations by God’s faithful Kingdom publishers who are ministers of the gospel, by the printed page, by word of mouth, by correspondence and by radio. Outstanding in the field of radio is the Watchtower station WBBR, in New York City.

Many have been the attempts by the misguided servants of darkness to still the voice of this, the only radio station on earth dedicated wholly to the service of Almighty God; but after twenty-six years of uninterrupted proclamation of the Kingdom message giving unstinted praise to Jehovah, WBBR goes confidently on sharing with all other Theocratic instruments the
protection Jehovah has promised to his people.—Isa. 54:17, Am. Stan. Ver.

This station being confined to a building, and its voice not being strong enough to reach into all lands, it is unable to fulfill the divine command to preach this gospel of the Kingdom to all nations. The overspreading of the earth with the gospel message is done by the entire body of gospel preachers, Jehovah’s witnesses, as they actively publish the truth in all nations. However, WBBR does have a rare opportunity of preaching to many persons from many nations.

WBBR’s voice may reach some or many of the official representatives of nations, because of its location in New York city. How so? Why, because the focal point of the largest gathering of national representatives ever to exist on earth is New York city. The nations gather there representatively in a United Nations organization. And WBBR has a message that should vitally concern the United Nations, because God’s Word speaks of such international attempts to rule the world, and WBBR preaches that Word.

Over nineteen centuries ago Jesus gave warning of the coming of this great council of nations with its religious backing and said it would presume to stand in the holy place, claiming to be divinely authorized, but in actuality it would be a dreadful desecration under the guise of the political expression of the kingdom of God on earth. “‘So when you see the dreadful desecration, of which the prophet Daniel spoke, set up in the Holy Place’—the reader must take note of this.”—Matt. 24:15, An Amer. Trans.; Ps. 2:1-9.

At the time this great kingdom counterfeit come into prominent view there is to be a mighty world-wide proclamation regarding the true kingdom: “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.” (Matt. 24:14) The desecrating counterfeit has come into view; God’s people are taking note of this. And WBBR is preaching it, at the very doorstep of the U.N.

Not only are the official representatives of many nations within reach of WBBR’s radio signal, but also there are millions of individuals speaking the languages of the various nations, many thousands of them being foreign-born. The iron curtain may be down between the good news of the Kingdom and those nations behind that iron curtain, and may hinder though not stop gospel-preaching in those lands; but there are still in the great metropolitan center of New York city, WBBR’s primary area, according to the last census, 926,516 Russians; 412,543 Poles; 322,586 Austrians; 123,188 Hungarians; 57,624 Czechoslovakians; 84,675 Rumanians, and 11,355 Yugoslavians.

We might look to Palestine, with its 1,912,000 inhabitants, when we think of the good news of the Kingdom going to the Jews of the fleshly house of Israel, and yet incline to ignore the fact that there are “2,035,000 Jews in New York city alone. We think of Rome as being the city where most Italians would be found in one place; there are 1,500,000 inhabitants in Rome, yet in New York city there are 1,095,000 persons, Italian-speaking or Italian-born. There are 506,635 people in Dublin, Ireland, where the kingdom message is greatly opposed by the Catholic clergy, yet there are 518,466 Irishmen in New York city alone, where the Kingdom message is freely broadcast by WBBR. And while in Greece Jehovah’s witnesses receive diabolical persecution at the hands of false religionists, from WBBR the good news of the Kingdom is within easy reach of 53,253 Greeks residing in the city of New York.

WBBR is indeed a powerful instrument in the hands of the Most High God, privileged to preach not to all nations, but to many individuals from many nations.


While it is true that WBBR counts it an honor and a privilege to declare the purpose of Jehovah and his coming judgments upon the nations, it takes particular delight in comforting those within its great audience that mourn, and there are many such. Today we are living in the time of the fulfillment of the prophecy of Amos 8:11: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord Jehovah, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of Jehovah.” (Am. Stan. Ver.) Throughout the land of Christendom there is a dearth of truth, a spiritual famine. Many of the Lord’s sheep are hungrily seeking the green pasture where food convenient can be found. WBBR is playing an important role in cooperation with the Lord’s people in seeking out those hungry ones.

The Watchtower Society, the owner and operator of WBBR, has found that these dear sheep of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd, can be fed most conveniently in small home Bible-study groups. As the Good Shepherd promised: “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” (Matt. 18:20, Am. Stan. Ver.) WBBR enjoys the happy privilege of being able to serve more than 5,000 such home Bible-study groups.

In addition there are countless homes into which the heart-cheering message of the Kingdom is sent by radio signal. Uniformed attendants, unsympathetic doorkeepers or grumpy householders cannot stop a radio message from reaching the receiver of some hungry sheep casually turning the dial if haply he might find something upon which to feed his hungry soul. In the huge apartment houses of metropolitan New York this is particularly true. The tenant in the back room or a member in the family, neither of whom ever goes to the door, still may be reached and served with the mere turning on of his receiving set and his tuning to 1330 kilocycles. From among the apartment houses of Manhattan comes this note of gratitude:

“The West Manhattan Unit of Jehovah’s witnesses wishes to express appreciation to WBBR for the good work that is being done for the people of good will in our territory. The West Manhattan territory is such that much of it is inaccessible, but we are comforted in the knowledge that the powerful radio waves of WBBR can go beyond those doors and reach in where we cannot.”

One would expect to find in the Lord’s work perfect coordination between all its branches. A faithful witness standing patiently at the street corner, holding in view of the passers-by the message of life as contained in The Watchtower and inviting others to partake of the message, could hardly know that WBBR had already paved the way and stirred up a hungry sheep to seek the green pasture of truth. But such was the case. From a Kingdom publisher comes this happy testimony:

“When we were in street work I handed a lady an invitation to the public Bible lecture. She smiled and thanked me. She said she had been listening to WBBR for about four months and found it very interesting and ‘the gentleman on the radio told me someone would call and help me study the Bible. You know, two are better than one. Do you do that work?’ I have had three studies with her in ‘Let God Be True’. That is the first time anyone ever came up and asked me for a study. Thanks for the wonderful help we are receiving in the field from the broadcasts of WBBR.”

But WBBR’s service is not confined to metropolitan New York, as large and extensive as it is. From the eastern reaches of New Brunswick, Canada, came this note of interest: “I called on a family who are all old and crippled in some way. They are isolated and love the truth dearly. They get the evening programs of WBBR . . . The radio is really a blessing to this isolated family and they are happy beyond description.”

And then those unfortunate shut-ins: “Just a note of appreciation to our heavenly Father for the programs we hear each day. My mother is 95 years of age and almost blind, and but for the radio would indeed be lonely.”

Expressions from our Jewish friends should not be overlooked:

“I have been a constant listener to your evening broadcasts. If there be any solution to the world’s ills, it shall be only one: the abandonment of materialism displaced by spiritual belief and love for one another and for God. I would like to know more about the Watchtower. My upbringing, being nearly empty of religious instruction (of the Hebrew faith), lacking knowledge of the truth, has caused me to be in confusion. Now, however, the truth is seeping in. Awaiting your reply.”

This dear sheep got his reply! From another sincere Jew came this heartfelt praise:

“Among your many well-wishers, I too should like to extend to you my heartfelt wishes in behalf of your splendid work. It is perhaps needless for me to tell you that among all the major and minor broadcasting stations yours indeed excels them all, for your services are of priceless value, sound and inspiring. Your humble organization of Jehovah’s witnesses, in the devotion towards spiritual light and truth, is a sublime consolation and effort in this unbearable tragic day and age of spiritual and moral darkness and desecration.”

And so with boldness in this day, giving all praise to Jehovah, WBBR gives warning, declaring “the day of vengeance of our God”, and with humble gratitude to the Great Shepherd, Jehovah, and the Good Shepherd, Christ Jesus, continually feeds the sheep, comforts those that mourn, and faithfully preaches the Word.—2 Tim. 4:2.

- August 15, 1950 Watchtower, WTB&TS

Thursday, September 3, 2009

To the readers of the "HERALD OF THE MORNING,"

Zion's Watch Tower,
And "Herald of Christ's Presence."
To the readers of the "HERALD OF THE MORNING,"

DEAR FRIENDS: My connection with the "Herald" having been terminated rather suddenly, and under circumstances which must seem rather remarkable and peculiar to you, I feel it to be a duty both to you and to myself to offer an explanation of the manner of withdrawal and my reasons for so doing. Quite a number who were personally acquainted with me thought there must be more of the story to tell, and I have received a number of letters asking an explanation. To these inquiries and to many unexpressed of similar character, let me offer the following statement:

I have been a Bible student since I first had my attention called to the second coming of our Lord, by Jonas Wendel, a Second Advent Preacher, about 1869, who was then preaching the burning of the world as being due in 1873. But though he first awakened my interest on the subject, I was not a convert, either to the time he suggested nor to the events he predicted. I, in company with others in Pittsburgh, organized and maintained a bible class for the searching of the Scriptures, meeting every Sunday.

We reasoned that, if Christ's coming were to end probation, and bring irrevocable ruin upon ninety-nine in a hundred of mankind; then it could scarcely be considered desirable, neither could we pray with proper spirit, "Come, Lord Jesus, Come quickly!" (Revelation 22:20) We had rather request--much as we should "love his appearing"--that he remain away and our sufferings and trials continue so that "if by any means we might save some." (2 Timothy 4:8; 1 Corinthians 9:22) Not only so, but great masses of scripture referring to the Millennial glory and teaching that "All nations which thou hast made shall come and worship before thee," &c., &c., would be left unfulfilled if at His coming there should be a wreck of matter and a crush of world. -- Psalm 22:27; 67:2; 72:11; 86:9; Isaiah 2:2; 25:7.

We first saw Millennial glory--then the glorious work which is offered us as His Bride; that we are by faith the "seed of Abraham;" and as such, heirs of the promises, &c., in whom "all the families of the earth shall be blest." (Galatians 3) This most certainly points to a probation in the future after He has come. Thus, speedily, steadily and surely God led us to recognize the second coming of our Lord as being not the sunset of all hope to mankind, but the "rising of the Sun of Righteousness with healing in his wings." -- Malachi 4:2

The Lord gave us many helps in the study of His word, among whom stood prominently, our dearly beloved and aged brother, George Storrs, who, both by word and pen, gave us much assistance; but we ever sought not to be followers of men, however good or wise, but "Followers of God, as dear children." (Ephesians 5:1) Thus growing in grace and knowledge for seven years, the year 1876 found us. -- 2 Peter 3:18.

Up to this time we persistently ignored time and looked with pity upon Mr. Thurman's and Mr. Wendel's ideas. (The latter was preaching the same time as Bro. Barbour; viz: The burning of the world in 1873.) We regarded those ideas as unworthy of consideration, for though we believed the event "nigh even at the doors," yet we recognized the fact that the church will be withdrawn--translated--before there would be any open manifestation to the world, or, in other words, the two stages of Christ's second advent, viz: coming for his saints, and coming with all his saints. -- Mark 13:29.

About this time I received a copy of the "Herald of the Morning," Bro. B. was its publisher; I read with interest how he and others had been looking for (to use his own expression) "a bonfire"; how scriptural arguments pointed to the autumn of 1874 as the time it was due; how that as the disappointment connected therewith began to abate, he and others had re-examined the scriptural proofs that appeared to teach that the end of the world was due at the time supposed; how clear and firm all those proofs still seemed; etc.; how that then, they began to examine what was due to take place at the end, and found that instead of a bonfire, scripture taught that "The harvest is the end of the world" (or age), and that though the age ended, the earth remained and a new age unfolded in which "All the families of the earth shall be blest." -- Matthew 13:39; Genesis 12:3.

When I read the account I was deeply interested, and as I read on I saw that, if the arguments were true they proved that we had entered and were then in the harvest or end; and if in the harvest, Jesus was due to be here present. This was all reasonable enough for it was much what we had been expecting, and it linked time to our expectation in a harmonious and beautiful manner. My thought now was: Are there sufficient proofs of our being in the time of harvest? If so, this brother and I were in perfect harmony. The paper came in the morning, and I had read it and written to brother B. before noon. I examined more of the time proofs, and though not yet settled with reference to them, made arrangements with brothers B. and Paton to come to Philadelphia, where I was engaged at the time (1876), and hold some meetings, giving evidences, etc., of time, to which I listened with interest, and of the truth of which I felt convinced.

Br. B. and I talked over various methods of promulgating these truths and finally decided to travel and preach them wherever men and women would hear, and to thus spend (D.V.) the remainder of the harvest, which we then supposed was three and a half years, and would close in 1878. While I was arranging my affairs, brother B. returned to Rochester to prepare for publication of the "Three Worlds." (We found during the Philadelphia meetings that such a book was necessary to furnish hearers with chapter and verse for what was claimed), and to close up the "Herald" as it could not be properly attended to while traveling, and the suggestion was made that if any new evidences or truths were developed, a paper could at any time be published and issued from any point. In the meantime, to do justice to subscribers and give them reading matter for the remainder of their year, brother B. had parts of the "Three Worlds" book, then on the press, arranged with a heading, "Herald of the Morning Quarterly," which were left with a sister in Rochester to be mailed as they became due.

We, Bros. Barbour, Paton and myself, traveled, lectured, etc., for some months, when it seemed advisable to us all that a paper should go continuously to those who were hearing, thus keeping alive and watering seed sown. This seemed good to us all, and while brother Paton and I continued lecturing, brother B. went to Rochester and fitted up our office, type, etc., for which I furnished the money. The old type, &c., had been sold before we started out, although I know nothing of how much was obtained for it, nor what was done with the money. The paper thus started was essentially another paper but took the same name because we could think of none better or more expressive. That it was a new paper, or had at least undergone a change of management, was witnessed monthly by the heading of its fourth page where it expressly states that it is "Published by C. T. Russell and N. H. Barbour." Since the paper's change of form, July 1878, this has been omitted. Possibly Bro. B. forgot it, or possibly he thought that the page being small this could be advantageously left out. What amount of money I invested in the paper I do not know. Of such things I never keep account. I remember sending Br. B. money several times; one of which was when we were leaving a camp meeting at Alton Bay, N.H.; I gave him $100 which he lost from his vest pocket as he afterwards wrote me, when, I presume I sent him another $100. I made neither mental nor written note of any money sent--I simply sent whatever money was called for and seemed to me to be needed, aggregating altogether perhaps $300 or $400 dollars. The $660 referred to by Bro. B. in the May Herald I never gave to the Herald. The paper has never been self-supporting, and particularly not at first, when we sent many thousands of copies to persons who had been readers of the paper of old when it did not advocate the glorious "Restitution of all things" as it now does (Acts 3:21), as well as to those who sent their names as two months subscribers free. At its outstart considerable money was necessary; the receipts were slow and uncertain, so, to avoid the necessity of continually sending, or of the Herald's being in any way hindered from lack of money, I placed on deposit at Rochester the above sum which before, I had deposited in a Pittsburgh bank. I deposited the money in our joint names so that should occasion require, Bro. B. could draw and use it, but I repeat, I never gave that $660 to either Bro. B. or the Herald. It, as well as all I have, is the Lord's, and was intended to be used wherever and whenever it was needed, either by the Herald, any of the preaching brethren, or by myself. The greater part of it has been used for all these. When I was traveling, it was equally convenient for me at Rochester or at Pittsburgh.

Besides these cash items, the "Herald" had a regular income from the sale of the "Three Worlds," a book familiar to most of you. We published 3500 of them--prices twenty-five, fifty cents and one dollar, according to binding. These were all disposed of, some by each of us while traveling, the proceeds helping to defray traveling and other expenses, and a part were sold from the office--orders being filled from all parts of the country. It would be moderate to estimate that about one-fourth of the edition was thus disposed of from the office to the direct benefit of the Herald, which at an average of thirty cents each, would be over $260, besides a smaller amount--the proceeds from the sale of the hymn book, and more recently from the sale of the tract, "The Object and Manner of Our Lord's Return," the latter probably not so inconsiderable as some ordered by the dozen for distribution.

The moneys so received were all clear gain to the "Herald," as the cost of publication was paid by myself; Bro. B. doing the composition of the "Three Worlds" and hymn books. Whatever I gave to or invested in the "Herald," was not to Bro. B. but to the Lord, and I much regret that circumstances seem to demand this recital, but we are commanded, "Let not your good be evil spoken of." Bro. Barbour has put into the Herald his time and ability, and has drawn out of it his living. It was his own fault if during the last two years he did more than his strength justified, or if he did not live comfortably. It was not from lack of money. I know he lives frugally, and so do all who realize that all things are God's, and that they are simply His stewards. I am willing to admit that in investing his time and ability he put in that which was of greater value than the money I invested. Still, I think that our brother would claim that the time invested was not given to me, but to the Lord, and the pay he expects is not merely the living of the present time, but that his is "The promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come." -- 1 Timothy 4:8

In consideration of the above, I confess I did not, and do not, feel that in supposing the Herald to be partly mine, I was "immodest."

But there are other points of our brother's reply to my proposition that seem to require re-stating to be fully understood. First, however, read below an exact copy of the letter which I wrote to Bro. B., and to which the article referred to in the May "Herald" is the sole reply I have received.

Pittsburgh, Pa., May 3, 1879

Dear Brother N. H. Barbour:--Your postal card and letter came duly to hand, and I hope my delay in answering will not be attributed to lack of interest. The fact is that with moving of house and store, spring purchasing of goods (for which I went East), and the work which our Father seems to have put into my hands for the present, viz.: ministering to His children the bread of life each Sunday, as well as baptism and prayer meetings &c., &c., I have been kept so busy as to seldom get above six or six and a half hours sleep per night. With this explanation, let me reply to your letter.

First: It was not possible for me to attend the proposed meeting at R., and I presume, though invited warmly, you scarcely expected me, knowing my pressure of time, &c.

Second: I cannot understand how our bank account has so suddenly decreased. I expected that we still had $100 to $125 in bank. If I recollect aright the balance in bank when I was in R. was $163. Am I right? In your reply, please let me know how our account stands, viz: How much was to our credit in bank Jan. 1, '79, how much has been received in cash since, and how much in bank and on hand now, also, what largest items of expense have been, &c.

While I still feel that you are a brother in Christ, and still love you as such, while there are many pleasant memories of the past to refresh my heart, yet my brother, there has arisen a difference of view between us as to the teaching of our Father's word (see note 1.) and while giving you credit for all sincerity and honesty in your views, page 2 which I claim for myself in the opposite view, yet I must be guided by my own understanding of our Father's word, and consequently think you to be in error. Now I do not think that every difference of opinion need necessarily break fellowship and communion, yet in this case the points of variance seem to me to be so fundamental and important that the full fellowship and sympathy such as should exist among publishers and editors of a paper or magazine, no longer obtains between you and me, and because this is the case, I feel that our relationship should cease.

I believe that we are both children of God, and anxious to know and teach the truth. Our Father's promise is that all truth seekers shall be guided into it therefore permit me to express the hope that we shall yet see in harmony and understand in unison, the Word. May whichever of us has truth be strengthened and established in it, and the one in error be led to discern the error. Now how shall we dissolve? Will Bro. Withington or some other brother buy out my interest for you, or take my place himself, or do you wish to resign your connection with the Herald. (See note 2.) In that case I shall continue it (D.V.) As you are the senior, I give you the opportunity to mention the terms of purchase or sale, I know not whether you feel disposed to purchase or not. In case you and friends wish to purchase, I expect to start another paper. I do not know that, as I feel at present it would be an auxiliary, as I had at first intended, but neither should it be understood to be an opposition paper, it should be an independent one. I should be the more studious of this, because I should fear that if the friends--the readers--knew of our difference, &c., the truths which we both aim to honor and advance, might be reflected upon unfavorably in consequence. Please let me know your answer and proposition as soon as possible, within a week certainly.

Truly your brother in Christ, C. T. RUSSELL.


Note 1. The doctrine of Substitution, or Atonement.

Note 2. When I first mentioned another paper to brother B. January last, he suggested that I take editorial charge of the Herald, which I then declined; I did not know but that he might still be of the same mind.

The answer which I received through the May No. of the Herald is known to you all perhaps. In reply to it I wrote brother B. as follows:

101 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh,
May 22nd, 1879

Brother N. H. Barbour:--

I was much disappointed at your reply in last Herald (May No.) to my letter of the 3d. inst. I did not expect that its proposition would be made public--as intimated in the last clause--and I certainly did not expect that it would be stated in so partial and one sided a manner. To my mind it was unjust. And now I leave the Herald with you. I withdraw entirely from it, taking nothing from you; or it, or anyone, save Christian charity, which we owe one another. This is exactly the amount expected when I wrote to you the former letter. Please announce in next No. of the Herald the dissolution and withdraw my name. Yet still believe me, the Herald's friend, and yours.

Respectfully, CHARLES T. RUSSELL.

I have other reasons than those stated in my letter to Bro. B. which I might as well mention here, as "other management" has been suggested. One feature of the Herald's management which gave me much annoyance, and of which I wrote to Bro. several times, was the careless handling of names of subscribers, by which many were lost, and the failure to keep any proper account of when money was paid, or when a subscription expired. He simply marked P opposite the name, and when he thought from the color of the ink that the subscription was about expired, he stopped sending. Time after time I have been asked personally and by mail, "Why don't I get my paper?"

Another objection is that in some cases there has been too much management. Articles sent by Bro. P. and myself, were not to my mind respectfully treated. If I had a right to the paper and I think I had and I wished Bro. P. to have, while Bro. B. had an equal right to write an opposing article, he had no right to cut up and interpolate ours. Nor was an appended answer proper when the writer was an "Associate Editor" and had a right to present his views over his own name. Further, while writing against Substitution, Bro. B. was seemingly anxious to publish letters from subscribers, which mentioned his view commendingly. Among others was one from Rev. W. V. Feltwell, of Philadelphia, a personal acquaintance of mine. In this extract Bro. F. is made to endorse the new views strongly.

I was much surprised, and seeing the brother in March, I inquired; why? He informed me that the article referred to had not stated him correctly--that he had written to Bro. B. to have it corrected, and said he, "Didn't you see the correction in the March Herald?" No, I answered. Then he got me his copy. There it was--Bro. B. regrets at any error, &c., and a quotation from Bro. F's. last letter: "I am now and always have been a believer in the vicarious atonement of Christ." This seemed all right and I know that it was possible for any one to make a mistake, when merely making an extract from another's letter, and I was rejoiced to think that the correction was so freely made.

But judge of my surprise and sorrow when upon attempting to show it to Bro. P. a few days after, I found that in my March No. a notice of Bro. Rice's paper "The Last Trump;" occupied its place--How was it in yours? We could not understand it, it seemed like double dealing--too much management for a Herald of the Millennial Morning. Alas!, I said to myself; is this the fruit of the new views of the atonement?

To Summarize:--In money direct and through publications, I presume that I furnished the Herald with about, as nearly as I can approximate six or seven hundred dollars, in addition to its type &c. Bro. B. put in all he had--his time &c. He drew out what he has since lived on, and by this new arrangement has drawn the "Herald" as well.

In the light of the above it may not be amiss to offer a few criticisms of the May article. How does it appear now, about those thousands of gratuitous papers? Did Bro. B. do all the giving? [I take no credit to myself in the matter, I did what was my greatest pleasure.]

Then too from the account above given, which many of the brethren here can corroborate, does it indeed look as though "our dear young brother Russell came into these views, and a small interest in the paper so recently?" Is it true that "this young man came into the views advocated by the Herald, no longer ago than Nov. 1876?" Again, is it true that Bro. B. "advocated all the advanced truths and all the prophetic arguments?" And did the "young brother learn all these beautiful truths by hearing repeated courses of lectures by Bro. B.?" Let us see what are these beautiful advanced truths? Is it the time of Christ's coming? No, there is no beauty in time, it is only a thing of dread, unless the glorious object of His coming is recognized. Bro. B. can scarcely be considered the one, who brought this most glorious and most beautiful truth to our attention, for, while he believed a bonfire to be the end of the world, and that probation ended with it, Bros. Geo. Storrs, Henry Dunn and others were preaching and writing of "the times of restitution of all things which God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy Prophets." (Acts 3:21), and that "In the ages to come, God would show the exceeding riches of his grace." (Ephesians 2:7) Again, of what value would it be to know the time if we know nothing of the manner of Christ's coming? But while Bro. B. was looking for and preaching outward demonstrations, others saw and taught the two stages of the second advent, viz: Coming unobservedly for His bride and his appearing, when "we also shall appear with Him in glory." Lest some should suppose these statements unwarranted by facts, let me here give extracts from writings on the subject by Rev. Jos. Seiss. "The Last Times" a work published by him in 1856, says of: "THE DAY OF THE LORD" (PP. 150-151.)

"There shall be upon the earth distress of nations with perplexity, the sea and the waves thereof roaring, great popular and revolutionary disturbances; men's hearts failing them for fear and for looking after those things that are coming on the earth for the powers of heaven shall be shaken." These words describe scenes of the judgement, which are to be witnessed before the visible manifestations of Christ, scenes which will glide in upon the world without the least suspicion on the part of men generally, that they are the beginning of the great judgement. Yes, "every eye shall see him" but not necessarily at the same time, and only when he shall come "with all his saints with him," and all his saints cannot be with him until after the pious dead are raised and the pious living be translated. The day of judgement shall come "as a thief in the night." He will be here, gathering and removing His elect before the world shall have become aware of it. Referring to THE RESTORATION OF THE JEWS (PP. 206-209.)

"The Jews shall return to their ancient home. Jehovah Elohim shall come down again more glorious than when of old, he dwelt in cloud and flame in the Holy of Holies, even Jesus in His own glorified humanity and they shall say: "Lo, this is our God! we have waited for him and he will save us. We will be glad and rejoice in his salvation." Jerusalem's light shall then have come, and the glory of the Lord have risen upon her and she shall arise and shine. But Jerusalem below, radiant in all its untold glory shall be but a type and earthly picture of the higher and sublimer Jerusalem that is above.--[ The Church.] Concerning the OFFICE OF THE GLORIFIED CHURCH. (PP. 221.)

"Much of the great plan of redemption yet remains unfulfilled and this Church of the first born is exalted to its high place, not only for its own glory and the Savior's praise, but as another great link in the chain of agencies, and administrations by which the entire world is to be restored to the high sphere for which it was destined. When this elect Church shall have been completed and its members come to be Priests and Kings with Christ in the glorious Messianic kingdom, the same general calling which they now fill will continue.

These sublime princedoms of the eternal empire are a part of God's great plan to let forth His love, wisdom and blessing upon earth's generations. Blessed shall it then be for the world, when once the saints shall be installed with their promised dominion and set with Christ upon His throne. And again, concerning SPIRITUAL BODIES. (PP. 220.)

"That the glorified saints will to some extent mingle with those who live in the body and at times unveil their radiance to them, I think there is reason to believe. If they are to govern, direct and minister to those in the flesh, it is natural to suppose they will also be visible at least occasionally.

Angels in the performance of similar offices have often been manifested to living men, and why should it not be so with Christ's servants in the wonderful administrations of his glorious kingdom. Glorified or spiritual bodies are perhaps in their nature insensible to our earthly senses. Christ after His resurrection, was not visible, except at certain times when he manifested himself. The angels are invisible and yet we have many instances in which they were revealed to the view of mortals.

And in that new world in which the glorified saints are to be enthroned and commissioned as the ministers of Christ to execute his orders and administer his government over the nations, we may reasonably expect that they will often appear and converse with those who live in the flesh, and that intercourse between them and those in the body, will be as real familiar and blessed as that which Adam enjoyed with heavenly beings in Paradise."

At the time the above was written Bro. Barbour was entirely uninterested in these matters, a gold miner in Australia, and even since his return to the United States, and his interest in the second coming of Christ, his preaching and teaching has, until quite recently, opposed rather than favored these doctrines.

From whence came all these beautiful and advanced truths to young Bro. Russell and others of the flock? Surely not from Bro. Barbour, nor, we may add, from any man. These precious truths are given freely to all in Christ by the Lord, the Holy Spirit being our teacher and the only one, for "The anointing which ye have received of Him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you, but as the same anointing teacheth you all things, and is truth." (1 John 2:27) Truth and knowledge are the food upon which God's children feed, and He himself has made perfect arrangements for their supply, as it is written, "Light is sown for the righteous." (Psalm 97:11)

He supplies the light to the "Pathway of the just that shines more and more unto the perfect day," and as the Master promised so we have had "The spirit of truth to guide us into all truth, and He has shown us things to come." (Proverbs 4:18; John 16:13.)

But while the spirit guides, human instrumentality is often employed by the spirit. Men are only the "earthen vessels that the excellency of the power may be of God and not of us." (2 Corinthians 4:7) The vessel is nothing, the treasure has the value. All God's children are to some extent vessels, some with greater capacity than others. O that we might all be very humble as treasure bearers.

"Broken and emptied vessels,For the Master's use made meet.Rather be nothing, nothing--To Him let their voices be raised,He is the fountain of blessing,He only is most to be praised."

Truth when due, is due to the household, and it is of little consequence either to the Spirit, who has it to communicate, or the Church for whom it is intended, whether it come by one vessel or another. If Luther had refused to carry the message given him for the Church, some one else would have carried it. And what he brought was not his, it was the Church's, and each member of the Church was as much the owner as Luther.

The Lord's way seems to be to give truth through various channels "--Here a little and there a little." (Isaiah 28:10,13) Possibly, the reason is, lest the vessel should "be puffed up above measure," and that the Church should know that its Head is the "Fount of every blessing." -- 2 Corinthians 12:7; Colossians 1:18.

But is there nothing which Bro. B. has brought us as the Spirit's vessel? Oh yes, while he did not bring the glorious and beautiful advanced truths, nor yet the "prophetic arguments." [The chronology, showing scripturally that the 6000 years from Adam ended in 1873, was I believe, first dug from the Bible, arranged and printed by Rev. Bowen of England, and is there known as "Bowen's chronology." Most of the Prophetic arguments which we now use, were used long ago by Second Adventists--misapplied-- and their harmony not being seen, they were thrown aside.] Bro. B. was permitted to so arrange, (gradually) and harmonize these various Prophetic teachings of time, that now, they give those of us who see them, great joy. He has caused these Precious Gems (God given) to sparkle and shine because of their harmonious arrangement, and the light which he brought us (God given) on the time of the realization of "The exceeding great and precious promises of God." For this harmony of time we thank God. For his labor in bringing it to us we sincerely and heartily thank Bro. Barbour, and pray that as a vessel the Lord may use him still further to the edification of the body of Christ.

This has been to me a painful recital, and it will be the same to every reader of the "Herald" who is truly interested in what has been taught through it for the last two years, but I believe it is absolutely demanded as an explanation of the article in the May "Herald." I have finished. My wish is to dismiss the matter entirely from my attention, and I now expect never to refer to the subject again under any circumstance.

I have published this as a "Supplement," because first I wanted it to go to none but "Herald" readers, and secondly, I would not want the pages of "Zion's Watch Tower" sullied by a recital so derogatory in some respects to the character of a member of the body.

I have been extremely careful in preparing this article that no part of it should be over stated. First: Because I do not wish to misrepresent, and Secondly: Because I have every reason to expect that some sort of an answer will be attempted, and desiring never again to mention the subject, I want to make such statements as cannot be contradicted. Yours, &c., C. T. RUSSELL