Charles Taze Russell Was Not a Prophet

Ronald R. Day, Sr.

H. E. Phillips makes the following assertions regarding Charles Taze Russell:

One of the claims made by Russell was that he alone was the true prophet of God in his day. In Watch Tower, July 1, 1899, page 208, we read: “If any man does not hear that prophet he shall be cut off from among the peoples.” This was said of Charles Russell. By 1912 Russell was called that “faithful and wise servant” of Matthew 24:45. This he accepted willingly. 

We should note that not everything written in the pages of the Watch Tower was originally written by Russell. Evidently, however, he often edited articles before they were published, and the words are often credited to him although much of the words may not have originated from him.

Many of the quotes in the study may be found online. We hope to eventually provide links to the articles, books, etc., being quoted, so that one may examine the context of each quote.

Did Russell ever claim that he himself was the true prophet of God in his day? Absolutely not! Search as one may through the pages of the Watch Tower, July 1 1899, or throughout everything Russell wrote or edited, one will not find any statement such as given as being applied to Brother Russell. One can find a reference relating to Jesus in an article entitled "Unto the Pure All Things Are Pure" of the August 15, 1899 issue of The Watch Tower, which reads as follows:

So, too, it will be during the Millennial age; the light, the opportunities, the general influence of that time, will be so favorable, that "all shall come to a knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4; Isa. 11:9) and to opportunities of harmony with God. And it shall come to pass that the soul who will not hear (obey) that Prophet, Priest and King, then in power, shall be cut off from amongst his people – in the Second Death. – Acts 3:23.

There is no mention of Brother Russell as being this prophet, but in the context, it is contrasting the drawing of people to Jesus in the present age and Jesus' drawing all men unto him in the Millennial Age. It becomes apparent that "that Prophet" is applied to Jesus, not to Brother Russell. 

It is true that many Bible Students came to believe that Charles Taze Russell was "that faithful and wise servant" of Matthew 24:45. Russell himself never claimed to be that servant. The last statement that we could find that Brother Russell made concerning this was in 1910, when he stated:

Some of the dear brethren seem to find as much about Brother Russell in the Bible as they find about the Lord Jesus, and I think that is a great mistake. I do not find it there. Some of them say that I am blinded on that subject, that they all can see better than I can. Perhaps they can, I do not know, but I think, dear friends, that there is a danger in that direction, and I would like to put you all on guard.   -  1910; ("Convention Report Sermons", pg. 125)
http://www.mostholyfaith.com/beta/bible/CRS/1910a.asp#CR125:1

Nevertheless, if Brother Russell was indeed that servant, it does not mean that we should imagine and assume that such would make him a divinely-inspired prophet, receiving direct communication from God as did the prophets of old.

Mr. Phillips further asserts:

In Studies In The Scriptures, Vol. 7 (after Russell’s death) the statement is found: “If you do not hear the prophet, Mr. Russell, then woe be upon you.”

The book, The Finished Mystery, was not written by Russell, and he had no control over what was put into that book. However, look as we may, we could not find such a statement in the book, The Finished Mystery, released as Volume 7 of the Studies in the Scriptures. Click here for some of Brother Russell's comments relating to Acts 3:22,23.

The reality is, however, that Charles Taze Russell was not, never claimed to be, and many times stated that he was not a divinely-inspired prophet. Nor did he claim, as many have (such as the Papacy, the self-proclaimed trinitarian "orthodoxy", and the JW "governing body"), to have any special authority over others, so as to demand that his statements be accepted as being from God. He allowed others to have their views and did not seek to "disfellowship" them for their different views even if they did not agree with his own. The only divinely-inspired prophecies Brother Russell believed in were those of the Bible, and he believed that those prophecies were true, regardless of whether his understanding of those prophecies was true or not. Brother Russell never originated any prophecies, and therefore he never gave "false prophecies".

In 1890, Brother Russell stated: "Our own views are not prophecy, but interpretations of the holy prophets of old." — "View From the Tower", Watch Tower, October 1890, page 8.

Here Brother Russell plainly states that he was not presenting his views, his conclusions, as being prophecy, but that what he was presenting was his own "interpretations" of what was written by the prophets as presented in the Bible. He did this after presenting some of his views related to prophecies.

In 1893, Brother Russell stated: "Neither must you lean upon the DAWN and the TOWER as infallible teachers." — Watch Tower, June 1893, page 168.

By “DAWN,” Russell was referring to his book series “Millennial Dawn,” which was later renamed “Studies in the Scriptures.” Russell was certainly, by what he said, showing that he was not claiming to be a divinely-inspired prophet. Contrast this with JW leadership ("Governing Body"). While the members of the JWs' governing body may not claim infallibility, they have many times called their followers to put their trust in whatever they say. Unlike the JW leadership, Russell cautioned against doing such with his publications.  

In 1901, Brother Russell stated: "We claim no infallibility for our presentations." — "Continuing with the Lord", Watch Tower, April 15, 1901, page 136.

If Russell was claiming to be a prophet as described in Deuteronomy 18:20-22, we would certainly have claimed that his presentations were infallible as were the prophets of old. Russell, however, did not claim any kind of special divine authority nor did he claim to be receiving messages from Jehovah, as though Jehovah had spoken to him through visions or through angels, etc. 

In 1906, Brother Russell stated: "I hasten to assure you that I have never laid claim to infallibility. I do not expect to be infallible until by the Lord’s grace I shall share a part in the First Resurrection; then, that which is perfect having come, that which is in part shall be done away; we shall see as we are seen and know as we are known. We accept the writings by the twelve apostles as being so supervised of the Lord as to be free from any error.... We may regard the presentations of those twelve men, intended of the Lord to be his special representatives under the holy Spirit’s dispensation, as being infallible, true, inerrant. But there is no ground for believing that any others than the apostles have been so miraculously holden by the power of God as were those twelve, or that we have any authority in the Word of God for considering the words and writings of others as being above or beyond testing and proving by the Scriptures. This has invariably been our presentation. It has been our endeavor to present the Word of God faithfully as he has given us to understand it – to our own Master we stand or fall." — Watch Tower, March 15, 1906, page 90.

Brother Russell here compared his writings with that of the 12 apostles, and asserts that his writings were not infallible as were the writings of the 12, evidently referring to the writings of the New Testament. 

In 1907, Brother Russell stated: "We have urged and still urge that the dear children of God read studiously what we have presented; – the Scriptures, the applications and interpretations – and then form their own judgments. We neither urge nor insist upon our views as infallible, nor do we smite or abuse those who disagree; but regard as 'Brethren' all sanctified believers in the precious blood." — Zion’s Watch Tower, October 1, 1907, page 294.

Again, Brother Russell states that his view are not infallible, and further, he does not assume authority to demand that fellow believers in Christ has to accept his view, since he states that he does not smite or abuse those who disagree with his views. 

In 1908, Brother Russell stated, in discussing his views related to some Biblical prophecies: "We are not prophesying; we are merely giving our surmises, the Scriptural basis for which is already in the hands of our readers in the six volumes of SCRIPTURE STUDIES. We do not even aver that there is no mistake in our interpretation of prophecy and our calculations of chronology." — Watch Tower, January 1, 1908, page 5.

Surely by his statement that he was "nor prophesying", Russell was disclaiming to be a divinely-inspired prophet, or that what he had written were divinely-inspired prophecies.  He goes even further in stating that he does not claim there is no mistake in his interpretations or in his calculations of prophecy, evidently referring to time prophecies of the Bible.

In 1910, Brother Russell is recorded as having stated: "I am not a prophet. The very most I try to do, dear friends, is to interpret prophecy.” — What Pastor Russell Said, page 272.

Again, we find that Brother Russell bluntly stated that he was not a prophet. This is consistent with all the claims he made before. The "prophecy" that Russell sought to interpret is the "prophecy" given in the Bible. 

In 1910, Brother Russell stated: "We try to be careful about every word that goes into the Watch Tower, but we do not claim to be infallible; we are doing the best we can." — What Pastor Russell Said, page 57.

Obviously, if Russell viewed his expectations as being on par with the prophecies of the Bible, he would not have disclaimed being infallible.

In 1912, Brother Russell stated: "We have not prophesied anything about the Times of the Gentiles closing in a time of trouble nor about the glorious epoch which will shortly follow that catastrophe…. We merely state that we believe thus and so, for such and such reasons." — Watch Tower, December 1, 1912, page 377.

Some refer to the words above as being a new attitude of Russell in 1912. In other words, as 1914 drew closer, he supposedly, in 1912, came up with the idea of disclaiming that he had prophesied anything. Actually, what Russell said in 1912 is nothing new; it is consistent with what he had been saying throughout the years of his ministry. 

In 1912, Brother Russell stated: "We are expecting in October, 1914, that a great change will be due. Now, how quickly will it come? Whether on the stroke of the clock or not we do not know. We believe that it will land upon humanity by that time. Perhaps some of it will come before that, but we believe it will be stayed off until that time. Now, dear friends, what if it does not? We are just as well off as the rest. That is what the Bible states. If it does not state that to you, we have no quarrel. And if it does not come we will not try to bring it about. But, on the contrary, we will try to practice peace and holiness withal. We are children of peace and peacemakers, not strife breeders. But we believe the Bible teaches October, 1914, as the time. If that is incorrect for a year, or five, or one hundred years, no matter, it is coming some time, whether we have it right or not." — 1912, Convention Sermon Reports, page 292

In the above, Russell was talking about the beginning of the time of trouble. Regarding this, before 1904, had believed that the time of trouble had begun in 1874 and that it was to last for 40 years until 1914. Russell was expecting before 1904 that all Gentile governments would be gone in 1914, and God's kingdom would bring peace to the world in 1914. This, however, is not what Russell was referring to in the comment quoted above. In 1904, Russell rejected the idea that the time of trouble had begun in 1874, and that it would end in 1914. In 1904, Russell accepted the viewpoint that the time of trouble was to begin at the end of the Gentile Times, or shortly thereafter. Russell never set a time for the time of trouble to end, although he did present many suggestions of others. The point is, however, that ever since this change in 1904, Russell was no longer expecting the time of trouble to end in 1914, nor that the Gentile governments would all be gone in 1914. What Russell was speaking of in the quote above was regarding his expectation that the time of trouble was to begin in 1914 and all the blessings that were to follow once that time of trouble came to an end. For more related to Russell's change in his understanding of the time of trouble in 1904, see our research regarding Russell and the Time of Trouble

In 1912, Brother Russell stated concerning the Biblical time prophecies he believed were related to  1914: "There may be things about it we do not understand and we have no desire to be dogmatic in any sense of the word and do anything rash, but we are trying to learn to appreciate the value of the present things and also the value of the things to come. " — 1912, Convention Reports Sermons, page 328.

Again, this is consistent with many things Russell had stated throughout his ministry, and it shows that, in effect, he was again denying that his expectations regarding 1914 were not divinely inspired prophecies. We will say that Russell probably stated this at this time since there were many of the Bible Students actually claiming that Russell was a prophet, and thus they were putting faith in his alleged prophecy, and his expectation, that the remaining saints on earth would all be changed before October 1914, or that any remaining at that time would be changed instantly. In effect, Russell was cautioning doing anything rash because of this expectation.

Nevertheless, his statements are still consistent with what he had been saying throughout the years of his ministry. He had always stated that he was not being dogmatic in his expectations, nor was he claiming to be a prophet. or that his conclusions were infallible, etc.

In 1912, Brother Russell stated: "I disclaim any special inspiration. In some particulars my views agree with those of other Bible students, and in other respects they disagree. Each hearer must use his own judgment, do his own Bible study, and reach his own conclusions." — "Battle of Armageddon" - Sermon given November 3, 1912 at the Brooklyn Academy of Music, as reproduced in the St. Paul Enterprise, November 21, 1916, page 1.

Again, Russell may have said this because many were claiming Russell to be a prophet. Nevertheless, his disclaiming any special inspiration is not new; it is in harmony with what he had been claiming for almost 4 decades.

Additionally, one may note that Russell was not demanding that all the Bible Students had to agree with him. This was nothing new, and we have shown this elsewhere. Indeed, not all the Bible Students associated with Russell agreed with Russell on everything, and this is still true among the Bible Students today. Unlike the Jehovah's Witnesses' leadership, however, Russell did not assume any special authority to demand that all had to agree with him. Actually, claiming special authority and demanding that all had to agree with evidently what Jesus was speaking of as being a false prophet who claims to have a special anointed so to be the sole representative of  God and Jesus, etc.

In 1912, Brother Russell stated: "If we have made some mistake in the time, it will not matter a bit; we are consecrated to Him unto death. Perhaps the Lord will test us along this line. But I should not mind; I tell you that I am enjoying the Lord, and enjoying the previous Word more and more every day, and if it gets still better by 1914, I don’t know how good it will be. So that, whether we have the exact moment is very immaterial to us; it is quite a secondary matter. But there is no doubt at all that the Kingdom will come – whether in that year, or another year–it is sure to come, 'For the Lord of Hosts hath spoken it, and who shall disannul it'"? — 1912, Convention Sermon Reports, page 439.

Again, in this quote, Brother Russell was speaking of expectations regarding 1914, especially as related to the expectation that all the remaining saints on earth would be changed before or in 1914.  If Russell, however, had believed himself to be a divinely-inspired prophet, however, he would not have made such a statement. 

In 1913, we find the following in the page of the Watch Tower: "We hold that nothing in these quotations declares the infallibility of the theories we suggested respecting 1914. In these statements, and in all of our statements, we have merely informed our readers respecting our views and the processes of our reasoning on the Scriptures which we have brought to their attention. Thus we have asked each reader to think and judge for himself, and to agree or disagree with us according to his own judgment of the facts."  — Watch Tower, November 15, 1913, page 344.

Again, (assuming that this was written by Russell), Russell disclaims that what he presented in the Studies to be infallible. This is regarding a quote that expressed the view that Russell held before 1904, that, based on what was presented (in Volumes 2 and 3 of his Studies) that all the kingdoms of this world would be gone by October of 1914. As we mentioned earlier, Russell, in effect, rejected this view in 1904, although his Studies had not been fully updated to reflect that change. If, however, what he stated in his Studies were to be considered as infallible, divinely-inspired prophecies, Russell could not have changed his view on this. 

In 1914, Brother Russell stated:  "We are not a prophet". — Watch Tower, November 1, 1914, page 329.

Again, Brother Russell directly denied being a prophet. The conversation was related to how long the time of trouble was to last before God's Kingdom would take control. Russell essentially stated that since he is not a prophet, he does not know.

In 1914, Brother Russell stated: "We do not claim infallibility." — What Pastor Russell Said, page 83

In 1914, Brother Russell stated: "I am not a prophet." — What Pastor Russell Said, page 676.

And thus Russell's testimony throughout the years of his ministry was that he was NOT a prophet. Many of his statements also let us know that the only prophecies that he believed in were those of the Bible, and he believed that those prophecies were correct, even if his own conclusions about those prophecies were incorrect.

Did Brother Russell believe in disfellowshipping one for not accepting his conclusions regarding Biblical prophecies?

In 1902, Brother Russell stated:

"The Apostle John shows us that this matter of distinguishing as between brethren that are to be esteemed and brethren that are to be warned, appertains not merely to conduct but also to doctrinal matters. Yet we may be sure that he does not mean that we are to disfellowship a brother merely because of some differences of view on non-essential questions. We may be sure that he does mean his words to apply strictly and only to the fundamentals of the doctrine of Christ: for instance, faith in God; faith in Jesus as our Redeemer; faith in the promises of the divine Word." — Watch Tower, July 1, 1902, page 199.

Please note that Brother Russell did not list acceptance of any of his conclusions regarding Biblical prophecies as being "essential" doctrine. 

In 1904, Brother Russell stated:

"Unity of faith is desirable; it is to be striven for – yet not the kind of unity that is generally aimed at. Unity is to be along the lines of 'the faith once delivered unto the saints' in its purity and simplicity, and with full liberty to each member to take different views of minor points, and with no instruction whatever in respect to human speculations, theories, etc. The Scriptural idea of unity is upon the foundation principles of the Gospel. (1) Our redemption through the precious blood, and our justification by demonstrated faith therein. (2) Our sanctification, setting apart to the Lord, the Truth and their service–including the service of the brethren. (3) Aside from these essentials, upon which unity must be demanded, there can be no Scriptural fellowship; upon every other point fullest liberty is to be accorded, with, however, a desire to see, and to help others to see, the divine plan in its every feature and detail. Thus each member of the body of Christ, maintaining his own personal liberty, is so thoroughly devoted to the Head and to all the members that it will be his pleasure to lay down all, even life itself, on their behalf." — The New Creation, page 240.

It should be obvious that when Russell stated that he was not a prophet. He was actually claiming that he was not one seeing visions, dreams or messages directly from God, or that he was being visited by angels, and thus he was denying that had a prophet's ability to foresee coming events. This is what is meant by "prophet" in Deuteronomy 18:15-19; it should be obvious that this does not apply to Russell, since he never claimed to have received any message  or commandment from God, other than what is in the Bible -- no visions, no angels, etc. He simply claimed to present his conclusions based on study of prophecy as already given in the Bible.

Doesn't Deuteronomy 18:22 prove that Russell was a false prophet?

Deuteronomy 18:22 - when a prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah, if the thing doesn't follow, nor happen, that is the thing which Jehovah has not spoken: the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you shall not be afraid of him.

Deuteronomy 18:20 But the prophet, who shall speak a word presumptuously in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who shall speak in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.

In context, Moses is speaking of a prophet who claims to be speaking the words of Jehovah, as those words had been given to him from Jehovah. Such a prophet would be claiming to speak as a prophet of Jehovah, claiming to have direct communication from God, or to have received a vision or dream (Numbers 12:26), or had a received a visit from an angel, and thus he would be professing what he was saying were the words of Jehovah.  Russell made no such claims; in fact, he disclaimed being such a prophet.

Nevertheless, we believe that Russell's expectation that the "time of trouble" would begin in 1914 proved to be true and that we have been in that time of trouble ever since 1914. His expectation that the harvest would end in 1914, and that the church would be completed and exalted in 1914 did not happen.

See links to our studies related to: Russell and 1914

Someone asks: Didn't Russell's prophecies concerning 1914, 1915 and 1918 fail, and thus, does this not prove him to be a false prophet? The fact is, however, as we have shown above, that Russell never made any prophecies concerning 1914, 1915 or 1918. Russell, at various times, did give what he believed would happen on those dates, but he never spoke of his expectations as being something directly from God, as did the prophets in the Old Testament, or as Jesus.

Someone asks: "If Charles Taze Russell got his conclusions from bible prophecy then why couldn't he tell us the scriptures stating the dates he gave?" Both Barbour and Russell did provide the scriptures. See Russell's Studies in the Scriptures, Volume 2 and Volume 3. To get the basis of the divine plan, however, we would suggest first studying Volume 1 before Volumes 2 and 3.

One quotes Strong's definition of the New Testament word #4394, which states: "4394 propheteia prof-ay-ti'-ah from 4396 ("prophecy");  prediction (scriptural or other):--prophecy, prophesying."

The claim is made that this is what Russell did; Strong did not usually elaborate too much on meaning, as many others did. The Greek word #4394, as Strong states, is from #4396.  Strong gives the latter the meaning:

4396 prophetes prof-ay'-tace

from a compound of 4253 and 5346; a foreteller ("prophet"); by analogy, an inspired speaker; by extension, a poet:--prophet.

Thus, he gives several different definitions for the word. Strong, however, is not infallible, nor is any other scholar who attempts to give definitions for Bible words.  We gave links earlier to some works that give more elaborate definitions for both the Hebrew and Greek words involved. Often, however, such works go beyond how the words are used in the Bible to add later theological meanings and/or meanings found in other works aside from the Bible.

Nevertheless, if any statement by anyone at any time of his expectations for anything to happen at a future dates constitutes that person as a prophet who, if his stated expectations did not happen, means that the person is a false prophet, then every preacher in every church of every denomination could be subject to being such a false prophet. For example, a minister states his expectation of giving a sermon on a specific topic on a specific date, but when the date arrives, he may be ill, or some other unforeseen circumstance prohibits him from fulfilling his stated expectations. Are we to think of him as a "false prophet" because his expectations failed to materialize? How many of us state expectations concerning next Monday, next Wednesday, next month, next year, based on what we know at the time. If our expectations fail to materialize, are we then all false prophets?

At any rate, Russell was certainly not a prophet claiming to be speaking the words of Jehovah as though he had been given any visions, or that an angel appeared to him, etc. In fact, as we have shown he disclaimed such many times. He openly admitted that his conclusions could be in error, but he believed that the Bible prophecies were true, even if his conclusions concerning those prophecies were true or not true. Russell indeed never ever once claimed to be a prophet.

Nor was he a prophet claiming to have special authority to speak for God, or for Christ, as such a prophet spoken of in Matthew 7:15; 24:11,24; Mark 13:22; Luke 6:26.

Neither did Russell speak as a "central authority" for an organization, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses.  Russell did not believe in such a sectarian authority. See also the links to our research related to: Russell, Authority and Organization.

Nevertheless, the Greek forms in the Bible are based on the corresponding forms found in the Biblical Hebrew, not the Hebrew on the Greek.

One claims that Charles Taze Russell's expectations are no different than the predictions of Jim Jones. As already shown, Russell's expectations were not prophecies. Jim Jones claimed not only that he was a prophet of God, but that he was God, that he was Jesus,  that he was Buddha, and he made many other claims.  As already shown, Russell disclaimed any such thought. Jones was very sectarian in his claims; Russell endeavored to remain free from sectarianism. Russell did not use his expectations to incite fear or as a means to get others to submit to him; Jones did. Very little comparison.

It is claimed that Jim Jones had a major following after scaring people with his nuclear apocalypse of 1961,  and that Charles Taze Russell had the same reactions, to that they "reformed" into an organization and became "Jehovah's Witnesses".  We are not sure exactly how this is meant to tie together; Russell did not believe in the JW-type end of the world, nor in a JW-type of Armageddon, nor was he ever expecting such. In the year 1915, approximately one year before his death, Russell was still preaching against sectarianism. See his sermon on "St. Peter's Keys".

We are not associated with the Jehovah's Witnesses, nor was Russell; if one wishes to bring up their organization, or that the JW organization is one of many deceptions of Satan (Revelation 12:9),  we agree that the JW organization is one of the tools by which Satan is misleading people today. Russell, however, was not responsible for the creation of the organization.

Some are quoting something Russell stated in his book, The Time is at Hand, as proof that he was assuming the role of a prophet. What is being presented is:

"In this volume we offer a chain of testimony on the subject of God's appointed times and seasons, each link of which we consider Scripturally strong, while the whole of it when viewed together, in the relationship which one part bears to another, gives evidence of a plan so broad and comprehensive, a design so deep, and a harmony so perfect, as to clearly manifest to the studious and reverent inquirer that it is beyond the breadth and depth of human thought, and therefore cannot be of human origin. These prophecies now unfolding were designed by our Lord." -- The Time is At Hand, pages 15,16.

First, we should note that there is a problem with the quote, in that the latter part is presented as a sentence as though it is referring to the "evidence" presented, and thus it makes it appear that the evidence presented is being referred to as "prophecies". Actually, the last sentence is not even in the same paragraph or on the same page as the words presented before it. It is therefore being quoted out of context and misapplied. The last sentence is part of a paragraph that reads:

"We find in prophecy the beginning and the ending of this harvest period clearly marked, as well as the events due to occur in it. And to call attention to and trace the various lines of prophetic time to the events in which they culminate is, in substance, the object of this volume. To receive its testimony, the reader will need to have an ear to hear (Rev. 2:7; Matt. 11:15), and must expect meekly to cast away many preconceived opinions as fast as he comes to see their lack of harmony with God's Word. To such as are thus minded, and who pursue the lessons of this volume with patience and care, and in the order of their arrangement, we doubt not it will be a great blessing. If its lessons are received into good and honest hearts, we trust it will be a power to separate them from the world and to ripen them as wheat for the garner. To thus quicken and ripen and separate the saints, as wheat from tares, in this time of harvest, is the object for which, we apprehend, these prophecies now unfolding were designed by our Lord."

So what are "these prophecies" that Brother Russell was referring to? Was he claiming that the evidences and conclusions that he presented were themselves "prophecies?" Obviously not; he was referring to the prophecies of the Bible, which he believed were then unfolding. In other words, the prophecies of the Bible are a source of the evidences presented.

We should also note that when Russell said "we", he was not speaking as being the head of an organization, such as the JW organization, nor was he speaking as a prophet. Those prophecies in the Bible are indeed, designed by God and Jesus, which Russell believed was being unfolded -- fulfilled -- in his day. Russell found in those prophecies what he believed to be a clear marking of when the harvest began (1874) and when it was to end (1914). Although he was obviously wrong about the harvest ending in 1914, Russell was definitely not claiming to be a divinely inspired prophet as spoken of in Deuteronomy 18, nor was he assuming authority, as does a false prophet. 

See also our resource page: Charles Taze Russell - Not a Prophet

================

Russell, Russellites, Russellism and Following Russell

Occult Theocrasy and Russell (W)

Bible Students Did Not Become Jehovah's Witnesses

Did Russell Use Astrology to Support His Beliefs?

Parousia “Didn’t Happen” in 1874?

Born of the Spirit

J. J. Ross: Russell's Education and Alleged Perjury

Why God Allows Suffering and Wickedness

The Smallest of the Seeds?

Matthew 13:31 He set another parable before them, saying, "The Kingdom of Heaven is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field;

Matthew 13:32 which indeed is smaller than all seeds. But when it is grown, it is greater than the herbs, and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in its branches. 

Mark 4:26 He said, "So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed on the earth [ground, farm land, soil],
Mark 4:27 and should sleep and rise night and day, and the seed should spring up and grow, he doesn't know how.
Mark 4:28 For the earth [ground, soil, farm land] bears fruit: first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear.
Mark 4:29 But when the fruit is ripe, immediately he puts forth the sickle, because the harvest has come."
Mark 4:30 He said, "How will we liken the kingdom of God? Or by what parable will we compare it?
Mark 4:31 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth [ground, farm land, soil], though it is less than all the seeds that are on [in] the earth [ground, soil, farm land, land area], 

The claim has been made: "The seeds of the begonia and orchids are smaller.  But then the scribe would know that if he was inspired by a God."

The Greek word *pantwn* (translated "all" Strong's #3956) often means "all these" or "all those". It does not necessarily mean "all seeds" all over the planet earth. All forms of "pas" look to the context and evidence of circumstances for exclusion or inclusion. 

"There went out to him all the country of Judea, and all those [Strong's 3956] of Jerusalem. They were baptized by him in the Jordan river, confessing their sins." (Mark 1:5) Does this mean that absolutely every person who lived in the country of Judea and in Jerusalem came to John and was baptized by him? Absolutely not. To make greater sense in English, this would be better rendered: "And there went to him those of all the land of Judea, and Jerusalemites. All these were baptized by him in the Jordan River, openly confessing their sins." In this the Good News Translation, although it is paraphrased, captures the sense by expressing it: "Many people from the province of Judea and the city of Jerusalem went out to hear John. They confessed their sins, and he baptized them in the Jordan River." 

And then we have the example of the usage of ta panta in Hebrews 2:8, where Paul quotes Psalm 8 regarding mankind: "'You have put all things in subjection under his feet.' For in that he subjected all things to him [man], he left nothing that is not subject to him [man]. But now we don't see all things subjected to him, yet." What are the "all things" -- ta panta: the all -- that was subjected to mankind? Psalm 8:7 answers: "All sheep and oxen, Yes, and the animals of the field, The birds of the sky, the fish of the sea, And whatever passes through the paths of the seas." (See Genesis 1:26,28) 

I could give more examples, but one can check these in any good Bible Greek concordance. 

It is evident that pas is subject to inclusion or exclusion according the context or common evidence, as Paul states in 1 Corinthians 15:27 (this scripture is often confused with Hebrews 2:8, but if one studies what is said in the context of Hebrews 2:8 closely, we can see that the two are not speaking of the same thing). 

The Greek word from which "earth" is translated is Strong's #1093. This word in the Bible does not always refer to the planet earth itself. Strong gives its meaning as: "soil; by extens. a region, or the solid part or whole of the terrene globe (includ. the occupants in each application):" 

Thayer gives it these meanings: 

arable land
the ground, the earth as a standing place
the main land as opposed to the sea or water
the earth as a whole
the earth as opposed to the heavens
the inhabited earth, the abode of men and animals
a country, land enclosed within fixed boundaries, a tract of land,
territory, region
Thayer.

Jesus was not referring to seeds of the entire globe, as our modern thought as defined by modern scientific knowledge, might assume, but simply referring to the farming land with which his listeners were familiar. His listeners were from certain areas in and around Galilee.-- Mark 3:7-9; 4:1,10. 

Our conclusion is that Jesus, the Son of Jehovah, was speaking of all those seeds planted by the farmer in the land, in the environment, where he was, not of all seeds in the entire world. 

So the claim is made that mustard is a plant much like kale or chard, and is not a tree or shrub, as described in the Bible.

Again, we have one trying to define what is written in the scriptures by modern classifications produced by modern-day scientists, and then applying these modern-day classification back into the Bible, and then claiming that since Biblical terminology is different from modern-day classifications made by modern-day scientist, then the Bible is inaccurate.. 

Nevertheless, at dictionary.com, we find this listed under "mustard": 

Source: WordNet - 2.0, (c) 2003 Princeton University 

mustard
a plant of the genus sinapis, a pod-bearing, shrub-like plant, growing wild, and also cultivated in gardens. The little round seeds were an emblem of any small insignificant object. It is not mentioned in the Old Testament; and in each of the three instances of its occurrence in the New Testament (Matt. 13:31, 32; Mark 4:31, 32; Luke 13:18, 19) it is spoken of only with reference to the smallness of its seed. The common mustard of Palestine is the Sinapis nigra. This garden herb sometimes grows to a considerable height, so as to be spoken of as "a tree" as compared with garden herbs.

===== 

The word "nested" does not actually appear in the Greek; the Greek word would have been better translated "abide" as in Acts 2:26 (KJV), or even better as it is in Young's Literal Translation: 

Matthew 13:32  - which less, indeed, is than all the seeds, but when it may be grown, is greatest of the herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the heaven do come and rest in its branches.' 

Mark 4:32 - and whenever it may be sown, it cometh up, and doth become greater than any of the herbs, and doth make great branches, so that under its shade the fowls of the heaven are able to rest.' 

Luke 13:19 - It is like to a grain of mustard, which a man having taken, did cast into his garden, and it increased, and came to a great tree, and the fowls of the heavens did rest in its branches. 

Furthermore, Jesus is giving a parable, using symbolisms, which can be interpreted as applying to the church as a whole. The kingdom of God [the true church] started out very small, with Jesus and his 12 disciples, and yet grows larger as a tree, under which even the fowls of the heavens, the sky, could rest. Earlier Jesus spoke of "fowls". (Mark 4:4,15) In the age to come, those who are members of the church enrolled in heaven will come as saviors to the world, and as being the God's Kingdom. the world will come to the church for life-giving knowledge. -- Daniel 2:44; Isaiah 2:2-4; Obadiah 1:21.

Ronald R. Day, Sr.

Matthew 12:40 - Three Days and Three Nights

{Matthew 12:39} But he answered them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah the prophet.

Matthew 12:40} For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of the Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
{Matthew 12:41} The men of Nineveh will stand up in the judgment with this generation, and will condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, someone greater than Jonah is here.

{Jonah 1:17} Jehovah prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah, and Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

{Jonah 2:2} He said, "I called because of my affliction to Jehovah. He answered me. Out of the belly of sheol I cried. You heard my voice.

Some claim that there is a discrepancy in the Bible's account since Jesus had proclaimed that he would be dead for three days and three nights. The claim appears to be that if Jesus was buried at sundown on Friday and raised Sunday morning near sunrise he would have been in the tomb over only two nighttime periods (Friday and Saturday) and one daytime period (Saturday) for a total of approximately 36 to 38 hours, not the three days and three nights that Jesus spoke as the "sign of Jonah". And thus, it is claimed that the Bible contradicts itself, and cannot be depended upon.

There are two things to note here: (1) Jesus did not say that he would be dead for three days and three nights; this is simply the general assumption placed on his words. What he said is that he, the Son of the man, David, would be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights. (2) Even if Jesus meant "heart of the earth" to mean in death, we need to note that this terminology could be viewed as purely idiomatic, and thus implied that he would be in the heart of the earth "till the third day." The proof of this is kind of usage may be found in Esther 4:16; 5:1; Genesis 42:17,18; 2 Chronicles 10:5,12.

We should note that the elders and chief priests had demanded of our Lord a sign of his authority. However, we should also note that their motive was evil, not sincere. Indeed, they already had many "signs" from Jesus but chose to ignore them. (John 10:32,33) Jesus, evidently while in Galilee (Matthew 13:1), had just healed a withered hand, and cast out a devil, but their reaction had been to hold a "council against him. how they might destroy him, and to accuse him of casting out devils 'by Beelzebub.'" (Matthew 12:10-14, 22-24) While in Jerusalem, Jesus had healed one who had been blind from birth (John 9:14,16), as well as one who could not walk. (John 5:9-13) These religious leaders had the testimony of these, but what was their response? They came up with a plot to put Lazarus also to death because by reason of him, many of the Jews believed jn Jesus. (John 12:10, 11) Jesus rebuked that wicked generation of Jewish leaders, calling them 'vipers. hypocrites, whited sepulchres.' -- Matthew 23:1,33.

Nevertheless, we should not read into Jesus' statement recorded in Matthew 12:40 something that is not there. Jesus used the event of Jonah's being in the belly of the whale as a sign concerning the time when he would be, not in death, nor in the grave, but in the 'heart of the earth'. Obviously, however, the term "in the heart of the earth" is not a literal expression. The heart gives the power of movement to the body. If our heart stops beating we no longer have any power to move. Nor should we necessarily look for parallels to every event of Jonah while in the belly's fish to have a corresponding fulfillment in the three days and three nights in which Jesus was in the heart of the earth. For instance, Jonah repented while in the belly of fish and prayed concerning his repentance; Jesus had nothing to repent of. Jesus was not buried in any literal "heart" of the earth but was laid in a cave tomb dug into the face of a hill. But, as pointed out, he did not actually stay in that tomb for three days and three nights, but he was there for parts of three days and two nights.

When Jonah was in "the belly of the fish" he was not dead. The scripture says that he was in the belly of sheol; yet he was not literally in sheol, the realm of death or condition of being dead. (Ecclesiastes 9:5,10) However, he was as good as dead, and thus it was as though he were already in sheol. What was true of Jonah is that he was no longer in control of his own movements. Where the fish went, Jonah went. The normal free functions of Jonah's life had been taken away, and he was as good as dead, and had no miracle occurred, he would have indeed died and gone into the oblivious condition of sheol.

Similarly, Judas Iscariot, evidently at some time before the passover meal the day before Jesus died, went to the Jewish leaders to make a deal to turn Jesus over to them. (Luke 22:3-6) It appears that from that point on, Jesus was as good as dead. Jesus knew of Judas' treachery; later he stated to Judas, ""What you do, do quickly," Jesus recognized that he was as good as already dead. He was, in effect, already in the heart, the control, of the earth. Thus, he stated, "The hour has come. Behold, the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners." (Mark 14:41) This was the night before he was arrested. When he was arrested, he exclaimed, "this is your hour, and the power of darkness" (Luke 22:53). Therefore, we conclude that he, the day before he was arrested, Jesus entered into "the heart of the earth," but, although one could say that he was as good as dead, he was not yet actually dead in sheol. Accordingly, Jesus had eartlier told his disciples of "that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders, and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised on the third day." Jesus was actually raised on the third day after he was killed,  (Matthew 16:21) However, the "three days and three nights" in which Jesus is in the "heart of the earth" appears to cover not only the time he was dead, but they began when Judas started his betrayal of Jesus.

While the Jewish leaders did not fully understand Jesus' words (Matthew 13:13-15; John 8:14,43), they did understand that Jesus claimed that he would be raised from the dead after three days, for they told Pilate "that deceiver said while he was still alive: 'After three days I will rise again,'" and desired his tomb to be guarded allegedly to avoid his disciples from stealing the body to make the claim appear correct. Pilate replied, "You have a guard. Go, make it as secure as you can." And then we read: "So they went, and made the tomb secure, sealing the stone, the guard being with them." (Matthew 27:63-66) And the very ones assigned to ensure there would be no fraud, observed that "the angel of Jehovah descended from the sky, and came and rolled away the stone from the door, and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. For fear of him, the guards shook, and became like dead men." (Matthew 28:2-4) This was reported to the chief priests and elders, who then bribed the guards with a "large amount of silver" to change their story and claim the disciples had stolen Jesus' body, thus indicating the effect that this promised "sign" had upon their evil hearts. Therefore, the ones who falsely accused Jesus of being a deceiver proved themselves to be deceivers. -- Matthew 28:11-15.

And, yet, for those whose hearts were not entrenched with evil motives, what a piece of convincing evidence that the sign of Jonah had been fulfilled! The same guards which they had set to ensure against fraud testified of the truthfulness of Jesus' words! Rather than accept this "sign of Jonah", however, the actions of the Jewish leaders actually made manifest the wickedness of their heart, that they were of this wicked generation! Nevertheless, for those whose hearts could receive it, the sign of Jonah was truly convincing, and the testimony of the disciples is still convincing to this day. And it could be reasoned on more deeply. Paul tells us, "But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept." -- 1 Corinthians 15:20.

Jesus paid the full price to buy back what was lost in Adam, that is, death (lack of sentiency), and, as far as his humanity is concerned, that death was eternal, even as the condemnation upon Adam was eternal death. The eternal condemnation upon Adam and through him upon the human race would have remained eternal, had it not been for the corresponding offsetting price paid by Jesus. -- Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22; 1 Timothy 2:5,6.

This brings us to the latter parts of Jesus' statements pertaining to the condemnation of the evil generation during the day of judgment by the Ninevites. We remember that Jesus' death and resurrection results in two resurrections in the "last day": one is of the believer of this age, who is resurrected to life, and the other is of the unbelievers who are resurrected to judgment. (John 5:28,29; 6:39,40,44; 11:24; 12:47,48; Acts 24:15; Revelation 20:6,11-13) The people of heathen Nineveh in the Judgment Age, in the Millennial Age, he assured them, would rank higher than they, for the Ninevites did repent at the preaching of Jonah, while Jesus spoke of those who did not repent at the preaching of a greater than Jonah. The Queen of Sheba had journeyed afar to hear Solomon's wisdom; yet these who were in the presence of a greater than Solomon failed to realize or, probably more correctly, did not appreciate who this was, and proclaimed his message to be a fraud.

Studies by Others:

Three Days and Three Nights by F. A. Acheson

Three Galileans by Carl Hagensick

* Genesis 3:14 - God's Curse on the Serpent

Russell, 1914, Time of Trouble and End of the World

Credibility of the Bible

Genesis 1:1-2:4 - Days Before the Earth?

The question was presented: How could the earth be made in seven literal days, since without the earth, there would have been no days? The argument seems to be that if there is no earth, then there could have been no days in which the earth was created.

Actually, the scriptures nowhere state that the planet earth was created in seven days, but rather that the heavens and the earth were created in six days, and on the seventh, Jehovah rested from creation. (Exodus 20:11; Exodus 31:17; Genesis 1:1-2:2.  This would mean that the "beginning" referred to in Genesis 1:1 includes the entire six days. The skies and the land were created during the six days described. -- See our study: The Six Days of Creation

How could the heavens and earth be created in "six days," if there were no "days" until the earth was created? To understand this, we need to realize that in the Bible, as in well as in our common speech today, "earth" does not always mean the planet, and "day" does not always mean 24 hours.

In the first chapter of Genesis, for instance, "earth" is used in at least two different ways, as the earth -- the planet -- that was without form and void, and also as regarding the dry land. -- Genesis 1:9,10.

Likewise, the expression, heavens, is used to refer to that which is spoken of in Genesis 1:7-10, and thus it is referring to the atmosphere, the skies, the air, and that which is above the earth that is formed as a result of the separating of the waters below and the waters below.

Furthermore, the word "day" is used in at least three different ways, related to at least three different periods of time, in the first two chapters of Genesis. We first have each of six days referred to as being and evening and a morning. (Genesis 1:5,8,13,19,23,31) Then we have the "day" that is referred to as "light." (Genesis 1:5) We also have the additional single "day" in which the heavens and the earth were created, which single "day" includes the six days mentioned before. -- Genesis 2:4.

And we have the "days" mentioned in Genesis 1:14, as well as the "day" that is mentioned in the same verse and also in Genesis 1:15. The "days" in Genesis 1:14 are evidently referring to the 24-hour "days", while the "day" is referring to the period of time that the 24-hour "day' has "light." This is averaged to be 12 hours. (John 11:29) Thus in Genesis 1:14,15 we have two different periods of time, both of which are called "day."

Thus we conclude, based on the scriptures, that the "earth" spoken of as being created in Genesis 1:1; Exodus 20:11; and Exodus 31:17, was created in six literal "days" -- six periods of time, as the scriptures state. We do not conclude, however, that those "six days" were days of 24 hours, nor do we accept the idea that the "earth" spoken of as being created in Genesis 1:1 refers to the planet itself.  -- See also our study: Are the Creative Days Literal Days?

The Bible gives us no indication of as to when the planet was created, but in Genesis 1:2, it simply reads when those six days began, that the planet earth "was" void and without form.

The "earth" that was created in those six days, pertains to the land mass and the arrangement of things upon the land mass, and in the seas as related to the land mass, as stated in Genesis 1:9-13, as well as the rest of Genesis 1.

Likewise, the "heavens" spoken of in Genesis 1:1 pertains, not to the creation of the galaxies, stars, planetary systems, etc., but rather of the sky and things in the sky, the flying creatures, as well as pertaining the what was being allowed to be seen in the sky, as though from the surface of the earth, that is, the making to appear of the sun, the moon, the stars, etc. This refers to the luminaries as they appeared in the sky -- the heavens, not to the creation of the physical sun, moon, and stars.

It is these heavens (skies) and earth (land) that are being spoken of as being made in one day, as well as six days. -- Genesis 2:4; Exodus 20:11; and Exodus 31:17.

However, neither the one "day" of Genesis 2:4, nor each of the six days do we believe to constitute days of 24 hours each, nor do we believe that the Bible ever gives any indication of how long before the beginning spoken of in Genesis 1:1 that the physical universe was created, or when the planet earth itself was made.

Each of the six days could have been thousands, millions, or even billions of years as we now count time. Likewise, the planet earth could have been brought into existence thousands, millions, billions, or even trillions of years (according to the way we now count time) before the "beginning" that is spoken of in Genesis 1:1.

Thus, seen, the six days of creation, although they are literal "days", in that they are literal periods of time, are not the same as the 24-hour days (Genesis 1:14), nor the averaged "twelve hours" of daylight (John 11:29), that are related to the planet earth's revolving on its axis.

Originally published on or before January 16, 2009; Updated: March 15, 2014; January 14, 2023.

Was Russell Buried In or Under a Pyramid?

Genesis 1 - Are the Creative Days Literal Days?

Genesis 1 - Six Days of Creation

Luke 12:42 -- The Faithful and Wise Steward

Luke 12:42 - And the Lord said, Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall set over his household, to give them their portion of food in due season? . -- American Standard Version.

Many of the believers in the "ransom for all" believe that Brother Russell himself fulfilled the role of being the faithful and wise servant or steward that Jesus spoke of. Brother Russell was certainly used by God in bringing forth many things from the Bible, and much of his writings are explanations of or in defense of the ransom for all. We should certainly appreciate God's use of Brother Russell in his use of all his resources to proclaim the truths related to the ransom.

As a result of his work, some have sought to find Brother Russell in the Bible, and thus have claimed -- among other things -- that he was the faithful and wise servant of Matthew 24:45, the steward of Luke 12:42. Sadly, some have been so zealous for this belief that they would disfellowship a brother for not accepting this as being a fact. Others may not actually disfellowship the brother but have created rules that would forbid such a brother to give public talks or that would forbid such a brother from being elected to an office in the ecclesia, etc. Such attitudes do set up standards of sectarianism, a dividing of sheep over speculative conclusions, and passing judgments upon others based on the speculations which are often accepted as being facts. Indeed, some have built their entire belief system based on such speculations.

The following is the last thing that we could find that Russell said about finding Brother Russell in he Bible:

Some of the dear brethren seem to find as much about Brother Russell in the Bible as they find about the Lord Jesus, and I think that is a great mistake. I do not find it there. Some of them say that I am blinded on that subject, that they all can see better than I can. Perhaps they can, I do not know, but I think, dear friends, that there is a danger in that direction, and I would like to put you all on guard. I think it is the Lord's will that we should recognize every agency God uses, but we are not to recognize any agency of God as being in any competition whatever with the Lord or with his divine arrangement. He is the fountain of blessing, he only is most to be praised. I think that is the right sentiment. I believe you all agree with that. And yet I think there is a danger of some dear friends preaching Brother Russell. Brother Russell would like for you not to do so. He thinks it would not be to the glory of God. Let me repeat, then, dear friends, that in my opinion we have so much of the Gospel of God, so much of his plan to study, so many opportunities of showing forth his praises, that we should employ all our time in that way. My advice, therefore, is that we give very little attention to anything outside of that. The Scriptures do indeed say that we may render honor to him to whom honor is due, and that is applicable to anybody and everybody; as, for instance, we look back and we see Martin Luther, and he did a grand work, and we thank God for him; and we might say the same of John Wesley, and very truthfully; I am glad in God's providence he lived, and that he was a faithful man. And there were others of the Lord's people in the past. Let us be glad and rejoice in every one, and be thankful to God he has used various agencies in helping us, and in helping others, and in bringing forward his great cause; but let us not go into anything that would be at all like man-worship, for I am sure that would be displeasing to the Lord and injurious to ourselves. I remind you again of the Scripture in Revelations where the Church is pictured, which we called attention to, I believe, thirty years ago. John, the revelator, who was seeing these things, fell down to worship the angel who showed them to him, and the angel said, "See thou do it not; worship God; I am thy fellow-servant." And so, dear friends, if our Heavenly Father and our Heavenly Lord have used Brother Russell in any measure he is very glad and very thankful to be used. And if the Lord is pleased to use him any more, he will be glad to be used down to the last breath, but he does not want any worship, he does not want any undue adoration, he does not want any praise. He is glad to have the love of all those who are brethren of the Lord and to be considered a fellow-servant with all, striving to bring to pass all the glorious things that God has promised, striving to tell the good tidings of great joy to as many as the Lord, our God, shall call. -- -1910; ("Convention Report Sermons", pg. 125)

This statement is clear enough that in 1910 Russell did not see himself in the Bible. He also voiced his desire that Brother Russell should not preached. He further stated his view that preaching Brother Russell was not pleasing to the Heavenly Father. 

We may return later to add more to this.

See also:
Russell on Authority and Organization

Links to Russell's works related to Matthew 24:45-51.
Links to Russell's works related to Luke 12:42-48.
(Please note that not everything presented represents Russell's own views)

Luke 12:42-48 - Parable of the Four Servants -- Our own study related to the parable as it is presented in Luke 12.

Isaiah 14:12 - The Name “Lucifer”

"Lucifer" is found in the King James Version only once, at Isaiah 14:12:

Isaiah 14:12 -  How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations. 

Some background information concerning the word “lucifer”. The word “lucifer” is taken from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate translation. In the Vulgate, the Hebrew word often transliterated as hê-lêl  (Strong’s #1966, meaning “shining one, or morning star”) is rendered “lucifer” in Isaiah 14:12, which is part of the words of the dead kings in sheol figuratively speaking (Isaiah 14:9,10) to the king of Babylon. (Isaiah 14:4) However, the king of Babylon evidently was being used as a type of Satan. The King James Version brings this Latin word over into English as a proper name in Isaiah 14:12, and from this the word has traditionally been applied as a proper name in retrospect to the angel who later became Satan.

In the Vulgate the Latin word is also found in Job 11:17 (a rendering of the Hebrew word *boqer*, meaning “morning”; Strong’s #1242) and 2 Peter 1:19 (a rendering of the Greek word “phosphoros”, Strong’s #5459; meaning “morning star”).

The Hebrew word “hê-lêl” is only once used in the Bible, and this is at Isaiah 14:12. We doubt that “heylel” was meant to be a proper name of the angel who later became Satan, but, by tradition, the rendering of “heylel” into the Vulgate as “lucifer”, and then into English as “Lucifer”, has brought about this application. It appears most likely that this term is applied of him in Isaiah as a reference to what Satan purported himself to be, as though he were the sun brightly shining over all the other angels (Isaiah 14:13), and over mankind. (2 Corinthians 11:14) At any rate the present sun reigning over mankind is depicted in Ecclesiastes as a sun resulting in vanity and evil. (Ecclesiastes 1:14; 3:16; 4:3,7; 5:13; 6:1; 9:3,11) This contrasts with the "sun of righteousness" who will soon make righteousness prevail on the earth. -- Psalm 72:7,17; Malachi 4:2; 2 Peter 3:13.

The words of Isaiah 14:12 or directly spoken to the "king of Babylon". We cannot be certain that this refers to any particular king of Babylon, but due to what is stated in Isaiah 14:22, many believe that this refers to Belshazzar, the last king of Babylon. At any rate, it is the king of Babylon who is directly being spoken of as heylel in Isaiah 14:12. The king of Bablyon viewed himself to be the shining one, the morning star (the sun) to guide the world. 

Nevertheless, the description given appears to be making use of the King of Babylon as a type of Satan himself. Satan promotes himself as being ''an angel of light". (2 Corinthians 11:14) Thus, the prophecy evidently has its final fulfillment upon Satan.

"The name Satan, meaning "adversary" or "opposer" was given to an angel who had developed pride in himself and wanted to be like the Most High. The word devil means "slanderer". Isaiah 14:13,14 tells us:  "You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.'" (English Standard Version) 

This describes the King of Babylon, but it also describes Satan who, in effect, slandered Jehovah by telling Eve: "Ye shall not die by death" (Wycliffe). In effect, Satan was claiming that Jehovah had lied in saying that if Adam ate of fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, that he would die. (Genesis 3:3) Satan desire was make himself equal to God and to have all the stars (angels) bow down to him.

"How you are fallen from heaven." (Isaiah 14:12) While the king of Babylon exalted himself to heaven's position, it was Satan who actually fell out of favor with heaven. Thus, Jesus stated: "I saw Satan having fallen like a star from heaven." -- Luke 10:18.

Regardless, while we do not believe that the Bible uses the word hê-lêl in Isaiah 14:12 as a name, the word "lucifer" is widely used as a name of the angel who became Satan. It is not for us to assume authority to tell anyone not to use Lucifer as a name of the devil. Since the meaning behind the name fits what Satan self-proclaimed himself to be, we see no reason to make an issue over the use of Lucifer as a name of the angel who made such claims for himself.

References:
Bible Hub's Hebrew Analysis of Isaiah 14:12
Your Adversary, the Devil

Catholic Influence on Westcott & Hort Text

Often, the Westcott and Hort text is discredited by many for various reasons. While we cannot say that the Westcott and Hort text is 100% accurate, much that is presented against the Westcott and Hort text are distortions of truth concerning Westcott and Hort. Also added to this is the fact they were Catholic. One of the claims is that one cannot trust the Westcott and Hort text because of their Catholic influence on the text.

If one were consistent in such reasoning, one should also reject the Masoretic text of the Old Testament, since it was created by Jews who did not believe in Jesus. The King James Version as well as many other translations are based on the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament. Yet this text was prepared by the Masoretes, who were Jewish. Jesus spoke of the Jews (represented by Jerusalem): Luke 13:35 - Behold, your house is left to you desolate. I tell you, you will not see me, until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of Jehovah!'" (Luke 13:35) Should not one, if consistent, also reject the Masoretic text as being a Jewish text?

Many of those who reject the Westcott & Hort text claim the Textus Receptus, or at least the King James Version translation of the Textus Receptus, is without error, etc. Of course, the King James Version New Testament is almost entirely based on the Textus Receptus.

The Textus Receptus is the later designation of the work of Desiderius Erasmus. Erasmus himself was a member of the Cahtolic Church. For an example of how the Catholic Church influenced Erasmus' text, we find that Erasumus -- due to the pressure from the Catholic Church -- included in 1 John 5:7 what many refer to as the "Comma Johanneum," a phrase thought to be describing the "trinity".

Links to Studies Related to 1 John 5:7

Consequently, if one wishes to reject the Westcott & Hort text because Westcott & Hort were of Catholic background, the same argument could be presented related the Textus Receptus, and probably even more so.

Nevertheless, we would probably not have any Greek text at all if the Catholic Church scribes had not produced and preserved copies of the text. God, of course, can make use of anyone whom he wishes in order to preserve the Bible. We have no found a listing of how many of more than 5,000 Greek fragments and manuscripts were copied by Catholic scribes, but it appears that most of them were copied by Catholics. Some have claimed that among these manuscripts, there are no two that are completely alike, meaning that some kind of error may be in all of them. Nevertheless, if God made use of the Jewish Scribes in preserving the Old Testament, even though they were not faithful, surely he could also make use of Catholic scribes in the preservation of the New Testament, even though errors may have crept into both the Old Testament as well as the New Testament texts, irrespective as to who were the copyists.

Regardless, we believe that God's Divine Plan of the Ages can be seen to be harmonious regardless as to which text one may use; this extends to the King James Version itself also, as far as the major scriptures that would affect the true Gospel are concerned.

For more study pertaining to this, see the following:

Westcott & Hort - Were They Spiritualists?

(We do not necessarily agree with all conclusions presented by these authors):

Westcott & Hort (Wikipedia)
Comma Johanneum
Textus Receptus
Desiderius Erasmus (Wikipedia)

How to Choose a Bible Translation

Benefiting From the Ancient Manuscripts

Some Altered Scriptures

Westcott and Hort - Were They Spiritualists?

Many, usually those who wish to have certain scriptures to support their pet doctrines, have been spreading a gossip-style rumor that Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort were spiritualists. The accusations are often presented in such a manner to incite the emotions of the readers against Westcott & Hort, with the goal of discrediting their Greek text, which has been used by many modern Bible translators. We have examined the arguments and conclude that the actual historical documents do not support that Westcott & Hort were Spiritualists, Occultists, etc.

Once the ball of gossip gets rolling, falsehoods and misrepresentations spread much faster and by many more supporters than those who have sought to present the truth. And as the gossip spreads, many appear to add more imaginative assumptions along the way. Additionally, in response to the accusations being made against Westcott & Hort, supporters often have also been inaccurate in their counter-claims. It sometimes becomes difficult to know what is fact and what is theory being advanced as being fact. It is easy for various historical documents to be distorted, or inaccurate historical information may be presented as fact, and on the surface may appear to be fact.

Thus, one may use Google or another internet search engine that produces a thousand or more pages that contain the distortions or inaccuracies pertaining to Westcott and Hort. Satan is still deceiving the world, and it is still true that the lie is given greater prominence than truth. In the Biblical "age to come" (Isaiah 65:17; Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; Hebrews 6:5; 2 Peter 3:13; Revelation 21:1-5), Satan will have been abyssed so that he will not be able to deceive the nations. (Revelation 20:3) We may not be able to learn the whole truth about Westcott & Hort in this age, but in the age to come, after Satan is abyssed, all will be made known.

Likewise, regarding the Westcott & Hort text, we do not believe that their text is fully accurate, but it does appear to be more accurate than the Textus Receptus in many places. We do not expect a full restoration of the original inspired Bible text until the age to come, after Satan has been abyssed. Those who seek such in this age will probably be misled in some way by Satan. Satan is still active in trying to produce as much deception as he can among Christians.

We do not advocate King James Only theories, nor do we advocate the idea that we should only use the  Westcott & Hort text. We believe that there are possibly errors in both the Textus Receptus and the Westcott & Hort texts.  We believe the basic truths can be presented from either of these texts; even most variations still may be seen to agree with the basic truths presented in the Bible. Please note that we do not advocate either the Erasmian text (often called "Textus Receptus") nor the Westcott & Hort text as being free of scribal error.

We are presenting below links to works by authors who have endeavored to present the matter in favor of Westcott & Hort. Our presentation of the links below does not mean that we necessarily agree with all conclusions given by the authors.

Westcott and the Ghostlie Guild

Were B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort Apostate New Agers?

Westcott, Hermes & the Occult

Frequently Assaulted Quotes

If anyone knows of any more links that would be beneficial here, please provide information in comments below.

Everlasting/Eternal Punishment