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

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