Increasingly, brothers and sisters in the organization are having serious doubts about, or even a complete disbelief in, the doctrine of 1914. Yet some have reasoned that even if the organization is wrong, Jehovah is allowing the error for the present time and we should not make a fuss about it.
Let’s step back for a moment. Put aside the convoluted patchwork of misinterpreted scripture and unsupported historical dating. Forget about the complexity of trying to explain the doctrine to someone, and think instead about its ramifications. What is the real implication of teaching that the “gentile times” have already ended, and that Jesus has been ruling invisibly for over 100 years?
My contention is that we paint a poor representation of our grand King and Redeemer. It should be obvious to any half-serious Bible student that when the “gentile times have ended and the kings [of Satan’s system] have had their day” (to quote C.T. Russell in 1914), then the kings in view should cease to dominate mankind. To suggest otherwise is to dilute the whole promise of Jesus’ established kingship.
As representatives of the King we should be doing so in truth, and giving people an accurate representation of his great power and authority. The only authority that has actually been established through the “invisible parousia” doctrine is that of men. The whole structure of authority within the organization of JWs now rests upon the year 1919, which would still lack scriptural credibility even if the claimed events of 1914 were true. This leaves the leadership grasping onto a whole series of assertions that have no Biblical basis, including the fulfillment of large portions of the Revelation given to John. The earth-shattering prophecies given therein are ascribed to past events which are largely unknown to almost everybody alive today. Incredibly this even includes the most fervent and loyal JWs. Ask any one of them about the seven trumpet blasts of Revelation and see if they can tell you the esoteric explanation of these world-changing prophecies without having to read them out of the publications of JWs. I’ll bet my bottom dollar that they will be unable to do so. What does that tell you?
Contrary to the picture painted by the Watchtower Society that nobody else has an understanding of what the kingdom actually is, many others are out there spreading the gospel. Not just a fluffy vague idea of the Kingdom of God as some have been led to believe, but rather they preach a restored earth under the rulership of Jesus Christ after he has wiped out all other governments and powers at the war of Armageddon. If you doubt this just Google something like “Christ’s second coming kingdom”, and then read what many have written about this subject.
I confess that when I formerly encountered practising Christians in my ministry and they responded to the message about God’s kingdom on earth with “yes, we believe that too”, I used to think that they must be mistaken. In my blinkered world only JWs believed such a thing. If you find yourself in this same state of ignorance I encourage you to do some research, and slow down in your presumptions as to what others already believe.
No, the real differences between JWs and other informed Christians do not lie primarily in the interpretation of the millennial reign, but rather in those additional doctrines unique to JW belief.
The principal among these are:
- The idea that Jesus’ rulership over the entire world began invisibly over a century ago.
- The concept of two classes of present day Christians who will be respectively divided between heaven and earth.
- The expectation that God through Jesus will permanently annihilate all non-JWs at Armageddon. (It is acknowledged that this is an implied doctrine. There is a considerable amount of double-speak employed in Watchtower articles that touch on this.)
So what’s the big deal you might ask. Jehovah’s Witnesses promote family values. They discourage people from going to war. They provide people with networks of friends (contingent on their ongoing agreement to follow the human leadership). What does it really matter if they cling onto the 1914 doctrine and keep teaching it?
Jesus Christ gave clear information and instructions to his followers – both contemporary and future – which included the following:
- Although he would be going to heaven, he has been granted all authority and power, and will always be with his followers to support them. (Matt 28:20)
- At a certain time he will actually return in person and exercise his authority to remove all human government and power. (Ps 2; Matt 24:30; Rev 19:11-21)
- In the intervening period there will be many distressing things that will occur – wars, disease, earthquakes, etc – but Christians should not let anyone fool them that this means he has returned in any sense. When he returns all will know it without question. (Matt 24:4-28)
- In the meantime, until his return and establishment of the God’s Kingdom on earth, Christians will have to endure human rule until the “times of the gentiles” are over. (Luke 21:19,24)
- Christians who endure will join him in ruling over the earth during his presence that follows his return. They should tell people about him and make disciples. (Matt 28:19,20; Acts 1:8)
With specific regard to the topic under consideration the message is very simple: “I will go, but I will return, at which point I will conquer the nations and rule with you.”
This being so, how would Jesus feel if we were to proclaim to others that he has somehow already returned and put an end to the “gentile times”? If it were true then the glaringly obvious question becomes – how is it that nothing in terms of human rule appears to have changed? Why are the nations still exercising their power and domination over the world and over God’s people? Do we have a ruler who is ineffectual? Did Jesus make empty promises about what would happen when he returned?
By teaching others of an “invisible presence” whereby he already put an end to the “gentiles times” over 100 years ago, those are exactly the logical conclusions that we would lead thinking people to.
Hymenaeus and Philetus – a Warning Example for Christians
In the first century certain teachings arose that had no scriptural basis. One example was that of Hymenaeus and Philetus who were teaching that the resurrection had already occurred. Apparently they were claiming that the resurrection promise was only spiritual (similar to the way the concept was used by Paul in Romans 6:4) and that no future physical resurrection was to be expected.
In the passage of scripture leading up to his mention of Hymenaeus and Philetus, Paul wrote of the essential Christian gospel message – salvation through the risen Christ along with everlasting glory (2 Tim 2:10-13). These were the things that Timothy should keep reminding others about (2 Tim 2:14). In turn harmful teachings should be avoided (14b-16).
Hymenaeus and Philetus are then given as bad examples. But just as with the “1914 invisible presence” doctrine we might ask – what was the real harm in this teaching? If they were wrong then they were wrong, and it wouldn’t change the outcome of the future resurrection. One could have reasoned that Jehovah would correct things in his own due time.
But as Paul brings out in context, the reality is that:
- False doctrine is divisive.
- False doctrine makes people think a certain way that can subtly subvert their faith.
- False doctrine can spread like gangrene.
It is one thing for someone to concoct false doctrine. It is far more serious if those teaching it coerce you in turn to teach it to others.
It’s easy to see the effect that this particular false doctrine would have on people. Paul himself specifically warned of the attitude that would overtake those who did not believe in the future resurrection:
If like other men, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, of what good is it to me? If the dead are not raised up, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we are to die.” Do not be misled. Bad associations spoil useful habits. (1 Cor 15:32,33. “Bad company ruins good morals.” ESV)
Without the proper perspective of God’s promises people would be inclined to lose their moral anchor. They would lose a major part of their incentive to stay on course.
Comparing the 1914 Doctrine
Now you might be thinking that 1914 is not like that. One could reason that if anything it gives people a heightened sense of urgency, even if it’s misguided.
We might then ask – why did Jesus not only warn against becoming spiritually sleepy, but also against premature announcements of his coming? The fact is that both situations carry their own set of dangers. Just as with the teachings of Hymenaeus and Philetus, the 1914 doctrine has been divisive and can subvert people’s faith. How so?
If you are currently still hanging onto the 1914 invisible presence doctrine then imagine your Christian belief without it for a moment. What happens when you remove 1914? Do you stop believing that Jesus Christ is God’s appointed King and that at his appointed time he will indeed return? Do you doubt for a moment that this return could be imminent and that we should keep in expectation of it? There is absolutely no scriptural or historical reason that we should start abandoning such core beliefs if we give up 1914.
On the other side of the coin what does a blind belief in the invisible presence do? What effect does it have on the mind of the believer? I suggest to you that it creates doubt and uncertainty. Faith becomes faith in the doctrines of men and not God, and such faith lacks stability. It creates doubt, where doubt need not exist (James 1:6-8).
To start with, how else can someone fall foul of the admonition to avoid becoming an evil slave who says in his heart that “My master is delaying” (Matt 24:48) unless that person has a false expectation of when the master should in fact arrive? The only way this scripture can be fulfilled is for someone to teach an expected time, or maximum time frame, for the return of the Lord. This is precisely what the leadership of the Jehovah’s Witness movement has been doing for more than 100 years. The idea of a specific limited time frame has been regularly passed from the doctrinal policy makers at the top, through the organizational hierarchies and printed literature, down through parents and inculcated into children.
Those Jonadabs who now contemplate marriage, it would seem, would do better if they wait a few years, until the fiery storm of Armageddon is gone (Face the Facts 1938 pp.46,50)
Receiving the gift, the marching children clasped it to them, not a toy or plaything for idle pleasure, but the Lord’s provided instrument for most effective work in the remaining months before Armageddon. (Watchtower 1941 September 15 p.288)
If you are a young person, you also need to face the fact that you will never grow old in this present system of things. Why not? Because all the evidence in fulfillment of Bible prophecy indicates that this corrupt system is due to end in a few years. (Awake! 1969 May 22 p.15)
I have only included a small sample of older quotations out of the huge quantity available, since these can easily be identified as false claims contrary to Jesus’ admonitions. Of course any long term JW knows that nothing has changed in terms of the ongoing rhetoric. The goalposts just keep moving forward in time.
Of those people subjected to such indoctrination, the ones who persevere in their belief of Christ’s return really do so in spite of the organizational teachings, not because of them. How many casualties have fallen along the way? So many who have seen through the falsehood have walked away from Christianity altogether, having been sold on the idea that if there is one true religion then it is the one they were raised to believe. Do not dismiss this as a refining process willed by God, since God never lies (Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18). It would be a gross injustice to suggest that any such error originates with God, or is in any way approved by Him. Do not fall for the line that even Jesus’ disciples had false expectations based on a trivial reading of the question they raised in Acts 1:6: “Lord are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?” There is a world of difference between asking a question, and inventing dogma that you insist your followers believe and promulgate to others under pain of severe sanction and ostracism. The disciples of Jesus were not holding onto a false belief and insisting that others believe it. Had they done so after being told that the answer did not belong to them but only to God, they surely could never have received the promised Holy Spirit (Acts 1:7,8; 1 John 1:5-7).
Some excuse the ignoring of “it does not belong to you” by claiming that it didn’t belong to those disciples but does belong to the human leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses today. But this is to ignore the second part of Jesus’ statement: “… which the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction”.
Who were the first humans tempted to take something that the Father had placed in his own jurisdiction? And who in turn led them into doing so (Genesis 3)? It bears serious consideration when God’s Word is so clear on the matter.
For too long there has been a sub-group of Jehovah’s Witnesses who have seen through the veneer of the “invisible presence” doctrine, and yet rationalized the act of going along with it. I was certainly in that group for a while. Yet on reaching the point at which we can not only see the falsehood, but also the danger to our brethren, can we continue to make excuses? I am not suggesting any form of disruptive activism, which would also be largely counter-productive. But to all who have come to the uncomplicated scriptural conclusion that Jesus Christ is our King who is yet to come and end the times of the gentile kings, why continue to teach that he has already done so during an invisible presence? If the majority were simply to stop teaching what they know (or strongly suspect) to be untrue, then it would undoubtedly send a message to the top of the hierarchy, and at the very least removes an impediment to our ministry that might otherwise be something to be ashamed of.
“Do your utmost to present yourself approved to God, a workman with nothing to be ashamed of, handling the word of the truth aright.” (2 Tim 2:15)
“This is the message that we heard from him and are announcing to you: God is light, and there is no darkness at all in him. If we make the statement, “We are having fellowship with him,” and yet we go on walking in the darkness, we are lying and are not practicing the truth. However, if we are walking in the light as he himself is in the light, we do have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.” (1 John 1:5-7)
Most importantly, if we realize how this doctrine has proved to be a cause for stumbling to many who put faith in it, and that it retains the potential to stumble many in the future, we will take seriously Jesus words recorded at Matthew 18:6.
“But whoever stumbles one of these little ones who have faith in me, it would be better for them to have hung around his neck a millstone that is turned by a donkey and to be sunk in the open sea.” (Matt 18:6)
Conclusion
As Christians it is incumbent on us to speak truth with one another and to our neighbours (Eph 4:25). There are no clauses that can excuse us if we teach something other than truth, or share in perpetuating a doctrine we know to be erroneous. Let us not lose sight of the hope set before us, and never be drawn into any line of reasoning that would lead us or others to think that the “master is delaying”. Men will continue to make groundless predictions, but the Lord himself will not be late. It is evident to all that he has not yet ended the “gentile times” or “appointed times of the nations”. When he arrives he will do so decisively just as he promised.
“•False doctrine makes people think a certain way that can subtly subvert their faith.” Taken from your article All my children were raised as Jehovah’s Witnesses since birth. They were all baptized, and were active. But as adults they all left. I asked one of my sons why he left. He said that his JW grandmother (his mother’s mother) used to tell him since he was a little boy the end was coming real soon. Then when his great-grandmother (my grandmother) died, he had discussions with his younger brother about what his grandmother used to tell them, saying that end… Read more »
[…] “God’s Word tells us to give the Kingdom first place in our lives.” – par. 8 True, but what kingdom? The Kingdom Jehovah’s Witnesses erroneously claim was established in 1914? […]
The idea of 1914 is for new people without any Bible scholarship background to heavy to check if it is true or not. Mostly they need attention and respect and have other troubles in life. After years of doubts it is for me sure that 1914 i a complete false doctrine. Even the idea that Jesus is an angel is a false doctrine. Jesus never gone BACK to heaven but gone to heaven as a man(not as an angel). Revelation 5:10 the 144.000 who shall have an earth resurrection shall rule ON(epi) earth with Jesus from Sion, the new Jerusalem.… Read more »
We agree that the invisible presence of Christ in 1914 is a false doctrine. Likewise, that Jesus was an angel in heaven. We have proven these statements from scripture elsewhere on this site and its companion sites. However, the teaching of Sir Anthony Buzzard that Jesus did not pre-exist his birth on earth is one that we disagree with. Nevertheless, we appreciate that everyone is entitled to their viewpoint.
[…] as my brothers, because they believe in false doctrines like an invisible presence that began in 1914, and in a secondary class of Christian who is not a child of God, and because they give allegiance […]
…and any kid could do the maths too. We know the milenial reign begins after Armageddon, which implies Jesus rulership for a 1000 years of course. However we (JW’S) say that JC was enthroned in 1914, roughly a century ago. So this would mean that Jesus apparently has 900 years left to rule, right? Now this in itself is already enough evidence that 1914’s theory holds upon a thread as Armageddon obviously hasn’t past yet.
Great article Apollos. I was always confused about the 1914 doctrine for a number of reasons. Your article and reasoning however, has helped me to put to bed the reasons why 1914 is incorrect and also the importance of how this doctrine can be a cause for stumbling. It really minimizes the role of Jesus and his second coming.
Excellent article Apollos, I had never looked at things this way until now, that the 1914 doctrine carries the implication that Jesus is an impotent leader. Quite dishonoring to him, now that I see it.
Thank you!
JWs believe Jesus has been present in Kingdom power since 1914, but he has yet to take full control over the earth. Regarding Matthew 24:3 in the NWT refers to the sign of Christ’s presence. As far as I can see in all other translations Matthew 24:3 refers to the sign of Christ’s coming.
Before I became a JW, 1914 had no significant meaning for me, other than that it was the year in which the first world war started. But as my country remained neutral during WW1, WW2 had far more impact. As a JW, 1914 is a critical year (at least until now but believe little by little this is changing….). Since this good article by Apollos, I started to think: if the bible does not provide a year, month, day on which Jesus was born, why would the bible provide information that supposedly all point to 1914? It does not make… Read more »
To me, the best answer to this question is Carl Olaf Jonsson’s book, “Sign of the Last Days, When?” He strongly makes that case that, even if 1914 and the 20th century were difficult times for the world, they weren’t the only period in history in which life was difficult. He shows a great deal of evidence that the 13th century was extremely difficult, since it was a period of extensive warfare lasting a whole century, and was the time when the Plague killed a vast number of people; crime, disease and hunger were also very severe. In comparison, is… Read more »
I’m confused. You said that the whole world will k JW his return. Then you said Christians who endure will join him in ruling over the earth during his presence that follows his return. (Matt 28:19,20; Acts 1:8)
Why would the disciples ask about the sign of his presence if the presence follows his return thy everyone will see?
Know*
The signs of his presence are the things by which you can tell he is near. The signs themselves don’t prove the presence already happened, but that it is due to happen. What are the last days? The signs of the things that happen before his return.
Hi CJ, That’s a reasonable question when coming at it from a JW standpoint. But you need to not only go on the question raised by the disciples who didn’t yet know exactly what they were asking, but also carefully read the answer given by Jesus. Rather than assuming that Jesus is launching into what the sign will be as he starts to talk in Matt 24:4 read his words in the entire passage carefully and see where Jesus actually says what “the sign” would be. It doesn’t happen until v30 of Matt 24. Then go back and check what… Read more »
Another big eye opener is realising that the length of the Persian period is one that is hard to determine. You have to put your trust in one of two sources, Daniel or Ptolemy. The end of the seventy years of Babylonian domination also marks the start of the seventy weeks prophecy in Daniel. The going forth of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem actually issued with Cyrus, so you need to count from then.This fulfills Isaiah chapter 44 & 45, Cyrus was going to rebuild the city. We count from a different time, which was just repairing fresh… Read more »
What is bad is that they were clued into it, but chose to stick with a forced interpretation of scripture to suit a particular view of chronology. The governing body in 1970’s all received a copy of some of Carl Olof Jonssons treatise. So they are more than aware of all the facts, but chose to go with the lie instead of truth. So sad really, to know deep down something is not truth.
Here is the Watchtower defence of it’s chronology from way back in 1922.
https://archive.org/details/1922WatchtowerArticlesOnChronology
If one has the patience to wade through all this (and the print is a little hard to read), there are some real eye openers in this 1922 WT. 1. It seems clear that even with the evidence of secular history known in 1922, WT was aware that this evidence showed Jerusalem fell in 587 BC, not 607 BC. Yet, they create an incredibly convoluted explanation trying to justify 607. Archeological evidence found since then, such as detailed in Carl Johsson’s book, has only increased in the 90-some years since. 2. The WT article shows that they accept secular history… Read more »
Well done for getting through it all. Realising Daniel was taken into exile with Jehoaikim, not Jehoiachin, was a big eye opener for me.
I had not heard of this issue before. Could you give some details and background on it, and what its significance is? How does this change our understanding? I don’t disbelieve you, but this is the first time I recall anyone mentioning it. Any additional details and explanation would be appreciated.
No problem. The synchronism between the rulers can be found at Jere 25:1, and Jere 46:2, where the 4th regal year of Jehoiakim is the 1st year of King Nebuchadnezzar. Apparently the Babylonians did not count accession years. So when Daniel 1:1 says that Daniel was in Babylonian exile in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim, that was the year that Nebuchadnezzar had taken over rule from Nabopolassar, his accession year. But his 1st proper year of rule which was counted was the following year. This explains why Daniel could interpret Nebuchadnezzars dream after 3 years of training, in the Nebuchadnezzars… Read more »
Thanks for this information, Anonymous. I appreciate seeing the proof for 609 which makes much more sense. Now if the Society has clued to this earlier, they could have at least removed the serious flaw in their logic that the First World War is proof of Jesus invisible enthronement because it resulted from the Devil being cast down and having great anger. The flaw, of course, is that by their chronology the Devil was cast down after October 1914 and the war started in August, with the trigger for it occurring in July when Ferdinand was assassinated. Of course, they… Read more »
It goes back further than Nelson Barbour as well Meleti. William Miller preached the end of the world in 1843, this was changed to 1844 by the guy who came up with the no immortality of the soul doctrine, can’t remember his name. The bridge between 1844 and 1874 is provided by Jonas Wendell. Read his book “Present Truth or Meat in Due Season”. It gives a chart showing why they thought Miller was out by 30 years. This was right at the time Russell dropped into that dinghy hall mentioned in the Proclaimers book. These guys were all ex-Millerites… Read more »
Hi Anon,
I was aware that Miller came up with it first (or did he?) and made reference to that back in 2012 in the article “Was 1914 the Start of Christ’s Presence“. For those interested, they can see the Miller chart here.
There is an excellent analysis of the history of Jehovah’s Witnesses on youtube given by Tim Martin.
I haven’t read the article on the substitutionary atonement. Wasn’t even aware of it.
https://archive.org/details/PresentTruthByJonasWendell
I think the dialogue between Russell and Barbour on the ransom, which word Barbour still used until his death, is in here.
https://archive.org/details/1875-1880HeraldOfTheMorningAssortedIssues
When everyone failed to go to heaven, Barbour started to come up with other explanations, hence his views on the substitutionary atonement. it’s an interesting read. He basically believed Jesus died for us, not instead of us. Interested to hear your thoughts on it 🙂
One of the biggest problems about believing that 1914 is important, is that nothing seems to have happened. Yes, WW I happened, but spiritually, what really happened? If Christ is enthroned, what is he doing? No disrespect to Christ is intended, but really, has he just been “twiddling his thumbs” for 100 years? Gathering his thoughts? Devising a strategy? And the nations? If the Gentile times “ended” in 1914, in what way are those nations doing (or not doing) anything differently than they ever did? Aren’t the nations of the world continuing to rule, to govern their peoples, to build… Read more »
The only empirical evidence the Organization has advanced is that WWI started then as a result of the great anger the devil had at being ousted from heaven by the newly enthroned Jesus Christ. The problem with this “evidence” is that according to WT chronology, Jesus was enthroned in October of 1914. So the devil would have been ousted after that. However, the trigger for the war was the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in July of that year and the war itself began in August, so this couldn’t have been the result of an angry ousted Satan since he was… Read more »
Of course, there is utterly no evidence that the month of October has anything to do with anything. It is merely a WT assumption, wherein the start of every year is presumed to be October. They could always claim they were ‘accurate to the nearest year’. Whenever someone questions WT chronology and math such as this, they simply ignore differences and inconsistencies such as years being 360 days except when they are 365, etc. If you ask a devoted JW about these matters, they would dismiss them as trivial.
Thats right again TRA. Its starting to sound crazy when we put it like that . It certainly doesnt feel like paradise where im living .
I thoroughly enjoyed that article Apollos. Good thing my head’s firmly attached because I was nodding in agreement so much it could have fallen off. Great arguments, logic, and thought provoking words. Thank you.
Thanks MarthaMartha.
Let’s take a look at the evidence, and I am sorry if my tone might sound humorous, but hey people say that of me, and it is better I say this, this way or else I might say something less Christian like. So Jesus was suppose enthroned as king by 1914. And so the master has allowed the following. 1. We said Scripture Evidence since 1879 that he came back to his presence in the year 1874, till about the 1930’s ( exact year we will leave that blank) , but said period Now we say Nope he came back… Read more »
Great work buster, good perspective. Love your comments. Keep em coming!
As others have noted before, the correct understanding of Proverbs 4:18, and the whole 18th chapter of Proverbs, is that it teaches us the benefits of choosing proper conduct and selecting good associations, and has nothing to do with spiritual light. But, for the sake of argument, suppose it did actually have the meaning attributed to it by WT. What then? Unquestionably, and by their own admission, the “light” published by WT has changed over the years. If in fact earlier “old light” was in error, and was corrected by subsequent “new light”, where did any of this supposed “light”… Read more »
To be honest as far as i knew for years i did think that there knowledge in a sense was from men . I never realised that they were claiming to be gods spokesmen i just thought that they may have bee n a faithful slave imperfect men like the rest of us trying their very best to provide an explanation for us of gods word the bible . I thought that these people had read the bible for years and i respected their opinion . They have even said themselves that they do not claim to be gods prophets… Read more »
Real A – Our official interpretation of Proverbs 4:18 is one far removed from the context. When you consider chapters 1-7, it is clear that Solomon’s target audience is unmistakably…….. Solomon’s sons. (consider Proverbs 1:8; 2:1; 3:1; 4:1; 5:1; 6:1; 7:1) Given the context, we can appreciate that we must take Proverbs 4:18 completely out of context to suggest that its meaning somehow suggests a progressive revealing of truths to a select group of men in the last days. Leadership never connects the dots, but to correctly understand the meaning of Proverbs 4:18 we must pair it with the next… Read more »
You’re absolutely right, Sopater. When WT misapplies this verse in a vain attempt to justify the new-light doctrine and cover up their own errors, they are distracting attention from the real meaning and value of this counsel in Proverbs 4. They can’t really let this chapter speak for itself, a passage which provides a fine model for fathers on how to teach their sons about wise choices in life, because if they did that, it would become clear that the new-light doctrine is not taught or supported here. So instead, they teach the commands and opinions of men, and the… Read more »
Oops, typo: I should have said “whole 4th chapter of Proverbs” as it relates to Proverbs 4:18, not “whole 18th chapter of Proverbs”. Musta had “18” on the brain :-))
Yes thanks for that apollos its nice to hear your views again . Just about the 1914 doctrine , i was never really convinced all along that it was true it was one of those may bes for me . So to me it was never really that important . After quite a few years though i began to realise it was wrong but still had the attitude that if people want to believe that its up to them it wasnt my buisness . However i think the real problem starts when you have a hierarchy that are teaching these… Read more »
Thanks Father jack. Your thought processes over the years seem to parallel mine quite closely. I think it’s understandable that our first step on seeing falsehood, but wanting the organization to be the one true religion, is to minimize the impact of the error. But there comes a time when we start to see the real implications and can no longer hold that position.
I love this line of reasoning, Apollos. I’ve just recently learned that it was Nelson Barbour who taught that Christ was returning visibly in 1874. This is the same Nelson Barbour who joined up with C.T. Russell in 1876 and began publishing with him; the same Barbour whom Russell split with over–among other things–a disagreement over the validity of the ransom sacrifice. Well, this guy’s 1874 prophecy failed to come true, but instead of humbly admitting he was wrong, he took the course of many before him and compounded the lie with another. This new one had his prophecy coming… Read more »
Thanks Meleti. Yes, that parallel of what the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction with the original command in Eden occurred to me as I was writing this. There are not many things in the Bible that are worded in this way, and both situations have to do with “knowledge”. We should really take note of that.
True believers say when confronted with the truth “Anyway, my faith is not based on dates”. Ok, well it seems we have a bit of a problem then, as 1914 is shoved in our face at every opportunity. The ultimate loyalty test. What a joke
Maybe their “faith” is not personally based on dates (and we can grant them that this might be true on an individual basis) but their membership in the WT most definitely IS based on dates. What will happen if a JW tells their elders that he doesn’t believe 1914 is the year Jesus invisibly came to power. How long before they must recant that statement or be disfellowshipped? A faith not based on dates? Really?
This is an outstanding article, a really excellent summary of everything that’s wrong with the 1914 doctrine. They really have nailed their pants to the mast with this one, and the further they march on the more those pants stretch and strain (like the incredulity of the whole generation thing.) Inevitably, this can only end one way, and it’s gunna hurt!
Exactly ,everything has been swung on the 1914 nail, it actually makes the position of true believers more fragile as time goes on,it’s going to have to be abandoned eventually, much the same way that everthing Russell taught pre 1914 has also been cast adrift,with barely a flinch.
I used to hang onto 1914 because of ww1
Took me 40 years to realise that an even worse war happened 20 years later that changed the world even more profoundly than ww1.
Thanks 1984. You paint quite the picture with that metaphor 🙂
“False doctrine makes people think a certain way that can subtly subvert their faith” I am quite new to your site and can attest to the above point. I used to muse (in a nightmarish sort of way) about what I would do if one day the organization told us they had made a mistake and 1914 is not correct. Would I still serve Jehovah? Now that I am beginning to realize that this might indeed be true it has shaken my faith a lot. Not that I have been serving Jehovah because I thought the end was close, but… Read more »
Hi Out of Africa,
We are working on such a list. It’s just a question of time. Unfortunately, all of us still have to work for a living, so it’s a balancing act.
One way to try to come to terms with reality, and reconcile ourselves to what we have learned upon “waking up”, is to consider the life of a Christian in, say, the tenth century AD. At that time, the Catholic Church held sway, and not even the dissent of Protestant Reformation some five centuries later would have been tolerated. In that environment, in what form would “true worship” manifest itself? What possible form COULD it take? (And, embarrassingly difficult for WT to answer, what was “God’s Organization” at that time?) Should a person living in that time in history have… Read more »
hi Out of Africa welcome I can relate very much to your post, for me once the GB declared themselves as the FDS and then the overlapping generation that was the start of my awakening, and this site has helped me to try and keep a balance as its easy to get down and discouraged once we start to awake, spiritual food and prayer, and research is important especially in the WT publications as for me they themselves tell so many contradictions once your eyes are opened it very easy to pick. I don’t go door to door anymore, only… Read more »
It is no wonder that the GB has decided that they alone are the FDS. Consider that “anointed” ones outside of the WT headquarters were not contacted in any organized way. They were not asked their opinions on doctrinal matters, nor asked to contribute articles for publication in the WT magazine or in books. WT gave the “anointed” lip service as being part of this noble “faithful and discrete slave class”, but in reality, anyone outside of headquarters was “thrown under the bus”, by being totally ignored. Except lately, they got a little bit of attention when they partook at… Read more »
It seems as in the annual meeting and them trying to fit in the Ezekiel valley of dry bones, prophecy of Ezekiel 37:1-14, and them trying to tie that with C.t. Russell and 1919, yup they just dropped that stuff on the Rank and File, of course I thought they were done this Anti-type Joke….Nope. Wait I thought Russell was doing the work Like John the Baptist, I am confused and can not get the lies straight. And of course Mr. Lett said that the 607 BC is correct, it seems as of late people are either talking or smelling… Read more »
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve pointed out the anti-biblical nature of 1914-based end-mongering and gotten responses like “just wait on Jehovah, let him sort things out” or “it helps me maintain a sense of urgency”. No one wants to face the obvious point that you can’t defy clear scriptural warnings and expect to experience zero negative consequences, so this is an extremely important subject.
A balanced and scripturally sound article Brother Apollos, and well researched as always. Jehovah seeks worshipers who worship him with truth (John 4:23) And truth is discovered by careful and diligent study (research) of God’s Word. (Proverbs 2:6; 18:15) Knowledge is discovered by research, sound and honest research. Research will always have the effect of undermining untruth, but it will always reinforce truth. Why do so many rationalize the act of going along with the 1914 doctrine? Even though entertaining troubling doubts, why do so many continue to excuse the errors? The reason may be explained by how our brains… Read more »
Nicely put, yes God and Christ both want us to know the truth. I appreciate your comments on the awakening process. Finding out the truth can be uncomfortable, but we plunge forward, through and past it. It is then we realize we did the right thing. Heb 10:39
The key therefore is to worship God in spirit and truth (John 4:23,24).
Romans 10:2 “For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge.” This scripture which JWs so often apply to others, could in fact apply to themselves. Paul recognised that his fellow Jews had this kind of zeal without knowledge, and he worked to help set them free from their destructive ignorance.
Well said brother. I know in my heart that the 1914 doctrine is false, and now look forward to when Jesus really returns. If it be in my lifetime or not I still have the hope of a resurection. Thanks for the timely article.
All the GB had to do is obey what Christ said, no one knows the time not even the son.
My heart goes out to all my b/s those wakening and those confused and those that just follow whatever the GB say.
I pray that the end is soon because I can’t stand the cruelty in this world, the injustice and the milions suffering because they had no say as to where they were born.
I believe Jesus is a righteous and just King and takes all things into consideration, Jehovah knows our potential.
Good article Apollos.Thank you.
For me it was the realisation that Jesus did not return in 1914 that changed my hope from surveying Armageddon and achieving eternal youth, maybe?To the good news that was originally offered.A resurrection which finally redeems us from our inherited sinful flesh then eternal life.No need to fear death never-mind Armageddon!
2 Corinthians 1:3 “Heartfelt thanks be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ–the Father who is full of compassion and the God who gives all comfort”
So true Katrina, but that would take some humility on the part of the men that make up the GB. To date, they have done not one thing that reassures me they have this vital quality. If they did the Organization wouldn’t be in the mess it’s in to-day. Why is it so hard for these men to say they were w-w-w-wrong. If they did, and not just on this issued but others too, my heart would melt towards them, and so too possibly, would God’s. Then he just might pour out his Holy Spirit on this arrangement. But, alas!
The three most important things for a Christian to say, to prevent them from falling into error and away from God, are these:
1. I don’t know.
2. I could be wrong.
3. I’m sorry.
The three things WT is incapable of saying.
You hit the nail on the head. Why all the debate over a date.