Bible Study – Chapter 4 Par. 16-23
This week’s study discusses the 1931 adoption of the name Jehovah’s Witnesses by the Bible Students. The reasoning to justify this move is based on so many unsubstantiated premises that I stopped counting at 9, and I was only in the third paragraph.
The key premise is that Jehovah gave the Witnesses his name, because that is how he exalts it.
“An outstanding way in which Jehovah exalts his name is by having a people on earth who bear his name.” – par. 16
Does Jehovah really exalt his name by giving it to a group of humans? Israel didn’t bear his name. “Israel” means “contender with God”. Christians didn’t bear his name. “Christian” means “anointed one.”
Since this book is so rife with assertions and premises, let’s make a few of our own; but we’ll try to substantiate ours.
The View from Rutherford’s Day
It is 1931. Rutherford has just dissolved the editorial committee which up until then had been controlling what he published.[i]
From that year until his death, he was the sole voice for the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society. With the power this afforded him, he could now address another concern that had evidently been on his mind for years. The International Bible Students Association was a loose affiliation of Christian groups that had formed around the world. Rutherford had been trying to bring it all under centralized control for years. Along the way, many departed from Rutherford—not from Jehovah nor from Christ, as often alleged—when they became disillusioned by his failed prophesies, such as the 1925 fiasco when he foretold Armageddon would come. Most continued worshipping outside of the sphere of influence of the WTBTS.
Like many church leaders before him, Rutherford understood the need for a truly distinctive name to bind all the groups still affiliated with him and distinguish them from all others. There would be no need for this if the congregation were to be governed solely by its true leader, Jesus Christ. However, for men to govern over another group of men they need to set themselves apart from the rest. The fact was, as paragraph 18 of this week’s study says, “the designation 'Bible Students' was not distinctive enough.”
However, Rutherford needed to find a way to justify the new name. This was still a religious organization based on the Bible. He could have gone to the Christian Greek Scriptures since he was looking for a name to describe Christians. For example, there is ample support in Scripture for the idea that Christians are to bear witness to Jesus. (Here are just a few: Acts 1:8; 10:43; 22:15; 1Co 1:2. For a longer list, see this article.)
Stephen is actually called a witness of Jesus. (Acts 22:20) So one would think that “Jesus’ Witnesses” would be the ideal name; or perhaps, “Witnesses of Jesus” using Revelation 12:17 as our theme text.
At this point we might ask why such a name wasn’t given to the first century Christians? Was it that “Christian” was distinctive enough? Is a distinctive name really necessary? In other words, is it important what we call ourselves? Or could we be missing the mark by focusing on our own name? Do we really have a Scriptural basis to abandon “Christian” as our sole designation?
When the apostles first started preaching, they ran into problems not because of God’s name but because of the witness they bore to the name of Jesus.
“. . .Then the high priest questioned them 28 and said: “We strictly ordered you not to keep teaching on the basis of this name. . .” (Ac 5:27, 28)
After refusing to shut up about Jesus, they were flogged and “ordered…to stop speaking on the basis of Jesus’ name.” (Acts 5:40) However, the apostles left “rejoicing because they had been counted worthy to be dishonored in behalf of his name.” (Acts 5:41)
Let us remember that Jesus is the leader whom Jehovah has placed. Between Jehovah and man stands Jesus. If we can remove Jesus from the equation, there is a vacuum in the minds of men which can then be filled by other men – men who would like to govern. Therefore, a group designation that focuses on the name of a leader we wish to replace would not be wise.
It is noteworthy that Rutherford ignored all the Christian Scriptures, and instead, for the basis for his new name he went back to a single instance in the Hebrew Scriptures that concerned, not Christians, but Israelites.
Rutherford knew that he couldn’t spring this on people. He had to prepare the soil of the mind, fertilizing and plowing and clearing away debris. Thus, it should come as no surprise to learn that the passage upon which he based his decision—Isaiah 43:10-12—was considered in 57 different issues of The Watch Tower from 1925 to 1931.
(Even with all this groundwork, it appears that our German brothers whom we so often use to represent the organization as examples of faith under persecution were not so quick to adopt the name. In fact, they continued to be referred to throughout the war only as Earnest Bible Students. [Ernste Bibelforscher])
Now it is true that exaltation of the name of God is of great importance. But in exulting God’s name, are we to do it our way, or his way?
Here’s God’s way:
“. . .Furthermore, there is no salvation in anyone else, for there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.” (Ac 4:12)
Rutherford and the current Governing Body would have us ignore this and focus on Jehovah based on an account intended for ancient Israel as if we were still part of that obsolete system. But even Isaiah’s account still focuses our eyes back to Christianity, for among the three verses always used to support our name choice, we find this:
“. . .I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior.” (Isa 43:11)
If there is no other savior but Jehovah and there can be no contradiction in scripture, then how are we to understand Acts 4:12?
Since Jehovah is the only savior and since he has set up a name by which all must be saved, who are we to attempt an end run around that name and go right to the source? Do we expect to be saved even then? It is as if Jehovah has given us a passcode with the name of Jesus, but we think we don’t need it.
Accepting the designation “Jehovah’s Witnesses” may have seemed innocent enough at the time, but over the years it has allowed the Governing Body to steadily diminish the role of Jesus to the point that his name is barely mentioned at all among Jehovah’s Witnesses in any social discussion. Focusing on Jehovah’s name has also allowed us to alter Jehovah’s place in the life of the Christian. We do not think of him so much as our father but as our friend. We call our friends by their names, but our father is “dad” or “papa”, or simply, “father".
Alas, Rutherford achieved his goal. He made the Bible Students into a distinct religion under him. He made them just like all the rest.
________________________________________________________________________
[i] Wills, Tony (2006), A People For His Name, Lulu Enterprises ISBN 978-1-4303-0100-4
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by apollos0fAlexandria on 2016-11-30 11:10:10
Another great analysis Meleti.
If Rutherford was turning to Isaiah for literal direction on what God's people should be "called" then it ought to have been "My Delight is in Her" (Isa 62:4).
Thankfully that will one day be a reality for all who live under the rule of Christ and New Jerusalem. We're just not quite there yet.
For now we proudly bear the name "Christian" as scripturally supported by Acts 11:26.
Comment by Johnsc11 on 2016-11-30 12:28:40
Yes. After the Death of Russell, Rutherford repudiated the teachings of Russell starting with the type and antitype of Elijah and Elisha in 1917-1919. Rutherford introduced errors very subtly over the years. In 1923 in his article "The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats" the ransom applied to everyone and everyone would be resurrected with an opportunity to have a trial for life. This changed in that article to where the Sheep and Goats no longer applied to the Millennial Age but to the Gospel Age meaning not all would be resurrected and this is still taught today.
In 1926 he repudiated the teaching of Character Development. In 1920 he republished the Tabernacle Shadows which was published in 1881 changing Russell's teachings. . He got rid of electing elders and made them appointed the society. In 1925 he changed the meaning of revelation to be after 1914 instead of from Jesus day until present. In 1926 the ceased using the Chart of the Ages and publishing Studies in the Scriptures.
In the Watchtower of 1931 he published the discourse that was given and he stated that they decline to be called Bible Students. Their beliefs had already changed so much. That's why he changed it and he wanted to distinguish himself from the other bible student. He got rid of the Great Pyramid in 1928 and God rid of tabernacle studies and the cross and crown. Not only did he want to stick out from Christendom but he wanted to differ from the Bible Students.
Many groups had broken off early.
Laymans Home Missionary Movement known today as the Bible Standarf Ministries.
Pastoral Bible Institute-Currently exists.
Dawn Bible Students 1930's. Still
Exists.
Chicago Bible Students- Still exists
There are different groups of JWs too
- Theocratic Fellowship of Jehovah's Witnesses.
- True faith Jehovah's Witnesses.
Free Bible Students- Broke off in 1909 due to the updated understanding that the Church is not developed under the new covenant but will be made with Israel in the millennium.
Epiphany Bible Students- Broke off Laymans after death of PSL Johnson.
If you want to read a good book on a first hand perspective of the changed from Russell to Rutherford by someone who was there read "Thirty years a watchtower slave" William Schnell.Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2016-11-30 14:54:18
One more thing....
1859
Pastor Russell was born in a period called the second great awakening...
What was the first ? And awakening of what? Did Russell or Rutherford ever write about this?
Safe reliable sources please:)
Agape,
GWITReply by Johnsc11 on 2016-11-30 15:02:40
The first great awakening was the early 1700's which dealt with Congregationalist and puritanical beliefs.
Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2016-11-30 14:40:51
Very Interesting...
I have been studying those characters or antitypes for quite some time.....
Did Rutherford believe the " Elijah " anointing was restricted to a class or or single person? In other words was he the " Elijah " or was it a group of Anointed?
As I read your comments guys... I'm sorry This is not an Error . It was a Dark Choice that lead to Deliberate Doctrinal Error...
Where can I find These Teachings of his if they exist? A Safe Verifiable way..... What did Russell Teach on this?
Agape,
GWITReply by Johnsc11 on 2016-11-30 15:06:55
Hey. I know. I love Types and antitypes. I'm one of the Bible Students that they call russelites. I hate that name. :). But regarding the view of Elijah and Elisha there is the site to the reprints from 1927. If you go to March 1 and 15 it is all about Elijah and Elisha.
http://wtarchive.svhelden.info/archive/en/Watchtower/w1927_E.pdfReply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2016-11-30 15:52:45
Fascinating!
Thanks!
Did the Anybody Rutherford or Russell associate with had similar teachings regarding the Elijah/Elisha Antitypes do you know?
GWIT
Another question ....why was it so Easy for Rutherford to betray Russell AFTER his death? (his alleged friend, associate)
Did he and his associates stumble on something that they rather keep secret? Even Russell started claiming to be a divine channel in his later years
Just a conspiracy theory....Reply by Johnsc11 on 2016-11-30 18:25:41
My theory is he changed 1874-1878 to 1914-1918 so that Russell having died in 1916 would be before "Jehovah came into his temple". Rutherford stated that spiritual flashes of lightning from Jehovah's temples were clearing up doctrinal matters starting in 1918. For example he stated many times in his watchtower that they couldn't have known something before Jesus came into the temple so that he could easily overrule Russell's teachings. Moving everything to 1918 allowed everything russell taught to be pushed aside because it was until 1918 that true understanding can come about. For example in 1928 he got rid of the Great Pyramid. It didn't coorberate his 1918 date and he was very Jealous of the Morton brothers discoveries so he got rid of it. His goal was to have a New world society. He also saw money in the printing presses. He was very cunning and used the Bible to fit any situation. He was very smart. He even stated in his book Enemies that if you didn't accept the 1918 date you were an enemy of God.
"The proof shows that the time of his corning was in 1918 and that he has since been at the temple. Those who deny this are against God and his kingdom, regardless of what they may claim."
Enemies pg 316-317
There are too many details about the Elijah and Elisha types and changes. Here's a book entitles "Desolations of The Santuary" written in the 1920's that had a whole section dedicated to the changes of Elijah and Elisha.
http://www.friendsofjehovahswitnesses.com/wp-content/uploads/Desolations-of-the-Sanctuary-1929.pdf
Comment by Mike West on 2016-11-30 12:40:53
Thanks Meleti- very succinct. I appreciated the simple question- if as the WT contends- Jehovah wanted his name to be used as a group label- why was that request by means of the holy spirit not made in the 1st century? Acts 11:26 clearly shows what Jehovah and Jesus wanted us to be known as. Serious JW bible students do well to consider that question and all of the scriptural support you presented here.
Comment by GodsWordIsTruth on 2016-11-30 12:43:19
Meleti , This is a chilling article and just an outright travesty.
I Believe this is exactly how this all went down..... Was Brother Russell too " weird" for Rutherford? Why the quick disassociation from his " friend"?
(John 21:15)
DarkvsLight
Thanks Brothers,
GWIT
Comment by AndereStimme on 2016-11-30 13:53:55
Why does Rutherford's rebranding make Acts 20:29, 30 pop into my mind?
"I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them."
Comment by lazarus on 2016-11-30 14:20:02
Great article, this answered something , I just accepted what we read and studied in the Proclaimers book, that is, how almost overnight the name came to him. The name Jehovah's Witness. I honestly didn't know that for 6 years and 57 articles he used Isaiah 43.
You may recall, The Proclaimers book had stated the Judge was the instrument by which God changed the name “Christian” to that of “Jehovah’s witnesses” by “divine providence.” Here are the quotes and reasons, It said: “But then, in 1931, we embraced the truly distinctive name Jehovah's Witnesses. Author Chandler W. Sterling refers to this as ‘the greatest stroke of genius’ on the part of J. F. Rutherford, then president of the Watch Tower Society. Unravelling as you have the laying of the Groundwork of Isaiah 43, you see it as a clever move not inspired one from above. .
Bro A. H. Macmillan,, Who wrote 'Faith on the March' , said concerning that announcement by Bro Rutherford: ‘There is no doubt in my mind-not then nor now-that the Lord guided him in that, and that is the name Jehovah wants us to bear, and we're very happy and very glad to have it.’
So,Which viewpoint do the facts support? Was the name 'a stroke of genius' on the part of Brother Rutherford, or was it the result of divine providence? ... At this Historic day in 1931, Brother Rutherford followed this up with another talk, during which he discussed reasons why a distinctive name was needed. To what name did the Scriptures themselves point? He quoted Acts 15:14, which directs attention to God's purpose to take out of the nations ‘a people for his name. ... To make known to the people that Jehovah is the true and Almighty God; therefore we joyfully embrace and take the name which the mouth of the Lord God has named, and we desire to be known as and called by the name, to wit, Jehovah's witnesses.-Isa. 43:10-12."
As you highlighted in the article, If this prophecy had meant those disciples of Jesus would be known as JW's, where is this evidence in the Book of Acts or abywhere in the NT? Not once is this ever done , yes a witness of Jesus or Jesus witness, would fit a scriptural name change.
Comment by lazarus on 2016-12-01 14:41:05
Just a side point but links to the idea whether or not they were chosen as a Channel by Christ.
Para 17) But that started to change during “the harvest season,” which began in 1914. Why? Because angels began separating imitation Christians from genuine ones.—Matt. 13:30,39-41.
This statement doesn't add up! How
Read Matthew 13:40,41
" they will collect out from his Kingdom all things that cause stumbling and people who practice lawlessness, and they will pitch them into the fiery furnace. There is where their weeping and the gnashing of their teeth will be.”
If the angelic reapers commenced the harvest back in 1919, in what way have the “weeds” been pitched into the fiery furnace of eternal destruction? Is there any evidence that a person from Christendom met this fate, or even remotely upset(gnashing of their teeth) why? because they have been made aware that the gates of the Kingdom have been shut? No!
What about them been bundled up and thrown into the fire? Just hasn't happened, unless Jesus is using speech full of exaggeration.
After the harvest the field usually lies flat cleared by the farmer. The new planting season begins. New cycle , plant , cultivate, grow, harvest. Okay, that's the cycle. Well we must be at least by JW teachings close to three cycles, how?
1)1870's -1914. 1914 cultivation then 1919 through to 1975-1995 the overlapping years, number (2), then New Generation from let's say 1975- present! number 3.
Have we seen in The harvest of any of these 3 cycles, the wheat and the weeds collected by the angels the reapers! No, even their own teaching shows judgment is now future.Reply by simplyme on 2016-12-01 17:35:17
Exactly! When that "new light" came out on the harvest of the weeds I had the same thoughts. I even made the statement to a few (who I could talk openly to), "so they are saying the weeds have been bundled up for around a hundred years now and are waiting to be thrown into the fire". That doesn't make sense to me. Of course I just got blank stares.
When we got the "new light" that we believe in the rapture (tho we don't call it that because of religious connotations ?) I had a sister say "are we just making this stuff up"!
Comment by Smoldering Wick on 2016-12-02 00:37:19
As much as I've tried to explain to the brothers, when we preserve our errors as truth, we are less likely to admit error when it stares us in the face.
The following letter was published in 1996 by one religious organization. Can anyone guess which one?
"Our flawed doctrinal understanding clouded the plain gospel of Jesus Christ and led to a variety of wrong conclusions and unscriptural practices. We have much to repent of and apologize for.
"We were judgmental and self-righteous—condemning other Christians, calling them "so-called Christians" and labeling them "deceived" and "instruments of Satan."
"We imposed on our members a works-oriented approach to Christian living. We required adherence to burdensome regulations of the Old Testament code. We exercised a strongly legalistic approach to church government.
"Our former old covenant approach fostered attitudes of exclusivism and superiority rather than the new covenant teaching of brotherhood and unity.
"We overemphasized predictive prophecy and prophetic speculation, minimizing the true gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ.
"These teachings and practices are a source of supreme regret. We are painfully mindful of the heartache and suffering that has resulted from them.
"We've been wrong. There was never an intent to mislead anyone. We were so focused on what we believed we were doing for God that we didn't recognize the spiritual path we were on. Intended or not, that path was not the biblical one.
"As we look back, we ask ourselves how we could have been so wrong. Our hearts go out to all whom our teachings have misled in the Scriptures. We don't minimize your spiritual disorientation and confusion. We earnestly desire your understanding and forgiveness. We recognize that the depth of alienation can make reconciliation difficult. On the human level, reconciliation is often a long and difficult process over time. Yet we pray daily for it, realizing that the healing ministry of Christ can close even the deepest wounds. We make no attempt to cover up the doctrinal and scriptural errors of our past. It is not our intention to merely paper over the cracks. We are looking our history squarely in the face and confronting the faults and sins we find. They will always remain a part of our history, serving as a perpetual reminder of the dangers of legalism."Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-12-02 07:38:50
That sounds like the Worldwide Church of God, which split off from Rutherford back in the day. It would be wonderful were it published by Jehovah's Witnesses since every aspect of the apology would apply. Perhaps I've grown jaded, but I have trouble seeing that happening.
Reply by tyhik on 2016-12-02 18:48:15
@Smoldering Wick, great find this letter!
@Meleti, The turn that took place in Worldwide Church of God (WCG) became possible, because the director position went from farther to son and sons sometimes take their own course. However, the GB appointments are made after careful selection from among "organisation men". Also, GB is a body and new members are appointed one by one, very seldom. So, a newcomer alone can hardly ever change the course of the ship. Ray Franz tried it and failed. The GB guys are not stupid. Sure they know about the splits and the loss of members and money that followed the course change in WCG, and they want to avoid something similar happening to the org at all cost. I'd say it takes a miracle, or perhaps a mass exodus of members, to humble the GB.
Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2016-12-02 10:16:58
This is unbelievable!
Meleti, SW, That year and everything that you say...
Rutherford was right about the Religious leaders in some right but was in the same darkness as those leaders who he felt betrayed him I believe.
He Used what he Knew in his OWN quest for Power and domination. He was a deeply jealous man . He betrayed his own brothers, the outrageous articles and the wild spirit he displayed ...Unbelievable!
By Their Fruits!!!
The Apostle John saw the marriage of Church and State in his Day and It Scared Him...
This is deeply disturbing on many levels.
Agape,
GWIT
Comment by Smoldering Wick on 2016-12-02 11:54:46
You are right Mileti, It was written soon after Herbert W. Armstrong passed away after ruling the church since about the same time Rutherford coined 'Jehovah's Witnesses.'
Perhaps they were competitors???
SW1Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2016-12-02 14:56:44
This Herbert...guy.
He knew the Russell crew...right? Just a thought.
I'm looking at a WIKI source which may not be reliable.
Did they ever openly talk about their connection or friendship? Publications,Newspapers etc.?
GWIT
Comment by Smoldering Wick on 2016-12-02 13:45:58
Sorry, misspelled your name, Meleti ?
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-12-02 14:15:14
I will survive the shame, somehow. :)