Created  May 11, 2014                            green 006,000  brown 720,000

CT Russell Criticism by WC Stevens, 1915

Why I Reject the "Helping Hand" of Millennial Dawn


Ltte Priodpal of the Minioauy

NYACK, N. Y.     Copyright, 1915. by the Author

Sub-headings:        CONTENTS

I. The Professed "Helping Hand" - 7

II. "Light Now First Due" - 13

III. The Russellized Bible - 19

IV. The Doctrine of Restitution - 27

V. Doctrine of the Ransom - 36

VI. Gross Errors of This Doctrine
      of the Ransom
- 45

VII. Immortality and Resurrection  -  54

VIII. Other False Teachings on the Ransom  -  63

IX. False Doctrines of the Millennium  - 74

X. Mr. Russell's Pseudo-Christ  - 88

XI Mr. Russell's Manifold Christ  - 101

The 2 chapters below were not in Google books:

XII. Christ Jesus Not a Present or a Sufficient Redeemer  - 113

XIII. Arraignment of Millennial Dawn  - 121

Related Articles                Start on chap 9

The Premise
Back to Top

I found a book my mother had, that she had bought in a 2nd hand shop, "The Mysteries of the Kingdom," by W.C. Stevens. He had a picture of the Knights Templar crown and cross symbol that Charles Russell loved to use. Stevens was a Presbyterian. So both he and Russell used this symbol, yet they had doctrinal differences, but evidently, no differences when it comes to Masonic symbols. Interesting!

But I then noticed a book offered at the back of the Mysteries book just mentioned, which is the one I am featuring here. It finds fault with Russell's doctrines, which Stevens refers to as Charles Russell and the Millennial Dawn. This small work is a good example of how both take turns being right and wrong. But also that both use the same symbol so that it would appear that their differences are not as important as their united use of the crown and cross symbol. We have every right to assume they both serve a united cause that is more important to them than the denominations they belong to publicly.

This is how it works in Christendom or mainstream Christianity, if you prefer. All these many denominations have been infiltrated and taken over by those who have dual loyalties, to which the greater loyalty is to their Masonic cause. But as Jesus said, you can not serve to masters. You going to slight one or the other. They slight the denominations and Jesus, rather than the Masonic Lodge.

But this is also a handy book to show some of the doctrinal errors of both, but Russell in particular. I did not retain most of the page numbers, but adapted it to the net/html format. Most important in this is the timing of the book's publication. Russell predicted 1914 would bring huge changes due to the return of Christ, which indeed, should have brought momentous changes (including the "end of the world"). But it did not.

Steven's book was published 1915, revealing distribution numbers of Russell's books, which is very relevant to who was supporting Russell, and who was not. As well, Russell died in 1916, the year after this publication and 2 years after 1914.

Most "Apostate" literature that I read in my early years as one of Jehovah's so called Witnesses (JWs), was of very poor quality, and had little to really use against JWs since they often resorted to lies and distortions about JWs rather than the truly useful and honest info about JWs. So credibility was a real issue. As well, mainstream Christians, who promoted this "apostate" literature, were themselves extreme apostates compared to early Christianity, but most have refrained from ever looking back into very early post-Apostolic Christianity to see what they had to say. If they had, they would have seen how Christianity went to hell, so to speak, just as Jesus had foretold when speaking of the devil sowing weeds among the kingdom wheat.

Stevens, on the other hand, and far earlier in time than most apostate literature, so called, was considerably much more credible and he recognized the clever techniques that Russell employed in his writing to lull his readers into false ideas and trust. One must understand that if you are going to start a new denomination with new ideas, you need to have something of some sort that is appealing to listeners and readers.

Russell had some good points and appeal. Christianity was full of corrupt doctrine and political entanglements. Of course, Russell had his own corruptions to offer and entanglements, too; but those were concealed in careful wording which Stevens pointed out. Stevens ignored his own side's errors, but did accurately draw attention to many of Russell's failures. But in ignoring his side's own errors, he gave Russell a certain appearance of credibility. Had Stevens been a real reformer, he would have been far more effective, though perhaps less popular.

But anyway, I thought this anti-Russell book had a number of good things to reveal. Hope you find it helpful. My comments throughout it are distinguished from the book itself in a different color and brackets enclosed.

Why I Reject the "Helping Hand" of Millennial Dawn     by W. C. Stevens

Back to Top

A former, relatively small, edition of this book, which was published four years ago by the Christian Alliance Publishing Co., of New York City, from a series of articles which the author had furnished to the Christian Alliance Weekly at the urgent request of its beloved Editor, A. B. Simpson, suffered the misfortune of having the plates lost. Advantage, however, results from the necessity of preparing an entirely new edition, in the way of opportunity to revise the book and to secure the most helpful testimonial of R. A. Torrey, the Dean of the Bible Institute of Los Angeles, Cal., which will be found on a later page. 

Furthermore, it is most timely and appropriate that from San Francisco during the Exposition, just where and when the Millennial Dawn forces, posing under the screen of "The International Bible Students' Association," are concentrating their supreme efforts, such a treatise as the present volume should be promptly issued and widely circulated. The syndicated sermons of their leader, "Pastor" C. T. Russell, are being published in about fifteen hundred news- papers of this and other lands, and in four languages ; and daily at the present writing a two-column sermon, paid for at advertising rates, is appearing, with a cut of Mr. Russell, in each of the great journals of San Francisco. (Two great metropolitan dailies, the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Herald, have recently published their refusal to give any further publicity to "Pastor" Russell's discourses - not even at advertising rates.

This was due to a thorough investigation into Mr. Russell's record and methods and an exposure thereof in a series of articles, similar to the exposure of his business record which the Brooklyn Eagle made several years ago.) This extreme activity, begrudging no expense, is in evidence, notwithstanding the long-standing prediction of Mr. Russell that "some time before the end of 1914 the last member of the divinely recognized Church of Christ, the 'royal priesthood,' the "body of Christ,' will be glorified with the Head." The following chapters will show that by this "divinely recognized Church" is meant only such as follow Mr. Russell's "light." It is reported that but few Dawnites departed this life last year. Consequently, either Mr. Russell has proved to be a false prophet or few Dawnites, himself not excepted, have proved worthy of being "glorified with the Head." 

While the author professes to offer nothing in this work attractive in subject or edifying in matter - so repulsive is the real essence of Millennial Dawnism - yet he is strongly impressed that every true-hearted gospel representative, especially the ministry, should gain the thorough acquaintance with the doctrine and philosophy of this apostate system which this volume alone affords ; unless one prefers to undertake the same severe task of an exhaustive first-hand investigation of a voluminous, ill-written, involved, illogical mass of literature, embracing many extensive volumes, the files of the Watch Tower covering many years, besides tracts, sermons, etc.

Mere denunciation of Millennial Dawn, borrowed from however high authority, without preparation to show forth adequately the grounds for such denunciation, will still leave Satan free to steal away from saving truth the minds and hearts of thousands of unguarded souls. Even from among Dawnites themselves, "Wake Up" messages have for some time come forth expressing "fear for the consequences of "Mr. Russell's "tampering with the Word of God." It is the author's prayer that this volume may be extensively circulated and used to "wake up" gospel shepherds to a vigilant guarding of their flocks and many private readers to an intelligent rejection of what deceitfully offers itself to them as a "helping hand to Bible study." 

In order still more widely to disseminate warning against this destructive heresy. Chapter XIII of the volume, which is a summary exhibit of the findings of the previous chapters, is printed in a separate tract. It can not answer instead of the entire volume, but it will greatly aid in extending the effect of the book. 

W. C. Stevens.            Oakland, Cal., March 29, 1915.

>> Note that date, 1915. Russell had declared many things would happen by the end of 1914, but none of them did. So many had a good laugh at Russell and his Bible students and "Dawnites." God has left us with plenty of evidence to expose these false prophets. The Bible Students, after Russell died in 1916, suffered an internal coup not long after, for which the usurpers gained control and later became known as Jehovah's Witnesses. They, too, would suffer many humiliating failed predictions and look stupid. Again, God's vengeance works in marvelous ways.

Mormons, too, have suffered this sort of failure of predictions many times. God makes it kind of easy for us to spot the looneys.<<


I have read with considerable care WHY I REJECT THE "HELPING HAND" OF MILLENNIAL DAWN by W. C. Stevens. I consider it, taking it all in all, as the most satisfactory reply to Pastor Russell and his vagaries that there is to put into the hand of the every-day Christian who has been at all troubled by the false teaching of Pastor Russell.

Sincerely yours,   R. A. TORREY,   Dean of the Bible Institute of Los Angeles.    Los Angeles, Cal., March 24, 1915.

Back to Top

A VOLUMINOUS body of literature has appeared during the last twenty-five years which, through the phraseology used by its author, C. T. Russell, has long been known as "Millennial Dawn" teaching. This expression is employed because these writings revolve about the coming millennial age. This literature has recently come to be issued anonymously by the "International Bible Students' Association," of Brooklyn, N. Y. The main contents of these writings are being published in a set of seven volumes entitled "Studies in the Scriptures," They have separate titles, but are all prominently designated as "A Helping Hand for Bible Students."

The present writer became, for all practical purposes, sufficiently familiar with this literature in its early days, as it was deluging the Pacific Coast. He detected its peculiar beguiling influence, especially upon Christians of "itching ears." For the sake of guarding some such that were under his pastoral care, he read enough of the publications to qualify himself, with full and intelligent reason, to reject it all and warn the unwary and deluded ones. He has had opportunity to watch the progress of this flood of false doctrine over the land. In no instance has it failed to appear to the writer that the spiritual effect of this system of doctrine upon the credulous reader is deplorable. It is, therefore, with readiness that he adds an unpretentious contribution to writings already given out against this heresy. 

It is not proposed to enter into controversy with doctrines so repugnant in their very nature and bold expression that one's act would be tantamount to taking a dog by the ears. It is proposed merely to tell why a series of books, which comes to one almost as a gift in price and in profession as "a helping hand" to Bible study, is rejected. Rejected, not from indifference to the Bible and its study or to the practical benefits to be derived only from constant and deep study of all Scriptures; rejected, not merely as an offer not "making good" its proffer; but rejected as a hand that defiles the pure waters of truth with filth and poison. 

One is the more urged to manifest by example and personal reasons his rejection of such lying doctrines after noting how widely this literature is diffused :

The copies now printed of the first six volumes successively (in the inverse order of their appearance at intervals of time) is as follows:

Volume VI, entitled "The New Creation," 87,000 copies ;

Volume V, entitled "The Atonement Between God and Man," 127,000 copies;

Volume IV, entitled "The Day of Vengeance," 126,000 copies;

Volume III, entitled "Thy Kingdom Come," 929,000 copies;

Volume II, entitled "The Time is at Hand," 945,000 copies ;

Volume I, entitled "The Divine Plan of the Ages," 4,500,000 copies.

    *The first volume- the last in the list just given - an epitome of the whole system, is published in fourteen languages, and it is issued in English in pamphlet form for five cents. In attractive cloth binding these books are sold at thirty-five cents per copy.
    *All these numbers, excepting the last, are five years old.

>> Take note of the over 6.5 million copies of these books put out by Russell. These were often given out free. Rothschilds, very wealthy and powerful bankers, were bankrolling Russell's whole movement. Russell claims he got $250,000 from his share of the family retail store business, a haberdashery we are told. But that was a cover and a lie, revealed by Fritz Springmeier. There are man such lies to be found about Russell and later, Jehovah's Witnesses as well.<<

Were this literature a true helping hand to Bible study, what untold good might the above figures imply ! But, if the present writer's view of the baleful character of Mr. Russell's teachings be at all correct, we must believe that this literature is largely responsible, along with Christian Science, Higher Criticism and other heresies wearing a Scriptural pretense, for the lamentable spiritual drift of our day.

As has been said, the first volume lays the foundation of the doctrines which are more fully elaborated in the succeeding volumes. It is well, therefore, to look carefully to what is offered in this volume for our help in Bible study.

The first thing to arrest our attention is, that certain Scriptural expressions - taken in altogether preconceived senses - are used as keys with which, by a purely theoretical process, to construe the whole body of Scripture and to construct a "plan" which no one would ever dream of reading naturally from the Bible.

This necessitates an absolute dependence of "Bible Students" upon Mr. Russell's writings for their understanding of the Bible. Accordingly, we find in the "Watch Tower," the weekly journal of the International Association, a department of "Berean Questions in Scripture Studies," which furnishes a course of catechetical drill in regular order on each volume, chapter by chapter, page by page, paragraph by paragraph, point by point, in fullest detail. These "Berean Lessons" are to be pursued by "all who would merit the only honorary degree which the Society accords, viz., Verbi Dei Minister (V.D.M.), which, translated into English, is Minister of the Divine Word."

The extent to which Mr. Russell goes in binding his followers to his own writings is shown by the following quotation of his words from his journal, "The Watch Tower," of September 15, 1910, page 298:

"If the six volumes of Scripture Studies are practically the Bible topically arranged, with Bible-proofs given, we might not improperly name the volumes - the Bible in an arranged form. That is to say, they are not merely comments on the Bible, but THEY ARE PRACTICALLY THE BIBLE ITSELF, since there is no desire to build any doctrine or thought on any individual preference or on any individual wisdom, but to present the entire matter on the Onus of the Word of God. We, therefore, think it safe to follow this kind of reading, this kind of instruction, this kind of Bible study.

>>The paragraph above and below, are often quoted by Jehovah's Witnesses, which is actually the Governing Body, often referred to be members as "the Society." A typical spin of many denominations, especially the more recent and more unique ones such as JWs, Bible Students, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Shakers, etc, is that only they have the truth or are the closest to it, much more so than their competitors. Whether so or not, what is usually missing is an objective analysis of an independent party.

Russell declares that he presents the entire matter and lets others decide. But to give an example, Russell declares that the 7 times of Daniel 7 are to be taken as a day for a year, so that we should interpret 7 times as 7 times 360 lunar days of prophetic years, amounting in total to 2520 years. But the matter is not fully presented. Russell leaves out those who might challenge whether using the day for a year principle introduced in Ezekiel or whether the ending of the 2520 years truly fulfilled the things predicted for that time. They do not!

Few like to present fully, both sides. They know most member are not that particular about many doctrines anyway, and attend church simply to belong and have people to live in community and commune with. Russell, in my opinion, often did a better job of presenting scriptural arguments than did the common traditional long-standing denominations. But Russell had serious flaws, too. He just didn't admit them and he died in 196 a year after 1914 failed in 1915. So he never had to live with the embarrassment for very long.<<

"Furthermore, not only do we find that people can not see the Divine Plan in studying the Bible by itself, but we see, also, that if anyone lays the Scripture Studies aside, even after he has used them, after he has become familiar with them, after he has read them for ten years - if he then lays them aside and ignores them and goes to the Bible alone, though he has understood the Bible for ten years, our experience shows that within two years he goes INTO DARKNESS. On the other hand, if he had merely read the Scripture Studies with their references, and had not read a page of the Bible, as such, he would be in the light at the end of two years, because he would have the light of the Scriptures."

>> The Divine Plan relies heavily on Chronology. Nobody knows that better than I do. All prophecy, in one way or another, depends on accurate Chronology of the Bible. The problem I have found with so many Chronologies is that most do not give any detail or scriptural references for the dates they assume. They expect you to take their word for it. I have spent years pondering chronology in the Bible. I can think of no better source that Dr. Floyd Nolan Jones, of Baptist persuasion. He gives precise careful references and explanation so that one may re-check his facts and figures. I could find only 2 mistakes as I can recall. We vary with each other by 1-2 years. Jones solved the discrepancies between Israelite and Judean king lists.

I have never made any secret about his value to my own efforts to improve and understand chronology. I would never dream of keeping m source secret or pretending that I did it all, un-aided. In fact, I am most proud of the fact that I need aid and sought it out and confess to it. Russell has no detailed accounting of his chronology, nor to JWs to this day, as far as I know. In fact, if you scour the internet for chronologies of the Bible, I seriously doubt if you will come across any chronology as carefully and fully referenced as mine. And others have not attempted to harmonized science in such endeavors, particularly as they relate to the study of tree rings, known as dendro-chronology.

Further, Russell declares that any who leave him, after a mere 2 years, they go into darkness. Darkness? Or just in disagreement. He calls disagreement darkness but only God can judge that. And each of us has the right to judge that for ourselves.

Now I will declare this firmly. Russell's followers were well taught compared to average Christians. Russell was much more sensible about some doctrines, even returning to very early Christian beliefs, though he did not know that, I suspect. but he made serious errors as well, which I cover in other places on this site. Chronology and prophecy were butchered for starters.

Stevens really nails the arrogance of Russell in this next paragraph.<<

Let this be taken in clearly, "Scripture Studies" "are practically the Bible itself." So much, for the sake of duping the credulous Bible-lover. He who "goes to the Bible alone" will within two years go "into darkness." Whereas he who reads Scripture Studies alone, without a word of the Bible directly, will remain "in the light." The only light for us, then, is the Russellized Bible. It follows that there never was light before the Bible became Russellized.

The present writer believes he is justified in rejecting a "helping hand" which would forthwith grip him in this deadly vise. As the writer "goes to the Bible alone" he is quickened and enlightened and blessed; the Word teaches, reproves, corrects and instructs him in righteousness ; it even gives him light, clear and consistent, on "the divine plan," But as to "Scripture Studies," the writer found twenty-five years ago that to read through one volume was a very disagreeable task, unaccompanied by any light, quickening or blessing. The wonder to him was that anyone at all acquainted with God and His truth, at all enlightened in the Scriptures, could fail to recoil with aversion after reading a small part of the work. And, the writer confesses, the present reading of these volumes affords no pleasure or profit, excepting that one's testimony may keep some reader of Millennial Dawn literature from being hoodwinked and befogged.

>>Russell declares that we can not understand the Bible without him! But it is God who opens our hearts and minds. We do no harm in reading Russell, but we are not dependent upon him. Indeed, I find reading a variety of opinions better and safer than just reading the ideas of one person alone. Any idea we have, should be able to stand up to competing and contradicting ideas. If our idea can not hold up, then maybe it is time to change that idea.<<

Chapter 2:  "LIGHT NOW FIRST DUE." pg 13
Back to Top

Mr. Russell opens his treatise with the claim - which runs as a refrain through the whole - that the light of God's Word is perceived only as it becomes due from stage to stage in the course of time. He thereby induces the credulous reader to be prepared for any "advancing light"- which may be offered by novel interpretation of the Word, however much in conflict with all previous understanding it may be. While this has a plausible side, yet it is a plea which an artful interpreter can use with an untaught reader to a ruinous effect. And the extent to which Mr. Russell carries this principle was the first thing which caused the writer to put himself on guard. Some quotations will be just to the author and will make the point under consideration clearer.

"It is the light from the Sun of Righteousness in this dawning of the Millennial Day that reveals these things as 'present truth,' now due to be appreciated by the sincere - the pure in heart" (Vol. I, p. 10). 

"The truth is progressive, shining more and more unto the perfect day, to those who search for it and walk in the light of it, while the various creeds of the various sects are fixed and stationary, and were made so centuries ago."

Accordingly he advises "to divest our minds of all prejudice, and to remember that none can know more about the plans of God than He has revealed in His Word, and that it was given to the meek and lowly in heart; and, as such, earnestly and sincerely seeking its guidance and instruction only, we shall by its great Author be guided to an understanding of it, as it becomes due to be understood, by making use of the various helps divinely provided. As an aid to this class of students, this work is specially designed. It will be noticed that its references are to Scripture only, except where secular history may be called in to prove the fulfillment of Scripture statements. The testimony of modem theologians has been given no weight, and that of the so-called Early Fathers has been omitted. Many of them have testified in harmony with thoughts herein expressed, but we believe it to be a common failing of the present and all times for men to believe certain doctrines because others did so, in whom they had confidence. * * * Truth seekers should empty their vessels of the muddy waters of tradition and fill them at the fountain of truth - God's Word," (I, pp. 11, 12.)

    "It is one continuous path, and the one continuous and increasing light is the Divine Record, illuminating as it becomes due" (p. 21).
    "There are special features of truth constantly becoming due" (p. 24).
    "True, we still go back to the words of the prophets and apostles for all knowledge of the present and the future; not, however, because they always understood God's plans and purposes better than we, but because God used them as His mouthpieces to communicate to us, and to all the Church throughout the Christian Age, truth relative to His plans, as fast as it becomes due" (p. 26).

Speaking of the Book of Revelation, he says; "Nor has that book ever been, until now, all that its name implies - an unfolding, a revelation. So far as the early Church was concerned, probably none understood any part of the book. Even John, who saw the visions, was probably ignorant of the significance of what he saw. He was both a prophet and an apostle ; and, while as an apostle he understood and taught what was then "meat in due season," as a prophet he uttered things which would supply "meat" in seasons future for the house- hold" (p. 27). 

    "The length and breadth and height and depth of the plan it (the Bible) unfolds, gloriously reflect the divine character, hitherto but dimly comprehended, but now more clearly seen in the light of the dawning Millennial Day" (p. 63).
    "By the light now due to the household of faith, we discern that system and order which mark the stately stoppings of God through the ages past" (p. 75).

Thus we are asked to brush aside everybody prior to C. T. Russell and every doctrinal system prior to his, and even apostles themselves as expounders of God's plans, on the ground that much of darkness attaches to them all, and what of light is shed by them is included in and greatly enhanced by "Millennial Dawn." But this reasoning is, alas, a boomerang ; what applies to the past, applies to the present, and what applies to Luther, applies to C. T. Russell; he will be a past number tomorrow. We had better brush him aside at once, lest tomorrow we be found believing something behind the light then due.

This very principle logically closes the door to our acceptance of Russell's teachings, because he is but a mortal man, having his little day, after which the still "advancing light" will leave this modem Lucifer in the shade. In fact, he has already so outdistanced himself in "advancing light" that his present teachings (not contained in the six volumes of "Scripture Studies"), stamp his earlier utterances on the most important doctrines of Scripture as "gross error." The writer confesses that he is contrary enough not to be induced to swallow without sharp scrutiny the doctrine of a man who pleads for its acceptance upon such reasoning.

No one would question that events prophesied in the Bible can be more vividly comprehended when fulfilled; but prophesy is not history concealed until its fulfillment, neither is it meant to be dark until it catches the first rays of its impending enactment. It is rather described as "a light in a dark place." John's visions should be called Mystery, not Revelation, if they depend upon the disclosures of Church History for their interpretation. The Angel Gabriel said to Daniel: "O Daniel, I am now come forth to make thee skillful of understanding, * * * I am come to tell thee. * o * Consider the matter, and understand the vision" (ix. 22, 23), Daniel says "he instructed me." Jesus says : "Your Father Abraham rejoiced to see My day ; and he saw it, and was glad" (John viii. 56). Surely Mr. Russell is bold to claim clearer insight into the manner of Christ's second coming than the three apostles who "were eye-witnesses of His majesty." And yet Peter declares that they, with their contemporaneous fellow-believers, had something better than that, namely, "the more sure word of prophecy" (II Peter i. 19). 

But not only does Mr. Russell' claim that God's explicitly predicted plans can be but meagerly understood until some indefinite "due time" for light to emerge from the passages in question, but he also claims the same honor of throwing the first important light upon Scriptures that pertain to the essentials of spiritual experience. The same "light now first due" has been reserved for him to give us in regard to the new birth, consecration, moral responsibility, the intermediate state, and all the rest that pertained as intimately to generations long past as to us now. What a pity those former generations died without this "helping hand"!

>>Stevens seems to be completely unaware that it was Daniel who prophesied that it would be in the time of the end that knowledge would be gained and revealed. So Russell making this claim is not as outrageous as it seems. Of more importance is what he is supposedly revealing. Hindsight has showed us that Russell was not in that "time of the end" so as to be able to deliver "new light." but given the doctrinal corruptions existing to that day, Russell did have some revelations to reveal. But when it came to prophecy, that is where Russell blew it with his "times" interpretations and "divine" plans.<<

But still, is it not true that we should fill our vessels "at the fountain of truth - God's Word?" Following the introductory part of Volume I, in which the principle of advancing into the latest light that is due is developed, the author enters at large into the recommendation of the body of Scripture as the inspired Word of God and the sole revelation of His great plans. He also emphasizes the need of distinguishing the progress of the divine plans according to defined dispensations and ages. But the fatal drawback to this otherwise admirable disquisition is, that this divine revelation needs interpretation in light now first due, and no one is recommended as an interpreter but our friend, Mr. Russell. Even this were not an end to all hope, did we not find at once that almost every statement of the Book needs to be paraphrased by this sole interpreter before its light can be discerned.

>>Russell enjoyed some distinctions compared to mainstream Christianity of the time, but even in this, he was not totally alone. Seventh Day Adventists were pointing out certain doctrinal corruptions. Even Universalists and Unitarians were doing a little bit of this. Quakers had begun it even earlier. But showing doctrinal corruption is not new light, but a return to the old original light that got corrupted. But in prophecy, Russell was still blind. But he was misleading people deliberately, says I, and for a purpose, to, in time, introduce a false messiah, an antichrist. Not him personally doing it, but setting it up for others to make use of in the future, since he was of considerable age, even at the time of his writings. Prophecy was the major failing of Russell and JWs continued that blunder right into the present. JWs, too, may be working toward the support of a false messiah. Time will tell.<<

Chapter 3:   THE RUSSELLIZED BIBLE    pg 19
Back to Top

While brushing aside all historic statements of doctrine, in order professedly to afford us an unbiased reading of the unadulterated Word, behold, our "helping hand" forthwith assumes to put unfamiliar, artificial and binding meanings into key-words of the Scripture, and then to paraphrase the text of Scripture at pleasure according to these imported meanings. It is thus that for the first time, as it is claimed, the Scriptures are completely, systematically and harmoniously interpreted.

We may cite some illustrative instances of this method of interpretation. By importing into key-words of Scripture unsuspected meanings, the author most emphatically teaches that all the dead as well as the living will first enter upon probation for everlasting life at the opening of the Millennium. By preconceived construction of the meaning of these key-words, he professes to make this teaching plain from the whole testimony of Scripture. Every Scripture which may hitherto seem to have yielded nothing in favor of this doctrine, even Scripture which has been taken as solid proof against this doctrine, is easily made to do service in supporting it by simply paraphrasing according to the keys. 

For instance : "Jesus Christ will be 'the light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world,' 'in due time'" {"Watch Tower," back of front page, under "To us the Scriptures clearly Teach"), That is, Jesus Christ has not yet in any general sense been this light to men's souls, for it will not be "due time" until the Millennium, when all mankind will be resurrected to be lighted by His presence in such a way as to give them their first fair opportunity to win everlasting life. We have been accustomed to think John v. 28, 29 quite plain in meaning. It reads: "Marvel not at this; for the hour is coming in which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth ; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life ; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."

But we find that we have been taking this passage in light ahead of "due time." Mr. Russell gives us the "meat in due season" from this passage thus: "In John v. 28, 29, a precious promise for the world of a coming judgment-trial for life everlasting is, by a mistranslation, turned into a fearful imprecation. According to the Greek, they that have done evil - that have failed of divine approval - will come forth unto resurrection (raising up to perfection) by judgments, stripes, discipline." (I, p. 147). That is, they that have done evil (and who has not?) will come forth from death to a gradual raising up under millennial light and opportunity to the original perfection of the unfallen Adam ; a progress to perfection which will be promoted by disciplinary judgments or dealings of God, until all will be qualified to exercise a decisive moral choice for themselves as to whether they will henceforth behave properly under God's law. 

Enough has been given to indicate how the author paves the way for himself to take with "helping hand" "Bible students" and lead them - Whither? Is it any wonder that one hesitates to accept this hand? Indeed, is it not a wonder that any are found so unwary as to have any confidence in a hand stretched out in this fashion, even before it is known whither it will lead? But, it will suitably conclude the present chapter to quote quite freely the author's own commendation of his work to us all.

"It will be useless to attempt to harmonize the divine plan herein set forth with many previously held and supposed to be Scriptural, yet not proved so. It will be observed that the divine plan is complete and harmonious with itself in every part, and that it is in perfect harmony with the character which the Scriptures ascribe to its great Author. It is a marvelous display of wisdom, justice, love and power. It carries with it its own evidence of superhuman design, being beyond the power of human invention, and almost beyond the power of human comprehension.

"Doubtless questions will arise on various points inquiring for solution according to the plan herein presented. Careful, thoughtful Bible study will settle many of these at once ; and to all we can confidently say, No question which you can raise need go with- out answer sufficient, fully in harmony with the views herein presented. Succeeding volumes will elaborate the various branches of this one plan, disclosing at every step that matchless harmony of which the truth alone can boast.

And be it known that no other system of theology even claims, or has ever attempted, to harmonize in itself each statement of the Bible; yet nothing short of this can we claim for these views. This harmony not only with the Bible, but with the divine character and with sanctified common sense, must have arrested the attention of the conscientious reader already and filled him with awe, as well as with hope and confidence. It is marvelous indeed, yet just what we should expect of the truth, and of God's infinitely wise and beneficent plan.

"If you give diligence to the Word of God, and receive its truths into a good, honest, consecrated heart, it will beget in you such a love for God and His plan, and such a desire to tell the good tidings, to preach the Gospel, that it will become the all absorbing theme of life thereafter; and this will not only separate you from the world and from many nominal Christians, in spirit, but it will lead to separation from such entirely. They will think you peculiar and separate you from their company, and you will be despised and counted a fool for Christ's sake; because they know not us, even as they knew not the Lord.

"Are you willing to follow on to know the Lord through evil and through good report? Are you willing to forsake all, to follow as He may lead you by His Word? - to ignore the wishes of friends, as well as your own desires? It is hoped that many of the consecrated ones who read this volume may by it be so quickened to fresh zeal and fervency of spirit, through a clearer apprehension of the divine plan, that they will be able to say,
'By the grace of God, I will follow on to know and serve the Lord, whatever be the sacrifice involved.'
Like the noble Bereans (Acts xvii. ii), let such studiously set themselves to prove what has been presented in the foregoing pages. Prove it, not by the conflicting traditions and creeds of men, but by the only correct and divinely authorized standard - God's own Word. It is to facilitate such investigation that we have cited so many Scriptures" (I, pp. 347-349).

How piously plausible this reads I But, we are to remember what Mr. Russell means by reading diligently and following at all costs the Word of God. It simply means his version of it, even to the exclusion of the Bible in any direct use, as was shown in the first chapter by his own words. And it means bondage to a trickster, who can not be relied upon to stand true to his own plausible expositions. The fact is, that our "helping hand" is found to be contradicting its own teachings of former years in most vital points.

A quantity of evidence has reached the writer's hands from former prominent followers of Mr. Russell, by which this serious contradiction of teaching is exposed explicitly and in startling light. The later teaching has been appearing during the last four years in the periodical of Millennial Dawn teaching, the "Watch Tower." Very cautiously and secretly the latest issue of some of the volumes we are examining has been altered here and there to harmonize with the periodical mentioned. As one writes : "Mr. Russell has made but few changes in the books, evidently fearing to do too much at once." 

As to this change in teachings, so marked that one formerly prominent as a follower writes : "Separation has occurred in practically every country on this globe because of Mr. Russell's perversions of Scripture," Mr. Russell himself, with characteristic duplicity, explains, at one time, that the old teaching "is a part of the smoke of the dark ages, which we are glad now to wipe from our eyes," and, at another time, that the new teaching is really the "elucidation" of the old.

And yet, to quote again from a competent informant from the ranks of Millennial Dawnists: "He today makes the presumptuous claim of being the 'only channel' of truth, the only one qualified and authorized to interpret God's Word. In fact, there is such a mass of evidence of his spiritual degeneracy, that the question really is as to what to select from the abundance of proof in order to show the digression." "Nevertheless, he did not and does not hesitate to consign to 'second death,' 'outer darkness,' etc., any who differ with him on any matters." 

It is the opinion of the present writer, that Mr, Russell's claim that his present teachings are but the "elucidation" of the former ones, is really truer to the facts. While direct contradiction in language occurs, yet nothing new in principle is involved. Much that is now boldly asserted, which horrifies his former followers "in practically every country on this globe," was from the first seen by the present writer to be involved in the accepted teachings, and the marvel was that thousands of well-meaning people could fall into such an evident pitfall of heresy. And it is our opinion that there are yet other things "up his sleeve" to be in "due time" evolved as the only logical conclusions of the old teachings.

Attention has been called to Mr. Russell's facility in paraphrasing Scripture to suit his theories. Such capricious and reckless juggling with Scripture marks the new developments more than ever, and it is serving to "wake up" his followers to the precipice over which their leader is dangling them. The following is quoted from "Wake Up! No. 3:" "Are not the 'Watch Tower' readers filled with horror; are they not well nigh paralyzed with fright, as they think of the alterations that are necessary, and that are deliberately made in the Words of Inspiration, in order that they may be made to seem harmonious with the 'Watch Tower' teachings concerning the Covenants, Mediator and Sin Offering? Is not the Editor himself overwhelmed with FEAR of the consequences of his tampering with the Word of God - leading the Holy Spirit, instead of being led by the Spirit?"

Back to Top

The next Scriptural expression to be mentioned, which Mr. Russell constantly employs as a magic key to Biblical doctrine and interpretation, is the word "restitution," He makes Acts 3: 21 his great prooftext. This reads : , (Jesus Christ) "Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began."

It is plain to see that the extent and character of the restitution here spoken of is to be ascertained from the prophets themselves. But Mr. Russell has already claimed to have light "now due" far beyond what the prophets had. He has already claimed that no one ever has been able or now is able to understand the divine plan of the ages from the Bible, excepting by means of this Russell-light "now due." Hence, Mr. Russell throws his light upon this text and declares that all the prophets agree with it (of course, as he explains them).

Accordingly, this text teaches that the Millennium is to bring the restoration of all mankind and everything earthly, from Adam and from creation down, to exactly the same state as that which was lost by Adam's sin.

The governing standpoint in all Mr. Russell's system of teaching is clearly the millennial probation of the race as a whole for everlasting life. We've a quotation or two. "It is a blessed fact that free grace in fullest measure, not merely for the living, but for those who have died, is provided in our Father's plan as the blessed opportunity of the coming age. * * * Those in their graves have as much interest in that glorious reign of Messiah as those who at that time will be less completely under the bondage of corruption - death. * * * We should expect blessings in the Millennial age upon all those in their graves, as well as upon those not in them; and of this we will find abundant proof, as we look further into the Lord's testimony on the subject. It is because of God's plan for their release that those in the tomb are called 'prisoners of hope.' "

The doctrine is, that the penalty for Adam's disobedience was death in the sense of the loss of all being and human existence. This is considered a penalty suited to the comparatively light offense of Adam. "It is absurd to suppose that God would perpetuate Adam's existence forever in torment for any kind of a sin which he could commit, but especially for the comparatively small offense of eating forbidden fruit" (I, p. 159). 

By virtue of this penalty of extinction of being pronounced upon Adam, all men descending from him are born under sentence of extinction of being. They are born dying and have simply existed in a dying condition, some a little longer, some a little shorter time than others. The Millennium is the time when all are again to be given being, or human existence. But why?

Here again we must not fail to agree with Mr. Russell on the meaning of terms.
    "None can appreciate this Scriptural argument who do not admit the Scriptural statement that death - extinction of being - is the wages of sin. Those who think of death as life in torment, not only disregard the meaning of the words death and life, which are opposites, but involve themselves," etc. (I, pp. 158, 159).
That, as the only meaning of death is extinction of being or human existence, so the only meaning of life, being, or human existence.

Now, according to Mr. Russell's key to Scripture, no one had immortality by creation. It is anticipating a little, but it may here be said that Mr. Russell teaches that, not only did not Adam have immortality of being by creation, but that even Jesus Christ did not until His resurrection.

"We learn that Jehovah, who alone possessed immortality originally, has highly exalted his Son, our Lord Jesus, to the same divine, immortal nature; hence, he is now the express image of the Father's person" (Heb. I. 3). So we read, "As the Father hath life in Himself (God's definition of 'immortality' - life in himself - independent, inherent life), so hath he given to the Son to have this not drawn from other sources, nor dependent on circumstances, but in himself (John V, 26), Since the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, then, two beings are immortal" (I, p. 211).

This, then, is the sense of immortality, it is "a synonym for divinity (I, p. 208). Men in general are never to be immortal, having "inherent life," "an exhaustless supply of life in ourselves" (I, p. 209). As we shall later see, while God only has immortality originally, and Jesus Christ is the only other who has immortality yet - and He only by virtue of His resurrection - a few among men are now having opportunity under light "now due" to obtain as a special reward this immortality, this inherent, "death-proof" existence in "the divine nature and form," in which they will be no longer "human beings" at all. This is the "prize now offered," "the only offer of this age." "With the end of the Gospel age, the narrow way to immortality will close" (I, p. 213).

For what, then, is mankind in general to be given existence again in the Millennium? It is to have their "trial for everlasting life." With Mr. Russell everlasting life is not a "new life from above" within a living soul, received through being "born of God," but it is simply the endless prolonging of human existence. Accordingly, Adam had existence, but it was not yet determined that it should be everlasting; he was put on trial for everlasting existence; he failed, suffered extinction of human existence, and will be brought into existence again at the Millennium to take a new trial for everlasting human existence. But Adam alone has had the chance of winning everlasting existence. "Each docs not die now for his own sin, but for Adam's sin - In Adam all die, * * * The day in which every man (who dies) shall die for his own sin only is the Millennial or Restitution day" (I, p. 109). 

"Our Lord teaches that the Sodomites did not have full opportunity ; and he guarantees them such opportunity" (I, p. 110). "All will sooner or later (in God's 'due time') have a full opportunity to be re stored to the full standing that Adam enjoyed before he sinned" (I, p. 129). "No recovery from the Adamic loss is yet accomplished, though nearly two thousand years have elapsed since our Lord died" (I, p. 151). "If anyone chooses to call this a 'second chance,' let him do so; it must certainly be Adam's second chance - but it will be the first individual opportunity of his descendants, who, when born, were already under condemnation to death. Call it what we please, the facts are the same, viz.: All were sentenced to death because of Adam's disobedience, and all will enjoy (in the Millennial age) a full opportunity to gain everlasting life" (I, pp. 130, 131).

"We may well inquire. Why did God see fit to take away these people without giving them a chance of salvation through the knowledge of the only name whereby they can be saved? The answer is, because it was not yet their due time. In 'due time' they will be awakened from death and brought to a knowledge of the truth, and thus blessed together with all the families of the earth, by the promised 'Seed.' They will then be on trial for everlasting life" (I, p. 131).

To what purpose were the six thousand years of successive generations of human beings, born under sentence of death for another's sin, without opportunity of gaining everlasting life, and without ability to make a successful attempt had opportunity been afforded them? The answer is ready and very interesting.

"God's plan has been to give mankind a full appreciation of the curse, in order that when the blessing comes upon all they may forever have decided upon the unprofitableness of sin" (I, p. 168). "Man, by reason of his present experience with sin and its bitter penalty, will be fully forewarned; and when, as a result of the ransom, he is granted another, an individual trial, under the eye and control of him who so loved him as to give his life for him, and who would not that any should perish, but that all should turn to God and live, we may be sure that only the willfully disobedient will receive the penalty of the second trial. That penalty will be the second death, from which there will be no ransom, no release, because there will be no object for another ransom or a further trial. All will have fully seen and tasted both good and evil; and all will have witnessed and experienced the goodness and love of God; all will have had a full, fair, individual trial for life, under most favorable conditions. More could not be asked, and more will not be given. That trial will decide forever who would be righteous and holy under a thousand trials ; and it will determine also who would be unjust and unholy and filthy still under a thousand trials. The great difference will be the increased knowledge. The experience with evil, contrasted with the experience with good, which will accrue to each during the trial of the coming age, will constitute the advantage by reason of which the results of the second trial will differ so widely from the results of the first, and on account of which divine Wisdom and Love provided the 'ransom for all,' and thus guar anteed to all the blessing of a new trial."

"The ransom given does not excuse sin in any; it does not propose to count sinners as saints, and usher them thus into everlasting bliss. It merely releases the accepting sinner from the first condemnation and its results, both direct and indirect, and places him again on trial for life, in which trial his own willful obedience or willful disobedience will decide whether he may or may not have life everlasting" (I, pp. 150, 152).

Mr. Russell teaches that after men are given existence again in the Millennium and placed on trial for life, they will be gradually enlightened and strengthened under the favorable circumstances then surrounding them, until with full light and ability, as well as with every helpful inducement drawn from former experience with sin and its curse and from the later experience of the good and its rewards, they will be prepared to make their final decision, 

"The word resurrection (Greek, anastasis) signifies raising up. As related to man, it signifies raising up man to that condition from which he fell, to full perfection of manhood - the thing lost through Adam. The perfection from which our race fell is the perfection to which they will gradually rise during the Millennial age of restitution or resurrection (raising up). The Millennial age is not only the age of trial, but also of blessing, and through resurrection or restitution to life all that was lost is to be restored to all who, when they know and have opportunity, gladly obey. The process of resurrection will be a gradual one, requiring the entire age for its full accomplishment; though the mere awakening to a measure of life and consciousness, as at present enjoyed, will, of course, be a momentary work. Consequently, it will not be until the thousand years are finished that the race will have fully attained the complete measure of life lost in Adam. And since anything short of perfect life is a condition of partial death, it follows that it would be strictly true to say that 'the rest of the dead' will not live again (will not regain the fullness of life lost) until the thousand years of restitution and blessing are complete" (I, p. 289).

Space has been given to these quotations, in order that the teachings on this subject might speak sufficiently to their own condemnation. Beautiful they may seem to the rebellious heart, encouraging it to take full license, saying, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die"; yet are we entirely dependent upon a Russellized Bible for this shallow, easily refuted theory. Had we space to controvert it, it would, as said before, be simply taking a dog by the ears, as it were. But whatever may need to be said will come in more properly after taking up in the next chapter the important point of the "ransom" by which the new trial for life is obtained for man.

Back to Top

We will first make an exhibit of Mr. Russell's teaching and then give corresponding quotations from him.

His foundation text from Scripture is II Tim, ii. 6 : "Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." The "due time" is arbitrarily identified with the Millennium, when the fact of the ransom's having been made will first be "testified," or proclaimed fully. It is claimed that this proclamation must be made equally to all for whom the ransom was made. He defines "ransom" as "a corresponding price." By "corresponding" he means, not equivalent, but identical, identical in kind, form, degree, manner, indeed in every particular. This is rigidly insisted upon, that the ransom is an exact duplicate, "offset" to the penalty. Christ, who "gave Himself a ransom," was, then. Himself the corresponding price, or exact offset to what was lost. 

We need to recall what was lost according to Mr. Russell by Adam's sin of disobedience. A mortal creature, of conditional existence, a perfect man, Adam, because of an act of disobedience, lost favor with God, lost his opportunity to gain by obedience the reward of a perpetual continuance of his human existence, lost his title to earthly dominion, and lost his very existence by death, he suffered the "extinction of being," The race of men in Adam's loins and yet unborn shared necessarily in all this loss; but indirectly so, as they have been born, not into life proper, but into a dying existence, and have never had their individual trial for everlasting life (existence), their chance for favor with God or their opportunity for human perfection and earthly dominion.

We are told that the ransom must be identically corresponding in every particular. It must be a living but mortal creature, one who is man only but a perfect man, the exact duplicate of Adam, only that he maintains a perfect obedience. This being, after sustaining his trial for obedience and its reward - ever lasting existence in human perfection and earthly do minion - must give up for Adam individually (the race being indirectly included) his right to divine favor, to everlasting life, to the propagation of a natural human seed, to the right of earthly dominion as man ; and he must, all there is of him, die just as Adam is claimed to have died, i.e., he must undergo entire extinction of being or existence.

Of course, the person required to pay this price could not be found among human beings, because all were either dead already or under sentence. Hence, requisition was made upon the higher order of beings, the spirit beings. These beings are all mortal creatures, Mr. Russell teaches, but of higher organism and nature than man. Chief among them was the Son of God, Himself a creature of God, but superior in rank to angels because He was the first and only being directly created by the Almighty, while all other creatures were created through Him. It was not necessary to choose Him for man's ransom, but it was eminently appropriate, because there was not only great testing in prospect but a great reward, which it would be more fitting should come to Him.

But not even the Son of God while a spirit being could pay the ransom price, because that would be no more "a corresponding price" than the blood of bulls or goats. Consequently, the Son of God underwent the humbling change of nature by which He forfeited all higher nature and became perfectly and only human, an exact duplicate of Adam in his pristine human perfection. His personal existence, not merely His bodily life, was mortal, capable of extinction by bodily demise ; and His everlasting existence depended upon His maintaining obedience where Adam failed His obedience had the exact merit which obedience on Adam's part would have had, but no more. Christ not only won the right to everlasting life (existence in human perfection) by obedience, but passed examination for the title to the dominion of the earth and to the fatherhood of a race of perfect human beings to spring from His loins.

Having won back for Himself all that Adam lost by disobedience, Christ surrendered it all as a ransom price with which to obtain for Adam (and his race inclusive) the chance to try over again under the more favorable circumstances already described. That Adam (and his race inclusive) might be brought back into existence for this millennial trial, Christ gave up His own human and earthly existence in death. Suffering played no part in the ransom ; the essential thing was the extinction of His being to ransom Adam (his race included) back from extinguished existence. We must not here fail to understand our "helping hand" as to what Christ gave up to death. "It took all that He had to effect the purchase, and nothing was left" (Vol. I, p. 455). For three days, accordingly, the person known in his pre-human existence as the Son of God, and in His earthly existence as the Son of Man, was non-existent, as extinct in being or existence as are now (according to Mr. Russell) Adam and all the dead.

Moreover, what was laid down was never taken up again. That life remains held in death, or non-existence, as our perpetual ransom price due to divine justice. His being as a man went out of existence with his expiring body and his body has never been revived, his soul has never awakened. But, as a re ward for his sacrifice for Adam and his race, God brought Christ forth after three days as another be ing, not human in any sense, but a spirit being again, only now first in the divine degree (not deity), i.e., having immortality, made death-proof, or having "life in Himself." As a further part of His reward, Christ is to conduct' the millennial trial of the human race, to bestow everlasting life (existence) upon the finally obedient and to send the finally disobedient into death the second time, from which there is no return to existence. When He shall have led the obedient to a degree where they can forever meet law and justice on their own moral ability, and be competent of them selves to rule the world for God's pleasure, then Christ will vacate His mediatorial character and office.

Quotations will now be given which will show this summary to be true to the teachings of Mr. Russell. They will leave us, however, with a desire to investigate further these peculiar teachings on the person and offices of Jesus Christ. This latter exhibit will be left for further chapters.

>>Stevens really screws it up here. Russell really and truly straightened out the mess Christianity had made of the doctrine of Redemption. This was how Russell came to get some respect and appreciation among some former members of mainstream Christianity, because they recognized the traditional doctrines were full of misunderstanding or of no understanding at all. There are 4 main statements of point made below by Russell and everyone of them are right on!<<

"What our Lord did for us, what price He gave on our behalf, what He surrendered, or laid down in death, since it was a corresponding price, a ransom for all, should correspond exactly to whatever was man's penalty" (V. 441).

"The thought, and the only thought, contained in it is that as Adam, through disobedience, forfeited his being, his soul, all his rights to life and to earth, so Christ Jesus our Lord, by His death, as a corresponding price, paid a full and exact offset for father Adam's soul, or being, and, in consequence, for all his posterity - every human soul - who shares in his fall and in his loss" (V, 428).

"A substitute must be of the same nature as Adam, human nature; the substitute must be equally free from sin, free from the curse, free from wrath; similarly holy, similarly harmless, similarly separate from sinners and from sin, similarly approved of God, as was Adam before his transgression" (V, 440).

"One Redeemer was quite sufficient in the plan which God adopted, because only one had sinned, and only one had been condemned. (Others shared in his condemnation.) If the first trial had been an individual trial, and if one-half of the race had sinned and been individually condemned, it would have required the sacrifice of a redeemer for each condemned individual. One unforfeited life could redeem one forfeited life, but no more. The one perfect man, the man Christ Jesus, who redeemed the fallen Adam (and our losses through him), could not have been a ransom (a corresponding price) for all under any other circumstances. If we should suppose the total number of human beings since Adam to be one hundred billions, and that one-half of these had sinned, it would require all of the fifty billions of obedient, perfect men to die in order to give a ransom (a corresponding price) for all the fifty billions of transgressors" (I. 133).

>>Russell might not have been clear enough on the last point. If Adam had remained loyal to God and perfect, and then after producing many offspring, say 100 billion, and half of those then sin, having formerly been perfect before sinning, each of these would require a redeemer, a sacrifice. Timing was the real key for both God and Satan. As soon as Adam had sinned, all human offspring were condemned to imperfection and eventual death. so by redeeming Adam, all his offspring were also redeemed, for they did not have perfection to throw away. Adam made their fate and decision for them, us. The devil also sought to foul up all the offspring, by wiping out the entirety of the human race, insuring that not even one person would be perfect, to call people to their senses or redeem them.

Besides, God and the devil, in the presence of Jesus and other angels at that time, agreed that the fall of the entire human race of Adam should be redeemed, if possible, by none other than Jesus himself, the first born son of God. Who better to be tested by trial and temptation. If the devil could break him, then God was accept the loss and allow the devil to have his way afterward and live on without judgment. But if the devil could not overcome Jesus, then he loses and any and all descendants of Adam could now accept the redemption paid for them, by trying to live by God's commands in faith, awaiting the promises of restoring, while not actually having them at that time.

Russell may well have been one of the very few, to have understood this whole mess. It would be a major weapon for him to fool his eventual followers. How do you lure people to a false hope and prophecy? By offering them something very good and legitimate, that no one else seems to be offering. Having been given a solid piece of truth in this doctrine of redemption, Russell gained a very powerful piece of credibility that he could rub in the face of mainstream Christianity.

Even to this day, any religion hoping to gain coverts, needs to have a few doctrines of truth. But those hurt by these few truths fight and resist. But those truths are mixed with lies in other doctrines so that none appear to offer the whole complete truth in all doctrine. The devil muddies up the waters so that it becomes a challenge to discern truth from error or corruption. It can be done, but it does take effort. God is only seeking those who want to put effort into their beliefs and ideas because beliefs and ideas matter. Truth matter. Truth should be number 1 in our lives.

So may be you can appreciate how Russell got a great deal of respect from some. He had some good points and doctrines that should not have been ignored. Had more embraced these doctrinal changes, without embracing Russell and his prophetic interpretations, he never would have stood a chance. As it is, unopposed in his reforms, he looked real good to some, who were not clever enough to recognize his twisting of prophecy, since he did correct some doctrinal matters. Steven's continues to quote Russell's redemption ideas:<<

"Justice must, therefore, demand the life of another as instead of the life of Adam, before releasing Adam and his race. And if this penalty were paid, the whole penalty would be paid, - one sacrifice for all, even as one sin involved all. The perfect Adam, the transgressor, who was sentenced, was not an angel, nor an archangel, nor a god, but a man. Strictest Justice, therefore, could demand as his substitute neither more nor less than one of Adam's own kind, under similar conditions to his, namely, perfect, and free from condemnation. None such could he found amongst men, all of whom were of the race of Adam, and therefore sharers, through heredity, of his penalty and degradation.

Hence it was that the necessity arose that one from the heavenly courts, and of a spiritual nature, should take upon him the human nature, and then give as substitute himself, a ransom for Adam and for all who lost life through him. Amongst the angels who had retained their first estate and loyalty to God, no doubt there might have been found many who would gladly have undertaken the accomplishment of the Father's will, and to have become man's ransom price; but, inasmuch as our Lord Jesus was already the first, the chief in the heavenly Kingdom, next to the Father, the apostle informs us that this work of redemption, this privilege of executing the divine will in respect to man, was given Him as a mark of special confidence, and as a favor because of the honors which according to divine law must attach to so great obedience, humility and self-sacrifice." ( Matt, xxiii. 12 ; James iv. 10; I. Peter v. 6). 

>>It is my opinion, that the devil, probably being quite sure of himself, believed he could overcome whoever chose to be the redeemer from heaven. The devil probably wanted Jesus specifically to do the job, since being able to break Jesus down into sinning, he would wipe out Jesus forever, so he thought. The devil wanted to do as much hurt and harm as possible. He may have been jealous of Jesus as well. But Jesus was quite willing to take the whole challenge on. But it was a risk. But God would reward Jesus, if he succeeded. I also expect that God and His son also had a fair amount of confidence and certainly determination and dedication to what they had started in the every beginning.<<

"With confidence in the Son and desiring His attainment of the high exaltation which would accrue as a result of that faithfulness, the Father gave the first opportunity to him" (V. 422-4).

"As the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin, because they were of an inferior nature, so the death of angels or archangels could never have taken away Adam's sin, nor become a suitable atonement sacrifice for him, because these were not of his nature. It was man's life that had been forfeited through sin, and only man's life could be accepted as the redemption price, the ransom price. It was for this cause that it was necessary that our Lord should leave the glory of His pre-human condition, and humble Himself, and become a man, because only by becoming a man could He give the ransom price." (V. 425).

"It was absolutely necessary that He should be a man - neither more nor less than a perfect man. 'As by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead' [I Cor. xv. 21]" (V. 95).  [Stevens says:] Please note the willful alterations of this quotation to support the blasphemous doctrine that Jesus of Nazareth was exclusively human.

>>John said that the antichrist would come, saying Jesus did not come in the flesh. Now here we have Stevens supporting the antichrist assertion that Jesus was not exclusively in the flesh, that is, a human. Stevens is the blasphemer, not Russell, in this instance. See the problem?<<

"The necessary thing was surrender of His innocent soul (being) as an offset or in exchange for a guilty soul (being) whose existence was forfeited through transgression. Neither was it necessary, so far as the ransom feature was concerned, that our Lord's person should be wounded, and his blood literally shed or spilled on the ground. The penalty for sin was death, the cessation of being, and when that was accomplished the penalty was met" (V. 443).

"The man Christ Jesus laid down all that He had for the redemption of the man Adam and his race, a full corresponding price, a man for a man. The race of Adam not having been born at the time of his transgression, was not directly, but indirectly, sentenced, and consequently needed not to be directly, but indirectly purchased. An unborn seed in the loins of the man Christ Jesus became the offset or corresponding price for the seed of Adam unborn at the time of his transgression. He was put to death [cessation of being] a man, but was raised [after three days of absolute non-existence] a spirit being of the highest order of the divine nature; having finished the work for which he became a man, and having performed the services acceptably to the Father, He was raised from the dead to exceeding honor and dignity, far above angels, principalities and powers, and every name that is named. Nor could our Lord have been raised from the dead a man, and yet have left with Justice our ransom-price; in order to the release of Adam (and his condemned race) from the sentence and prison-house of death, it was necessary, not only that the man Christ Jesus should die, but just as necessary that the man Christ Jesus should never live again, should remain dead, should remain our ransom-price to all eternity. The man Jesus is dead, forever dead" (V. 453, 454).

>> Paul himself said that Jesus was put to death in the flesh. But he did appear with his former flesh to men for 50 days, till the day of Pentecost, the time of the Feast/Festival of Weeks/Harvest. Sheaves of grain were offered before God in the temple. The significance of this time was the Jesus ascended to heaven, to offer his accomplishment and sacrifice directly before God in Heaven. In sacrifice, his body was never to be seen or manifest ever again. It was given up, and lives through all who accept the atonement of that sacrifice and become offspring of Jesus, so to speak, his sons and daughters, instead of Adam's.

So it was that on this same day, the spirit of God was poured out on believers, showing that the sacrifice and offering had been received and accepted by the Father, Jehovah, and that He could now accept that men were no longer deserving of the sinful state they were in, and God would be justified in giving His spirit to them, to bring them along a path that would eventually preserve their lives forever. And it all went over the head of Stevens and most of Christianity at that time and to the present, too. How could Christians be so blind, you ask? Because God has chosen not to reveal it to them. They are not worthy. How about you? Will you accept it?

This becomes all the more important when we consider Jesus' warning about not following when someone says look, Christ is here or over there, do not believe or follow them & him. Jesus sacrificed his human body and the type of life he had in that body, on the day of Pentecost. He will not be back in bodily form, ever again. But the antichrist will be, and he wants you to believe that Jesus is returning in physical fleshly bodily form. Will you believe him?

What is more amazing is that Russell preached an invisible return, and yet was helping, in my view, to set up the eventual antichrist charade. Russell may not have known the full extent to which he was being used. But his financiers knew where they were going to take it and Russell was to start it off with his time prophecies, which Bible Students (IBSA) still promote to this day. but if you understand why Jesus got rid of his body form, then you know he will not be coming back in his body, but rather in his spirit form and with great power and authority. You will know when he has arrived! You can bet on it!<<

Back to Top

While, as has been said, we do not feel called upon to conduct a. refutation of Mr. Russell's system of teaching, which to a candid, simple-minded Bible reader plainly refutes itself, yet we do feel free to give some personal reasons for rejecting such teachings, when they are offered to us and to others so insistently as a "Helping Hand to Bible Students." We, therefore, subjoin some points wherein we feel plainly taught of the Word of God to reject and condemn Mr, Russell's doctrine of the ransom.


We cannot forbear pointing out a ludicrous over sight on Mr. Russell's part in his application of the ransom. It will be remembered how urgent he is that Christ as a ransom constitutes a corresponding price for Adam only (his posterity not being individually or directly condemned), and that one unforfeited life is sufficient to ransom but one condemned soul.

But there was a second person, not of Adam's unborn seed when he fell, who was equally condemned for disobedience, who indeed fell first and led him to his fall. That was Eve, "the mother of all living." She remains, according to Russellism, un-ransomed. And we must hold Mr. Russell accountable for it, because all that is necessary in all these momentous concerns is his say-so, and it must be so, whether the Bible, as we would unsophisticatedly read it, says so or not. He is able to make the Bible accord with "light now due." Remember, we can go two years at a stretch without reading our Bibles, only reading his "Studies," and we will remain "in the light" (of Mr. Russell), whereas, if we neglect "Studies," we will inside of two years go into darkness (fortunately lose Mr. Russell as our light), no matter what light we had before and no matter how diligently we may read our Bibles for ourselves. 

Now, how are we to account for Mr. Russell's leaving mother Eve unransomed? Did she not have a soul to be ransomed? Was she but "an error of mortal mind?" Forsooth, she was a suffragette, and Mr. Russell, like Mr. Asquith, does not wish to give them a "chance for everlasting life" (existence). But then, if, according to Mr. Russell, restitution means return at the Millennium to the same human, earthly existence as at the first, only under more favorable conditions, what will Adam do in the Millennium without Eve? Can it be possible that he will find the Millennium happier for him without Eve than Eden was with her?

This dark suspicion Mr. Russell has already forestalled. For, in his ability to explain anything, he has given us an explanation of Adam's falling with eyes wide open to consequences, which explanation precludes the idea that Adam would rather rise again without Eve, "Adam, we are told, was not deceived (I Tim. 2, 14), hence he must have transgressed with a fuller realization of the sin, and with the penalty in view, knowing certainly that he must die. We can readily see what was the temptation which impelled him thus recklessly to incur the pronounced penalty. Bearing in mind that they were perfect beings, in the mental and moral likeness of their Maker, the godlike element of love was displayed with marked prominence by the perfect man toward his beloved companion, the perfect woman. Realizing the sin and fearing Eve's death, and thus his loss (and that with out hope of recovery, for no such hope had been given), Adam, in despair, recklessly concluded not to live without her. Deeming his own life unhappy and worthless without her companionship, he willfully shared her act of disobedience in order to share the death-penalty which he probably supposed rested upon her" (I, 123).

>>The above makes it obvious that Russell was not ignoring Eve, by any means. As to whether Russell is right about Eve, I am not sure. But that Eve is not blamed for the fall of mankind into sin is clear in the Bible. I also note that Eve gave credit to God for help in producing a man, a son. What we do not know, but can reasonably speculate, are the ages or physical development of each when they were created. Adam was alive while God (Jehovah) was still making many animals and bringing them to Adam to observe and name. Adam may have been created as a boy, so that the drive for sex and mating would not be present for a time. But the time did arrive when God said it is not good for man to continue alone. Eve was then created, and she, too, may have been created as a girl. She had not gotten pregnant before her temptation and fall into sin.

But Satan did not wait for Eve to get smart or spend a good deal of time with Adam and God. Satan knew his best chance was to strike while there was little development of intelligence and strong personality and will. Since she was new to life, she was relatively unprepared, perhaps, and so perhaps she is not held as being old enough to incur serious judgment. Recall that when Israel sinned in not fighting Ai, all people 20 and over would not be allowed into the promised land and would live their lives out in the desert for 40 years. Those under 20 were spared.

It is also possible that had Adam remained faithful, even though Eve had not, the offspring may still have remained perfect. Recall that God planted in Mary, the seed of Jesus, a perfect man. Mary was not perfect yet brought a perfect man to term. So it is at least possible what I suggest.

But we are left without absolute certainty. If Eve was fully accountable, then it would appear she is gone, without a ransom. but if she was deemed as premature and not accountable, for which there is some precedent, then she is not in need of being redeemed. That she continued to speak of God in giving birth, suggests she was still well disposed toward Him, whereas Adam is never mentioned again. The rest we will have to leave with God and the future. 

But Russell did not leave Eve out, nor has Stevens offered are serious refutation of Russell's concept of an equal-corresponding-propitiatory sacrifice in exchange for that of Adam. Jesus was capable of reproducing perfect human beings while Adam, after his sin, could not. Jesus, in the flesh, was entitled to leave offspring behind to carry on his name. He was unjustly denied this. As compensation for his loss, he could receive the children of Adam as his, provided that they were brought back to a state of perfection so as to live forever, as long as they did not sin and disobey God's laws.

So we are the beneficiaries of Jesus having justice restored to him, by means of offspring to carry on in his name, not Adam's. We were adopted. Adoption was allowed in the law, in "brother-in-law marriages," whereby if a man should die, his brother would marry his wife and have a son by that wife that would remain in the name of the former (now dead) husband. In this way, the dead man's name and lineage continues after his death. After having 1 or more sons, the brother could then keep others in his name or by another woman in his name.

All these legal precedents of God were put down in law for a reason. They may well explain the plight of Eve. There is also the manner of prophetic speech was speaks of the "woman" and her seed in Genesis 3. Was Eve the 1st women, who symbolized or typified another sort of woman and seed? If so, then Eve may be seen as the one to carry on in behalf of God, perhaps even being the one actually ransomed into order to buy us back from sin.

Eve could have been a replacement for Adam. Adam had quite some time spent with God, naming animals as he observed them over days, weeks, and years. Adam, according to Paul, was not deceived by the serpent, but Eve was. Eve was, relatively speaking, innocent and beguiled by the serpent. Perhaps if she had remained without sin, we may not have died, even if Adam had. Adam knew better and had had a proper opportunity to know God and be wise enough and be accountable for his life and choices. Eve, on the other hand, did not have that same opportunity. If so, she may have been the one actually bought, and because she was taken from Adam's flesh, a rib, she was said to be from the womb of man, a womb-man or wo-man. So she could qualify as next in line to carry on Adam's fallen name or Jesus' name as well.

After Jesus returns and takes power, we will then see what he has to say about it all. there are too many questions that none of us can definitively answer and Stevens is in no position to answer, either.<<

But perhaps we can divine the deep secret of Mr. Russell's thought in not providing ransom for Eve. Inasmuch as she, as seen above, plunged Adam to his reckless act of self-destruction for love of her, feeling that he would rather perish than exist without her, it seems quite likely to be Mr. Russell's "light in due time," that Adam would recklessly follow Eve again in the Millennial trial in whatever course she chose. His trial could be no more unbiased the second time than the first. If she chose disobedience again and went to "the second death," right along with her he would go too. And would not that be a bad example for millions of love-lorn sons of Adam? We all know how blind love is, and are we sure that the experience of evil in that direction, which men are acquiring in the present, will be a security against love-madness in the Millennium? It is, therefore, clear that the whole age of the restitution would be in danger of worse disaster than came of the first trial, if Eve were ransomed and were allowed to get into the Millennium alive again. Surely, one ought, with eyes closed to all tradition, creed, private reason, Bible and all, to clasp such a "helping hand" and yield oneself to be blindly led - whither?

>> If Stevens is right in Russell blaming Eve for being too much for Adam to bear losing, this would be an error on Russell's part. For Adam had no weakness and did have opportunity to learn enough and withstand temptation. Paul said Adam knew better! Now Russell would be contradicting Paul and that would be a serious mistake, if that is what Russell is doing. I am just not so sure about it all.<<


It is unscriptural to confine the term life to mere existence, to confine human life to existence on the earth in the human body. The Scripture guards against this error, both of fact and of philosophy, in its account of man's origin.

There are two chapters in the record of man's becoming "a living soul." The first is the account of his creation (Gen. i. 26, 27). This presents man as a being brought into existence by God's creative word, out of no pre-existing substance, and in the likeness of the invisible God. This, then, is man in invisible, immaterial nature, in mental, moral and spiritual nature - the image of God who "is a Spirit." In Gen, ii, 7 is given the account of this man's being "formed of the dust of the ground." This is not his creation personally, but his formation physically. The very words employed in these two accounts, the words "created" and "formed," are opposites in meaning, and could not be applied to man's origin in one and the same aspect. As has been said, "created" signifies being produced out of nothing, while "formed" signifies being constructed out of prior substance.

>>It is Stevens, not Russell, who is wrong here. I believe Stevens is suggesting a spirit existence before the fleshly body was made. He believes a soul is a spirit, and not comprised of the body, necessarily. He is wrong. This is the doctrine of the immortal soul and several different groups attacked this doctrine and justly so. Not only Russell, but Ellen G White, who founded the Seventh Day Adventists. I know there are others but they escape me at this time.

 The immortal soul was a Greek doctrine that was taken to be fact and science. It was neither of those, but it was Greek. Christians became enamored of Greek wisdom and philosophy, to the point where they got confused between God's definition of life and the Greeks' definition. It is most evident in the writing of Origen of Alexandria in the later 3rd century, I believe. Russell and some other upstarts tried to present themselves as reformers restoring truth and in some instances, it was true. This was one of them. Christians confused spirit with soul. The 2 have nothing to do with each other.

Adam was giving the breath of life and then and only then, did he become a living soul. His body was made before the breath of life. But it was not living without that spirit or force of God, which animate the flesh and made it function and live. And Ezekiel was told by God that souls can die and will die, too. In fact, the reason Russell gained followers from mainstream Christianity was the fact that Christianity was full of skeletons in the closet, doctrinal errors which destroyed their claims and credibility. I have addressed these heresies in the Modern Day Heresies section/page.<<

Man as we see him is, then, a being of dual constitution. In created and essential constitution he is a person invisible like the invisible God, spiritual like God who is a Spirit. In derived constitution, in material, external make-up, he is visible, corporeal, adapted to life amidst visible and material creation. In this dual constitution man is "a living soul." But, notice, "he became a living soul," By virtue of bodily formation and the breath of life in his nostrils he" became a living soul. But his original and essential being is not as "a living soul." This is shown by the prior account of his creation and by the word "became" in the account of his material formation. Consequently, man who thus "became a living soul" ceases - not to exist, but - to be mch when the breath goes out of his nostrils and his material frame is dissolved again into its component dust, (We are not to be understood as implying that man was "created" some time before he was "formed" and "became a living soul," but only as pointing out from Scripture that man's created being does not depend upon bodily form and life.)

>>One of the biggest errors Christianity has made is in confusing what is meant by God's image and what spirit is and means.

Hence, man as "a living soul" is a being combining an "inward man" and an "outward man" (I Cor. iv. 16). This passage shows that these two aspects of man's present visible being are so distinguishable as to be capable of undergoing diametrically opposite experiences simultaneously. Yet it is not the case of man's mere tenantry in a bodily house. There is a living union between spirit and flesh, by virtue of which the inward man and the outward man constitute an integral personality, "a living soul." We may, then, say that it is rather the case of a marvelous mode and manifestation of a human being's existence. It is a mode of existence, however, which can be suspended without cessation of personal existence in any original and essential respect. While Scripture frankly says, "The body without the spirit is dead," yet no where is it intimated that the converse is true; but we have the strongest testimonies of Scripture to the contrary.

>>Stevens does not know what "spirit" truly is and is not. But Spirit is not Soul. Spirit is the force of life God breaths into flesh, giving it life and making it a living soul. I have written much on this. I'll link articles at the end of this. But this is elementary doctrine. And it gave Russell more ammo than he deserved. Had Stevens and many others like him gotten these doctrines right as Russell had, Russell would have had nothing exclusive to offer, and would not have been able to win over people to his prophetic interpretations.<<

Were we to attempt to make a complete inventory of Scriptural testimonies to man's personal and conscious existence after death, we would need a considerable volume to include all the quotations. Let a few serve rather as random samples. I Cor. xv. 18: "Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished."

Of course, that is just what is here denied. Phil, i. 21: "For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain," i. e., more of Christ. Accordingly Paul adds, vs. 23 : "For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better." That this means immediate, and not in definitely future, gain is evident from the next verse: "Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you."

If dying had been to Paul's view the interruption of enjoyable existence, he would have been in no "strait betwixt two;" he would have preferred "to abide in the flesh," especially as it was "more needful" for the Philippians. Then the expression, "to abide in the flesh," implies that the body was an abiding place which one could vacate and take personal residence elsewhere.

Agreeably to this, Paul expresses himself in II Cor. V. 6, 8, 9. "Whilst we are at home ' in the body, we are absent from the Lord" (i.e., "by sight," vs. 7) "We are * o * willing rather to be absent from the body, and present with the Lord. Wherefore we labor, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of Him."

Of course, theorists deceitfully set these testimonies aside by misconstructions of them to suit their theories. No wonder Mr. Russell prefers to have Bible students read their Bibles, if at all, only by the tight of his "Studies." The passages already cited might be multiplied in definitely. These are sufficient for present purposes.

>>Another doctrine Stevens had not discerned was that while some were going to heaven, earth, too, was to receive many resurrected ones, in bodily form as they had originally been. How else could it be said in Revelation that those in heaven rule as kings and priests, unless there were others to rule over and be conducted by priests, here on earth. God's purpose had always been to fill the earth with people and He will not be stopped in that intention and desire. Those in heaven will help the earthly ones obtain a healing in the flesh so that they may, for the first time, live without sin and without dying.<<

And Jesus gives us the philosophy of this right doctrine of life, when He rebukes the Sadducees for their materialistic view of human existence. In Luke xx. 37, 38 we read: "Now that the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, For He is not the God of the dead, but of the living; for all live unto Him."

The meaning is easily discerned. The Sadducees denied all disembodied existence. They, therefore, called man "dead" after expiring physically, dead in the sense of "extinction of being," On that ground they denied the possibility of resurrection. Jesus here argues that God, by declaring Himself to Moses to be the God of deceased patriarchs, bore testimony to their uninterrupted personal existence, because He could not call Himself the God of extinct beings. So Jesus concludes, "All live," i.e., are living, "unto Him." Living, personal human relations to God are uninterrupted and unchanged by bodily dissolution.

>>Stevens gets this wrong, too. do you see why Russell was so effective at getting people to listen to his ridiculous prophecies? He keeps on winning doctrine battles with mainstream fools, I mean pastors (or may be not), so people begin to give ear to his baloney as well. They developed some trust of his judgment, which was their mistake. No denomination is totally void of truth nor 100% right, either. We have to use discernment and only trust what we can understand.

The Sadducees were debating the earthly bodily resurrection and had no knowledge of the heavenly one now being preach by John (Baptist) and Jesus. Jesus rebuked them for lack of faith in the resurrection and tried to convey to them that he was offering people a chance to rule in heaven as angels/spirits. That must have really shocked them, don't you think? Even Stevens did not get it ;-) <<


We now come to consider Mr. Russell's false doctrine of death. He relates death only to bodily existence and allows no spiritual significance to the term. He strenuously maintains that death as "the wages of sin" has the sole meaning of "extinction of being" by bodily dissolution. Accordingly, while God had declared that Adam should die in the day he disobeyed the commandment, yet as a matter of fact, Mr. Russell says, Adam was nearly a thousand years in dying. But we prefer to take the God of truth on His own statement. Adam did die, not only on the day but at the very moment he disobeyed. For he thereby cut himself off instantly in his essential personal life, his moral and spiritual life, from God as his fountain of true life. Life, in the Scriptural sense, does not consist with man either in mere physical or even in mere personal existence, but in the existence in spiritual union with God.

>> Both agree and do not know it. Russell correctly points out that "day" as dying in that day, was symbolic, as it began the slowly dying process we are all so familiar with. Stevens says the same thing in pointing out that life out of union with God is death. But Russell would point out, correctly, that death was the end of all living and existence. Ecclesiastes says the very same thing. Again, check out my articles on these Modern Day Heresies at the end of this article.<<

As soon as man disobeyed God, he ceased to drink "of the fountain of the water of life" and began to draw moral and spiritual currents from the "lake of fire." This latter mode of moral and spiritual existence the Scriptures call "death," Accordingly, "He that hath the Son hath life ; and he that hath not the Son hath not life" (I. John v. 12). This clearly implies that such a one is living and yet is devoid of "life indeed." Many other like passages might be quoted. For instance, John iii. 36: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life ; but the wrath of God abideth on him." One is, then, dead and hopelessly so upon whom the wrath of God finally rests.

But the state of death is not one of extinction of being, but of the suffering of divine wrath. This is "the wages of sin." To confine the wages of sin to bodily death is to ignore the primary penalty for a secondary consequence. But more of this later.

>>He says death is not the extinction of being. I believe the Bible indicates otherwise. Seventh Day Adventists (SDAs) are another group who preached the same doctrine as Russell and very early post-Apostolic Christians as well. I guts the evidence to prove it all. SDAs have also very much benefited from promoting this sensible and obvious doctrine. They, too, present themselves as "end time" reformers and they, too, have odd prophetic interpretations based on Daniel 4's 7 times/2520 years, supposedly.

When people have come to realize that mainstream Christianity is all screwed up and mixed up in their doctrines of demons, these people desire to flee to some place making more sense. These supposed end time reforming groups of various persuasions come along with some credible doctrinal reforms and people decide they will settle in with these reformers. But they accept the whole package when half the package is not so good at all.

But since no one offers an even better alternative, the new converts settle in with their new "friends" in the faith and take up the strange prophetic interpretations that are bound to fail.<<

Back to Top


The truth of man's essential immortality has already been implied by us. Mr. Russell attributes immortality to the Almighty alone, only that, since His resurrection, Jesus Christ has been given immortality as a reward for his death. Mr. Russell identifies immortality with divine nature, and places it beyond the reach of all except Christ - on this side of His resurrection - and the "little flock" (of Russellites - to be shown later).

But man's immaterial being is immortal. It is such because of being created in the likeness of the immortal God. He who created could annihilate; but He has nowhere even threatened annihilation. Other wise there is no possible cessation of personal existence. God created man for endless existence, and He has never put man on trial for everlasting life in. the sense of endless prolonging of mere existence. All the Scriptures commonly quoted to prove human perishability relate to man on the "outward" side. There is a mortal side to fallen man, but it is only the external, the bodily side, the "clothing" that is divested at natural death.

>> Stevens here makes employs a Russell tactic. He mentions an immaterial being. No such word or words in the Bible. A spirit is an immaterial being, but where is man ever said to be a spirit. He has spirit, that is, life force, animating force, originating from God. But he is not a spirit, but flesh and blood. Fact! When his flesh has God's spirit, then he is said to be a living soul and in the image of God. Image does not describe the material substance of one or the other. Man is like God, in that he has the capacity to, though in a far more primitive way, think and act as God does, as in personality, in "spirit" so to speak. But there are differences as well. God has far far more capacity for intelligence and power.

It is important to understand the similarities by also the differences between God and the image of God in a manner of speaking. We mimic God in simple ways and capacities, as flesh, as animal type creatures. Our brain is what makes us special and in God's image. Stevens missed it all.<<

This is made clear by II Cor, 1. 1-6: "For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house, not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." Even without going into niceties of translation, we see dearly that the point here is not that of man's personal dissolution but of the dissolution of his tabernacle of earthly residence; and it is not that of his being given personal existence again, but of his being given an habitation again which shall not be liable to dissolution.

"For in this" ("house," of the present body) "we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven, if so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked." Here the same distinction between personality and place of residence is maintained, only here the "house" is also called "clothing," and the idea is introduced that, although we are kept "groaning" while in the present bodily house, yet, in our longing for release, it is with earnest desire for the final heavenly embodiment and with an instinctive shrinking from being "found naked," i.e" unembodied.

But what difference would it make to be "found naked" if there were no personality? Extinct beings could not be called naked, and they could not experience either shame or lack of satisfaction at being in such a state. "For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened ; not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life."

The same thoughts are here carried along, and the further idea is introduced of our present mortality, or body now mortal, being "swallowed up of life." Oh, what a prospect! How the spirit of man chafes under the mortality of body! And yet at the same time, we instinctively cling to the body. Now conies the assurance that our body is to be made one in life with the spirit, and what is now mortal of us is to be engulfed in immortality. It is clear that, while man was at first "formed out of the dust of the ground" and, hence, could be dissolved as to body into dust again, yet he was designed ultimately to be "formed" anew bodily in oneness of imperishable existence with his spirit.

>>What Stevens does not comprehend here is that Jesus came offering all a chance to be angels-kings-priests-and brothers of Christ - - - in heaven. These would rule over a vast great crowd who would reside on earth forever, as fleshly people in the image of God, shepherded by Chris and his brothers, fellow rulers with Christ in heaven.

But as God created man to live forever and fill the earth, what comes from God's mouth will be fulfilled and can not be stopped. The earth one day will, as God first intended and never changes His mind about, be filled with perfect God-obeying humans in the flesh. So some will be actual spirits-angels in heaven, having no body at all, since spirits are not bodies or flesh, even as flesh is not a spirit, since flesh can not inhabit God's Kingdom says Paul. The home for flesh is the earth. The home for spirits is referred to as heaven, where God resides.

This will explain the next errors to follow as well.<<

To continue with the passage being quoted - "Now He that hath wrought us for the self-same thing [bodily immortality] is God, who also hath given us the earnest [first installment, the foretaste, of bodily immortality] of the Spirit." That is, there is for us here and now a foretaste through the Spirit of coming bodily immortality. How so? The answer is at hand for such of us as have experienced the quickening of the mortal body by the indwelling Spirit (Rom. viii. 2), for such of us as have experienced miraculous reversal of the sentence of death in our bodies (II Cor. i. 9, 10). Some of us are fully cognizant of what it means physically to "have tasted the powers of the world to come" (Heb. vi, 5). This is the real glory of "divine healing" and of "the life of Jesus in our mortal flesh" (I Cor, iv. 2).

We are not attempting any extended proof of immortality or refutation of the contrary doctrine, but only to give enough of our own personal reading of Scripture to show why we reject the teachings we are considering as heretical, and to give enough reading of Scripture in its original light, in preference to "light now first due," to help some disingenuous one to see for himself the teaching of the Word.

But we will cite one more passage, chiefly because it is commonly relied upon as a strong support to the doctrine of "conditional immortality," The error here, as elsewhere generally, is that the passage is taken only in part, and consequently the whole teaching is missed. We refer to Eccles. iii. 19-21:

"For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts ; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other ; yea, they have all one breath ; so that a man hath no pre-eminence above a beast : for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again."

Suppose the Word stopped there and that we had no further testimony elsewhere in the Bible, We would certainly be left to understand that death ended all for man the same as for the beast, that man's personality was as much wrapped up indissolubly with his physical existence as the beast's. But we read further : "Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?" Could it be made clearer, that man is separable from his body and free to continue in personal existence in original invisible being, returning in personal spirit to God who gave him by creation such an indestructible being?


The foregoing brings us right to the matter of resurrection and why we have to reject Mr. Russell again most decidedly as our "helping hand." His doctrine of resurrection involves both absurdity and impossibility. It is absurd and impossible for an extinct being to be resurrected. That is an axiomatic truth, intuitively perceived. It needs no argument. You can awaken a sleeping person, but you cannot awaken an extinct being. A beast cannot be resurrected just because "the spirit of the beast goeth downward to the earth," Its spirit is extinct and cannot come again into body. There is nothing to come. A new creature could be called into being by God, but, no matter how apparently identical with the prior creature, there would be no sort of identity between them.

On Mr. Russell's theory of death as the extinction of a man's life, there can be no renewal of his existence. There is nothing to awaken. To produce a being exactly alike in every way would still not be an awakening, a resurrection, a renewed existence. It would be a new creation, another being. There could be no connection of personal identity, consciousness or recollection. When Jesus raised Lazarus He called to a living person to come forth again, even in his mortal body.

>>Stevens speaks foolishly. Though a man's soul perishes, God can re-make it again, cause it to live again, though it was gone and vanished. If God could make Adam the 1st time, He can do it again, not in Adam himself, but in us after Adam, who are redeemed. Though we lose our souls in death, we can be brought back to life. Our "death" is only temporary. God has the power to create and re-creates. Yes, He is that powerful and capable. There is nothing beyond His reach and if our composition is truly animated flesh, God can return that flesh into existence and make if live once again.<<

We also read in Luke viii, 54, 55 : "And He put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called, saying. Maid, arise. And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway." It was this spirit that Jesus addressed as the "maid." It was the maid that "came again" in spirit into her body and arose in that body. And that body without this spirit-maid was dead, but by the return of this spirit-maid it became alive again and capable of arising.

>>Stevens mistakes what the spirit is, taking it to be a soul. Indeed the breath and spark of life did come back into the made and her flesh lived once again and again became a living soul to be loved and cherished by those who loved her.<<

But under Mr. Russell's doctrine there is no spirit left, there is nothing left. Even "the man Jesus is dead, forever dead." And Mr. Russell does not claim that it is the same being that now lives. "It was necessary, not only that the man Christ Jesus should die, but just as necessary that the man Christ Jesus should never live again, should remain dead, should remain our ransom-price to all eternity." It is contrary to reason as well as to Scripture that a being can be resurrected from such a state. The appearance of a being in exact duplicate would carry no identification of personality, there could be no identity created even by God Himself.

>>Indeed, if Jesus sacrificed his fleshly life as compensation for Adam's fallen life, then to sacrifice is to give up and give away, much as if you sacrificed a lamb at the temple. If you were to receive the lamb back alive and well, then there is no sacrifice. You got it back or took it back, were that possible. So yes, Jesus can not take back what he is supposed to have given up in the 1st place. It must remain forever lost so that Adam's offspring may become the offspring of Jesus, to right the scales of justice.

The scales of justice allow the transfer of offspring since Jesus did not get the chance to have offspring in his name. If he got his fleshly life and existence back, then he could father children again, and therefore not be robbed of anything, since he could now marry and reproduce. So he must forever remain lost to the physical fleshly life he once had and had taken from him and from his Father. Stevens has no concept of a corresponding propitiatory sacrifice. How sad that Christianity has become so dull in her senses.

Even worse, by default, she allows the likes of Charles Russell, Ellen White, Joseph Smith, and others to appear as genuine reformers returning to the original pure doctrines. Many are impressed by these sound doctrines and let down their guard when prophecies are interpreted falsely as they are.<<

Again, Mr. Russell's main idea of resurrection is that of man's gradual development of being from the present low estate to the original human perfection of Adam, The restoration of all men to mere existence again is treated by him as comparatively trivial. But Mr. Russell's theory involves two very serious defects. First, what Scripture magnifies as an event, sudden and momentary, namely, the awakening of the dead in body again, that Mr. Russell belittles, almost despises. Secondly, what Mr. Russell makes so much of, the "raising up to perfection," "requiring the entire [Millennial] age for its full accomplishment," has no warrant whatever from Scripture.

>> "The rest of the "dead" did not come to life until the thousand years had ended." Evidently, Stevens had never read this passage in Revelation. The "dead" are tested by the devil at the end of 1000 years, and many fall, but a small percentage remain faithful to God. God destroys the hoard called Gog and Magog, since they do much the same as the 1st Gog and Magog of Ezekiel fame.

After this, those "dead" who proved themselves faithful after a testing in perfected bodies and minds, will then be said to be guaranteed to live forever. They survive the 2nd death. But those who go to heaven at judgment day, will have to have already proven themselves faithful unto death, whether of natural causes or execution for God's sake. They are considered eternal upon that heavenly resurrection.<<

It is so evident, as we said before, that Mr. Russell's theory makes resurrection both impossible and absurd, that it seems scarcely worth while to argue the two last objections. A few words will suffice.

Mr. Russell's doctrine makes nothing more of resurrection in its initial stage than the mere resumption of existence as it was when laid aside with the expiring breath. The matter of vast consequence in his eyes is the further gradual "process of resurrection" by which man will "gradually rise, during the Millennial age." "The mere awakening to a measure of life and consciousness, as at present enjoyed, will of course be a momentary work" (I, p. 289).

But it is just to this momentary resurrection, "resurrection from the dead," "resurrection of the dead," that Scripture devotes its exalted testimonies. In I Cor. xv. Paul places three events in Christ's experiences in climacteric succession, His death, His burial, and His resurrection. Mind you, it is stated as His resurrection "the third day according to the Scriptures," a specific point of time. These three events constitute the Gospel facts.

Then upon Christ's resurrection, or rather upon the risen Christ Himself, is made to depend the resurrection of all men. And their resurrection is treated throughout as an event, complete at once and stupendous, and strictly after the likeness of Christ's bodily ascent out of death and the tomb. (No wonder Mr. Russell minimizes and almost despises the event of awakening from death, because he denies that Jesus arose in body at all, or that "this same Jesus" ever awoke or will awake.)

>>Russell does not deny Jesus resurrected in his body. Indeed Jesus did rise in his previously fleshly bodily form. But only for 50 days till he offered his body up as a sacrifice to God, before God, in God's heavenly temple and alter. Upon that offering of sacrifice, the spirit of God was poured out on all flesh belonging to God and His Son on earth.<<

After treating of the literal facts of Christ's resurrection, the fact of universal resurrection in consequence, the order of resurrection and the manner thereof, Paul concludes this classic passage in words within the comprehension of the child and beyond the power of the most learned to make clearer even by some pretended "light now due :"

"Behold, I shew you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised in corruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?"

>>Again, this speaks of those resurrected to heaven to live with Jesus, since he did say, there are many rooms in my mansion and he would receive his brothers in the faith at the 7th trumpet sounding.<<

Now, as to the meaning Mr. Russell mainly puts into resurrection, "the Millennial age of restitution or resurrection (raising up)," little needs to be said, but that needs to be said plainly. Mr. Russell's claim that the word resurrection in the Greek admits any such sense is fraudulent. There is not a Greek lexicon or a respectable Greek exegete in the world, who will admit that the Greek word for resurrection can possibly involve even remotely the idea of a prolonged process, a rising in the general scale of being through a thousand years subsequent to return from death. We unequivocally assert that Mr. Russell practices fraud as a teacher, when he palms off upon readers who are ignorant of Greek such a meaning of the word under consideration.

And it is purely out of such fraudulent dealing with inspired words that Mr. Russell finds a shadow of support for his theory of millennial "restitution or resurrection." No unprejudiced reader of Scripture would ever draw from its pages such an idea. It is no wonder that Mr. Russell presses the necessity of every Bible student's not ceasing to read "Scripture Studies," even if by the year he never reads a line of Scripture directly further than as referred to and expounded by "Studies." No wonder he insists upon laying aside all accustomed understanding of the Bible for "the light now due" from his pen. No wonder he asserts that no one has in the past, or can in the present, understand the Bible without "Helping Hand." For ourselves, we reject such "light" and such "hand," and condemn it as false.

>>Stevens acts as if he has never heard of the thousand year reign. What Bible was he reading. What is missing Revelation? In this respect, Russell gains undeserved credibility, for having pointed out valid points lost to Christianity for over 1700 years. Ouch! Bout time we got that error fixed. But why let Russell have all the glory for that? He does not deserve it. So lets make it known and rob the imposter of his ill gained credibility.<<

Back to Top

In bringing the objections to Mr. Russell's teachings on the "Ransom" to a conclusion, we notice a few more serious errors.


While "ransom" may be allowed to mean "a corresponding price," yet it is unwarrantable for Mr. Russell to insist that "corresponding shall mean "identical in kind" instead of equivalent. He requires that Christ as a ransom shall be no more, as no less, than the exact human duplicate of the perfect Adam, and that Christ should lay down all earthly rights and all human existence in death ("extinction of being"), as he claims Adam did as the penalty for sin.

>>Stevens is splitting hairs here. Russell is right on this one and its why he gathered followers, because it made perfect sense, when Stevens did not.<<

This identity in kind is no necessary element of ransom whatever. >>Why?<< The necessary thing in a ransom is an equivalent as determined by the one to whom it is due. The Old Testament abounds in ransom types, but very seldom is the ransom-price of the identical kind or degree with that which is to be redeemed. And even Mr. Russell forgets himself in discussing the subject of "substitution," which he defines as the exact synonym of "ransom," He uses this language:

"For instance, if we purchased a loaf of bread for a piece of money, we exchange the money for the bread, i.e., we substitute the money for the bread. If a farmer takes a sack of wheat to the mill, and receives therefore an equivalent value in flour, the wheat has become a substitute for the flour, and the flour a substitute for the wheat. The one is a corresponding price, a ransom, a substitute for the other" (V. 481). Consequently, his argument that Christ as a ransom must be purely a man like Adam and die his death, in the sense of extinction of being, falls flat.

>>It does not fall flat at all. Note that animals did not buy our sins. They were symbols and that is all. It took a real righteous man's blood to buy back Adam's sin. Stevens never truly understood the ransom sacrifice and its principle. This has been the great short-coming of most of Christianity in our day and most of its history and is why people can believe the crap about a trinity. But Russell loved it. It enabled him to look far more smarter than most of Christianity.<<

 2. Mr. Russell's false limitation of the ransom.

 Mr. Russell claims that Jesus' sacrifice as a "corresponding price" reached no further, and could reach no further, than to redeem one human life, that of Adam. Adam's race being indirectly involved in the penalty is allowed to be indirectly sharers in the ransom. But had any other human being as yet had a separate trial and failed as Adam did, Jesus would not have availed for him but another redeemer would have been necessary. "If the first trial had been an individual trial, and if one-half of the race had sinned and been individually condemned, it would have required the sacrifice of a redeemer for each condemned individual" (I. 133). Of course this would be the case if ransom must be the same in kind and degree and if Christ was nothing more than the perfect Adam.

>>Ignorance is so annoying. A righteous life shed only buys or pays for 1 righteous but now fallen life. That it! That's all! Not more! If 2 perfect lives became 2 fallen lives, it would take 2 righteous sacrifices to redeem those 2 fallen ones. Hence, while Adam, disobeying in full knowledge of knowing better, did not deserve being brought back, Jehovah may have deemed Eve worth redeeming, since she was truly fooled/deceived and did not have the time to get to know god and gain knowledge and wisdom as Adam had.

So in redeeming Eve, all of Adam's offspring, including her, an offspring of Adam by a rib, were bought back and redeemed so as to merit resurrection at the appointed time. Russell must have looked like a genius to some, but it was just common sense, really. It let him into the hearts of many. What a shame that Stevens has not offered the same. He could have easily vanquished Russell after that.<<

 But this limitation of Christ's sacrifice to the value of one merely human being is contrary to Scripture. All admit that the sacrifices of the Old Testament are all typical of Christ's sacrificial work, i.e., that they represent various aspects of His work and all together contribute to present His work in its fullness. Hence Christ's death has the various applications and the full value represented by all the different sacrifices.

 So, there was the atonement offering, made once every year. This was for all Israel together, and it represented Christ as "the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world" (John i. 29). But notice, the sacrifice was made for "the congregation of Israel" and not at all just for one person as federal head of the rest. Hence it teaches the value and the application of Christ's death for all men, not merely indirectly through the federal headship of Adam, but directly for all the constituent members of the whole race. Then, there were the daily sacrifices presented by every man for himself. This represents every man's right to claim the atonement in Christ's blood for himself as an individual independently of other men. Hence Paul speaks of "the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me" (Gal. ii. 20). And any one of us may use the same language. Then, there was the "trespass offering," making atonement, not only for an individual person, but for a particular offense of any individual. Accordingly we read: "If any man sin," commit a particular sin, "we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous: and He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world" (I John ii. 1,2).

>>Stevens look dumber by the minute. Since all mankind cam from Eve, to buy her was all that was necessary to buy all mankind who inherited their sin from her, also a seed of Adam, so to speak. Had she never sinned, there would not have been a need for Jesus to buy anyone other than just Adam alone. The offspring would have, as sons of Eve, been free from sin and defect. Stevens could not follow the simple logic. Too deep for him.

But we might consider at this point, another possibility. I have pointed out that both Russell and Stevens used the symbol of the cross and crown, a Knights Templar symbol of the Freemasons. Stevens may have been instructed to maintain the commonly held body of Christian doctrine and let Russell have the "Corresponding Sacrifice" doctrine to himself so that he would look fairly good to many. I believe very powerful people had grand plans for Russell and his Bible Students at that time.<<


 Mr. Russell limits the result of the ransom to merely releasing man from extinction of existence in order that he may have a chance in the Millennium to try for everlasting existence as a reward for obedience. It is the old existence renewed on the old fallen plane, only with a thousand-year chance of "resurrection" (raising up to perfection) under more favorable conditions than those of Adam's trial, especially as first affording an individual trial for all men. There is to be no new moral or spiritual nature created (re generation), no grace of imparted righteousness from Jesus Christ. Man will only be kindly taught and patiently disciplined (judged), and gradually through decades and centuries he will rise up as he avails himself of opportunity, until he develops himself into a perfect likeness of Adam as he was created. Mr. Russell holds that full obedience will not be required until man has thus become perfect. It is obedience in his own ability ; and only perfect, independent ability will bring full accountability. Then, when a man has become perfect in being, knowledge and ability, he must choose whether he will always behave or not. If he chooses aright he will be given right to ceaseless existence in human perfection. Otherwise, he will forfeit further existence forevermore. Moreover, after Christ has chaperoned mankind to the end of the Millennium (although not directly and visibly). He will retire from further mediatorship, and will leave man kind to stand forever on its own meritorious character and to rule the world in its own right, "when they will be fully capable of rightly exercising the dominion of earth as originally designed" (I. 247).

>>Stevens is linking 2 different subjects together, that are not required to be together. If we are bought, how god brings us to perfection is His business and Problem, not Russell's or Steven's or anyone's.<<

 According to Mr. Russell there was no ransom whatever for mankind for four thousand years until Christ historically died; and then it could be of no avail to the dead, or even to the living who were but dying and were not as yet under probation. In fact, there has been no bona fide offer of everlasting life as yet "No recovery from the Adamic loss is yet accomplished, though nearly two thousand years have elapsed since our Lord died" (I. 157).

>>That is correct and that is right. we have to wait for the full testing of all mankind with Satan allowed a chance to test each and every soul who wants to live forever, since failing to break Jesus sentenced Satan to death in time. So we are clean in the eyes of God but must still wait till after Judgment Day for our resurrection. Stevens does not even know God's game plan. I hope you all can see why Russell looked like a shining star and visionary. Problem was, he had many errors and faults.<<

 How utterly untrue to Scripture is this limitation of the ransom to future release from extinction and this exclusion of all present availability of everlasting life as a result of the ransom price paid by Jesus Christ ! How utterly untrue to Scripture is the claim that men in general have not had light enough to give them a chance of eternal life! Mr. Russell dogmatizes as to what everlasting life is, as to what man must do to inherit it, and as to what conditions man must enjoy in order to be able to fulfill the requirements of the case. But all of these dogmas are unsupported by the truth of God's Word.

>>Even the scripture plainly teach that at the dead rise at the same time, the 7th trumpet blast in Revelation. Stevens thinks we all go to heaven as soon as we die. That is how little he knows. Not only did Russell preach resurrection, but Seventh Day Adventists also teach the same. And there are others, too.<<

 Eternal life is not merely perfect human existence endlessly prolonged; it is the eternal God's own life. It becomes man's not by a thousand years of his being trained up to human perfection and ability to obey in his own power a perfect divine law; it is a gift to man, whereby he is at once graciously enabled and constrained to obey God in love. It is not offered first for the Millennial age; but it is available now and is offered to all now. "Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely" (Rev. xxii. 17). "This life is in His Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life" (I John V. U, 12). "This [Jesus Christ) is the true God, and eternal life" (I John v. 20).

 Mr. Russell's Christ has no life to share with us. He is only at best a spirit being; and there is no spirit being not possessed of deity (and Mr. Russell denies deity to Christ, both in pre-existence and in present existence) that can give us his own life. But Mr. Russell makes man perfectly competent of self-recovery, only give him a good "chance," a "fair trial." And Mr. Russell has publicly acknowledged that he has no need of Christ as a Mediator.

>>Russell did not deny diety to Christ, except when Christ was on earth as a man to serve as a sacrifice for all mankind. Russell often gets slandered this way and JWs, too. Christendom has to resort to lies to hide their own wicked fallen doctrines of demons. It gives Russell and the JWs an appearance of righteousness they do not deserve.<<

 It would take a volume to go through the sickening details of Mr. Russell's misconstruction of every Biblical term pertaining to the results of the ransom, whether present or prospective. What little result there is at present is only "reckonedly" such, not really anything. He takes away the last crumb of present bounty from our Father's table, and for the future offers only theoretical meritorious rewards for theoretical works of self-righteousness.


 Mr. Russell really takes away all true ransom. One of two things results from his doctrine. We get the idea from the first volume of "Scripture Studies" that the penalty of sin is death in the sense of extinction of being, or cessation of existence - this and nothing more than this in its simple sense. As Mr. Russell puts it: "The Scriptural statement is that death - extinction of being - is the wages of sin" (I. p. 159). With this understanding, we would have to admit that the full penalty of sin was met by Adam's death, which, as Mr. Russell claims, was the extinction of his being. God could in perfect justice, then, resurrect Adam (allowing that an extinct being can be resurrected) and let him have another trial without requiring any ransom. There is no ransom-price to be paid. A so-called "ransom" would be a second payment of the same penalty.

>>Do you see the sheer lies and nonsense of Stevens? Another trial of Adam without a ransom. Where did Russell ever say that? He never did. Stevens said that for him, but they were Steven's words, not Russell's.<<

But in the fifth volume Mr. Russell tells us that the penalty consists not in being extinguished, but in forever remaining extinct, "Had the penalty against sin been merely dying - had the Lord said to Adam, Because of your sin you must experience the trying ordeal of dying, then, indeed, the penalty would be met by Adam and others in dying. But such is not the penalty: the penalty is death, not dying; and death is the absence of life, destruction. Hence for man to pay the penalty would mean that he must stay dead, devoid of life forever. Had it not been for the redemption, Adamic death would have been - everlasting destruction. And - when our Lord Jesus did become our Redeemer, when He did give Himself as our ransom price, it meant to him what the original penalty would have meant to us, viz., that the man Christ Jesus suffered for us death in the most absolute sense of ever lasting destruction. Hence we know Christ no more after the flesh" (V, 465, 466).

>>Indeed, death and extinction are the wages of sin. And Jesus willingly offered his human life in permanent everlasting extinction. That is why we will not see him in bodily form when he returns to judge. Stevens and most Christians know almost nothing about the truth of the Bible.<<

 We may make one or two remarks. What is the difference, pray, between extinction simple and extinction everlasting? Can extinction be less than final, everlasting? Extinction that is not final and everlasting is inconceivable. Anything less than final extinction is not extinction but suspension. But suspension is not death in Mr. Russell's view. Seeing, then, that there is no conceivable distinction between extinction and everlasting extinction, there can be no difference between death and a complete dying. There can, then, be no difference in penalty between dying and death, seeing dying means with Mr. Russell "the extinction of being." Adam, accordingly, paid the full penalty of his sin, and ransom has no place or meaning.

>>Yes, if one dies and becomes extinct, but due a resurrection, then the extinction is only temporary. God can put it all back (restore it) or does Stevens doubt this?<<

 But, allow that extinction can be either temporary or everlasting, that the latter is the worse, and that this is the real penalty for sin. Then the penalty of sin is endless, exhaustless. We must then urge the same injustice on God's part that Mr. Russell tries against everlasting conscious punishment. If Adam's eating the fruit was so slight a sin, as Mr. Russell makes it to be, what an unjust penalty, that Adam, who only ate of forbidden fruit, should pay an infinite penalty, and not only he but also "forty-two billions" of human beings also who did not eat !

>>Russell did not teach where Stevens suggests above. Stevens likely got a hold of some really strong liquor and was in a stupor when he wrote this. I kid but he accuses Russell in ways Russell was not guilty of. All this does in hurt the credibility of Stevens and Christendom and makes Russell look sweeter since they have to lie about him to try and defeat him. That just makes him stronger. This is why I suspect some foul guidance from Masonic powers or some other similar source.<<

 But passing this, and allowing all that Mr. Russell claims, that an ever-continuing extinction is the penalty of sin. From this he draws his blasphemous doctrine (by pure reasoning, without even attempting to support it by Scripture), that "the man Christ Jesus is dead, forever dead," left extinct forever as "our ransom-price to all eternity." Note well that it follows, then, that the ransom has not been paid up and never can be. As eternity can never end. His extinction of being can never reach termination as a finished ransom. Mr. Russell says that the element of suffering is not at all involved in paying the ransom price, it is exclusively the extinction of being. Well, how long since Christ died? Not two thousand years yet. What is that to eternity? Relatively Christ has only begun to pay the ransom. What is thus far paid is only infinitesimal. It is a penalty which can never be paid more than to an infinitesimal degree, for a thousand billion years are infinitesimal in comparison with eternity.

>>Jesus the man did die and gave up his body forever when he appeared in Heaven on Pentacost to offer his body up in extinction, never to be brought back again. That is why the spirit was poured out on Pentacost. Jesus would then return as the great spirit son of God that he was before he left heaven and became a man.<<

 How differently Scripture speaks! Let us turn to just one passage, Hebrew x (10). First, this idea of an un-finished sacrifice, which was the nature of the old Mosaic sacrifices, is contrasted with Christ's sacrifice. "But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins" (vss. 3, 4). Then, the priestly service, never complete because of not having a finished sacrifice to present, is contrasted with Christ's effectual priesthood. "And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, this is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them ; and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin" (vss. 11-18).

 This speaks as plainly as language can of a completed ransom; of a priestly ministry that is already as effectual as it ever can be; of "this man," the identical man that shed the blood of the (?) is now sitting "on the right hand of God" as "an high priest over the house of God" (vs. 21) ; of Him as "henceforth expecting [waiting] till His enemies be made His footstool" (by His glorious coming as "this same Jesus," Acts i. 8).

 Who can blame the writer that again he rejects such a treacherous "helping hand?" One's righteous indignation rises to white heat, as one considers the thousands of unwary souls that are confiding in this false "light, now due," which is so aptly described by the Apostle Jude, verse four: "For there are certain men, crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ."

>>How bad can your own doctrine be when you have to lie like hell about your opposition? Stevens is so typical of mainstream Christianity. Lost!<<

Back to Top

In this chapter Mr. Russell's false doctrines regarding the Millennium will be presented. We will point out four respects in which his teachings on this subject are erroneous and false, namely, as to the time, the manner, the purpose and the outcome of the Millennium.


Mr. Russell begins the second chapter of Volume II of "Studies in the Scriptures" with these words : "In this chapter we present the Bible evidence which indicates that six thousand years from the creation of Adam were complete with A.D. 1872 ; and hence that, since 1872 A.D., we are chronologically entered upon the seventh thousand or the Millennium - the fore part of which, the "Day of the Lord," the "day of trouble," is to witness the breaking into pieces of the kingdoms of this world and the establishment of the Kingdom of God under the whole heavens." This "forepart" of the Millennium he makes to be a period of forty years, extending till 1914 A.D. and winding up "The Times of the Gentiles." "The Bible evidence is clear and strong that the 'Times of the Gentiles' is a period of 2520 years, from the year 606 B.C. to and including 1914 A.D." (p. 79). Again, "In view of this strong Bible evidence concerning the Times of the Gentiles, we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, will be accomplished at the end of A.D. 1914" (p. 99). Throughout the six volumes of "Studies," one is impressed with the fact that, without mentioning himself, Mr. Russell yet thrusts himself into the place of the very focus of the religious progress of the ages up to the dawning of the Millennium, It was just after 1873 that he began these writings as "the light now due," the light mankind had waited six thousand years for, the light that alone constitutes the beacon of the Millennium's opening. Referring to his first volume, on "The Divine Plan of the Ages," Mr. Russell naively says: "Since He [God] has recently made the grand outlines of His plan so clear, we may reasonably expect that His time is due to lead us into a knowledge of its time features" (II, p. 25). Thus he makes himself the timely and exclusive herald of the "Millennial Dawn."

But we feel obliged to question rudely, even to dispute flatly, his chronology.

To begin with, no man has been able, or now can, make out with certainty the chronology from creation to the present, even admitting, what the Scriptures nowhere aver, that the seventh thousand of years will constitute the Millennium of Revelation xx. 4, 6, 7. The data for such an unmistakable chronology are defective. There are some broken links in the present text of Scripture. Besides, the Greek translation of the Old Testament gives 1466 more years to time before Christ than our Hebrew text does. And the Greek translation is from Hebrew manuscripts older by some centuries than those from which our Hebrew text has descended. Moreover, there is strong reason for believing that the Jewish copyists, from whose hands our present Hebrew text has been transmitted, tampered with the chronology for the purpose of proving that the reputed Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, appeared some centuries before the true Messiah, according to accepted tradition, was due. Hence, to say the least, it is very cool and bold to make a positive claim that the Millennium is the seventh thousand of years and that the Millennium began in A. D. 1873.

But it is enough to upset Mr. Russell's chronology entirely, to point out the fact that he coolly post pones the reckoning fully sixty years at one point, thereby bringing his Millennial date down to 1873, the eve of his own debut, instead of sixty years earlier, which would be the true date, even accepting all his other points as correct. This discrepancy will now be explained. It occurs in connection with the time-link of 430 years between God's covenant with Abraham and the giving of the Law to Moses (Gal. iii. 15).

Mr. Russell makes this period begin after the death of Abram's father Terah, on the basis of Stephen's word in Acts vii. 4 : "When his father was dead he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwelt," Thus Abram would at this time have been 135 years old, for Terah died at 205 years of age and Abram was born when Terah was seventy (Gen. xi. 26, 32). But Genesis xii. 4 states that "Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran," and it connects that age immediately with the Covenant. Besides, this date is required by Exodus xii, 40, 41, where the entire time of "the sojourning of the children of Israel," the "sojourning" in Canaan as "strangers" and then in Egypt as bondsmen, is said to have been just 430 years. This period falls into these divisions : From the covenant with Abram to Isaac's birth when Abram was 100 years old, 25 years; thence to Jacob's birth, 60 years; thence to Jacob's descent into Egypt, 130 years, equaling 215 years (See Gen. xxi. 5, xxv. 26, xlvii. 9). The remaining time of 215 years constituted the four generations of Egyptian bondage (Gen. xv. 16, and Ex. vi. 16-20). Furthermore, if we took Mr. Russell's reckoning, it would date God's covenant with Abram 35 years after the birth of Isaac, the child of the covenant.

This discrepancy of sixty years would not be so vital, only that it spoils all of Mr. Russell's Millennial calculations. We have quoted his statement that after forty years from 1873 all Gentile kingdoms were to be succeeded by the universal Kingdom of God on earth. It would be hazardous to assert that this revolution has now recently transpired. But the discrepancy pointed out requires that this stupendous change should have already occurred 60 years ago. Furthermore, Mr. Russell states that "some time before the end of A.D. 1914 the last member of the divinely recognized Church of Christ, the 'royal priesthood,' 'the body of Christ,' will be glorified with the Head; because every member is to reign with Christ, being joint-heir with Him in the Kingdom, and it can not be fully 'set up' without every member" (II, p. IT). According to the correction made above, this departure of the last member of the "divinely recognized Church of Christ" should have occurred 60 years ago. And how account for the fact that now, after 1914, Mr. Russell and his followers are still in our midst as visible mortals?


The more important and momentous the successive stages of truth become, the more trickily and deceit fully does Mr. Russell appear to us to handle the Word of truth. So here, in the matter of the reality of the coming of Christ in the Kingdom of God upon earth, Mr. Russell befogs everything with private interpretations of the plainest statements of Scripture, so that all meaning is made so peculiar that we are wholly dependent upon him for any understanding whatever. This is in accord with his own statement. Vol. II, p. 142: "There are some statements of Scripture with reference to the manner of the Lord's re turn and appearing which, until critically examined, appear to be contradictory of each other. And no doubt they have for centuries served the divine purpose of concealing the truth until the due time for it to be understood [t] ; and even then, from all except the special class of consecrated ones for whom it was intended." It is thus that this seductive teacher lures his credulous followers to their destruction, first making them cast away the trusted direct testimony of the Word, and then binding them to his beguiling constructions of it

 In a word, Mr. Russell teaches as the manner of the coming in and prevalence of the Millennium an entire absence of the sudden and demonstrative, the very features which are everywhere attributed to it by the plain language of Scripture. Mr. Russell takes most elaborate pains to deal with every passage which clearly characterizes the coming in of the new Kingdom as attended with sudden and demonstrative tokens, and construes it in undreamed-of ways to get rid of these features. But a perfect maze of con fusion and misconception, not to say unblushing misrepresentation, is thereby created.

 He quotes Luke xvii. 20, "The kingdom of God Cometh not with observation," as declaring the secret character of the King and His Kingdom not only, as Christ meant, at that particular time, but also at the time of His second coming. He ignores the fact that a few verses below the one quoted Christ assured His disciples of the spectacular character of His second coming in the words: "For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven ; so shall also the Son of man be in His day." In the same passage He refers to the sudden descent of judgment spectacularly upon Sodom and adds : "Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed" (vs. 30).

 But it is necessary for Mr. Russell to brush away every feature of literalism and simplicity, because it is with him necessary at all hazards to avoid having "the man Christ Jesus" reappear at all, least of all in any literal human, though glorified, manifestation. He says: "Our Lord Jesus o * * is no longer a man, but a spirit being, whom no man hath seen nor can see without a miracle" (II, 131). Again, "Many Christians have the idea that our Lord's glorious spiritual body is the very same body that was crucified and laid away in Joseph's tomb; they expect, when they see the Lord in glory, to identify Him by the scars He received on Calvary. * * * Our Lord's human body was, however, supernaturally removed from the tomb. * * o We know nothing about what became of it, except that it did not decay or corrupt (Acts ii. 27, 31). Whether it was dis solved into gases or whether it is still preserved somewhere as the grand memorial of God's love, of Christ's obedience, and of our redemption, no one knows * o * nor is such knowledge necessary. * * * It will not surprise us if, in the Kingdom, God shall show to the world the body of flesh, crucified for all in giving the ransom on their behalf - not permitted to corrupt, but preserved as an everlasting testimony of infinite love and perfect obedience. o o o It is at least possible that John xix. 37 and Zech, xii. 10 may have such [ !] a fulfillment. Those who cried, 'Crucify Him!' may yet, as witnesses, identify the very body pierced by the spear and torn by the nails" (II, 130). All of Christ's appearings to His disciples after His resurrection are accounted for as put on for the occasion, as an angel might make himself visible in the form of a man. These were miraculous and not natural appearances, Mr. Russell claims; and they did not signify any existing visible embodiment of Christ. Indeed, every appearance was in a distinct miraculously assumed body or visible medium. He allows that these "bodies" were "real human bodies," so that Christ could say, "Handle Me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have ;" but this flesh-and-bones embodiment, Mr. Russell says, did not pertain to Christ, but was only miraculously created for the occasion, in order to convince the disciples of His presence, which they would otherwise not have apprehended or with certainty have identified.

 With equal unconscionable dexterity he resolves into nebulous private constructions all the vivid descriptions of the millennial characteristics. For instance - as explaining Dan. ii. 44, which represents that when the God of heaven shall set up His Kingdom, "It shall break in pieces and consume all these" historic Gentile powers - he says: "In harmony with this, we see all about us evidence of the beginning of the smiting, shaking and overturning of the present powers, preparatory to the establishment of the kingdom which can not be moved" - "the strong government" (II, 170), "As the trouble increases, men will seek, but in vain, for protection in the 'dens' and caves, the rocks and fortresses of society, (Free Masonry, Odd Fellowship, and Trades Unions, Guilds, Trusts, and all societies secular and ecclesiastical), and in the mountains (governments) of earth; saying, 'Fall over (cover, protect) and hide us from the face of Him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb ; for the great day of His wrath is come' " (Rev. vi. 15-17) (II, p. 139).

 It would be tedious to go further into details, for it is a limitless maze of private interpretations, which one man is as much at liberty to make as another; which no two would ever make alike ; which Mr. Russell, however, for his little day claims to be "light now first due" for which we must all depend absolutely upon him, even if for two years at a time we pay no attention to our Bibles excepting as referred to and explained by him.


 This point has already become familiar in preceding stages of this review. Mr. Russell makes the sole purpose of the Millennium to be universal restorationism. He denies all full human accountability since Adam's fall on the score of human ignorance and moral inability. He conceives that the Millennium is to be the first reasonable opportunity of probation for any member of the race but Adam, and that even Adam will then have his better chance, because he will have become convinced that his first disobedience was a great mistake. Accordingly, humanity, living and dead, will be placed under tutelage and favoring influences during the Millennium to enable them, with full light and moral attainment, to make good their choice of obedience and to gain the reward of endless existence in restored Adamic perfection.

 This denial of all real, final accountability of men to God up to the present and to the time of the resurrection of all the dead and the time of the Millennial age, is something undreamed of by the universal human conscience, something without a scintilla of Scripture testimony. We read of the workings of the universal conscience - "the candle of the Lord, searching all the inward parts of the belly" (Prov. XX. 27)- in Rom. ii. 14, 15: "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law {of Moses], do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves; which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another."

 Again, we read in the first chapter of Romans regarding the accountability of Gentile mankind, living outside of Scriptural illumination: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness ; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being under stood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead ; so that they are without excuse : because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. * * * Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator. o * * And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; - who knowing the Judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" (vss. 18-21, 25, 28, 32). The whole tenor of Scripture is consistent with these proofs of adequate original moral sense and strength, and of moral degradation and darkness as the judicial consequence of stifling and deadening con science and extinguishing unwelcome light through deliberate hatred of God. The verdict of God upon all past incorrigibles is: "Thou * * * after thy hardness and impenitent Heart treasurest up unto thy self, wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according to his deeds: to them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life : but unto them that are contentious, and obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and of the Gentile; but glory, honor, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: - For as many as have sinned without law shall also" - be given their first real chance after their resurrection in the Millennium? No! but - "shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall" - be given a more favorable chance in the Millennium? No! but - "shall be judged by the law" (Rom, ii. 5-12).


Mr. Russell makes the Millennium to be the final stage of probation, as well as the time of universal resurrection. But both of these positions are contradicted by the plain testimony of Scripture.

 First, the millennial resurrection is not complete, but partial. "And they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection ; on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God, and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years" (Rev. xx. 4-6). Other Scriptures agree with this distinguishing of resurrections both as to time and kind. See Dan. xii. 2; Luke xiv. 14; John v, 29. And nowhere is it indicated that the first resurrection is unto a new probation, but it is exclusively a resurrection unto reward for faithfully fulfilled probation.

 Secondly, the millennial probation (of existing generations, not resurrected ones) is represented by Scripture not to be the last probation. Once more, after the millennial reign of Christ with all its privileges and achievements, unregenerate men will be given the chance to prove that the "heart of man * * * is desperately wicked." "And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth o o o to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city : and (ire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them" (Rev, XX. 9). This shows conclusively that the millennial age does not merge at once into the eternal conditions, into the everlasting life of the obedient and the second death of the disobedient, as Mr. Russell teaches ; but that Satan is to be let loose in the earth once more, to carry out his final and supreme effort to hold the dominion of this world through the instrumentality of incorrigible men: and the supreme visitation of God upon rebellious man will follow that final rebellion. It is only afterwards that the final judgment of all humanity until then unresurrected shall occur. This is all clearly, but briefly, set forth in Rev. XX. 7-15. The writer has confidence that God means just what He says here, that He has meant it to be clear to every reader since it was given, and that He has left no light to "become due" from this pas sage when conscienceless deceivers shall arise to pose as His latter-day interpreters.

Chapter 10:          MR. RUSSELL'S PSEUDO-CHRIST
Back to Top

The real criterion of any system of religious doc trine is the answer given by it to the question, "What think ye of Christ?" The false doctrine of Millennial Dawn in regard to Jesus Christ is its crowning shame. Various features of Mr. Russell's heretical teachings on the person and work of Christ have already appeared, but it is important to gather up in one a complete exhibit.

His doctrine of Christ falls naturally into three branches, according to three totally distinct and diverse stages of Christ's career. These three branches of teaching may be placed under the heads:
        i. The Pre-existent Christ,
        ii. The Earthly Christ,
        iii. The Present Christ.


Under this head we will notice several points successively which will be recognized by any devout reader of Scripture as grossly heretical. To undertake serious refutation would be treating these teachings as debatable.

(1). Although pre-existent, Christ was not from eternity. Mr. Russell denies that John's statement (I, 1), "In the beginning was the Word," means that Christ existed with God before all time, and he claims that Christ was not eternal with the Father (V. 86).

(2). In other words, Christ, though a pre-existent being and prior to all other creations of God Almighty, was yet a creature of God, "the beginning of creation" (in a false sense), "He was the first, the direct creation of God," By this expression, "the direct creation of God," is meant that all other created things were not directly created by the Father but by Him through His Son, The "Only Begotten" - as Jehovah's representative, and in His name - created all things - angels, principalities and powers, as well as the earthly creation (V, 84). It is a question which Mr. Russell does not seem to be troubled over, how a creature, even as a representative of God, could himself be a creator. We are accustomed, and the writer believes rightly so, to consider Christ's unquestioned work of creating all finite existences as the positive proof of His own absolute deity.

(3) . Not only was Christ but a creature ; He was not even divine in His pre-existence. Mr. Russell ac cords to Him the divine nature since His resurrection. But he distinguishes between deity and divinity, and attributes to divinity the distinguishing feature of immortality, debtlessness. In pre-existence the Son of God was a mortal creature, i.e., liable to death. Mr. Russell rules out from application to the pre-existent Son of God all Scripture testimonies relating to immortality.

(4). While the pre-existent Son of God is made to be only a mortal creature of God, yet godship is allowed to Him, but a non-divine godship. This seems to us at first a contradiction. But Mr. Russell occupies nearly one hundred pages of closely printed matter in the attempt to destroy all Scripture testimony to the deity of the Son of God. Every vital passage is taken up and deprived by his peculiar methods of its vitality and, in many cases, even turned for a testimony against the deity of our Saviour. The godship allowed to Him is as "a god" and "a lord" among the "gods many and lords many." Speaking of Christ in His pre-existence, Mr. Russell says : "At that time, as well as subsequently, he was properly known as 'a god' - a mighty one. As chief of the angels and next to the Father, he was known as the Archangel (highest angel or messenger), whose name, Michael, signifies, 'Who as God,' or God's representative."

(5). This denial of deity to Jesus Christ is part of Mr. Russell's denial of the trinity, a doctrine against which he displays the utmost antipathy. Along with the rest, of course the denial not only of the deity but even of the personality of the Holy Spirit comes to. The following somewhat extended quotation embodies Mr. Russell's whole doctrine of God.

"There is consistency in the Scripture teaching that the Father and Son are in full harmony and oneness of purpose and operation, and equally consistent is the Scripture teaching respecting the Holy Spirit - that it is not another God, but the spirit, influence or power exercised by the one God, one Father, and by His Only Begotten Son - In complete oneness, therefore, with both of these, who still are at one or in full accord. But how different is this unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit front that held and taught under the name of Trinitarian doctrine, which in the language of the Catechism (Questions 5 and 6) declares. There are three per sons in the One God - the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost: 'these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory.' This very well suited 'the dark ages' which it helped to produce. The period in which mysteries were worshipped instead of unraveled found a most choice one in this theory, which is as unscriptural as it Is unreasonable. How could the three be one in person, in substance? And if only 'one in substance,' how could they be equal? Does not every intelligent person know that if God is one in person He can not be three? and that if three in person there can be only one sense in which the three could be one, and that not in per son but in purpose, in mind, in will, in co-operation?

Verily, if it were not for the fact that this trinitarian nonsense was drilled into us from earliest infancy, and the fact that it is taught in Theological Seminaries by gray-haired professors, in many other ways apparently wise, nobody would give it a moment's serious consideration. How the great adversary ever succeeded in foisting it upon the Lord's people to be wilder and mystify them, and render much of the Word of God of none effect, is the real mystery which will probably not be solved until we 'know even as we are known,' in glory" (V, 165-6).

 Mr. Russell devotes nearly three hundred pages of Vol. V, of "Studies in the Scriptures," to the subjects of the non-divine personality of the pre-existent Christ and the non-personality of the Holy Spirit. He seeks to despoil every testimony of Scripture that can be read directly in favor of the deity of our Lord and the personal deity of the Holy Spirit. Such is "the sleight of man" brought to this task, that absolute dependence upon these human writings must be maintained for this understanding of the Scriptures. It is evident that, if one read the Bible only for two years, without reference to these "Studies," one would altogether lose this "light" (of Mr. Russell), whereas one might for two years read only the "Studies" and not one line of Scripture, and he would still retain "the light" (of Mr. Russell's denial of Christ's deity and of the Holy Spirit's personality and deity),


Under this head we notice several points which equally require absolute dependence upon our "helping hand" for guidance.

(1). The earthly Christ was not only characterized by real humanity in nature, but He was strictly and solely human. As has before been shown, Mr. Russell's teachings otherwise require that Christ Jesus should be the exact duplicate of Adam, "nothing more, and nothing less." And yet, it is freely admitted that in His pre-existence He had nothing whatever of the human in Him, How could He be so absolutely metamorphosed?

(2). Mr. Russell develops a most ingenious theory for this entire change of nature in Christ. He teaches that a "living soul," or "sentient being," is produced by "the union of the breath or spirit of life with an organism," In the case of a man, the sentient person is the result of the breath or spirit of life uniting with a human bodily organism. The being is not in the breath or spirit of life, neither is the being in the organism, but the union of the breath or spirit of life with the prepared organism produces the sentient being. The life is the same for all orders of being, the difference in beings resulting wholly from the difference in organism with which the life-principle is united.

Now, in the case of the earthly Christ, Mr. Russell affirms, the spirit of life from the pre-existent Son of God was "transferred" into a human physical organism through the womb of Mary, so that a new sentient being, purely human, resulted. This person, though born through a maternal channel in the line of the fallen Adam, was pure from Adamic taint, because, says Mr. Russell, the moral nature is determined by the paternal parent and not affected by the maternal parent. Christ, being supernaturally pro-created in Mary by God Almighty, became a pure, untainted human being. His identity with the pre-existent Christ was not a matter of personality, but only of "spirit of life." That is, the spirit of life, which in union with another organism had produced the pre-existent, angelic Christ, produced, when transferred by the Almighty into another organism, the human Christ derived through the body of Mary, the "man Jesus Christ." As Mr. Russell puts the matter, this change was "merely a transference of his life from a higher or spirit nature to a lower or human nature."

(3). But it was not a transference of the person, "the sentient being." Where then was the Son of God? That sentient being was, of course, no longer existent. Jesus of Nazareth was a new sentient being, only that He lived by a pre-existent, impersonal, non-sentient spirit of life, which in another organism had produced the non-divine Son of God. In His pre-existent being He had been of the highest angelic capacity. In his new being He was limited in every respect to human capacity. Mr. Russell teaches that Christ Jesus had no quality superior to or different from any other man unfallen. All the divine and supernatural attending His life and ministry was not inherent, not belonging to Him as Philip's "My Lord and my God," or as "the Son of the living God," but was exclusively the operation of the Father through Him, as would be equally possible through any other perfect man.

(4). As we have previously learned, Mr. Russell teaches that in expiring on the cross Jesus Christ became extinct. He freely admits that for three days all that had ever entered into the pre-existent Son of God or the earthly Jesus was absolutely non-existent. Organism was wrapped in death, spirit of life was extinguished. The Son of God, the man Christ Jesus annihilated! We fail to see how any weaker expression can be employed. Let the reader think for a moment (and shudder at the thought) of the universe being for three days without so much as the existence of the Son of God.

(5). Finally, it is not only the fact, according to Mr. Russell, but also the necessity of the case, that the earthly Christ should abide in extinction perpetually, or our ransom-price would fail of perpetual effect. Therefore, our guide through the Word of God teaches that nothing that was given up by the earthly Christ has ever been resumed, or ever will be.


We will now endeavor to trace under a few points Mr. Russell's teachings in regard to the present Christ.

(1). Mr. Russell teaches that resurrection is not of the body but of the soul, the sentient being; that it is from unconsciousness, from death to the sense of destruction, of extinction of existence. He claims, though not attempting to explain how, that God Almighty preserves the identity. But, if such identity can be credited in the case of the dead generally, how can it be claimed in the case of Jesus Christ, seeing that all that was given up, must necessarily remain perpetually extinct as the continued ransom-price ? Consequently, in Christ's case, there is no resurrection of His body, there can be no resurrection of His soul, which was "poured out unto death." How can there be any identity between the former and the present Christ? And, indeed, he admits that in the resurrection of men in general there is really a "re-creation," Certainly, it must be so in the case of this Christ of Mr. Russell's construction. Only in a most fictitious way can He be called "the risen One."

(2). This present Christ is taught to be a purely spirit-being, with nothing of humanity inhering in Him any more than in His pre-existent state. His organism is purely spiritual, not bodily, or in any way capable of being perceived by or made perceptible to the eye, excepting by a temporary miracle of special manifestation. Mr. Russell holds that it was thus that Christ was apparent to His followers after His so called resurrection. He had no visible form. His body was not restored to Him, but it was miraculously re moved from the tomb and secreted by God from all further human knowledge. Hence, whenever Christ "appeared" to His disciples during the forty days, it was by a miraculous apparition. So also when He ascended, it was simply a miraculously produced and temporary visibility.

 In like manner Christ may come in His Second Advent without being seen and without anyone's knowledge of the fact, excepting by the effects gradually appearing. His second advent "presence," it is said, will produce such changes in human society, political, social, moral and religious, that it will become evident that He has returned, though unseen. At any time He will be able to make Himself visible, if He so please. Indeed, Mr. Russell claims, Christ has already returned in His second advent "presence."

Mr. Russell's ministry in the enlightening of the religious world is contemporaneous with and explanatory of this "presence" of Christ

(3). As has been previously brought out, the present Christ is for the first time in His career divine. He has been raised into spirit-being again, and now first of the divine nature. Indeed, this is all that the resurrection of Christ means ; it is not a resurrection of His body, or of the person who died, but it is a re-creation resulting in a being whom God in some inexplicable way identifies with His pre>existent Son and with the earthly Christ, but who is neither one now in person, nature or rank.

This does not mean that God has created Him in deity but only as the highest creature-spirit - higher than He was before in that now He is immortal, proof against death, which Mr. Russell claims is an exclusive attribute of God and is the characteristic of divinity. And it is in this "exaltation" that Christ has first come into those titles which we have been wont to attribute to Jesus of Nazareth, namely, the Son of Man, the second Adam, the Root and Offspring of David, David's Son and Lord, the Everlasting Father, King of kings and Lord of lords. These titles never belonged, Mr. Russell tells us, to the Son of God or to the earthly Jesus. He did not possess these characters, even incognito, but, as a reward for His giving Himself up to extinction of human being for the first Adam (and his race included), He has been raised up to a being and rank which have attached to them these various titles. It may well be asked in bewilderment, "Who is this Son of Man?"

 (4). The purpose of this "exaltation" of Christ in his present being is to make Him the "Father" of mankind in the Millennial age. That is. He is to possess mankind as His children in place of the seed which He might have procreated had He not forfeited that right for our redemption. He is to raise all mankind into the privileges of the Millenium, train them back into Adamic condition of intelligence and moral ability, counsel and persuade them as a father to choose "that better part" which before had been rejected and so to receive the gift of everlasting life, a never-ending continuance of perfect, self-sufficient human existence.

 This last point is important, a "self-sufficient" existence. Mr. Russell disdains the idea that man is to be regenerated supernaturally and sustained in righteousness by the grace of God. Man is not given any thing from above in the way of righteousness further than the opportunity and the light and the paternal influence to lead him to make himself what he ought to be. Consequently, after Christ shall have raised up right-minded people during the Millennium to a state of original Adamic perfection and to a state of self chosen and self-wrought righteousness. His exalted mission will be over. He will give this little Cuba over to self-government and retire from all sovereignty in this world. One can not but pity Him for this everlasting retirement from the occupation for which He was exalted as a reward for His sacrifice on the cross. It is to be specially noted, however, that all of this paternal activity of Christ in the Millennium is to be without any personal, visible presence on His part, and, indeed, without any direct action on His part ; it is all to be directly carried out by others, His angels and the members of His body, the Church. Hence, He will not be missing His occupation in the ages after the Millennium as much as will these agents of His millennial activities.

We have entitled this Christ the "Pseudo-Christ." It is not the Christ of our hearts and of our lives. It is not the Christ of Calvary and of the mercy-seat and of the throne. It is not the Christ of the Word of God, it is not the "Christ of God." We have not in this treatment introduced quotations largely from Mr. Russell's pen for the reason that his discussion is too voluminous, labored and complicated. But this exhibit of Mr. Russell's Christ has been given in fullest fidelity to his conception. Indeed, it would be utterly impossible for us to devise such a portrayal, and distortion of Mr. Russell's conception would be less offensive than a faithful exposition thereof has to be. 

Chapter 11:          MR. RUSSELL'S MANIFOLD CHRIST
Back to Top

There are various figures employed by Scripture to represent the relations subsisting between our Lord and His saints, as the vine and the branches, the house and its builder, and others. But one figure is seized upon by Mr. Russell and made use of to build up a doctrine of monstrous error. That is the figure of the head and the body. While this representation is employed several times in Scripture, Mr. Russell runs it. Prominently through all six volumes of "Studies in the Scripture," The phase he puts upon the figure is that Christ is not individual but corporate, not single in personality but manifold, consisting of Jesus Christ and all believing members of Him. This is obviously a great strain upon and perversion of I Cor. 12: 12: "For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ."

The Scripture uses this figure, not as representing that Christ's members are His completion and fullness, but that He is the fullness of believers, filling all them in all respects. Mr. Russell teaches, on the contrary, that the personal Christ can do nothing final until He is added to by the "little flock." He is a trunkless body, a helpless head. Another text that to him is fundamental in this line of teaching is Colossians 1: 27 : "Which is Christ in you, the hope of glory." He makes this mean that your hope of glory consists in that you too are Christ, that the Christ is found in you as well as in Jesus. It is not the indwelling of Christ as another one in us, but it is our contributing with Him to constitute a composite Christ. Taking the name Christ to mean "The Anointed," he makes the anointed to be "an anointed company," including with Jesus all who have "the anointing."

We quote some passages: "The Christ is not one member, but many." "Unitedly, they constitute the promised Seed, the Great Deliverer" (I, 82), "The main object of the gospel age is to get this body of Christ. The witnessing to the world during this age is a secondary object" (I, 92). "The gospel age began the development of the Christ" (I, 85). "This was truly a mystery never before thought of, that God in tends to raise up not only a deliverer, but a deliverer composed of many members. This is the 'high calling' to which the consecrated believers of the gospel age are privileged to attain" (I, 84).

It will be necessary to bring out more explicitly the component elements of this general' doctrine.

1, Our Lord is waiting to be completed as the Christ by the union with Him in glory of many members of like nature. We must remember that our Lord is now wholly non-human, a spirit being now first in divine, immortal nature. His members, whom He waits for, are to be changed from human to divine nature likewise and to constitute with the Almighty and with Jesus Christ so many immortals.

With Mr. Russell all being is the product of the union of the universal "spirit of life" ("an ??????? principle which inheres in God, but which in his creatures results from certain causes which God has ordained") with organism. There is no being in either spirit of life or organism alone, but being results from their union; and as "all life," Mr. Russell says, "whether in God or in his creatures, is the same," the nature of any being depends upon the rank of the organism of that being. "Thus was Adam before he fell grander than any other earthly creature, not by reason of any difference in the life principle implanted, but because of a grander organism" (I, 209).

We are told that Jesus Christ originally consisted of an angelic organism, infused with the principle of life by the Almighty ; that, when He came below, this spirit of life was disunited from that angelic organism, the pre-existent Christ as a being ceased, and that same infusion of the life-principle was imparted to a human organism, and the "man Christ Jesus" resulted; that, when Jesus died as our ransom, both organism and principle of life became extinct, the man Christ Jesus in every sense became extinct and forever so; that, after three days, Christ was renewed in existence, not either the pre-existent or the human Christ, but a new Christ by virtue of the infusion of the principle of life by Almighty God into a spirit organism, superior to the first in its being of a higher type, the divine.

That which constitutes this higher type of nature is the attribute of immortality. Never before was the Son of God "the express image of the Father's person." "It is this quality, which pertains only to the divine nature, that is described by the term immortality, death-proof, a synonym for divinity." "As the Father hath LIFE IN HIMSELF (God's definition of "immortality"- life in himself - not drawn from other sources, nor de pendent upon circumstances, but independent, inherent life), so hath He given to the Son to have LIFE IN HIMSELF (John 5:26). Since the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, then, two beings are immortal" (I, 211).

But, the Christ, embracing many members with the head, is to lie, when constituted, wholly divine. The "little flock" of chosen believers are to be changed into equal divine nature with their head, Christ Jesus. "The reward promised to those who walk the narrow way is the 'divine nature' - life inherent, life in that superlative degree which only the divine nature can possess - immortality. These, when born from the dead in the resurrection, will have the divine nature and form. This immortality, the independent, self-existent, divine nature, is the life to which the narrow way leads" (I, 210, 211).

2. The entire object of this present gospel age is this "development of the Christ," as has already been said. "Had not Jehovah purposed the selection of the 'little flock,' 'the body of Christ,' the first advent would not have taken place when it did, but would have occurred at the time of the second advent, and there would have been but the one. For God evidently designed the permission of evil for six thousand years, as well as that the cleansing and restitution of all shall be accomplished during the seventh thousand.

Thus seen, the coming of Jesus, as a sacrifice and ransom for sinners, was just long enough in advance of the blessing and restoration time to allow for the selection of his 'little flock' of 'joint-heirs.' This will account to some for the apparent delay on God's part in giving the blessings promised and provided for in the ransom. The blessings will come in due time, as at first planned, though, for a glorious reason, the price was paid longer beforehand than men would have expected" (I, 94). "Free Grace is God's provision for the world in general during the Millennial Age" (I, 96). "When the called-out company is complete, then the plan of God for the world's salvation will be only beginning. Not until it is selected, developed, and exalted to power, will the Seed bruise the serpent's head" (I, 98). "It is in our interest that the reign of Christ is separated from the sufferings of the Head by these eighteen centuries" (1,-93).

3. This prize of glory with Jesus, this change from human to divine nature, this attainment of immortality, as Mr. Russell explains it, must be laid hold of by what he calls "consecration," He insists that this "call to a change of nature, from the human to the divine," is the only call of the gospel age. He admits that but few apprehend its character, and fewer care to meet the conditions of final exaltation. Mr. Russell focuses all Scriptures relating to a present life of devotion upon this "calling to a change of nature" as it has been elucidated. But his construction of consecration is certainly very peculiar.

He teaches that, while the ransom price paid by Christ is to be made available to all mankind in the millennial age, and not until then, yet it can be appropriated in belief now. By so doing one becomes justified of God ; that is, he is reckoned by God as a probationer for everlasting human life as it will be offered to all in the millennium. One who is now thus justified gains nothing excepting "reckonedly;" but he does become eligible thereby as an applicant for the "high calling," namely, to the "change of nature" already explained. "Those who are justified by faith in the ransom are reckoned of God as holy and acceptable." Only such, it is hdd, have anything as yet to offer to God in sacrifice. They can enter upon the "narrow way" by voluntarily and forever renouncing in a consecration unto death all the human, earthly blessings - secured by the ransom, to be offered to mankind in the millennium - which they have already taken "by faith." We will give some of Mr. Russell's own words.

"Transformation of nature results to those who, during the Gospel age, present their justified humanity a living sacrifice, as Jesus presented His perfect humanity a sacrifice, laying down all right and claim to future human existence, as well as ignoring present human gratification, privileges, rights, etc." (I, 159), "The narrow way, while it ends in life, in immortality, might be called a way of death, since its prize is gained through the sacrifice of the human nature even unto death. Being reckoned free from the Adamic guilt and the death penalty, the consecrated ones voluntarily surrender or sacrifice those human rights, reckoned theirs, which in due time they, with the world in general, would have actually received. As 'the man Christ Jesus' laid down or sacrificed His life for the world, so these become joint-sacrificers with him. * * *

They sacrifice and die with him as human beings, in order to become partakers of the divine nature and glories with him" (I, 212). "These, from the moment of consecration to God, are no longer reckoned as men, but as having been begotten of God through the Word of truth - no longer human, but thenceforth spiritual children. If you have been begotten of the Spirit, Ye (as human beings) are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God" (I, 226-7).

4. But this momentous act of consecration to a non-human life and future must be lived out appropriately. We must admit that this is a perplexing endeavor, as well as a difficult one. In the first place, who can think out what a non-human life should be? In the second place, who that remains to all practical purposes as much human as ever (as witness the Dawnites themselves) is sufficient for such a life, especially seeing that transformation from old propensities to heavenly-mindedness is not by supernatural operation, but only by the self-made process ?

Mr. Russell does not disguise the fact that to really win the prize of the ultimate change' of nature is up "a rugged, steep, narrow way." In this respect he draws the sharpest contrast with the "way of holiness" that is reserved for mankind in general in the millennial age. The way to immortality has been a way which required the sacrifice of the otherwise lawful and proper hopes, ambitions and desires - the sacrifice forever of the human nature. But the way to human perfection, to restitution - the hope of the- world - will re quire only the putting away of sin; not the sacrifice of human rights and privileges, but of their improper enjoyment. This will lead to personal purification and restoration to the image of God as enjoyed by Adam before sin entered into the world.

"The way to actual human perfection is to be made very plain and easy ; so plain that none may mistake the way ; so plain that 'the wayfaring man, and those unaccustomed therewith, shall not go astray' (Is. 35: 8 - Leeser) ; so plain that none will need to teach his neighbor, saying. Know the Lord, for all shall know the Lord from the least unto the greatest (Jer. 31 : 34). Instead of being a narrow way that few can find, it is termed a 'highway,' a public roadway - not a narrow, steep, difficult, rugged, hedged by-way, but a way specially prepared for easy travel - specially arranged for the convenience and comfort of the travelers. It is a public road, open to all the redeemed - every man. Nor will these be reckoned justified and granted a reckoned standing of holiness and perfection in the sight of God ; when started upon this highway of holiness they may go up thereon to actual perfection, as a result of endeavor and obedience, to which all things will be made favorable by their Redeemer, then reigning in power. Each individual will, according to his necessities, be aided by the wise and perfect administration of the new kingdom" (I, 215-16).

5. After this probationary experience of living as non-human beings and as reckonedly divine beings, the faithful are, at the arrival of the Millennium, to undergo a sudden metamorphosis in organism, by which in form, as well as already in character, they shall become "by so much better than the angels."

"In the beginning of the millennial age, those who now walk the narrow way will have gained the great prize for which they ran, immortality ; and being thus clothed with the divine nature and power, they will be prepared for the great work of restoring and bless ing the world during that age. With the end of the Gospel age, the narrow way to immortality will close, because the select 'little flock' that it was designed to test and prove will have been completed. 'Now is the accepted (Greek, dektos, acceptable or receivable) time' - the time in which sacrifices, coming in the merit of Jesus and becoming dead with Him, are acceptable to God - a sacrifice of sweet odor. Death, as the Adamic penalty, will not be permitted forever; it will be abolished during the Millennial age ; as a sacrifice it will be acceptable and rewarded only during the Gospel age" (I, 213-14).

We do not feel slow to state why we personally reject all this doctrine of "the Christ." We could not accept on such weighty matters teachings which are so manifestly throughout but a tissue of specious conjectures and special interpretations. But there are be sides some special points of objection.

1. We cannot accept these peculiar definitions of life, being and nature. It is sheer juggling with terms to make life a mere "energizing principle," "the same, whether in God or in His creatures." For example, "He that hath the Son hath life," means to us far more than that in having Jesus we have only the same vitalizing principle that makes a worm able to squirm.

Being, as a mere product of impersonal life-principle united with impersonal organism, is another vapid idea that neither expounds the Word nor interprets personal consciousness. And to grade "nature" according to the scale of organism is, to say the most, as clear as mud. It is impossible to escape the conclusion that the supreme God is but a product of superior organism quickened into being by "the infusion of life principle."

2. The confinement of immortality to God (in whom alone immortality is indeed inherent originally), and the identifying of derived immortality with divinity itself, so that a creature who becomes immortal (to use Mr. Russell's theory) thereby becomes "self-existent" as God Himself, is a mere theory to suit a purpose which is not supported by the Word of God or by any man's sober consciousness.

3. While the Word of God is rich in its promises of the coming exaltation of the followers of Christ Jesus, yet it is ever careful to leave the redeemed adoring Him in His matchless worth, His infinite superiority, with whom no creature is equal in station, nature, at tributes or offices.

4. The worst feature of Mr. Russell's teaching here, as elsewhere, is his exaltation of creature-self to the belittling of the Son of God. In the teaching being at present treated of, we reach a more advanced stage of this process than we have before met. The Scripture teaches that "Ye are complete in Him," not that He is yet incomplete without you ; that He "filleth all in all," not that He is as yet a bodiless head, waiting to be mostly filled up as the Christ by His yet ungathered, unprepared members. The real meaning of it with Mr. Russell is that our Lord is not as yet the Savior of the world in any practical sense, but is waiting to become the Savior through us. This crowning venture of his daring heresy will be brought out in the next chapter.

Back to Top

Mr. Russell's dominating propensity to exalt self and degrade Christ, to bring Him down to the level of the creature and to make Him insufficient without the sinful creature, has become more and more apparent as we have progressed. This spirit of antichrist in his heart has long concealed itself from the perception of many. But it must out, and out it has come all too plainly to be longer doubted.

Reference was made in the early part of our writing to Mr. Russell's more recent conflict of teaching with his early doctrine. Alterations in this line have been made only measurably in the six volumes, of "Studies" which we have been especially examining. It is in the "Watch Tower" and the oral and printed utterances, which are more directly addressed to his immediate and acknowledged followers, that disguise has been thrown off. As was said before, this has caused. a revolt among his followers "in every land of the world." It is from his former followers that we have been put in the way of the facts and their proofs.

This contradiction in doctrine is on the most vital point of Christ's sacrifice for human redemption. In brief, it may be stated thus: that Christ's personal sacrifice is only the initial part of the price of man's redemption; that it must be completed by the joint-sacrifices of the "little flock" of the Gospel age ; and, consequently, no provision or covenant of redemption is yet in existence and operation, the Church itself not requiring any "blood of the new covenant." Hence, Jesus Christ is not yet qualified as a Mediator between God and man, the Church has no need of Him as a Mediator, the world can not have Him as such until His sacrifice is completed by that of His Church. As the Christ is manifold, composite, corporate, not individual and personal, so the ransom-price is manifold, the Mediator is composite, the blood of atonement is of a corporate anti-typical lamb.

This awful doctrine will first be pointed out from the "Studies." Even in our previous chapter (p. 107 bottom) a quotation was given that involves the whole matter, although it doubtless passed without special suspicion. It was this: "As the 'man Christ Jesus' laid down or sacrificed His life for the world, so these (the 'consecrated') become joint-sacrificers with Him. They sacrifice and die with Him as human beings, in order to become partakers of the divine nature and glories with Him" (I, 212).

In quoting from "Studies," the purposed alteration in favor of the afore-mentioned evil doctrine will be made the more apparent by giving in parallel columns the passages as they stood in the old editions and as they now stand in the latest edition.

"The sacrifice of Christ as the sacrifice of the Atonement WHICH SEALED the New Covenant" (V, 28).

"These New Covenant blessings have been confirmed of God in Christ, WHO HATH SEALED THE NEW COVENANT WITH HIS OWN PRECIOUS BLOOD" (Vol. I. p. 113, line 16).

"All were sentenced to death because of Adam's disobedience, and all will enjoy (IN THIS LIFE OR THE NEXT) a full opportunity to gain everlasting life under the favourable terms of the New Covenant" (Vol. I, p. 130, bottom).

"During the Gospel age, the New Covenant and its blessed heart-writing and spirit-teaching is not for the ten tribes, nor for the two, BUT ONLY FOR THE REMNANT SELECTED FROM THE TWELVE AND THE RESIDUE SELECTED FROM AMONG THE GENTILES" (Vol. Ill, p. 298, line 8).

"The Apostle says he (Christ) set aside the typical Law Covenant sacrifices that he might establish the second, the antitypical, the real sacrifice for sins, HIS OWN SACRIFICE, HIS OWN DEATH AS the sealing of the New Covenant between God and men, by Himself, the Mediator of the New Covenant. And our text tells us the same thing, that it was the 'Man Christ Jesus who gave Himself a ransom for all.' " (Vol. V, p. 426, line 26).

"The sacrifice of Christ as the sacrifice of the Atonement FOR SEALING the New Covenant."

"These New Covenant blessings have been confirmed of God in Christ, WHOSE PRECIOUS BLOOD IS TO SEAL THE COVENANT."

"All were sentenced to death because of Adam's disobedience, and all will enjoy (in the MILLENNIAL AGE) a full opportunity to gain everlasting life under the favorable terms of the New Covenant."

"During the Gospel age, the New Covenant and its blessed heart-writing and spirit-teaching is not for the ten tribes, nor for the two. IT MUST FIRST BE SEALED BY THE BLOOD (DEATH) OF THE MEDIATOR-HEAD AND BODY FROM JEWS AND GENTILES."

"The Apostle says he (Christ) set aside the typical Law Covenant sacrifices that he might establish the second, the antitypical, the real sacrifice for sins, HIS OWN DEATH (AND HIS MEMBERS) FOR the sealing of the New Covenant between God and men, by Himself, the Mediator of the New Covenant. And our text tells us the same thing, that it was the 'Man Christ Jesus who gave Himself a ransom for all.'"

Other quotations equally pertinent and forcible might be given, but space forbids. A set of comparisons between statements of doctrine in the "Studies" and statements on the same doctrines made in the "Watch Tower" is given below:

"Only by handling the Word of God deceitfully can any be blinded to the force and real meaning of this, the Lord's testimony to the work which has been accomplished by Our Great Mediator * * * The thought, and the only thought, contained in it is that as Adam, through disobedience, forfeited his being, his soul, all his rights to life and to earth, so Christ Jesus our Lord, by His death as a corresponding price, paid a full and exact offset for Father Adam's soul or being and in consequence for all his posterity" (V, 428).

"Papacy has substituted a false or sham sacrifice in the place of the one everlasting, complete, and never-to-be-repeated sacrifice of Calvary, made Once for all time. *. *.*. The base, or foundation truth, upon which the truly consecrated or sanctuary class is built, is that our Lord Jesus, by the sacrifice of Himself, has redeemed All, and will save to the uttermost all who come unto God by Him, without any other mediator, without priest, or bishop, or pope, .and Without Any Other Sacrifice any other being an abomination in God's sight, as teaching by implication the insufficiency

"God has provided a New Mediator who has already given his life a redemption price Jesus the Head and the Church the Body. The finish of the sacrifice is in sight" ('09: 46).

"It is the merit of Jesus, * * * which must be sacrificed again by us as His members That is to Constitute Eventually the Ransom-price of the whole world of mankind" ('03: 379).

"By divine arrangement the blood or death of his church is also Made Necessary" ('09: 13).

"The sacrifice of Christ, Head and Body, has progressed for over eighteen centuries. * * * When the High Priest * * * shall have finished the sacrificing he will apply * * * the blood, his own blood, the blood of his members, on the mercy seat on behalf of all the people" COO, February 15th, page 62). of Christ's great ransom-sacrifice" (Vol. III, p. 103).

“Our expectation is that, so far as God was concerned, The Atonement Was Made eighteen centuries ago, in the end of this age Adam Will be Atoned for. ('09, 316)

The following is another quotation from the "Watch Tower," of Jan. 15, 1909, page 29 : "As already shown, the New Covenant .will not be sealed, ratified, until the sacrifice of The Christ shall have been finished. And the finishing of these sacrifices closes the work of this great day of sacrifice and atonement. With the second presentation of the. blood of atonement in the Most Holy at the end of this age the New Covenant with Israel will be sealed." Is not this a "counting of the blood of the covenant a common thing"?

It has only been recently that Mr. Russell's followers have been coming to detect that he has been surreptitiously teaching such vile error from early days. It is now detected in such a passage of "Studies" as the following: "Thus it is shown again that the REDEEMER and Restorer is spiritual, HAVING GIVEN UP THE HUMAN A RANSOM FOR ALL, and that from this highly exalted spiritual CLASS all blessings must proceed" (I, 293-4). Commenting at St. Louis on this extract, Mr. Russell said: "What do we mean by this? I answer, we refer not only to Jesus, who gave up His human nature, but also to the church."

Mr. Russell even avers that the consecrated ones of this age, the "joint-sacrificers," do not need Jesus Christ as Mediator or any mediator at all. We give the following extract from the Souvenir Report of the Watch Tower and Tract Society Convention, Niagara Falls, 1907, Part II, page 69: "Question put to the editor of Zion's Watch Tower : "Do we as individuals need Christ as our Mediator before we become members of His Body" ? Answer by the editor : "I answer that if we had needed Christ as a Mediator, then God would have provided Him as a Mediator, and the fact that God did not provide Him as our Mediator proves that we do not need Him as such. We are under the Original covenant, which required no mediator. The Church does not need a mediator." But, as has been shown, Christ, according to Mr. Russell, does need us to make Him sufficient as Mediator for the world in the millennial age.

But we now reach the acme of this impostor's unconscionable heresy and blasphemy. He distinguishes between the blood of Jesus and the blood of the New Covenant, and declares that "The New Covenant is not yet in existence." He tells us that the blood of the New Covenant was not poured out for the Church's benefit, but that it is exclusively for the world, the Jewish and other nations; and that it only began to be poured out when our Lord died, and that it has been pouring out ever since by the death of the members of the Church ; and that when the last member of the Church shall have died, then the blood of the New Covenant will have been completely poured out.

Consequently Mr. Russell dares to go to the length of even altering Scripture, and that of the most sacred character. He alters the words with which Christ Himself announced and explained the exclusive sealing element of the New Covenant, namely, in Matt. 26: 28: "This is My blood of the new covenant." Mr. Russell changes this to read : "This is the blood of the new covenant," and explains his reason for the change thus: "When our Lord said, 'This cup is the blood of the New Covenant," we should understand that, primarily the cup is His, and secondarily it is ours" ("Watch Tower," Jan. 1, 1909, page 12). And this alteration of "my" to "the" is not the only one the "Watch Tower" has taken the liberty to make in the divine Word.

When confronted with these contradictions in his doctrines, especially on such vital doctrines, Mr. Russell calls them "trifling" at one time, "elucidation" of the old teachings at another time. Again, he explains it thus: "In our issue of 1906, page 26, we said, 'Our Lord Jesus, in His own person, has been the Mediator between the Father and the household of faith, during the Gospel age.' This statement is incorrect. No Scripture so declares. It is a part of the smoke of the dark ages, which we are glad now to wipe from our eyes" ("Watch Tower," Sept. 15, 1909, page 283).

Has not enough been written to show cause for rejecting such a treacherous and misleading "Helping Hand"? We feel sure our readers must be wearied and nauseated, as we are ourselves. The impudence and impiety of a man who trifles with the truth, the Deity, the inspired Word and. the interests of immortal souls, as does Mr. Russell, is amazing. That he should expect intelligent persons to swallow such wormwood and gall is insulting. That thousands are found to be duped with such trickery and deceit, in lands where the Bible is not chained but is open as the daily newspapers, is appalling. That many of his followers in all parts of the world are drawing back and separating from him, because of the abyss of error, falsehood and damnation into which they see he is plunging them, is encouraging. If God shall use our unworthy effort toward averting the evil which is being done and in furthering happier issues, we shall feel abundantly rewarded.

Chapter 13:  
Back to Top


A careful examination of this system of false doctrine, by means of the latest edition of "Studies in the Scriptures" and of the periodical, "The Watch Tower," the former of which, a series of seven compact volumes, is published by the hundreds of thousands and almost given away in well-bound copies as "A Helping Hand for Bible Students," impels us to expose, in a summary -form under seven chief captions, its flagrant denials of the gospel of God. The ostensible author, C. T. Russell, has offered to us in these writings a compound of the heretical teachings of the last nineteen centuries, which he now casts out of his mouth as a flood, that he might cause incautious readers "to be carried away of the flood" (Rev. xii. 15).

I. THE BIBLE. He handles the Word of God deceitfully.

1. He offers the Bible to us as capable of being understood only by means of his interpretation. He professes to give in "Studies in the Scriptures" the exhaustive exposition of all and every Scripture. These volumes he declares to be "the Bible in an arranged form," yea, "they are practically the Bible itself." He declares them to be in -such a sense "the light of the Scriptures," that "people cannot see the Divine Plan in studying the Bible by itself/* Indeed, he declares that if one, after obtaining the interpretation of the Bible from his Studies, then makes use of the Bible alone without the Studies, "within two years he goes into darkness," whereas "if he had merely read the Studies with their references, and had not read a page of the Bible, as such, he would be in the light at the end of two years." It follows, then, that our only light is the Russellized Bible, and that the Word of God never was the lamp to one's feet, the light to one's path, until it became Russellized.

2. He represents God as purposely secreting from human knowledge throughout the past six thousand years the most vital truths of revelation. Not only does he claim to be the first reliable and exhaustive interpreter of the Scriptures, but he also claims that by God's express plan his teachings are "the light now first due." He denies that the writers of Scripture understood at all reliably or largely their own utterances ; he asserts that nineteen centuries of Bible study and teaching have progressed mostly in "the smoke," and that God meant it to be so and that he should be the first and exclusive revelator of the sense of God's entire Bible. He explicitly defines this as "the divine purpose of concealing the truth until the due time for it to be understood."

3. He obtains his sense of Scripture by means of key-words chosen and capriciously explained by himself, by a continual paraphrasing of Scripture language in a way to suit his own mind, by false translations of the original, and even by sacrilegious alteration of the very language of Scripture.

4. His followers and associates tell us that with them, as not with the public, he is undisguised in "the presumptuous claim of being the 'only channel' of truth, the only one qualified and authorized to interpret God's Word," while exposing to them "a mass of evidence of his spiritual degeneracy." "Nevertheless, he does not hesitate to consign to 'second death,' 'outer darkness,' etc., any who differ with him on any matters."

II. THE GODHEAD. He denies the Godhead of the Father, the Son and the Holy. Ghost. His doctrine is strictly Unitarian.

1. He makes God Almighty to be a solitary being from eternity, who is unrevealed and unknown, not only in any direct way, but even in any mediate way, for no one has existed as His equal to reveal Him.

2. He denies to Jesus Christ all deity and makes Him in His pre-existence to have been only a finite, mortal creature, though the highest of all creatures. He is to be called only "a god/' as there are "gods many, and lords many," a "mighty one," a hero. He is the "only begotten Son" simply because God generated only Him, while Christ generated all other creatures.

3. He denies all being and personality to the Holy Spirit and makes Him to be only mind, power or influence, whether of God, of Christ, or of any holy person. All expressions and evidences of the Spirit's personality are ignored by Mr. Russell, or easily brushed aside by his method of interpretation. The saints' "fellowship" and "communion" with the "other Comforter" is of no present weight or value, however much of delusive "consolation" it may have afforded them all these past centuries.

III. MAN. His teachings as to human being, life and death are false.

1. He represents life to be a principle common to all beings, whether God, man, animals or plants. Being results from the infusion of this life-principle into organism, the nature of the being resulting wholly from the kind of organism. Man results spontaneously from the impartation of life-principle to a human bodily organism. Extinction results necessarily from the separation of the life-principle from the organism. This is all a denial of man's true creation and of his immortality of spirit, the latter being a truth which Mr. Russell utterly repudiates.

2. He makes death to be an extinction of being, whether in beast or man, or even in Christ Himself. And he allows no more to death, as the penalty of sin, than a forfeiture of right to continued existence, and no more to "everlasting life" than never-ending existence. He, therefore, allows no moral or spiritual character to any Scriptural terms of life and death; they mean only the departure of the life-principle from organism, on the one hand, and the continuance of the universal life-principle in organism, on the other.

There is no such thing, then as "the gift of eternal life" as a present boon from heaven to us mortals, but only as a finally unending continuance of our existence in our own human nature. Accordingly, Adam did not die in the day he sinned but only began to journey toward the tomb. "She that liveth in pleasure" can not in any moral or spiritual sense be said to be "dead while she liveth," neither can it be said, "nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me."

3. The "second death" is described as extinction of being the second time, to last forever. This means 'the annihilation of the finally disobedient, an old doctrine of the devil.

IV. RESTITUTION. He teaches future probation for all the dead.

1. He falsely interprets the Scriptural promise of "the restitution of all things." What refers to a restoration of earthly dominion to Israel and to its attendant circumstances, he capriciously construes to refer to a "future probation" and restoration of mankind in general.

2. He claims that only Adam has had a probation for everlasting life, that even he will and must have a "second probation" before he, now extinct, can obtain that life. All others have died in consequence of father Adam's sin and have not been as yet on trial at all for their final destiny. Indeed, he teaches, God is permitting sin without probationary restraint or accountability for full six thousand years, with no other end in view than to give mankind a thorough experience of the natural results of evil doing.

3. The time of this first general probation of men individually is set for the Millennium, the "seventh thousand years," when man's past experience in sin will, it is supposed, serve as a deterrent and as a spur to take the most favorable opportunity of the Millennium to do well.

4. Most offensive is his definition of resurrection. He belittles, almost eliminates, the bodily resurrection of the Scripture ; and he interprets the word as a raising up of man to Adamic perfection through the favoring influence of the thousand years to follow the return to earth of the generations of men now dead, or extinct, as he makes out.

5. In all this conglomerate doctrine of being, life, death, resurrection, it is evidently impossible to establish any identity of being and personality between man's first and second existences; yet this does not trouble Mr. Russell at all. But an extinct memory, an extinct conscience, an extinct personality, no kind of resurrection, not even a re-creation, can restore. The very term resurrection pre-supposes unbroken identity, an unsuspended intelligence, conscience and personality.

6. All ordinary meaning of "judgment," as a moral settlement of accountable acts, he entirely expunges and replaces with the idea of a mere disciplinary training in this coming probation by which the way to self-perfecting by gradual degrees during the thousand years will be made easy.

So betwitched is the heart of many that this mess of heresy finds welcome, encouraging men carelessly to say, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die" (become extinct, to be given another and a better chance later on to mend our ways and inherit everlasting life).

V. CHRIST. He takes away the known for an unknown Christ.

1. As already said, he denies that "the Word was God" (John i. 1), and reads it, 'the Word was a god, a mighty one, as many others are so called, angels or men.' Christ was merely the highest of all creatures, mortal at that.

2. He insists that "the man Christ Jesus" was not the being of prior existence ; only the life principle of His former being was "transferred" into a new and purely human organism, so that a merely human, unknown, untried being was the result.

3. This Jesus simply was and did what Adam might and should exactly have been and done.

4. Upon dying Jesus became extinct altogether, as His human organism perished for lack of the life-principle. His life-principle was forever forfeited as our ransom, so that, as Mr. Russell says, "the man Jesus is dead, forever dead."

5. He denies the resurrection pf Jesus Christ, whether of His body or of His sentient being. Nothing of the known Christ of Bethlehem, of Nazareth or of Calvary was resumed after death, or ever will be.

6. The present Christ is made up by Mr. Russell of a new portion of universal life-principle, united to an entirely new organism, resulting in an entirely new "sentient being," neither the one prior to earthly birth nor the one known in Gospel record. In this "spirit being," not God indeed or man at all, a so-called Christ is said to be of higher rank than was the pre-existent Christ, in that he possesses the divine attribute of immortality, i.e., of perpetually self-sustaining existence, the only being, besides God himself, who as yet possesses immortality.

7. "Who is this Christ?" He was never known in the Father's eternal bosom or to the angelic hosts of old. He never was known to Mary, to Simeon, to John the Baptist, to the Twelve, to Mary Magdalene or to Mary of Bethany, to the woman of Samaria, to Lazarus, to Pilate and Herod, to the centurion at the cross or to the dying thief. Under grossest deception did this "spirit-being now first of divine rank" show "himself alive after His passion by many infallible proofs" as the "Jesus" those eleven disciples had known. Most falsely did the dying martyr assert, "I see the Son of man standing at the right hand of God," and it was only for stage effect that he gave himself up into "extinction," saying: "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." And how awfully this "spirit-being, now first of divine order," lied to Saul of Tarsus, when He said to the trembling inquirer, "I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest." And He keeps up the lie to the very end in saying (Rev. 22, 16, 20) : "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. Surely I come quickly. Amen."

VI. THE CHURCH. The Church of Millennial Dawn is a repulsive pretense.

1. He denies that there is any call as yet to everlasting life; that is reserved for mankind in the Millennium.

2. The only call now is to "complete the body of Christ." Christ is as yet a trunkless head and not "the Christ" at all, which is a corporate, manifold organism of head and members.

3. The many "anointed" ones, who, with Jesus Christ, are to constitute THE ANOINTED, THE CHRIST, are during this dispensation being called and prepared. Jesus Christ Himself waits, a helpless, unfinished Savior of the world, for the Church to supplement Him.

4. The qualification for membership in this corporate Christ and Savior is, to be changed in nature, as Jesus Christ is supposed to have been, from solely human to exclusively divine, with no bodily or human resurrection.

5. It is, therefore, necessary for the aspirant to this "high calling" to forfeit now all human as well as earthly being, rights and manner of life, yea, all hope of "everlasting life" as the perpetual duration of perfect human existence, and to live in consecration to this "change of nature from the human to the divine."

6. The rewards of the Church are to be immortality, or life in ourselves as self-sustained perpetually as God Himself has ever been or as Jesus Christ has been (only) since His exaltation and the privilege of conducting for the invisible Lord Jesus the rulership of the millennial age.

7. All this present consecrated life is of our own work, all this future reward is of our own merit, grace consisting only in giving us the chance to run this race for the high calling.

VII. THE ATONEMENT. He teaches the blasphemous doctrine that the blood of Jesus Christ alone is not enough and that the Church does not need even that.

1. He teaches that Christ was not the only one that could have made atonement by dying for man, but only that it was most appropriate for Him, the highest of all creatures, to be chosen.

2. It is claimed that it was necessary for Christ to be changed into a purely human being, identical with Adam in human perfection "nothing less, nothing more" in order to be a true ransom, "an exact corresponding price."

3. But it is denied that Jesus Christ as a ransom had value beyond the redemption of the one man, Adam. Yet all other men, as the seed in Adam's loins, were involved in Adam's penalty; they also are included, then, in the purchase Christ paid. Had they needed individual purchase, on account of failing under individual probation, another life would have had to be given for each human being as a ransom. We can not say, then, of Jesus Christ, "Who loved me, and gave Himself for me."

4. It was not the cross, the blood, the sufferings, or any moral or spiritual element in Christ's death, that constituted or contributed to the value of His ransom price; it was purely the dying, i.e., the extinction of His being, that constituted the ransom. And, to make that ransom complete and perpetual in effect, Jesus Christ as He died must remain dead forever. His ransom for us is, then, never paid up, it is an everlastingly deficient ransom.

5. He teaches that the ransom made by Christ will not go into effect until all men are raised up for their millennial probation. Meantime, the Church now being called out, is not a beneficiary of the blood of the covenant, for she does not need it. "The Church does not need a Mediator" (Mr. Russell's very words).

6. Moreover, as "The Christ" is not personal, but corporate, including Jesus Christ and all His members, so the blood of the covenant is not that of one, Jesus Christ alone, but that of all the members of His body also, as they suffer, and especially as they renounce everlasting perfect human life for the afore-mentioned high calling to "change of nature." This denial of the blood that bought us, this mingling of the blood of Millennial Dawnists with that of Jesus to bring it up to par, is the culmination of this system of foul heresy.

It remains only to explain why this witches' cauldron of all heresies is called "Millennial Dawn." It is based on Mr. Russell's claim that the Millennium really dawned with his "light now first due," namely, in 1874; that for forty years from that date "the day of the Lord," the time of Christ's presence in overturning all earthly systems preparatory to the fully manifested millennial kingdom, should prevail. (He denies the visible return of Christ, or that He will personally judge and rule, asserting that this will be done by the Dawnites, of whom he is chief, through their teachings and influence). All former earthly order was to terminate with 1914; from which time the Dawnites for no others constitute "the Church, the body of Christ" were to conduct earthly affairs in Christ's name for the "thousand years" now just begun.

Late Principal of the Missionary Training Institute, Nyack, N. Y.


THE BOOK OF DANIEL, 1915, 251 Pages; Cloth, 50c. Dedicated to the fifteen hundred students who passed under the author's teaching at Nyack. Introduction by James M. Gray, Dean of Moody Institute. A book especially for this day of world-convulsion and of age-crisis. A judicious critic thus describes the author's work: "His unfolding of the book is the book's unfolding of itself."

MYSTERIES OF THE KINGDOM, Revised Edition, 1915, 130 Pages; Cloth, 50c; Paper, 35c. Introduction by Lapsley A. McAfee, Pastor of First Presbyterian Church, Berkeley, Cal. Contains twelve chapters on as many topics vitally related to Christ's Second Coming, which are treated in what has been declared by many readers to be an unusually clear and happy way. "Just what we need for young people," writes one standing at the center of young people's work in California. The first chapters are: 1. The Sure Light of Prophecy. II. The Three Threes of Christ's Coming. III. The Salvation Yet to Be Revealed. IV. Occupy Till I Come. V. The Bride of Christ in Parable. VI. Christ's Conquest of the Sky.

TRIUMPHS OF THE CROSS, Revised Edition, 1915, 100 Pages; Paper, 25c. Introductory notes by Max Wood Moorhead and by President Blanchard of Wheaton College. Treats of the "deeper lessons of the Cross." It has proved to be "meat in due season" to many, and a new edition has long been called for. Presents the triumphs of the Cross in relation successively to The Law, Regeneration, The World, Satan, Sickness, Cleansing, The Old Man, Suffering, The Body of Christ, The Perishing, The Kingdom, and Eternal Ages.

WHY I REJECT THE "HELPING HAND" OF MILLENNIAL DAWN, Revised Edition, 1915, 132 Pages; Paper, 40c. Prefatory Testimonial by R. A. Torrey, Dean of Bible Institute of Los Angeles. This is the only book offered to the public which fully expounds, rather than merely declaring, the fatal errors of Millennial Dawn. Mr. Torrey says: "I consider it, taking it all in all, as the most satisfactory reply to Pastor Russell and his vagaries that there is to put into the hand of the everyday Christian who has been at all troubled by the false teaching of Pastor Russell."

Add 5c for any book ordered by mall.



This is the last chapter of the above book on Millennial Dawn, and it is intended for the widest circulation in disseminating the things proved by the exposition of the preceding chapters. PRAYING IN THE HOLY GHOST, 5c. Most highly commended by one versed in all prayer literature and in the secrets of prayer. THE LORD'S DAY NOT THE SABBATH, 5c. Called "the best thing on the subject" by one whose name is well known today. A safeguard against Sabbatarianism.

SANCTIFICATION, 5c. Entirely independent and distinctive. Embraces and harmonizes the various, often conflicting, phases and theories on a vital subject.

THE INTERMEDIATE STATE, 3c. A clear Scriptural and philosophical exposition which leaves no room for soul-sleeping, annihilation, etc.

THE FALLACY OF THE 2520 YEARS, 3c. Showing how groundless and harmful is the modern theory that the "seven times" measure 2520 years of the "Times of the Gentiles," and that the time measurements of Daniel and Revelation are to be construed on the principle of "each day for a year." Urgently needed today.

THE LATTER RAIN, 2c. Third edition, revised; very popular and widely distributed. Calling to expectation of increasing revival, demonstration of the Spirit and world-wide evangelization till Jesus conies.

JESUS, OUR HEALER, 2c. Second edition, revised; a clear presentation of the atonement for healing. "Widely distributed and greatly used for many.
THE LORD'S HEALING, 3c. Second edition, revised; clearly discriminating Christ's healing from all other cures, and very helpful to definite faith.

HEALING IN THE NAME OF JESUS, 2c. Especially designed to explain the nature of this healing and the plan of its ministry.

THE SALVATION OF THE BODY, 2c. Brings out in Scriptural importance the reserved salvation, "the redemption of our body," and shows its relation to present supernatural healing. Much needed by all Christians.

THE CROSS AND SICKNESS, 2c. Consists mainly of an exposition of Matt. 8, 1-17, bringing forth the ground principles from this Magna Charta of divine healing.

THE CROSS AND CLEANSING, 2c. An important chapter from "Triumphs of the Cross," of special help for seekers of heart purity.

THE CROSS AND THE OLD MAN, 2c. Also from "Triumphs of the Cross," clearing up perplexities regarding full deliverance through Christ.

THE THREE THREES OF CHRIST'S SECOND COMING, 3c. Taken from "Mysteries of the Kingdom." Most useful for immediate illumination on the subject.

Prices Per Dozen: 2c Tracts, 20c; 3c Tracts, 30c. Add 1c for Postage on every one to three Tracts.


The following are mimeographed expositions of Scripture books, very helpful, but a little expensive by mail because of letter rates. Prices are reduced on that account. Price of each by mail is indicated by figures in parenthesis:

GENESIS 1-XI, 12c (20); EZRA ESTHER 12c (20); ISAIAH 20c (35): JEREMIAH 12c (20); MINOR PROPHETS 12c (20); ROMANS 20c (35).
A brochure of great importance upon the subject of the only true method of Christian education.

Remit with orders to the Author,
W. C. STEVENS, 3129 Twenty-second Avenue, Oakland, Cal.

Related Articles

Back to Home/Index       Truth 1 - The best site on the internet!

Back to Top