This article is of a series on |
Criticism of religion |
---|
Part of a series on |
Jehovah's Witnesses |
---|
Jehovah's Witnesses have been criticized by adherents of mainstream Christianity, members of the medical community, former Jehovah's Witnesses, and commentators with regard to their beliefs and practices. The Jehovah's Witness movement's leaders have been accused of practicing doctrinal inconsistencies and making doctrinal reversals, making failed predictions, mistranslating the Bible, harshly treating former Jehovah's Witnesses, and leading the Jehovah's Witness movement in an authoritarian and coercive manner. Jehovah's Witnesses have also been criticized because they reject blood transfusions, even in life-threatening medical situations, and for failing to report cases of sexual abuse to the authorities. Many of the claims are denied by Jehovah's Witnesses and some have also been disputed by courts and religious scholars.
Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses are established by the Governing Body, [1] [2] and the denomination does not tolerate dissent over doctrines and practices. [3] [4] [5] Members who continue to openly disagree with the movement's teachings after initial warnings may be expelled and shunned. [6] [7] [8] Witness publications strongly discourage followers from questioning doctrine and counsel received from the Governing Body, reasoning that it is to be trusted as part of "God's organization". [5] [9] [10] [11] They also warn members to "avoid independent thinking", claiming such thinking "was introduced by Satan the Devil" [12] [13] and would "cause division". [14] Those who openly disagree with official teachings are condemned as "apostates" who are "mentally diseased". [15] [16] [17]
Former Governing Body member Raymond Franz accused the movement's Governing Body of resenting, deprecating and seeking to silence alternative viewpoints within the organization [18] and demanding organizational conformity that overrides personal conscience. [19] He said the Watch Tower Society confirmed its position when, in a 1954 court case in Scotland, Watch Tower Society legal counsel Hayden C. Covington said of Jehovah's Witnesses: "We must have unity ... unity at all costs". [20] He also stated that Witnesses are subject to a disciplinary system that encourages informants. [21] [22]
Franz and others have described Jehovah's Witnesses' meetings as "catechistical" question-and-answer sessions in which questions and answers are both provided by the organization, placing pressure on members to reiterate its opinions. [23] [24] Former Witnesses Heather and Gary Botting said Witnesses "are told what they should feel and think". [25] Raymond Franz stated that members who do voice viewpoints different from those expressed in publications and at meetings are viewed with suspicion, [26] and that most Witnesses would be fearful to voice criticism of the organization for fear of being accused of disloyalty. [19]
Authors have drawn attention to frequent Watch Tower warnings against the "dangers" and "infection" of "independent thinking", including questioning any of its published statements or teachings, [27] [28] [29] and instructions that members refrain from engaging in independent Bible research. [30] [31] [32] The Watch Tower Society also directs that members must not read criticism of the organization by "apostates" [33] [34] or material published by other religious organizations. [35] [36] Heather and Gary Botting stated, "Jehovah's Witnesses will brook no criticism from within, as many concerned members who have attempted to voice alternative opinions regarding the basic doctrine or application of social pressure have discovered to their chagrin." [37]
The Bottings argue that the power of the Watch Tower Society to control members is gained through the acceptance of the Society "quite literally as the voice of Jehovah—God's 'mouthpiece'". [25] Franz also said the concept of loyalty to God's organization has no scriptural support and serves only to reinforce the movement's authority structure, with its strong emphasis on human authority. [38] He said The Watchtower has repeatedly blurred discussions of both Jesus Christ's loyalty to God and the apostles' loyalty to Christ to promote the view that Witnesses should be loyal to the Watch Tower Society. [39] Heather and Gary Botting said that challenging the views of members higher in the hierarchy is regarded as tantamount to challenging God himself. [40]
The Watch Tower Society has described Jehovah's Witnesses' intolerance of dissident and divergent doctrinal views within its ranks as "strict", but claims its stance is based on the scriptural precedent of 2 Timothy 2:17, 18 in which the Apostle Paul condemns heretics Hymenaeus and Philetus who denied the resurrection of Jesus. It said: "Following such Scriptural patterns, if a Christian (who claims belief in God, the Bible, and Jesus) unrepentantly promotes false teachings, it may be necessary for him to be expelled from the congregation.... Hence, the true Christian congregation cannot rightly be accused of being harshly dogmatic." [6]
Various associations of former members have been formed to highlight what they consider to be structural and institutionalized psychological abuses of Jehovah's Witness members and former members. Complaints include the control of adherents, marginalization, discrimination against women and sexual diversity, and attacks on other religious institutions. For example, the Spanish Association of Victims of Jehovah's Witnesses in Spain states that ostracism of former or disaffected members can lead to extreme loneliness, [41] [42] which can lead to severe depression or even suicide. [43] They also state that Jehovah's Witnesses' system of congregational discipline have been used to investigate criminal matters, hiding or hindering reports of child abuse and rape. [44] [45] Former members from other Spanish-speaking countries have also created similar associations. [46] [47]
Sociologist Rodney Stark says that Jehovah's Witness leaders are "not always very democratic" and members are expected to conform to "rather strict standards", but that enforcement tends to be informal, sustained by close bonds of friendship, and that Jehovah's Witnesses see themselves as "part of the power structure rather than subject to it". [48] Sociologist James A. Beckford, however, states that the Watch Tower Society is intolerant of dissent or open discussion of doctrines and practices, [49] and demands uniformity of beliefs from its members. [50] He observed that the Society denies the legitimacy of all criticism of itself and that the habit of questioning official doctrine is "strenuously combated at all organizational levels". [51] For similar reasons, Alan Rogerson describes the movement's leadership as totalitarian. [52]
Dr. George D. Chryssides and Dr. James A. Beverley reported that Witness publications teach that individuals' consciences are unreliable and need to be subordinated to scripture and to the Watch Tower Society. [53] Beverley describes the belief that organizational loyalty is equal to divine loyalty [54] as the "central myth" of Jehovah's Witnesses employed to ensure complete obedience. [55] Andrew Holden also observed that Witnesses see no distinction between loyalty to Jehovah and to the movement itself, [56] and said that Witnesses are "under official surveillance" within the congregation. [57] He noted that members who cannot conscientiously agree with all the movement's teachings are expelled and shunned. [58] He also said that Witnesses are taught their theology in a highly mechanistic fashion, learning almost by rote. [59]
Authors Anthony A. Hoekema, Ron Rhodes [60] and Alan W. Gomes [61] claim Jehovah's Witnesses are a religious cult. Hoekema bases his judgment on a range of what he describes as general characteristics of a cult, including the tendency to elevate peripheral teachings (such as door-to-door preaching) to great prominence, extra-scriptural source of authority (Hoekema highlights Watch Tower teachings that the Bible may be understood only as it is interpreted by the Governing Body), a view of the group as the exclusive community of the saved (Watch Tower publications teach that Witnesses alone are God's people and only they will survive Armageddon) and the group's central role in eschatology (Hoekema says Witness publications claim the group was called into existence by God to fill in a gap in the truth neglected by existing churches, marking the climax of sacred history). [62]
Jehovah's Witnesses state that they are not a cult [63] and say that although individuals need proper guidance from God, they should do their own thinking. [64] [65]
In 1992, American religious scholar J. Gordon Melton placed the Jehovah's Witnesses denomination in a list of "established cults". [66] However, he and others have since been more reluctant to use the term "cult" for various groups, including Jehovah's Witnesses, because the term is considered too controversial. [67] Ex-cult watchdog John Bowen Brown II [68] and Knocking producer Joel P. Engardio also reject the assertion that Jehovah's Witnesses is a cult. [69] [70] The encyclopedia Contemporary American Religion stated, "Various critics and ex-members in recent years have wrongly labeled Jehovah's Witnesses a 'cult'." [71]
Since 1920, the Watch Tower Society has required all congregation members participating in the preaching work to turn in written reports of the amount of their activity, [72] explaining that the reports help the Society to plan its activities and identify areas of greater need [73] and help congregation elders to identify those who may need assistance. [74] In 1943, the Society imposed personal quotas, requiring all active Witnesses to spend at least 60 hours of door-to-door preaching per month, claiming these were "directions from the Lord". [75] Although these quotas were subsequently removed, Raymond Franz claims "invisible" quotas remained, obliging Witnesses to meet certain levels of preaching work to remain in good standing in the congregation [26] or to qualify for eldership. [19] Franz describes repeated urging for adherents to "put kingdom interests first" and devote increasing amounts of time to door-to-door preaching efforts as coercive pressure. He says many Witnesses constantly feel guilty that they are not doing more in "field activity". [19]
Former Witnesses Heather and Gary Botting, claiming an emphasis on a personal track record would mean that salvation is effectively being "bought" with "good works", observed: "No matter how long a Witness remains an active distributor of literature, the moment he ceases to be active he is regarded by his peers as good as dead in terms of achieving the ultimate goal of life everlasting in an earthly paradise.... Few realize upon entering the movement that the purchase price is open-ended and that the bill can never be paid in full until death or the advent of Armageddon." [76]
The Watchtower, however, noted that although public preaching is necessary, such works do not "save" a Christian and it urged Witnesses to examine their motive for engaging in preaching activity. [77]
According to Andrew Holden, "those who fail to devote a satisfactory amount of time to doorstep evangelism soon lose the respect of their co-religionists. The Witnesses are thus forced to think quantitatively about their salvation." [78]
Medical and legal commentators have noted cases, claiming that Witness medical patients were coerced to obey the denomination's ban on blood transfusions. [79] [80] [81] According to Osamu Muramoto, in the Journal of Medical Ethics, those who unrepentantly receive prohibited blood products are labeled "apostates", expelled, and shunned by other Jehovah's Witness friends or family members. [82] He also states that "there is considerable documentation that [Jehovah's Witnesses] can be subject to psychological coercion". [83]
In a case involving a review of a Russian district court decision, the European Court of Human Rights found nothing in the judgements to suggest that any form of improper pressure or undue influence was applied. It noted: "On the contrary, it appears that many Jehovah's Witnesses have made a deliberate choice to refuse blood transfusions in advance, free from time constraints of an emergency situation." The court said: "The freedom to accept or refuse specific medical treatment, or to select an alternative form of treatment, is vital to the principles of self-determination and personal autonomy. A competent adult patient is free to decide ... not to have a blood transfusion. However, for this freedom to be meaningful, patients must have the right to make choices that accord with their own views and values, regardless of how irrational, unwise or imprudent such choices may appear to others." The court also stated that, "even though the Jehovah's Witnesses whose opposition to blood transfusions was cited in evidence were adults having legal capacity to refuse that form of treatment, the findings of the Russian courts can be understood to mean that their refusals had not been an expression of their true will but rather the product of pressure exerted on them by the applicant community. The Court accepts that, given that health and possibly life itself are at stake in such situations, the authenticity of the patient's refusal of medical treatment is a legitimate concern." [84]
Jehovah's Witnesses are instructed to shun members who unrepentantly engage in "gross sin" [85] (most commonly for breaches of the Witnesses' code of personal morality), [86] [87] and "remorseless apostasy". [88] The process is said to uphold God's standards, preserve the congregation's spiritual cleanness, and possibly prompt a change of attitude in the wrongdoer. [85] The practice requires that the expelled person be shunned by all members of the group, including family members who do not live in the same home, unless they qualify for re-admission. Expelled individuals cannot be given a funeral at a Kingdom Hall. [89] [90] Members often face difficulties and trauma once expelled because of their previously limited contact with the outside world. [15] [91] A 2021 qualitative psychological research study of interviews with former Jehovah's Witnesses suggested their experiences of ostracism from their family and friends can be associated with increased mental health risks. [92] The Watchtower's description of those who leave as being "mentally diseased" has drawn criticism from some current and former members; in Britain some have argued that the description may constitute a breach of laws regarding religious hatred. [93] [94]
The Watch Tower Society has attracted criticism for shunning individuals who decide they cannot conscientiously agree with all the denomination's teachings and practices. Sociologist Andrew Holden says that because the group provides no valid reason for leaving, those who do choose to leave are regarded as traitors. [95] According to Raymond Franz, those who decide they cannot accept Watch Tower teachings and practices often live in a climate of fear, feeling they must constantly be on guard about what they say, do and read. He says those who do express any disagreement, even in a private conversation with friends, risk investigation and trial by a judicial committee as apostates or heretics [96] and classed as "wicked". [97]
Franz argues that the threat of expulsion for expressing disagreement with the Watch Tower Society's teachings is designed to create a sterile atmosphere in which the organization's teachings and policies can circulate without the risk of confronting serious questioning or adverse evidence. [98] The result, according to Holden, is that individuals may spend most of their lives suppressing doubts for fear of losing their relationships with friends and relatives. [99] Penton describes the system of judicial committees and the threat of expulsion as the ultimate control mechanism among the Witnesses; [100] Holden claims that shunning not only rids the community of defilement, but deters others from dissident behavior. [15] Sociologist Ronald Lawson has also noted that the group allows little room for independence of thought, and no toleration of doctrinal diversity. He said those who deviate from official teachings are readily expelled and shunned. [101]
Watch Tower Society publications defend the practice of expelling and shunning those who "promote false teaching", claiming such individuals must be quarantined to prevent the spread of their "spiritual infection". [102] They have cited a dictionary definition of apostasy ("renunciation of a religious faith, abandonment of a previous loyalty") to rule that an individual who begins affiliating with another religious organization has disassociated from the Witnesses, warranting their shunning to protect the spiritual cleanness of the Witness congregation on the basis of the reference in 1 John 2:19 that those who leave Christianity are "not of our sort". [103] An individual's acceptance of a blood transfusion is similarly deemed as evidence of disassociation. [104] They say Witnesses also obey the "strong counsel" at 1 Corinthians 5:11 that Christians should "quit mixing in company" with people who unrepentantly reject certain scriptural standards. [105]
The Witnesses' judicial process has also been criticized. Hearings take place in secret, [100] with judicial committees filling the roles of judge, jury and prosecutor. [90] According to Franz, witnesses may present evidence but are not permitted to remain for the discussion. [106] Critics Heather and Gary Botting have claimed that Witnesses accused of an offence warranting expulsion are presumed guilty until found innocent. They say the onus is on the accused to prove their innocence and if they make no attempt to do so—by failing to appear at a hearing set by the judicial committee—they are assumed to be guilty and unrepentant. [107]
When a decision is made regarding expulsion, an announcement is made that the person is "no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses" without any elaboration, at which point shunning is immediate. Neither testimony nor evidence in support of the judicial decision are provided. Congregation members are told to accept the rulings without question and Witnesses who refuse to abide by the decision may themselves suffer expulsion. [100] Members are forbidden to talk with the expelled member, removing any opportunity for the person to discuss or explain their actions. [106] [108] Penton claims judicial committee members and the Watch Tower Society frequently ignore established procedures when dealing with troublesome individuals, conspiring to have them expelled in violation of Society rules. [109] Critics claim that Witness policies encourage an informer system to report to elders Witnesses suspected of having committed an act that could warrant expulsion, including deviating from organizational policies and teachings. [110] [111]
Criticism has also been directed at the 1981 change of policy [112] that directed that persons who disassociate from (formally leave) the group were to be treated as though they were disfellowshipped. [113] [114] Holden says that as a result, those who do leave are seldom allowed a dignified exit. [15] Heather and Gary Botting claim inactive Witnesses are often pressured to either become active or to disassociate themselves by declaring they no longer accept key Watch Tower Society doctrines. [107]
Jehovah's Witnesses reject transfusions of whole allogenic blood and its primary components (red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets and plasma), and transfusions of stored autologous blood or its primary components. As a doctrine, Jehovah's Witnesses do not reject transfusion of whole autologous blood so long as it is not stored prior to surgery (e.g. peri-operative extraction and transfusion of autologous blood). This religious position is due to their belief that blood is sacred and represents life in God's eyes. Jehovah's Witnesses understand scriptures such as Leviticus 17:10–14 (which speaks of not eating blood) and Acts 15:29 ("abstain from blood") to include taking blood into the body via a transfusion. [115] Controversy has stemmed, however, from what critics state are inconsistencies in Witness policies on blood, claims that Witness patients are coerced into refusing blood and that Watch Tower literature distorts facts about transfusions and fails to provide information that would allow Witnesses to make an informed decision on the issue. [8]
In the case of minor fractions derived from blood, each individual is directed to follow their own conscience on whether these are acceptable. [116] [117] Consequently, some Jehovah's Witnesses accept the use of blood fractions and others do not. However, fractions that carry out "the key function of a primary component" or make up "a significant portion of that component" are not permitted. [118]
Such a stance of dividing blood into major components and minor fractions rather than either accepting all blood or requiring all blood components to be poured out onto the ground has led to criticism from organizations such as the Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood. [119] Witnesses respond that blood as the fluid per se is not the real issue. They say the real issue is respect and obedience regarding blood, which they perceive as being God's personal property. [120] [121] Members are allowed to eat meat that still contains small traces of blood remaining. Once blood is drained from an animal, the respect has been shown to God and then a person can eat the meat. Jehovah's Witnesses view of meat and blood is therefore different from the Jewish view that goes to great lengths to remove even minor traces of blood. [122] [123]
According to lawyer Kerry Louderback-Wood, a former Jehovah's Witness, [124] the Watch Tower Society misrepresents the scope of allowed fractions. If taken together, they "total the entire volume of blood they came from". [125] An example of this can be seen in blood plasma, which consists of 90–96% water. The remaining amount consists mainly of albumin, globulins, fibrinogen and coagulation factors. These four fractions are allowable for use, but only if taken separately. Raymond Franz has likened this to banning the eating of a ham and cheese sandwich but allowing the eating of bread, ham and cheese separately. [126]
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that storing blood violates direction from the Bible to 'pour blood out onto the ground'. They do not donate blood except for uses they have individually pre-approved. [127] However, they are told that acceptance of blood fractions from donated blood is a matter of conscience. A 2006 issue of Jehovah's Witnesses' newsletter Our Kingdom Ministry stated, "Although [Jehovah's Witnesses] do not donate or store their own blood for transfusion purposes, some procedures or tests involving an individual's blood are not so clearly in conflict with Bible principles. Therefore, each individual should make a conscientious decision" [emphasis added]. [128] Raymond Franz has challenged these policies because acceptable blood fractions can only be derived from stored blood provided by donors. [129]
Regardless of the medical considerations, Jehovah Witnesses advocate that physicians should uphold the right of a patient to choose what treatments they do or do not accept (though a Witness is subject to religious sanctions if they exercise their right to choose a blood transfusion). [130] Accordingly, US courts tend not to hold physicians responsible for adverse health effects that a patient incurred out of his or her own requests. [115] However, the point of view that physicians must, in all circumstances, abide by the religious wishes of the patients is not acknowledged by all jurisdictions, such as was determined in a case involving Jehovah's Witnesses in France.
The situation has been controversial, particularly in the case of children. In the United States, many physicians will agree to explore and exhaust all non-blood alternatives in the treatment of children at the request of their legal guardians. Some state laws require physicians to administer blood-based treatment to minors if it is their professional opinion that it is necessary to prevent immediate death or severe permanent damage.[ citation needed ]
Even when an adult's life is at stake, some philosophers argue that since blood refusal is based on irrational beliefs, the patient's decision may be challenged. [131]
Kerry Louderback-Wood has claimed that Jehovah's Witnesses' legal corporations are potentially liable to significant claims for compensation if the organization misrepresents the medical risks of blood transfusions. Wood claims that constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion do not remove the legal responsibility that every person or organization has regarding misrepresenting secular fact. [132]
The Watchtower has stated that "Various medical products have been obtained from biological sources, either animal or human.... Such commercialization of ... blood is hardly tempting for true Christians, who guide their thinking by God's perfect law. Our Creator views blood as sacred, representing God-given life ... blood removed from a creature was to be poured out on the ground, disposed of." [133]
Former Jehovah's Witness Bill Bowen, founder of Silentlambs, accuses Jehovah's Witnesses of employing organizational policies of not reporting sexual abuse cases to authorities to protect the organization's reputation. [134] The Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance stated that the consequence of keeping the cases secrets is that "there is a very high probability that the abuse will continue." [135] Some victims of sexual abuse have asserted that when reporting abuse they were ordered to maintain silence by their local elders to avoid embarrassment to both the accused and the organization. [136] [137] [138] [139] [140]
The movement's official policy on child protection, which discusses the procedures for reporting child sexual abuse, states that elders obey all legal requirements for reporting sex offenders, including reporting uncorroborated or unsubstantiated allegations where required by law. Elders are to discipline pedophiles in the congregation. Victims are permitted to notify the authorities if they wish to do so. [141] [142]
While a Witness may lose congregation privileges following a single credible accusation of abuse, [143] Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be scripturally obliged to require corroboration before applying their severest forms of congregational discipline. [144] If there is not an actual second witness to an incident of abuse, a congregation judicial committee will accept medical or police reports, or a witness to a separate but similar incident as such a second witness against a member accused of sexual abuse. [145] [146] [147]
Jehovah's Witnesses have been criticized for traditionally viewing mental illness as a symptom of spiritual weakness or a sign of Satan's influence, which implies that they may prefer the guidance of elders to psychiatric and psychological treatment. [148] [149] They may also hesitate to seek help from mental health professionals because of their tendency to avoid relationships with people outside the denomination. [148] [149] However, in recent years the Watch Tower Society has acknowledged that "mental-health professionals can treat many mental-health disorders successfully" and recommended that readers "follow the treatment prescribed by qualified mental-health professionals." [150] [149]
Increased mental health risks among Jehovah's Witnesses may be associated with the authoritarian nature of the organization, internal handling of physical and sexual abuse allegations, and the treatment of sexuality and homosexuality as sin. [148] The patriarchal attitudes and organizational structures of the denomination may also contribute to mental health issues. [151] Various mental health professionals have also noted the negative impact of the practice of shunning of those who are expelled or who voluntary leave the denomination. [148] [149] [92]
No study shows a direct positive correlation between membership of Jehovah's Witnesses and the propensity to develop mental disorders, although that hypothesis has occasionally surfaced in medical and psychological literature [152] [148] [151] and in anti-cult movement literature. [153]
The JZ Help association is a non-profit organization located in Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Italy. It reports on what it considers to constitute "human rights violations" within the Jehovah's Witnesses organization, and offers psychological and legal support to people who wish to leave the denomination. [154] It also aims to protect family relationships against discrimination or exclusion when leaving the religion. [155]
In 2015, Jehovah's Witnesses in Switzerland denounced cult expert Dr. Regina Spiess for "defamation" following a press release and an interview in Tages-Anzeiger . In July 2019, the Zurich District Court acquitted Spiess. The cult expert received legal compensation of 20,500 francs, and personal compensation of 4,000 francs. [156]
The Spanish Association of Victims of Jehovah's Witnesses (AEVTJ) was founded in Spain in 2019 by former members of the denomination. The association denounces the denomination for what it considers structural and institutionalized psychological abuse by Jehovah's Witnesses. The association was registered with the National Registry of Associations of the Ministry of the Interior. [157] [158]
The association investigates complaints about authoritarian control, marginalization, discrimination against women, sexual discrimination (for example, homophobia and transphobia), and Jehovah's Witnesses' criticism of other religious institutions. [159] The association notes that ostracism practiced by Jehovah's Witnesses can lead to extreme loneliness in former members, particularly due to having close relationships only within the denomination from a young age, and that in some cases this may lead to depression or suicide. [160] [161] The association also accuses the denomination of carrying out its own judicial system parallel to those of the state, and of hiding or hindering reports of child abuse and rape. [162] [163] The association's website states:
In Spain, more and more, we former followers dare to publicly denounce their coercive practices, which range from the emotional and personal pressure of their followers, lack of dignity, the right to honor and privacy, through ostracism, to the defense of an unappealable truth that violates the rights and dignity of women along with the rest of groups of sexual diversity. [164]
In response to the association's activities, Jehovah's Witnesses in Spain filed several lawsuits against members of the AEVTJ, which are ongoing. [165] [166] [167]
The Argentine Association of Victims of Jehovah's Witnesses (AAVTJ) was founded in Argentina as part of an international initiative to call attention to complaints of economic fraud and the cover-up of sexual abuse by the Jehovah's Witnesses organization. [168] On July 26, 2023, the association held a 'Memorial Day' in Buenos Aires in memory of 'victims of the Watchtower', denouncing practices of Jehovah's Witnesses that the association considers coercive. [169]
The Ibero-American Network for the Study of Sects (RIES) was formed in 2005 by Spanish and Ibero-American Catholics, experts and scholars studying sects and new religious movements, including Jehovah's Witnesses. [170] [171]
The LIBERADOS Association was formed in Spain in 2009 to help people "affected by the sectarian doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses", focusing on Jehovah's Witnesses' interpretations of various biblical texts, and potentially harmful impacts—such as opposition to blood transfusions—that the Jehovah's Witnesses denomination may have on its members. [172] [173]
Central to Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs are their interpretations of the second coming of Christ, the millennium and the kingdom of God. Watch Tower Society publications have made, and continue to make, predictions about world events they believe were prophesied in the Bible. [174] Some of those early predictions were described as "established truth", [175] and beyond any doubt. [176] Witnesses are told to "be complete in accepting the visible organization's direction in every aspect" and that there is no need to question what God tells them through his Word and organization since love "believes all things". [3] [177] [178] If a member advocates views different from what appears in print, they face expulsion. [179] [180] [181]
Failed predictions that were either explicitly stated or strongly implied, particularly linked to dates in 1914, 1915, 1918, 1925 and 1975, have led to the alteration or abandonment of some teachings. The Society's publications have at times suggested that members had previously "read into the Watch Tower statements that were never intended" [182] or that the beliefs of members were "based on wrong premises". [183] According to Professor Edmond Gruss, other failed predictions were ignored, and replaced with new predictions; for example, in the book, The Finished Mystery (1917), events were applied to the years 1918 to 1925 that earlier had been held to occur prior to 1914. When the new interpretations also did not transpire, the 1926 edition of the book changed the statements and removed the dates. [184]
Raymond Franz, a former member of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, has cited publications that claimed God has used Jehovah's Witnesses as a collective prophet. [185] Professor James A. Beverley, along with others, has accused the movement of false prophecy for making those predictions, particularly because of assertions in some cases that the predictions were beyond doubt or had been approved by God, but describes its record of telling the future as "pathetic". [186] [187] [188] [189] Beverley says the Watch Tower Society has passed judgment on others who have falsely predicted the end of the world (he cites a 1968 Awake! article that says other groups were "guilty of false prophesying" after having "predicted an 'end to the world', even announcing a specific date"). [190] [191]
The Watch Tower Society rejects accusations that it is a false prophet. [192] [193] It admits its explanations of Bible prophecy are not infallible [194] [195] [196] [197] and that its predictions are not claimed explicitly as "the words of Jehovah". [192] It states that some of its expectations have needed adjustment because of eagerness for God's kingdom, but that those adjustments are no reason to "call into question the whole body of truth". [198] Raymond Franz claims that the Watch Tower Society tries to evade its responsibility when citing human fallibility as a defense, adding that the Society represents itself as God's appointed spokesman, and that throughout its history has made many emphatic predictions. Franz adds that the organization's eagerness for the Millennium does not give it license to impugn the motives of those who fail to accept its predictions. [178]
George D. Chryssides has suggested widespread claims that Witnesses "keep changing the dates" are a distortion and misunderstanding of Watch Tower Society chronology. He argues that, although there have been failures in prophetic speculation, the changing views and dates of the Jehovah's Witnesses are more largely attributable to changed understandings of biblical chronology than to failed predictions. Chryssides states, "For the Jehovah's Witnesses prophecy serves more as a way of discerning a divine plan in human history than a means to predicting the future." [199]
Predictions (by date of publication) include:
History of Eschatological Doctrine | |||||||
Last Days begin | Start of Christ's Presence | Christ made King | Resurrection of 144,000 | Judgment of Religion | Separating Sheep & Goats | Great Tribulation | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1879–1920 | 1799 | 1874 | 1878 | during Millennium | 1914, 1915, 1918, 1920 | ||
1920–1923 | 1914 | 1878 | 1878 | 1925 | |||
1923–1925 | during Christ's presence | ||||||
1925–1927 | within generation of 1914 | ||||||
1927–1929 | 1918 | ||||||
1929–1930 | 1914 | ||||||
1930–1966 | 1914 | 1919 | |||||
1966–1975 | 1975? | ||||||
1975–1995 | within generation of 1914 | ||||||
1995–present | during Great Tribulation | imminent |
Although Watch Tower Society literature claims the Society's founder, Charles Taze Russell, was directed by God's Holy Spirit, through which he received "flashes of light", [226] it has substantially altered doctrines since its inception and abandoned many of Russell's teachings. [227] Many of the changes have involved biblical chronology that had earlier been claimed as beyond question. [228] [229] [230] [231] [232] The Watch Tower asserted in 1922: "We affirm that Scripturally, scientifically, and historically, present-truth chronology is correct beyond a doubt." (italics in original). [233] Watch Tower Society publications state that doctrinal changes result from a process of "progressive revelation", in which God gradually reveals his will. [234] [235]
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the United Nations is one of the 'superior authorities' that exist by God's permission, and that it serves a purpose in maintaining order, but do not support it politically and do not consider it to be the means to achieve peace and security. Jehovah's Witnesses also believe that the United Nations is the "image of the wild beast" of Revelation 13:1–18, and the second fulfilment of the "abominable thing that causes desolation" from Matthew 24:15; that it will be the means for the devastation of organized false religion worldwide; [295] [296] and that, like all other political powers, it will be destroyed and replaced by God's heavenly kingdom. [297] Jehovah's Witnesses have denounced other religious organizations for having offered political support to the UN. [298]
On October 8, 2001, an article was published in the British Guardian newspaper questioning the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society's registration as a non-governmental organization (NGO) with the United Nations Department of Public Information and accusing the Watch Tower Society of hypocrisy. [299] Within days of the article's publication, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society submitted a formal request for disassociation, removing all association with the United Nations Department of Public Information, [300] and released a letter stating that the reason for becoming associated with the United Nations Department of Information (DPI) was to access their facilities, and that they had not been aware of the change in language contained in the criteria for NGO association. [301] However, when the Watch Tower Society sought NGO association, "the organization agreed to meet criteria for association, including support and respect of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations", acknowledging that the purpose of membership is to "promote knowledge of the principles and activities of the United Nations". [302]
Jehovah's Witnesses assert that Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians in 607 BC and completely uninhabited for exactly seventy years. This date is critical to their selection of October 1914 for the arrival of Christ in kingly power—2520 years after October 607 BC. [303] [304] Non-Witness sources do not support 607 BC for the event, placing the destruction of Jerusalem within a year of 587 BC, twenty years later. [304] [305] Jehovah's Witnesses believe that periods of seventy years mentioned in the books of Jeremiah and Daniel refer to the Babylonian exile of Jews. They also believe that the gathering of Jews in Jerusalem, shortly after their return from Babylon, officially ended the exile in the Jewish month of Tishrei. According to the Watch Tower Society, October 607 BC is derived by counting back seventy years from Tishrei of 537 BC, based on its assertion that Cyrus' decree to release the Jews during his first regnal year "may have been made in late 538 B.C. or before March 4–5, 537 B.C". [306] [307] Secular sources assign the return to either 538 BC or 537 BC. [308] [309] [310] [311] [312]
In The Gentile Times Reconsidered: Chronology & Christ's Return, Carl O. Jonsson, a former Witness, presents eighteen lines of evidence to support the traditional view of neo-Babylonian chronology. He accuses the Watch Tower Society of deliberately misquoting sources in an effort to bolster its position. [313] The Watch Tower Society claims that biblical chronology is not always compatible with secular sources, and that the Bible is superior. It claims that secular historians make conclusions about 587 BC based on incorrect or inconsistent historical records, but accepts those sources that identify Cyrus' capture of Babylon in 539 BC, claiming it has no evidence of being inconsistent and hence can be used as a pivotal date. [306] [314] [315]
While a member of the denomination, Rolf Furuli, a former lecturer in Semitic languages, presented a study of 607 BC in support of Jehovah's Witnesses' conclusions in Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Persian Chronology Compared with the Chronology of the Bible, Volume 1: Persian Chronology and the Length of the Babylonian Exile of the Jews. [316] Lester L. Grabbe, professor of Hebrew Bible and Early Judaism at the University of Hull, said of Furuli's study: "Once again we have an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship.... F. shows little evidence of having put his theories to the test with specialists in Mesopotamian astronomy and Persian history." [317] (In 2020, Furuli left the denomination but maintained that its chronological interpretations are correct. [318] [319] )
The relative positions of the moon, stars and planets indicated in the Babylonian astronomical diary VAT 4956 are used by secular historians to establish 568 BC as the thirty-seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. [320] The Watch Tower Society claims that unnamed researchers have confirmed that the positions of the moon and stars on the tablet are instead consistent with astronomical calculations for 588 BC; the Society claims that the planets mentioned in the tablet cannot be clearly identified. [321] The Watch Tower Society's article cites David Brown as stating, "some of the signs for the names of the planets and their positions are unclear". [321] However, Brown indicates that the Babylonians also had unique names for the known planets, [322] and Jonsson confirms that the unique names are those used in VAT 4956. [323]
The Watch Tower Society teaches a combination of gap creationism and day-age creationism, with an extended period between the initial creation of the universe and the subsequent 'creative days' in relation to the earth, which are said to have taken "thousands of years". [324] It dismisses Young Earth creationism as "unscriptural and unbelievable", [325] and states that Jehovah's Witnesses "are not creationists" on the basis that they do not believe the earth was created in six literal days. [326] [327]
Watch Tower Society publications attempt to refute the theory of evolution, in favor of divine creation. [328] [329] The Watch Tower Society's views of evolution have met with criticism typical of objections to evolution. Gary Botting described his own difficulty as a Jehovah's Witness to reconcile creation with simple observations of species diversification, especially after discussions with J.B.S. Haldane in India. [330]
The Society's 1985 publication, Life—How Did it Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? is criticized for its dependency on the book The Neck of the Giraffe authored by Francis Hitching,[ citation needed ] which is quoted five times. The book presents Hitching—a TV writer and paranormalist with no scientific credentials—as an evolutionist and scientist. [331] Richard Dawkins also criticizes the book for implying that "chance" is the only alternative to deliberate design, stating, "[T]he candidate solutions to the riddle of improbability are not, as falsely implied, design and chance. They are design and natural selection." [332]
The Watch Tower Society has been criticized for its refusal to reveal the names and academic credentials of the translators of its New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT). [333] The Society has claimed members of the NWT's translation committee wished to remain anonymous in order to exalt only the name of God, [334] The Watchtower stating that the educational qualifications of the translators were unimportant and that "the translation itself testifies to their qualifications". [335] Raymond Franz, a former member of the Governing Body, has claimed that of the four men he says constituted the committee, only one—its principal translator, his uncle Frederick Franz—had sufficient knowledge of biblical languages to have attempted the project. [336] Frederick Franz had studied Greek for two years and was self-taught in Hebrew. [337]
Much criticism of the NWT involves the rendering of certain texts considered to be biased towards specific Witness practices and doctrines. [333] [338] [339] [340] [341] [342] These include the use of "torture stake" instead of "cross" throughout the New Testament; [333] the rendering of John 1:1, with the insertion of the indefinite article ("a") in its rendering to give "the Word was a god"; [333] [343] Romans 10:10, which uses the term "public declaration", which may reinforce the imperative to engage in public preaching; [333] John 17:3, which used the term "taking in knowledge" rather than "know" to suggest that salvation is dependent on ongoing study, [333] and the placement of the comma in Luke 23:43, which affects the timing of the fulfillment of Jesus' promise to the thief at Calvary. [344]
Also criticized is the NWT's insertion of the name Jehovah 237 times in the New Testament without extant New Testament Greek manuscript evidence that the name existed there. [345] [346] [347] Watch Tower publications have claimed that the name was "restored" on a sound basis, stating that when New Testament writers quote earlier Old Testament scriptures containing the Tetragrammaton (יהוה), "the translator has the right to render Kyrios ("LORD") as Jehovah." [348] The NWT mentions twenty-seven other translations that have similarly rendered Kyrios as a form of the name Jehovah, stating that there is only one verse where the NWT does so without agreement from other translations. [349]
The Society has claimed its translation "courageously restores God's name, Jehovah, to its proper place in the Biblical text, is free from the bias of religious traditionalism, and ... gives the literal meaning of God's Word as accurately as possible." [350] Jason BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University, in Flagstaff, Arizona, compared nine major translations for accuracy. He stated that whilst there are "a handful of examples of bias in the [New World Translation (NW)]", that "most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation of the original expressions of the New Testament writers." He also wrote that the NWT's introduction of the name "Jehovah" into the New Testament 237 times was "not accurate translation by the most basic principle of accuracy". [351] He concluded that "the NW and [another translation] are not bias free, and they are not perfect translations. But they are remarkably good translations ... often better than [the other six translations analyzed]." [352] In his rebuttal, Thomas Howe strongly criticizes BeDuhn's positive review of the New World Translation, stating that the main goal of BeDuhn's book is to deny the deity of Christ. [353]
Jehovah's Witnesses are a religious group that grew out of the Bible Student movement founded by Charles Taze Russell in the nineteenth century. Jehovah's Witnesses are considered to be a nontrinitarian, millenarian, restorationist Christian denomination. In 2024, the group reported a membership of more than 9 million worldwide.
Jehovah's Witnesses' practices are based on the biblical interpretations of Charles Taze Russell (1852–1916), founder of the Bible Student movement, and of successive presidents of the Watch Tower Society, Joseph Franklin Rutherford and Nathan Homer Knorr. Since 1976, practices have also been based on decisions made at closed meetings of the group's Governing Body. The group disseminates instructions regarding activities and acceptable behavior through The Watchtower magazine and through other official publications, and at conventions and congregation meetings.
A number of corporations are used by Jehovah's Witnesses. They publish literature and perform other operational and administrative functions, representing the interests of the religious organization. "The Society" has been used as a collective term for these corporations.
Joseph Franklin Rutherford, also known as Judge Rutherford, was an American religious leader and the second president of the incorporated Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. He played a primary role in the organization and doctrinal development of Jehovah's Witnesses, which emerged from the Bible Student movement established by Charles Taze Russell.
Jehovah's Witnesses are organized hierarchically, and are led by the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses from the Watch Tower Society's headquarters in Warwick, New York. The Governing Body, along with other "helpers", is organized into six committees responsible for various administrative functions within the global Witness community, including publication, assembly programs, and evangelizing activity.
The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society produces a significant amount of printed and electronic literature, primarily for use by Jehovah's Witnesses. Their best known publications are the magazines, The Watchtower and Awake!
Raymond Victor Franz was a member of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses from October 20, 1971, until his removal on May 22, 1980, and served at the organization's world headquarters for fifteen years, from 1965 until 1980. Franz stated that the request for his resignation and his subsequent disfellowshipping resulted from allegations of apostasy. Following his removal, Franz wrote two books that shared his personal experiences with the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society and his views on Jehovah's Witnesses teachings.
The Bible Student movement is a Millennialist Restorationist Christian movement. It emerged in the United States from the teachings and ministry of Charles Taze Russell (1852–1916), also known as Pastor Russell, and his founding of the Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society in 1881. Members of the movement have variously referred to themselves as Bible Students, International Bible Students, Associated Bible Students, or Independent Bible Students.
Frederick William Franz was appointed president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, a legal entity used to administer the work of Jehovah's Witnesses. He had previously served as vice-president of the same corporation from 1945 until 1977 when he replaced Nathan H. Knorr as president. His position as president was administrative, as the Governing Body assumed over-all control of all Jehovah's Witness corporations in 1976. He remained president until his death in 1992.
The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania is a non-stock, not-for-profit organization headquartered in Warwick, New York. It is the main legal entity used worldwide by Jehovah's Witnesses to direct, administer, and disseminate doctrines for the group and is often referred to by members of the denomination simply as "the Society". It is the parent organization of a number of Watch Tower subsidiaries, including the Watchtower Society of New York and the International Bible Students Association. The number of voting shareholders of the corporation is limited to between 300 and 500 "mature, active and faithful" male Jehovah's Witnesses. About 5,800 Jehovah's Witnesses provide voluntary unpaid labor, as members of a religious order, in three large Watch Tower Society facilities in New York. Nearly 15,000 other members of the order work at the Watch Tower Society's other facilities worldwide.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible prohibits Christians from accepting blood transfusions. Their literature states that, "'abstaining from ... blood' means not accepting blood transfusions and not donating or storing their own blood for transfusion." The belief is based on an interpretation of scripture that differs from other Christian denominations. It is one of the doctrines for which Jehovah's Witnesses are best known.
The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses is the ruling council of Jehovah's Witnesses, based in the denomination's Warwick, New York, headquarters. The body formulates doctrines, oversees the production of written material for publications and conventions, and administers the denomination's worldwide operations. Official publications refer to members of the Governing Body as followers of Christ rather than religious leaders.
Jehovah's Witnesses originated as a branch of the Bible Student movement, which developed in the United States in the 1870s among followers of Christian restorationist minister Charles Taze Russell. Bible Student missionaries were sent to England in 1881 and the first overseas branch was opened in London in 1900. The group took on the name International Bible Students Association and by 1914 it was also active in Canada, Germany, Australia, and other countries.
Jehovah's Witnesses employ various levels of congregational discipline as formal controls administered by congregation elders. Members who engage in conduct that is considered inappropriate may be counseled privately by elders, and congregational responsibilities may be withheld or restricted.
"Faithful and discreet slave" is the term used by Jehovah's Witnesses to describe the group's Governing Body in its role of directing doctrines and teachings. The group is described as a "class" of "anointed" Christians that operates under the direct control of Jesus Christ to exercise teaching authority in all matters pertaining to doctrine and articles of faith.
The doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses have developed since the publication of The Watchtower magazine began in 1879. Early doctrines were based on interpretations of the Bible by Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society founder Charles Taze Russell, then added to, altered, or discarded by his successors, Joseph Rutherford and Nathan Knorr. Since 1976, doctrinal changes have been made at closed meetings of the group's Governing Body, whose decisions are described as "God's progressive revelations". These teachings are disseminated through The Watchtower, and at conventions and congregation meetings. Most members of the denomination outside the Governing Body play no role in the development of doctrines and are expected to adhere to all those decided at the Warwick, NY headquarters. Jehovah's Witnesses are taught to welcome doctrinal changes, regarding such "adjustments" as "new light" or "new understanding" from God and proving that they are on the "path of the righteous".
Crisis of Conscience is a biographical book by Raymond Franz, a former member of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, written in 1983, three years after his expulsion from the Jehovah's Witnesses denomination. The book is a major study and exposé of the internal workings of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society during the 1960s and 1970s. The book was updated and revised four times, with the final revisions made in 2004. It was translated into Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, French, German, Greek, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Spanish and Swedish.
Nathan Homer Knorr was the third president of the incorporated Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. He was appointed president in January 1942, replacing Joseph Franklin Rutherford, who had served in the position since 1917. Knorr was also a member of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses since 1971.
The beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are based on the Bible teachings of Charles Taze Russell—founder of the Bible Student movement—and successive presidents of the Watch Tower Society, Joseph Franklin Rutherford, and Nathan Homer Knorr. Since 1976, all doctrinal decisions have been made by the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, a group of elders at the denomination's headquarters. These teachings are disseminated through The Watchtower magazine and other publications of Jehovah's Witnesses, and at conventions and congregation meetings.
This is a bibliography of works on the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Make haste to identify the visible theocratic organization of God that represents his king, Jesus Christ. It is essential for life. Doing so, be complete in accepting its every aspect. We cannot claim to love God, yet deny his Word and channel of communication.... Jehovah's visible organization is based firmly on the twelvefold foundation of the apostles of the Lamb with Jesus Christ himself being the foundation cornerstone.(Rev. 21:14,19;Eph 2:20–22) Therefore, in submitting to Jehovah's visible theocratic organization, we must be in full and complete agreement with every feature of its apostolic procedure and requirements.
if a Christian (who claims belief in God, the Bible, and Jesus) unrepentantly promotes false teachings, it may be necessary for him to be expelled from the congregation.
If one obstinately is speaking about or deliberately spreading false teachings, this may be or may lead to apostasy. If there is no response after a first and a second admonition, a judicial committee should be formed.
From the very outset of his rebellion Satan called into question God's way of doing things. He promoted independent thinking.... How is such independent thinking manifested? A common way is by questioning the counsel that is provided by God's visible organization.
In a world where people are tossed about by confusing winds of religious doctrine, Jehovah's people need to be stable, full-grown Christians. (Eph. 4:13, 14) Their position must be steadfast, not shifting quickly because of independent thinking or emotional pressures.
It is through the columns of The Watchtower that Jehovah provides direction and constant Scriptural counsel to his people, and it requires careful study and attention to details in order to apply this information, to get a full understanding of the principles involved, and to assure ourselves of right thinking on these matters. It is in this way that we "are thoroughly able to grasp mentally with all the holy ones" the fullness of our commission and of the preaching responsibility that Jehovah has placed on all Christians as footstep followers of his Son. Any other course would produce independent thinking and cause division.
The inevitable result of a person's submitting to (the home Bible study) arrangement is that eventually all his own thoughts will be replaced by the thoughts contained in the book he is studying ... if one were able to watch this person's development ... it would be quite obvious that he was gradually losing all individuality of thought and action.... One of the characteristics of Jehovah's Witnesses is the extraordinary unanimity of thinking on almost every aspect of life ... in view of this there seems to be some justification for the charge that their study methods are in fact a subtle form of indoctrination or brainwashing.
we believe that JWs' beliefs are irrational even in terms that should be acceptable to JWs. Firstly, their interpretation is inconsistent with other passages of The Bible and Christian practices. It is inconsistent with the Christian practice of communion..... Secondly, Paul warns against slavish obedience to law.... Paul himself does not understand The Bible to be literally true, as evidenced when he speaks of the story of the origin of Abraham's sons being "an allegory".... What is required is rational argument.
William Bowen, a former Jehovahs Witness elder, stands near the Kingdom Hall in Marshall County, Ky., where he worshipped before he was disfellowshipped for criticizing the church's handling of child sex abuse allegations.
the victim may wish to report thematter to the authorities, and it is his or her absolute right to do so
There are certainly no sanctions against any congregation member who reports an allegation of child abuse to the authorities
corroborating evidence can be used instead of a second witness to prove wrongdoing
in the absence of a confession or circumstantial evidence or other indicators, would we act judicially on one witness as the courts would do, the answer would be no, and I don't see that changing, in harmony with the scriptures.... Q. Insofar as a second witness is concerned, is that requirement covered by, for example, scientific evidence? A. Certainly. Q. So if there was some external forensic scientific or direct evidence which is not of an observer to the incident, but someone who observes some corroborative aspect to the incident, that would be sufficient, would it? A. The answer is yes ... we, as the case files will show, have disfellowshipped people for being in an inappropriate setting where there is some allegation.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link){{cite news}}
: CS1 maint: location (link)Christians have implicit trust in their heavenly Father; they do not question what he tells them through his written Word and organization.
Based upon the argument heretofore set forth, then, that the old order of things, the old world, is ending and is therefore passing away, and that the new order is coming in, and that 1925 shall mark the resurrection of the faithful worthies of old and the beginning of reconstruction, it is reasonable to conclude that millions of people now on the earth will be still on the earth in 1925.
We see no reason for changing the figures—nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble.
{{cite magazine}}
: Cite uses generic title (help)The culmination of the trouble in October, 1914, is clearly marked in the Scriptures.
The 'battle of the great day of God Almighty' (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced.
We understand that the jubilee type began to count in 1575 B.C.; and the 3,500 year period embracing the type must end in 1925. It follows, then, that the year 1925 will mark the beginning of the restoration of all things lost by Adam's disobedience.
{{cite magazine}}
: Cite uses generic title (help)Bible prophecy shows that the Lord was due to appear for the second time in 1874. Fulfilled prophecy shows beyond a doubt that he did appear in 1874 ... these facts are indisputable.
Twelve hundred sixty years from 539 A.D. brings us to 1799, another proof that 1799 definitely marks the beginning of "the time of the end".... "The time of the end" embraces a period from 1799 A.D., as above indicated, to the time of the complete overthrow of Satan's empire and the establishment of the kingdom of the Messiah. The time of the Lord's second presence dates from 1874.
Twelve hundred sixty years from 539 A. D. brings us to 1799, another proof that 1799 definitely marks the beginning of 'the time of the end'.
Prior thereto the church had been applying the prophecy of Matthew twenty-four to the events that came to pass from 1874 to 1914. Not until after 1918 was it understood by the church that these events apply after 1914.
We will no longer refer to such ones as being disfellowshipped. In harmony with Paul's words recorded at 1 Corinthians 5:13, we will now refer to them as being removed from the congregation.
It was in this first regnal year of Cyrus that he issued his decree to permit the Jews to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple. (Ezra 1:1) The decree may have been made in late 538 B.C. or before March 4–5, 537 B.C. In either case this would have given sufficient time for the large party of 49,897 Jews to organize their expedition and to make their long four-month journey from Babylon to Jerusalem to get there by September 29–30, 537 B.C., the first of the seventh Jewish month, to build their altar to Jehovah as recorded at Ezra 3:1–3. Inasmuch as September 29–30, 537 B.C., officially ends the seventy years of desolation as recorded at 2 Chronicles 36:20, 21, so the beginning of the desolation of the land must have officially begun to be counted after September 21–22, 607 B.C., the first of the seventh Jewish month in 607 B.C., which is the beginning point for the counting of the 2,520 years.