Suppose I had access to everything you had done or said since you were a little child, stored on a computer.  It would be a simple matter for me to pick out a hundred or two hundred of the worst things you’d said and done over the course of your life, to write them up in a list with dates, times and places and then to proclaim, in the same way as a correspondent did in one of his emails to me: “The question is not what you have got wrong, but whether you got anything right.”  On the other hand, by a similar process of selecting the 100-200 kindest, most generous, loving things you’d done, I could equally make you look like a saint.  Both pictures would be true in a sense, but neither would be the whole truth.  Why is this important?

In the last 125 years, Jehovah’s Witnesses have published literally millions of words in publications such as The Watchtower.  This includes powerful arguments against atheism and the theory of evolution, eloquent defences of the Bible as the inspired word of God, articles upholding the Bible’s stance on moral issues such as abortion, fornication, adultery and homosexual lifestyles.  Watchtower publications have long exhorted their readers to display Christian qualities and imitate Jesus.  They have shown how applying the Bible’s counsel can benefit family life.  Through  The Watchtower, millions of people have been comforted by the Bible’s message of hope.

You might expect that evangelical Christian organizations would happily applaud most of the above.  After all, evangelical Christians believe in God and reject evolution, consider the Bible to be God’s inspired word, oppose sexual sins and abortion.  They, too, speak of the need to imitate Jesus and display Christlike qualities.  You would expect, then, that evangelical Christian groups could find a lot of positive things to say about The Watchtower.  You’d think they’d congratulate Jehovah’s Witnesses for energetically spreading the above-mentioned views throughout the world and in literally hundreds of languages.  But you would be wildly wrong.

An analysis of quotations from The Watchtower and other Jehovah’s Witness publications made by evangelical Christian writers - particularly on the Internet, but also in print - reveals that, far from commending Witness literature for all the positive material they publish, these writers consistently attack Jehovah’s Witnesses and actively seek anything that could possibly be used to discredit them - including many things published more than 100 years ago!

You could compare their attitude with that of a man who visits one of the world’s most beautiful cities - say Vienna.  Instead of touring the most attractive parts of the city, though, this man visits the Municipal Garbage Dump and photographs the rubbish there.  Then he goes to the industrial area and photographs the factories.    Everywhere he goes he looks for the ugliest, most sordid parts of the city.  Making copious use of close-ups to highlight the least attractive parts and using the most unflattering camera angles, he ensures his pictures give the worst possible impression.  Then, on his return home, he shows the photographs to his friends, to convince them that Vienna is the most awful city in the world.

In resorting to similar tactics, critics of Witness publications immediately reveal their bias.  The Watchtower Society is their ideological opponent, to be defeated at all costs.  They comb through old Watchtowers, going back as far as 130 years.  They take whatever suits their purpose and ignore the rest.  They rip quotes out of their context, attempting to make it look as though they say much more than they actually meant.  Why do they do it?  They do it because it is their job to do it!  In short, they are far from being an objective source of information.

Frankly, few Jehovah's Witnesses are likely to be taken in by such chicanery.  It is easy to detect an agenda behind this type of mudslinging.  Just about anyone who wanted to believe it has already done so.  And as for the rest of us, what hasn't killed us has made us stronger.

But we should not reject a person’s criticism simply because we feel it is wrongly motivated.  Prejudiced and hate-filled people can sometimes be at least partially right.  As Christians, we should be discerning, remembering the admonition of the proverb, “anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word.”  (Proverbs 14:15)  With that in mind, let us examine the assertions commonly made in anti-Witness literature concerning the Witnesses’ alleged “false prophecies”.

Taken Out of Context

We have not the gift of prophecy Zion's Watch Tower, July 1883.

The standard technique of critics appears to be to present a list of alleged “false prophecies”, the  longer the better.  There are dozens of such lists on the Internet.  These take the form of quotations from The Watchtower and other Witness publications.

Whereas the majority of the quotes themselves are accurate, the context in which they were presented - both the immediate context of the printed page and the historical context - is omitted.  Selective quotations ensure that anything that gives the impression of certainty is usually included, whereas any cautionary statements are omitted.

We are not for a moment denying that the publications - in particular the earlier ones -  have at times published information that was speculative in nature and turned out to be mistaken.  But the fact is that, for each of the dates commonly touted by critics as ‘false prophecies’ (1874, 1914, 1925, 1975), Watch Tower publications had published cautionary statements to the effect that it was by no means certain what would happen.  Consider, for example, the following statements, which emphasise that the basis for the conclusions was Bible study not some message from God:^[1]

With regard to 1874:  It should be noted that ‘The Watchtower’ was not published until 1879 and Russell himself did not become aware of the 1874 date until 1876!  So it was hardly a matter of a failed prediction. 

With regard to 1914: :  "We are not prophesying; we are merely giving our surmises . . . We do not even aver that there is no mistake in our interpretation of prophecy and our calculations of chronology. We have merely laid these before you, leaving it for each to exercise his own faith or doubt in respect to them" (emphasis added).^[2]

With regard to 1925: "The year 1925 is here. With great expectation Christians have looked forward to this year. Many have confidently expected that all members of the body of Christ will be changed to heavenly glory during this year. This may be accomplished. It may not be. In his own due time God will accomplish his purposes concerning his people. Christians should not be so deeply concerned about what may transpire this year."^[3]

With regard to 1975: ‘What about the year 1975? What is it going to mean, dear friends?’ asked Brother Franz. ‘Does it mean that Armageddon is going to be finished, with Satan bound, by 1975? It could! It could! All things are possible with God. Does it mean that Babylon the Great is going to go down by 1975? It could. Does it mean that the attack of Gog of Magog is going to be made on Jehovah’s witnesses to wipe them out, then Gog himself will be put out of action? It could. But we are not saying. All things are possible with God. But we are not saying. And don’t any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975.^[4]

It’s obvious, therefore, that the situation was by no means as clear-cut as Watchtower opposers would have us believe.  By omitting these more cautionary statements, many of which are in the same articles as the quotations they like to print, enemies of Jehovah’s Witnesses give a misleading picture of events and endeavour to make a suggested interpretation look like a prophecy.

No Claim of Inspiration

Not to be overlooked is the larger context of the role of the Watch Tower publications.  Whereas Watchtower writers undoubtedly pray for God’s blessing on their work and sincerely believe that God answers these prayers, they make no pretensions of being inspired, infallible or perfect.  Consider the following extracts from Watch Tower publications, which prove that this is the case.  (This is just a small selection of examples.  Many more could be cited, but care has been taken to include at least one example for every decade since The Watchtower began to be published.)

1870s: We do not object to changing our opinions on any subject, or discarding former applications of prophecy, or any other scripture, when we see a good reason for the change,—in fact, it is important that we should be willing to unlearn errors and mere traditions, as to learn truth.... It is our duty to "prove all things."—by the unerring Word,—"and hold fast to that which is good."

1880s: “We have not the gift of prophecy.”^[5]

We do not even aver that there is no mistake in our interpretation of prophecy and our calculations of chronology. Zion's Watch Tower, 1908

1890s: Nor would we have our writings reverenced or regarded as infallible, or on a par with the holy Scriptures. The most we claim or have ever claimed for our teachings is that they are what we believe to be harmonious interpretations of the divine Word, in harmony with the spirit of the truth. And we still urge, as in the past, that each reader study the subjects we present in the light of the Scriptures, proving all things by the Scriptures, accepting what they see to be thus approved, and rejecting all else. It is to this end, to enable the student to trace the subject in the divinely inspired Record, that we so freely intersperse both quotations and citations of the Scriptures upon which to build.^[6]

1900s:  It is not our intention to enter upon the role of prophet to any degree, but merely to give below what seems to us rather likely to be the trend of events—giving also the reasons for our expectations.^[7]

Someone may ask, Do you, then, claim infallibility and that every sentence appearing in "The Watch Tower" publications is stated with absolute correctness? Assuredly we make no such claim and have never made such a claim. What motive can our opponents have in so charging against us? Are they not seeking to set up a falsehood to give themselves excuse for making attacks and to endeavor to pervert the judgments of others?^[8]

1910s:  However, we should not denounce those who in a proper spirit express their dissent in respect to the date mentioned [1914] and what may there be expected . . . We must admit that there are possibilities of our having made a mistake in respect to the chronology, even though we do not see where any mistake has been made in calculating the seven times of the Gentiles as expiring about October 1, 1914.^[9]

1920s: Many students have made the grievous mistake of thinking that God has inspired men to interpret prophecy. The holy prophets of the Old Testament were inspired by Jehovah to write as his power moved upon them. The writers of the New Testament were clothed with certain power and authority to write as the Lord directed them. However, since the days of the apostles no man on earth has been inspired to write prophecy, nor has any man been inspired to interpret prophecy.^[10]

1930s: We are not a prophet; we merely believe that we have come to the place where the Gentile times have ended^[11]

1940s: This pouring out of God's spirit upon the flesh of all his faithful anointed witnesses does not mean those now serving as Jehovah's Witnesses are inspired. It does not mean that the writings in this magazine The Watchtower are inspired and infallible and without mistakes. It does not mean that the president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society is inspired and infallible, although enemies falsely charge us with believing so.... But we confess with the Scriptures that the day of such inspiration passed long before 1870, as the apostle Paul showed it would. . . . Inspired speaking and writing passed away with the last of the twelve apostles, by whom the gifts of the spirit were imparted to others. Yet God is still able to teach and lead us. While confessing no inspiration for today for anyone on earth, we do have the privilege of praying God for more of his holy spirit and for his guidance of us by the bestowal of his spirit through Jesus Christ.^[12]

1950s: The Watchtower does not claim to be inspired in its utterances, nor is it dogmatic. It invites careful and critical examination of its contents in the light of the Scriptures.^[13]

1960s: The book [Life Everlasting in Freedom of Sons of God] merely presents the chronology. You can accept it or reject it^[14]

Our chronology, however, ... is reasonably accurate (but admittedly not infallible)^[15]

Don't any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975 F. W. Franz, quoted in The Watchtower, 15 October 1966, page 231.

1970s: In this regard, however, it must be observed that this “faithful and discreet slave” was never inspired, never perfect. Those writings by certain members of the “slave” class that came to form the Christian part of God’s Word were inspired and infallible, but that is not true of other writings since. Things published were not perfect in the days of Charles Taze Russell, first president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society; nor were they perfect in the days of J. F. Rutherford, the succeeding president. The increasing light on God’s Word as well as the facts of history have repeatedly required that adjustments of one kind or another be made down to the very present time.^[16]

1980s: It is not claimed that the explanations in this publication are infallible. Like Joseph of old, we say: “Do not interpretations belong to God?” (Genesis 40:8) At the same time, however, we firmly believe that the explanations set forth herein harmonize with the Bible in its entirety, showing how remarkably divine prophecy has been fulfilled in the world events of our catastrophic times.^[17]

1990s: Those who make up the one true Christian organization today do not have angelic revelations or divine inspiration. But they do have the inspired Holy Scriptures, which contain revelations of God’s thinking and will. As an organization and individually, they must accept the Bible as divine truth, study it carefully, and let it work in them.^[18]

2000s: Although the slave class is defined as “faithful and discreet,” Jesus did not say that it would be infallible. This group of faithful anointed brothers still consists of imperfect Christians. Even with the best of intentions, they can be mistaken, as such men sometimes were in the first century.^[19]

It’s therefore quite clear that Jehovah’s Witnesses make no claim to divine inspiration for their publications.  Thus, the critics' assertion that “the Watch Tower claims to be an inspired prophet” is manifestly false. 

 

Did Haydon Covington concede that the Watch Tower is a False Prophet?

Did Haydon Covington concede in the Walsh trial that the Watch Tower Society has promulgated false prophecy, as is stated by critics?  Even if he had done so, what would that have proved?  If Covington had said that the thought the Society was a false prophet, then he would have been mistaken, that is all.  However, a look at the court record (even as it is quoted on anti-Witness web pages) shows that Covington did nothing of the sort. 

Critics' allegations that 'The Watchtower claims to be an inspired prophet' are manifestly false

The court records show that Covington said: “I do not think we have promulgated false prophecy ... there have been statements that were erroneous, that is the way I put it, and mistaken.”  When asked hypothetically if it would have been a false prophecy if the Society had authoritatively promulgated 1874 as the date for the return of Christ’s coming, Covington himself pointed out that this was only an assumption, and is then is recorded as having said the words “I agree that”.  This is an incomplete sentence in English.  Now it could very well be that he was interrupted and was not intending to agree that a false prophecy had been made.  If we take the court to read “I agree to that”, he was simply agreeing hypothetically that the Society would have been guilty of false prophecy under a certain set of circumstances, namely if it had promulgated as authoritative that Christ returned in 1874.  Now the records show that Covington had not studied the Society’s literature relating to 1874, saying “you are speaking of a matter that I know nothing of.”  So, Covington’s comments, viewed in their proper context do not prove the point Witness critics are trying to make.  Covington certainly did not mean that the Society was responsible for a false prophecy, as he had just a few moments earlier stated the very opposite.   And as we have seen, the Society did not ‘authoritatively promulgate’ 1874 as the date, it merely presented it to its readers to decide for themselves.

Of course, Witnesses do believe that God is using them - and their publications - to accomplish his work.  But that is not the same as believing that God personally directs the writing of Watchtower Publications in the way that he inspired the Bible.  The above quotations - and many others - show that at no time in the history of the organization has it claimed to be God’s prophet, inspired or infallible.^[20]

It is evident here that critics are setting up a straw man argument.  In other words, they are imputing to Watch Tower a position that it does not claim for itself and then refuting that position, instead of the Society’s actual position.  This is really nothing but a dishonest debating trick.

Thus, the Watch Tower quotations, taken in context and stripped of all hyperbole and rhetoric, establish basically one thing only: that Watch Tower publications have on a number of occasions presented interpretations of Bible prophecies which later turned out to be incorrect.  It is not possible to argue on the basis of the Watchtower literature that (1) the Society claims that its literature is inspired of God or infallible, (2) that it claimed to speak in the name of God as a prophet.

Admittedly, it would certainly have been better for all concerned had the publications refrained from publishing such speculative interpretations, which doubtless led to disappointment for many.  ‘The Watchtower’, far from covering over these facts, has admitted openly that this is the case, as is seen from the following extract from The Watchtower.

In its issue of July 15, 1976, The Watchtower, commenting on the inadvisability of setting our sights on a certain date, stated: “If anyone has been disappointed through not following this line of thought, he should now concentrate on adjusting his viewpoint, seeing that it was not the word of God that failed or deceived him and brought disappointment, but that his own understanding was based on wrong premises.” In saying “anyone,” The Watchtower included all disappointed ones of Jehovah’s Witnesses, hence including persons having to do with the publication of the information that contributed to the buildup of hopes centered on that date.[21]

Thus the Watch Tower Society has recognised that it was a mistake to speculate.  But was it the only ever religious organization to make such a mistake?

Double Standards and Bigotry

If Jehovah’s Witnesses have had mistaken expectations about the fulfillment of Bible prophecies, they are far from alone.  Many other students of the Bible - including some highly respected Catholic and Protestant writers - have made similar mistakes to Jehovah’s Witnesses.  Whole books have been written on the subject of predictions that failed to come true, but let’s look at just three examples from the world of Protestantism: Martin Luther, John Wesley and Billy Graham.

Protestant leader Martin Luther, believed that the end would come in his day.  He believed the Turkish war would be "the final wrath of God, in which the world will come to an end and Christ will come to destroy Gog and Magog and set free His own"?^[22] and that "Christ has given a sign by which one can know when the Judgment Day is near. When the Turk will have an end, we can certainly predict that the Judgment must be at the door"^[23]

In 1950, Billy Graham, the well-known US evangelist, told a rally in Los Angeles: “I sincerely believe that the Lord draweth nigh.  We may have another year, maybe two years, to work for Jesus Christ, and, Ladies and Gentlemen, I believe it is all going to be over ... two years and it’s all going to be over.”^[25]

If it had been Jehovah’s Witnesses who had said the things that Luther, Wesley and Graham proclaimed, these proclamations would have been added to the list of quotations supposedly proving that the Witnesses are false prophets.  Unsurprisingly, however, the sources that attack the Witnesses for false prophecy do not generally take the same position when it comes to Protestant figures who have made very similar errors.

This should give all of us food for thought.  If a newspaper editor were to publish in his paper all the crimes committed by members of just one ethnic group or race, dwelling on them in great detail, even repeatedly bringing up very old offences, but at the same time, ignoring all the crimes committed by members of another group (perhaps his own), then thinking people who looked at the facts would conclude that he was nothing but a bigot. What are we to think, then, when certain ones opposed to Jehovah’s Witnesses constantly harp on what they incorrectly and maliciously term “false prophecies” of the organization, reproducing ad nauseam the same quotations from Watch Tower literature, the majority of which were published almost 100 years ago, while remaining deadly silent about all similar errors by those who share their theological convictions?  Is the word ‘bigoted’ any less appropriate?  At any rate, their agenda is obvious and respect for the truth is not high on their list of priorities.

Were Martin Luther, John Wesley and Billy Graham false prophets?

I do not think that the comments of Luther, Wesley or Graham make them false prophets, for the same reason that I don’t accept that the Watch Tower is a false prophet, namely, that interpreting Bible prophecy is not the same as prophesying.

Prophecy and Interpretation

It is true that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe they are being guided by God.  But, ‘guidance’ is a much broader concept than ‘inspiration’.  True, inspiration is a form of guidance, but it is only one form.   In this regard, Stafford makes a very telling point:

It cannot truthfully be said that to be inspired by God to produce flawless information is the same as being guided or lead by a flawless source, whether that source be the Scriptures or an angel sent by God. Why? Because in the former case the person is taken over by God, given a vision, revelation (sometimes in a dream), or put into a trance. The person then receives God's thoughts and will which are then channelled through the individual, providing information he or she would otherwise not have known. However, in the latter case one could simply misunderstand or ignore the directions given, which would make the accuracy of what they do or say dependent upon whether or not they correctly understood the inspired source.[26]

“Prophecy” involves much more than simply predicting the future.  It involves claiming to have a message directly from God.  It is not the same as interpreting events or even interpreting the prophetic parts of the Bible.  Russell understood this and that is why he said: “The most we claim or have ever claimed for our teachings is that they are what we believe to be harmonious interpretations of the divine Word, in harmony with the spirit of the truth”, adding “we are far from claiming any direct plenary inspiration”^[27]

The Watch Tower Society is not a false prophet, for the simple reason that it is not a prophet.

Similarly, when Wesley drew the conclusion that the end would come in 1836, he did so on the basis of his understanding of the Bible.  Of course, this understanding turned out to be completely and utterly wrong, but that does not make him a false prophet.  When Billy Graham stated in 1950 that the end would come within two years, he was not claiming that God had personally spoken to him through a dream or a vision.  He was just stating what he believed after comparing world events with what he knew from the Bible.  No charitable person would accuse Graham of being a false prophet because of that (although it is obvious that he did make an error of judgment).  Likewise, when Luther stated that the Turkish war would lead to the end of the world, he was woefully mistaken, but that certainly does not make him a false prophet.  Incidentally, Luther, on the basis of his understanding of the Bible, also contradicted Copernicus and insisted that the earth was the centre of the universe! ^[28]

Thus, the Watch Tower Society is not a false prophet, for the simple reason that it is not a prophet.  It makes no claim that any of its members have heard voices from God,  seen visions or in any other way been directly influenced to make a certain proclamation beyond what is in the Bible.  It has made mistakes in explaining or interpreting parts of the Bible, but as we have seen, so have other religious organizations.

Conclusion

On the basis of the above, critics of Jehovah's Witnesses have some questions to answer:

(1) Do they think it is truthful and fair to focus on a minute selection of the Watch Tower’s published material - the most negative part - and ignore everything else?

(2) Can they cite the Watch Tower publication where the Society claims to be an “inspired prophet” (their expression, not ours).  On what do they base that conclusion, and how do they explain the dozens of quotations I have presented from the Society’s literature - from all periods of its history - where the Society denies that?^[29]

(3) Why do they present the Watchtower’s statements about future events as prophetic statements, rather than what they really were - interpretations?

(4) Do they believe that others who have had mistaken expectations, including Martin Luther, John Wesley and Billy Graham, are false prophets, and if not, why not?

Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe that they should be above honest criticism and have not hidden the fact that they have made errors in their interpretations.  But honest criticism implies respect for truth - the whole truth, not just extracts taken out of context and twisted to give an impression that they were never intended to give.

Beware of half truths.  You might end up believing the wrong half!