What if the Gentile times did not end in 1914?

[HollyW]

Taken from Luke 21:24 “And Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations, until the appointed times of the nations [“times of the Gentiles,” KJ, RS] are fulfilled.”

What would it mean for the WTS and JWs if 1914 was not the end of the Gentile times?  

In light of what Russell had said would happen, and didn't, it's very likely that 1914 did not see the fulfillment of Luke 21:24 after all.  What teachings hinge on this date and would need to be understood differently when and if the Governing Body changes JW's belief about 1914?
 

 

 

[Evacuated]

 

 

• What if the Gentile Times did not end in 1914?
• What would it mean for the WTS and JWs if 1914 was not the end of the Gentile times?  
• What teachings hinge on this date and would need to be understood differently when and if the Governing Body changes JW's belief about 1914?

Are we getting too many questions in one posting here?

[HollyW]

8 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

 

 

• What if the Gentile Times did not end in 1914?
• What would it mean for the WTS and JWs if 1914 was not the end of the Gentile times?  
• What teachings hinge on this date and would need to be understood differently when and if the Governing Body changes JW's belief about 1914?

Are we getting too many questions in one posting here?

"Take off the last 2."

Sorry 'bout that, Eoin.   I wondered why no one was answering.  I guess it must have confused more than just you.

Let's go with the original question, then, and we'll get to the others as we go along.

What if the Gentile Times did not end in 1914?  

[Evacuated]

 

3 hours ago, HollyW said:

What if the Gentile Times did not end in 1914?  

If by this you are implying that the present system will end later rather than sooner, then surely Paul's words to the Hebrews at 11:13 would continue to apply to many currently alive who do not live to see God's intervention in human affairs:

"In faith all of these died, although they did not receive the fulfillment of the promises; but they saw them from a distance and welcomed them and publicly declared that they were strangers and temporary residents in the land."

In fact, many who truly serve Jehovah will continue to have an experience similarly to Abraham (Gen.25:8) : "Then Abraham breathed his last and died at a good old age, old and satisfied, and was gathered to his people."

These scriptures hold good regardless of when the Gentile Times end and would do so even if we had never heard the expression in our lives.

[HollyW]

8 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

 

If by this you are implying that the present system will end later rather than sooner, then surely Paul's words to the Hebrews at 11:13 would continue to apply to many currently alive who do not live to see God's intervention in human affairs:

"In faith all of these died, although they did not receive the fulfillment of the promises; but they saw them from a distance and welcomed them and publicly declared that they were strangers and temporary residents in the land."

In fact, many who truly serve Jehovah will continue to have an experience similarly to Abraham (Gen.25:8) : "Then Abraham breathed his last and died at a good old age, old and satisfied, and was gathered to his people."

These scriptures hold good regardless of when the Gentile Times end and would do so even if we had never heard the expression in our lives.

Thanks, Eoin.  I agree with you that the Gentile Times not ending in 1914 would not cause any scriptures to not hold good.  And it may seem like it's no big deal one way or the other, as your post seems to indicate.  But there's something else in what the WTS teaches about that date that would have to be revised as well.  Take a look:

Luke 21:24 “And Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations, until the appointed times of the nations [“times of the Gentiles,” KJ, RS] are fulfilled.”

In the appendix of the Bible Teach book, this scripture in Luke 21:24 is tied to this one in Ezekiel 21:27:

Ezekiel 21:27 "It will not belong to anyone until the one who has the legal right comes, and I will give it to him.”

And this is explained as "The one who has the legal right" to the Davidic crown is Christ Jesus.  So the 'trampling' would end when Jesus became King. [bh p.216-218]

And this in turn is said to mark the fulfillment of Revelation 12:5 "And she gave birth to a son, a male, who is to shepherd all the nations with an iron rod," which you believe was the birth of the Messianic Kingdom in 1914 showing that Jesus had become King.

It would mean, then, that the WTS has been wrong yet again about the presence of Jesus (teaching in 1914 that it had already taken place in 1874), which calls to mind the following scriptures from Matthew 24:

Matthew 24:23-27 "Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look! Here is the Christ,’ or, ‘There!’ do not believe it.  For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will perform great signs and wonders so as to mislead, if possible, even the chosen ones.  Look! I have forewarned you. Therefore, if people say to you, ‘Look! He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; ‘Look! He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it.  For just as the lightning comes out of the east and shines over to the west, so the presence of the Son of man will be."

 

[Evacuated]

8 hours ago, HollyW said:

calls to mind the following scriptures from Matthew 24:

Thanks for reminding me of the warning Jesus gave about false Christs and prophets. It is comforting to know that Jesus as Head of the Congregation is just as alert today as he was in the 1st Century to provide timely warning and direction to his faithful and sincere followers on this danger, (compare Acts 1:6-7).

Despite the attempts of the false Christs and prophets to mislead his sheep, the spirit of his words at John 17:12 and the quotation from them at John 18:9  “Of those whom you have given me, I have not lost a single one.” signifies the ultimate and complete failure of any schemes to mislead his faithful followers in this regard.

Whether that constitutes a "big deal one way or the other", I will leave the readers to judge.

[HollyW]

19 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Thanks for reminding me of the warning Jesus gave about false Christs and prophets.  .

You're quite welcome, Eoin.  

It means, doesn't it, that for the WTS to say, "Here's the Christ" in 1876 (pointing back to 1874) it was a false claim. They've admitted it was false---well, that was probably not the word that was used---"error" is probably closer to what they've said.

And, of course, in 1914 they were still saying "Here's the Christ", still pointing back to 1874, AND they were saying the birth of the Messianic kingdom in Revelation 12:6,7 was the birth of the Antichrist! (see Ch. 12 of "The Finished Mystery" of 1917).

So If the gentile times did not end in 1914, the WTS would again be in the position of having falsely proclaimed, "Here is the Christ!"

Since they've tied Jesus' becoming King with that date, that belief who have to be adjusted, as would---here's a thought!!---as would the good news of the kingdom being established in heaven in 1914.  It would be an event JWs would still be waiting for just as they are now awaiting the appointment of the Anointed over all the Master's belongings (an appointment that had been presumed to have occurred in 1919).

However, you may still consider this no big deal one way or the other.

[Evacuated]

7 hours ago, HollyW said:

you may still consider this no big deal one way or the other.

With respect, judge for yourself and not for me on that one.

Discussions and expectations about dates have presumably been going on one way or another ever since Jesus said he would return. (Matt. 24:3, Acts 1:7).  In fact, disputes over Christ's presence were foretold as a feature of the "last days" 2 Pet. 3:3-4. And this is not limited to religious entities either: Dan. 7:23-25. So there is nothing new or unexpected here.

Despite it all, Jehovah's Witnesses continue to develop, grow, prosper, and seem to be successful in whatever they turn their hands to, even if it means surviving and outliving vicious attempts to slander and persecute them and prevent their activity. And this in the face of changes, refinements, adjustments, (and whatever else you want to call it), to their doctrine, organisational structure, and procedure. So there is no reason to expect this to change in the future.

1Tim 2:1-6 is a big deal for me however. The supplications and prayers etc. requested by the apostle Paul appear to be having the desired effect.

[HollyW]

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

 So there is no reason to expect this to change in the future.

I think that's what we're talking about, Eoin----there's every reason to expect change in the future, even of the date 1914 for the end of the Gentile times.  And when that change takes place, there will be a number of other teachings that will go with it.

 

 

[Evacuated]

As I said @HollyW,  there is no reason to expect the process of change to cease. It is the essence of life after all.  

[HollyW]

4 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

As I said @HollyW,  there is no reason to expect the process of change to cease. It is the essence of life after all.  

Well, I'd be among the last one to tell you to keep clinging to an incorrect teaching such as the Gentile times ending in 1914, and it's good that you're open to changing your belief about it, even expecting to do so from the sounds of things.  That's the thing to do, isn't it, when a teaching you believed was based on the Bible turns out to be based instead on the speculations and expectations of men.

So, the Gentile times did not end in 1914, Jesus did not become King in 1914, the Messianic kingdom was not born in 1914, the presence of Jesus did not begin in 1914, and no inspection took place between 1914 and 1919, therefore no appointment of a faithful slave took place in 1919.

You can see the domino effect dropping 1914 would have, which might be why it hasn't been changed yet.

[Evacuated]

2 hours ago, HollyW said:

So, the Gentile times did not end in 1914, Jesus did not become King in 1914, the Messianic kingdom was not born in 1914, the presence of Jesus did not begin in 1914, and no inspection took place between 1914 and 1919, therefore no appointment of a faithful slave took place in 1919.

This is weird. It sounds like The Apost(ates)Creed.

Anyway, as I think I touched on before, no one mentioned in Hebrews 11:1-38 knew anything of these disputes and yet Heb.11:39 (in part) says: 'all of these......received a favorable witness because of their faith'. I'll stick with them I think.