Russell Says The Jews Are Superior Morally and Intellectually?

By Ronald R. Day, Sr.

The following is from "Bloodlines of the Illuminati," written by Fritz Springmeier.

Russell Says The Jews Are Superior Morally and Intellectually

Russell preached that the Jews are superior to Christians morally and intellectually.

"Judged in this broad, general way, who will dispute that the twelve million Jews are not in advance of the average of Christendom intellectually and morally?" C.T. Russell.

That's quite appropriate for a man who has turned the Messiah basically into a collection of Jews. Russell's hatred for Christianity could serve the interests of any group bent on Christendom's destruction.

The above contains a quote from a sermon of Brother Russell. Below is a link to the entire sermon:

Jews Not to be Converted to Christianity

If one reads what Russell actually said in context, it should become apparent that Russell had just described scripturally the mission of the true church and separateness of the world of the true church that is enrolled in heaven, and showing that the vast majority of those professing to be Christian are only Christian in name only. It is from this standpoint as related to the millions of professing Christians who were not giving in evidence of actually being consecrated to service of Christ that Brother Russell was speaking as being a broad general way of most Christians that Brother Russell compared the Jew to both "intellectually and morally." Russell was not saying that the Jew is inherently superior to those of Christendom, but he was speaking of his observation in which he could see that most Jews were far ahead of most professing Christians both morally and intellectually. 

Earlier in the study being quoted from above, Brother Russell criticizes the Jews:

The Jewish rabbis give practically all of their attention to the reading of prayers in the synagogue, which the people could do as well for themselves, and to the killing of the cattle, which can be done better by our great beef trusts -- which indeed do the most of it and then leave it for the rabbis to mark "kosher." God's Word through the Prophet applies to Jews as well as to Christians --"My people perish for lack of knowledge;" [Hosea 4:6] "There is a famine in the land, not for bread, but for the hearing (understanding) of the Word of the Lord." [Amos 8:11]

In this quote, he classifies both the Jew as well as the Christians as lacking in knowledge. 

Christendom

Christendom, as Brother Russell used it, refers to the alleged "Christian" kingdoms of the earth as supposedly the kingdom of Christ; Brother Russell stated in the study quoted above: 

But Christendom is not the Church of Christ at all. The term is a misnomer. It signifies Christ's Kingdom; whereas Christ's Kingdom, Messiah's Kingdom, is not yet, but is still waited for by the Jews and by the true Church --the saintly "little flock" of the New Testament. Both Jews and saintly Christians still pray, "Thy Kingdom come; Thy will be done;" and both still recognize that Messiah's Kingdom is the need of the world, and the hope of the world--and both are waiting for it.

Being a false "Christ's kingdom," and filled with sectarianism, such must come to an end in order for the peoples of these so-called "Christian" nations to be freed so as to learn how to serve God with one consent in the millennium. -- Isaiah 2:2-4; 26:9; Zephaniah 3:9.

By the same line of reasoning, we should realize that what is now what is often called Judaism is not what is to be approved by God, but rather the true Judaism which is to eventually accept Jesus as their Messiah under the new covenant which Brother Russell believed was yet future (and we believe is still yet future).  However, one could say, however, that true Judaism is in harmony with true Christianity. Thus, Brother Russell stated, evidently speaking of true Judaism: "Jesus and his apostles expounded the harmony between Christianity and Judaism, nevertheless comparatively few Christians today seem to grasp the subject clearly." -- "Christianity and the Law." Watch Tower, April 1, 1912, page 117.

And yet, so must present-day traditional Judaism and its blindness (*** add references) must be taken away, thus freeing the Jewish people so that may be enlightened so as to serve Jehovah with one consent. (Isaiah 2:2-4; Zephaniah 3:9) This cannot be done without their acceptance of Jesus as being their Messiah. Brother Russell stated, ""We understand one of the first things of the new order of things will be pouring upon Israel their share of the blessings and their eyes will be opened to recognize Him whom they rejected more than eighteen hundred years ago." -- What Pastor Russell Said, page 94.

Illuminati Bloodline

Any approval of the idea of there being any such "Illuminati Bloodline," as described by various "conspiracy" theorists, automatically rejects the Bible, and the basis of the ransom for all as revealed in the Bible, since Christ died for all who are dying in Adam. Adam and all of Adam's descendants are condemned in Adam. (Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22) We find nothing in the Bible about any special condemned bloodlines in our time. Russell only believed in one condemned bloodline (although he never used the word "bloodline"), that all races are descended from one blood (Acts 17:26), and that since all are condemned in one man, then only one sinless man is needed to redeem the entire human race. The Bible does not teach, nor did Russell teach, anything about any bloodlines today that are outside the power of the blood of Jesus to redeem.

It is the Bible itself, however, that shows that the Jewish people were alone chosen by God to receive the Law, and to the extent that any Jew would seek to keep that Law,  would, of course, result in better moral standards than all other nations. Was God being racist to do this? From the standpoint of the carnally-minded, it would seem so; it is only as one appreciates God's overall purposes that one can begin to comprehend the details of God's purposes.

Additionally, it is totally false that Russell turned the Messiah "into a collection of Jews." Jesus, of course, was indeed a Jew, but the body of Christ is mostly Gentiles, taken from all tribes and nations of the earth.

Russell's Alleged Hatred for Christanity

Russell had no hatred for Christianity. Only someone who is totally ignorant of what Russell taught or one who has a somewhat willful desire to misrepresent Russell would consider any idea that Brother Russell hated Christianity. In the sermon quoted above, Brother Russell stated:

The world misunderstands Christianity; so do the majority of Christians. The general misconception is, that the Church of Christ is in the world as a reformatory institution--to give the world correct moral ideas and to help keep them out of drunkard graves and from all kinds of licentiousness, brutality, profanity, etc. Indeed, the world measures Christianity by its success in fighting down these evils, and many Christians have the same false views.

This does not sound like Brother Russell was expressing a hatred for Christianity, but rather that he was defending Christianity, although he does point some false concepts of what many think that Christianity is supposed to be doing.

Russell, however, most often spoke of those who belong to Christ as being "Christian." Russell did, at times, refer to "nominal Christianity," noting an adherence to Christianity in name only. While one could say he hated the disobedience of Jesus as shown in actions and beliefs of nominal Christianity, he had no hatred for Christianity itself. In many cases, I would have quote extremely long portions of what Russell wrote in order for the reader to understand how Brother Russell spoke of a false or nominal Christianity as opposed to true Christianity. Here are a couple of short quotes from Russell regarding Christianity that could be easily understood:

Christianity is not selfish, but the reverse. -- Watch Tower, March 15, 1909, page 91.

This certainly doesn't sound like he hated Christianity.

True science has never contradicted the Bible; has never touched it but to confirm. The same God made both the world and the Word, so that there can be no contradiction. It is only false science that has seemed -- or been made to appear -- in conflict with Christianity. -- Watch Tower, September 1, 1904, page 262

If Russell hated Christianity, why would he seek to defend Christianity in relation to what he calls "false science"?

For more related to this see:
https://rlctr.blogspot.com/p/racist.html

The Color Line Found Necessary

 We are reproducing below a portion from an article from the Watch Tower, April 1, 1914, that is often misrepresented as proof that Brother Russell was a racist.

While it seems that Brother Russell gave a solid explanation of their decision, many still wish to force this into making it appear that Brother Russell was "racist" in choosing to have the colored seated separate from the whites.  It was standard at that time that white and blacks did not sit together in such meetings. In many places, it was even illegal for blacks and whites to congregate together.

This, however, was a public showing; it was not a meeting simply for the Bible Students. Please note that, as best as we can determine, it was not Brother Russell nor the Bible Students who were demanding not to be seated along with the blacks, it appears to be people from the public, many of whom certainly belonged to and/or attended various churches. Evidently, the situation was such that it appeared that these while people may have disrupted the showing of the Photo-Drama if the blacks were allowed to sit alongside them. Thus Brother Russell considered that he had to decide either to cancel the showing to avoid racial confrontation, or have blacks seated separately so that the Photo Drama could be shown. We do not believe that Brother Russell's decision to put God first makes him a "racist."

Nor should one judge Brother Russell according to later concepts related to racism. For instance, some have claimed that his usage of the term "colored" was itself racist. This would appear to be based on later concepts of offensive "racist" words some have created, which ideas did not exist when Russell was alive. Brother Russell certainly would not have been aware that anyone considered the word "colored" to be offensive to anyone, and as far we can determine none at that time objected to use of the word "colored." It would not be fair to think that Brother Russell should abide by later concepts that did not exist when he was alive.

Good sense makes one slow to anger,

and it is his glory to overlook an offense.

Proverbs 19:11, English Standard Version.

Did Russell Separate From and Later Divorce His Wife?

 

A poster in a forum that appears to no longer exist, made the following claim::

"Charles Taze Russell separated from his wife Maria and later divorced…without a scriptural basis."

Another, among many other false claims concerning Russell, made the following statement: "In court he claimed to be a Greek scholar [The truth is that Russell never made any such claim in court or out of court], yet in court he could not identify the Greek alphabet.  He lied under sworn oath and proved himself a perjurer.  [Russell never proved himself to be a perjurer.] In court it was discovered that he divorced his wife and gave his wife alimony."

Another claims "There are transcripts of his trail when he divorced his wife, because she accused him of groping other women. And his tombstone is a pyramid with the masonic symbol. [The pyramid is not Russell's tombstone, nor does it have any masonic symbol.] You can google the images."

Did Russell separate himself from his wife? No!

Did Russell later divorce his wife? No!

Actually, it was Mrs. Russell who separated from her husband, and and it was she who later filed for divorce; the court decision actually amounted to a legal separation. Brother Russell, of course, had no control over what his wife sought to do.

Here is some pertinent information from Joseph Rutherford's A Great Battle in the Ecclesiastical Heavens concerning this matter:

Without notice, [Russell's wife] voluntarily separated herself from him in 1897, nearly eighteen years after their marriage. For nearly seven years she lived separate and apart from him, he furnishing her a separate home.

There is much more that could be said, but this gives a summation.

The Wikipedia article on Charles Taze Russell correctly reports:

Maria Russell filed a suit for legal separation in the Court of Common Pleas at Pittsburgh in June 1903 and three years later filed for divorce under the claim of mental cruelty.... She was granted a separation, with alimony, in 1908.

Rutherford, in his book mentioned before also stated:

It has been remarked by a number of lawyers who have read the record in this case that "no court has ever before granted a separation upon so slight testimony as appears in this case."

***

There never has been an absolute divorce of either of the parties.

While in Ireland in the year 1911, Russell reported an event that is related to this:

The questions were of the usual order and were answered fully and promptly and to the apparent satisfaction of all the audience except the "Y.M.C.A." rowdies. One of the questions was inspired by an attack made on me there recently by the Rev. Dr. Torry. It was, "Is it true that you are divorced from your wife?"

I replied that my topic was, "Which Is the True Gospel?" and that my home affairs and my relationship to my God were my personal affairs. Nevertheless I would answer the question. "I am not divorced from my wife. The decree of the court was not divorce, but separation, granted by a sympathetic jury, which declared that we would both be happier separated. My wife's charge was cruelty, but the only cruelty put in evidence was my refusal on one occasion to give her a kiss when she had requested it." I assured my audience that I disputed the charge of cruelty and believed that no woman was ever better treated by a husband. The applause showed that the audience believed my statements. -- Watch Tower, December 1, 1911, page 436.

At any rate, it is apparent that Mrs. Russell was never actually granted a full divorce.