Quotes from Russell
In his “Serpent” book FS states: “Russell did healing with magic handkerchiefs.”
No proof is ever offered of this, nor is there any mention anywhere in his writings of his employing such “healing” method. Again it appears that FS is simply made this up and assumed such and presented his assumptions as though they were fact.
Someone else stated that Russell spoke of healing handkerchiefs in the July 1888 Watch Tower. What did Russell actually say there?
Notice also the apostles. They too had the gift of healing as well as privileges of prayer, but they never used these for themselves. In all the records we find no instance of the exercise of the gift of healing on behalf of any of the apostles or any of the church; nor have we any record of prayer for health, or other earthly blessings, being offered by any of them for themselves or each other, except in one case–that of Paul (2 Cor. 12:7-9); and his request was not granted, but he was told that instead he should have a sufficiency of grace to compensate and enable him to bear it patiently. This should strike the attention of all.
Though Paul’s request for himself was refused — God seeing that Paul’s affliction of weak eyes could be made to work out to his glory and Paul’s advantage — yet his gift to heal others was marvelous: “And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul, so that from his body were brought unto the sick, handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them.” (Acts 19:12) Yet, mark the fact that though there is no account of the healing of the sick among the early disciples, it was not because they were not sick, for several instances of sickness are recorded. Paul writes to Timothy, “Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick;” and again he writes to Timothy, who was evidently often troubled with weak digestion or dyspepsia, to use wine as a medicine; saying, “Use no longer water [exclusively], but take a little wine for thy stomach’s sake, and for thine often infirmities.” (1 Tim. 5:23.) In neither of these cases did Paul send handkerchiefs or aprons from his person, nor does he mention either praying for their recovery, or advice to them to so pray. Evidently these cases should teach us that the gifts of healing, and prayer for the recovery of the sick were used, not upon the saints, but rather through them upon others, for the purpose of calling attention to the apostles and their teachings as being approved by God.
Did Russell here speak of himself as using “healing handkerchiefs”? Actually, all Russell did quote the Bible itself at Acts 19:12, which speaks of handkerchiefs in connection with the healing through Paul. If this is what FS refers to, then he is really making this accusation against the apostle Paul, not Charles Taze Russell. Nevertheless, FS must have been aware of this if he knew something of this, and if he did, then he is willfully misrepresenting the facts. This leads us to think that the spirit behind FS statements is the devil and his demons. FS appears to be claiming to be working in harmony with the spirit of light, the spirit of truth, when in actuality his words show that the spirit behind him is a spirit of deception.
True, as we have frequently pointed out, those who live near to the Lord, and who are guided by his counsel respecting moderation in word, in thought, in act, are better prepared than others to withstand disease, or if attacked by disease are better prepared to recover from it, and on the whole we believe that the Lord’s consecrated people enjoy much better health after than before giving themselves fully to the Lord, seeking to live according to his standard. But this, we take it, is generally the result of a better course of living, rather than the interposition of divine providence. Looking back to the days of the Apostles, we find that there is no record that the Lord or the Apostles ever healed the infirmities of the consecrated ones. Our Lord and also the Apostles healed the multitudes, but not the disciples. And the Apostle Paul, who sent handkerchiefs and napkins to the sick, far and near (Acts 19:12), sent no napkin or handkerchief or anointing oil to Timothy when he was sick. On the contrary, he advised the use of wine medicinally, and remarked that Timothy’s ailment was not a trifling nor a temporary one, but rather a chronic disorder–“thine often infirmities.” (1 Tim. 5:23.)
It should be self-evident that Russell was again speaking of the apostle Paul, not of himself, as the one who was using handkerchiefs related to healing. And again, FS would, in effect, be speaking against the apostle Paul, not Russell.
Another place in Russell’s works that we have found a reference to handkerchiefs related to healing is in one of Russell’s Sermons, entitled “An Uninspired Record” (Referring to Mark 16:17,18, which Russell considered to be an interpolation), in which he stated:
The times of Restitution have not yet come, and will not come, as the Apostle points out, until the second advent of our Lord. (Acts 3:19-21) Now we are in the time when work the very reverse of this is in operation-a sacrificing work. All will admit that our Lord did not use His healing powers on His own behalf, but that, on the contrary, He sacrificed, laid down, His life in the service of truth and righteousness; that in three and a half years He so spent His vitality-when “virtue went out of Him and healed them all”-that at the time of His crucifixion He was very weak, as evidenced by the bloody sweat and the fact that He was not able to bear His own cross as did the others in the procession. All will admit that the apostles did not use their powers for their own restoration, nor have we any record of their ever praying for the healing of themselves or for each other to be healed of disease.
Even when Trophimus was sick, nigh unto death, the Apostle makes no intimation of prayer for his healing; and when Timothy had dyspepsia, instead of praying for his restoration of health, or sending him a blest handkerchief or napkin, the Apostle wrote him respecting his diet, “for thy stomach’s sake and thy often infirmities.” (1 Tim. 5:23) All must admit, then, that the healings were done upon those outside the Church, and evidently were for a time only, and would constitute no basis that the Church should expect miraculous intervention on behalf of its members. Quite to the contrary, these were all exhorted to lay down their lives, to seek not to spare them, save them, which implied not praying for their deliverance from those diseases or ailments which came to them as the result of their self-denials, services, self-sacrifices. Rather they were to delight in these, while exercising a reasonable prudence and care, which would make the most of all earthly advantages as a part of the stewardship to be used in the service of the Master.
Again, there is nothing in this record that states any about Russell ever using “healing handkerchiefs.” Russell does mention the apostle Paul, evidently referring again to Biblical record as recorded in Acts 19:12, only in this case Russell makes the point that Paul did not employ any kind of miraculous healing, including using handkerchiefs, with Timothy. It is obvious that again Russell is not referring to himself as using any kind of healing by means of handkerchiefs, but that he was referring to the apostle Paul. Nevertheless, it would appear that FS’ complaint is against the apostle Paul, and not Charles Taze Russell.
When Lazarus fell sick, the sisters sent Him word, “He whom Thou lovest is sick.” They manifested their faith and submission also as to what answer would come –as to whether He would simply send word, or bless a handkerchief, or what not. They felt that He would care for them–being a special friend of the family.
Here Russell was speaking of Jesus, not himself, as blessing a handkerchief. Evidently, Russell was reasoning that if the apostle of Jesus could heal via handkerchiefs, surely the Master could do so, although we do not have any scripture that shows that Jesus actually ever blessed a handkerchief. Nevertheless, Russell was not speaking of himself, but of Jesus, evidently based on what the scripture says about Paul, an apostle of Jesus.
The last reference we have found is to that in the Volume 6 of Studies in the Scriptures, page 663, where we find the following that Russell wrote concerning the apostle Paul:
as the record shows, never once was this healing power used in his own relief, nor in the relief of any of those who are set before us as the saints, the fully consecrated. Nor was this because the saints of that time were free from disease: on the contrary, we know that Timothy had what we would now designate chronic dyspepsia, or indigestion, and Epaphroditus was not hindered from being sick, yea, “nigh unto death,” not because of sin, but, as the Apostle explains, “because for the work of Christ he was nigh unto death,” hazarding his life. (Phil. 2:25-30) We know not what special foods or medicines the Lord was pleased to bless in the latter case; but in respect to the former one the Apostle neither prayed nor sent a handkerchief or napkin to cure the ailment, but wrote to Timothy, saying, “Use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake, and thine often infirmities.” (1 Tim. 5:23)
While handkerchief and healing are mentioned in the above quotes, we do not find in any of them any idea that Russell used “healing handkerchiefs,” nor do we find any expression that Russell advised anyone else to use “healing handkerchiefs.”
Below are links to sites that are spread the “healing handkerchiefs” deception concerning Charles Taze Russell, as well as many other falsehoods, distortions of facts, misrepresentations, etc., which of course, we do not agree with. Most of the material presented on the pages linked to below have been exposed either in this site, the ctr.reslight.net site, or the rlctr.blogspot.com site.
WARNING! The material presented on the sites listed below presents many deceptions, lies, distortions, misrepresentations, etc.!Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
The following are some quotes from Charles Taze Russell concerning his own view of his works, especially as related to whether he considered his works infallible:
No system of theology should be presented, or accepted, which overlooks or omits the most prominent features of Scripture teaching. We trust, however, that a wide distinction will be recognized between the earnest, sober and reverent study of prophecy and other scriptures, in the light of accomplished historic facts, to obtain conclusions which sanctified common sense can approve, and a too common practice of general speculation, which, when applied to divine prophecy, is too apt to give loose rein to wild theory and vague fancy. Those who fall into this dangerous habit generally develop into prophets (?) instead of prophetic students. – 1886; “The Divine Plan of the Ages”, pg. 13
Neither must you lean upon the DAWN and the TOWER as infallible teachers. If it was proper for the early Christians to prove what they received from the apostles, who were and who claimed to be inspired, how much more important it is that you fully satisfy yourself that these teachings keep closely within their outline instructions and those of our Lord;–since their author claims no inspiration, but merely the guidance of the Lord, as one used of him in feeding his flock.
Indeed, time and again I have seen that the teachings of those who make utterances of their own, but in the name of Christ, by claimed inspiration, or special revelations, or boasted wisdom (which is the real spirit of popery), and without proof from the Scripture, are received by many. And I am confident that the DAWN and TOWER would have many more friends and believers if they followed this (popery’s) course;–for as some one has said, “People prefer to be humbugged.” But such a course I dare not follow; I must be true to the Lord and declare his Word, and let him take charge of the consequences. -1893; letter written by Pastor Russell, published in “The Watch Tower”, June, 1893 pg. 168
The account [of Matthew 24:45-51] contains no suggestion of either the inspiration or infallibility of “that servant.” This distinction belongs only to the Lord, the Apostles and the prophets…. There certainly is no intimation that the “household” is cut off from access to, or feeding on, the Word of God; neither by “that servant” nor by “his fellow servants.” None of the “servants” are to come between the “household” of faith and God’s Word. On the contrary, each one of the “household” is to prove all that he accepts as spiritual food, whether he gets it from the Bible himself or from “that servant” or from “his fellow servants.” None of these servants are “lords over God’s heritage”; their highest privilege will be to serve, and the only difference between “that servant” and “his fellow servants” will be that his service will be more general, a wider service.
More perhaps than any other servant, ZION’S WATCH TOWER has opposed the thought that the Church of Christ is composed of a clerical class commissioned to teach, and a lay class not commissioned to teach the divine Word: it specially has held up the inspired words, “all ye are brethren” and “one is your Master”; and has pointed out that all consecrated believers are of the “royal priesthood” each fully commissioned, not to “lord it” over others, but to sacrifice himself in the service of the truth, doing good unto all, especially to the household of faith. So with the servants of Matt. 24:49; service is their only commission, not lordship or self-appointment. All the members of the “body” are “anointed to preach” the gospel, and instructed to search the Scriptures, as we have heretofore clearly shown. This has been true ever since Pentecost, and is as true as ever to-day. — Zion’s Watch Tower, June 15, 1896, pages 139,140
We claim no infallibility for our presentations, nor do we simply offer our opinions and conjectures, after the manner of the scribes and Pharisees; but rather after the manner of the great Teacher, we seek to present to the minds of those interested the teachings of Moses and the prophets, and to voice the testimony of Jesus and the apostles, and to show the harmony of the Scriptures. — Zion’s Watch Tower, April 15, 1901, page 136
“We preach not ourself but Christ. We substantiate nothing except by his Word. We make no laws, formulate no creed, deprive no sheep of his full liberty in Christ; but merely on every question quote the Word of the Lord, through the apostles and prophets. We boast nothing, claim nothing of ourself. We are content to serve the Lord and his flock to the best of our ability–exacting no tithes, no “honor of men,” no confession of authority, no compensation; hoping merely for the love of the Lord and of those who are his children and have his Spirit. So far from forming or desiring to form a new sect, we ignore all sectarian systems and their claimed authority; we recognize only the “one Lord, one Faith and one Baptism” of the Scriptures and fellowship as a “brother” every person of decent morals who confesses faith in the “redemption through the blood of Christ,” and especially all of this class who profess a full consecration to the Lord’s will and service,– whatever sect they may be in, or outside of all” -1906; “The Watch Tower”, January 1, 1906 pg. 20
I hasten to assure you that I have never laid claim to infallibility. I do not expect to be infallible until by the Lord’s grace I shall share a part in the First Resurrection; then, that which is perfect having come, that which is in part shall be done away; we shall see as we are seen and know as we are known. We accept the writings by the twelve apostles as being so supervised of the Lord as to be free from any error. He himself said of the writers, the apostles, Whatsoever ye shall bind, enforce, on earth will be that which is recognized as bound or enforced in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose or release from on earth shall be loosed or released from in heaven. Hence we may regard the presentations of those twelve men, intended of the Lord to be his special representatives under the holy Spirit’s dispensation, as being infallible, true, inerrant. But there is no ground for believing that any others than the apostles have been so miraculously holden by the power of God as were those twelve, or that we have any authority in the Word of God for considering the words and writings of others as being above or beyond testing and proving by the Scriptures. This has invariably been our presentation. It has been our endeavor to present the Word of God faithfully as he has given us to understand it–to our own Master we stand or fall. Nevertheless we trust that our course has the approval also of such of the Lord’s dear people as, led by his Spirit, are now walking in the light of present truth. — Watch Tower, March 15, 1906, page 90.
We have urged and still urge that the dear children of God read studiously what we have presented;–the Scriptures, the applications and interpretations–and then form their own judgments. We neither urge nor insist upon our views as infallible, nor do we smite or abuse those who disagree; but regard as “Brethren” all sanctified believers in the precious blood. — Zion’s Watch Tower, October 1, 1907, page 294.
We try to be careful about every word that goes into the Watch Tower, but we do not claim to be infallible; we are doing the best we can. (What Pastor Russell Said, Q56:1, 1910)
The Scriptures do indeed say that we may render honor to him to whom honor is due, and that is applicable to anybody and everybody; as, for instance, we look back and we see Martin Luther, and he did a grand work, and we thank God for him; and we might say the same of John Wesley, and very truthfully; I am glad in God’s providence he lived, and that he was a faithful man. And there were others of the Lord’s people in the past. Let us be glad and rejoice in every one, and be thankful to God he has used various agencies in helping us, and in helping others, and in bringing forward his great cause; but let us not go into anything that would be at all like man-worship, for I am sure that would be displeasing to the Lord and injurious to ourslves. I remind you again of the Scripture in Revelations where the Church is pictured, which we called attention to, I believe, thirty years ago. John, the revelator, who was seeing these things, fell down to worship the angel who showed them to him, and the angel said, “See thou do it not; worship God; I am thy fellowservant.”
And so, dear friends, if our Heavenly Father and our Heavenly Lord have used Brother Russell in any measure he is very glad and very thankful to be used. And if the Lord is pleased to use him any more, he will be glad to be used down to the last breath, but he does not want any worship, he does not want any undue adoration, he does not want any praise. He is glad to have the love of all those who are brethren of the Lord and to be considered a fellow-servant with all, striving to bring to pass all the glorious things that God has promised, striving to tell the good tidings of great joy to as many as the Lord, our God, shall call.” -1910; Convention Discourse (“Convention Report Sermons”, pg. 125)
Some people try to make out that I claim I am infallible, and know everything. You are all witnesses that that is not true. — 1911, What Pastor Russell Said, Question 14:1.
We are expecting in October, 1914, that a great change will be due. Now, how quickly will it come? Whether on the stroke of the clock or not we do not know. We believe that it will land upon humanity by that time. Perhaps some of it will come before that, but we believe it will be stayed off until that time. Now, dear friends, what if it does not? We are just as well off as the rest. That is what the Bible states. If it does not state that to you, we have no quarrel. And if it does not come we will not try to bring it about. But, on the contrary, we will try to practice peace and holiness withal. We are children of peace and peacemakers, not strife breeders. But we believe the Bible teaches October, 1914, as the time. If that is incorrect for a year, or five, or one hundred years, no matter, it is coming some time, whether we have it right or not. — 1912, Convention Sermon Reports, page 292
If we have made some mistake in the time, it will not matter a bit; we are consecrated to Him unto death. Perhaps the Lord will test us along this line. But I should not mind; I tell you that I am enjoying the Lord, and enjoying the previous Word more and more every day, and if it gets still better by 1914, I don’t know how good it will be. So that, whether we have the exact moment is very immaterial to us; it is quite a secondary matter. But there is no doubt at all that the Kingdom will come–whether in that year, or another year–it is sure to come, “For the Lord of Hosts hath spoken it, and who shall disannul it”? — 1912, Convention Sermon Reports, page 439
We do not claim that we have any infallibility in regard to the matter and our consecration was not made until 1914; our consecration was made until death, and if in the Lord’s providence I shall live longer then the Lord be praised and then I can rejoice just as much in 1916 as 1925, rejoice as much as in this present moment and I shall anticipate that under the Lord’s providence His grace will be more abundant as the years go by and that my joy in the Lord will go on increasing to the very end, but now, so far as we know, it looks from the Scriptures as though a very little while, three years, and less, and we will be in the kingdom. There may be things about it we do not understand and we have no desire to be dogmatic in any sense of the word and do anything rash, but we are trying to learn to appreciate the value of the present things and also the value of the things to come. We are trying to learn to take such a view as Paul did when he said, “I count all these things as loss and dross that I may win Christ and be found in Him”–in the anointed–membership in the Body of that Great Mediator. If He might win that, all other things of the present time might go and this is what is coming more and more into your heart and we are getting more and more lifted out of the selfishness of the world and we are looking beyond to the heavenly things. — 1912, Convention Reports Sermons, page 328
Did Russell demand that others had to agree with his conclusions?
No, unlike the JW leadership, Russell allowed others to disagree with his conclusions. He did not present his conclusions, especially as regards to Bible chronology and time prophecies, as being dogma that had to be accepted by anyone who wished to be associated with the Bible Students. Indeed, his vision who is accepted as a brother in Christ was very broad, as can be seen by his statements:
The Apostle John shows us that this matter of distinguishing as between brethren that are to be esteemed and brethren that are to be warned, appertains not merely to conduct but also to doctrinal matters. Yet we may be sure that he does not mean that we are to disfellowship a brother merely because of some differences of view on non-essential questions. We may be sure that he does mean his words to apply strictly and only to the fundamentals of the doctrine of Christ: for instance, faith in God; faith in Jesus as our Redeemer; faith in the promises of the divine Word. [italics added] These will be marks of a “brother,” if supported by Christian conduct, walking after the spirit of the truth;–even tho the brother might have other views which would differ from ours in respect to certain features of the plan of God not so clearly and specifically set forth in the Scriptures. But for those whom we recognize as being doctrinally astray from the foundation principles of Christ, the Apostle intimates that very drastic measures are appropriate;–not persecutions, nor railing; not bitter and acrimonious disputes; not hatred, either open or secret; but a proper showing of our disfellowship with the false doctrines held and taught by them; a proper protection, so that our influence shall not be in any manner or degree used to uphold his denial of the fundamentals of the Gospel. This drastic course is outlined by the Apostle in these words: “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine [confessing Christ to have come into the world, in the flesh, to redeem our race, etc.] receive him not into your house, neither bid him God-speed; for he that biddeth him God-speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” –2 John 10,11. — Watch Tower, July 1, 1902, page 199.
We hold that nothing in these quotations declares the infallibility of the theories we suggested respecting 1914. In these statements, and in all of our statements, we have merely informed our readers respecting our views and the processes of our reasoning on the Scriptures which we have brought to their attention. Thus we have asked each reader to think and judge for himself, and to agree or disagree with us according to his own judgment of the facts.
Notice that in the above quotations no dogmatic statement is made, but that the reader is requested to use his own intellect. For instance, note the words, “bear in mind”; again, “while we proceed to examine the evidence”; again the reference to “Bible evidence.” In the last sentence the author sums up his own views, declaring what he considers to be the truth established by the evidences which he sets before his readers.
In this respect we believe that THE WATCH TOWER presentations differ considerably from others. We state with positiveness the opinions of the writer and the reasons therefor, but leave the final decision with each head and heart in all matters, without attempting more. — Watch Tower, Novemeber 15, 1913, page 344.
Unity of faith is desirable; it is to be striven for–yet not the kind of unity that is generally aimed at. Unity is to be along the lines of “the faith once delivered unto the saints” in its purity and simplicity, and with full liberty to each member to take different views of minor points, and with no instruction whatever in respect to human speculations, theories, etc. The Scriptural idea of unity is upon the foundation principles of the Gospel. (1) Our redemption through the precious blood, and our justification by demonstrated faith therein. (2) Our sanctification, setting apart to the Lord, the Truth and their service–including the service of the brethren. (3) Aside from these essentials, upon which unity must be demanded, there can be no Scriptural fellowship; upon every other point fullest liberty is to be accorded, with, however, a desire to see, and to help others to see, the divine plan in its every feature and detail. Thus each member of the body of Christ, maintaining his own personal liberty, is so thoroughly devoted to the Head and to all the members that it will be his pleasure to lay down all, even life itself, on their behalf. — The New Creation, page 240.
I disclaim any special inspiration. In some particulars my views agree with those of other Bible students, and in other respects they disagree. Each hearer must use his own judgment, do his own Bible study, and reach his own conclusions. — St. Paul Enterprise, November 21, 1916
Some related items online:Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 27 so far )
On the website:
The following is stated concerning Charles Taze Russell
Truth: “A truth presented by Satan himself is just as true as a truth stated by God. . . . Accept truth wherever you find it, no matter what it contradicts” (WT 7/1879, pp. 8-9).
This quotation is from Russell, and it does state a truth. If Satan states something that is true, it does not become a lie simply because he stated it. Nevertheless, Satan often presents a truth in such a way to persuade one to believe in a lie.
However, taking the quote out of context is evidently designed to lead one to believe that Russell was in some way in agreement with, in service of, the devil, occultism, or some form of witchcraft, etc. Let us look at the quote in context:
This question is one which every sincere Christian should ask and seek to answer. We should learn to love and value truth for its own sake; to respect and honor it by owning and acknowledging it wherever we find it and by whomsoever presented. A truth presented by Satan himself is just as true as a truth stated by God.
Perhaps no class of people are more apt to overlook this fact than the Christian. How often do they in controversy overlook and ignore truth presented by their opponents. This is particularly the case when arguing with an infidel. They feel at perfect liberty to dispute everything he says on religious subjects. This is not the correct principle. Many infidels are honest–as anxious to speak and believe the truth as are Christians–and if in converse with them we ignore truths which they may advance, we not only fail to convince them of our truths, but put an end to all hope of reaching them; for our failure to admit the evident truth which they advance begets in them contempt for the one who is not honest enough to admit one truth because he does not see how it can be reconciled to another. Accept truth wherever you find it, no matter what it contradicts, and rely for ability to afterwards harmonize it with others upon “The Spirit of truth, which shall guide you into all truth,” as Jesus promised.
Thus, it becomes obvious as to what Russell was saying. He is likening the infidels who are being used by Satan as though they were Satan; Jesus did something similar when he called the apostle Peter “Satan”. (Matthew 16:23; Mark 8:33) Peter, of course, was not literally Satan, but he was imitating Satan is speaking an untruth. Likewise, the infidels who reject the creative account of the Bible may present a lot of truths in what they say, although they may misrepresent those truths to promote what is not true.
Likewise, if Satan, or his demons speak a truth, it is still true regardless of their purposes for stating the truth. The implication of putting this quote on the site appears to be to imply that the opposite is actually the truth, thus, that absolutely everything Satan says is a lie, and that thus, Satan cannot speak one sentence without everything in that sentence being a lie. Such an idea, if extended to the demons over whom Satan is prince, then the demons lied when they called Jesus: “the son of God,” and “Son of the Most High.” (Matthew 8:29; Mark 3:11; Luke 1:32; 4:41; 8:48) Thus, if they cannot tell the truth at all, then we should believe that it is a lie to say that Jesus is the “Son of God,” or that Jesus is the “Son of the Most High.”
In Job 1:7, we read:
Yahweh said to Satan, “Where have you come from?” Then Satan answered Yahweh, and said, “From going back and forth in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.” — World English Bible translation.
Did Satan lie when he stated the above? Did he lie to Yahweh by saying that he had been going back and forth in the earth, etc.? I have no reason to think that he did so.
But didn’t Jesus say concerning Satan that “there is no truth in him?” — John 8:44, Word English.
Actually, the translators have worded Jesus’ words to have him say this. The more direct translation would be, in reference to “the truth” that Jesus had just spoken of: “the truth is not in him.” (John 8:44) I don’t think Jesus intended to say that Satan can never tell a truth, anymore than he meant that those Jewish leaders to whom he spoke could never tell a truth. However, most often when Satan tells us a truth, it is framed in a setting of a lie, as in Genesis 3:5. By such methods he misrepresents the truth that he states with a lie.
Another motive for quoting Russell as quoted on the site may have been to leave the impression that Russell believed that what Satan says is “the truth,” which is again far from Russell’s intent in his statement. Russell’s works attest of his view concerning Satan, that he was a liar, and the father of the lie, as Jesus said.
For more concerning Charles Taze Russell, see: