Three Worlds and the Harvest of This World (1877) – Russell’s First Prophetic Collaboration

📘 Three Worlds and the Harvest of This World (1877)

Charles Taze Russell’s First Prophetic Collaboration

Coauthored with Nelson H. Barbour

🔹 Title:

Three Worlds and the Harvest of This World

🔹 Authors:

N.H. Barbour (primary writer) & Charles Taze Russell (financial backer and contributing author)

🔹 Publication Year:

1877

🔹 Purpose of the Book:

This book attempted to explain a divine prophetic timeline and teach that Jesus Christ had already returned invisibly in 1874. It introduced the idea of three world ages and marked the beginning of Russell’s lifelong fascination with chronology and end-times prophecy.

Public Domain Edition

Three Worlds and the Harvest of This World, originally published in 1877 by N.H. Barbour and Charles Taze Russell, is in the public domain. Because it was published more than 95 years ago and prior to January 1, 1929, it is no longer under copyright protection under U.S. law. This means the text may be freely copied, distributed, reformatted, or published without seeking permission or paying royalties.

1877_Three_Worlds_and_The_Harvest_of_This_World Download

🔍 Summary of Content

Three “Worlds” or Ages
- World One: From Adam to the Flood (ended in destruction)
- World Two: From the Flood to 1874 (an “evil world” under Satan’s influence)
- World Three: Began with Christ’s invisible return in 1874, leading to the cleansing of the earth and final judgment.
Invisible Presence of Christ (Parousia)
- Claimed Christ returned invisibly in autumn 1874 and began the “harvest” of true Christians.
- This “presence” would culminate in visible world events, including judgment and restoration.
Chronological Calculations
- Used Bible-based numerology, including prophetic “days” as years (e.g., 1 day = 1 year), Jubilee cycles, and timelines from Adam to 1874.
- Emphasized that 6,000 years of human history ended in 1873, ushering in Christ’s reign.
Rapture and Resurrection
- Believers would be gradually gathered (“harvested”) and translated to heaven prior to the final destruction of the wicked.
- The resurrection of the dead was also to occur during this Millennial reign.
End of the Gentile Times
- Predicted that 1914 would mark the end of the Gentile dominion over the earth — a date that Russell and later Jehovah’s Witnesses adopted.

⚠️ Major Issues & Criticisms

#	Issue	Description
1	False Prophecy: 1874 Return	No visible or historical events supported the claim of an invisible return in 1874.
2	Speculative Numerology	Dates and events were based on creative but non-rigorous interpretations of prophecy and time periods.
3	Rapture Timing Failed	Implied that faithful Christians would be taken to heaven soon after 1874 — this did not happen.
4	Contradicted Later JW Teachings	Modern JWs teach 1914 as Christ’s return, discarding the 1874 date entirely.
5	Theological Drift	Barbour and Russell later disagreed over the nature of Christ’s return and the ransom, leading to their separation in 1878.
6	No Accountability for Errors	Despite being presented as revealed prophetic truth, the failed teachings were never openly retracted — just abandoned or revised.

🧾 Citations from JW and Historical Sources

Jehovah’s Witnesses—Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom (1993), p. 133: “In 1877, Russell and Barbour jointly published a book entitled Three Worlds and the Harvest of This World. It laid out the chronological calculations leading to 1874 and 1914…”
Watchtower, July 15, 1906, p. 230: “The second coming of the Lord… occurred in the fall of 1874…”
Zion’s Watch Tower, October 1881: Russell publicly acknowledged his early prophetic support of Barbour’s date-setting before parting ways over doctrinal differences.

Final Thoughts

You know, a lot of us don’t realize how foundational Three Worlds and the Harvest of This World was to the early beliefs of the organization. Brother Russell coauthored it with N.H. Barbour, and it was in that book that they first introduced the idea that Jesus returned invisibly in 1874. They were absolutely convinced that Bible chronology pointed to that year, and that we were already living in the “harvest” period leading up to Armageddon. It also predicted that the Gentile Times would end in 1914, which we still hold to — but the original teachings behind that date are very different from what we believe now.

The book was filled with complex prophetic timelines and numerical patterns, trying to line up Bible prophecy with history. They even believed that faithful Christians would be taken to heaven shortly after 1874 — that didn’t happen. In fact, Russell and Barbour split over doctrinal disagreements just a year later in 1878, especially about the nature of the ransom. Russell would go on to refine and repackage many of the ideas into his own writings, but it’s important to know where they started.

The thing is, this wasn’t just some early mistake or guess — it was presented as a deep, God-directed truth. And yet today, we don’t teach any of the major conclusions from that book. The 1874 return, the rapture expectations, the meaning of the harvest — all of it has been dropped or redefined. That raises a tough question: If Jehovah was directing the understanding then, why were those teachings so far off? And if He wasn’t, what does that mean about how we view teachings now?

We always say that the light gets brighter, based on Proverbs 4:18. But this isn’t just light getting brighter — it’s light changing color entirely. It’s one thing to refine understanding, but another to reverse it. And when every generation is told that what they currently believe is “the truth,” only to see it rewritten later, it creates real confusion and doubt. Not everyone says it out loud, but a lot of brothers and sisters feel it deep down.

It’s not about judging Brother Russell or Barbour — they were sincerely trying to understand the Bible. But when teachings claimed to be from Jehovah are quietly abandoned or contradicted later, it challenges the idea that our spiritual food is always coming from a consistent source. If “new light” can completely undo what was once called “truth,” where does that leave us?