The Plan of the Ages (1886) – Charles Taze Russell’s First Book

📘 The Plan of the Ages (1886) – Summary & Analysis

🔹 Title:

The Plan of the Ages (originally Volume 1 of Millennial Dawn, later renamed Studies in the Scriptures)

🔹 Author:

Charles Taze Russell

🔹 Publication Year:

1886

🔹 Purpose of the Book:

Russell sought to lay out what he believed to be God’s systematic plan for humanity from creation to the end of the millennium. He claimed the mainstream churches had lost the true understanding of the Bible and intended his book to correct doctrinal errors and restore “true” Christianity.

Public Domain Use

The Plan of the Ages, written by Charles Taze Russell and first published in 1886, is in the public domain. As it was published well before January 1, 1929, and no copyright renewal or restrictions apply, this work is no longer under copyright protection under U.S. law. It may be freely copied, shared, reproduced, or reformatted without permission or payment of royalties.

1886_The_Plan_Of_The_Ages_1st_Ed Download

🔍 Summary of Content

Dispensational Timeline
Russell divides human history into three epochs:
- The World That Was (from Adam to the flood),
- The Present Evil World (from the flood to Christ’s second coming),
- The World to Come (Christ’s thousand-year reign).
Christ’s Return
He teaches that Jesus Christ returned invisibly in 1874 and that this marked the beginning of the harvest period leading to Armageddon and the eventual paradise earth.
Rejection of Eternal Hell
Russell argued against eternal torment, teaching instead that the wicked would be annihilated or given a second chance during the Millennium.
Restorationism
He preached that mankind would be resurrected in a new earthly paradise and be given a chance to follow Christ during the Millennium.
Chronology
Russell tied biblical prophecy to a timeline that predicted key dates like 1799 (beginning of the “time of the end”), 1874 (Christ’s invisible return), and 1914 (end of the Gentile Times).
The Ransom Doctrine
Emphasized the idea that Jesus’ death was a “ransom for all,” distinguishing between the “Church” class who would go to heaven and the rest of humanity who would live forever on Earth.

⚠️ Major Issues & Criticisms

#	Issue	Description
1	False Prophecy: 1874 Invisible Return	Claimed Christ returned invisibly in 1874, which was later replaced by the 1914 teaching.
2	Wrong Date for Armageddon (1914)	Predicted the end of the world in 1914. When it didn’t happen, the meaning of the date was reinterpreted.
3	Failed Chronology	Used speculative calculations based on flawed prophetic timelines and pyramid measurements.
4	Pyramidology	Relied on the Great Pyramid of Giza to confirm Bible prophecy—a teaching later discarded by the organization.
5	Christology	Described Jesus as a created being and not equal with God, contradicting mainstream Christian doctrine.
6	No Hellfire Doctrine	Denied eternal punishment in hell, a view that sharply diverges from traditional Christian beliefs.
7	No Trinity	Rejected the Trinity, labeling it a pagan invention—also a major departure from historical Christianity.
8	Universal Resurrection Belief	Taught that nearly all of humanity, including the wicked, would be resurrected and given a second chance.
9	Inconsistent with Later JW Teachings	Modern Jehovah’s Witnesses have reversed or revised many doctrines taught in this volume.
10	Authoritarian Tone	Russell implied that rejecting his books was equivalent to rejecting God’s guidance, elevating his writings to near-canonical status.

Final Thoughts

You know, it’s interesting when you really go back and look at what Brother Russell taught in The Plan of the Ages. At the time, he sincerely believed that Jesus had returned invisibly in 1874 and that 1914 would mark the end of this system of things. Obviously, that didn’t happen. We now teach that Jesus returned invisibly in 1914 and that Armageddon is still ahead of us. But it’s not just that one date—there were several teachings that were quite different from what we believe now. For instance, Russell used measurements from the Great Pyramid in Egypt to confirm Bible prophecy. He even called it “God’s Stone Witness.” But we’ve since rejected pyramidology as unscriptural. He also taught that faithful men from ancient times—like Abraham and Isaac—would be resurrected in 1925. That, too, didn’t happen.

A lot of the doctrines in Russell’s early work have been completely revised. Back then, the understanding of the “superior authorities” in Romans 13 was that they referred to Jehovah and Jesus. Today, we teach that those authorities refer to earthly governments. And while Russell rejected the Trinity, hellfire, and the immortality of the soul—which we still agree with—many of the details about Christ’s presence, the 144,000, and the timing of the end have changed significantly.

The explanation we’re given is that Jehovah uses “new light” to progressively reveal truth to His people. Proverbs 4:18 is often cited: “The path of the righteous is like the bright morning light that grows brighter and brighter.” So even though many of Russell’s teachings were later discarded, we’re told that he was being used as a stepping stone toward fuller understanding. That may be comforting to some, but for others, it raises questions.

The issue is that we’ve always been told that “new light” never contradicts old light—it simply clarifies or builds on it. But how can that be true if teachings like the 1874 vs. 1914 return of Christ were completely reversed? If the old light was from Jehovah, why would He allow it to be wrong? Failed prophetic dates and reversed interpretations undermine confidence in current teachings, especially when they were once presented as divinely guided truths. Members who devoted their lives to these teachings—including giving up education, careers, and relationships—often find out decades later that the very foundation they were built on was quietly swept away.

This leads to something deeper: a lack of accountability. The Governing Body today claims to be neither inspired nor infallible, yet they speak authoritatively on Jehovah’s behalf. When past teachings fail, they simply call it “new light” and move on—without acknowledging the real impact these failed teachings had on people’s lives. There’s also a tendency to gloss over or even revise organizational history, which creates a sanitized version of events for newer members.

All of this can leave many sincere Witnesses quietly wondering: If Jehovah is guiding the organization, why does so much of the “truth” keep changing?