"It is to be deeply regretted that the clergymen would oppose an effort to teach the people the Bible truths; nevertheless, we find much opposition everywhere, and many clergymen will attempt to prevent the people from reading what is here written"

Joseph Franklin Rutherford’s statement emerges from a context of religious tension and reform. His words convey not only disappointment but also profound frustration with those in ecclesiastical authority who, in his view, hinder the public’s direct access to biblical teachings. Rutherford presents himself as an advocate for disseminating biblical truths to ordinary people, yet describes a landscape rife with opposition, naming clergymen as particular antagonists to his mission.

Underlying this claim is a broader critique of institutionalized religion, especially those branches or leaders who assert interpretive control over scripture. Rutherford implies that clergy, rather than guiding parishioners towards understanding, act as gatekeepers, obstructing lay access to scripture to maintain ecclesiastical power and doctrinal conformity. There is a suggestion of spiritual elitism: the clergy purportedly believe themselves the proper arbiters of truth, perhaps fearing that unmediated reading might lead to heterodox conclusions, loss of authority, or religious awakening outside their influence.

Rutherford's regret also functions as a rhetorical strategy to align himself with the common citizen against the religious establishment. He frames his advocacy for open Bible study as an egalitarian effort, casting opposition to it as not just mistaken, but morally lamentable. The phrase “we find much opposition everywhere” expands the scope, this is not a localized incident, but a pervasive issue. The statement carries an urgent call for vigilance among readers: access to scriptural truth, unfiltered by ecclesiastical intervention, is being resisted and threatened.

Furthermore, Rutherford’s words summon the tradition of religious reformers throughout history who battled for translation, literacy, and independence from clerical intermediation, echoing figures like Martin Luther or William Tyndale. His lament is freighted with the belief that the spiritual information contained in his writings could reshape individual and collective understanding, if only allowed to reach its intended audience. Thus, the quote stands as both an accusation and a plea for intellectual and spiritual liberation, championing the right and necessity for direct engagement with sacred text.