1914 Analysis

by Vanderhoven7 19 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

Vanderhoven7

CHRONOLOGICAL CERTAINTY (INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS)
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF WATCHTOWER 1914 CHRONOLOGY:
The Watchtower says that early in October of 607 BCE Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. With the dethroning of the king of Judah in that year, the Davidic Kingdom of God ceased and the time of Gentile dominion, ruler-ship over the earth, began. The "Gentile Times" ended in October 1914 when the Kingdom of God was re-established by Christ who became invisibly present and began ruling in the heavens.
KEY SCRIPTURAL TEXTS WITNESSES DRAW UPON TO SUPPORT THEIR 1914 CHRONOLOGY AND HOW THEY ARE EXPLAINED BY WATCHTOWER CHRONOLOGISTS:
(1) Luke 21:24;
(2) Daniel 4:16, 17
(3) Revelation 11: 1-3, 12:6, 14
(4) Ezekiel 4:5, 6; Numbers 14:33, 34
TEXT 1: Luke 21:24
"and they will fall by the edge of the sword and will be led captive into all the nations; and JERUSALEM will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles until THE TIMES OF THE GENTILES BE FULFILLED" N.A.S.
JW EXPLANATION: Jerusalem doesn't mean Jerusalem here. Instead Jerusalem pictures the "Davidic Kingdom" on earth which has been trampled on (abolished) since 607 BCE when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem, and its temple and removed its king. The Davidic Kingdom was not to be restored or re-established till the period of Gentile rule was over. Texts 2, 3 and 4 helps us to understand the length of that domination so we can pinpoint the year and month when the Davidic kingdom was re-established.
TEXT 2: Daniel 4:16, 17
"Let his (Nebuchadnezzar) mind be changed from that of a man,
And let a beasts mind be given to him,
And let SEVEN PERIODS OF TIME pass over him....
In order that the living may know,
That the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind...
N.A.S.
JW EXPLANATION: How long would this period of Gentile domination last? Nebuchadnezzar had seven time periods pass over him before his domination by a beastly mind came to an end and his kingdom restored. This pictures what would happen during the times of the gentiles who would dominate for seven periods of time before God's kingdom could be re-established.
TEXT 3: Revelation 11:1 - 3; 12:6, 14
"And there was given me a measuring rod like a staff; and
someone said, "Rise and measure the temple of God, and the
alter, and those who worship in it. (11:1)
And leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do
not measure it, FOR IT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE NATIONS; AND
THEY WILL TREAD UNDER FOOT THE HOLY CITY FOR FOURTY TWO
MONTHS. (11:2)
And I will grant authority to my two witnesses, and they
will prophecy for TWELVE HUNDRED AND SIXTY DAYS, clothed
in sackcloth. (11:3) N.A.S.
And the woman fled into the wilderness where she had a
place prepared for her by God, so that she might be nourished
FOR ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND SIXTY DAYS. (12:6)
And the two wings of the great eagle were given to the woman
in order that she might fly into the wilderness to her place,
where she was nourished for A TIME AND TIMES AND HALF A TIME,
from the presence of the serpent. (12:14) N.A.S.
JW EXPLANATION: Revelation helps us discover what the word "times" means in reference to the duration of Gentile domination (11:2). A "Time" equals a prophetic year of 360 days. A careful reading of these Revelation texts establish that 1260 days, 42 months, 3 1/2 years and 3 1/2 times are all equivalent terms. So if the prophetic 3 1/2 times or years of Revelation equals 1260 days, then the seven times of Nebuchadnezzar must equal twice this number or 2520 days.
TEXT 4: Numbers 14:33, 34
"And your children shall wander in the wilderness forty
years, and bear your whoredoms, until your carcases be
wasted in the wilderness.
After the number of the days in which ye searched the land
even fourty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your
iniquities, even fourty years and ye shall know my breach
of promise.
Ezekiel 4:5, 6
"For I have assigned you a number of days, corresponding to
the years of their iniquity, three hundred and ninety days;
thus you shall bear the iniquity of the house of Israel.
"When you have completed these, you shall lie down a second
time, but on your right side, and bear the iniquity of the
house of Judah; I have assigned it to you for fourty days,
a day for a year."
JW EXPLANATION: Just as Nebuchadnezzar was ruled by a beastly mind for seven "times" or years before the Kingdom was restored, so to the gentile "times" of domination will equal 7 prophetic years consisting of 360 days each (ie. 7 x 360 = 2520 days). But the Numbers and Ezekiel texts establish that a day can substitute for a year. If this "year for a day" principle is applied, then the period of Gentile domination is not 2520 days but 2520 years. Adding 2520 years to the October 607 BCE. date when Jerusalem was destroyed and the "Gentile times" began, you arrive at October 1914 when the Kingdom of God was established by the invisible presence of Christ gloriously ruling in the heavens.
Leolaia

The Society is not honest about the meaning of parousia. The discussion in the 15 February 2008 Watchtower, for instance, only mentions "presence" and states that the word "refers to an extended period of time". There is nothing about its very usual, common usage to mean "coming" or "arrival". There are countless examples of this usage in ancient Greek sources; in previous posts I have provided some excellent examples from Josephus, Diodorus Siculus, and other sources. The difference in meaning is very simple. "Presence" is a state of undefined duration; "arrival" or "coming" is a telic change of state from absence to presence; it is the moment that ends a state of absence. The Society assumes that the etymological or original sense of the word is the only one that counts but this is erroneous; parousia very commonly expresses both states and changes of state, and the difference between the two usually apparent in the context and language used. If a passage says that a state of affairs continues UNTIL (heòs, akhri) a parousia happens, then the meaning is "coming" or "arrival"; the parousia changes the state of affairs. If a passage uses parousia interchangeably with the word for "come" (erkhomai), then it has the same meaning; it denotes a change from absence to presence. If a passage refers to a "sign" (sèmeion) or "signaling" (sèmainò) of one's parousia, then the sense usually is that this is a heralding either of one's arrival or that one is near (and is soon to arrive). It would be unusual to signal something that is already present unless it were invisible, but invisibility has nothing to do with the meaning of parousia; the notion of invisibility is quite conspicuously read into the Olivet discourse by the Society....it isn't in there if one looks at the text impartially.
Let's look at just a few of these examples:
Diodorus Siculus, 17.10: "Elsewhere in Greece, as people learned the seriousness of the danger hanging over the Thebans, they were distressed at their expected disaster but had no heart to help them, feeling that the city by precipitate and ill-considered action had consigned itself to evident annihilation. In Thebes itself, however, men accepted their risk willingly and with good courage, but they were puzzled by certain sayings of prophets and portents of the gods (theòn sèmeiois). First there was the light spider's web in the temple of Demeter which was observed to have spread itself out to the size of an himation, and which all about shone iridescent like a rainbow in the sky. About this, the oracle at Delphi gave them the response: 'The gods have all made this sign appear (sèmeion phainousi, cf. phanèsetai to sèmeion in Matthew 24:30) to mortals, to the Boeotians first and also to their neighbours' .... The sign (to sèmeion) had occurred three months before Alexander's arrival (Alexandrou parousias) to the city, but at the very moment of the king's attack the statues in the market place were seen to burst into perspiration and be covered with great drops of moisture".
Alexander Polyhistor, 9.21.18: "It is said that Joseph was in Egypt for 39 years and from Adam until (heós) Joseph's brothers came (eiselthein) into Egypt there were 3,624 years, and from the Flood until (heós) Jacob's coming (parousias) into Egypt (eis Aigupton) there were 1,360 years".
Josephus, Vita 90: "So, having perused the letters from Silas, I gathered two hundred men and went on my way, through an entire night. I sent a messenger ahead to signal (sèmanounta) my imminent arrival (parousian) to those in Tiberias".
Hermas, Parable 5.2, 5: "A certain man had a field and many slaves and in a part of the field he planted a vineyard. And as he was going away on a journey, he chose a certain slave who was reliable, respected and honest and called him over to him and said, 'Take his vineyard which I have planted and fence it in until (heós) I return (erkhomai)' ... Some time later, the master of the slave and the field returned (élthen), and he went to the vineyard ... The field is this world and the lord of the field is he who created all things and perfected them ... and the absence of the master is the time remaining until (heós) his coming (parousian)".
Epistula Ecclesiarum apud Lugdunum et Viennam, 1.8: "And at length, being brought to the forum by the tribune of the soldiers, and the magistrates that had charge of the city, they were examined in presence of the whole multitude, and having confessed, they were shut up in prison until (heós) the arrival (parousias) of the governor".
In the first example, Alexander's parousia ends a period of the city's waiting for disaster. For several months, there had been "signs" announcing this parousia; the signs did not pertain to a "presence" that was already current but one that would soon come. There was also a "sign" at the "very moment" of the parousia when Alexander attacked the city. The example by Alexander Polyhistor also uses parousia interchangeably with the word for "come". The parousia of Jacob into Egypt (the use of eis "into" shows further how the parousia is an action, not a state) is not a period but an event that ENDS a period of 1,360 years. The example by Josephus is also instructive. Here we have sèmainein as a verbal form of sèmeion, such that the messenger provides a "sign" of Josephus' parousia. Here it is absolutely clear that parousia does not mean "presence" because the purpose of the messenger was not to indicate that Josephus was already present; he was supposed to inform the people that Josephus was on his way and was due to arrive soon. And in the next sentence, Josephus mentions that he arrived at Tiberias when morning came, and a mob was already there to "meet" (hupèntiazen) him, greeting him in a perplexing way (Vita, 91); the "sign" of Josephus' parousia thus allowed the people of the city to prepare for it. The example in Hermas also uses parousia interchangeably with the word meaning "come", and the parousia is not a period but an event that ENDS a period of absence as the word heós "until" shows. Finally the Epistula Ecclesiarum designates the parousia of the governor as a telic event that ENDS the state of confinement for the Christians locked up in prison.
There isn't any real doubt as to the meaning of parousia in the Olivet discourse in Matthew 24. Its use in the disciples' question in v. 3 is followed by its use in v. 27, 37, 39. There the parousia is compared to sudden and unexpected events, such as a flash of lightning, the cataclysmic Flood in Noah's day, and the surprising trespass of a burglar into a home at night. And with each of these events, parousia is used interchangeably with the word for "come". In v. 27, the parousia of the Son of Man is like lightning that "comes" (exerkhetai) from the east. In v. 37 and 39, the parousia of the Son of Man is like the Flood that comes (èlthen) and swept the people away. In v. 42 and 44, the disciples are admonished on the basis of these examples to stay awake because they do not know when the Son of Man is "coming". And this last phrase has v. 30 as its antecedent, for it was there when the verb "come" first occurs with this sense, i.e. "the Son of Man coming (erkhomenon) on the clouds of heaven". The idea that the parousia is a period of Christ being present is not found at all in the passage. The term does not look at a state of being present following the coming of the Son of Man (and oddly enough the Society interprets the "coming" of the Son of Man as an event that occurs AFTER the parousia), it looks directly at the coming itself as an event that changes the state of affairs into a new one, just as the coming of the Flood was an event that changed things for the people destined to experience it. The language is the passage shows over and over how parousia is interchangeable with the word for "coming". We have the "parousia of the Son of Man" in v. 27, 36-37 and the "coming of the Son of Man" in v. 30, 38-39, 43-44 and the "coming of (the/your) Lord" in v. 42, 46, 50. We have references to the "day" and "hour" of the parousia in v. 36-37, 38-39 (hint: "day" and "hour" is not a long duration), and references to the "day" and "hour" of the Son of Man's "coming" in v. 38-39, 42, 43-44, 50. And of course the reference to the "sign of your (= Jesus') parousia" in the disciples' question in v. 3 has its consequent in the "sign" of the coming (erkhomai) of the Son of Man in v. 30 (like the sweating statues in Diodorus Siculus' story, this is a sign that occurs at the same time as the parousia). We also have examples with heòs and akhri "until" like that found in the examples above. In v. 34, we read that "this generation" would not pass away UNTIL (heòs) "all these things" (panta tauta) occur. That includes the coming of the Son of Man in v. 30-31; the generation thus represents a state of affairs that comes to an END with the parousia of the Son of Man. The parousia of the Son of Man in v. 37 is also directly compared to the "day Noah entered the ark" in v. 38 (which ENDS a period of everyday life that continued UNTIL that day), and the parousia of the Son of Man in v. 39 corresponds to the Flood which ENDS the state of "not knowing" about what was going to happen UNTIL (heòs) the Flood actually starts. So the sense of parousia is justifiably "coming" or "arrival" and this is the general understanding by Bible scholars.
wasblind

" Once 1914 is discredited, The whole JW belief system is shot "
And the Reasoning from the scriptures book will be the smokin' gun
" Jehovah's witnesses believe that the entire Bible is the inspired word of God."_______Reasoning book page 199
" Bible chronology also pinpointed in advance the time when certain important events in the fulfillment would take place."_____Reasoning book page 93
" some who saw the events of 1914 will also see the complete destruction of the present wicked world."________Reasoning book page 200
" The generation that was " alive " at the begining of the fulfillment of the sign in 1914 is now well along in years. The time remaining must be very short."________Reasoning book page 239
.
Vanderhoven7

<<There isn't any real doubt as to the meaning of parousia in the Olivet discourse in Matthew 24. Its use in the disciples' question in v. 3 is followed by its use in v. 27, 37, 39. There the parousia is compared to sudden and unexpected events, such as a flash of lightning, the cataclysmic Flood in Noah's day, and the surprising trespass of a burglar into a home at night. And with each of these events, parousia is used interchangeably with the word for "come". In v. 27, the parousia of the Son of Man is like lightning that "comes" (exerkhetai) from the east. In v. 37 and 39, the parousia of the Son of Man is like the Flood that comes (èlthen) and swept the people away. In v. 42 and 44, the disciples are admonished on the basis of these examples to stay awake because they do not know when the Son of Man is "coming". And this last phrase has v. 30 as its antecedent, for it was there when the verb "come" first occurs with this sense, i.e. "the Son of Man coming (erkhomenon) on the clouds of heaven". The idea that the parousia is a period of Christ being present is not found at all in the passage. The term does not look at a state of being present following the coming of the Son of Man (and oddly enough the Society interprets the "coming" of the Son of Man as an event that occurs AFTER the parousia), it looks directly at the coming itself as an event that changes the state of affairs into a new one, just as the coming of the Flood was an event that changed things for the people destined to experience it. The language is the passage shows over and over how parousia is interchangeable with the word for "coming". We have the "parousia of the Son of Man" in v. 27, 36-37 and the "coming of the Son of Man" in v. 30, 38-39, 43-44 and the "coming of (the/your) Lord" in v. 42, 46, 50. We have references to the "day" and "hour" of the parousia in v. 36-37, 38-39 (hint: "day" and "hour" is not a long duration), and references to the "day" and "hour" of the Son of Man's "coming" in v. 38-39, 42, 43-44, 50. And of course the reference to the "sign of your (= Jesus') parousia" in the disciples' question in v. 3 has its consequent in the "sign" of the coming (erkhomai) of the Son of Man in v. 30>>
This is excellent Leolaia. Thank you.
Strange then that nobody at the WT knew that Jesus' spectacular arrival had taken place in 1914 until 1929. As you know, right until 1929 the WTS was teaching that the parousia had occurred in 1874. They had 88 scriptural proofs of that "fact" and anyone who couldn't see it was of questionable committment. So for over 50 years the WT was preaching a false date for the second advent and Jesus presence was heralded for 40 years before He even arrived (1874-1914).
designs

One thing you have to keep in mind here is that the Bible Students are very different than the JWs and that includes their different views on the Return of Christ and the time-tables.
Vanderhoven7

Hi Designs,
True. Having my primary roots in the Bible Student movement, I realize there are a lot of divergent eschatological views therein. The Dawn for example still hold to Russell's 1874 second comiing/presence. Many Bible Students today, while still rejecting the Trinity and eternal torment, have since rejected both 1874 and 1914 as being scriptural dates and are looking forward to the second coming at some point in the future.
Finkelstein

Isn't interesting to note that after a set and established date passes and nothing happens that some how a new date come forth as well put into print.
1914 will be dropped by the WTS. eventually but a new godly approved date will surely appear, no doubt being described as New Light.
Religious charlatanism at its finest
Quendi

Hello Vanderhoven7 and Leolaia!
Kudos to both of you for this analysis. I will be an absorbed spectator and observer here since I have only a scant knowledge of koiné Greek. I haven't read much of the literature pertaining to this fascinating subject, but what I have read has persuaded me that the preterist view of the Olivet prophecy and the book of Revelation is essentially correct: the second coming of Jesus Christ occurred in the first century and culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple. My question for both of you is this: Are either or both of you familiar with preterist thinking on this topic and what is your view of it? I'd really appreciate your thoughts. My main source for preterist literature is this website: http://www.preteristarchive.com.
Quendi
Vanderhoven7

Hi Quendi,
Yes, I'm somewhat familiar with the preterist view. I am a partial preterist myself. I see a distinction between what comes before Matthew 24:35 and what comes after; between Christ's erchomai (coming in judgment on Jerusalem) and His parousia (personal return to earth to raise the dead and judge the world) Note how the following material differs from materal preceding it.
36. BUT OF THAT DAY AND HOUR KNOWETH NO MAN,
NO, NOT THE ANGELS OF HEAVEN, BUT MY FATHER ONLY.
37. BUT AS THE DAYS OF NOE WERE, SO SHALL ALSO
THE COMING OF THE SON OF MAN BE.
38. FOR AS IN THE DAYS THAT WERE BEFORE THE
FLOOD THEY WERE EATING AND DRINKING,
MARRYING AND GIVING IN MARRIAGE, UNTIL THE DAY
NOE ENTERED INTO THE ARK,
39. AND KNEW NOT UNTIL THE FLOOD CAME, AND
TOOK THEM ALL AWAY; SO SHALL ALSO THE COMING
OF THE SON OF MAN BE.
40. THEN SHALL TWO BE IN THE FIELD; THE ONE SHALL
BE TAKEN, AND THE OTHER LEFT.
41. TWO WOMEN SHALL BE GRINDING AT THE MILL;
THE ONE SHALL BE TAKEN, AND THE OTHER LEFT.
Elaboration - Lu. 17:20 -
42. WATCH THEREFORE: FOR YE KNOW NOT WHAT
HOUR YOUR LORD DOTH COME.
43. BUT KNOW THIS, THAT IF THE GOODMAN OF THE
HOUSE HAD KNOWN IN WHATWATCH THE THEIF
WOULD COME, HE WOULD HAVE WATCHED, AND
WOULD NOT HAVE SUFFERED HIS HOUSE TO BE
BROKEN UP.
44. THEREFORE BE YE ALSO READY: FOR IN SUCH AN
HOUR AS YE THINK NOT THE SON OF MAN COMETH.
Lu.12:42-48
BUT OF THAT DAY AND HOUR KNOWETH NO MAN,
I believe that this verse and "THAT DAY" signal a change in topic
to the second coming (parousia) of Christ. Mt.7: 20-22
Mt.11:22 Jn.5:25,29
Jesus has already explained what would happen to His own
generation. Now He contrasts that which would relate to His
second coming (parousia) or presence on earth. Notice the
contrasts:
Matt 24:1-35 Matt 24: 36 - end
__________ __________________
Local, Jerusalem,Judea,Temple Worldwide: Lu.21:35
Abnormal Times: calamities Normal Times: Marrying etc.
Specific signs precede No Signs Given
Timing Anticipated Lu.24:33 Anticipation Impossible 24:44
These Days Mt.24:22 That Day Mt.24:36
Saints to flee No running necessary, Saints taken
Vanderhoven7

I was hoping someone would offer to critique the Society's approach.

1914 Analysis

Share this