Joen,
I'm not suggesting Russell and others who believed "fair chance" doctrine are correct. I'm only saying that they believed it had scriptural foundation.
Posts by vienne
-
64William Miller
by lepavoux in" this is the man who made it all happen" type this in.. this is how the watchtower organization began!
!.
-
-
-
64
William Miller
by lepavoux in" this is the man who made it all happen" type this in.. this is how the watchtower organization began!
!.
-
-
vienne
Earnest,
Barbour already knew of the 1873 date. It was common in the literature, which Barbour well knew. And I think what he says in Evidence suggests he already had Elliott's Horae in mind. All of those who had already pointed to 1873 or 1874 or both dates were Anglican or Church of Scotland. The sole exception is a German Baptist clergyman. In another place he suggests that Miller pointed to 1873 as a possibility. I think that's fable, but it at least shows that the date was in his consciousness, and that it wasn't original with him.
B gave me permission to post this from Nelson Barbour: The Millennium's Forgotten Prophet. This is from the developing revisions to that book:
It would be surprising indeed if Barbour were unfamiliar with Elliott’s Horae. He calls it a “standard work,” which it was; it was very influential among American expositors until at least 1900. He found in Elliott a satisfying Bible chronology which relied exclusively on the Bible’s internal evidence and ignored secular history and opinion and from which he could support his 1873 date. “I was looking to 1873,” he wrote, “and when I saw this chronology supported the argument of the 1260 and 1335 days of Dan. 12, naturally examined it with interest and ... have never seen a scriptural reason to abandon it.”[1]
The chronology was developed by Edward Elliott and Christopher Bowen, the Anglican Vicar of Southwark.[2] Bowen was a prophetic student in his own right and published a pamphlet entitled Things to Come Practically Enquired Into in 1847.[3] He contributed a chronological table to Elliot’s Horae that was a restatement and revision of Henry F. Clinton’s chronology, incorporating revisions to it made by Elliot. Bowen’s table is distinctive enough to call it a new chronology and contemporaries differentiated between the two. Daniel T. Taylor prints the two chronologies along with others in a table. Clinton and Bowen’s charts differ by ten years.[4] Because Bowen crafted the table, he is credited with the chronology. In truth, credit belongs at least equally and maybe primarily to Elliott.[5]
Barbour read John Aquila Brown’s[6] The Even-Tide; or Last Triumph of the Blessed and Only Potentate, a two-volume work published in 1823, either then or earlier. Brown was of interest to Millerites because he ended the prophetic 2300 days in 1844, and his book was well enough known in America that the anonymous author and publisher of Watchman of the Night and Millennial Morning[7] and Peters in his Theocratic Kingdom[8] could refer to it without further explanation. Matthew Habershon, an author recommended by J. A. Seiss, referred to him.[9] Isaac Wellcome mentions Even-Tide and connects Barbour to it, though he says, “Barbour... terminated his time argument at the same point, but by a different mode of reckoning, in some respects.”[10] One would conclude that Barbour read Brown’s Even-Tide, even without Isaac Wellcome’s statement.
Key elements of Barbour’s prophetic scheme are found in Even-Tide, which seems to be their ultimate source. Brown would have interested Barbour because he ended the 1290 days in 1873. Barbour wouldn’t have read far into Brown to discover this. It is on the frontis chart in volume one and on the title page. Though Barbour doesn’t mention Brown or Even-Tide, he admits that others had pointed to 1873. He quotes Miller as saying after the 1843 disappointment that he could see “no light this side of 1873.”[11] He saw Miller’s words as a seal to his own conclusions; yet, he wrote “others have said as much or more” about 1873.
I could not locate the German language pamphlet, but a secondary source suggests that John Boger (1774-1852), a German Brethren clergyman, promoted a similar chronology. His pamphlet’s exact title is lost. In English it translates as The Coming of Christ so it may be Das Kommen Christi. Unaware that Russell received the date from others, one of the authors of a history of West Virginia wrote: “John Boger was author of the pamphlet printed in German on ‘the second coming of Christ,’ a treatise that fell into the hands of ‘Pastor’ Russell and formed the foundation for the Millennial Dawnists Church.”[12]
John Fry in Observations on the Unfulfilled Prophecies pointed to 1873.[13] Fry ended the 1260 days in 1872-73, writing that “the arrival of the years 1844, 1872, and 1889 must be expected with feelings of the deepest interest by all who are looking for ‘this great day of the Lord.’” W. Snell Chauncy also pointed to 1873 in his 1839 publication Dissertations on Unaccomplished Prophecy.[14] In 1835 Thomas Brown suggested that the 1335 prophetic days might end in 1873, and he felt the way was opening up for “the full triumph of the Gospel kingdom and the final restoration and conversion of Israel.”[15] Matthew Habershon counted the 1290 days from 583 to 1873-74 C.E. (A.D.).[16] At least one advocate of 1873 was mentioned in The Literalist, printed by Orrin Rogers in Philadelphia between 1840 and 1842.[17] Closer to Barbour’s time, the anonymous British writer “S. A.” suggested in his Apocalyptic History that at least one prophetic period might end in 1873.[18] Though the basis for fixing on 1873 varied, there were a number who believed it a prophetically significant date.[19]
[1] N. H. Barbour: Chronology, The Herald of the Morning, August 1875, page 38.
[2] Burke’s A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Landed Gentry of Ireland (London, 1899, page 3) contains the following brief biographical note: “Rev. Christopher Bowen, M.A., of Hollymount, and Heatherwood, Isle of Wright, formerly rector of St. Thomas, Winchester, b. 16 Oct. 1801; m. 17 Jan. 1834, Katherine Emily, dau. of Sir Richard Steele, 3rd Bart, of Hampstead, d. 1890.” Dictionary of National Biography, Supplement, Volume I, New York, 1901, page 238, says that Bowen “was successively curate of Woolaston, near Chepatow, and of Bath Abbey church, rector of Southwark, and rector of St. Thomas’s, Winchester.”
A brief profile of Christopher Bowen is found in his son Edward’s biography: “The Rev. Christopher Bowen was the eldest representative of an Irish family holding property in county Mayo, and was distinguished by many of the best characteristics of the Evangelical school of those days – devotion, spirituality, a hearty dislike of ecclesiasticism, profound earnestness, unquestionable sincerity. He was also very gentle and affectionate, full of sympathy with the trials of others, full of compassion for their failures or mistakes. Sir Henry Cunningham, in his memoir of Lord Bowen, has referred to him as ‘an excellent reader, whose children enjoyed no greater treat than to lie on the hearthrug and listen to his rendering of one of Shakespeare’s plays.’ He was, too, one whose able mind remained fresh and active with advancing years. ... It may be added, in view of the striking poetical gifts of his two elder sons, that he was a somewhat copious writer of verses, both humorous and sentimental.... He died on the Riviera in 1890.” - Bowen, W. E.: Edward Bowen: A Memoir, Longmans, Green, and Company, London, 1902, page 8.
[3] C. Bowen: Things to Come Practically Enquired Into, Binns & Goodwin, Bath, and J. Nisbet & Co., London, [1847] 1849 edition. Other works by Bowen exist. This is his only work on prophetic subjects of which I am aware. Bowen’s chronology doesn’t appear in the booklet. The chronology seems to have been drawn up specifically for Elliott.
[4] D. T. Taylor: The Reign of Christ on Earth: Or The Voice of the Church in All Ages Concerning the Coming and Kingdom of the Redeemer, H. L. Hastings, Boston, 1883 revised edition, pages 538-540.
[5] E. B. Elliott: Horae Apocalypticae, Second Edition, London, 1846, page 254-259.
[6] John Aquila Brown was a silversmith and a Factor or agent for one of the Sheffield silverplaters. He appeared as a witness at the Old Bailey on April 6, 1826, in the case of Elizabeth Wood Lloyd. He declared, “I live in Bouverie Street, and I am a silversmith.” (Sessions Paper: The Right Honourable William Venables, Mayor. Fourth Session, Held at Justice Hall, in the Old Bailey, On Thursday, the 6th of April, 1826, and Following Days, London, 1826, pages 316-217.) He died in March 1849. His birth date is unknown. His wife’s name was Ann E., maiden name unknown. They had two sons, Daniel born March 1, 1814, and David born January 1, 1816. Both sons were enrolled in The Merchant Taylors’ School.
Brown is occasionally described as a Church of England clergyman. This is incorrect. Brown belonged to the Philo-Judaean Society. He sponsored or seconded a resolution at one of their meetings and is included in a list of “movers and seconders.” All listed are given the title “Rev.” except Brown who is listed as “Mr. John Aquila Brown.” – The Missionary Register For M DCCC XXVIII Containing the Principal Transactions of Institutions for Propagating the Gospel, London, 1828, page 229.
In 1808 Brown was one of the principals at an organizational meeting for The Church Missionary Society for Africa and the East. He lived in Pall Mall then. - The Early History of the Church Missionary Society for Africa and the East to the end of A.D. 1814, London, 1896, page 193.
[7] Volume 1, pages 26-32, 107, 118-119 cited by Froom, Prophetic Faith, Volume 4, page 266-267. Though Brown’s Even-Tide was printed in the UK, there are many more copies in American libraries than in British libraries. One gets the impression that Brown’s primary audience was in the United States.
[8] G. N. H. Peters: The Theocratic Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Funk and Wagnalls, New York, 1884, Volume 3, page 99.
[9] Matthew Habershon: A Dissertation on the Prophetic Scriptures Chiefly Those of a Chronological Character: Shewing Their Aspect on the Present Times, and on the Destinies of the Jewish Nation, James Nisbet and Co, 1834, page 197.
[10] Wellcome, Isaac: History of the Second Advent Message and Mission, Doctrine and People, Yarmouth, Maine, 1874, page 477.
[11] N. H. Barbour: Evidences for the Coming of the Lord, page 34. Despite extensive research, I cannot find the source for this quotation. It seems an uncharacteristic statement for Miller to have made. Isaac Wellcome, questioned the quotation. – History of the Second Advent Message, page 370.
[12] Written by an anonymous committee: History of West Virginia, Old and New, American Historical Society, 1923, Volume Three, page 489.
[13] John Fry: Observations on the Unfulfilled Prophecies of Scripture: Which are yet to Have Their Accomplishment Before the Coming of the Lord in Glory or at the Establishment of His Everlasting Kingdom, Printed for James Duncan and T. Combe, London, 1835, page 380. This book is in the British Library.
[14] Published by James Nisbet & Co.; J. Johnstone, 1838, page 387. This book is in the British Library.
[15] Thomas Brown: A Key to the Prophetical Books of the Old Testament, Published by the Author, London, 1858, page 103.
[16] Matthew Habershon: A Dissertation on the Prophetic Scriptures Chiefly Those of a Chronological Character: Shewing Their Aspect on the Present Times, and on the Destinies of the Jewish Nation, James Nisbet and Co, 1834, page 452.
[17] The Literalist: Elements of Prophetical Interpretation, etc., Orin Rogers, 1840, page 333.
[18] S. A.: Apocalyptic History, S. W. Partridge and Company, Second Edition, London, 1871, page 21.
[19] Peters mentions a Balfour who looked to 1873. This seems to be a misprint for Barbour. – N. H. G. Peters: The Theocratic Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, Funk and Wagnalls, New York, Volume 3, 1884, page 99.
-
64
William Miller
by lepavoux in" this is the man who made it all happen" type this in.. this is how the watchtower organization began!
!.
-
-
vienne
Joen,
Admiration for Russell and his supposed status as the Faithful and Wise Servant were factors later. But when the Allegheny believers adopted what some called "Fair Chance" doctrine, no one saw Russell that way. They were convinced by the various arguments presented in sympathetic publications, most notably Storrs' A Vindication of the Government of God over the Children of Men, Or “The Promise and Oath of God to Abraham,” published in 1871. [ https://www.harvestherald.com/vindication-1.html ]
They believed the arguments put forward by Storrs and others who wrote similarly were scriptural. Well ... they certainly cited scriptures.
Russell was frequently accused of teaching Universalism. But his doctrine wasn’t that. Paton, his sometime associate, called it a “wide view of salvation.” It was their settle doctrine before they elected Russell their pastor in 1876.
-
64
William Miller
by lepavoux in" this is the man who made it all happen" type this in.. this is how the watchtower organization began!
!.
-
-
vienne
Earnest,
Yes, that's correct. I read Heath's book. Mom had a copy in her research collection. It's very interesting. Heath also limits the Bride of Christ to 144,000, and has the rest of mankind living on earth.
Pizza,
You had no reply to the historical facts I presented, so you focused on two phrases I used. And lastly you wrote:
"If you haven't figured out what I'm saying by now, it's either because you refuse to believe that you could ever be wrong or its because you're not as clever as you think you are....at least not clever enough to be using such harsh words such as moron or uninformed toward people whom you've never met based on a few words typed across a screen ."
I suggest that is as rude as anything I wrote. Have you spent your entire life being ignored or focusing on secondary issues to avoid the main ones? I have a parent. I listen to my dad and I listened to my mom when she was alive. You, however, are a hypocrite as your degeneration into insult, the very thing for which you scold me, shows. I see no reason to take you seriously, no matter how much you rant. You want to talk history, I'm here. Otherwise, you're whistling in the wind.
-Anastasia
-
64
William Miller
by lepavoux in" this is the man who made it all happen" type this in.. this is how the watchtower organization began!
!.
-
-
vienne
You are correct about Tertullian. My bad. The rest of my comment stands. The discussions were current in the religious press. Storrs' booklet on the subject and one by Anglican rector Smith-Warligh [Russell paraphrases him without credit, almost to the point of plagiarism] are the most immediate sources of Russell's belief. Henry Dunn's work should be on that list. In the years Russell was first introduced to Storrs, The Bible Examiner was republishing Dunn's work.
Again, my apologies for the faulty reference to Tertullian.
Annie
-
64
William Miller
by lepavoux in" this is the man who made it all happen" type this in.. this is how the watchtower organization began!
!.
-
-
vienne
I should add that Miller's chronology, though presented as his original work, was in fact derived from others who pointed to 1843 or 1844 on the same or similar basis. Adventists suggest it was only the work of Miller and that he did not read the work of others. This is unfounded, part of Adventist mythology meant to elevate Miller to near prophet status, even though he was totally wrong.
Both in American and in Britain books promoting that date and other segments of Millerite chronology were published, with a considerable trans Atlantic readership. Much of the rich heritage of published prophetic speculation before and after Millerism can be found reproduced on line or in key libraries. Start with Archives or Google Books. You'll be surprised what you can find.
Annie
-
64
William Miller
by lepavoux in" this is the man who made it all happen" type this in.. this is how the watchtower organization began!
!.
-
-
vienne
Pete,
By suggesting that I'm comparing my words to those of Jesus, you are erecting a straw-man argument. If you felt I called you names, then you see yourself in the criticism.
-
64
William Miller
by lepavoux in" this is the man who made it all happen" type this in.. this is how the watchtower organization began!
!.
-
-
vienne
Earnest,
Barbour tells us that he got his chronology from a table drawn up by Christopher Bowen to fit the work of E. B. Elliott. Both of these men were Anglican Clergy, never Adventists. The Russell-Barbour chronology derives from Anglicans. So does the 1873/4 speculation. Barbour and the many others who look to that date got it from the early to mid-19th Century writers on prophecy almost all of whom were Anglican or Church of Scotland writers. There is a trail of date speculation unbroken back to the reformation era and scattered through the medieval era. Date speculation wasn't new when Adventists set their hand to it. Mom's intro essay considers some of this. So does Nelson Barbour: The Millennium's Forgotten Prophet. Though if you don't have that book, I'd hold off buying it. B. is revising it, adding new detail and removing or refreshing a few items. I'd wait for the revision to be published.
JoenB,
Again, there is a long train of similar belief extending back to the ancient church. Tertullian: De Praescriptione Haereticorum, VII, 4. dates the belief to the second century, and I see it as easy to derive from the Bible. In Russell's case, he came to it first by reading The Restitution, The Bible Examiner and one of George Storrs' tracts on the government of God over the earth. He read Henry Dunn's work too. Storrs left Adventism in 1844 among much argument and insult. When Russell was meeting with the early Allegheny Bible Study group, second-probation was widely debated, as were other doctrines they examined. Separate Identity chapter 4, vol 1, examines the sources of Watch Tower doctrine in the Russell era. Russell's doctrine was not exactly second-probation, but to me it is similar enough to call it that without much misrepresentation.
-Annie
-
64
William Miller
by lepavoux in" this is the man who made it all happen" type this in.. this is how the watchtower organization began!
!.
-
-
vienne
sorry for the typo in the last sentence, which should read "many of whom"
-
64
William Miller
by lepavoux in" this is the man who made it all happen" type this in.. this is how the watchtower organization began!
!.
-
-
vienne
Bill C.,
From about 1872 to 1881 Russell held parousia views similar to the Plymouth Brethren, and he certainly knew of their doctrine. But belief in a partially invisible parousia extends back at least to the second century, and was not unique to Plymouth Brethren. Russell says that he came to the teaching by reading J. A. Seiss' Last Times. It is also evident that he read Richard Cunningham Shimeall's The Second Coming of Christ: Or the Impending Approach of “The Restitution of all Things” which also promoted the doctrine of a two-stage, initially invisible, parousia. Others who actively opposed Russell held to that version of parousia doctrine.
So it is doubtful that Russell got that belief from Plymouth Brethren, but he found it in standard works on prophecy published by those who were mainstream writers. In 1881 the Watch Tower began to teach that Christ's parousia was totally invisible. This was the result of a discussion between the principals in the movement prompted by an article by Lizzie [Elizabeth] A. Allen, a Watch Tower contributor.
Separate Identity vol 2, says:
They expected Christ to become visible at least to some in or near 1881, but constant and considerable discussion among Watch Tower adherents modified that belief. Barbourites were tending to discount their shared παρουσία doctrine, drifting back to expecting a visible presence only.
[photo here]
First Printing of Object and Manner
The movement’s principals discussed it among themselves, and discussion became public through an article by Lizzie Allen appearing in the May 1880 issue. Written in response to Barbour’s claims to have uncovered a “clean” theology, his term for his ventures into esoteric belief systems, Allen focused on the sign of Christ’s presence, and the difference in viewpoint between Watch Tower adherents and Barbourites. She referenced Matthew 24:3, presenting a bastardized quotation based on the Emphatic Diaglott, a Greek-English interlinear: “What shall be the sign of Thy parousia, and of the end of the world?” Jesus’ answer showed, she wrote, “the need of a sign.” Jesus warned (Verses 4-5) that many would claim to be the messiah, deceiving many. Allen claimed that “a sign will enable those who obey ... to discern between the false and the true.”
This point was preliminary to other, more important thoughts. A “sign” was needed because “of the obscurity which marks the period of his return.” Christ’s presence was not to generate,
... physical demonstrations as shall make all aware of it. But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the presence of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, and knew not until the flood came and took them all away, so shall also the presence of the Son of man be, (Vers. 37-39.) all things will indeed continue as from the beginning. How then will the church be aware of His presence, except by a sign?
The sign was given only to those who obeyed Christ’s commands, “and these cannot show it to the unfaithful.” Christ’s presence would be known to those outside the faith when he performed mighty acts. Allen paraphrased Matthew 24:23-28, which reads according to the Authorized Version:
At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you ahead of time. ”So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.
In her view the ‘lightning” was not, and could not be, natural light, “else His presence would not be likened to the days that were before the flood.” She saw it as spiritual light, “divine truth.” A “great and wonderful unfolding of truth is all that the bible gives us a right to expect during the presence of the Son of man, and before translation,” she wrote.[1] This was meant as a refutation of the assertion of some Barbourites that Jesus would appear to his servants before heavenly resurrection. It was not a rejection of a two-stage parousia, but it planted the seeds for that. If one accepted her arguments, then one understood that Christ’s presence was totally invisible.
Her rejection of Barbourite belief was based on 1 John 3:2: “It doth not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when He shall appear we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.” If ‘the saints’ do not understand Jesus’ nature until they are resurrected, then Christ would not appear to humans in advance. She appealed to Colossians 3:4, writing:
Again, when Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall we also appear with Him in glory. (Col. 3:4). Hence, we urge on those who are “looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,” the Savior's command, “Take heed let no man deceive you.” The light of truth made plain by the Spirit, is the only promised guide, while here we wait. And this to us, is far more convincing than any physical manifestation could be.
The fuller implications of this article are apparent. It set off discussions that did not immediately make it to The Watch Tower. Two of the movement’s principals and some of its new clergy adherents had some familiarity with Koiné Greek [1st Century commonly-spoken Greek]. The dust started to settle after a behind the scenes discussion of the Greek text of Revelation 1:7 which says of Christ’s return that “Every eye shall see him.” Russell summarized their conclusions in the September 1880 issue of Zion’s Watch Tower. Entitled “Optomai,” a common transliteration of the Greek verb to see, the article said:
The Greek word Optomai rendered shall see, in Rev. 1:7. – “Every eye shall see him,” and rendered, shall appear, in Heb. 9:28 “To them that look for Him shall he appear a second time,” does not always mean to see with the eye. It rather signifies attend and recognize. Illustrations of its meaning attend: The priests and elders answered Judas; “See (Optomai – attend) thou to that.” Matt. 27:4. Again, Pilate said, “I am innocent of the blood of this just person; see (optomai – attend) ye to it.” Vs. 24. Also the word look in Acts 18:15. The general signification of the word however, is recognize ...
Again, Jesus said to Mary concerning Lazarus' resurrection, “Said I not that thou shouldst see (optomai) the glory of God? John 11:40. Mary's eyes saw no glory but she did see Lazarus raised, and in the power thus displayed she recognized the glory of God.
Again “All flesh shall see (optomai – recognize) the salvation of God.” Luke 3:6. In the light of these illustrations of the use of the word we can realize that there may be but little seeing of The Christ on the part of the world with the eye. See how similar is the last illustration with the first text quoted – “every eye” and “all flesh” shall recognize Him as the salvation of God.[2]
This was not a novel interpretation. Others asserted this. And it is all within the word’s definition. Walter Roy Goff [1877-1953], a post-millennialist Lutheran clergyman, used the same points to support his views, writing:
[T]he four main passages which are supposed by many people to mean that we shall see with corporeal eyes the Lord's return have about them abundant reason for any careful interpreter to say they do not contain such literal meaning. And if this is so, then the disciples did not expect a visible return of their Lord after the statement of the men in white apparel (Acts 1:11), as some assert ... . And those today, who build up their argument for a visible return on these four passages and others like them, must be wrong, especially since there are definite passages denying a visible coming, (Luke 17:22), “Ye shall desire, * * * * but ye shall not see,” (John 16:10), “I go to the Father, and ye behold me no more,”[3]
This discussion became settled doctrine with the publication of Food for Thinking Christians. If there was indefiniteness in Allen’s article, Russell’s article was much more pointed, and it became a clear doctrinal statement. Quoting or paraphrasing Hebrews 12:14; 1 John 3:2; and Ephesians 1:18 but without citing them, Russell wrote:
How will He come again? Briefly stated, we believe the Scriptures to teach that our Lord will never again appear as a man; that at his second coming he will be invisible to mankind; that none will ever see him except the Church: “Without holiness no man shall see the Lord;” that the Church will not see him until changed from natural to spiritual bodies; that then “we shall see him as he is” [not as he was], for “we shall be like him” [not he like us, as at the first advent]. But while none are to see him with their natural eyes, all are to recognize his presence and his power (“the eyes of their understanding being opened”). Hence we read: “Every eye shall see (optomai – recognize) him”[4]
This doctrinal transition brought argumentative comments from Barbour, but that conflict is subject matter for volume three of Separate Identity. As clergy outrage intensified after 1895, the Watch Tower parousia doctrine was interminably criticized and often misrepresented. This continued through the 20th Century and into the present century. Consider Walter Martin’s comment:
Jehovah’s Witnesses claim scholarship for this blanket translation of parousia, yet not one great scholar in the history of Greek exegesis and translation has ever held this view. Since 1871, when “Pastor” Russell produced this concept, it has been denounced by every competent scholar upon examination.
The reason this Russellite rendering is so dangerous is that it attempts to prove that parousia in regard to Christ’s second advent really means that His return or “presence” was to be invisible, and unknown to all but “the faithful.”[5]
This is a polemicist’s poor research and a misrepresentation. His misstatements vary from minor to significant. The 1871 date is wildly wrong, something he could easily have known when he wrote. Russell did not originate the concept, but as we’ve shown elsewhere, it has a long history. He suggests that no “great” Greek-language scholar ever accepted a uniform translation of παρουσία as presence. One supposes that any scholar that disagreed with Martin would not have been ‘great’ in his eyes, including Joseph Rotherham, who noted in the appendix to his translation: “In this edition the word parousia is uniformly rendered ‘presence’ (‘coming,’ as a representative of this word, being set aside). The original term occurs twenty-four times in the N. T. [He lists all the verses which we omit from this quotation] ... The sense of ‘presence’ is so plainly shewn by the contrast with ‘absence’ (implied in 2 Co. x. 10, and expressed in Ph. ii. 12) that the question naturally arises, – Why not always so render it?”[6] Martin failed to cite or quote any of the “great” scholars who rejected Watch Tower exposition of παρουσία. When one only writes polemics, it is convenient to avoid citing sources.
Martin misrepresented Russell and modern Watchtower belief, claiming that their view is that only “the faithful” would be aware of it. He puts ‘the faithful’ in quotes, but the phrase is lacking on the pages he cites as is the belief he attributes to Watch Tower adherents. Russell, the modern Watchtower, and Bible Student groups all believe that in time Christ’s presence will become apparent to everyone, at least when Christ executes God’s judgment. Martin’s real objection was that Russell and modern descendent religions present an understanding of prophecy different from his own. The same is true for Russell’s contemporaries who wrote similarly. Many whom wrote anti-Russell tracts simply mentioned the teaching without refuting it, relying on shock value to accomplish their purpose.[7]
[1] The Watchtower publication Aid to Bible Understanding [1971, page 1069] and its revision as Insight on the Scriptures commented on Jesus’ words: “Christ Jesus showed that his presence would not be kept secret, even as it is impossible to conceal lightning that ‘comes out of eastern parts and shines over to western parts.’ (Mt 24:23-27; Lu 17:20-24)” [Insight, volume 2, page 255] This suggests only that Jesus’ parousia would become widely known. However, The Watchtower [May 1, 1993, page 12] returned to Allen’s exposition, saying: “As Jesus foretold, in a global way, lightnings of Bible truth continue to flash over broad areas from eastern parts to western parts. Truly, as modern light bearers, Jehovah’s Witnesses prove to be ‘a light of the nations, that [Jehovah’s] salvation may come to be to the extremity of the earth.’ – Isaiah 49:6.”
[2] C.T. Russell: Optomai, Zion’s Watch Tower, September 1880, page 8.
[3] W. R. Goff: The Handbook of Eschatology, Or, A Consistent Biblical View of the Lord’s Return, Keystone Publishing House, Blairsville, Pennsylvania, 1917, page 34.
[4] C. T. Russell: Food for Thinking Christians, Watch Tower Supplement, 1881, page 63.
[5] W. Martin and R. Zacharias: The Kingdom of the Cults, “updated edition,” 2003, page 101.
[6] J. B. Rotherham: Emphasized Bible, 1897 edition, appendix, page 271.
[7] An example is George Whitefield Ridout’s The Deadly Fallacy of Russellism or Millennial Dawnism. [Kansas City, Missouri, No date.]