Start, partial. For comment. So please do so.
Afterword
Doctrinal Evolution and
Prophetic Failure
Through
1880 and 1881 Russell grew in confidence as a writer, or at least as an
outliner of articles he left for his wife to put in final form. It was a period
of doctrinal restatement, and occasionally one of refinement. In one of his
dialogue-format articles he wrote:
God’s
word is “new every morning and fresh every evening.” In this respect it differs
from all other books and, undoubtedly it is a fountain of living waters
(truths) from the fact that it contains special dispensational truths, as well
as general truth. Thus it is a great storehouse from which the Lord’s servants
are to bring forth “things new and old,” that the household of faith may have
meat in due season.” I seem to see in a clearer light than ever before, the
present condition of the nominal church and its future.
Russell defined himself – and Watch
Tower adherents – as dispensationalists. [We demonstrated in one of the
introductory essays, Dispensationalism did not originate with Darby but
significantly predates him.] For Russell, this meant that scriptural
understanding appropriate to the Last Times was due. However, none of Russell’s
‘clearer’ understanding was new or original to him in any way, but it was long
established doctrine among millennialists. He did not attribute his “clearer
light” to anyone because he saw it as Biblical truth, derived from that source
alone. This is not exceptional. Few English language commentators did anything
else. It was the German and Dutch expositors who referred to the work of
others, and we cannot prove that Russell read any of them, even in English
translation. It would lighten a historian’s load of he had.
Never the less, Russell tells us
that his theology was not set in stone with his separation from Barbour. He did
not remain a Barbourite at heart. And he read widely. The “clearer light” he
saw was adopted from standard prophetic expositions. In the article quoted
above he identified the great red dragon as the Roman Catholic Church. This
wasn’t ‘new’ to anyone, but was doctrine among many Protestants for centuries.
In volume one of Separate
Identity we pointed to the prevalence of prophetic interest in Pittsburgh,
naming Russell’s pastor as one who promoted this. Within Russell’s religious
circle was William James Reid, pastor of pastor of the United Presbyterian
Church in Pittsburgh. We do not know that Russell read Reid’s lectures on The
Revelation, but he certainly read something similar. Reid said that none of
his thought was original, naming his sources. His view of the Great Red Dragon
of the Apocalypse was echoed in Russell’s writing as was his view of the
composite beast with the Leopard’s body. There are differences, but all
differences with Reid find correspondences with other expositors.
Watch Tower adherents were often
familiar with commentaries on the prophecies. The Allegheny Study Group spent
considerable time reading them, especially when they considered Restitution
[Restored Paradise] doctrine. Russell selected from existing commentaries those
thoughts which he believed most closely represented the Bible’s meaning. When
he met Barbour he was introduced to a prophetic framework based on the Bible’s
prophetic numbers. Almost none of this was new to Russell; probably the only
‘new’ thing was Barbour’s “Israel’s Double” argument that asserted that there
was a time parallel between events in ancient times and modern times.
We should state too that an online
encyclopedia of doubtful worth, at least when it comments on prophecy-based
movements, is wrong when it suggests that [continue]
Now to return to our original
discussion, the 1880s were a period of investigation into prophetic subjects,
and in various ways Russell suggested that his understanding of them was
incomplete. Reporting on his 1881 visit to Lynn, Massachusetts, he wrote:
I spoke on the
subject of this same chapter to the name-less little company of “this way,” in
Lynn, Mass., and concluded my remarks by telling them that I had never seen a
satisfactory explanation of the 666. And, though I thought I had given a
correct analysis of the symbols of the chapter, yet I could not claim it to be
wisdom, since I could not interpret the number. I suggested, however, that if
ours be the correct understanding of the time in which we are living – the “harvest”
of the age – and if our general application of these symbols be correct, the
number should soon be understood. I urged examination on the subject by all,
for the Lord is sometimes pleased to give wisdom through the weakest of his
children. “Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings thou hast ordained praise.”
If we can accept a statement found
in the August 1, 1917, Watch Tower, he remained dissatisfied with his
research up to near his death: “Brother Russell often spoke about writing the
Seventh Volume [of Studies in the Scriptures], and one of his last utterances
about it was to the effect: ‘Whenever I find the key, I will write the Seventh
Volume; and if the Lord gives the key to someone else, he can write it’ – or
words to that effect.”
The problem here – at least for a historian – is that this testimony lacks
other support. Still, I do not doubt its accuracy. No-one questioned it, though
many were vocal in opposition to the seventh volume. It was entitled The Finished
Mystery. The title was derived from Revelation 10:7: “But in the days of
the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of
God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.” (AV)
Doctrinal developments in the 1880s
were diverse, but always connected to their understanding of prophecy. Three
major doctrinal changes, and a few minor ones, come from this period. Two of
the major changes came before 1881 and the other after. Each change caused
controversy.
Parousia (παρουσία)
That Christ would return invisibly
was believed by many before Russell and Barbour adopted the idea. We’ve
detailed that elsewhere in this series. Russell came to the idea through Seiss’
Last Times. Barbour was already familiar with the idea, but didn’t adopt
it until Benjamin Keith promoted it. All of this we’ve documented before. As
did many, they believed in a two-stage Second Advent. Christ would come
invisibly, requiring a ‘sign’ to detect it. In time he would become visible for
‘judgments.’ Russell’s explanation as found in Object and Manner of Our
Lord’s Return was: “We believe the scriptures to teach, that, at His coming
and for a time after He has come, He will remain invisible; afterward
manifesting or showing Himself in judgments and various forms, so that ‘every
eye shall see him.’” The ‘every eye’ quotation comes from Revelation 1:7.
Russell footnoted that text, explaining that the verse “does not necessarily
teach that that every eye will see Him at the same moment.”
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. A change in Watch Tower belief led to arguments, and
Barbour called the new doctrine “spiritualism.”
Image
First
Printing of Object and Manner
The 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 bastarized 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 man. Allen’s
claim was that “a sign will enable those who obey this injunction to discern
between the false and the true.”
This was a basic point, 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.”
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. 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.
She rejected Barbourite belief 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 know Jesus appearance
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 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 verb to see, the article summarized usages:
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.
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,”
This discussion became settled
doctrine with the publication of Food for Thinking Christians. If there
was indefiniteness in Allen’s article, something much for pointed in Russell’s
article, and a definite doctrinal statement in Food. Quoting or
paraphrasing Hebrews 12:14; 1 John 3:2; and Ephesians 1:17 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”
This
doctrinal transition brought controversial comments from Barbour, but that
conflict is subject matter for volume three of Separate Identity. As
clergy outrage intensified after 1895, the Watch Tower invisible presence
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.”
This
is a polemicist’s poor research and 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?”
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
misrepresents 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 sites as is the belief he
attributes to Watch Tower adherents. Russell, the modern Watch Tower and Bible
Student groups all believe that in time it will become apparent to everyone, at
least by the time Christ executes God’s judgment. If one writes a polemic their
statements should be accurate, but polemicists are seldom interested in
accuracy. Martin’s real objection is that it Russell, and modern descendent
religions, present an understanding of prophecy different from his own. The
same is true for those who were Russell’s contemporaries and wrote similarly.
Many who wrote anti-Russell tracts simply mentioned the teaching without
refuting it, relying on shock value to accomplish their purpose. An example is George
Whitefield Ridout’s The Deadly Fallacy of Russellism or Millennial Dawnism.
The Narrow Way to Life
Russell
dates their discussion of Matthew 7:13-14
to the Allgheny Study Groups early days, but it became a matter for general
discussion with October 1880 issue of Zion’s Watch Tower.
