What did the Presence article get wrong?

This is an analysis of an article in a book called Insight to the Scriptures published by the Watchtower organization which tries to provide the rationale for an invisible return of Christ.

There are two main ways the world is run: by principles or by authority. (Principles can also be rules, laws, reason, or logic.) The main difference between them is that the first one produces more consistency and the second produces more inconsistency. Well, unless you count that in the case of authority, its consistency is that the authority is always right, even if it contradicts what happened before. Authority can override principles, or laws, rules, reason and logic. Authority can also pick and choose if and when to follow principles, which makes it a little more confusing to detect when authority plays the leading role. Because if authority is following principles most of the time you come to assume that it does so all of the time. Authority can also camouflage itself by citing logic and reasons for its decisions. This happens a lot in religion. Religious leaders very often cite their religious texts when making decisions.

The following quote is a very good description of the difference between propaganda and education.

*** Awake! June 22, 2000, p. 9 Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda! par. 3 ***
THERE is a difference—a big difference—between education and propaganda. Education shows you how to think. Propaganda tells you what to think. Good educators present all sides of an issue and encourage discussion. Propagandists relentlessly force you to hear their view and discourage discussion. Often their real motives are not apparent. They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths.

What follows is an analysis of an article called “Presence” from the Insight to the Scriptures book. The writer of this article gives the reader a “guided tour” of scripture by focussing on those passages which agree with the approved interpretation and ignoring those that could lead to another conclusion. The article tries to defend the WTBS doctrine of an invisible presence of Christ, which supposedly occured in 1914. This is one of the most important doctrines of the organization upon which several other key doctrines depend. If it gets it wrong with this doctrine, then the foundation for others also crumble.

Let’s analyze the logic and the methods they use to establish this doctrine.

*** Insight to the Scriptures p. 677 Presence par. 5 ***
Secular Greek writings are, of course, helpful in determining the sense of this Greek term. However, even more effective is the use given the word in the Bible itself. At Philippians 2:12, for example, Paul speaks of the Philippian Christians as obeying “not during my presence [pa·rou·siʹai] only, but now much more readily during my absence [a·pou·siʹai].” So, too, at 2 Corinthians 10:10, 11, after referring to those who said that “his letters are weighty and forceful, but his presence [pa·rou·siʹa] in person is weak and his speech contemptible,” Paul adds, “Let such a man take this into account, that what we are in our word by letters when absent [a·ponʹtes], such we shall also be in action when present [pa·ronʹtes].” (Compare also Php 1:24-27.) Thus, the contrast is between presence and absence, not between an arrival (or coming) and departure.

In this paragraph the article writer focusses exclusively on Paul’s expressions about his own presence (in contrast with his absence) to then infer that the meaning “presence” should then apply to all contexts in which the word occurs. The writer completely omits any discussion about how the word is used in passages that refer to Christ. He selectively focuses only on Paul’s usage because these are the verses he can use to his advantage. However, there are many other verses in which the return of Christ is described with a verb which indisputably means “coming”, using the Greek word “erchomai”. These verses include the following: Mat 24:27; 2Th 2:1-9; Mat 24:30; Mat 24:44; Mat 25:31; Mark 13:26; 2Jo 1:7; Mat 16:27-28; Mat 23:39; Mat 26:64; Mark 8:38; Mark 14:62; Luk 9:26; Luk 12:40; Luk 13:35; Luk 18:8; Joh 14:3; Joh 14:18; Joh 14:28; 2Th 1:10; Rev 1:7; Rev 22:12; Luk 21:27; Acts 1:11; Mat 24:43; Luk 12:39; 1Th 5:2; Rev 16:15. Thus there are at least 28 verses that use that verb for the “coming” of Christ; more than the 17 occurrences of the Greek word “parousia”, which refer to Christ’s return. It is precisely because of these verses which use a verb that indisputably means “coming” that lexicographers and translators have concluded that when the parousia refers to Christ (not Paul) then it means “coming” not “present”. Several of these instances also occur in Matthew 24.

Dictionary definition of “erchomai”

ἔρχομαι (Strong’s #2064) (approximately 629 occurrences in the NT)
  1. to come
    1. of persons
      1. to come from one place to another, and used both of persons arriving and of those returning
      2. to appear, make one’s appearance, come before the public
    2. metaph.
      1. to come into being, arise, come forth, show itself, find place or influence
      2. be established, become known, to come (fall) into or unto
    3. to go, to follow one

The next paragraph discusses Rotherham’s translation:

*** Insight to the Scriptures p. 677 Presence par. 6 ***
In view of this, J. B. Rotherham’s Emphasised Bible states in its appendix (p. 271): “In this edition the word parousia is uniformly rendered ‘presence’ (‘coming,’ as a representative of this word, being set aside). ... The sense of ‘presence’ is so plainly [shown] by the contrast with ‘absence’ . . . that the question naturally arises,—Why not always so render it?”

To answer the question “Why not always so render it?” is because of the verb meaning “coming” used of Christ’s return at least 28 times (mentioned above). Notice that the writer quotes only one translation that supports his view; he doesn’t give any reasons why almost all other translations which use the word “coming” should be wrong. The writer also omits the fact that Rotherham’s view of the parousia differs from the WTBS in that very same appendix quoted above (read it at archive.org here). There Rotherham says (in 1897) that “The parousia, in any case, is still in the future...”. Russell believed that it had already happened in 1874. William Miller first came up with the concept of an invisible presence in order to save face after the “Great Disappointment” of 1844 when his prediction of Christ’s visible return didn’t materialize as expected. Several different groups of Christians have declared several different dates of Christ’s parousia, which is only possible if such a doctrine is based on authority of the leader, rather than an indisputable, visible return of Christ. The real reason the WTBTS chooses to render it “presence” everywhere is because it is easier to support their doctrine that the signs mentioned in Mat 24 indicate that Christ is now present, rather than that they indicate He will soon be coming. Which scenario does the parable of the fig tree support—present or coming soon; here or near? Each gospel writer that includes the end times discourse mentions it.

The signs (referred to as: “these things”) are indicators that he is NEAR, not that he is already here! Therefore, even if the year 1914 was a significant sign, then all it means is that Christ is NEAR, not that he is HERE! The signs are like road signs telling the driver what to expect soon.

*** Insight to the Scriptures p. 677 Presence para. 8 ***
Nature of Christ’s “Parousia.” A pa·rou·siʹa, or presence, can, of course, be visible, and in six occurrences of the word the reference is to the visible, human presence of men, such as Stephanas, Fortunatus, Achaicus, Titus, and Paul. (1Co 16:17; 2Co 7:6,7; 10:10; Php 1:26; 2:12) That a pa·rou·siʹa can also be invisible is indicated by Paul’s use of the related verb form (paʹrei·mi) when speaking of being “present in spirit” though absent in body. (1Co 5:3) So, too, Jewish historian Josephus, writing in Greek, refers to God’s pa·rou·siʹa at Mount Sinai, his invisible presence being evidenced by the thunders and lightning.—Jewish Antiquities, III, 80 (v,2).

In this paragraph the writer makes several errors. The reference to the related term “pareimi” is not technically wrong, but he should first exhaust the discussion of the word that he is trying to get the reader to understand, namely “parousia”, before expanding his discussion to related terms. He looks at contexts where the word parousia CAN be used figuratively and mean an invisible presence and then assumes that this gives him liberty to assign a meaning of invisibility elsewhere! Note that the reason for concluding an “invisible presence” in 1Co 5:3 (“Although absent in body, I am present in spirit...”) is based on the context of that verse; he doesn’t need to find an invisible meaning elsewhere and then import it into this verse. No need for that! Besides, that would be wrong because my thesis is that the meaning of an ambiguous word is determined (and disambiguated) by the immediate context in which it occurs. Such an error could happen if an interpreter would apply a visible meaning to 1Co 5:3 because in the case of Stephanas, Fortunatus, et al. the word refers to a visible presence. All the verses discussed so far rely on their immediate contexts for being able to determine a visible or an invisible meaning for the word “parousia”. To do anything else would be irresponsible and be evidence of not “accurately handling the word of truth” (2Ti 2:15).

Next, he refers to God’s presence (parousia) at Mount Sinai. Other passages state that “no one has seen God at any time” nor “can they see him”. He is repeatedly described as “invisible”. These are the reasons to believe that the word must include a meaning of an invisible presence. But again, just because God’s presence must be understood as an invisible presence does not give an interpreter the freedom to insist that references to Stephanas, Fortunatus, et. al. must also be invisible. Again, visible or invisible, each can be determined by the immediate context.

*** Insight to the Scriptures p. 678 Presence par. 13 ***
Some, on the basis of texts speaking of Jesus’ being seen “coming in clouds with great power and glory” (Mr 13:26; Re 1:7), conclude that his presence must be a visible one. Yet, as shown under the heading CLOUD (Illustrative Usage), the use of clouds in connection with other divine manifestations suggests invisibility rather than visibility. So, too, ‘seeing’ can refer to figurative sight, perception with the mind and heart. (Isa 44:18; Jer 5:21; Eze 12:2, 3; Mt 13:13-16; Eph 1:17, 18) To deny this would be to deny that the opposite of sight, namely, blindness, could be used in a figurative or spiritual, rather than literal, sense. Yet Jesus clearly used both sight and blindness in such a figurative or spiritual sense. (Joh 9:39-41; Re 3:14-18; compare also 2Co 4:4; 2Pe 1:9.) Job, being spoken to by Jehovah “out of the windstorm” (likely accompanied by clouds), afterward said: “In hearsay I have heard about you, but now my own eye does see you.” (Job 38:1; 42:5) This, too, must have been by perception of mind and heart rather than the literal eye, in view of the clear Scriptural teaching that “no man has seen God at any time.”—Joh 1:18; 5:37; 6:46; 1Jo 4:12.

In this 12th paragraph the writer continues to rely on other instances involving God or cases where “seeing” is used figuratively to grant himself permission to apply it where he wants to. No one is denying that seeing can refer to figurative sight in some contexts. In each of the instances relied upon by the writer the invisibility of the subject or the figurativeness of the word “see” is arrived at from its immediate context. He does not import any meanings from elsewhere. In the article CLOUD the author references a passage in Exodus 19:9, which reads: “And Jehovah said to Moses: “Look! I am coming to you in a dark cloud, so that the people may hear when I speak with you...” It can be noted that the invisible God explicitly states that a cloud would be the sign by which people could recognize his presence. There is no such statement in reference to Christ’s return. Rather, in Christ’s case, his post-resurrection appearances give ample proof that Christ could appear physically and visibly if and when he chose to. If he did it before, he can logically do it again. If it is asserted that his parousia would be an invisible event then the one holding to such a position is required to point to positive textual evidence in verses that speak about the parousia of Christ, not to verses involving the Father or other cases that uncontroversially and undeniably allow for that.

The next paragraph contains a curious mixture of faulty logic and incorrect interpretations.

*** Insight to the Scriptures p. 678 Presence par. 14 ***
Evidence weighing against Jesus’ presence as being a visible one (in the sense of Jesus’ appearing in a bodily form that could be seen by human eyes) is found in Jesus’ own statement that by his death he would sacrifice his flesh in behalf of the life of the world (Joh 6:51) and in the apostle Paul’s declaration that the resurrected Jesus “dwells in unapproachable light, whom not one of men has seen or can see.” (1Ti 6:14-16) Jesus therefore could tell his disciples that “a little longer and the world will behold me no more.” True, his disciples would behold him, not only because he would appear to them after his resurrection but also because in due time they would be resurrected to join him in the heavens and ‘behold the glory that his Father had given him.’ (Joh 14:19; 17:24) But the world in general would not behold him because after his resurrection to life as a spirit creature (1Pe 3:18), Jesus restricted his appearances to his disciples. His ascension to heaven was also seen only by them, not by the world, and the angels present assured the disciples that Jesus’ return would be in “the same manner” (Gr., troʹpos, not mor·pheʹ, “form”), hence without public display, discerned only by his faithful followers.—Ac 1:1-11.

First, the writer applies something to Jesus when it clearly applies to the Father. 1Ti 6:14-16 clearly applies to the Father not Christ because it says “...whom not one of men has seen or can see.” His disciples saw Jesus after his resurrection, therefore this clearly cannot be referring to Christ.

Second, the writer seems to suggest that Christ could not return visibly because that would require a body (reference claimed to support this is John 6:51). However, if that is actually true then how could Christ have appeared visibly (and give proof of being in a physical body as well) to his disciples after his resurrection? The fact that he did so makes the writer’s statement invalid. Christ showed that he can appear visibly if and when he chooses to do so, not according to any man’s declaration that it is impossible for doctrinal reasons. The writer contradicts himself just 2 sentences later when he admits: “True, his disciples would behold him...” His claim that “the world in general would not behold him...” is not found in scripture, but asserted by the writer. In fact, scripture states the opposite in Rev 1:7 “...every eye will see him, and those who pierced him; and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief because of him.” This is also stated by Christ himself in Mat 24:30 “...and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief, and they will see the Son of man coming...” How this will or can happen I will leave up to God, because people have been surprised by him before.

Events marking his presence. I’ve added the numbers in red to discuss them below.

*** Insight to the Scriptures p. 679 Presence par. 18 ***
Among the events marking Jesus’ presence in Kingdom power are: 1) The resurrection of those of his followers who have died, these being joint heirs with him to the heavenly Kingdom (1Co 15:23; Ro 8:17); 2) his gathering together and bringing into union with himself other followers who are living at the time of his presence (Mt 24:31; 2Th 2:1); 3) his ‘bringing to nothing’ the apostate “man of lawlessness,” this being accomplished “by the manifestation [e·pi·pha·neiʹai] of his [Jesus’] presence” (2Th 2:3-8; see MAN OF LAWLESSNESS); 4) the destruction of all those who give no heed to the opportunity for deliverance (Mt 24:37-39); and, of necessity, 5) the introduction of his Thousand Year Reign (Re 20:1-6). See also the article TRANSFIGURATION for information on the way in which observers of that vision of Christ in Kingdom glory were enabled to acquaint others with “the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ.”—2Pe 1:16-18.

My question regarding these important points is, when did all these things happen in history, if the parousia happened in 1914?

  1. When did these resurrections occur? I know that Rutherford published his prediction that this was to occur in 1925 and he built a mansion in California called Beth Sarim for the “ancient worthies” and lived there himself while he awaited for them to appear. Is there such a thing as a symbolic, figurative or invisible resurrection? If so far there has been no documented resurrection, can we say that the parousia has happened?
  2. How have the one’s still living at his parousia been united with Christ after the resurrection of the followers who had died? So, this must have occurred right after the resurrection of the dead. Traditionally this has been called the rapture because of the way Paul describes it in 1Th 4:16-17  “because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. Afterward we the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and thus we will always be with the Lord.” Is all of this merely symbolic?
  3. Who is the apostate “man of lawlessness?” The article MAN OF LAWLESSNESS states “The annihilation of this wicked opposer of God will be visible, concrete proof that the Lord Jesus Christ is sitting and acting as Judge.” If his destruction is to be visible then so must his presence be. Who is “he”? When was he destroyed?
  4. Who are those who “give no heed to the opportunity for deliverance”? And when were they destroyed? Or is that still future?
  5. Has the Thousand Year Reign of Christ started already?

You notice how many verses are connected to the topic of the parousia of Christ? If someone claims that the parousia is an invisible event then it also impacts a lot of other verses which must then follow suit and be symbolized to maintain the original claim.

So, IN SUMMARY:

Verses where “parousia” is invisible Verses where “parousia” is visible
God (Exodus 19:9); Paul (1Co 5:3) Stephanus, Fortunatus, Achaicus, Titus, and Paul. (1Co 16:17; 2Co 7:6, 7; 10:10; Php 1:26; 2:12)
In each of the cases in the row above the meaning of visible and invisible can be determined from the context of each verse. You cannot smuggle visibility or invisibility from one side to the other. To ignore each context and apply a meaning from the other side would be evidence of not “accurately handling the word of truth” (2Ti 2:15).
Christ’s parousia
There are no words which mean invisible that are used in relation to Christ’s parousia. Please correct me if I am wrong and you have found some. There are numerous words (nouns, verbs, and adjectives) which indicate visibility in relation to Christ’s parousia, yet the writer of the article mostly ignores those and imports a meaning of invisibility from those cases where it can be legitimately used. In effect the writer says: “It does mean invisible there, so that gives me permission to assert it here. I am not obligated to explain away all the references to visibility, I merely have to assert that Christ’s parousia is also invisible.” To attempt to explain away all the references to visibility would be counter-productive for the writer because, a) it is very difficult to do, and b) that would allow the reader to see how much evidence there is against his position. Rather just sift the facts: use what supports his beliefs and ignore everything else.

The immediate contexts of the verses that mention the parousia also use the following words:

  • coming (ἔρχομαι = erchomai)
  • see (οραω = orao)
  • see (θεάομαι = theaomai)
  • appearing, manifestation (ἐπιφάνεια = epiphaneia)
  • appear, reveal, displayed (φαίνω = phaino)
  • revealed (φανερόω = phanerow)
  • revealed, (αποκαλυπτο = apokalupto)
  • flash (ἀστράπτω = astrapto)
  • shine (λάμπω = lampo).

In all there are at least 70 verses that speak about Christ’s return. The writer of the article discusses only a few of them. See this page to explore all the verses that speak about Christ’s return.