The coming of the Lord

The Watchtower has a unique doctrine among the churches of Christendom when it comes to the end times. Today they claim that Christ’s predicted return happened in 1914 and that it was an invisible event. But during Charles Russell day, he claimed that return of Christ occurred in 1874. He arrived at this date through a complex calculation of many Bible prophecies that also included a starting point (607 BCE) which no one else uses. Charles Russell himself was not the first to claim that Christ had returned “invisibly”. In this he was influenced by the Adventist movement that had begun with William Miller in 1831. Many people were interested in the topic of the end times and some developed biblical chronologies that attempted to put a date on Christ’s return. After a great disappointment in Oct 22, 1844 when a visible return of Christ failed to materialize, they changed their belief that his return should actually be invisible. Charles Russell was influenced by the Adventist movement in other doctrines as well, such as denying the immortality of the soul, hell fire, and the Trinity.

Resources related to the Adventist movement and the Millerite movement.

Testing Russell’s chronological calculations can get complex. I believe there is a conceptually simpler approach to test this central doctrine of the Watchtower. And that is to test if the teaching that Christ would return invisibly is taught in scripture. The reason this is a simpler method is because IF it can be shown that Christ would return invisibly THEN it certainly is possible that he returned in 1914, or even at an earlier date. However, IF it can be shown that the Bible teaches a visible return of Christ, then 1914 is a year that has no importance for biblical prophecy. This is because neither Russell, nor anyone else, claimed to have seen Christ return in that year. So, what follows will try to establish the assertion that the return of Christ is to be a visible event, not invisible. It may not appear to be simpler than checking the chronological calculations because it will involve looking at a lot of verses as well, but it is conceptually simpler: is the parousia supposed to be visible or invisible?

The Watchtower gives the impression that there is only one Greek word that is important when considering the topic of Christ’s return (or “presence” as they like to say), namely “parousia”. The table below will show that there are many Greek terms that were used by Bible writers when writing about and describing His return. Greek dictionaries mention 2 definitions for the word “parousia”, but the NWT consistently uses only one of those definitions, namely, “presence”. In the NWT (1984) Appendix 5B on the topic of the Parousia they do discuss 2 other Greek words, namely “pareimi” and “eleusis”. This is unfortunate because the average JW will think that they are doing a deeper study into related Greek terms that refer to Christ’s parousia, when in reality, these words are never used in relation to His future return at all! Thus that appendix sadly falls short in illuminating the reader of additional synonyms and descriptions used in the NT for Christ’s return. By focusing on unrelated terms it succeeds in misdirecting the reader in unfruitful directions to avoid any possible conclusions of a visible return. This is another example of the WT Society giving people a “guided tour” of the Bible, pointing out what they want them to look at, while carefully avoiding what they don’t want them to see.

How does Greek express invisibility?

But let’s first ask the question: Does the Greek language even have the vocabulary to discuss the concept of invisibility? If they had no vocabulary to describe it then we would have to infer it indirectly.

Well, we can clearly say that the Greek language does have the vocabulary to express invisibility in multiple ways. So, if the writers of the NT had needed to teach an invisible return of Christ, they had plenty of words at their disposal to do so. At least 13 ways of describing something as invisible include:

Next, there are various ways to express invisibility by using one of two words that mean not (οὐ or μή) plus a word that means see, sight, appear. Effectively, saying: “not visible” or “not seen”

Words which express visibility

When we examine the “parousia” passages we find they also contain several other words which indicate visibility and none which have a definition of invisibility.

Summary
These words are used to describe Christ’s return.
  • ἔρχομαι = coming
  • ἐπιφάνεια = appearance
  • φαίνω = appear
  • φανερόω = revealed, manifested
  • ὁράω = see
  • αποκαλυπτο = revealed

These words will be discussed below.
These words are not used with the topic of Christ’s return
  • ἀόρατος — aoratos: invisible
  • ἄφαντος — aphantos: taken out of sight, made invisible
  • ἀφανισμός — aphanismós: disappearance
  • ἄδηλος — adēlos: not manifest, indistinct, uncertain, obscure
  • ἀπόκρυφος — apokruphos: secret, hid, kept secret.
  • κρατέω — krateo: seized, retained
  • κρυπτός — kruptos: secret, hidden, secrets
  • συγκαλύπτω — sugkalupto: to cover up on all sides
  • not + βλέπω — blepo: not seen
  • not + ὁράω — orao: not see
  • not + εἶδος — eidos: not sight
  • not + θεάομαι — theomai: not see
  • not + φαίνω — phaínō: not appear, seem, be seen, shine

These words are discussed in the NWT (1984) Appendix 5B
πάρειμι — pareimi: come/present
ἔλευσις — eleusis: coming

The 2 words below, which ARE discussed in NWT (1984) Appendix 5B by the WTS, do NOT appear in verses discussing the “parousia” of Christ.

The reason these words are discussed is to give JWs the impression that the Organization has studied the original Greek text and understands everything of importance relating to the topic of the parousia. “We’ve done our due diligence. No need to do your own research. Trust us, we've done it for you.” In reality, they are giving the reader “a guided tour” of scripture. They want to create a false impression of having done enough research to really know what the original Greek means. Why else discuss words that never appear with the topic of the parousia and ignore everything that shouts “visibility?”

pareimi πάρειμι come/present Occurs 24x: Mat 26:50; Luke 13:1; Joh 7:6; 11:28; Acts 10:21,33; 12:20; 17:6; 24:19;
1Co 5:3; 2Co 10:2,11; 11:9; 13:2,10; Gal 4:18,20; Col 1:6; Heb 12:11; 13:5 2Pe 1:9,12; Rev 17:8. This word never occurs with the topic of the “parousia”.
eleuseōs ἔλευσις coming (synonym of ἔρχομαι erchomai) Occurs 1x: Acts 7:52 (refers to first coming, not the second). This word never occurs with the topic of the “parousia”.

Here are the words that Appendix 5B should have discussed in relation to the Parousia of Christ. Why didn’t they?

coming (or presence) παρουσία {par-oo-‘see-a} Strong’s: 3952; (NT: 24x) Matt 24:3,27,37,39; 1Co 15:23; 1 Thess 2:19; 3:13; 5:23; 2Th 2:1,8,9; James 5:7,8; 2Pe 3:4; 1 John 2:28 (other passages: 1Co 16:17; 2Co 7:6,7; 10:10; Phil 2:12)
Recent archaeological discoveries have explained why the word received such general Christian use in the special sense. In Hellenistic Greek it was used for the arrival of a ruler at a place, as is evidenced by inscriptions in Egypt, Asia Minor, etc. Indeed, in an Epidaurus inscription of the 3rd century BC (Dittenberger, Sylloge (2) , Number 803, 34), “Parousia” is applied to a manifestation of Aesculapius. Consequently, the adoption by the Greek-speaking Christians of a word that already contained full regal and even Divine concepts was perfectly natural. (The evidence is well summarized in Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East 3, 372-78, German edition, 281-87.) [From: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia q.v. PAROUSIA]		 17 verses about Christ’s future return
coming ἔρχομαι
{'er-kho-ma-hee}
Strong’s: 2064; (NT:604x)		 2 John 1:7
Endtimes discourse: Mat 24:27,30,42,44; 25:31; Mark 13:26; Luke 12:40; 21:27;
Other: Mat 16:27,28; 23:39; Mat 26:64; Mark 8:38; 14:62; Luke 9:26; 13:35; Luke 18:8; John 14:3,18,28; Acts 1:11; 1Co 15:23; 1Th 5:2; 2Th 1:10; 2:3; Rev 1:7; 22:12
It is undisputed that this verb means “coming”; even the NWT translates it as “coming”. And it is because of this word that gets used repeatedly in connection with Christ’s return (his “parousia”) that lexicographers and translators have translated the word “parousia” as “coming” when it refers to Christ’s return and not as “presence.” This is most clearly seen in the verses that mention the “Son of Man” returning. 		23 verses about Christ’s future return
The word “see” (from root word: οραω ‘to see’) occurs 113 times in NT
This verb is an irregular verb; thus the many very different forms below. These references are a sample of the verses with the Greek word “see”. The list below is not exhaustive. It has been translated different ways:
passive: appear, perceive, understand, recognize, experience, visit, come to see (Heb 13:23);
transitive: see, observe, notice;
intransitive: make sure, see to, take care.
see: (ὄψονται) Matt 24:30; Mark 13:26; 14:62; Luke 21:27; 1 John 3:2 (other occurences: Mat 28:10; Mark 16:7; Luke 1:11; 3:6; 22:43; Luke 24:34; John 16:16,17,19,22; 19:37; Acts 1:3; Acts 13:31; 16:9) 6 verses about Christ’s future return
see: (ὄψεσθε) Mat 26:64; Mark 14:62 (other occurences: Mat 27:24; 28:7,10; Mar 14:62; 16:7; Luke 17:22; John 1:39,51; 16:16,17,19; Act 18:15; 20:25) 2x
appear: (ὀφθήσεται V-FIP-3S) Heb 9:28 (other occurences in LXX: Gen 9:14; Exo 23:17; 34:23; Lev 9:4,6; 13:7,19; Num 23:21; Deu 16:16; 23:14; 1Sa 1:22; 2Ki 22:20; Psa 84:7; 102:16; Isa 40:5; 60:2; Jer 13:26) 1x
see: (ὄψεται) Rev 1:7 (other occurences: Luk 3:6; Jhn 3:36; Heb 12:14) 1x
appear: (ὤφθη V-AIP-3S) Mat 17:3; Mrk 9:4 (Moses and Elijah appearing); Luke 1:11; 22:43; 24:34; Act 7:2,26; 7:30; 13:31; 16:9; 1Co 15:5-8; 1Ti 3:16; Rev 11:19; 12:1,3 0x
appeared: (ὀφθέντες, ὀπτάνομαι, ὀφθείς) Luke 9:31; Act 1:3; 9:17; 26:16 0x
see: (ἑωράκαμεν) et al John 3:11,32; 6:36,46; John 8:57; 9:37; 14:9; John 20:18,25,29; 1Jo 1:1-3 0x
appearance; splendour (ἐπιφάνεια) (epiphaneia)
{e-pi-‘fa-ni-ah}
Strong’s: 2015		 2 Thes 2:8; 1Ti 6:14; 2Ti 1:10; 4:1,8; Titus 2:11,13
The word was used like Parousia in Hellenistic Greek to denote the ceremonial arrival of rulers; compare Deissmann, as above. [From: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia]		 6x
appear; reveal
(φαίνω) {'phaí-nō}
Strong’s: 5316		 Mat 24:27,30; Col 3:4; 2Ti 1:10; 1Pe 1:20; 5:4; 1Jo 3:2 (other passages: Mark 4:22; Luke 8:17; John 1:5,31; 3:21; 5:35; 9:3; Rom 2:28; 1Co 3:13; 14:25; 2Co 4:10-11; Gal 5:19; 1Ti 3:16; 4:15; Rev 3:18) 6x
revealed (φανερόω)
{phan-er-‘o-o}
Strong’s: 5319		 1 John 2:28 (parousia and phaneroo!); compare with John 21:1,14; 2Co 5:10; Col 3:4; 1Pe 5:4; (other passages: Mark 4:22; 16:12,14; 2Ti 1:10; Heb 9:26; 1Pe 1:20; Rev 15:4) 4x
revealed, appearing (αποκαλυπτο) (apocalypse)
{a-po-ka-‘loop-to}		 Luke 17:30; John 12:38; 1Co 1:7; 3:13; Gal 3:23; 2 Thess 1:7; 2:3,6,8; 1Pe 1:5,7,13; 4:13; 5:1 6x
Day of the Lord
(ἡμέρα κυρίου)		 Luke 17:24; 1Co 1:8; 5:5; 2Co 1:14; Phil 1:6,10; 2:16; 1Th 5:2; 2Th 2:2; 2Pe 3:10 9x
see (θεάομαι) Acts 1:11; (other occurences: Mat 6:1; 11:7; 22:11; 23:5; Mark 16:11,14; Luk 5:27; 7:24; 23:55; Joh 1:14,32,38; 4:35; Joh 6:5; 11:45; Act 8:18; 21:27; 22:9; Rom 15:24; 1Jo 1:1; 1Jo 4:12,14) 1x
as a thief (κλέπτης) {kléptēs} Mat 24:43; Luke 12:39; 1Th 5:2; 2Pe 3:10; Rev 3:3; 16:15 6x

All of these Greek words are used for visible events. In the passages which discuss the return of Christ no words are ever used which mean “invisible” or “unseen.” When the object of the verb is by nature immaterial and invisible, such as knowledge or understanding, then of course “see” is used figuratively. But when the object of the verb is a person, it is always a visible event. Instead of using the words “appear” or “reveal”, the NWT chose to use a less familiar and older word that does not have an immediate visible definition in most people’s minds, namely, “manifest”. This allows them to obscure the visible aspect as much as possible.

Other words to study which are synonyms for Christ’s second coming include: “day of wrath”, “last day”, or simply “day”.

Several comments to specific verses.

When discussing Acts 1:11 JW’s will claim that the fact that Christ rose into the clouds means that his return was going to be invisible (see Acts 1:9-11). They try hard not to focus on the part that says: “This Jesus who was taken up from you into the sky will come in the same manner as you have seen him going into the sky” (NWT 2013). Other translations have “as you have watched him go”. Let’s try to use this statement in another context: Elon Musk’s SpaceX program. Elon’s rockets return to earth and can be used again. If we heard a statement such as: “this rocket which went up into the sky will come in the same manner as you have seen it going into the sky” would we expect it to return invisibly? Of course not! Thus the obvious interpretation of the same sentence is that a visible return should be expected, not an invisible one. This conclusion is supported and reinforced by the lack of any word that has a meaning of invisibility. William Miller (and Charles Russell) read into the verse his interpretation of an invisible return because he did not want to lose face and admit his prophecy was wrong. He had motive to reinterpret the verse to his advantage.

In discussing Rev 1:7 they claim that the “every eye will see him” is meant symbolically because the word “eye” can be used symbolically in Eph 1:18 where it is used as “the eyes of your heart.” This is a completely arbitrary collocation of verses because they have nothing in common except for the word “eye.” And we can know that the word “eye” in the Ephesian passage is meant figuratively because the text says so: “eyes of your heart!” The passage in Rev 1:7 says “every eye will see him!”

Coming or Presence??

A common verb which occurs 25 times in connection with the return of Christ is the verb “come/coming” which is the Greek word “ἔρχομαι = erchomai.” (It occurs over 600 times in the NT.) The noun παρουσία or “parousia” can have 2 meanings: “come” and “presence” and it occurs 17 times in the context of Christ’s return. When a verb and a noun describe the same event they will share the same meaning. The Watchtower admits that Greek dictionaries list more than one definition for the word “parousia.” So, where have they translated that word as “coming” or anything else other than their chosen first meaning, “presence?” Have they become Greek experts, or did they dismiss the second definition because they allowed “ personal beliefs to color their renderings?” (Reasoning from the Scriptures q.v. “Bible” p. 64).

As will be readily seen from the list of verses below the Greek verb “erchomai” or “come/coming” is used interchangebly with, and far more frequently for Christ’s return than the noun “parousia.” Indeed, they sometimes occur together in the very same sentence! This is particularly obvious when we look at the phrase “Son of Man” in connection with “erchomai” and “parousia.” Three verses use the noun “parousia” and “Son of Man” in the same sentence as “the coming of the Son of Man”:

Note that it is only Matthew that uses the word “parousia” for Christ’s return even though Mark and Luke also report the very same discourse Christ gave to his disciples. Obviously there must then be a synonym for it which adequately expresses the very same idea. This word is “erchomai” or “come/coming.”

Here are the 24 verses (using the NIV) which mention the future return of Christ and which use the Greek verb “erchomai” for come/coming (in red). Note also the 10x it is mentioned that his coming will be seen.

It is precisely because the word “erchomai” is used so frequently for Christ’s return that translators recognize that the word “parousia” has the same meaning, namely “coming.” One is a verb, the other a noun, but they are used in the very same context and they describe the very same event. Indeed, in the Gospels of Mark and Luke, the word “parousia” is never used to describe Christ’s return, but “erchomai” is used exclusively. By translating “parousia” everywhere as “presence” they have allowed “personal beliefs to color their renderings.”

Objections by JWs

A common rebuttal by JWs is to point to verses in which a particular word in question can have multiple meanings, or can have a literal and a figurative usage in different contexts. Thus they will point to a word in a verse which has a (legitimately) figurative meaning and then say, “Well, this word CAN mean X, therefore in that other verse it means X there too.” However, a reader cannot choose from multiple legitimate meanings of a word and assign any one of those meanings they like to any other passage where that word occurs! A word’s context determines which of several possible meanings any particular word has, not the reader.

Let me give an example that should make this clear. The topic of the parousia is one of the topics in which JW’s will use this approach. In the book Insight and the article on “Presence” the WTS goes to some length to establish that “presence” CAN be used in a figurative manner and for an invisible event. They then use this argument when discussing the word “eyes” in the context of Christ’s parousia. They say that because a word CAN legitimately be used in a non-literal way or for an invisible event they then assert (implicitly) that this allows them to interpret other passages as also being non-literal or figurative.

*** w69 8/15 p. 485 Christ’s Return—What Does It Mean for You? ***
But perhaps you are now asking, Then how are we to understand the words of Revelation 1:7: “Look! He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him”? The Bible speaks of two kinds of sight. Thus Jesus on one occasion said that his religious opposers were ‘blind guides leading the blind and that both would fall into a pit.’ (Matt. 15:14) Obviously Jesus did not mean that they were literally or physically blind, but that they were blind as to their understanding. So when you read that every eye will see Jesus you may be certain that, since the Word of God cannot contradict itself, what is referred to is figurative sight. (emphasis added)

To illustrate why this is just an obviously wrong way to interpret texts, let me show it in two ways that everyone will probably agree with. I will first make a figurative word literal, and then a literal word figurative.

So first, I’ll make figurative “eyes” into literal “eyes” to show how ludicrous this is. Every student of the Bible knows and accepts that the word “eyes” can be used in both a literal and figurative way. But because I (now a hypothetical person) am convinced of the importance of literal eyes (for some currently unknown theological reason) I choose to interpret the passage in Eph 1:18 as referring to literal eyes. To defend my choice I assert that because scripture makes abundant references to literal eyes, then I can interpret this instance literally as well. The absurdity of such an interpretive process should be clear for two reasons. The first reason that the word “eyes” in Eph 1:18 must be interpreted figuratively can be found in that sentence itself, the closest possible context! Not in any other text! It says “eyes of your heart”! The second reason is that no one has found literal eyes on any heart yet! Ever! HOWEVER, despite the absurdity of making figurative eyes into actual real eyes, the reverse seems to be perfectly permissible for some. Even in those cases where there is NO textual reason for making it figurative. However, you cannot just assign any meaning you like to any word you like. The meaning of a word is determined by its own context! It’s not like a menu in a restaurant where you can just choose any definition you find in the dictionary.

The previous example changed a figurative “eye” into a literal one. Now I’ll do the opposite. Now I'll change a literal eye into a figurative one. Let’s imagine a liberal theologian who doesn’t believe that Christ performed miracles and says, “Well, because the word ‘eyes’ CAN be used figuratively (see Eph 1:18), then I can say that Christ didn’t really heal the physical eyes of the blind. He only healed them figuratively, by giving them insight and understanding.” He performs this interpretive sleight of hand to retain his apriori commitment to his anti-supernatural materialistic point of view.

But importing a figurative meaning from one context into another one that shows no textual or contextual reason for being figurative is just as inappropriate as the opposite: importing a literal meaning where the local context shows no evidence of the word having a literal meaning. The local context determines the meaning of a word, not how it CAN be interpreted in just any other context!

I just said that the process of assigning a literal or figurative interpretation on specific passages seems permissible for some. There is a specific reason for this; it’s not random. Just like a detective looks for motive in trying to narrow down the range of suspects in a crime, these interpreters have motive to perform this sleight of hand of smuggling symbolism into places where it doesn’t belong. The reason is that their theological or philosophical commitments compel them to this kind of interpretive smuggling! Otherwise the text contradicts their beliefs or doctrines! It must be noted, however, that the ones making such a semantic transplantation do so entirely on their own authority. It is not supported by the text or the original authors. They are forcing their wishful thinking, biases ​and prejudices into the text, not getting the original meaning out of the text.

There are consequences to mistreating the biblical text in the manner just described. If a leader interprets a text by assigning meaning based on his own authority (changing any text that contradicts his teaching into a symbolic or figurative meaning) then he loses all right to criticize anyone else who also uses authority to interpret the Bible. For example, the Catholic Church has its supreme human authority, the infallible Pope. And it also claims that tradition is a basis for establishing doctrine. Both of these can take precedence over the Bible alone. Accepting the Pope’s authority for interpreting the Bible is no different than accepting the Governing Body’s authority for interpreting the Bible. The only difference is that you’ll end up with different doctrines. Now JW’s will criticize a Catholic for adhering to unbiblical doctrines but find it difficult to admit that their doctrines are based on human interpretation, by an authority that admits they are neither inspired nor infallible. At least a Catholic can put their trust in an infallible Pope.