This is the letter I wrote back in '96 about the parousia.
Following the '95 Watchtower that disconnected the "generation" from 1914 I began to look carefully at end-time prophecy and soon discovered what I knew were basic errors in what I had been taught.
I was a loyal JW at the time and was still serving as an elder. I used only Watchtower publications in my research. My fellow elders agreed to forward this letter to London Bethel with a covering letter as to my good standing. Predictably the response from London was dismissive.
I then sent the letter to Brooklyn twice but never received even an acknowledgement. There was a brief comment in a WT study article some months later that sounded like a specific reference to one particular point - I think it was regarding the transfiguration.
I was disfellowshipped later in '96 for showing this letter to my father-in-law.
Notice what a loyal sycophant I was back then, especially in the final paragraphs.
The article "How will you stand before the judgement seat". (WT95 10/151p18) explained that the fulfilment of Jesus words at Mth 25:31 is yet future. There he said "When the son of man arrives in his glory and all his angels with him then he will sit down on his glorious throne. "
Previously we have taught that Jesus arrived in 1914, has been present since then, and later will come in the sense of executing judgement.
If however Jesus has not yet arrived can it really be said that he is already present? Logically would the one not have to precede the other?
If on the other hand Jesus did arrive in 1914 and yet will arrive again in the future how can we now support this view from the scriptures?
In recent months I have researched the above questions carefully using only the bible and the society publications. What follows is the result of that study.
Since completing it we have received the article "Jesus' Coming or Jesus' Presence -Which?" (Wt 96 8/15 p9) the main point of which was to make clear that the word parousi'a and its Hebrew equivalents refer not to a momentary event but to a period of time.
I am not in any way taking issue with this view, nor am I questioning the fact that we have been living in the last days since Christ's enthronement in 1914. My question relates to the timing of the parousi'a. To put it succinctly, do the scriptures indicate that Jesus' presence culminates with his coming or that it begins with it?
I wish to stress that I mean no disrespect to the governing body. My motive is simply to seek an answer to these questions as far as is reasonably possible. I certainly will not be advocating to others, views that contradict those of the society.
I also wish to state emphatically that I have had no contact of any kind with apostates whose divisive works I despise.
The Greek word parousi'a occurs twenty four times in the scriptures, seven of these refer to the presence of humans such as Stephanus, Titus and Paul. The remainder refer to the parousi'a of Jesus Christ.
Most bible translators render the word as coming, return, advent or arrival. Israel P. Warren D.D. explains why this is inaccurate "It is evident I think that neither the English word coming nor the Latin advent is the best representative of the original.., nor could they appropriately be substituted for the more exact word presence.. .the force of the former ends with the arrival, that of the later begins with it. Those are words of motion this of rest". (NWT ref. apdx 5b)
The context of scriptures such as Phil 2:12 where Paul's parousi'a is contrasted with his absence support the conclusion that presence is the correct translation of the word.
If that is all there is however to the meaning of parousi'a then what prompted the disciples question a Mth 24:3 "Tell us when will these things be and what will be the sign of your parousi'a and of the conclusion of the system of things."
Earlier that same day Jesus had predicted the destruction of the temple so it was natural for Peter, Andrew, James and John to later ask him "when will these things be?" Sometime previously in the parable of the wheat and weeds and of the dragnet Jesus had used the phrase conclusion of the system of things or literally end of the age. So again it was reasonable for the disciples to take the opportunity to enquire when that would occur. But why did they ask "what will be the sign of your parousi'a?" What did they themselves understand by the use of that word?
We believe that the disciples were asking in effect "give us signs so that your followers will be able to discern when you are present".
For this to be correct however the disciples must have already been taught by Jesus that after his going away he would at some future time, return in a manner unseen by the world and remain invisible during a period referred to as his presence.
However in all of the gospels there is nothing that Jesus had said which would have led them to this conclusion.
In fact Jesus had not even used the word parousi'a, It is the disciples themselves who use the word here at Mth. 24:3 for the first time in the scriptures.
Jesus had on a number of occasions spoke about a future day of reckoning when he would return. For example when he originally called the twelve apostles he said" You will by no means complete the circuit of the cities of Israel until the son of man arrives" Mth 10:23.
Then later just prior to the transfiguration he promised "for the son of man is destined to come in the glory of his Father with his angels and then he will recompense each one according to his behaviour" Mth 16:27
As Jesus passed through Samaria for the last time he said "even as the lightening by its flashing shines from one part under heaven to another part under heaven so the son of man will be" Luke 17:22
In these and in other references to his return there is nothing that would cause the disciples to ask for signs so that they could discern when Jesus would be invisibly present.
Since Jesus had used language like coming in the glory of his father with the angels and spoken of being like lightening shining from one horizon to the other is it really likely that the disciples meant what we have assumed them to mean when they asked "what will be the sign of your parousi'a?"
May they not in fact have been using the word parousi'a in a way that was different from its common meaning of 'presence'?
Concerning this additional specific meaning of the word we have the observations of a number of Greek commentators......
The Kingdom Interlinear quotes Dr. Adolph Deissman who says "From the ptolemaic period down into the second century one of the technical meaning of parousi'a was the arrival or visit of a King or emperor."
Similarly Insight Vol. 2 p677 refers to Liddell and Scotts Greek/English Lexicon which shows that parousi'a is used at times in secular Greek literature to refer to the visit of a royal or official personage.
Also the reference bible appendix 5b quotes Bauer who states that "parousi'a became the official term for a person of high rank, especially of Kings and emperors visiting a province"
Although the articles referred to in the Interlinear (1969) and the Insight book (1988) are rather dismissive of this translation of the word. The reference bible (1984) and the more recent WT article "Shedding Light on Christ's Presence" (WT 93 5/1 p11 par 4) select this specifically as the correct meaning of the word parousi'a at Mth 24:3. Similarly the most recent article (Wt 96 8/15 p11 pan 1) says that "other lexicons explain that parousi'a denotes the visit of a ruler".
The disciples would likely be familiar with such parousi'a living as they did under roman rule. On occasions governors, kings or other persons of high rank may have visited Palestine on official business from Rome. They would have arrived accompanied no doubt by an entourage in a not inconspicuous manner.
So while the word "coming" puts all the emphasis on the arrival and ignores what is to follow, the word "presence" does the opposite in that it ignores the moment of arrival. The idea of a royal visit however encompasses the true meaning of the word. As W. E. Vine says parousi'a denotes "both an arrival and a consequent presence with" (Wt 96 8/15 p11 par 1).
In the light of this alternative meaning of the word parousi'a the disciples question now makes perfect sense. As we said Jesus had often spoken about going away and later returning with power and authority. In fact the clearest example of this occurred just four days earlier as he and his disciples passed through Jericho on their way to Jerusalem.
At Luke 19:11-27 Jesus likened himself to a "man of noble birth who travelled to a distant land to secure kingly power for himself and to return". Eventually when he got back he settled accounts with his slaves and executed those who opposed his authority. This illustration would have been fresh in the minds of the four apostles when they questioned Jesus on the Mount of Olives.
If then they had in mind Jesus parousi'a in the sense of a royal visit during which he would call his salves to account, and that he would arrive "in the glory of his father with his angels" then would they really be asking for signs that such a visit was in progress? Or just as the disciples were asking Jesus how they would know when the destruction of Jerusalem was close, and when the conclusion of the system of things was imminent is it not logical to conclude that they also were asking for signs to indicate when Jesus parousi'a or royal visit was due to begin?
In other words, rather than asking in effect "give us signs so that your followers will be able to discern when you are present" were they not in fact asking "give us signs so that your followers will know when you are about to arrive for your royal visit"?
Indeed the article " Jesus' Coming or Jesus' Presence - Which?" seems to allow for this view. It says "Even if the apostles had in mind simply the idea of Jesus future arrival, Christ may have used bi'ah to allow for more than what they were thinking".
If that is what the apostles understood concerning Christ's parousi'a then how about Jesus reply to their question, does it confirm or correct this understanding?
On the road to Jerusalem a few days earlier Jesus had discerned that the apostles were harbouring wrong expectations. Luke 19:11 tells us "they were imagining that the Kingdom of God was going to display itself instantly". Jesus must have been concerned about the danger of such false hopes. He knew that he would soon be put to death and that his disciples would be required to endure in preaching the good news despite much opposition. This prompted him to deliver the parable of the minas.
These concerns about false expectations and the need for endurance must surely have been in the forefront of his mind as he began to answer the disciples question.
Combining Mth 24:4-8 with Luke 21:8-11 Jesus said.......
4: "Look out that nobody misleads you
5: for many will come on the basis of my name saying 'I am the Christ '(and the due time as approached Luke 21:8) and will mislead many (do not go after them Luke 21:8)
6:You are going to hear of wars and reports of wars, see that you are not terrified. For these things must take place but the end is not yet.
7:for nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom and there will be food shortages and earthquakes (pestilence's Luke 21) in one place after another. 8:all these things are a beginning of pangs of distress"
Was Jesus here saying that the appearance of wars, famine and earthquakes should be taken as evidence that his parousi'a had begun? or is it not the case that the emphasis of his words in verse 4 through 8 are that his followers should not overreact to the appearance of such signs. They should not pay heed to those who say at this point "The due time has approached".
Jesus warns "the end is not yet".
The word FOR (Greek gar) at the beginning of verse 7 suggests that rather than being a change of thought, as though a line should be drawn under verse 6, the sentence to follow will expand on what has just been said. This seems to be confirmed by verse 8.......
"all these things are a beginning of pangs of distress".
According to the Kingdom Interlinear this verse literally reads.....
Παντα δε τ?ντ? ?ρχη ωδινων
All BUT these things beginning of pangs of birth.
The Greek word &E translated BUT is not used in the text of the NWT. When it is included it does alter the emphasis of verse 7 that precedes it. Mth 24:8 reads this way in other translations.....
Philips & Jerusalem - All this is only the beginning of birth pangs
RSV - All this is but the beginning of birth pangs
J.R. Derby - But all these things are the beginning of throes
Dr. Jas. Moffatt - All that is but the beginning of trouble
S.T. Byington - But all this is the beginning of birth pangs
Wilsons Emphatic Diaglott - Yet these are only a beginning of sorrows
American Standard - But all these things are the beginning of Travail
Verse 8 then becomes a reflection of the end of verse 6 "the end is not yet" and verses 4 through 8 read as one harmonious thought - a warning not to over react to such early warning signs and be mislead by impostors. That is not to say that these signs are unimportant, they are the beginning of birth pangs, but only the beginning. By comparing the wars, famines, earthquakes and pestilence to the beginning of birth pangs Jesus uses an effective illustration. Although the early contractions of childbirth are undoubtedly painful they pale by comparison with the final stages of labour which are yet to come.
Jesus goes on next to prepare his followers for the need of endurance. There will be opposition and discouragement from outside and inside the congregation, but "The good news will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations and then the end will come." This last phrase contrasts sharply with Jesus earlier words in verse 6 "The end is not yet".
It would appear then that it is from this point that Jesus begins to answer the disciples question specifically. In Mth 24:15-22 he gives warning of the disgusting thing as spoken of by the prophet Daniel. Its appearance portends the outbreak of a great tribulation which threatens the survival of all flesh, but which will be cut short on behalf of the chosen ones. The cutting short of the great tribulation also provides opportunity for more false Christ's and false prophets to appear even performing great signs and wonders, but Jesus warns "Do not believe it. For just as the lightening comes out of eastern parts and shines over western parts so the parousi'a of the son of man will be." Mth 24:26, 27
So even now after the cutting short of the great tribulation Jesus still refers to his parousi'a in the future tense. He will not be returning in the flesh, hiding in an inner chamber or in the wilderness but will be like lightening that is clearly seen in the heavens.
Next Jesus goes on to describe the manner of his arrival. Celestial phenomena will cause men to become faint out of fear, then the sign of the son of man will appear in the heavens "and then they will see the son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory"
It is at this point then that Jesus finally returns as he had often promised. The Greek word erkho'mai translated`to come has a different meaning from parousi'a and unlike Christendom we have always been careful to make the distinction clear. erkho'mai is a momentary event whereas parousi'a covers a period of time.
We have taught that Jesus has been present since 1914 and later he will come or arrive at the very end of the last days. However Jesus seems to describe a much simpler scenario. He will arrive following the signs he had described, namely the appearance of the disgusting thing, the cutting short of the great tribulation and finally the display of celestial phenomena, and having arrived he is then present.
This also seems to be supported by the illustration of the fig tree which follows next in Matthew's account. He says "in this way also when you see all these things know that he is near at the doors." He doesn't say that when they see these signs he will already be present, but rather that his arrival is then imminent.
Jesus now goes on to make a comparison with the flood of Noah's day "for just as the days of Noah were, so the parousi'a of the son of man will be." (Mth 24:37.) We have understood Jesus to mean that the days before the flood correspond to Jesus' invisible presence since 1914. However if parousi'a is understood to mean royal visit rather than presence then Jesus words take on a different shade of meaning.
The context of the scripture is that nobody except the father knows the day and hour and it is therefore a life and death matter that his followers keep on the watch and be ready for his arrival. Just as those who ignored Noah's warnings were swept away by the flood, so too those who are not ready will lose out when Jesus arrives. He warns "They took no note until the flood came and swept them all away so the parousi'a of the son of man will be.....keep on the watch therefore because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming."
This is confirmed by the gospel writer Luke. In chapter 17 he records an earlier sermon of Jesus that is almost identical to the one at Matthew 24. Jesus words on that occasion were prompted by a question from the pharisees about when the kingdom of god was coming. In reply he told them that the kingdom of god is not coming with "striking observableness". (lit, observing beside)
According to W. Bauer the Greek word Jesus uses here " paratereseos" has the sense of "observation of the future by certain signs". Jesus wasn't saying then that the kingdom of god would not be observable when it arrived but that it wasn't coming with striking observableness. In other words its arrival would be sudden and unexpected.
Then to his disciples he goes on to explain that it will be like the flood of Noah's day and the fire and sulphur that rained down on Sodom in the days of Lot. Then he says "The same way it will be on that day when the son of man is to be revealed'. (Luke 17:30)
Rather than suggesting an invisible presence therefor a comparison between Jesus words at Matthew 24:36-42 and Luke 17:26-37 seem to indicate that Jesus parousi'a begins with his revelation.
In summary so far then - the word parousi'a is correctly translated as presence but it was also the official term for the visit of a king to a province.
If we were armed with this fact alone and with no other knowledge or belief concerning Jesus parousi'a what. impression would we be left with if we were to read Mth 24 for the first time? Would we understand that Jesus would return and be invisibly present for an extended period after which he would then arrive or come in a different sense of beginning judgement.
Or would we likely conclude that a period of time would pass marked by wars, famines, earthquakes etc. and then following the cutting short of the great tribulation Jesus would arrive to begin his royal visit.
The latter view would not appear to be inconsistent with Jesus words.
What though do other scriptural texts suggest regarding the parousi'a?
Returning to the illustration of the minas it is interesting to consider the mental picture that Jesus describes. At Luke 19:11-27 he talks about a man of noble birth who travelled to a distant land to secure kingly power for himself. Eventually when he got back having secured kingly power he settled accounts with his slaves and executes his opposers. In fulfilment of the prophetic illustration Jesus left his disciples and went to heaven where he was eventually enthroned in 1914. The Watchtower (92 3/15 p6) commented "In those days it could take some time for a man to travel from Israel to Rome, wait in that city until he secured kingly power and return to his homeland a king."
Clearly though in Jesus' illustration the mans enthronement and his return to his h omeland are not portrayed as simultaneous events. Not only would the outward journey and the waiting in Rome take some time but surely the period between his appointment and arrival back in Israel cannot be ignored. The event that is of real significance to the slaves is not the enthronement of the king but the moment of his return.
Jesus made clear on many occasions that the master would return unexpectedly "at an hour that you do not think likely" (compare Luke 12:35-40). This does not appear to fit our understanding that Jesus returned to judge the "house of God" on a day that was pinpointed by bible chronology centuries in advance.
While it is of course foolish to attempt to prove anything by means of an illustration, nevertheless the events that Jesus describes do seem consistent with a significant and undetermined period of time between his enthronement and his arrival at the start of his parousi'a or royal visit.
Confirmation that the scriptural references to Jesus arrival refer not to the time of his enthronement but to a future time is found in Paul's words to the Corinthians. He describes to them the proper procedure for observing the Lord's evening meal and at 1 Corinthians 11:26 he says "for as often as you eat this loaf and drink this cup you keep proclaiming the death of the lord until he arrives" Although Jesus was made king in 1914 we rightly continue to celebrate the memorial since he has not yet arrived. When he does, the remnant will be gathered "from one extremity of the heavens to their other extremity". (Mth 24:31) At that point the memorial will naturally cease.
Jesus half brother James makes reference to the parousi'a in his letter. He said.... "Exercise patience therefore brothers until the parousi'a of the lord... .you too exercise patience, make your hearts firm because the parousi'a of the lord has drawn close". (James 5:7,8) As the 'Commentary on James' page 188 remarks "those living in the first century were to die before that time came, but their patient endurance under hardships until the end of their lifetime would establish for them a good record with God"
While James letter was inspired of God and beneficial to his first century readers, we accept that it was written too for our benefit "upon whom the ends of the systems of things have arrived" (1 Cor: 10:11) The article 'Shedding Light on Christ's presence" Wt 93 5/1 p14 Par 18 said "Yes today whether we are of the anointed remnant or of the great number of other sheep the spirit of co-operation binds us loyally together that we may continue to be clean and blameless at this unique time. Similarly we need to exercise patience, James wrote "Exercise patience therefore brothers until the parousi'a of the lord..., make your heart firm because the parousi'a of the lord has drawn close".
It is significant though that James does not say that we should exercise patience during the parousi'a or that the parousi'a had begun but rather that patience would be needed until the parousi'a which has “drawn close”. Therefore James gave the impression that the parousi'a, rather than being a long period requiring faithful endurance in the face of opposition, will bring relief to Christ's followers and an end to the need of endurance. This is in harmony with Jesus words at Matthew 24 where he stresses the need to endure and keep on the watch until he eventually arrives.
Similarly Paul exhorted the Hebrews "You have need of endurance in order that after you have done the will of God you may receive the fulfilment of the promise. For yet a very little while he who is coming will arrive and will not delay". (Heb: 10:36,37)
James goes on to exhort in verse 9 of chapter 5 "do not heave sighs against one another, brothers, so that you do not get judged. Look! The Judge is standing before the doors". Jesus told his disciples that when they saw the events he had described then they should "know that he is near at the doors" (Mth 24:33). And yet James explains that with the judge standing before the doors the parousi'a has drawn close.
This would appear to be further evidence regarding the timing of the parousi'a.
About four years after James wrote his letter Peter one of the apostles to ask Jesus about his parousi'a and here his reply first hand also wrote about the subject in his second letter. At 2 Peter 3:3,4 he said...... "...for you know this first that in the last days there will come ridiculers with their ridicule... saying 'where his this promised parousi'a of his? Why from the day our forefathers fell asleep in death all things are continuing exactly as from creations beginning."
It is significant that Peter's response to these ridiculers is not to censure them for lacking the necessary faith to perceive that Christ's parousi'a was already ongoing. Rather he first reminds them of the time Jehovah executed judgement in the deluge of Noah's day. He explains that a thousand years is as one day to Jehovah and that he "is not slow respecting his promise as some people consider slowness but he is patient with you because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance. Yet Jehovah's day will yet come as a thief..." Furthermore he concludes consider the patience of our lord as salvation.
Therefore Peter does not take issue with the assumption made by the ridiculers in the last days that Christ's parousi'a had not yet arrived and appears to be delaying, but instead he reproves them for behaving as if it was never going to come.
Significantly Peter uses the terms parousi'a and 'Jehovah's day' interchangeably, in fact in verse 12 he connects them even more closely when he uses the phrase "the parousi'a of the day of Jehovah". Further he warns that it will come as a thief. Jesus also used the illustration of a thief and like Peter he emphasised the need to stay awake "because at an hour you do not think it to be the son of man is coming." (Mth 24:43-44)
Further evidence that the parousi'a is synonymous with the phrase " day of Jehovah" can be found in Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians. He warns them "respecting the parousi'a of our Lord Jesus Christ" not to be fooled by any message that purports to come from Paul and his companions "to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here" (2Thess 2:1-2)
The apostle John implies a similar connection between the parousi'a and Jesus manifestation. At 1John 2:28 he says "So now little children remain in union with him that when he is made manifest we may have freeness of speech and not be shamed away from him at his parousi'a ".
This also calls to mind Peter's words at 1 Pet 1:13 where he said "set your hope upon the undeserved kindness that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ" and at 1 Pet 5:4 he tells spirit anointed older men "when the chief shepherd is made manifest he will receive the unfadable crown of glory"
The sense of these verses seems to be, not that the anointed are first raised up and therefore Jesus is manifest to them, but instead that Jesus is made manifest or revealed and then they receive their heavenly reward.
So on the one hand Paul explains that the first resurrection takes place at Jesus parousi'a (1 Cor 15:23) and on the other Peter says that it will happen at his revelation or manifestation.
Is it in fact the case then that it is when Jesus - returns, comes, arrives, is made manifest, is revealed, that his parousi'a or royal visit begins? Such a conclusion would seem to be both reasonable and scriptural.
Perhaps the strongest single piece of evidence is found in the account of the transfiguration. At Mth 16:27 Jesus says "For the son of man is destined to come in the glory of his father with his angels and then he will recompense each one according to his behaviour". These words are virtually identical to those recorded later at Mth 25:31 which we now correctly understand to have there fulfilment in the future. Next in Mth 16:28 Jesus goes on to promise that some of his disciples will "not taste death" until they see the son of man coming in his kingdom. In keeping with that promise 6 days later Jesus took Peter, James and John on to the mountain where they saw the vision of the transfiguration.
What the three apostles saw therefore was a vision, not of an invisible presence but as Jesus had promised them of his coming in the glory of his Father. However when Peter refers to the transfiguration in his second letter he says "no it was not by following artfully contrived false stories that we acquainted you with the power and parousi'a of our Lord Jesus Christ but it was by becoming eyewitnesses of his magnificence" (2Pet 1:16-18).
If then the transfiguration was a vision of a future event and Peter refers to it as a vision of Jesus parousi'a then the parousi'a must logically be in the future.
If Jesus parousi'a is indeed yet future that would in no way minimise the role that he undoubtedly plays in supervising and blessing the work done by his modern day organisation of evangelizers. Ever since Pentecost of 33CE anointed Christians have enjoyed an intimate relationship with Christ. Paul explained that they had been "transferred into the kingdom of the son of god's love." (Col 1:13) Jesus has continued to be the head of the congregation ever since. (Col 1:18)
In connection with directing important judgements within the congregation he reassured the apostles at Mth 18:20 "Where there are two or three gathered together in my name there I am in their midst." Also just prior to his ascension Jesus said to his eleven faithful apostles "Go therefore and make disciples of peoples of all the nations.., and look I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things." (Mth 28:19,20)
These words have proved true for Christians both in the first century and during the early years of the modern day history of our organisation from the 1870's until 1914. And yet during all that time Jesus' parousi'a had not yet begun. Logically then neither is it necessary for Jesus to be 'present' in the scriptural sense of the word for him to be actively directing the affairs of Jehovah's people since 1914.
Indeed the scriptures seem to indicate that Jesus parousi'a is not for the purpose of supervising the work of his followers. In both the illustration of the minas and that of the talent the slaves are instructed to do business on behalf of the master while he is absent. When he returns the time for increasing the master's possessions has expired. It is then the time to render an account and hand over the results of their activity. Those who have slaved for the master are then rewarded for their faithfulness. Their reward is not that of being given more money to do further business but rather they receive a change of assignment. Now that their master has received kingly authority they are privileged to have a share in his rulership. In the illustration of the talents he says "I will appoint you over many things, enter into the joy of your master" and in the account of the minas he invites them to be in charge of cities.
Again although these are only illustrations they do describe a picture that seems more consistent with the idea of Jesus returning to judge his slaves at the very end of the last days, when the anointed, having faithfully completed the evangelising work receive the reward of sharing kingdom rulership, than with the view that he judged them before the preaching work began in earnest in 1919.
If Christ's parousi'a did in fact begin in 1914 then it has necessarily been an invisible one. This in any case would seem logical since Jesus returns not in the flesh but as a spirit.
However spirit persons have on occasions in the past made their presence visible to humans, for example..... Jehovah's presence with the camp of the Israelites was visible by means of the bright pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night. Moses got a view of Jehovah's glory on mount Sinai and his face emitted rays as a result. At the tabernacle and later at Solomon's temple Jehovah's presence was visibly manifest by the miraculous 'shikinah' light. Angelic hosts were made visible to Elisha and to his attendant at Dothan. The glory of Jehovah appeared to Ezekiel at the valley plain and by the river Che'bar in Babylon. At the transfiguration Jehovah's voice was heard by Peter James and John from the midst of a bright cloud on Mount Hermon.
True on none of these occasions did spirits appear face to face with humans but they did nevertheless provide visible proof of their presence.
Jesus did say to his disciples "A little longer and the world will behold me no more but you will behold me because I live and you will live" (John 14:19) Following his resurrection he appeared face to face only with his disciples and again only anointed Christians will see Jesus in the heavens following their resurrection. However Jesus words do not negate his glorious parousi'a being seen by the world in general. After all it was some years after Jesus' resurrection that his glory was seen not only by Saul but also by the Jewish zealots travelling with him on the road to Damascus. (Acts 22:9)
As to whether Jesus' return and subsequent presence will be visibly manifest the scriptures contain the following comment....
Luke 17:24 "For even as the lightening by its flashing shines from one part under heaven to another part under heaven so the son of man will be."
Mth 24:27 "For just as the lightening comes out of eastern parts and shines over western parts so the parousi'a of the son of man will be."
Mth 24:30 "The sign of the son of man will appear in heaven... .and they will see the son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."
Mth 26:64 (Addressing the sanhedrin) 'You will see the son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven."
2Thess 1:7-9 "To you who suffer tribulation relief along with us at the revelation of the lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels in a flaming fire."
Rev 1:7 "Look! He is coming with the clouds and 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. Yes Amen."
If the beginning of Jesus parousi'a is yet future then all of these texts can be accepted to mean simply what they say, that rather than being invisible all mankind will physically see visible proof of Jesus' parousi'a when he arrives.
As for the many references to clouds in connection with Jesus return we have seen in a number of scriptural examples that rather than being dark clouds causing things to become invisible, the bible often refers to glorious clouds that serve as visible proof of a spiritual presence. So when the angel said "this Jesus who was received up from you into the sky will come thus in the same manner as you beheld him going into the sky." (Acts 1:11) Was it not simply a reminder to the apostles that Jesus will not be returning as a human at some undisclosed earthy location, but just as he had disappeared from view into the heavens, so too at the appointed time he will reappear from there?
I acknowledge that it is no trivial matter to question beliefs that we have held for so many years and I do not do so lightly. In 1856 Joseph Seiss a Lutheran minister in Pennsylvania wrote about a two stage advent, an invisible presence followed later by a visible manifestation. (J.W. page 46) Brother Russell held a very similar view which he expounded in 1877 in the pamphlet 'The Object and Manner of Our Lord's Return'. Our understanding of the parousi'a has changed little since then.
The J.W. Proclaimers book observes on page 134 "Recognition of Christ's presence as being invisible became an important foundation on which an understanding of many bible prophecies would be built." If it is actually the case then that Jesus' parousi’a does not begin until the end of the last days then clearly there would be implications for a number of other beliefs that we hold in common. At least our understanding of the time of fulfilment of certain scriptures would be affected. However as Bro. Russell wrote in 1882 "The bible is our only standard and it's teachings our only creed, and recognising the progressive character of the unfolding of scriptural truths, we are ready and prepared to add to, or modify our creed as we get increase of light from our standard."
As an organisation we enjoy the unique privilege of accurate knowledge on a number of important bible doctrines. The hallmark of such truths is their beautiful simplicity, they appeal to reason, logic and common sense. If you read the bible for the first time with no preconceived ideas they are exactly the beliefs you would be left with. The more you study the scriptures the more solid such beliefs become as they interconnect all the closer with other facets of scriptural truths.
After reading the article "How will you stand before the judgement seat; which was undoubtedly correct, I no longer had those feelings about our understanding of the parousi'a, and so l began to carefully and prayerfully research the subject.
I hope I have not overstepped the bounds of proper subjection by articulating my thoughts. I wish to stress that my respect and affection for the governing body and its representatives remains undiminished, but in my defence I refer to Paul's words when he spoke positively of the Beroeans for "Carefully examining the scriptures daily as to whether these things were so." (Acts 17:11) (Wt 96 5/15 p16 par 5)