"That was nearly 2000 years ago, and many generations ago, and so either Jesus was mistaken, or lying, or more likely, the early church overly literalized one of his more metaphorical teachings about his "continued presence" among believers."
I found it strange that you avoided the possibility that the Parousia was fulfilled at the time of the destruction of the Temple. Mr. Russell offers a very powerful argument from the Scriptures and the historical events surrounding the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.
If you are a serious scholar and Christian, Mr. Russell book cannot be disregarded. I came to some of the same conclusions as Mr. Russell before ever reading his book. I would appreciate your critique of this book.
Regards
Emile
PROPHETIC INTIMATIONS OF THE APPROACHING
CONSUMMATION OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
I. - The Parable of the Pounds.
Luke xix. 11-27: 'And as they heard these this, He added and spake a parable, because he was
nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.
He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and
to return. And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them,
Occupy till I come. But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not
have this man to reign over us. And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received
the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the
money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. Then came the first,
saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds. And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant:
because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities. And the second
came, Saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds. And he said likewise to him, Be thou also
over five cities. And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid
up in a napkin: for I feared thee, because thou art all austere man : thou takest up that thou layedst
not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow. And he saith Unto him, Out of thine own mouth
will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was all austere man, taking up that I laid
not down, and reaping that I did not sow : wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the
bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury ? And he said unto them that
stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds. (And they said unto
him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.) For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given;
and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. But those mine
enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and stay them before me.'
It cannot fail to strike every attentive reader of the Gospel history, how much the teaching of our
Lord, as He approached the close of His ministry, dwelt upon the theme of coming judgment. When
He spoke this parable, He was on His way to Jerusalem to keep His last Passover before He
suffered; and it is remarkable how His discourses from this time seem almost wholly engrossed, not
by His own approaching death, but the impending catastrophe of the nation. Not Only this parable of
the pounds, but His lamentation over Jerusalem (Luke xix. 41) ; His cursing of the fig-tree (Matt. xxi.
Mark xi.) ; the parable of the wicked husbandmen (Matt. xxi. Mark xii.; Luke xx.); the parable of the
marriage of the king's son (Matt. xxii.); the woes pronounced ) upon that generation' (Matt. xxiii.
29-36) ; the second lamentation over Jerusalem (Matt. xxiii. 37, 38) ; and the prophetic discourse on
the Mount of Olives, with the parables and parabolic illustrations appended thereto by St. Matthew,
all are occupied with this absorbing theme.
The consideration of these prophetic intimations will show that the catastrophe anticipated by our
Lord was not a remote event, hundreds and thousands of years distant, but one whose shadow
already fell upon that age and that nation ; and that the Scriptures give us no warrant whatever to
suppose that anything else, or anything more than this, is included in our Saviour's words.
The parable of the pounds was spoken by our Lord to correct a mistaken expectation on the part
of His disciples, that 'the kingdom of God' was about to commence at once. It is not surprising that
they should have fallen into this mistake. John the Baptist had announced, 'The kingdom of God is at
hand.' Jesus Himself had proclaimed the same fact, and commissioned them to publish it throughout
the cities and villages of Galilee. As patriotic Israelites they writhed under the yoke of Rome, and
yearned for the ancient liberties of the nation. As pious sons of Abraham they desired to see all
nations blessed in him. And there were other less noble sentiments that had a place in their minds.
Was not their own Master the Son of David - the coming King? What might not they expect who
were His followers and friends? This made them contest with. each other the place of honour in the
kingdom. This made the sons of Zebedee eager to secure His promise of the most honourable seats,
on His right hand and on His left, where he assumed the sovereignty. And now they were
approaching Jerusalem. The great national festival of the Passover was at baud; all Israel was
flocking, to the Holy City, and there was not a man there but would be eager to see Jesus of
Nazareth. What more probable than that the popular enthusiasm would place their Master on the
throne of His father David ? As they wished, so they believed ; and 'they thought that the kingdom of
God would immediately appear.'
But the Lord checked their enthusiastic hopes, and intimated, in a parable, that a certain interval
must elapse before the fulfillment of their expectations. Taking a well-known incident from recent
Jewish history as the groundwork of the parable- viz., the journey of Archelaus to Rome, in order to
seek from the emperor the succession to the dominions of his father, Herod the Great, he employed it
as an apt illustration of His own departure from earth, and His subsequent return in glory. Meanwhile,
during the period of His absence, He gave His servants a charge to keep-' Occupy till I come.' It was
for them to be diligent and faithful, until their Lord's return, when the loyal servants should be
applauded and rewarded, and His enemies utterly destroyed.
Nothing can be better than Neander's explanation of this parable, though, indeed, it may be said
to explain itself. Nevertheless, it may be well to subjoin his observations. "In this parable, in view of
the circumstances under which it was uttered, and of the approaching catastrophe, special intimations
are given of Christ's departure from the earth, of His ascension, and return to judge the rebellious
theocratic nation, and consummate His dominion. It describes a great man, who travels to the distant
court of the mighty emperor, to receive from him authority over his countrymen, and to return with
royal power. So Christ was not immediately recognised in His kingly office, but first had to depart
from the earth. and leave His agents to advance His kingdom, to ascend into heaven and be
appointed theocratic Ring, and return a 'gain to exercise His contested power." (1)
Such is the teaching of the parable of the pounds. But though the kingdom of God was not to
appear at the precise. time which the disciples anticipated, it does not follow that it was postponed
since he, and that the expected consummation would not take place for hundreds and thousands of
years. This would be to falsify the most express declarations of Christ and of His forerunner. How
could they have said that the kingdom was at hand, if it was not to appear for acres?
How could an event be said to be near, if it was actually further off than the whole period of the
Jewish economy from Moses to Christ? The kingdom might still be at hand, though not so near as the
disciples supposed. It was expedient that their Lord should 'go away,' but only for 'a little while,'
when He would come again to them, and come 'in His kingdom.' This was the hope in which they
lived, the faith which they preached; and we cannot think that their faith and hope were a delusion.
II.-Lamentation of Jesus over Jerusalem.
Luke xix. 41-44: ' And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, saying, If
thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace I but
now they are bid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast
a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee
even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone
upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.'
Here we are upon ground which is not debateable. This prophecy is clear and perspicuous as
history. No advocate of the double-sense theory of interpretation has proposed to find here anything
but Jerusalem and its approaching desolation.
It is not the conflagration of the earth, nor the dissolution of creation: it is the siege and demolition
of the Holy City, and the slaughter of her citizens, as historically fulfilled in less than forty years-only
this, and nothing more. But wily so? Why should not a double sense be possible here, as well as in
the prediction delivered upon the Mount of Olives? The reply will doubtless be, Because here all is
homogeneous and consecutive ; the Saviour is looking on Jerusalem, and speaking of Jerusalem, and
predicting an event which was speedily to come to pass. But this is equally the case with the
prophecy in Matt. xxiv., where the expositors find, sometimes Jerusalem, and sometimes the world;
sometimes the termination of the Jewish polity, and sometimes the conclusion of human history;
sometimes the year A.D. 70, and sometimes a period as yet unknown. We shall yet see that the
prophecy oil the Mount of Olives is no less consecutive, no less homougneous, no less one and
indivisible, than this clear and plain prediction of the approaching destruction of Jerusalem. If the
double-sense theory were good for anything, it would be found equally applicable to the prediction
before us. Here, however, its own advocates discard it; for common sense refuses to see in this
affecting lamentation anything else than Jerusalem, and Jerusalem alone.
|
