God's Kingdom Rules

[JW Insider]

On 10/12/2016 at 4:57 AM, Eoin Joyce said:

Matt. 24:37-39 does not sit well with this suggestion.

As a reminder, I'm suggesting that it can make just as much or more sense to understand all the events of the parousia at the end of the generation, and none at the beginning. Naturally, this is a different understanding of the word parousia than the one we are accustomed to. Parousia would refer to the great, visible, royal visitation and judgment event, rather than just an invisible presence of Jesus in a new official capacity.

Anna quoted a Watchtower from 2013 that indicated that several "1914 generation" teachings that were once applied to the beginning and/or duration of the "1914 generation" are now assigned only to the "end." Other articles in the same issue of that magazine clarified that the fulfillment of additional parable events would occur at the "end" rather than the beginning of the generation, or ongoing. In addition, there was already the Watchtower's admission in 2008 that even the "first resurrection," once taught to have begun in 1918, may also now be assigned to the end of the generation (as a possibility). There is an even more recent acceptance of the basic idea behind the "rapture" (a point in time when remaining anointed ones on earth will be changed in an instant from earth to heaven). This was previously assigned to the beginning of the 1914 generation, but is now assigned to the "end."

*** w15 7/15 pp. 18-19 pars. 14-15 “Your Deliverance Is Getting Near”! ***
Then these words of Jesus will be fulfilled: “At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father.”—Matt. 13:43. Does this mean that there will be a “rapture” of the anointed ones? . . .  So those who will be taken to heaven will first need to be “changed, in a moment, in the blink of an eye, during the last trumpet.” (Read 1 Corinthians 15:50-53.) Therefore, while we do not use the term “rapture” here because of its wrong connotation, the remaining faithful anointed will be gathered together in an instant of time.

[That one has direct implications on the context of Matthew 24:37-39]

Later, I'll try to present evidence that this makes more sense linguistically in the context of all the Bible references to the parousia events. (Just as important are the parallel discussions in Mark and Luke that use other phrases without the word "parousia".) But before I try to provide more of that evidence, let's just see what it would mean in the basic context of Matthew 24 leading up to the mention of the Flood in Matthew 24:37-39.

Paraphrasing, the disciples asked Jesus for an advance warning sign about the timing of the destruction of the Temple. Jesus said that they are going to hear about a lot of things that could mislead them if they were looking for a sign:

*** w70 1/15 p. 42 par. 7 The Coming “Great Tribulation” Foreshadowed ***
7 Evidently those apostles did not know what was embraced in those three things about which they were asking. . . . It is plain, however, that, first of all, they wanted to know when Jerusalem and her temple were to be destroyed. Would it come in their day, in their generation?

[This reflects a change of belief in the Watchtower magazine, where we had previously argued that the disciples might have guessed they would need evidence of an "invisible" presence, knowing that Jesus could not be bodily present. Therefore even the time reference of the "parousia" in the question itself was one of the items in our teaching that moved, effectively, from the beginning of the generation to the end of the generation. ]

I'll include more of the 1970 Watchtower, just quoted above, because it's better than a paraphrase of the meaning that Jesus' prophecy would have for the disciples.

*** w70 1/15 pp. 44-45 pars. 13-18 The Coming “Great Tribulation” Foreshadowed ***
13 Plainly, then, here in the first application of the prophecy, Jesus is referring to international wars due to occur before the impending destruction of Jerusalem. By going on to say that nation would rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, Jesus is explaining why it is that they would hear of wars and reports of wars. But they should not get disturbed at such wars, because these are not the visible proof that the end is right upon them. And according to secular history, there were wars that occurred between the time that Jesus ascended to heaven and the destruction of the holy city. There were the Parthian wars in southwest Asia and the uprisings that took place in the Roman provinces of Gaul and Spain. There was the war waged by Asinaeus and Alinaeus against the Parthians to the east of the Roman Empire. There was the Parthian declaration of war against King Izates of the land of Adiabene.
. . .
15 There were also earthquakes back there, which are on record. There was that earthquake on the island of Crete during the reign of Claudius Caesar, another in Smyrna, others in Hierapolis, Colossae, Chios, Miletus and Samos; another overthrew the city of Laodicea during the reign of Emperor Nero. There was even one in Rome, as reported by the Latin historian, Tacitus. In his Wars of the Jews, Book 4, chapter 4, paragraph 5, Josephus tells of a dreadful earthquake as occurring in Judea itself.
16 Famines also took place, one of which is reported on in the Acts of the Apostles, chapter eleven, verses 27 to 30, the one foretold by the Christian prophet Agabus and occurring during the reign of Emperor Claudius. Reportedly, many Jews in Jerusalem died because of this famine. Of course, because of food shortage and thus the lack of proper nourishment, the people succumb to sicknesses, and pestilences break out. It was as Jesus foretold.
17 However, these things were not to be the instantaneous forerunners of the destruction of the “city of the great King,” Jerusalem. After foretelling those things, Jesus added: “All these things are a beginning of pangs of distress.” (Matt. 24:8) As far as they had a connection with Jerusalem, they were a beginning of distress pangs for her and the province of Judea. But they did not mean the immediate end of the holy city and the desolation of Judea. But the fact that those things were at least the beginning of distress pangs for Jerusalem should have been enough to stir the Christians to greater activity, instead of relaxing and taking it easy because “the end is not yet.” (Matt. 24:6; 5:35) There was an extensive work to do, and this required great effort and persistence in spite of religious persecution. So, in verses 9-13 Jesus went on to warn his apostles of the coming persecution by Jews and Gentiles and of the increase of lawlessness and of the need of Christian endurance, and then he added: “And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come.”—Matt. 24:14.
18 Several weeks later, after his resurrection from the dead and before his ascension to heaven, Jesus commanded his disciples: “Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you.” (Matt. 28:19, 20) Some days later, after the next festival of Pentecost, the faithful disciples proceeded to do this. What was the result? By about the year 60 or 61 C.E., when the apostle Paul was a prisoner in Rome, he could write to the Christian congregation in Colossae, Asia Minor, and say of their hope: “The hope of that good news which you heard, and which was preached in all creation that is under heaven.” (Col. 1:23) At that time Paul was wanting to carry the good news of God’s kingdom into Spain, as a pioneer evangelizer. (Rom. 15:23, 24) Such a preaching of God’s kingdom in the inhabited earth had already been given by ten years before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. The “end” could not come before this was accomplished.—Matt. 24:14.

The point is that it was possible to understand Matthew 24 right up to the words of verse 29 "immediately after the tribulation of those days" as still occurring in the first century.

*** w74 12/15 p. 750 Who Will See “the Sign of the Son of Man”? ***
Actually, Jesus spanned a space of centuries of time by the expression “immediately after,” for the things he thereafter described were not seen in the first century.

Obviously there are some differences in our current understanding, but this at least explains how the disciples most likely understood the words of Jesus throughout the first century and into the following centuries. Therefore, we can discuss Matthew 24:37-39 in the context of the time period we are currently in, ever since "immediately after" the Jewish system was judged in 70 C.E. The judgment in 66-70 C.E. foreshadowed the judgment at the end our own time period.

Sorry for the length of the explanation above, but there are a lot of different interpretations of Mathew 24, and I wanted to make sure we could refer to a similar basis.

So, with that out of the way, here's the context of the verses in question:

(Matthew 24:36-25:13) 36 “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence [parousia] of the Son of man will be. 38 For as they were in those days before the Flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, 39 and they took no note until the Flood came and swept them all away, so the presence [parousia] of the Son of man will be. 40 Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken along and the other abandoned. 41 Two women will be grinding at the hand mill; one will be taken along and the other abandoned. 42 Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. 43 “But know one thing: If the householder had known in what watch the thief was coming, he would have kept awake and not allowed his house to be broken into. 44 On this account, you too prove yourselves ready, because the Son of man is coming at an hour that you do not think to be it. . . .  50 the master of that slave will come on a day that he does not expect and in an hour that he does not know, . . . 25:13 “Keep on the watch, therefore, because you know neither the day nor the hour.

I would take it to mean this:

Jesus said, you (disciples) just asked whether you could get a sign as some kind of advance warning so that you would know when this judgment on Jerusalem will take place. You (disciples) assume it is the "end of all things." You obviously assume it is the same as the great PAROUSIA event that Jewish literature has already spoken about. You want to know "WHEN?" Well, I'm not going to tell you when, and I'm not going to give you and specific signs that would help you figure it out. You already know that you are in the general season when this judgment is imminent. I've already told you it would be in this generation, and that means that many of you should live to see it. But . . . .

[vs 36] . . . concerning the time of the PAROUSIA event only the Father knows, I don't even know myself. [v. 37] Therefore, the PAROUSIA is going to come as a surprise, just the same as the judgment came in the days of Noah. [v. 38] Remember that in those days before the Flood, people were going about their daily lives eating, drinking, getting married  [doing what they had been doing since the days of their forefathers, saying, in effect that there was peace and security] right up until the very day that Noah entered into the ark. [v 39] They were completely unaware* and they knew nothing until the Flood came by surprise and swept them all away. That's exactly how the PAROUSIA judgment will take people by surprise, too. [v.40, 41] That's why you are going to see men and women going about their business in this generation, too, and you will see one person taken by surprise and the person who was right next to them just as surprised to see the other person gone. [v. 42] So keep on the watch, because you do not know on what day the PAROUSIA comes. [v.43] It will be as unpredictable as a thief in the night who breaks into your house. You think the thief is going to announce his arrival? [v. 44] So prove yourself ready at all times, because the PAROUSIA will arrive at a time when you just won't know. 

*unaware: "did not know" rather than "took no note." NWT used an interpretation here rather than a translation. See any other translation.

So the obvious difference in that understanding is that it's the Parousia event itself that can't be predicted. There are several good linguistic reasons for this, including the most likely meanings of "synteleia" and "parousia" in the Greek. Here are some of the scriptural reasons. Note:

(Luke 21:5-9) Later, when some were speaking about the temple, how it was adorned with fine stones and dedicated things, 6 he said: “As for these things that you now see, the days will come when not a stone will be left upon a stone and not be thrown down.” 7 Then they questioned him, saying: “Teacher, when will these things actually be, and what will be the sign when these things are to occur?” 8 He said: “Look out that you are not misled, for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The due time is near.’ Do not go after them. 9 Furthermore, when you hear of wars and disturbances, do not be terrified. For these things must take place first, but the end will not occur immediately.”

Note that the words "parousia" and "conclusion" (synteleia) are not even necessary to the question for Jesus to give the same general answer. Therefore the "parousia" and "conclusion" refer to "these things" (the toppling of the stones of the Temple). That is their reference to the judgment at the end, itself, not a drawn out "generation." This means that every reference to the "due time" and the "end" and "conclusion" in Jesus' answer is also at the end of the generation. Wars and disturbances that occur during the generation cannot be used to determine the closeness of that "end."

Here it is, as discussed in 2 Peter 3:

(2 Peter 3:2-13) 2 that you should remember the sayings previously spoken by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles. 3 First of all know this, that in the last days ridiculers will come with their ridicule, proceeding according to their own desires 4 and saying: “Where is this promised presence [parousia] of his? Why, from the day our forefathers fell asleep in death, all things are continuing exactly as they were from creation’s beginning.” 5 For they deliberately ignore this fact, that long ago there were heavens and an earth standing firmly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; 6 and that by those means the world of that time suffered destruction when it was flooded with water. 7 But by the same word the heavens and the earth that now exist are reserved for fire and are being kept until the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly people. 8 However, do not let this escape your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. 9 Jehovah is not slow concerning his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire anyone to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance. 10 But Jehovah’s day will come as a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar, but the elements being intensely hot will be dissolved, and earth and the works in it will be exposed. 11 Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, consider what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 as you await and keep close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah, through which the heavens will be destroyed in flames and the elements will melt in the intense heat! 13 But there are new heavens and a new earth that we are awaiting according to his promise, and in these righteousness is to dwell.

Note that the PAROUSIA is the "day of judgment" they are waiting for. Ridiculers are pointing out that the PAROUSIA judgment is delayed. The "day of judgment" (PAROUSIA) is still on its way, and will still come as a surprise, just like it did in Noah's time. Jehovah's day (PAROUSIA) will still come as a thief (v10) and the "PAROUSIA of the Lord" (v.12)  is still to be expected and awaited according to his promise.

Here is how Luke presented the same idea in another context when Jesus made the same point. Note that the term PAROUSIA is replaced here with the term meaning "the day of the Son of man" (v.24) and in the "days of Noah" this is equated with the "days of the Son of man" until a specific time when the flood (judgment) swept them away by surprise, just like in the "days of Lot" until that "one day" when Lot left Sodom and the judgment occurred. It's that judgment that is equated with the "day that the Son of man is revealed." This final day of judgment is the portion of the time period that was equated with the PAROUSIA in Matthew.

(Luke 17:20-35) 20 On being asked by the Pharisees when the Kingdom of God was coming, he answered them: “The Kingdom of God is not coming with striking observableness [observable signs]; 21 nor will people say, ‘See here!’ or, ‘There!’ For look! the Kingdom of God is in your midst.” 22 Then he said to the disciples: “Days will come when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, but you will not see it. 23 And people will say to you, ‘See there!’ or, ‘See here!’ Do not go out or chase after them. 24 For just as lightning flashes from one part of heaven to another part of heaven, so the Son of man will be in his day. 25 First, however, he must undergo many sufferings and be rejected by this generation. 26 Moreover, just as it occurred in the days of Noah, so it will be in the days of the Son of man: 27 they were eating, they were drinking, men were marrying, women were being given in marriage until that day when Noah entered into the ark, and the Flood came and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise, just as it occurred in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building. 29 But on the day that Lot went out of Sodʹom, it rained fire and sulfur from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 It will be the same on that day when the Son of man is revealed. 31 “On that day let the person who is on the housetop but whose belongings are in the house not come down to pick these up, and likewise, the person out in the field must not return to the things behind. 32 Remember the wife of Lot. 33 Whoever seeks to keep his life safe will lose it, but whoever loses it will preserve it alive. 34 I tell you, in that night two people will be in one bed; the one will be taken along, but the other will be abandoned. 35 There will be two women grinding at the same mill; the one will be taken along, but the other will be abandoned.”

And of course, it bears repeating that lightning shines brightly, suddenly and unexpectedly. And the lightning is applied in Matthew 24:27 to the PAROUSIA: For just as the lightning comes out of the east and shines over to the west, so the presence [parousia] of the Son of man will be.

So, the parousia is going to be bright, sudden and unexpected, and seen from one end of the earth to the other. In the Watchtower, the parousia is instead described as a gradual, slow process that will take somewhere between 100 and 200 years.  In the current view of the Watchtower, very few people [if any] were able to discern the parousia when it began.

 

 

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, Anna said:

But we should also consider another aspect I think, the time from Jehovah's perspective. To Him 100 to 200 years is just a few minutes.

This is why the doctrine itself should not be a critical problem for anyone. We could start a parousia in 1914 if that makes sense, and we could also have started one in 33 C.E. because, 1000 to 2000 years is also just a day or two, from one perspective of 2 Peter's words. After all, didn't Jesus say, "I am [present] with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things"? (Of course, if that conclusion started in 1914, then maybe Jesus was only present until 1914.)  Jesus also said, wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there I am [present] in their midst. That didn't start in 1914 either.

There is nothing unacceptable about a long judgment day either. It could last an hour, or a thousand years, and this would be Jehovah's timetable. I am not concerned about these time periods at all for myself. I am concerned about the lengths that we will sometimes go to in order to defend them. This is fine, too, except if we notice that the doctrinal tradition has become so important that we are finding ourselves using dishonest or untrue methods to defend it. That's actually the ONLY thing that bothers me about it. Otherwise, chronology one way or another means nothing to me.

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, Anna said:

Christendom has already been judged apostate

But has it already been "brought to nothing"? (Another teaching that was assigned to the beginning of the 1914 generation, but see Revelation 18.)

[Evacuated]

29 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Parousia would refer to the great, visible, royal visitation and judgment event, rather than just an invisible presence of Jesus in a new official capacity.

Here is the basic assumption upon which your lengthy dissertation appears to be based. (I say lengthy because you have expressed aspects of your view on this matter in a number of responses elsewhere on the forum). 

Before even considering the many facets to your proposition, there remains the fact that Jesus likened his parousia or presence to the days of Noah. Obviously, there is not an exact parallel, as Noah did actually know the time that Jehovah's action would take place, althought there was a rather short notice period given. see Gen.7:4. (Maybe someone would argue that he still did not know the hour.)

However, "apostrophes" aside, Jesus words at Matt.24:37-39 would need to be reconciled with the idea that the parousia is an event taking place at the end of a marked time period or generation. As we are indulging in a bit of a paraphrase, I take Jesus words to be something like this:

  [vs 36] . . . concerning the actual time of Jerusalem's destruction (and by extension the destruction of a complete system of things in the future) I just can't tell you the day or hour because none of us, neither the angels nor myself, actually know it yet. Only the Father has the complete timetable for His executing of judgement. And you know, knowing that day and hour wouldn't really benefit you anyway. [v. 37] However, as you are my friends (John 15:15), I will tell you something that really will benefit you. I will give you a clue about my presence or PAROUSIA which will lead up to that time of judgement. It will be just like the days of Noah.[v. 38] Remember that in those days before the Flood, people were going about their daily lives eating, drinking, getting married  [doing what they had been doing since the days of their forefathers, saying, in effect that there was peace and security] despite the fact that the earth at that time was filled with violence and immorality? Well, Jehovah got involved with Noah and told him what He was going to do. He told Noah to build an ark and also to preach to the people. This went on for years, right up until the very day that Noah entered into the ark. [v 39] Those people heard and saw him, but it meant nothing to them and it was as if they knew nothing until the Flood came by surprise and swept them all away. That's exactly how my PAROUSIA will be. I will get involved with people of faith like Noah, ensure they know what my Father's  requirements for salvation are, and help them to preach the warning message everywhere and to gather in to safety any that respond. Then, once these tasks are completed, judgment will take people by surprise, too. [v.40, 41] That's why you are going to see men and women going about their business in this generation, too, and you will see one person taken by surprise and the person who was right next to them just as surprised to see the other person gone. Their judgement will not be based on outward appearances. [v. 42] So keep on the watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come to execute JUDGEMENT. [v.43] Although it will be as unpredictable as a thief in the night who breaks into your house, (and no thief is going to announce his arrival), here's an illustration to help you keep awake. Although the householder doesn't know the exact time a thief will break in, if he knows during which watch (3 hour period) it will occur, he will be doubly alert and not get robbed.  [v. 44] So once I have alerted you during my PAROUSIA, prove yourself ready at all times, because the JUDGEMENT itself will arrive at a time that you just won't know in advance. 

So, I haven't seen anything yet to dissuade me that Jesus Parousia CULMINATES in an execution of judgement....so far that is.

[Anna]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

concerning the time of the PAROUSIA event only the Father knows, I don't even know myself. [v. 37] Therefore, the PAROUSIA is going to come as a surprise, just the same as the judgment came in the days of Noah. [v. 38] Remember that in those days before the Flood, people were going about their daily lives eating, drinking, getting married  [doing what they had been doing since the days of their forefathers, saying, in effect that there was peace and security] right up until the very day that Noah entered into the ark. [v 39] They were completely unaware* and they knew nothing until the Flood came by surprise and swept them all away. That's exactly how the PAROUSIA judgment will take people by surprise, too. [

I feel you are forgetting one important thing. If we are going to use Jesus' example of the days of Noah, what role does Noah play in the illustration? Did it take him by surprise? Was he eating and drinking and busy with life?

Also, would Jesus disciples be taken by surprise, to the same extent as the people in Noah's day? Obviously not, as they would be keeping on the watch. This is why we use this illustration to show the importance of  GETTING  into the ark, in this case what we call Jehovah's organization and proving ourselves ready.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Here is how Luke presented the same idea in another context when Jesus made the same point. Note that the term PAROUSIA is replaced here with the term meaning "the day of the Son of man" (v.24) and in the "days of Noah" this is equated with the "days of the Son of man" until a specific time when the flood (judgment) swept them away by surprise, just like in the "days of Lot" until that "one day" when Lot left Sodom and the judgment occurred. It's that judgment that is equated with the "day that the Son of man is revealed." This final day of judgment is the portion of the time period that was equated with the PAROUSIA in Matthew.

We don't know the day, but we do get to recognize the season, and we do get to recognize Noah building the ark and Lot did leave Sodom, as did Noah enter the ark.....

[Anna]

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But has it already been "brought to nothing"? (Another teaching that was assigned to the beginning of the 1914 generation, but see Revelation 18.)

I suppose because she has been judged unfavorably, she has already fallen/been brought to nothing, symbolically/ spiritually speaking. Rev 18:2 " “She has fallen! Babylon the Great has fallen, and she has become a dwelling place of demons and a place where every unclean spirit and every unclean and hated bird lurks!" 

If this meant that Babylon the great has been literally destroyed, then she would not even be a dwelling place for demons etc. Nothing would dwell in her as she would be completely destroyed as if by fire. As it stands, Babylon the Great is presently a dwelling place of demons etc.

[Anna]

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

 I am concerned about the lengths that we will sometimes go to in order to defend them. This is fine, too, except if we notice that the doctrinal tradition has become so important that we are finding ourselves using dishonest or untrue methods to defend it. That's actually the ONLY thing that bothers me about it. Otherwise, chronology one way or another means nothing to me.

I agree with you there. We should not feel that we must defend "doctrinal tradition" at ALL costs, especially if we notice that some things do not add up properly. The most prudent thing to do is keep our mouth shut and wait. (or as we say wait on Jehovah)  and while we are waiting, we can perhaps let off steam in places like this.  We definitely don't want to become like the Swedish brother though, who got so upset because he wasn't being heard as he would have liked to have been heard. I am under the impression he has become an atheist now. It's sad where it took him.

Of course we should want to defend the fundamental truths, (even if the rest of so called Christianity do not agree with us, and many think we use dishonest and untrue methods to defend it) and I know you do not have a problem with that.

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

So, I haven't seen anything yet to dissuade me that Jesus Parousia CULMINATES in an execution of judgement....so far that is.

That's probably because we agree that Jesus' Parousia culminates in an execution of judgment. But there is still a legitimate question about whether we can claim that any kind of bright, shining, surprising, unannounced Parousia event actually shined like a great, worldwide, highly visible lightning flash in 1914.

That's the core issue of the Parousia, Jesus did not say the end of the Parousia would be like lightning. He did not say that the Parousia would include a time that would be like lightning. Instead, Jesus said his PAROUSIA would be just like lightning!

(Matthew 24:27) For just as the lightning comes out of the east and shines over to the west, so the PAROUSIA of the Son of man will be.

(Luke 21:22) Then he said to the disciples: “Days will come when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, but you will not see it. 23 And people will say to you, ‘See there!’ or, ‘See here!’ Do not go out or chase after them. 24 For just as lightning flashes from one part of heaven to another part of heaven, so the Son of man will be in his day.

I'm aware that we have changed our explanation of what the "lightning" means several times over our history, but the most important point to me is that Jesus placed this phrase immediately after explaining that you should not believe anyone who claims that Jesus is actually here or there, it's just that you can't see him right now.

There is not enough information in these two passages to prove one way or another that there is any significance in comparing the plural "days of the Son of man" with the singular "day of the Son of man." But there is perfect consistency in this idea that we could see in Luke 21 both here in vs 22, then in the discussion of Noah in vss 26-28, and again when discussing Lot in vss 29-30. In our traditional view, both the plural days are and the singular day refer to the Parousia, although Luke never mentions the Parousia, per se.

Matthew appears to be not as consistent because he says, that the Parousia is like the days of Noah and later that it is like the day the Flood came:

Matthew 24:37 For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 38 For as they were in those days before the Flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, 39 and they took no note until the Flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.

So this could be argued to mean that the PAROUSIA is like both the days (of Noah's "generation"), and the day (of judgment). Luke implies that it refers to the judgment, but since Luke (nor Mark) use the word Parousia, we can't really make an argument  from these particular verses of Matthew. The fact that it is tied to both "days" and "day" means to me that the Parousia will come as a surprise just like it did on one swift and surprising "day" during the "days" of Noah.

Jesus could have said "they took no note" but he didn't. He could have made a point that Noah was a preacher of righteousness, but he didn't. He could have spoken of the ark as a "sign" that lasted for years, but he didn't. Instead, Jesus only said that it took the generation completely by surprise; they were unaware. So he was focusing on that aspect of surprise instead of the point about Noah and his family surviving. We saw that from the parallel of Lot and Sodom, too. I still agree that it was another important aspect of the experience of Noah and Lot that they were "on the watch" as it were, but it wasn't what Jesus was trying to highlight in Matthew and Luke.

At any rate, we can't make the argument directly from Matthew 24:3-39 that the Parousia refers more specifically to the "revelation" and "appearance" and "judgment" at the end of the generation.  But we can make that argument from the other passages about the Parousia and the judgment elsewhere in Mathew and the rest of the Greek Scriptures, if we let scripture explain scripture. I'll let the "lightning" passage suffice for now, however.

3 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Here is the basic assumption upon which your lengthy dissertation appears to be based.

It is the more likely definition of the term parousia (parade-like spectacle of a royal visitation) that is the primary reason for it. But the reading of Matthew 24 in its entirety also makes perfect sense with that more likely definition. Certain passages about visibility and lightning are especially key to this assumption. But the primary theme is concern for a sign with reference to the coming of Christ in his Kingdom. I read what Jesus said about the sign as something consistent with the many times Jesus repeated that no specific sign would be seen. A large theme in Matthew 24 is a near parallel to a prior shorter passage in Matthew 16 in this regard:

(Matthew 16:3-28) . . .. 4 A wicked and adulterous generation keeps seeking a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Joʹnah.” . . . 27 For the Son of man is to come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will repay each one according to his behavior. 28 Truly I say to you that there are some of those standing here who will not taste death at all until first they see the Son of man coming in his Kingdom.”

This doesn't mean that they shouldn't already be able to observe the signs of the "generation" they are in (summer, fig tree) but there are not supposed to be signs of his Parousia. That would contradict the very point of it coming as a surprise. They were aware that they were privileged to witness the appearance of the "Son of man" himself, and that this heightened their desire to stay on the watch for a foreshadowing, something like a vision, of the coming of Jesus into his Kingdom. This time element was enough. They knew that the watch would begin when Jesus "went away" but would be required especially until his "return" for the first part of the predicted judgment on Jerusalem:

 

(Matthew 23:36-39) 36 Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. 37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent to her—how often I wanted to gather your children together the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings! But you did not want it. 38 Look! Your house is abandoned to you. 39 For I say to you, you will by no means see me from now until you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name!’”

 

(Luke 21:22) “Days will come when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, but you will not see it.

 

(Matthew 13:16, 17) 16 “However, happy are your eyes because they see and your ears because they hear. 17 For truly I say to you, many prophets and righteous men desired to see the things you are observing but did not see them, and to hear the things you are hearing but did not hear them. (also Luke 10:23, 24)

 

(Mark 8:12, 13) 12 So he sighed deeply in his spirit and said: “Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly I say, no sign will be given to this generation.” 13 With that he left them, got aboard again, and went to the opposite shore.

 

(Mark 8:38) 38 For whoever becomes ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of man will also be ashamed of him when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”

 

 

 

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, Anna said:

I agree with you there. We should not feel that we must defend "doctrinal tradition" at ALL costs, especially if we notice that some things do not add up properly. The most prudent thing to do is keep our mouth shut and wait. (or as we say wait on Jehovah)  and while we are waiting, we can perhaps let off steam in places like this.  We definitely don't want to become like the Swedish brother though, who got so upset because he wasn't being heard as he would have liked to have been heard. I am under the impression he has become an atheist now. It's sad where it took him.

Of course we should want to defend the fundamental truths, (even if the rest of so called Christianity do not agree with us, and many think we use dishonest and untrue methods to defend it) and I know you do not have a problem with that.

If this sounds like letting off steam, I apologize. It's sometimes difficult to state a case against something that might be "strongly entrenched" without trying to cover a lot of details.

If it is men we are trying to please then the most prudent thing we can do is keep our mouth shut and wait. This is an interesting problem. I had started responding to a post @Eoin Joyce where I think he disagreed that it could be a sign of love to speak up against an official doctrine, because people could be stumbled or misuse our words.  Of course, I don't think that questioning doctrines is related to stumbling, because "questioning" is exactly what we are trained to do. Most of our publications teach us to answer questions about doctrines, and our primary training is for the purpose of responding to questions about doctrine. And I would agree that a format like this is conducive to any kind of doctrinal questioning, because my questions are not so different from questions I have heard asked by respectable persons at Bethel, and apostates alike. We don't interact directly with apostates, but that is no reason to avoid the same questions they have asked. Jesus answered the challenges of the greatest apostate of all.

On the question of whether it is a sign of love, we could ask if it can ever be a sign of love to be vocal about disagreements we have with the doctrines of Christendom, such as Trinity and Hell-fire? Perhaps it's not love in every context. We wouldn't want to stand out in front of churches to condemn their false doctrines, because this is probably a form of hate speech. But I think it would be proper in a context where people seek out a specific topic online where questions are brought up about those issue for discussion.

I sometimes wonder what a Christian Bible Student in Rutherford's day should have done if they began to realize that the Pyramid studies were false, and even to some extent "dishonest." Russell never stopped believing in the Pyramids for his entire life, and Rutherford spent most of his Watchtower career believing and defending these teachings, too, until he finally began to identify them as 'teachings of demons.' Would it have been right to speak up? Obviously not in every context, but there were Bible Students discussing this issue long before Rutherford made up his mind. My great grandmother and great grandfather had an argument over this very issue when they were "Chicago Bible Students" before becoming Jehovah's Witnesses.

Of course, the question assumes that the question comes from the correct side of the equation. What if we are questioning something that turns out to be true, and we are trying to defend something that turns out to be false? Yet, this is exactly what the Beroeans were doing that made them more noble-minded than the Thessalonians. They were questioning what was already true. Paul later told those Thessalonians to "Make sure of all things." If we are questioning a doctrine and we receive evidence that we are questioning something that is true, then evidence will speak for itself (unless we are stubborn and haughty). But if we receive no evidence, or untrue claims instead of evidence, we will likely continue questioning. If a person receives evidence that the questions are "out of place" and persists in such questions, I think this is what causes divisions. The questioner is probably out of line and may even need discipline but this does not automatically result in "stumbling" of others, either. After all, a good question will usually result in a good answer, whether about a belief, a practice, a tradition, etc.: 

(1 Corinthians 11:17-19) . . .. 18 For first of all, I hear that when you come together in a congregation, divisions exist among you; and to an extent I believe it. 19 For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident.

By the way, I never heard that the Swedish brother became an atheist. His website is still very pro-Christianity, and pro-Bible. (Although I disagree with several ideas on his site.) Also, he never published anything until after he was disfellowshipped. I might have any recent changes in his story wrong, but I had the impression he waited patiently while he assumed his manuscript was going to be responded to. When I was at Bethel no one wanted to touch it and it mostly stayed on a shelf for a couple of years. (Allen was right, by the way, the first edition of his book was not that much different from the last manuscript that Bethel had while he was still a JW.) No one wanted the assignment to respond to it. Most of the time the only concern was what to do about him in case he decided to start spreading his research around. The brother I did research for at Bethel (B.S.) wanted him disfellowshipped right away just in case. The year I traveled to Europe with this brother, B.S., (1978) he went to see about doing that very thing.  I do agree that it is very  sad, but I had the impression he would still be a Witness if he hadn't questioned, he wasn't dismissed for publishing a book, because he hadn't done that yet.

Many ex-JWs do become atheists, though, from what I have heard. That's sadder. I think it makes it much harder to come back. I was told about an ex-ex-JW who attended a small church for a while and realized it was not what he figured it would be and he came back.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Here is the basic assumption upon which your lengthy dissertation appears to be based

My thoughts exactlly! This is also what the Greek Orthodox church is teaching about the "parousia" so I don't like much where this assumption/reasoning is going...

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It is the more likely definition of the term parousia (parade-like spectacle of a royal visitation) that is the primary reason for it

No it is not! You just want it to be so as to fit your alternate interpretation (which, admittedly, is very interesting).

παρουσία (parousi'a) is the noun of the verb πάρειμι (pa'rimi) which is a composite word from παρά (preposition with various meanings, in this case the meaning is "beside") and εἰμί (verb, I am) and so we have a literal meaning of "being beside, being with" or as it is commonly translated "being present". Therefore the noun would be "presence". Although it is true that the word has been used by ancient authors to describe a royal or official visitation there is no reason at all to presume that this was the intended meaning in the Bible. From the previous link to Liddell-Scott you can also follow the citations and you will see that there is no mention or even hint in the ancient texts of a "parade-like spectacle". The citations of Euripides and Sophocles are translated in English so you can read them and see that they are refering to a simple visit. Please bare also in mind that in Greek there is no other word for "presence". So, in my view, to use your definition of "royal visitation" to support the "visibility" or incontestability of Christ's presence is simply not accurate.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

If we are questioning a doctrine and we receive evidence that we are questioning something that is true, then evidence will speak for itself (unless we are stubborn and haughty). But if we receive no evidence, or untrue claims instead of evidence, we will likely continue questioning.

You are not taking into account the fact that we cannot know everything. (Romans 11:33,34) What would be evidence enough? Some other things will be revealed to us when the time comes. (Daniel 12:8,9). In view of these scriptures/principals I think that sometimes (and for trivial matters such as chronology) not asking questions is a sign of humility.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The questioner is probably out of line and may even need discipline but this does not automatically result in "stumbling" of others, either

I never said it was automatic because obviously it is not. But what if a single person stumbles because of something I or you write in this forum against an "official" teaching? Do we accept such a responsibility? I just can't stop thinking what Jesus said in this regard in Matthew 18:6,7 and Mark 9:42.

[Evacuated]

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

That's probably because we agree that Jesus' Parousia culminates in an execution of judgment.

Thanks for the information on this matter. I'm away for a while but will come back on this discussion soon.

[Ann O'Maly]

10 hours ago, Anna said:

I am under the impression he has become an atheist now.

Along with JW Insider, I can also confirm that he has remained a Christian believer. And yes, he wasn't upset because he "wasn't being heard as he would have liked to have been heard," but because he had found out what the Society had been teaching was demonstrably false, because he kept getting the brush-off from HQ, and because there was an underhanded campaign to vilify him in his JW community. ...

... You know, the usual way big organizations treat dissenters and whistleblowers.