Gleanings from The Parousia
by J. Stuart Russell
THE PAROUSIA TO
TAKE PLACE WITHIN THE LIFETIME
OF SOME OF THE DISCIPLES.
Matt. 26:
27,28
For the Son of Man
will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will
reward each according to his works.
Assuredly, I say to
you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they
see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.
Mark 8: 38; 9:
1
For whoever is ashamed
of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the
Son of Man also will be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father
with the holy angels.
And He said to them,
“Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not
taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power.”
Luke 9: 26,27
For whoever is ashamed
of Me and My words, of him the Son of Man will be ashamed when He comes
in His own glory, and in His Father's, and of the holy angels.
But I tell you truly,
there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the
kingdom of God.
This
remarkable declaration is of the greatest importance in this discussion,
and may be regarded as the key to the right interpretation of the New
Testament doctrine of the Parousia. Though it cannot be said that there
are any special difficulties in the language, it has greatly perplexed
the commentators, who are much divided in their explanations. It is
surely unnecessary to ask what is the
coming of the Son of man here predicted. To suppose that it
refers merely to the glorious manifestation of Jesus on the mount of
transfiguration, though a hypothesis which has great names to support
it, is so palpably inadequate as an interpretation that it scarcely
requires refutation. The same remark will apply to the comments of Dr.
Lange, who supposes it to have been partially fulfilled by the
resurrection of Christ. His exegesis is such a curious illustration of
the shifts to which the advocates of a double-sense theory of
interpretation are compelled to resort to, as to deserve quotation. ‘In
our opinion,’ he says, ‘it is necessary to distinguish between the
advent of Christ in the glory of His kingdom within the circle of His
disciples, and that same advent as applying to the world generally and
for judgment. The latter is what is generally understood by the second
advent: the former took place when the Savior rose from the dead and
revealed Himself in the midst of His disciples. Hence the meaning of the
words of Jesus is: the moment is close at hand when your hearts shall be
set at rest by the manifestation of My glory; nor will it be the lot of
all who stand here to die during the interval. The Lord might have said
that only two of that circle would die till then, viz., Himself and
Judas. But in His wisdom He chose the expression, “Some standing here
shall not taste of death,” to give them exactly that measure of hope and
earnest expectation which they needed.’
It is enough to say that such an interpretation of our Savior’s
words could never have entered into the minds of those who heard them.
It is so far-fetched, intricate, and artificial, that it is discredited
by its very ingenuity. But
neither does the interpretation satisfy the requirements of the
language. How could the resurrection of Christ be called His coming in
the glory of His Father, with the holy angels, in His kingdom, and to
judgment? Or how can we suppose that Christ, speaking of an event which
was to take place in about twelve months, would say, ‘Assuredly, I say
to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they
see’ it? The very form of the expression shows that the event spoken of
could not be within the space of a few months, or even a few years: it
is a mode of speech which suggests that not
all present will live to see the
event spoken of; that not many
will do so; but that some will.
It is exactly such a way of speaking as would suit an interval of thirty
or forty years, when the majority of the persons then present would have
passed away, but some would survive and witness the event referred to.
Alford and Stier more reasonably understand the passage as referring ‘to
the destruction of Jerusalem and the full manifestation of the kingdom
of Christ by the annihilation of the Jewish polity,’ though both
embarrass and confuse their interpretation by the hypothesis of an
occult and ulterior allusion to another ‘final coming,’ of which the
destruction of Jerusalem was the ‘type and earnest.’ Of this, however,
no hint or intimation is given either by Christ Himself, or by the
evangelists. It cannot, indeed, be denied that occasionally our Lord
uttered ambiguous language. He said to the Jews: ‘Destroy this temple,
and in three days I will raise it up’ (John 2:19); but the evangelist is
careful to add: ‘But He was speaking of the temple of His body.’ So when
Jesus spoke of ‘rivers of living water flowing from the heart of the
believer,’ St. John adds an explanatory note: ‘This He spoke concerning
the Spirit,’ etc. (John 7:39). Again, when the Lord alluded to the
manner of His own death, ‘And I, if I am lifted up from the earth,’
etc., the evangelist adds: ‘This he said, signifying by what death He
would die’ (John 12:33). It is reasonable to suppose, therefore that had
the evangelists known of a deeper and hidden meaning in the predictions
of Christ, they would have given some intimation to that effect; but
they say nothing to lead us to infer that their apparent meaning is not
their full and true meaning. There is, in fact; no ambiguity whatever as
to the coming referred to in the
passage now under consideration. It is not one of several possible
comings; but the one, sole, supreme event, so frequently predicted by
our Lord, so constantly expected by His disciples. It is His coming in
glory; His coming to judgment; His coming in His kingdom; the coming of
the kingdom of God. It is not a process, but an act. It is not the same
thing as ‘the destruction of Jerusalem,’—that is another event related
and contemporaneous; but the two are not to be confounded. The New
Testament knows of only one Parousia, one coming in glory of the Lord
Jesus Christ. It is altogether an abuse of language to speak of several
senses in which Christ may be said to come—as at His own resurrection;
at the day of Pentecost; at the destruction of Jerusalem; at the death
of a believer; and at various providential epochs. This is not the usage
of the New Testament, nor is it accurate language in any point of view.
This passage alone contains so much important truth respecting the
Parousia, that it may be said to cover the whole ground; and, rightly
used, will be found to be a key to the true interpretation of the New
Testament doctrine on this subject.
We
conclude then:
1.
That the coming here spoken of is the Parousia, the Second Coming of the
Lord Jesus Christ.
2.
That the manner of His coming was to be
glorious—in his own glory; ‘in the glory of his Father; with the
holy angels.’
3.
That the object of His coming was to judge that ‘wicked and adulterous
generation’ (Mark 8:38), and ‘to reward every man according to his
works.’
4.
That His coming would be the consummation of ‘the kingdom of God;’ the
close of the age; ‘the coming of the kingdom of God with power.’
5.
That this coming was expressly declared by our Savior to be
near. Lange justly remarks that
the words, are ‘emphatically placed at the beginning of the sentence;
not a simple future, but meaning, the event is impending that He shall
come; He is about to come.’
6.
That some of those who heard our Lord utter this prediction were to live
to witness the event of which He spoke, viz., His coming in glory.
The
inference therefore is, that the Parousia, or glorious coming of Christ,
was declared by Himself to fall within the limits of the then existing
generation—a conclusion which we shall find in the sequel to be
abundantly justified.
