In this and the next article, I
shall consider the viewpoints of various authors as they consider II
Thessalonians (and, to some extent, I Thessalonians).
J.
S. RUSSELL ON
I
AND II THESSALONIANS
I THESSALONIANS 4
J. S. Russell is the originator of
the Preterist approach to Scripture. I
have written a great deal in previous articles on his views of Matthew 24. The material in I and II Thessalonians
presents a challenge to Russell.
Russell’s view is that the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem fulfilled the
prophecy of Jesus and others regarding the Parousia of Jesus. Although there is material regarding the
resurrection in the gospels, in Matthew 24 and parallels the material regarding
the resurrection is vague. However, in I Thessalonians the description of
Resurrection/Rapture is explicit and is tied to the return of Christ. Russell reviews the material of I Thessalonians
4:13-17 (165-166), and he explicitly lists the major events that are described
in the passage (166).
At this point, it would seem Russell
has a problem. If he believes the
Parousia took place in AD 70, then he has to believe that the
Resurrection/Rapture also took place then.
Although he DOES believe that, he avoids immediately facing that issue. First, he goes back to the argument that he
pushes throughout his book: there is an
expectation and understanding that the Parousia will take place within a
generation of the events of the gospel—i.e. about 40 years after the
crucifixion/resurrection of Christ: “The
legitimate inference from the words of St. Paul in ver. 15, ‘we who are alive
and remain unto the coming of the Lord,’ is that he anticipated that it is
possible, and even probable, that his readers and himself would be alive at the
coming of the Lord.” (Russell, 166) He
then disputes with interpreters of his day that try to, in his view, worm out
of this expectation, when he believes that the apostles were “fully justified
in believing as they did.” (Russell,
167)
Perhaps I am somewhat cynical and am
ascribing motives that I cannot prove, but I believe the Russell is creating a
red herring by hammering on this theme for several pages before he gets down to
the real issue. Finally, after he seems
confident that he has made his point, he admits to the facts of the passage
before him: “It may be said that we have
no evidence of such facts having occurred as are here described,--the Lord
descending with a shout, the sounding of the trumpet, the raising of the
sleeping dead, the rapture of the living saints.” (Russell, 168) One might say, in response, “Yes, you are
very correct. You have one event that
you ascribe to the Parousia—the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the
Roman legions. This is your sole
historical proof of your thesis that the Parousia took place in AD 70.”
Russell
answers us immediately: “True, but is it
certain that these are facts cognizable by the senses? Is their place in the region of the material
and the visible?” He goes on to say that
“a very large portion of the events predicted by our Lord…did actually come to
pass…” (Russell, 168) He then refers to the destruction of Jerusalem and the
Temple. He maintains that the Parousia
includes the events in Jerusalem and the resurrection of the dead. They both are “different scenes in one great
drama.” Then, he differentiates the two
major portions of the Parousia: “We
accept the facts verified by the historian on
the word of man [that is, the events in Jerusalem]; is it for the Christian
to hesitate to accept the facts which are vouched by the word of the Lord? [italics in original]” (Russell, 169)
With
this bit of rhetoric Russell completes his comments on I Thessalonians
4:13-17. In my opinion he fails
completely to defend his position as he considers this passage. Notice that he creates a dichotomy between
two sets of events that he ascribes to the Parousia—the events in Jerusalem and
the events of the Resurrection/Rapture. The
first set of events are verifiable in history, and the second is utterly absent
from history. Russell is content with
this absence of data on the Resurrection/Rapture. He believes it could have happened without
any human evidence of its happening. So,
he concludes that one set of events is verified “on the word of man” and one
set is verified “by the word of God” (as quoted above). In this latter statement, he probably
obliquely is referring to Paul’s statement that his description in I
Thessalonians 4:13-17 is “by the word of the Lord” (4:15, King James Version). However, if he is making that reference, he
is doing so incorrectly. For Paul is not
saying that he has had a revelation that
the Resurrection/Rapture has occurred, rather, he is saying it has had a revelation as to how the Resurrection/Rapture
will occur.
Moreover, there is not
one statement in Scripture that the Resurrection/Rapture has occurred. This passage, as well
as the one in I Corinthians 15 (which Russell interprets and comments upon in a
way very similar to the present passage), describes the events of the
resurrection of the dead in Christ and the rapture of living Christians as
events that will take place in the future.
It is true that Paul acted as though he would experience the
Rapture: “Then we who are alive, who are
left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds…” (I Thessalonians 4:17a, ESV) Russell maintains that Paul and other
apostles expected this as a reasonable expectation from the Lord’s predictions
(for example, Matthew 24:34). Russell,
167-168) However, Paul did not experience the Rapture, even if it did occur in
AD 70, for he was executed before that year.
One could argue that Paul could still have a reasonable expectation of
the Parousia occurring in his lifetime, even if he missed it because of his untimely
execution. Or one could argue that Paul
was giving a “word of the Lord” (I Thessalonians 4:15) in describing the
Rapture and yet appeared to include himself among those experiencing the
Rapture. Would it not be reasonable to
understand Paul’s “we” in 4:17 as “we Christians” no matter what
generation?
Do
we not consider the admonitions in the Pauline epistles to have authority in
our own lives? In I Thessalonians 5
there are a series of admonitions to the people of that church, in the first
century. They are to respect their
leaders (5:12), live together in peace (5:13), not take vengeance (5:15),
rejoice (5:16), etc. These are
admonitions that are important for all Christians to follow. Obviously, Paul’s epistles mix current
affairs and circumstances with general principles. They were written to respond to the needs of
particular churches. Paul’s responses to
those needs were general principles that applied to those needs. So, the Thessalonians were grieving about
their dead loved ones. Paul’s response
to that need was to give to them a vivid description of the
Resurrection/Rapture. That event was
relevant to the needs of that church, but it was also an event that is relevant
to every Christian. So, Paul counts
himself among all Christians in using “we” in verse 4:17.
In
Matthew 24, Jesus addressed the issue that some would try to invent a secret
return of Himself:
So, if they say to you,
‘Look, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out. If they say, ‘Look, he is in
the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. For as the lightning comes from the east
and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. (Matthew 24:26-27, ESV)
It
appears to me that Jesus predicted a very public, visible return of
Himself. He would not use the Roman
legions as mediators of His Parousia. He
would not create a secret Rapture or Resurrection. When He comes, it is going to be big deal
that all will know about from Antarctica to Sweden to China to Nebraska.
Russell hangs his entire book on one
event, the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Any other events that must be accounted
for—for example the visible return of
Jesus—he avoids or hides. He is
faced with the most spectacular event—short of the resurrection of Jesus—in all
of history in the Resurrection/Rapture that is described in I Thessalonians
4:13-17. He cannot account for it and
must resort to making this event invisible.
That, in my view, is a failure of his thesis and pretty much a death
blow to Preterism.
I THESSALONIANS 5
Russell
hammers at the idea that end-times prophecy was fulfilled in the first century
in his comments on chapter 5, as follows:
It is manifest that
there would be no meaning in these urgent calls to watchfulness unless the
apostle believed in the nearness of the coming crisis…Why urge men in A.D. 52
to watch, and be on the alert, for a catastrophe which was not to take place
for hundreds and thousands of years?
II THESSALONIANS 2
Russell begins his commentary by
focusing, in a few sentences, on verse 1 (Russell, 174). He notes that the coming of Christ (Parousia)
and “our gathering together unto him” are “regarded by the apostle as
simultaneous, or, at all events, closely connected.” Then, he considers the phrase “gathering
together unto him.” He connects it with
Matthew 24:31, in which Jesus prophesies that angels will gather together the
elect. He also connects this event to I
Thessalonians 4:16-17—the description of the Resurrection/Rapture. I believe that he has made an accurate
connection among these various Scriptures.
So, how does he explain or describe this event? In one sentence he sums up the meaning of the
mysterious phrase: “This can be nothing
else, then, than the summoning of the living and the dead to the tribunal of
Christ.” This sentence borders on the
meaningless. First, the phrase “living
and the dead” does not distinguish Christian from non-Christian, and we are
left scratching our head about what that implies. Second, does he refer, by “the tribunal,” to
the last judgment? How could the last
judgment be in the first century? Or
does he refer to the judgment poured out on the Jews by the Roman destruction
of Jerusalem? All Christians were not
gathered in Judea to witness that event.
Or does he refer to a judgment of Christ on the works and faithfulness
of the Christians? I have already dealt
with his concept of the Rapture as something that occurred in AD 70 without
anyone witnessing it. So, is he saying
that the “gathering unto him” of the living for the “tribunal” was a judgment
of the living Christians that took place without anyone knowing it? Did that tribunal have any effect on those
living Christians? In fact, the
idea—that something happened to the “living and the dead” in AD 70 which
satisfies the descriptions of the Resurrection/Rapture found in I Corinthians
15 and I Thessalonians 4—is a preposterous.
So, his brief commentary on II Thessalonians 2:1 is totally nonsensical.
Russell continues his commentary by
devoting several pages to the correct translation of verse 2 (Russell, 175-177). He notes that the King James Version is
incorrect in rendering the latter part as “the day of Christ is at hand.” In fact, Russell maintains (as do all modern
translations) that it should be “has come.”
Incidentally, textual evidence also supports “the day of the Lord”
rather than “the day of Christ,” but that information was not available to
Russell.
He continues his commentary by
noting that there are two precursors to the Day: the apostasy and the “Man of Sin” (so King
James Version). He connects the apostasy
to Jesus’ prediction of problems in the church in Matthew 24:10, 12 (Russell,
179). I tend to agree that the two
mentions of church problems may refer to the same development. I discussed this in the last article and
noted that “apostasy” may refer to a general rebellion in the world led by the
Man of Lawlessness. The apostasy in the
church may be related to this general rebellion. Russell (179) also connects the apostasy to the
descriptions in I Timothy 4:1-8 and II Timothy 3:1-9.
Russell then devotes pages 180-190
to a consideration of the “Man of Sin.”
He is consistent with his Preterist thesis by finding a person to fit
Paul’s description. That person is
Nero. His interpretation is that
Claudius was the one who hindered or restrained Nero’s entry onto the world
stage. He was taken out of the way by
being poisoned, possibly by Nero’s mother Agrippina. He was the first Roman emperor to persecute
the Christians. He also gave orders for
Vespasian to invade Jewish territory. He
died in AD 68. This was interpreted to
be the “dawning” of the Parousia.
This
latter expression is Russell’s interpretation of II Thessalonians 2:8b: “…whom the Lord Jesus will
kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his
coming.” (ESV) The word translated
“appearance” is epiphaneia, and which
Russell interprets as “dawning.” There
is no other instance in which this word has the meaning “dawning.” In this verse it is translated by various
translations as follows (thanks to www.biblegateway.com
((see that website for copyright information for versions))):
·
King James and
New King James Version: brightness
·
English Standard
and New American Standard Version:
appearance
·
New
International Version: splendor
·
New Revised
Standard Version: manifestation
The
problem of translation is that epiphaneia
and Parousia are in the same sentence, and they have similar meanings. For this reason, I think “manifestation”
might be a good translation. However,
notice that in no case is “dawning” implied by these translations. The truth is that Russell was faced with the
fact that Nero died two years before the destruction of Jerusalem. If he equates the events of AD 70 with the
Parousia, then he cannot make Nero “fit” as the Man of Lawlessness without
claiming that Christ’s Parousia had a “dawning” two years before it actually
occurred. There is no basis for “dawning.”
Moreover, Nero was dead before the
Temple was destroyed and cannot be said to have sat in the Temple of God and
declared himself God. Suetonius
describes Nero as one of the vilest men who has ever lived. He was a sadistic, bisexual, incestuous
pervert. He was a thief, a liar, a
murderer, and a cheat. He also was a
lazy and profligate leader who almost bankrupted the Empire. In a sense his incompetence probably
disqualified him from being the Man of Lawlessness or Antichrist/Beast, if we
consider the usual image of that person.
Again, Russell tries to force events
of the first century into the mold of prophecies of the last days. It is generally true that when we attempt to
apply prophetic Scripture to events, we find it difficult to make things
“fit.” An example is the
Antichrist/Beast. Over the centuries,
this person has been identified with Nero, the Pope, Mussolini, Hitler, Henry
Kissinger, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and, I suppose, Barack Obama. Notice that a precondition of the Day of the
Lord is the REVELATION of the Man of Lawlessness. It is useless to play a guessing game about
someone who is going to be revealed at the proper time. Russell claimed that Nero was the one, yet
there is not a sense in which Nero was revealed, either to the church or the
world as this particular person of Scripture.
Russell never fails to pay attention
to Scripture or to be diligent in his exegesis.
Yet, he has caught himself in the “Matthew 24:34 trap,” of which I have
written in a previous article. That trap
forces him to interpret all prophetic Scripture as being fulfilled in the
events of AD 70. In the case of his
interpretation of II Thessalonians 2, he comes up two years short in trying to
equate Nero with the Man of Lawlessness.
NEXT: Debate between Pre-Tribulation and
Post-Tribulation Rapture theorists
REFERENCES:
Crossway
Bibles (2009-04-09). ESV Study Bible. Good News Publishers. Kindle Edition.
Graves, Robert, trans. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus. The Twelve Caesars. Harmondsworth,
Eng.: Penguin Books Ltd., 1980.
Graves, Robert, trans. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus. The Twelve Caesars. Harmondsworth,
Eng.: Penguin Books Ltd., 1980.
Lord’s Second Coming.
(Google Internet Book)
London: Daldy, Isbister
& Co., 1878.
No comments:
Post a Comment