A Tale of Three ENDS

The New Testament uses a number of different words and expressions to describe the Second Coming, the ultimate end of this order of things foretold by Jesus and NT writers.

I will here look at three of these words, which has a specific meaning in Watchtower eschatology^* that, as I will demonstrate, cannot be harmonized with the NT itself, and that also results in a number of clear self-contradictions, even within WTS doctrine.

These words are synteleia, parousia and erchomai, which in the New World Translation are translated respectively conclusion, presence and coming (in this context, the two latter of these words are also used for other things).

When the disciples asked Jesus what would signify his return, they chose to use both synteleia and parousia in the same sentence:

What does the WTS claim the word synteleia means? The translation makes the interpretation obvious: it refers to the end of a system of things. In this case, it refers to two different conclusions, the WTS has to argue, namely 1) "the end of the Jewish system of things" and 2) "the conclusion of the whole world system of things." The WTS will have to claim that the disciples actually asked (maybe without knowing it) for three different things, including also "the time of Christ's presence." (See The Watchtower April 1^st 1997, p. 5)

The word synteleia, either way, means the end of a system of things, which the WTS argues started around the time of the parousia, in 1914.

How does this agree with Jesus� use of the word synteleia, which simply has to be the background for the disciples� question? The answer is, not at all.

In Matthew chapter 13 we find the famous parable about the wheat and the weeds. When Jesus himself explained this parable to his disciples, he said about the harvest:

And the Watchtower Society �explains� the parable further:

So, we see that the synteleia according to this interpretation started in 1919, when the WTS (or so it says) started the preaching work that would separate people into wheat and weed.^**

The big problem starts when we look at how the word is used elsewhere in the NT.

This is of course a massive oops for WTS eschatology.

According to the WTS� doctrine about this word, Jesus� statement would imply that Jesus would be "with" his disciples all the days until 1919, and no further. If we followed the logic from the WTS interpretation of this term in Mt 13:39, then, Jesus would cease to be with his disciples after 1919, when the "conclusion" came and the end began. Of course, this is absurd, and it�s also very much contrary to JW doctrine.

Actually, the WTS teaches that Jesus really ceased to have control of his congregation on Earth shortly after the death of the apostles in the 1st century, and took no action until the 1870s, and that he particularly started to take care of them only after the alleged "conclusion of the system of things."

The WTS is brought into all these problems because of its "invisible presence" doctrine, that requires parallel and synonymous terms to be given widely different meanings. As we will see, this is not improved very much when we look at the next word.

A full discussion of the Greek term parousia, and why it is certainly correct to translate it "coming" not "presence" is beyond this short summary. I will still demonstrate, not from dictionaries or grammars, but from the gospels themselves, that the term did not in any way imply a period of presence (and even less an invisible presence) as opposed to the actual coming.

To do that, we only have to go back to Matthew 21:3, where the disciples ask Jesus "what will be the sign of your presence [parousia]." To argue that the word means presence, the WTS would also have to claim that the disciples at this time, prior to Jesus� death, had the understanding that Jesus would return invisibly for a period before his actual, visible coming. This is quite absurd, which we can see when the disciples quite a bit later, after Jesus� death and resurrection, asks Jesus this question:

There are, as all Bible readers will surely know, many examples showing that the disciples at this time, and for a period afterwards, believed in a very literal and very imminent return, and certainly no invisible presence.

The WTS indeed acknowledges this fact:

Such carelessly does the WTS deal with the simple fact demolishes its whole eschatological superstructure.

In one instance this question was directly asked in the Watchtower:

Those interested in seeing a clear example of the fallacy known as "begging the question" are hereby invited to look up for themselves and read the non-answer delivered by Fred Franz (undoubtedly) in that Watchtower. The earlier 1996 Watchtower statement is sufficient to demonstrate a certain confusion about this issue, and that the WTS acknowledges the obvious.

The simple fact remains: when the disciples demonstrably expected a coming, and a very visible return with Jesus as a very real earthly King, they can�t possibly have chosen the word parousia because it referred to an invisible presence, as the WTS has consistently claimed.

The word erchomai is a very common word in Greek, and it means coming (or, indeed, going). The WTS does not try any translation tricks in this instance, the word in its apocalyptic context in the gospels is simply translated "arriving," "coming" or similar.

This is indeed a key verse in Watchtower doctrine. The "slave" was set over all Christ�s belongings, the WTS argues, in 1919, when Jesus came to inspect his "belongings" just after the start of his "presence." The problem is immediately apparent. Jesus says that nobody can know the day of the "coming" (first erchomai above), which means it obviously refers to the actual, very visible end. The WTS has claimed they knew about the coming in 1914 in advance (a truth with massive modifications), so the verse simply has to refer to the ultimate "coming," the end, or in JW lingo: Armageddon.

What, then, of the second instance of erchomai, in verse 46? Well, then we will have to conclude that Christ has indeed not �arrived� in 1919, since Jesus uses exactly the same word as in verse 42 (a fact carefully hidden by the NWT�s inconsistent translation). Then Jesus did not appoint any "slave" over anything in that year. And for that matter, it totally demolishes the idea of an invisible "presence" from 1914, since we have demonstrated that all these special interpretations of originally plain words result in massive contradictions.

The only way to avoid having the verses we have quoted above contradicting themselves is to accept what a plain and simple reading of any New Testament will reveal: the terms synteleia, parousia and erchomai, along with certain other words and expressions, all refer to the same event. They do not refer to any invisible "presence," but a miraculous and very visible coming in the clouds. This should happen without direct forewarning, �like a thief in the night.� The harvest after the conclusion (sunteleia) would then not be a period of evangelizing, but exactly like Jesus said, a gathering done by angels. And Jesus would be with his disciples all days until this sudden coming (parousia, erchomai).

The mess WTS eschatology has gotten itself into with such unreasonable interpretations of key words demonstrate that a desire to cover up for false date prophecies is a very bad reason to rewrite your private dictionary.

----

* Eschatology � religious teaching about the last things, the last events, the end of the world.

** Interestingly, the quite parallel parable about the sheep and the goats (Mt 25) has had its fulfillment postponed till after Armageddon.