|
In 1878 James Stuart Russell, a denominational preacher, wrote
and anonymously published a 567-page book entitled The Parousia:
A Critical Inquiry into the New Testament Doctrine of Our Lord's
Second Coming. The thrust of this whole literary endeavor
was a desperate attempt to show that the Scriptures teach the
second coming of Christ "with its connected and concomitant
events," such as the resurrection of the dead, the judgment
day, the end of the world, etc., took place during the first century
at the destruction of Jerusalem and downfall of Judaism.
Nine years later, in 1887, an unaltered second edition of the
same volume (with the exception that the author's name appeared
on the title page) was made available, wherein the author confessed
that his views had not met with "ready concurrence"
from the reading public. In other words, most Bible students
rejected Russell's newfangled notions as being nothing more than
false and fanciful hallucinations of a misguided brain, being
as they were without a shred of biblical support.
In 1971, 93 years following the publication of Russell's original
work, Max King, a preaching brother from Warren, Ohio, published
The Spirit of Prophecy, wherein he set forth essentially
the same conclusions as his sectarian counterpart. Read from
Russell first: "We conclude that the parousia, the
resurrection, the judgment, and the last day, all belong to
the period of the destruction of Jerusalem" (p. 126).
Now hear King:
There is no scriptural basis for extending the second coming of
Christ beyond the fall of Judaism. ... The second coming of Christ
is associated with numerous events that have a direct bearing
on the consummation of God's redemptive purpose, such as the judgment,
the resurrection, the end of the world, and the establishment
of the eternal kingdom (pp. 105, 155).
Here, both authors clearly affirm that Christ's second coming,
along with other eschatological phenomena, was fulfilled in A.D.
70 with the fall of the Jewish state. The difference between
what Russell and King are saying amounts to the same difference
as twiddle-dee and twiddle-dum.
But now here's the funny. When C. D. Beagle, father-in-law to
Max King, wrote the introduction to King's book he stated, "I
am certain a whole new view of the Scriptures will open up before
you." Bah! Don't these boys know there's not a thing under
the sun new about this unkingly heresy they're trying to palm
off on the brotherhood? Why, it is nothing more than an old,
worn-out, and oft-refuted denominational blunder of a century
before - regurgitated tommyrot which reeks of a rancid sectarian
stench from toe to top - repudiated and rejected many times over
by sound and sensible students of the Book. You will please excuse
me when I choose not to swallow this spiritual strychnine as suicide
of the soul has never appealed to me.
Even if the stuff were new, as the Kingites take pride in spouting,
this would only prove it is a Johnny-come-lately, too modem to
be anything kin to scriptural truth of the apostolic kind. What?
You say King will tell me that the resurrection is past already,
as there were some in the first century teaching the same? O.K.
Let's see what inspiration says about it - "And their word
will eat as doth a gangrene, of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
men who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection
is past already, and overthrow the faith of some" (2 Tim.
2:17-18).
See? It's not new. But like a sassy, old woman prancing around
in a miniskirt, King thinks he'll get some lookers if he can dude
up his ancient heresy in chic garb of the 20th century. But we
know better.
|