[B-Greek] PAROUSIA
furuli at online.no
furuli at online.no
Thu Apr 10 06:29:06 EDT 2003
Dear Dan,
To grasp the meaning of PAROUSIA in the NT, and to translate it in a
way that helps the readers to understand its meaning (if we work with
Bible translation), the context of the NT is important (as you say).
The use of the word in Classical Greek may give important clues, but
is not decisive, because we know that words often are used
differently in the NT (e.g. KOSMOS, AGAPH) compared with Classical
Greek.
To find the nature of PAROUSIA (action versus state and durativity
versus punctiliarity) is important, not least for the Bible
translator. It is not so important whether the arrival or presence of
Paul is stressed (Philippians 1:26) but is very important in Matthew
24:3, 27, 37 and 39. Because the references and applications of
Jesus' words in Matthew 24 are difficult to grasp, and there are many
different views, a translator should not add to the confusion by
choosing an inadequate English term for PAROUSIA. Because of
tradition, most persons are comfortable with the translation "coming"
and see no problem with this term in Matthew 24. But philologians
(who use all means to establish the text, and to some extent word
meanings) and linguists may see a dilemma in connection with the
text. In verse 3 the disciples ask for a sign, and the question is:
Do they ask for a sign *before* the PAROUSIA (to the effect that it
is best rendered "coming"), or do they ask for a sign indicating that
the PAROUSIA has begun (to the effect that it is best rendered
"presence")?
While I try to avoid theology, I would like to show the reasoning
behind an untraditional approach. Two things are parallelized in
Matthew 24:3, namely, PAROUSIA and SUNTELEIA TOU AIWNOS. Starting
with SUNTELEIA, we should first note that while TELOS (Matt
24:13,14) may be punctiliar, this is not the case with SUNTELEIA. In
Matt 13:39,40 it is shown that SUNTELEIA is a period of time ("the
harvest", in which several events would occur). The use of SUNTELEIA
in Matthew 24:34 opens for, but does not prove, that the sign asked
for would signify that SUNTELEIA has begun, rather than being a sign
of the imminent SUNTELEIA. Because SUNTELEIA and PAROUSIA are
connected with the SHMEION in the same way (both being in the
Genitive case)in 24:3, there is the possibility that the PAROUSIA
signifies a period of time as well, and that the sign signifies that
the PAROUSIA has begun.
But if the disciples asked for the sign of something that had begun,
how could they have reasoned? The disciples had been taught that
Jesus would return, and their words in Acts 1:8 indicate that they
believed that he would return in person to the land of Israel. The
disciples had seen that very few people had accepted Jesus as the
Messiah, so their question could simply mean: "When you return to the
land of Israel, if you are in an area where we are not, what is the
sign that you have returned, so we can start looking for you?" Jesus'
words in Matthew 24:23-27 could imply that Jesus understood the
question in this way: If someone points to a place saying, look:
there is the Messiah, don't believe it!" The reasoning above is a
legitimate philological reasoning, and shows that there is a dilemma
in connection with the rendering of PAROUSIA , centering around the
question of whether the word indicates punctiliar action or a
durative state.
In 2 Thessalonian 2:1,2 the PAROUSIA of Jesus is again mentioned,
and the Thessalonians are admonished "not to become easily unsettled
or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come
from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come." (v 2
NIV). The argument is not that a letter or word cannot show that "the
day of the Lord has already come", because everybody will know when
that day comes. Rather the argument is that they should not believe
such a report because several things must happen before the day
comes. The PAROUSIA of "the man of lawlessness" is hardly punctiliar,
because many things should happen at that PAROUSIA (2:3,9); so the
PAROUSIA iof this "man" must be "his" presence. It i also
interesting that it is stated in 2:8 that Jesus will destroy "the man
of lawlessness" by "the manifestation of his presence" (THi EPIFANEIA
THS PAROUSIAS AUTOU).
Nigel Turner (1981). "Christian Words", p 405 says in his discussion
of PAROUSIA: "There is no alternative but to understand that the
parousia takes place in two distinct phases, each separated from the
other by an interval of time. The victorious revelation of Jesus in
great power is evidently not the whole parousia, but the more
dramatic part of it." One important reason for this conclusion,
according to Turner, is that all the events that are connected with
the PAROUSIA, EPIPHANEIA, APOKALUYIS and ERCOMAI of Jesus are so
different, even mutually exclusive, that they cannot refer to one
point of time. Therefore, when PAROUSIA is qualified in 2
Thessalonians 2:8, it could suggest that the "man of lowlessness" is
destroyed at a particular *phase* of the PAROUSIA OF Jesus, when it
no longer needs to be pointed to by a sign or in writing, but when
PAROUSIA is clearly seen (manifested).
Even if someone does not agree with Turner, his view must be accepted
as a *possibility* which has to be dealt with. Returning to Matthew
24, we learn in vv. 32, 33 that when particular things are seen, one
should know that "he is near at the doors" (EGGUS ESTIN EPI QURAIS),
and the day an hour (when he arrives at the doors) no one, not even
the Son, knows. It seems clearly that an instantaneous arrival is
implied by these words. But in connection with this, a
misunderstanding may arise, namely that everything in the chapter
refers to an instantanous "coming", to the effect that the
substantive PAROUSIA and the verb ERCOMAI have exactly the same
reference. However, note that the PAROUSIA in vv. 36, 37 is
parallelized with "the days of Noah", "the days before the flood".
Exactly the same things that happened in the days before the flood
(and which required time), would again happen at the PAROUSIA of
Jesus. These words *could* indicate a PAROUSIA in two phases as
Turner suggested, with the dramatic end when Jesus arrived at the
doors (just as the flood came.) Again, this is a possibility that
should be considered.
I would like to add the observation that even ERCOMAI is not
necessarily punctiliar in Matthew 24. In v 30 the word is expressed
as a present participle. This is a quote from the Aramaic text of
Daniel 7:13 where the combination of the Peal perfect of HWH ("to
happen", "exist") and the Peal active participle of )TH ("to come")
indicates an action that occurs over time. The same is true with the
Greek participle. The present of ERCOMAI in vv, 42, 43 and 44 may
indicate action that takes time as well.
The conclusion on the basis of the points above is that the primary
tool for an understanding of PAROUSIA is the context of the NT. There
are examples in the NT, such as Philippians 2.12 where "presence" is
demanded" (see also 2 Corinthians 10:10), but there are no instances
in the NT where "coming" is demanded. So the advice would be for each
one who either chooses "coming" or "presence" to make a list of
reasons, philological, linguistical and theological, in order to find
the reasons behind one's choice.
Best regards
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
>Clwinbery at aol.com wrote:
>
>>In a message dated 4/4/03 11:43:17 PM, lgblmay at cox.net writes:
>>
>>>2) the coming, arrival, advent
>>> 2a) the future visible return from heaven of Jesus,
>>> to raise the dead, hold the last judgment, and set up
>>> formally and gloriously the kingdom of God
>>>
>>>
>>This certainly goes beyond anything Ican see in the word PAROUSIA.
>>It involves a hop-skip-jump trip through the NT i'm aftaid. I
>>wonder if we could stay with the lexical/contextual possibilities
>>of the pres. fem. participle of PAREIMI.
>>
>Would the list-members agree with this characterization by Barclay?
>"In the papyri and in Hellenistic Greek /parousia/ is the technical
>word for the arrival of an emperor, a king, a governor or famous
>person into a town or province." (New Testament Words, 223) This is
>a philological rather than theological argument, since Barclay is
>basing the claim on Hellenistic--not biblical--usage.
>
>However (and I hope I'm not going too off-topic here), whether
>PAROUSIA is punctilliar or not is theologically irrelevant. A study
>of the contexts in which the word is used in the NT clearly
>indicates the meaning it had in common usage among first-century
>Christianity.
>
>--Dan Glick
>---
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list