[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