The Ugly Truth about Jesus 2nd Presence (page 3)

Undecided

If Christ established a Kingdom in 1914, isn't it about time it did something to show it is ruling the world? What good is a King if he just sits invisibly and doesn't do anything?

Ken P.

Leolaia

Undecided....It's exactly what I've been saying....If Jesus was enthroned as king in 1914, and has been invisibly ruling since then, why are we still waiting for his 1,000 reign to start?

AlanF

Undecided said:

: If Christ established a Kingdom in 1914, isn't it about time it did something to show it is ruling the world?

But... But... But... Haven't you read the JW booklet "What Has God's Kingdom Been Doing Since 1914?"

AlanF

frankiespeakin

I think this jesus guy is in the crapper,,,and he can't get out!!!

To coin a phrase.

The lexical facts of the matter is that parousia has the primary meaning of 'presence' followed by secondary meanings as 'árrival' and 'coming'. This gives a secure foundation to the earlier and current understanding of the Lord's invisible presence which can be traced to the nineteenth century expositors and fully expounded by Russell.

It has been the determination of many critics of Jehovah's Witnesses that the meaning of this Greek word should be subverted to 'coming' aloné which is a gross dishonesty. Such a pitiful attempt is well illustrated in the Appendix of the book by Carl Jonsson- Sign of the last Days.

Alan F has also engaged in sloppy exegesis when discussing the disciple's question as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels. He does not present for careful analysis the Interlinear and the NWT translation of these three texts but simply argues his position on the basis of another translation inferior to the NWT.

scholar

BA MA Studies in Religion

Farkel

frankie,

: I think you would find how historically inaccurate the Bible really is.

Amen to that. And I can also prove it.

Farkel

Hey Ken! My best wishes to you, long time friend!

: If Christ established a Kingdom in 1914, isn't it about time it did something to show it is ruling the world? What good is a King if he just sits invisibly and doesn't do anything?

I can come up with one: it keeps the wheels of an international religious publishing corporation turning while people are trying to figure out what Jesus is actually DOING during his Second Presence(tm) as KING some 90 years ago. THAT is what it is doing. It's STALLING and riding on its false predictions. Once the membership sees this lie, they will come up with another lie.

It's just their way, you know.

Farkel

gumby

Everyone here must realise it takes some time to get from heaven to earth.

You see....when Jesus departs from heaven to head for earth......he ain't as quick as superman. This "travel time" is where we are getting mixed up. When jesus departs from heaven.....the "signs" of his taking off from heaven begins......you know........wars and earthquakes and stuff. These wars and earthquakes keep happening for a long time cuz jesus is STILL traveling to earth and it takes awhile. Oh Jesus is still "coming".........he's on his way..........give him time.

Gumby

barry

Scolar if you are present in my home you would be here. An invisible presents is not taught in scripture our lord assended into heaven visibly and said he would come again in like manner he went to heaven. After the ressurection our lord ate fish and said look see I am not a spirit but have flesh and bones. Barry

Leolaia

Here is a discussion you might find interesting on this subject between our old friend Rolf Furuli and other Greek experts/enthusiasts on the BGREEK list. Enjoy....

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Bratanov: Would you help me with the translation of the word PAROUSIA ? Does it denote "arriving, appearing" or just "presence (without coming)" ? Some people point out that PAROUSIA literally means "to be present" and thus applying this meaning to the "coming of the Lord Jesus" they deny that there is such coming. As I have read the context of many passages I think that it means "coming" or "being present by the result of appearing,coming" , that is, "coming" would be more accurate translation. So does PAROUSIA mean "coming" or just "presence"?

Rolf Furuli: The use of lexicons to answer questions about the meaning of Greek words is legitimate. But we should keep in mind that in a lexicon we do not find the meaning of a word, but only glosses representing the way a Greek word has been translated into English. The meaning of a word is not found in manuscripts or books but in the minds of living people, those who have the same presupposition pool (native speakers of Greek). Moreover, lexicons often base their glosses on theology rather than philology (See the fine criticism of TDNT by Barr, J. (1975) "Semantics of Biblical Language", Oxford: Oxford University Press.)

The basic question regarding PAROUSIA is whether the word signals a state (which by definition is durative), whether it signals a punctiliar event (the act of coming), or whether it signals the entrance into the state of being present. We may illustrate the case by taking a look at verbs. The characteristics "durativity" and "punctiliarity" are Aktionsart terms (not aspectual terms), and it is important to keep in mind that a verb marked for durativity, never ceases to be durative. Thus durativity is a semantic (uncancellable) characteristic.The characteristic "punctiliarity", on the other hand, is not semantic, that is, a verb whose default interpretation is punctiliar can in some contexts be interpreted as durative as well. This illustrates that the characteristic durativity is rather easy to pinpoint, but punctiliarity is more elusive.

In the NT PAROUSIA occurs 24 times. The word signalled a concept in the minds of native speakers of Greek, and the author of a text would use the context the help the reader see which side of the concept he wanted to make visible in each case. (The context does not generate lexical meaning, all such meaning is connected with the concept in the human minds, but the context helps make visible a part of this concept.) A native Greek would in most cases instantly ascertain the part of the concept that the author had made visible. We, who have a different presupposition pool (connected with English) can only find the side of the concept signalled by a word that the author has made visible, by a more tedious study of the context.

As to the NT use, the state of being present is made visible in Philippians 2:12 where PAROUSIA is used in contrast to APOUSIA. But what about "coming", which is a punctiliar action, can we see in any of the instances that this is what is made visible? I would say "no". Firstly, actions that are punctiliar (instantaneous) are, because of their nature (punctiliar words can also have a durative interpretation), very difficult to pinpoint. For instance, if I say "Please sit down", do I stress (make visible) the instantaneous action of lowering oneself from standing to sitting position, or do I stress (make visible) the result of being seated? Secondly, the gloss "coming" as an entry for PAROUSIA in the NT is based on theology and not on philology. In no place in the NT do the context forbid the stative sense of PAROUSIA "to have come and being present". And in no place do the context demand the punctiliar sense "coming". As to the PAROUSIA of Jesus, the context even suggests the stative and durative meaning in Matthew 24:34 where the parallel is "the days of Noah" and not "the day of Noah". it is claimed that PAROUSIA is used as "a technical term for the coming of Christ". The word "technical" should cause alarm bells to ring in our mind; this is theology and not philology! When the term "technical" is used, we should always ask "Where is the evidence?", and even be more critical than in other instances.

In the Classical Greek examples that are cited in the lexicons as evidence of the instantaneous sense "coming" I find exactly the same problem as in connection with the NT use. Turner, N (1981) "Christian Words" Nashville:Thomas Nelson Publishers discusses PAROUSIA (pp 404-409). He cites Sophocles' "Elecvtra" 1104 which he translates: "Would you announce our arrival?" But how can we know that it is the action of "coming" and not the state of "being present" that is made visible? Why could we not translate: "Would you announce our presence?" I do not say that PAROUSIA cannot be given a punctiliar interpretation. But I have never seen a clear-cut example of this sense, so I will be happy if someone on the list could give a Classical example where the context demands the instantaneous sense "coming".

Daniel Glick: 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.

Ann Nyland: PAROUSIA in the papyri/inscriptions means "coming", "arrival", "visit", often but not always of the coming of an official (and their presence after their arrival), cf. P.Oxy 47; SIG3 741.111, 1V; SEG 821.10. See the cognate verb in an edict and speech of Nero which states that as many people as possible were to be present in Corinth on November 28, 67 AD. There's a good discussion in L. Robert, Hellenica 13 (1965) 129-131 on the cognate verb, used for gods from the time of Homer. The cognate verb appears in the future in P.XV.Cng 8.8, a letter stating that the correspondent (not an official) will be present at a court case. See also BGU 2211, a letter about an official's coming, "..who is now intending to be present.in the land".

Rolf Furuli: I am sure that many list-members would be happy if you quoted one classical passage (or two), and demonstrated that in this particular context PAROUSIA can only be punctiliar and not durative. In other words, please show that the author stresses the instantaneous "coming" and not the resultant state of being present.

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.

Daniel Glick: Rolf, I apologize if I was unclear... I'm not advocating the rendering of PAROUSIA as 'coming'. In fact, I agree with you--from my very limited knowledge of Greek--that 'presence' is probably the correct translation. However, as you are undoubtedly aware, making an argument about the meaning of a Greek word merely based on its closest English equivalent would be the height of folly.

So staying within the realm of Greek, there are three lexical issues here:

1. What is the literal meaning of PAROUSIA? Undoubtedly, it means 'presence', plain and simple. I take it we agree on that.

2. What other connotations did PAROUSIA have in the first century? Ann Nyland has given evidence to show that it referred to a person's arrival. This is not necessarily punctilliar. A person's arrival, after all, would be followed by their presence. That is why the word PAROUSIA is used. The person's entire presence is being referred to... but the /emphasis/ is on their arrival.

3. What meaning did PAROUSIA have to the first-century congregation? This can only be determined by a study of the word's usage in the NT; and since it's very difficult to keep that separate from theology, I'll e-mail you about it off-list.

Just to address a couple of your more relevant arguments on-list:

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")?

I'm afraid that you are conflating the translational and interpretive issues here. Even if the correct rendering is 'presence', the disciples could still be asking for a sign that the presence was imminent.

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:

That passage begins: TOTE EAN TIS hUMIN EIPH. What is the referent of TOTE here? As I mentioned, I am a Greek novice, but my understanding is that TOTE, like the English word 'then', can refer either to a time period previous mentioned, or to the next time period in a sequence of events.

If we take the first possibility, then it would appear to be referring to the time of the QLIFIS MEGALH in v21. If we take the second possibility, then it refers to a time following the QLIFIS. Either way, it is not referring to the PAROUSIA.

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.

I would entirely agree. So I will send you more material in that regard off-list.

Ann Nyland: Rolf, I gave examples from 1st century, surely that is revelant. I gave some cold hard facts without discussion, inc. those where it does mean being present and not just arrival. Back to lurking now. Regards, Ann Nyland.

Chuck Tripp: I mostly lurk on this list and have been away for a few days and found this discussion regarding PAROUSIA. It was the question of the meaning of the word PAROUSIA among others that prompted me to learn Greek. It is also one of the reasons that most of my Greek reading is in extra-biblical texts (Herodotus, Arrian on the life of Alexander). I like to see how the language is used outside the bible in ordinary situations and read about interesting subjects. As I read I try to keep an eye out for important biblical words.

I have found PAROUSIA and its related word PAREIMI a fairly common word which allows one to get a fairly definite idea the range of meaning of the word. One could also include the word PARAGINOMAI in this discussion.

To start off, I'd say to that to ask whether PAREIMI means to arrive or to be present is a somewhat artificial distinction. PAREIMI means PAREIMI. I think if you asked a ancient greek speaker whether PAREIMI meant to arrive or to be present, I bet at first he would not understand the question because both concepts are contained in PAREIMI, the ancient greek speaker probably did not even realize that there were two shades of meaning unless he really thought about it.

I can think if a couple of examples between English and French. In English you have the word 'time.' In French you have the word, 'temps.' However, in knowing the French word 'temps,' you still don't have enough vocabulary to express all the thoughts you would use the English word time to express. 'Temps' refers to time as a concept but not as a specific moment in time. You could say, 'J'ai pas assez de temps' and that would be fine, but you could not say, 'c'est le temps a manger,' rather you would say 'c'est l'heure a manger.' The average English speaker probably does not realize that there is a distinction without having thought about it. There are other examples, 'encore' in French comes out 'yet' and 'again' in English and I had a difficult time explaining the difference between the two english words to a French exchange student I got to know a year ago. Another example is ser/estar in Spanish versus 'to be' in English.

So having said that, I'd almost go so far as to say that PAREIMI means both but where the emphasis shifts depending on the context. As someone else pointed out, from a literal standpoint, PAREIMI means to be beside. So it's most literal English counterpart would be to be present. However, in terms of usage, it frequently is used when say a messenger shows up to deliver a message, when an army shows up in a certain location. I see this a lot. So from a usage standpoint, its English counterpart would be 'to arrive.'

But the reason I say it means both is this: what happens when a person arrives? He becomes present. You can shift the emphasis a little bit (i.e. a moment or two forward in time) and simply say that the person is present. That's why I say a Greek speaker might ask 'what's the difference? He's here isn't he?'

So to my mind, the difference between PAROUSIA in Matthew 24 and other such passages meaning 'coming' and 'presence' is about two seconds.

Rolf Furuli: Ann has not demonstrated that the side of the concept PAROUSIA that one or more Classical authors wanted to make visible for their readers (i.e. which side of the concept that was stressed) was "arrival". She has given some references with the claim that "arrival" was the sense that was focused upon, but she has not wanted to demonstrate on the basis of the context that "arrival" rather than "presence" was the sense. Only when this is done there is a good case for "arrival". A person who "is present" did at some time "arrive", but the crux of the discussion about PAROUSIA is whether it in any passage of the NT signals anything but a state (presence) and whether it did so in a Classical context. I do not deny that "coming/arrival" can be what is stressed in a Classical passage. But I have never seen a passage where "presence" is not a possible rendering as well, so I am curious to see one.

I'm afraid that you are conflating the translational and interpretive issues here. Even if the correct rendering is 'presence', the disciples could still be asking for a sign that the presence was imminent.

No! Leaving theology aside, the linguistic question is about states versus actions. The verb EIMI signals a state, and etymologically speaking, the substantive PAROUSIA signals a state as well ("being beside"). The concepts signaled by words may change through time, so PAROUSIA could very well cease to signal a state and rather signal the action of arrival at some time and among some Greek-speaking people. However, such a diachronic change should be demonstrated. As for the NT, the sense "presence" is demanded in some instances, the sense "arrival" is never demanded (by the context).

The substantive PAROUSIA, if it has the sense "presence" is equal to the verbal expression "to have come and being here". So PAROUSIA in this sense is resultative (the end of the action "arrival/coming" is passed and the resultant state holds). We cannot understand Greek by the help of English idiom, as you say. But my "feeling" of the Greek mind is that the native Greeks would understand "What is the sign of your PAROUSIA?" (given "presence" as the sense) exactly as the English speaker would understand, "what is the sign indicating that you have arrived?" You do not ask the last question if you are interested in the sign before someone arrives.

Dr. Kishore Kisala: Parousia could certainly be understood as "to be beside", when the real presence defines the time and event. As the various texts seems to show, it is more an event when , as per the Scripture, the presence of Jesus will be "felt" -- the physical experience is not rejected. It might be interesting to make a try to know the history of this word and its interpretation as the Chrisitianity knows !

Dr. Alex Hopkins: There is papyrological evidence in New Documents illustrating Early Christianity, volumes 1 and 4. The 11th article of the first volume gives an example of the cognate verb, PAREIMI, used of an official's coming. The editor, Greg Horsley, also refers the reader to "the old but still valuable treatment in Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 368-373. For the verb used of gods from Homer onwards, see L. Robert, Hellenica 13 (1965) 129-131; also SEG 821.10."

The 78th article of the fourth volume gives two examples of the noun. The examples occur in two letters of King Mithridates of Pontos; in both, he speaks of the rebel, Chairemon's flight upon hearing of Mithridates' coming. In the first, we read 'and now having found out about my coming he has ... fled'; in the second, 'and now having learnt of my coming he has escaped'. The editor of New Docs 4 notes, "In this context parousia takes on connotations of retribution (the purpose and consequence of the king's coming) and makes a good parallel to eschatological uses of the word in the NT (e.g., Mt. 24.27, 37, 39)." The article then refers to another piece of papyrus evidence, a business letter in which a certain Didymos asks someone 'to wait for the arrival of Phanias.'

The editors comment: "Didymos is speaking of an arrival which he sees as an event that will only affect the person waiting when it achieves actual physical fulfilment (through the presence of Phanias). In the letters of Mithridates above, however, the parousia is an impending arrival: Chairemon fled on hearing not of the king's actual presence, but of his imminent arrival. It is not clear who Phanias is, but it seems that he is a business associate rather than a visiting official, in which case this example parallels the use of parousia in the NT for the arrival of Titus (2 Cor. 7.6, 7) and Paul (Phil. 1.26; 2.12)."

Rolf Furuli: Thank you for your fine references which I will read at first opportunity. You speak about "the usage of the word in relation to the coming of official persons in state visits". Taking this as a point of departure, I would like to ask: How can we differentiate between the senses "coming" and "presence" related to such a situation? The normal understanding of the words is that "coming" is punctiliar and refers to the point of arrival while "presence" is durative and refers to someone who has arrived and is here. However, while durativity is a semantic property (it is not dependent on the context and cannot be canceled) punctuality is a pragmatic property (it must be construed by help of the context and can be canceled), and therefore punctiliarity is much more difficult to pinpoint. (Se for instance Matt 24:30 where even ERCOMAI is durative as are the Aramaic words quoted.)

There can be no doubt that PAROUSIA in the NT in some cases has a durative meaning. This is seen by the parallel between the word and "the days (plural) of Noah" in Matt 24:37-39 and that it is contrasted with APOUSIA in Philippians 2:12. But what kind of tests or what kind of expressions could show that only the moment of arrival was focussed upon? Take the English expression "Sit down!" as an example. In almost all cases the meaning is resultative. We usually do not focus upon the downward movement when the person takes her seat or the moment when this movement ends, but rather on the result - the state of sitting. So how can we know that this is not the case with PAROUSIA as well, and that the noun has the same meaning as the verb hHKW, a possibility mentioned by Carl (in the thread "coming or presence)?

Of the 24 examples of PAROUSIA in the NT, there is not a single instance where the context unambiguously shows that only the punctiliar coming of someone is focussed upon, but a durative understanding is possible in all cases. It seems to me that the reason why Bible translations in most instances render PAROUSIA by "coming" is theological rather than philological - it is based on the view of how Jesus will return. I wonder how many of such translators (and others) have taken into consideration that durativity is semantic and punctiliarity is pragmatic and have made tests to find out whether result is stressed rather than the moment of coming. Your comments regarding the material suggests that the punctiliar coming is meant in some instances. But I would like to know if there in your opinion is anything in the context that excludes a durative or resultative interpretation.

Professor Carl W. Conrad: I do have to protest here that, in point of fact, the Latin ADVENTUS really does express the meaning of the Greek PAROUSIA. It DOES conform BOTH to the etymology AND the idea of the Greek verb PAREINAI in its most common (albeit not sole) Hellenistic sense: "arrive," "arrival."

Alan Feuerbacher: Interesting ideas. From the comments made on this forum so far, it is evident that "parousia" is not perfectly translated by one English word, for it has connotations that combine features of "coming," "advent" and "presence." Each of these words has features of the others, since an "advent" necessarily entails a subsequent presence, and a "presence" necessarily entails an advent. The question of the precise meaning of "parousia," therefore, as Israel Warren pointed out, is more a matter of emphasis on which feature of "parousia" is the more prominent. Various lexicons I've studied indicate an evolution in meaning, so that by the time of Christ "parousia" did not have the exact same meaning as it did in classical Greek.

While "parousia" primarily means "presence" (literally, "being alongside") or "appearing," from ancient Greek times it has also had the meaning of "arrival," "occasion" and "visitation by a high official," as well as others. Furthermore, it is well established today that at the time of Christ it was used in a special technical sense. Most early Greek-Latin translators, for whom both languages were living, used the Latin adventus ("advent" or "coming"). The translators for the Syriac Peshitta used a similar term. Nearly all Bible translators today use "coming," "advent," "arrival" or similar terms, despite the fact the primary meaning is "presence," because of relatively recent discoveries in Egypt. The reason is well expressed by the late 19th century scholar Adolf Deissmann, who was instrumental in collating and presenting the 19th century discoveries of ancient Greek manuscripts that showed that the New Testament was written in koine Greek rather than some special biblical Greek:

"Yet another of the central ideas of the oldest Christian worship receives light from the new texts, viz. parousia, 'advent, coming,' a word expressive of the most ardent hopes of a St. Paul. We now may say that the best interpretation of the Primitive Christian hope of the Parousia is the old Advent text, `Behold, thy King cometh unto thee.' [Matthew 21:5] From the Ptolemaic period down into the 2nd cent. A.D. we are able to trace the word in the East as a technical expression for the arrival or the visit of the king or the emperor." [Light from the Ancient East, Baker Book House, 1978, p. 368]

The point is that, according to Deissmann, the technical sense embodies both an arrival and a subsequent presence, with emphasis on "arrival." This is in contrast with what Israel Warren wrote in 1879. Of course, the discoveries that Deissmann wrote about had not been made in 1879, so it is clear that Warren's comments are based on incomplete knowledge of koine Greek. After all, in 1879 the prevailing wisdom was that the NT was written in an imaginary, special "biblical Greek."

Deissmann goes on to point out many examples of the use of "parousia." On the occasion of an official, royal visit, such as when the Roman
emperor made a "parousia" in the provinces in the east, the roads were repaired, crowds flocked to do homage, there were processions of his white-clothed subjects, there were trumpet blasts, acclamations, speeches, petitions, gifts and festivities. Often a new era was reckoned from the "parousia" of the king or emperor, and coins were struck to commemorate it. At the visit or "parousia" of Emperor Nero, in whose reign Paul wrote his Corinthian letters, the cities of Corinth and Patras struck "advent-coins." These coins bore the inscription Adventus Aug(ust) Cor(inthi), showing that the Latin "adventus" was used in the 1st century as an equivalent of "parousia," at least on those occasions. (Deissmann, p. 371) A term related to "parousia" is "epiphaneia" ("appearing"). This was also sometimes used on Greek "advent-coins" as an equivalent of the Latin "adventus." (Deissmann, p. 373)

Now, what about contextual considerations? The arrival of Christ in Kingdom power would certainly be the "arrival or the visit of the king." The context of Matthew 24 indicates that the disciples asked for a sign of Jesus' visible coming. The disciples who asked Jesus about this fully expected Jesus to take up a visible rule over literal Israel, so they must have been asking about a visible appearance. Therefore they were not asking for a sign that the appearance had already taken place -- for the appearance itself would be sign enough -- but that it was about to take place. This was partly the point of my earlier questions concerning the proper understanding of "melle" in Mark 13:4.

This is consistent with Jesus' illustration of the fig tree in Matthew 24:32,33: "When its branch has already become tender, and puts forth its
leaves, you know that summer is near; [or, "about to arrive" -- not "is already present"] even so you too, when you see all these things,
recognize that He is near, right at the door." (NASB)

The Ugly Truth about Jesus 2nd Presence

Share this