My studies have suggested that παρουσία primarily does not have the import "coming" or "advent" when applied to Christ: it appears that παρουσία possibly could mean "arrival" in some contexts. In that connection, the word evidently refers to the visit of important personages in the Greek papyri. However, does παρουσία mean "arrival" in Matthew 24:3?
BDAG Greek-English Lexicon points out that παρουσία has these potential denotations: (1) "the state of being present at a place, presence" or (2) "arrival as the first stage in presence, coming, advent."
Sense (1) is clearly found at Phil 2:12 where Paul contrasts his own παρουσία with his ἀπουσία. 1 Cor 16:17; 2 Cor 10:10 also seem to be examples of παρουσία being used to mean "presence" although some believe that it may signify "arrival" in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. See Rogers and Rogers, The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament, p. 391. But compare Marion L. Soards, 1 Corinthians (New International Biblical Commentary), p. 364.
BDAG suggests that παρουσία in 2 Cor 7:6 and Phil 1:26 refers to the "coming" of Titus or Paul. However, one could just as well understand παρουσία in these verses as "presence" or "the state of being present at a place." See Moises Silva's work Philippians (The Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary), pp. 86-87. To witness examples of παρουσία employed as a terminus technicus (technical term) in the case of Christians and non-Christians, consult Moulton-Milligan, p. 497.
Regarding the use of παρουσία as terminus technicus for the "presence" of Jesus Christ, I find N.T. Wright's comments enlightening:
"But why should we think--except for reasons of ecclesiastical and scholarly tradition--that PAROUSIA means 'the second coming,' and/or the downward travel on a cloud of Jesus and/or the 'son of man'? PAROUSIA means 'presence' as opposed to APOUSIA, 'absence'; hence it denotes the 'arrival' of someone not at the moment present; and it is especially used in relation to the visit 'of a royal or official personage.' Until evidence for a different meaning is produced, this should be our starting-point" (Jesus and the Victory of God, page 341).
What does Wright mean by the "arrival" of Christ, however? In that same publication, he makes it clear that he is apparently referring to the "enthronement" of Christ and not to his so-called Second Advent:
"For the ordinary sense of 'arrival', cf. 1 Cor. 16:17; 2 Cor. 7:6, 7; 10:10; Phil. 1:26; 2:12. From this, the most natural meaning for the word as applied to Jesus would be something like 'arrival on the scene,' in the sense of enthronement" (ibid).
TDNT makes the point even clearer in its treatment of παρουσία. Finally, Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon shows that ἔρχομαι possibly denotes: "to move from one place to another, either coming or going."
6 comments:
Is 2 Corinthians 10:10 a useful comparison?
Wright appeals to 2 Corinthians 10:10 and so do other works. I think it is useful to help fix the possible sense for parousia. The entry deals with how we might understand the lexicality of parousia.
Few questions from Ryan Russell
"If you think Jesus second coming happened in 1914 and it happened invisibly, and you have to say the first resurrection happened at that time as well, and if the first resurrection happened then the rest of the anointed on Earth should have been given their new creation bodies and whisked away to heaven at that time.
In addition to this creating a problem because it makes Jesus have three returns, you have one invisibly and then another one presumably but the whole world will know about at Armageddon??? You can't claim that the gentile nations are no longer "trampling on Jerusalem" and at the same time constantly talk about Satan still being the ruler of this world and God's kingdom not being established on this Earth yet, because then clearly the gentile nation's still are ruling this Earth.
We also have the problem of do we count the last 100+ years of this being part of the millennial reign? If it is, where does the bible ever say that the millennial reign starts before Armageddon? And how can you have Christ reigning over the Earth and Satan at the same time?
Then you get into the historical aspect of the development of the doctrine. Why is it that Christ told his followers he doesn't know the time of his return and none of the apostles apparently knew about the secret math formula, that we relied on Nelson Barber to come up with it in the 1870s??
Then Russell adapted the failed return teaching about 1874, into "an invisible parousia" which the organization proceeded to continue to teach until 1931 when Rutherford merged the teaching of the end of the gentile times with the invisible second coming of Christ?
And this supposedly after Jesus had been invisibly selecting them in 1919, and it took until 1931 for Rutherford to move the date of Jesus secret second return happening in 1874 up to 1914?
A Russian brother put this together about Parousia. I had to translate this into English. Very interesting.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oRYLTPWOfAa0GokrK0FfA3vALjJ5Qdmv/view?usp=drivesdk
BDAG indeed gives two main meanings for PAROUSÍĀ: “presence” and “arrival.” You suggest that PAROUSÍĀ primarily means "presence" and *only* in limited contexts means “arrival,” such as the presence of important individuals in the papyri. However, this is an oversimplification of how the word functions in the New Testament, particularly in eschatological contexts.
BDAG clearly recognizes PAROUSÍĀ can mean “arrival as the first stage in presence, coming, advent”, and this sense of arrival or coming is exactly how it is often used in passages concerning Christ’s return, such as Matthew 24:3. The disciples ask, "What will be the sign of your coming [PAROUSÍĀ]?"—clearly indicating that they are inquiring about a future event, not an ongoing presence. Therefore, to claim that PAROUSÍĀ primarily means “presence” without significant focus on its common eschatological sense of “coming” misses the larger biblical and linguistic picture.
In addition, you cite ÉRKHOMAI and suggest it merely denotes movement, whether coming or going, which is true. However, when paired with PAROUSÍĀ, particularly in eschatological contexts, the idea of ÉRKHOMAI (“coming”) harmonizes with PAROUSÍĀ as an "arrival." This connection is crucial because New Testament writers often use ÉRKHOMAI and PAROUSÍĀ to refer to Christ’s future return in a physical, visible sense, as evidenced by texts like 1 Thessalonians 4:15 and 2 Peter 3:4.
Your citation of N.T. Wright’s interpretation, where he downplays PAROUSÍĀ as meaning "second coming" and emphasizes its connotation of "enthronement," is selective. Wright’s view is not universally accepted among scholars, and his perspective stems from a specific theological framework, often tied to his broader understanding of inaugurated eschatology.
Wright’s argument that PAROUSÍĀ primarily refers to Christ’s enthronement (rather than a literal, physical return) deviates from the traditional reading that sees PAROUSÍĀ in eschatological contexts as referring to Christ’s future return. While Wright may argue that PAROUSÍĀ refers to the "presence" of Christ as king, most exegetes interpret passages like Matthew 24:27-30, which describe the PAROUSÍĀ in connection with visible signs like lightning, as clear references to a future, observable coming of Christ. Therefore, Wright’s interpretation should be seen as an outlier, not as a definitive conclusion on the meaning of PAROUSÍĀ.
You assert that early Bible translations commonly rendered PAROUSÍĀ as "coming" and that this shifted after John Nelson Darby and others began promoting the idea of PAROUSÍĀ as “invisible presence.” This is historically accurate concerning Darby and the development of the idea of a "secret rapture," but it’s important to recognize that even early Christian writers and translators understood PAROUSÍĀ primarily in the context of Christ’s future coming.
For instance, the Vulgate translates PAROUSÍĀ in many eschatological contexts as ADVENTUS ("arrival" or "coming"), as does the Peshitta. These translations reflect the early Church’s expectation of a visible, physical return of Christ, not merely an invisible or ongoing presence. The shift you mention towards "presence" as a dominant translation after Darby stems from his theological agenda rather than from a faithful representation of the term’s original New Testament usage.
The claim that PAROUSÍĀ refers to an "invisible presence" since 1914, as understood by the Watchtower Society, does not hold up to scrutiny when examined within the broader scope of New Testament usage. The PAROUSÍĀ of Christ is repeatedly described in terms that emphasize visibility and public manifestation (e.g., Matthew 24:27-30). The Watchtower’s translation and interpretation appear to manipulate the term PAROUSÍĀ to fit their eschatological framework, rather than allowing the biblical text to dictate its meaning. The New Testament consistently presents Christ's PAROUSÍĀ as a climactic, world-changing event, not as an ongoing, invisible reign.
While you correctly point out that PAROUSÍĀ *can* mean "presence," this is not the complete picture, particularly in eschatological contexts. The overwhelming evidence from New Testament usage, early translations, and scholarly consensus shows that PAROUSÍĀ in texts related to Christ’s return (like Matthew 24:3) refers to his future, visible arrival or coming. The argument that PAROUSÍĀ primarily means "presence" without acknowledging its frequent use to mean "arrival" or "coming" (especially in contexts concerning Christ) is ultimately unconvincing.
In sum, while your appeal to BDAG and other sources provides some insight into the term’s flexibility, the context of Christ’s return in the New Testament firmly supports PAROUSÍĀ as a reference to a visible, future event.
Post a Comment