The Meaning of "parousia" in Greek

[kyredneck]

I'm pretty sure the article quoted below is of 'post 19th century' origin, and I don't see the terms "everyday sense" or "everyday meaning" used in it, so it ought to be eligible for consideration by the 'Modern Linguistics' camp.

....You strain out the proverbial gnat and swallow the proverbial camel with your tunnel vision focus on the one Greek word 'parousia' while totally disregarding the timeline that's given within all three accounts of the Olivet Discourse...

...Concerning "generation" (Gr. genea), all the lexicons agree that it may be translated "age" or "era" as well as "generation." So I have no problems there with my position....

That particular generation of Christ's day was a peculiar generation in that it had been foretold of through prophecy such as the Song of Moses [Dt 31:16 - Dt 32], which also is quoted from several times in the NT......The 'preunderstanding of the Modern Linguistics school' that you are again demonstrating complicates and disconnects, and in this instance destroys the underlying continuity of the scriptures concerning that very wicked generation.....

If I didn't know you better, I'd say that you were trying to hijack my thread. None of your post except this connects directly to the OP, and this barely does....

Wrong, it's absolutely crucial to understand what 'this generation' entails in the gospels, and how it had been foretold of in the OT.

http://americanvision.org/6133/jesus-and-the-parousia/
“...If “this generation” in Matthew 24:34 means what it means everywhere else in the gospels — the generation to whom Jesus was speaking — then the use of parousia by Jesus must refer to the period of that first-century generation. As to the timing of Jesus’ parousia, James wrote to his first-century audience that “the coming of the Lord is near” (James 5:8).....this is what’s in dispute. When is the end of the age? The “ends of the ages” (1 Cor. 10:11), “these last days” (Heb. 1:1–2), and the “consummation of the ages” (Heb. 9:26) are references to the generation of the apostles, not a distant end-time age.

"....the parousia of Jesus in Matthew 24 is not linked to the judgment of “the world.” It’s about the judgment of the temple (24:1–2) and Judea (24:15–20). Notice what Matthew 24:15 states: “When YOU see the abomination of desolation.” Throughout the discourse, Jesus continually uses the second person plural. Consider what He says in verse 33: “so, YOU too, when YOU see all these things, recognize that He is NEAR, right at the door.” It was that audience that would “see all these things.” This confirms the statement by James that “the coming of the Lord is near” (5:8). “Near” is defined by Jesus as “right at the door” to that first-century generation.....”

“...There is no doubt that parousia means “presence.” In fact, I have a list of more than 50 authorities that confirm that parousia means “presence,” so this is not in dispute. The more significant question is to what event does the use of parousia in the Olivet Discourse refer, and what is the nature of Jesus’ “presence”? Milton Terry’s comments make it clear that the context and timing are very specific:

Whatever the real nature of the parousia, as contemplated in this prophetic discourse, our Lord unmistakably associates it with the destruction of the temple and city, which he represents as the signal termination of the pre-Messianic age.[2]

Terry is an important authority on interpretive issues since dispensationalists give his book Biblical Hermeneutics high praise. Like Tommy Ice, Milton Terry describes his interpretive methodology as “grammatico-historical”[3] Confirming what he wrote in Biblical Apocalyptics on the timing of the events in the Olivet Discourse, Terry asks, “On what valid hermeneutical principles, then, can it be fairly claimed that this discourse of Jesus comprehends futurity? Why should we look for the revelations of far distant ages and millenniums of human history in a prophecy expressly limited to the generation in which it was uttered?”[4]....”

 

[John of Japan]

Maybe you should start a thread on the meaning of the word 'contemporary'.

That would be scary. It might degenerate into a thread on CCM, and then where would we be?

 

[John of Japan]

Wrong, it's absolutely crucial to understand what 'this generation' entails in the gospels, and how it had been foretold of in the OT.

There are many things that are crucial that are not directly pertinent to this thread.

You know, I'd really rather debate a person than an essay, and this is the second essay you've thrown at me. And the last guy knew some Greek, but this guy is pretty ignorant.

http://americanvision.org/6133/jesus-and-the-parousia/
“...If “this generation” in Matthew 24:34 means what it means everywhere else in the gospels — the generation to whom Jesus was speaking — then the use of parousia by Jesus must refer to the period of that first-century generation.

This is ignorant. He makes a blanket statement--"everywhere else in the Gospels"--with no proof whatsoever. How do we know "generation" means the same everywhere else in the Gospels?? Well, we just have to trust his word, right?

The words "generation" or "generations" occurs in the KJV 32 times translating 3 different Greek words, but we're just supposed to accept this dude as the scholar, and his interpretation with no explanation.

The truth is, many of those times in the Gospels are ambiguous. If I want to translate some of them as "age" instead of "generation," that's perfectly acceptable in both linguistics and translation theory. So where is this guy's point? Up in smoke.

“...There is no doubt that parousia means “presence.” In fact, I have a list of more than 50 authorities that confirm that parousia means “presence,” so this is not in dispute.

Well, of course it means "presence." I never said it did not. It also means "arrival" and it also means "coming." It doesn't have just the one meaning. In fact, in Parousia by John Stuart Russell, the book beloved by preterists, "coming" is the definition given.

What this essayist apparantly does not understand (adding him to a growing list of preterists ignorant of Greek and linguistics) is that many words, including parousia, have more than one meaning. It can mean presence, coming or arrival, depending on the context.

Unfortunately, I don't find anything else in the essay that means anything to me. It's more of a "he said, she said" type of essay. "You say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to." "My scholar is better than yours, nyah, nyah, nyah." It's funny how preterists pick and choose where they insist on a literal or grammatical-historical hermeneutic, and the rest of the time they interpret spiritually.

Whew. Sorry, I got carried away there. :saint:

 

[John of Japan]

I'm going to post on more time here and then leave off if no one answers. asterisktom said my proposed thread (this one) looked interesting, but apparently cannot get on right now--a common occurrence in the country he works in.

There is one more time Tom mentioned parousia and meaning, though strictly speaking he was talking about the meaning of the verb paron (parwn as he romanizes it in accordance with how you would type it in Greek), not the noun parousia. Here is where he posted this: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1781516&highlight=parousia#post1781516

(Note that paron is actually the present active participle of pareimi.)

This phrase "when He came" is from the Greek PARWN, which is a verb form of PAROUSIA. Ignatius is looking back at Christ's Parousia. The ones who had been raised (past tense) are the Old Testament prophets.

His use of PARWN in a spiritual application is the same use that Paul employs in 1 Cor. 5:3:

"For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit [PARWN DE TW PNEUMATI], have already judged (as though I were present[HWS PARWN]) him who has so done this deed."

Back to Ignatius.

Tom made three linguistic errors here.

(1) The verb form does not always connect directly with a noun from the same root. In fact, often it does not. The English verb "run" is an example. If you say, "He runs the company," it has a completely different meaning from, "He has the run of the company." So, When making the linguistic point of the noun and verb carrying a similar meaning (except that a verb is action and a noun in this case is state of being), you must first prove that they carry the same general meaning.

(2) Secondly, Tom failed to realize that in 1 Cor. 5:3 we have an idiom, not the literal meaning of the verb paron. (An idiom is "A set expression in which two or more words are syntactically related, but with a meaning like that of a single lexical unit"--P. H. Matthews, Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, 2nd ed., 183). The phrase in this verse does not literally mean that Paul would detach and send his actual spirit over to Corinth, but that he would be thinking of them, that they were in his heart. So when Tom wants this idiom to be a usage that proves a "spiritual coming" of Christ rather than a physical coming in 70 AD, he fails linguistically.

 

[Logos1]

Squirming as Theology

I would like to start a new thread outlining that there is only one judgment spoken of in Revelation 20 not multiple judgments, but I know I would not have the time to interact with a new thread over the course of many days so I will settle for responding on this thread for now.

JOJ is proving my point earlier that he is a one trick pony that elevates Greek interpretation above all else—even and plainly in this case when it puts him in direct opposition to specific bible passages (I’m not attacking John’s greek skills I’m observing that he goes several bridges too far for what he has to work with and ends up out of harmony with scripture).

If you take the preterist side of the argument that parousia should be interpreted as meaning the presence of Christ being found in events such as the 70 AD events around Jerusalem then you are in harmony with the balance of the bible.

This view is in harmony with My kingdom coming without observation Luke 17:20 and My Kingdom is not of this World John 18:36. There is no place that this view contradicts scripture.

However, if you want to wiggle, squirm, and force your way into saying the parousia mean a literal or physical return of Christ you are at odds with scripture in several places.

First there is not one single bible verse that will outright simply back you up on that—not even one. No where does the bible say Christ will return in a literal body or physical body.

Second, you are at odds with John 18:36 where Christ says His kingdom is not of this world.

Third, it is at odds with Luke 17:20 where it comes without observation.

This squirming your interpretation around to the desired meaning so you can ignore what is inconvenient to your desired outcome and embrace something that defies the relevant scripture on the topic turns greek interpretation into something it was never meant to be. It should be a tool to better understand the scriptures not a magical permission slip to ignore passages you find inconvenient to your view on a subject.

This is an example of squirming theology at its best.

Logos1 – preterist extraordinaire—JOJ (I appreciate the endorsement John)

 

[kyredneck]

...elevates Greek interpretation above all else—even and plainly in this case when it puts him in direct opposition to specific bible passages...

I think that would be an easy mistake any 'Greek geek' (no disrepect intended) to fall into.

In a favorite sermon of mine a country preacher from S. Georgia had something like this to say (cant' quote him verbatim):

"Before we adopt any interpretaion of scripture to be 'doctrine', we should first consider the passage carefully through the magnifying glass, then we should check it out thoroughly through the telescope, and lastly we should scrutinize it under the microscope."

Probably the above would be considered a 'pre 20th century' approach and old fashioned 'traditional hermeneutics' and not at all in sync with the 'Modern Linguistics' camp by JoJ, who, IMO, elevates the microscope above all else.

 

[John of Japan]

I shared with my son (finishing up his Ph. D. under Dr. David Alan Black) how preterists here think Greek should be secondary in exegesis, and he got a good laugh out of it, as I have. :laugh:

If I want to understand the writings of Musashi, I learn Japanese, right? If I want to understand the Koran well, I study Arabic, right? If I want to understand the writings of Confucius I study Chinese, right? Ergo, if I want to understand the NT correctly I study Greek. This is not rocket science, just common sense.

I see nothing to answer in these two posts by preterists here. They've not answered the OP and my follow-up posts at all. They can't. (All they can do is object to my use of the Greek.) asterisktom might be able to somewhat, but even he has objected to my use of the Greek in the past (though he tries to use it to prove his own points when it is convenient as I've shown on this thread.)

 

[John of Japan]

"The Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. To formulate rules to bridge this gap is one of the most important tasks of Biblical hermeneutics" (Protestant Biblical Interpretation," Bernard Ramm, 1956, p. 5). Greek is not secondary in NT hermeneutics, it is primary.

 

[kyredneck]

....I see nothing to answer in these two posts by preterists here. They've not answered the OP and my follow-up posts at all. They can't.....

Wrong, for one I'm not full preterist, and two there's NO 'answering' you when you reject what was brought to light in post #29 because the writer says 'everyday use' (which you insist no real linguist would say) instead of 'contemporary use'. It's ridiculous.

"*However, the term was also used in Hellenistic contexts to refer to a theophany, or a manifestation of deity. In the Greek form of several Jewish apocryphal works (Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Testament of Judah, Testament of Levi) it is "used to refer to the final coming of God." Josephus uses the term to refer to OT theophanies (Ant. 3.80, 202-3; 9:55). "

 

[John of Japan]

Wrong, for one I'm not full preterist, and two there's NO 'answering' you when you reject what was brought to light in post #29 because the writer says 'everyday use' (which you insist no real linguist would say) instead of 'contemporary use'. It's ridiculous.

"*However, the term was also used in Hellenistic contexts to refer to a theophany, or a manifestation of deity. In the Greek form of several Jewish apocryphal works (Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Testament of Judah, Testament of Levi) it is "used to refer to the final coming of God." Josephus uses the term to refer to OT theophanies (Ant. 3.80, 202-3; 9:55). "

Actually, I fully answered your post 29 in my post 35. And I did not reject what the writer said because of his use of the term "everyday use." In fact, at that point in my post 35, I said,

I'm puzzled by his use of the term "everyday sense." This is not generally how linguists refer to words. I'll assume he's distinguishing this from the word used as a technical term. At any rate, so far he is on target.

My saying that he was on target at that point proves I did not reject what he said because of his terminology.

And I'm aware that you are not a full preterist. But correct me if I'm wrong, isn't your position partial preterist?