The Parousia of Jesus

By Samuel M. Frost, Th. M.

The word “parousia” has caused considerable confusion among Bible readers.  On one hand, the word has common use outside of the NT, and even in the NT apart from the “parousia” of Christ.  Thus, it is first necessary to simply define the term.

From all accounts, consulting any Greek Lexicon, “parousia” is a compound word – a word formed by two words: para – ousia.  “Para” is a Greek preposition that simply means “alongside of”, “by” or “from”.  “You will have no reward from your Father” (Matthew 6.1).  “He sat beside the sea” (Matthew 13.1).  “Ousia” is a verbal term of “being”, “nature” or “essence.”  It is from the verb “eimi” (“I am”), “to be”, “to exist.”  The verb “pareimi” is cognate of the noun, “parousia.”

“Parousia” then, simply means the arrival of a person (or thing), its being present.  When a person visits another person, he has “arrived” or is in your “presence.”  Not so hard to understand.  In the Greek, a writer could say, “for her arrival (parousia) was reported from tent to tent” (Judith 10.18).  “When he told his companions of the arrival (parousia) of the army…” (2 Mac 8.12).  Numerous examples like this can be shown from the Greek classics.

Likewise, the verbal form, “pareimi” is translated as “present” – “she was present (parousa – feminine participle) from the creation of the world” (Wisdom 9.9).  “At the same time Sisinnes the governor of Syria and Phoenicia and Sathrabuzanes and their associates came (paren – was present) to them and said” (I Esdras 6.3).  Again, numerous examples can be provided.  “Parousia” is the noun form of the verb, “pareimi.”

In the NT, we have the normal usage, too.  Peter used the phrase, “the present truth” (2 Peter 1.12 – pareimi).  “There were some present at that very time..” (Luke 13.1. pareimi).  “But they came with one accord to him” (Acts 12.20 – pareimi).  “I rejoice at the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus” (1 Corinthians 16.17 – parousia).  “the coming of Titus” (2 Corinthians 7.6 – parousia).  Again, numerous examples can be shown that the verb “pareimi” and the noun form, “parousia” were common, ordinary terms that means the “presence” of one who “came”, “arrived”, “visited”.  It is a personal visit.  If you “came” to my house – that would be a “parousia” – if you “were present” in my house, that would require the verb “pareimi”.  Not to hard to grasp.

Well, one wouldn’t think that if they read the word “parousia” in relation to Jesus, and the verb “pareimi” in the same relation.  Somehow, with Jesus, “parousia” gets quite messed up!  But, there is a very easy way to understand it.  It means the same thing as it does in all these other uses.  The “parousia” of Christ is a visitation – a personal coming or arrival to a place.  It is a real visitaton (just like it is used in the above examples).

In Daniel we have a perfect definition.  There, “one like a son of man” arrives before the throne of God, the Ancient of Days as he is called: “’I was seeing in the visions of the night, and lo, with the clouds of the heavens as a son of man was one coming (erchomai), and unto the Ancient of Days he hath come (pareimi), and before Him they have brought (pareimi) him near” (Daniel 7.13).  That is, this figure comes before God, to God in heaven and is presented to him.  This is a “parousia”.  It is a “parousia of the son of man”.  “Son of man” is simply a man.  For example, Daniel is called a “son of man” in 8.17.  So, here we have a son of man being present before God.  This is a parousia of a son of man.

The NT writers connect this word to the very event of Daniel 7.13.  When the disciples asked about the Temple in Jerusalem being destroyed, they are said by the author to mention, “what is the sign of your parousia – the parousia?” (Matthew 24.3).  Now, Jesus has already “arrived” and he is “present” with them.  Thus, they are asking for something else.  A visitation not yet to have occurred.

There is an interesting way Peter uses the noun, “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and parousia of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty” (2 Peter 1.16).  They made known the power of Jesus.  They made known the parousia of Jesus.  How can they make known something that has not yet occurred?  Well, they can’t.  They can make known something that has occurred, however – the parousia of Jesus Christ.  They were eye-witnesses of Jesus, personally, because he was “present” with them when they walked around the countryside Israel.  Peter is going to explain: “For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.”  We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven, while we were with him on the holy mountain.  So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed.”  Probably “the prophetic message” of Daniel 7.13.

Peter was relating the vision of Jesus on the mountain where he was “transformed” before them and Moses and Elijah arrived as well.  There was a voice from heaven that said, “this is my son!” (Matthew 16.1-ff).  This was a preview.  After Daniel saw the son of man come before the throne of God, he heard, “and to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed” (Daniel 7.14).  Note that Peter said, “he received honor and glory” – not will receive.  This is what Daniel saw, too.

Now, listen to John the Apostle who recorded these words, “So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed” (John 17.5).  Jesus, before his incarnation as one like a son of man, was with glory and honor and power of God the Father as the Son.  Nothing new here.  Yet, here is now “the Word made flesh” and this being made glorified again involves his incarnation: one to be glorified with the Father as one like a son of man.  Jesus could manifest his glory – that he had all power – before his disciples.  However, this Jesus was to fulfill, to make sure the word of the prophets, that one like the son of man would receive all glory, honor and power by personally coming (parousia) to the Ancient of Days.

Putting this together, then, the disciples in Matthew 24.3 are essentially asking Jesus, what is the sign that you are the son of man in Daniel 7.13, 14?  How will the world know what we have seen?  How will they know that you are at the right hand of the Father?  What is that sign?

And Jesus obliges them, quoting Daniel 7.13: “and then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in the heaven; and then shall all the tribes of the earth smite the breast, and they shall see [the sign of] the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of the heaven, with power and much glory” (Matthew 24.30).  “The son of man in heaven” is Daniel 7.13; “coming upon the clouds of the heaven” is Daniel 7.13, taken word for word from the Greek version of the Hebrew. By noting the question, “what is the sign of your parousia” Jesus answered with Daniel 7.13.  The parousia, then, is Daniel 7.13, 14.  The sign is what will be seen.  The sign is that the “parousia” is and has already taken place.

Now, we can see that in Daniel, Jesus is not visiting the earth.  He is being presented in heaven to the Ancient of Days.  This is, then, a scene in heaven, not on earth.  It is when he receives all power and authority.  Peter has noted that this has happened.  So, the parousia cannot be something in the future to him.  If, in fact, it is the Coronation of Jesus at the right hand of the Father, and that the son of man was glorified with the glory he had before his incarnation, then the Ascension of Christ to the right hand of the Father is the parousia of the son of man before the Ancient of Days.  The Parousia of the son of man is the exaltation of Jesus, the son of man, who personally visited, arrived, came to the Ancient of Days.  This was upon his resurrection from the dead.

Thus, the disciples ask, if you are the one, what is the sign that you are the one?  How will the world know what we know, what we have seen?  When the “tribes of the land mourn” because of the terrible fate that is coming to this city, Jerusalem – that’s the sign.  It is the sign that Jesus has been exalted to the right hand of God.  It is the visible sign that he has been installed, the man Christ Jesus, has been installed as King and all Dominion has been given to him.  Jesus ascended to the right hand of the Father and is in heaven, personally, as son of man – a full human being – his parousia before the Father.

Thus, if we understand this, then other usages of this word, “parousia” makes sense (even though many translations of it are confusing).  “For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes as far as the west, so will be the parousia of the Son of Man” (Matthew 24.27).  The “lightning” is not the “parousia”.  The “lightning” is the sign of the arrival of bad weather. The son of man has been enthroned (at his ascension) and the power of his enthronement will be like seeing lightning strike from the heavens.  “For as the days of Noah were, so will be the parousia of the Son of Man” (24.37).  In that, “Noah entered (eimi!) the ark…and they knew nothing until the flood came…so also will be the parousia of the son of man” (24.39).  Jesus is presented/enters (pareimi) in the heavens, and the world knows nothing – has no understanding of the power that has been given to the Son of Man that will strike without warning, without mercy – this is what it is “like.”  Such is Matthew’s understanding.  The son of man has been exalted, and “all power has been given” to him (Matthew 28.18; verbal of Daniel 7.14).  After his resurrection and ascension, his installment with the glory he had, and now shares with humanity because he is a “son of man” in heaven, exalted, he is given “all power, authority, rule and dominion and his Dominion will never be destroyed.”  He rules in the clouds of the heavens.  His power is demonstrated in his rule over the nations as they fall.

“For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? are not even ye before our Lord Jesus Christ in his parousia?” (1 Thessalonians 2.19).  This is not something Paul is expecting, but rather what he saying presently to his church.  “You are our crown before Jesus, in his presence” – and where is the son of man, Jesus?  In heaven, enthroned – his parousia.  “To the establishing your hearts blameless in sanctification before our God and Father, in the parousia of our Lord Jesus Christ with all His saints” (3.13).  Where are the hearts established?  “before God the Father, the Ancient of Days, in the parousia of Christ.”  Christ, the son of man, is present before the Father, and you are in him.  I shudder.  “And the God of the peace Himself sanctify you wholly, and may your whole spirit, and soul, and body, be preserved unblameably in the parousia of our Lord Jesus Christ” (5.23).  How can God be sanctifying the saints before the time of the parousia, when here is it said that he is sanctifying right now in the parousia of the son of man?  What Paul is saying here is amazing: the whole man, mind, body and soul is being sanctified in the parousia of Christ, in his body that is present before the Father – the son of man at the right hand of God!  Our bodies are even being preserved in his presence!  “They shall kill some of you…but not one hair on your head shall perish.”  The three Jews were thrown into the fiery furnace and when they came out, “not one hair on their head” was burned! (Daniel 3.1-ff).  There was another one “present” with them.

“And each in his proper order, a first-fruit Christ, afterwards those who are the Christ’s, in his parousia” (1 Corinthians 15.23).  Christ is present with the Father, the son of man.  He is already there as a first fruit.  It is in his presence that we are “before the God and Father”.  This is not a future event.  The resurrection of the dead is a future event, and for those dead in Christ, they shall be raised in his parousia, before the Father because a son of man is already present before the Father.

“For this to you we say in the word of the Lord, that we who are living — who do remain in the parousia of the Lord — may not precede those asleep” (1 Thessalonians 4.15).  How do they “remain” in the parousia?  Because, as we have seen, they are in the parousia (“in Christ”) already.  Christ is present before the Father, the Ancient of Days.  He is the son of man, mind, body and spirit, the man Christ Jesus, at the right hand of God having been presented to the Father, his arrival to the Ancient of Days when he was raised and ascended to his right hand.  The saints are in his parousia because he is “like unto us” – a man.  A man stands before the Father, body, mind, and soul, and is our High Priest.  The saints are in Him and he, by the Spirit, is in us.  The saints are preserved and sanctified in him, in his parousia before the Father.  The Parousia of the son of man is not a future event.  It is.  Daniel 7.13,14 is fulfilled by the exaltation of the son of man – a human being, mind, body and soul – before the Ancient of Days.  And he is “in heaven” and will remain in heaven “until the restoration of all things” (Acts 3.19). However, in terms of the dynamics of the Godhead, the Spirit, who is God, has been poured out into our hearts.  The Spirit ties us with the Son of God, the Uncreated, through the Son of Man, the created (incarnate).  We walk by faith, not in things seen, but in things unseen.  It is because a man is in heaven that we, through the man, and through the Eternal Son of God who was made man, and shares in man’s humanity fully, that we, by the Spirit that comes from the Father, through the Spirit and the Son to us, are made “partakers” of him.  We are in him, and he in us because the Parousia of the Son of Man has taken place in the heavenlies – when all power was given to Jesus (Matthew 28.18).

Thus, by understanding this word in its normal, proper usage, it simple means a coming or an arrival of a person.  Jesus, the son of man, arrived, came, was presented before the Ancient of Days and given all power and authority.  That was his parousia.  That was fulfilled in the heavenlies when upon his resurrection Jesus ascended to the Father and received all power and authority.  The Parousia of Jesus is not something that will be, but is something that is.  And we are “in his parousia” as he is before the Father.  And we await in him, for him to one day descend from the heavenlies, raise the dead, and restore all things.  We know, also, that even though we are in him, in his parousia by the Spirit, we have entrance into the House of God upon our death before he raises the dead (2 Corinthians 5.1-10).  That to be in our bodies means that we are “absent” from the Lord who is in heaven.  To be away from our bodies, however, when we die, we are “present with him” – the son of man who is present with the Father.  It is by understanding the Trinitarian dimensions of the Godhead, and within this the Christological natures of the son of man, son of God (human and divine) that we work out this aspect of eschatology and “being with” and “being away” from the Lord.  Without understanding the two Natures of the Eternal Son, the divine and the fully human (mind, body and spirit of the man, Christ Jesus, born in Bethlehem), the eschatological aspects of the “descent” of the son of man, or the son of man “in heaven” will remain confused.



Author: Samuel M. Frost, Th.M.

Samuel M. Frost has gained the recognition of his family, peers, colleagues, church members, and local community as a teacher and leader.  Samuel was raised in the Foursquare Gospel tradition and continued in the rising Charismatic Movement of the early 1980’s.  While serving in local congregations he was admitted to Liberty Christian College in Pensacola, Florida where he lived on campus for four years earning his Bachelor’s of Theology degree.  It was there under the tutelage of Dr. Dow Robinson (Summer Institutes of Linguistics), and Dr. Frank Longino (Dallas Theological Seminary) that he was motivated to pursue a career in Theology.  Dr. Robinson wrote two books on Linguistics, Workbook on Phonological Analysis (SIL, 1970) and Manuel for Bilingual Dictionaries: Textbook (SIL, 1969).  It was under these teachers’ guidance that Frost entered into his Master’s studies, being granted a scholarship for Greek I and II at Pentecostal Theological Seminary, accredited, in Cleveland, Tennessee (adjunct of Lee University).  Frost completed his study under Dr. French Arrington, who used the text of J. Gresham Machen, New Testament Greek for Beginners. Frost studied Hebrew for two years under Dr. Mark Futato (author, Beginning Biblical Hebrew, Eisenbrauns, 2003) and Dr. Bruce K. Waltke (author, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Eisenbrauns, 1990) at Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando, Florida. With combined credits from PTS and RTS, Samuel completed his Master of Arts in Christian Studies and Master of Arts in Religion from Whitefield Theological Seminary in Lakeland, Florida under the direct tutelage of Dr. Kenneth G. Talbot, co-author of the well reviewed work, Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism (Whitefield Media, 2005) with Dr. Gary Crampton (and Foreword by the late, Dr. D. James Kennedy).  Dr. Talbot also oversaw Samuel’s Dissertation, From the First Adam to the Second and Last Adam (2012) earning him the Magister Theologiae (Th.M.) degree.  He also helped put together A Student’s Hebrew Primer for WTS and graded exams in Hebrew. Samuel’s studies lead him into an issue in the field of Eschatology where his scholarship and unique approach in Hermeneutics garnered him recognition.  Because of the controversial nature of some of his conclusions, scholars were sharp in their disagreement with him.  Frost’s initial work, Misplaced Hope: The Origins of First and Second Century Eschatology (2002, Second Edition, 2006 Bi-Millennial Publishing), sold over four thousand units.  While arguing for the Reformation understanding of sola Scriptura as defined by the Westminster Confession of Faith, Frost’s book launched a heavily footnoted argument for a total reassessment of the doctrine known as the Second Coming of Christ.  The conclusion was that the events of the war of the Jewish nation against their Roman overlords in 66-70 C.E. formed the New Testament authors’ eschatological outlook, and went no further than their own first century generation; a view otherwise known as “full” or "hyper" Preterism.  Internationally recognized Evangelical author and speaker Steve Wohlberg remarked, ‘On the “preterist” side today…we have such influential leaders as Gary DeMar, Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., David Chilton, R.C. Sproul, Max King, James Stuart Russell, Samuel M. Frost, and John Noe.  To these scholars…the beast is not on the horizon, he’s dead” (Italics, his)” (End Time Delusions, Destiny Image Publishers, 2004, page 133).  It should be noted that only Noe, King and Frost supported the “full” Preterist position. Thomas Ice and co-author of the best selling Left Behind series, Tim LaHaye, quote Frost’s work, Misplaced Hope, as well in their book, The End Times Controversy: The Second Coming under Attack (Harvest House Publishers, 2003, page 40).  Dr. Jay E. Adams, who single handedly launched “a revolution” in Christian Counseling with his work, Competent to Counsel: An Introduction to Nouthetic Counseling, (1970, Zondervan), also wrote an analysis of Frost’s work in Preterism: Orthodox or Unorthodox? (Ministry Monographs for Modern Times, INS Publishing, 2004).  Dr. Charles E. Hill, Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando, wrote of Misplaced Hope that Frost, “attacks the problem of the early church in a much more thoroughgoing way than I have seen” (When Shall These Things Be? A Reformed Response to Hyper Preterism, Ed. Keith Mathison, Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 2003, ‘Eschatology in the Wake of Jerusalem’s Fall’ p. 110-ff.).  There were several other works as well that took the scholarship of Frost seriously, like Ergun Caner in The Return of Christ: A Premillennial Perspective, Eds., Steve W. Lemke and David L. Allen (B&H Publishing, 2011). Because of the controversial nature of Frost’s conclusions on these matters, it was difficult to find a denomination within the Church-at-Large to work in terms of pastoral ministry.  That situation changed when Samuel was called by a Bible study group in Saint Petersburg, Florida to found a congregation.  Christ Covenant Church was established in 2002 operating under the principles outlined by Presbyterian historian James Bannerman’s work, The Church of Christ: A Treatise on the Nature, Powers, Ordinances, Discipline, and Government of the Christian Church (Banner of Truth Trust, 1974, original, 1869).  By-Laws and a Constitution were drawn up in the strictest manner for what was considered an “Independent” establishment of a Presbyterian Church, granted that a “call” was received and recognized by Presiding Elders duly ordained from existing and recognized denominations.  Two Elders, one ordained in the Reformed Presbyterian Church (Mike Delores), and another ordained in the Presbyterian Church of America (Dr. Kelly N. Birks, now deceased) tested and reviewed the call, ordaining Samuel on October 20th, 2002, the Twenty Second Sunday after Trinity.  Proper forms were submitted to Tallahassee, Florida with the stamp of a Notary Public Witness.  Christ Covenant Church (CCC) functioned as a local church for five years with a congregation as large as 30 members.  Frost was gaining recognition after Misplaced Hope had been published in January of that year, and conferences were hosted that included debates with another prominent "full" Preterist educator, Don K. Preston.  CCC hosted best-selling authors, Thomas Ice, and Mark Hitchcock from Dallas Theological Seminary; and Dr. James B. Jordan (Westminster Theological Seminary), well-known author/pastor in Reformed theological circles.  Frost was invited for the next several years to speak at over 25 conferences nation-wide, was featured in articles and an appearance on local news in Tampa for one of CCC’s conferences.  The Evangelical Theological Society also invited Samuel to speak at the Philadelphia conference (Frost is currently a Member of ETS as well as Society of Biblical Literature). During this time Samuel had submitted one more book, Exegetical Essays on the Resurrection of the Dead (TruthVoice, 2008; repr. JaDon Publishing, 2010); and co-wrote, House Divided: A Reformed Response to When Shall These Things Be? (Vision International, 2010).  Frost also wrote several Forewords for up and coming authors who were influenced by his teaching materials, as well as cited many times in books, lectures and academic papers.  However, because of certain aspects of Hermeneutics and Frost’s undaunted commitment to scholarship (with always a strong emphasis on the personal nature of devotional living to Christ), several challenges to the "hyper" Preterist view he espoused finally gave way, largely due to the unwavering commitment to Samuel by the Dean of Whitefield Theological Seminary, Dr. Kenneth G. Talbot, who continually challenged him.  In what shocked the "hyper" Preterist world, Samuel announced after the Summer of 2010 that he was in serious error, and departed the movement as a whole, along with Jason Bradfield, Assistant Pastor of Christ Presbyterian Church, Lakeland, Florida .  Christ Covenant Church had dissolved after 2007 while Samuel continued as a public speaker and writer, largely due to reasons that would unravel Frost’s commitment to "hyper" Preterism as a whole. The documentation of Frost’s departure was published by American Vision’s Founder, Gary DeMar, with a Foreword by Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry.  Why I Left Full Preterism (AV Publishing, 2012) quickly sold out its first run.  The book was later republished under the arm of Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry and is sold today (GoodBirth Ministries Publishing, 2019).  Dr. Keith Mathison, Professor of Systematic Theology at Reformation Bible College in Sanford, Florida, endorsed the book as well.  Samuel has gone on to write, Daniel: Unplugged (Kindle/Amazon, 2019); The Parousia of the Son of Man (Lulu Publishing, 2019); God: As Bill Wilson Understood Him, A Theological Analysis of Alcoholics Anonymous (Lulu Publishing, 2017).  He is also active as a certified Chaplain with the Henry County Sheriff’s Department, Indiana, and enrolled with ICAADA (Indiana Counselor’s Association on Alcohol and Drug Abuse) working directly under Dr. Dennis Greene, Founder of Christian Counseling and Addictions Services, Inc.  Frost’s passion is in the education of the local church on various issues and occasionally works Pastor Alan McCraine with the First Presbyterian Church in Lewisville, Indiana where he periodically is called upon to give the sermon.  He also is working with Redemption Life Bible Church with Pastor Tyler Jackson in New Castle, Indiana.  Samuel, with his wife, Kimberly, helped to establish Heaven’s Bread Basket food pantry that donates food items to local families in need once a month – a ministry of the Session of First Presbyterian Church. Samuel has four children, one step-son, ages sixteen to twenty-eight and has worked part time at Ace Hardware in New Castle, Indiana for over five years.  He has a solid reputation in the community, and has performed marriages and funerals.  He also sits on the Board of the Historical Preservation Committee in New Castle.

34 thoughts on “The Parousia of Jesus”

  1. Very well written. How do you reconcile that, for example, Paul is writing to the Thessalonians , switches to the personal pronoun “you” or “your” and mentions he has heard of their good works in Macadonia. He continues to use “you” or “your” or “we” (Paul) to refer to the Thessalonians. Why is he telling them ( Thessalonians ) to expect to see the coming of Jesus, not people living today? Also in terms of resurrection , if we were dead in sins and made alive in Christ, then isn’t that resurrection? We are a new man, New creature, clothed in white linen, held blameless, seen as righteous, and so forth.


  2. Thanks. I do not see any force of the pronoun that places Paul in the understanding that he “expected” the descent of the Son of Man to happen in his lifetime. Rather, he speaks of “generations” to come in his letter to Ephesians (3.21). “Resurrection of the dead” is not the same as “regeneration of the soul” in terms of the contexts they are used in. If it were the same, then what is Paul “looking forward” to if, in fact, he was already “regenerated” and “raised from the dead”? If he is filled with the Spirit (regenerated), then what is it in the future that he is looking towards (resurrection)?


  3. Meu nome é Mateus e sou do Brasil, sou um leitor e grande admirador seu e tenho uma questão a resolver.
    Nesse texto você argumenta que a parousia de Jesus é sua ascensão e sua exaltação (Dn 7:13-14, At 1:9), então a parousia que aparece nos evangelhos não é futuro, é passado. e isso é muito diferente de tudo o que eu já li a respeito sobre a parousia, pois para mim a parousia é a destruição de Jerusalém ( sou preterista parcial e creio em uma parousia futura e ressurreição dos mortos). veja afirmação:

    Frost: “O que é nossa esperança, alegria ou coroa de regozijo? Não sois vós diante de nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo em sua parousia? (1 Tessalonicenses 2.19). Isso não é algo que Paulo está esperando, mas sim o que ele está dizendo atualmente à sua igreja. “Você é nossa coroa diante de Jesus, em sua presença” – e onde está o filho do homem, Jesus? No céu, entronizado – sua parousia.”

    Aqui vi diz que a parousia é a entronização, e faz a mesma aplicação aos textos (1 Ts 3.13, 4:15, 5:23, 1 Co 15:23), acredito que você tem razão em alguns pontos, mas se a parousia é a entronização, como lidar com os textos como:

    Sede pois, irmãos, pacientes até à vinda do Senhor. Eis que o lavrador espera o precioso fruto da terra, aguardando-o com paciência, até que receba a chuva temporã e serôdia.
    Sede vós também pacientes, fortalecei os vossos corações; porque já a vinda do Senhor está próxima. Tiago 5:7-8

    E dizendo: Onde está a promessa da sua vinda? porque desde que os pais dormiram, todas as coisas permanecem como desde o princípio da criação. 2 Pedro 3:4

    Se a parousia é a entronização, então a destruição de Jerusalém não é a parousia. ou a destruição de Jerusalém também é um tipo de parousia?

    Deus abençoe!


  4. Translated: My name is Matthew and I am from Brazil, I am a reader and a great admirer of you and I have an issue to solve.
    In this text you argue that the parousia of Jesus is his ascension and exaltation (Dan. 7: 13-14, Acts 1: 9), so the parousia that appears in the gospels is not future, it is past. and this is very different from anything I have ever read about parousia, for to me parousia is the destruction of Jerusalem (I am partial preterist and I believe in a future parousia and resurrection of the dead). see statement:

    Frost: “What is our hope, joy or crown of rejoicing? Are you not before our Lord Jesus Christ in his parousia? (1 Thessalonians 2:19). This is not something that Paul is waiting for, but rather what he is currently saying to his church. “You are our crown before Jesus in his presence” – and where is the son of man, Jesus? In heaven, enthroned – his parousia. ”

    Here I have said that parousia is enthronement, and makes the same application to the texts (1 Thessalonians 3:13, 4:15, 5:23, 1 Cor. 15:23), I believe you are right on some points, but if parousia is the enthronement, how to deal with texts such as:

    Be patient, therefore, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and waiteth for it with patience, until he receiveth the former and latter rain.
    Be ye also patient, strengthen your hearts; for the coming of the Lord is at hand. James 5: 7-8

    And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things remain as from the beginning of creation. 2 Peter 3: 4

    If parousia is enthronement, then the destruction of Jerusalem is not parousia. or the destruction of Jerusalem is also a type of parousia?

    God bless!


  5. Deus abençoe!

    Matthew, your questions are fine and I was just discussing this with Jason Bradfield last week. If the parousia is speaking of the Exaltation of Christ at the right hand of the Father, then the verses in James makes sense as well. First off, Jason and I noticed that James says, “at hand” in the perfect tense. “Standing at the door” in 5.9 is imperfect – a past tense. Not “he will stand” or ‘is standing’ (although that is there), but has taken his place behind the door….

    “until” in verse 7 is a “conjunction” (heos) with a genitive (the parousia of the Lord). Be patient “as far as it concerns” the parousia of the Lord. This is not expressing in the Greek the idea that the parousia is “future” and has not happened. The same can be said for the fact that the perfect tense is used, “the parousia of the Lord has been near” (5.9). It is something that has occurred, and remains, expressing the durative nature of it. I can say the same thing today: the parousia of the Lord is near – don’t grumble, watch yourself, because he is watching you because he is near, seeing what you are doing.

    As for Peter, ” Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things remain as from the beginning of creation. 2 Peter 3: 4, the same thing can be said. Where is the manifestation of his Parousia in heaven? And notice their response: the fathers are still asleep (dead); life goes on from creation as it has been….NOTHING IN CREATION HAS BEEN ALTERED. So, is Peter’s response, “Oh, sorry guys, the parousia is INVISIBLE and the New Heavens and New Earth is INVISIBLE…you won’t notice a thing when it happens in terms of CREATION!” No, their mocking tone is supportive of what they were mocking in terms of what Peter was proclaiming: a promise of the manifestation of the Exaltation of Christ that would raise those who slept and ALTER creation itself. All things WOULD NOT REMAIN. Hope this helps.


  6. Sam, obrigado pela sua resposta. Sem dúvidas é uma abordagem bastante diferente. O Gentry e o Demar já foram apresentados a esta exposição? E eu gostaria muito de ler os comentários deles a respeito. Isso enriqueceria o debate sobre a “parousia”.


    1. “Sam, thanks for your response. Undoubtedly it is a rather different approach. Has Gentry and Demar ever been introduced to this exhibition? And I would very much like to read their comments on it. This would enrich the debate on parousia.”

      It is a current idea I am putting together in terms of linking the “parousia” with Psalm 110. For me, Daniel 7.13,14 is a key passage (and the interpretative dimensions that passage takes on in the NT with specific links to Psalm 110). I appreciate any insight or further thoughts from you on the matter.


  7. What about this verse ?

    Titus 2:13
    waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

    What is this blessed hope that they are waiting for ? What is the appearance of Christ ? Does this refer to the second coming at the end of history at the resurrection ? Or maybe does this refer to when we die (because of v14 that seems to indicate that when we are made fully holy in heaven with no sin remaining)


    1. Thank you for the question. I think that, set within the context, this verse is marking the “last day” Jesus spoke of in John 6. The verse before it (context) sets the motivation of Christian living, which is centered on Jesus Christ. In this age, we worship and adore him in the heavens. We fix our eyes on him, and long to be in his Presence. Our whole life, then, is geared to this end if the Spirit is in us. Therefore, we are set in the fruit of patience – we wait – we groan sometimes – since we see only through a mirror. We long for his appearance. It is the “appearance” (a noun) of the glory of the Great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ. This verse has been used as proof of the Divinity of Christ (rightly so). It is not our appearing before God, as it is His appearing to us in all of his glory which fills the the whole of creation, yet remains “unseen” at the present time.

      Hope that helps



  8. Hi Sam, do you still interpret the millennium as a period between the ministry of Jesus and AD 70? (read your text at “”).

    I have identified myself with the interpretation of Russel, where the millennium begins in 70 AD. I saw your discussion with Ducan as well. I recently read his commentary on Revelation.


    1. I have one in the making that is not finished. Needless to say, the 1000 years stands for a long period of time, and I think is playing off of Psalm 90.4 as does Peter in 2 Pe 3.8. Hope that helps, or gives you as clue as to where I am coming from.


  9. Hello Sam, greatly enjoy your posts and as per our private discussions here is the first of my questions.

    In your article you make the following statement “before his disciples. However, this Jesus was to fulfill, to make sure the word of the prophets, that one like the son of man would receive all glory, honor and power by personally coming (parousia) to the Ancient of Days.”

    As I stated I am first trying to understand the argument before challenging it.

    how do you get ‘parousia’ in this passage, the two versions of LXX of Daniel (OG [oldest] and TH [2nd Cent]) we have today render Daniel 7:13b as follows

    I continued to watch in a vision of the night, and behold, upon the clouds of heaven, a being like a son of mankind came [ἤρχετο – erchomai VIMI3S], and the ancient of days was present [παρῆν· – pareimi VIAI3S], and his attendants were present[παρῆσαν – pareimi VIAI3P] with him. (OG)

    I kept looking in the vision of the night and behold, with the clouds of heaven it was as though a son of man was coming [ἐρχόμενος – erchomai VPUP-SNM]. And he came [ἔφθασεν· – phthano VAAI3S] to the Ancient of Days, and he was brought [προσήχθη – prosago VAPI3S] to him. (TH)

    also when Jesus references it

    “And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING [ἐρχόμενον – erchomai VPUP-SAM] ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory.

    So as you can see, I don’t see where you get ‘parousia’ from Daniel 7:13. I believe the idea that Daniel 7:13 is talking about the parousia of the Son of Man ties directly into the next parts of your discussion [a building block]. So hopefully you see why I have gotten lost following your discussion of the Parousia of Jesus.

    On a positive note thank you for stating the connection between Parousia and Pareimi as the noun and verb forms, this was a new realization for me as most noun/verb forms I have dealt with have been close enough to recognize by site but this was new to me [ya no formal training in Greek, just an endless library of resources].

    Also, I did notice the use of pareimi in the OG version of the LXX, but didn’t think this would count as the Parousia of Jesus as these seem directly related to the Anchient of Days and his attendants and not the Son of Man. Also since the OG deviates significantly from the MT at this point it would require accepting a significant corruption to the MT in this place which would raise other points of discussion [wish these passages were not missing from the DSS].

    Anyway, that is it for my first of many questions…


    1. Because of the cognate relation of the noun/verb of parousia and pareimi, the idea behind them is the same whether one used either forms. We can see this directly with Paul, “For his bodily presence (parousia) is weak…. Let such an one think this, that, such as we are in word by letters when we are absent, such will we be also in deed when we are present (pareimi)” (2 Corinthians 10.10-11). Here we can see the interchange between the two forms, demonstrating that they “mean” the same thing.

      I do not follow the rendering of TH, and prefer (as does Rahlf-Hanhart) which follows more closely the MT of the Hebrew. Regardless, the noun “pareimi” does occur, as you noted, twice. Brenton’s translation of the LXX, ” I beheld in the night vision, and, lo, one coming with the clouds of heaven as the Son of man, and he came on to the Ancient of days, and was brought near to him.” “coming” is “erchomai”, and he “came” is “pareimi” where the son of man is the subject of the verb. The second occurrence is “was brought near him” or “made to be presented” wherein you have “he was presented to him” or “made to be present” or “near”. The Haphel form of the verb in the MT is plural, “he was made to be brought near by them” (the angels). The LXX uses the same verb, pareimi, whereas the MT uses three verbs, athah (come, coming, which we get, “maran athah” from, the Lord comes), havah, which functions as a predicate verb in Hebrew like “eimi” or “pareimi” or “ginomai”, and metah, to reach or come toward. In each instance, the son of man is the subject.

      I detail this in my book, The Parousia of the Son of Man. Hopefully, Chris, this will get the ball rolling for a conversation, which is much valued from you.


  10. Hello Sam, hopefully you don’t mind my circling around this a bit. In my mind if pareimi can be demonstrated to have been present in the Greek version of Daniel 7:13 in relation to the Messiah; that would be something I would love to be able to demonstrate from original sources [i.e. open a copy of the LXX on my computer with another bible geek]. So please imagine this as two geeks opening up a copy of a good Interlinear Greek-English copy of Daniel.

    So I found the following online resource if anyone wants to look at the Greek and English side by side “”

    Here is the Greek from Brenton’s book (I have a copy of Brenton’s works in Logos – I have translated word for word in with the help of Logos in order to find the applicable words)
    Ἐθεώρουν ἐν ὁράματι τῆς νυκτός, [looking in vision the night]
    καὶ ἰδοὺ μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, [and behold with the clouds of heaven]
    ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενος, [as though a son of man coming]
    καὶ ἕως τοῦ παλαιοῦ τῶν ἡμερῶν ἔφθασε, [and to the Ancient of Days came]
    καὶ προσηνέχθη αὐτῷ. [and brought to him]

    So where I think you said I would find πάρειμι = pareimi [i.e. the came after the Ancient of Days ‘came’] but I see φθάνω = phthano. How are phthano and pareimi related? How would I bridge from phthano to pareimi if I was presenting this? This is beyond my current level of Greek so your help would be appreciated….

    Following that, how closely do you think this matches the Greek in Jesus’ day, I believe the text I am quoting from is Theodotion’s (TH) translation of the Hebrew text to Greek in 150 CE? Do you think this use of pareimi is unique enough to serve as a one word reference to Daniel 7:13 like the Great Tribulation is to Mt 24:21 or like ‘My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?’ is to Psalm 22, or the Abomination of Desolation is to Antiochus Epiphanes and the pig sacrifice in the temple.

    Is there any inter-testament literature that shows this like Maccabees or Hanukkah?

    Anyway, that is it for now, I look forward to your response, especially how to go from phthano to pareimi.


    1. I am using Rahlf’s altera editio which is the standard critical text. “I beheld in the night vision, and, lo, coming with the clouds of heaven as the Son of man, and he came on to the Ancient of days, and was brought near to him” Brenton’s translation from the LXX, not TH. In Ralhf’s they are placed together (LXX on top, TH on bottom). The LXX reads, “ἐθεώρουν ἐν ὁράματι τῆς νυκτὸς καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἤρχετο (erchomai), καὶ ὡς παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν παρῆν (pareimi), καὶ οἱ παρεστηκότες παρῆσαν (pareimi) αὐτῷ. ” One my note, too, as I mention in my book, the echo of παρεστηκότες (paristemi, “to stand along side of”) with Stephen’s speech, “But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing (histemi) at the right hand of God. And he said, “Behold (idou), I see (thereo) the heavens (ouranoi) opened, and the Son of Man (same in Daniel) standing (histemi) at the right hand of God.” There are many NT scholars that have caught the allusion here as Danielic. Thus, we have “pareimi”, which is the verb of “parousia” with “histemi”, which is the root of paristemi – para+histemi). Para+ousia is also a compound. Erchomai, histemi, pareimi, with the MT verb, “athah” (as in maran athah, the Lord is coming, Aramaic, which is what Daniel 7.13 is). Taking all of this together is a sound argument.

      The TH text, written 150 CE?, has, “ἐθεώρουν ἐν ὁράματι τῆς νυκτὸς καὶ ἰδοὺ μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενος ἦν καὶ ἕως τοῦ παλαιοῦ τῶν ἡμερῶν ἔφθασεν καὶ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ προσηνέχθη” Here we can see that “erchomai” is retained, with “eimi” in the Imperfect form ( ἦν). Phthano is used for “paraeimi” in the Aorist Indicative. Phthano is a verb which means “come”or “reach” and is trying to capture the Aramaic “metah” (reach for, come towards). The idea is still picturing the son of man coming before the Ancient of Days (an ANE royal ascension motif) to be rewarded. TH has “before him” (ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ) which, again, is “being presented before” someone – often time – in fact a great deal of time, the preposition “enopion” with a Genitive is translated as “presence” – if you are “before” someone, you are “present” in front of them. The final verb in TH is “prosphero” which means “to bring to” – and here it is third person singular Aorist Indicative, where the “son of man” is the subject. He is bringing before “him” (the Ancient of Days).

      We can see, then, the variety of ways “erchomai” (which in the history of Greek because THE term of expression, used far more times that the other ways of expressing “I have come” (i.e., I am present). And we find this in the NT as well. Hence, Matthew’s use of parousia, whereas the other Gospel writers do not use that noun at all – BUT they certainly have the SAME idea, using “erchomai” mainly. The idea is, then, “when you are to be presented before the Ancient of Days and receive all power, glory, honor, and might? When are the nations going to serve you?” Very messianic. That Matthew has this idea in mind is further made plain in, “All authority (exousias, in both the LXX and TH, Dn 7.14) in heaven and on earth has been given (same verb in both LXX and TH) to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations (ethnoi)”.

      There is no mistake, at least in my mind, what Matthew wants the readers to understand here. The son of man has ascended to the Ancient of Days on the clouds of heaven before his Throne and has been given authority over the nations. This coming (erchomai) in the kingdom (basileia, also in TH and LXX, Dn 7.14) “with the angels in power (exousia) and glory (doxe) before some standing here would taste death” is his Exaltation, Coronation and Ascent. This was very well understood in Roman and Greek culture, as one relief in the first century shows Caesar, son of God, riding on a chariot with clouds into heaven to receive apotheosis. Several examples of this can be shown, not to say that the NT writers were “borrowing” from Roman myth (they got it from Daniel), but that “Divine Ascension” was viewed as an arrival, an advent to God and demonstrating divinity. Jesus was being exalted “above every name” and “every authority and power” (Rome would not like hearing this, and neither would the Sanhedrin).



  11. Thank you Sam for bearing with me on this, I now understand from looking at Rahlf’s work to try and match the OG with the MT how you were lining the OG up to the MT. I do think this approach may prove well beyond my ability to demonstrate, though I think I can finally start to understand how your approach would work. I still say that the only Greek text I found for Brenton’s translation is identical to the TH. The only text I can find for Brenton’s Greek is [Ἐθεώρουν ἐν ὁράματι τῆς νυκτός, καὶ ἰδοὺ μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενος, καὶ ἕως τοῦ παλαιοῦ τῶν ἡμερῶν ἔφθασε, καὶ προσηνέχθη αὐτῷ] which matches every version of TH I can find. This makes sense to me since Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton’s 1844 translation was predominately from Codex Vaticanus which by its time of writing, the OG had started to disappear and was eventually systematically replaced by TH; all but disappearing from history, so that just prior to 1931 only the Codex Chisianus 88 remained (derived from Origin’s works??). In 1931 the only other known manuscript of the OG (papyrus 967) was discovered. So if there is a Brenton translation from the last known OG manuscript [Codex Chisianus 88] I have not been unable to find it. As for using LXX and OG interchangeably, I see this is the convention used by most of my other resources, the TH shows us in the Alt text, so other than the confusion over Brenton’s translation we should be on the same page in the future.

    That all being said, I still find it troubling that the OG is such a translation that if Rahlf’s work is correct renders two distinct words from the Hebrew (מטא and קרב) as the same Greek word pareimi and to add insult to injury the OG renters the Ancient of Days (παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν) in the Normative case making Him the subject of the Pareimi instead of the Son of Man. Modern translators rendering the OG as “the ancient of days was present, and his attendants were present with him.” I say this mostly to point out that I think there are much easier ways to establish the relationship between Parousia and Dan 7:13 by appealing directly to Mt 24:27-30. The only disadvantage of the Mt 24:27-30 path is that you cannot appeal to the Apostles thinking of Dan 7:13 when they were reacting to Jesus’ statement about the destruction of the Temple as a matter of culture/tradition, but I don’t think such an assertion is necessary and may even prove detracting to the presentation [why appeal to tradition/culture when one can appeal to scripture]. Appealing directly to Mt 24:27-30 is sufficient in my mind to illustrate the need to consider the Parousia in light of Dan 7:13, and this without having to navigate what I see as a difficult proof thought the OG [as these discussions should demonstrate – you are very thorough in your presentation which helps].

    Please don’t think this was just an exercise in convincing the quire, I appreciate you taking your time to help me learn more about the LXX and resources for studying it. I may not use them in this context, but the Lord’s work is never wasted. I am probably going to go back over the posts [especially the last one] to glean the implications you mentioned.

    I will re-read the article and come back with some more questions. Hopefully this has proved useful for you in any of your future presentations.

    So unless you wish to continue the LXX discussions, I think we have beaten that topic and don’t know what more we can beat out of it that will prove useful, but if you want to visit a few points we can continue with it.


    1. No problems, Chris. The terminology is becoming more clear. Septuagint studies/issues are quite involved, as you you well know. There is a wonderful article on this very issue brought up concerning the “subject” of the verb (“as the Ancient of Days” while, clearly, there are “two subjects” in the vision, the son of man, and the Ancient of Days. The article that thoroughly dives into this is Benjamin E. Reynolds, «The ‘One Like a Son of Man’ According to the Old Greek of Daniel 7,13-14», Vol. 89 (2008) 70-80 of Biblica, which you can get online. Another is <The Son of Man and the Ancient of Days: Observations on the Early Christian Reception of Daniel 7, Bogdan G. Bucur, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh.

      These are both well worth the time to read. Reynold's work was developed in a large study, The Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2). OG (Old Greek) I call, "LXX", other call The Alexandrian Version, and TH (Theodotian); OG being favored by Rahlf-Hanhart with the witnesses you pointed out, Codex Chisianus 88, Syro-Hexaplar, and the famous Papyrus 967 (which is the picture on my Facebook Page heading)!

      These articles more or less favor the idea I am putting forth (and in my commentary on Daniel, though I do not wade into the details of these things there). The abstract of what I am saying is that the "coming" of the "son of man" to the Ancient of Days is a "coming" (erchomai). That's what it is called. Second, the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man are kept distinct as persons, yet, as Reynolds argues, the son of man is the Vice Regent of the Regal King, the representative ("as" the Ancient of Days and not "the son of man IS the Ancient of Days, or "becomes" the Ancient of Days). I do not find it to be any accident, and point this out in my book, The Parousia of the Son of Man, that John's first "vision" in cp. 1 is of Jesus, who "looks like" or is "described" with features matching the Ancient of Days, yet he is "one like a son of man". In other words, in the writer of Hebrews, "He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high."

      Thank you for the continuing discussion.


      1. Thanks Sam, I have located both articles online and will take some time to read them before I make my next post. This could take me some time and with pulling my thoughts together before I make my next post, I could be a bit before I make my point. Again thanks for the articles.


  12. Hello Sam, thank you for the articles, they were very eliminating. While the OG does indeed provide some very interesting insights into the historical interpretation of Daniel the articles I think also illustrate a concern I have with using the OG as anything more than a scholastic reference. The whole history of the OG and how from the time of Jerome (347 – 420 AD) until the discovery and publication of Chigi Manuscript 88/Codex Chisianus in 1772 all copies of it seemed to have drifted into the land of the lost. The impact is evident when one reads the writings of Calvin or other Reformers, there was no trace of the ideas contained in the manuscript, no understanding of the Parusia being linked to Daniel 7:13. Again, I am not arguing against the relationship, there is obviously one that can be made from Mt 24:30 [though it doesn’t seem that even Calvin saw it, I can find nothing in his commentaries that would suggest he saw the link]. This was an argument that could not be known or articulated from Daniel by any Christian for over a millennium and even today, seems to be reserved for to the scholastic world. There are many assertions we hear today from the Dispensationalist and the Full Preterists that could never be found by the average Christian or Christian Community from a thorough dedicated study of the Scriptures that are commonly available, unfortunately I believe much of what was said in these articles would by necessity fall into that category. If you wish to discuss further I hold the OG as simply a translation of the actual scriptures and I personally ascribe to the ideas given by Michael J. Kruger in his book Canon Revisited. I believe that the Spirit of God within the Church of God bears witness to what is “God-Breathed” (θεόπνευστος from 1 Tim 3:16), so in my mind the church was fairly unanimous about their opinion of the OG. So while I strongly believe that the OG of Daniel is a VERY useful read for the scholar and the serious student of the Scriptures, it is similar in my mind to the study of Maccabees and other Extra-Biblical sources to understand the history of the scriptures, even on par with the philosophical works quoted by Paul in Act 17:27-28 or Jude’s possible sources for verses 9 and 14-15. Even more, the OG does serve to possibly help solidify the NT’ references to the MT text like much of the LXX. The fact that today there are more copies of the Gospel of Thomas available than the OG, is a serious problem for accepting its contents on par with Scripture and thus I would truly rather utilize Mt 24:30 as a means to substantiate the link between the Parousia and Daniel 7:13, with its limitations as outlined earlier in our discussion.

    Moving on, one other thing that the articles brought to mind [well more substantiated as I was considering bringing up] is the whole point that Daniel 7:1-14 is interpreted in verses 15-28. What surprises me is that I don’t see much weight given to the study of Dan 7:13 by anyone I have read to this relationship, not even in Calvin’s commentaries or other Reformers [I admit there may be much out there that I haven’t read, but this is presently my experience]. This lack of studying Dan 7:13 in light of v15-28 seems to me like studying any of Jesus’ parables and ignoring the interpretation that Jesus gives [4 soils, wheat and tears, the Fishing Net]. I consider Daniel 7:13 must be covered in the interpretation due to the immediate similarity between Daniel 7:14 and Daniel 7:27

    And to Him was given dominion [שָׁלְטָן] Glory and a kingdom [מַלְכוּ], That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion [שָׁלְטָן] is an everlasting dominion [שָׁלְטָן] Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.

    Then the sovereignty [מַלְכוּ], the dominion [שָׁלְטָן] and the greatness of all the kingdoms [מַלְכוּ] under the whole heaven will be given to the people of the saints of the Highest One; His kingdom [מַלְכוּ] will be an everlasting kingdom [מַלְכוּ], and all the dominion [שָׁלְטָן] will serve and obey Him.’

    For me, this marks Daniel 7:13 within the following broader context

    ‘These great beasts, which are four in number, are four kings who will arise from the earth. ‘But the saints of the Highest One will receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, for all ages to come.’ (Dan 7:17-18)

    But then Daniel wants to understand more about the fourth beast and mark how he has understood everything presented so far…

    “Then I desired to know the exact meaning of the fourth beast, which was different from all the others, exceedingly dreadful, with its teeth of iron and its claws of bronze, and which devoured, crushed and trampled down the remainder with its feet, and the meaning of the ten horns that were on its head and the other horn which came up, and before which three of them fell, namely, that horn which had eyes and a mouth uttering great boasts and which was larger in appearance than its associates. “I kept looking, and that horn was waging war with the saints and overpowering them until the Ancient of Days came and judgment was passed in favor of the saints of the Highest One, and the time arrived when the saints took possession of the kingdom.

    So in my mind the following is true about Dan 7:13. When Dan 7:13 happens, the saints will take possession of the kingdom. Prior to this the following happen (in reverse order)

    1. the Ancient of Days will come to pass judgment in favor of the saints of the Highest One
    2. the horn will wage war with the saints and overpower them [Dan 7:21, Rev 13:7 – I see as an obvious parallel, yes through the OG, I have no problem using it help tie references, just in counting it as more than a pointer to the MT]
    3. The horn will overpower 3 prior horns from among the 10 horns
    4. 10 horns rise out of the 4th kingdom [see below]

    The horn that is waging war with the saints comes from the 4th kingdom [meaning this cannot be Antiochus IV Epiphanes since he comes from the 3rd kingdom – Greeks], this I get from the following…

    “Thus he said: ‘The fourth beast will be a fourth kingdom on the earth, which will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth and tread it down and crush it. ‘As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings will arise; and another will arise after them, and he will be different from the previous ones and will subdue three kings. (Dan 7:23-24, note this is consistent with the OG).

    So if Dan 7:13 comes after the horn that is persecuting the holy ones of the Most High [with parallel passage in Revelation] this sets Dan 7:13 after the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, and the birth of the church [unless you think the holy ones of God being persecuted predate the birth of the church and are in reference to the Jews under Roman oppression – open to discuss if you have points I haven’t considered].

    So in conclusion of this long ramble, I do agree that there is a strong connection between the Parousia and Dan 7:13, but Dan 7:13 is in reference to the fall of the 4th kingdom and the vindication of the saints and their taking possession of all of the kingdoms of the earth. I believe this will have happened when the Christians of the world are no longer persecuted and the world is actually under Christian care and control. As a pre-millenial I believe this is at Jesus’ second Advent [which by the way is the only view I could find among the church Fathers, the pre-Nicene and Nicene Fathers for Mt 24:29-31, the first father I found that even referenced the potability of a different view was St. John Chrysostom in his LIII Homily (written between 386 and 388 AD) where he counters the idea that these events were about 70AD instead of Jesus’ second Advent – if you can find anything earlier that doesn’t tie this to Jesus’ Second Advent I would be quite interested]. I do will not say that my view can only fit into a pre-millenial view, that I believe would be taking the text well beyond what it actually says or can be proven, but I do believe that this text must be allowed to speak regardless of our millennial view.

    Take it or leave it, this is what I believe Daniel 7:13 tells us about the Parousia of Jesus and ultimately what is being said by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse following the Great Tribulation [another topic for another day].


  13. Excellent response. Would you say that one could choose from a variety of words to convey “arrival” “presence” as it seems indicated here in the OG and TH? Erchomai. pareimi, paristemi, parousia, ἔφθασε (as used in TH) and a few more?


    1. Thank you Sam, I cannot see any reason that multiple words could not be used. The NT seems to use many different words like ἔρχομαι, ἀποκάλυψις, παρουσία, etc… to describe the Second Advent, so for me because I believe Dan 7:13 is in reference to the Second Advent of Jesus I have no problem with different translations using similar words to translate whatever the original text was.

      But I would have a few qualifiers to my above statement.

      First, there are times where the same word is used in close proximity [like pareimi in OG of Dan 7:13, parousia in 2 Th 2:1,8, עוֹלָם- everlasting Dan 12:2, αἰώνιος – eternal in Mt 25:46]. These to me indicate an intentional comparison, contrast, or some other strong relationship in the mind of the author. I have for instance used this with 2 Th 2 in discussions with some of my pre-trib rapture friends [I btw and a Historical premill, I don’t buy into the whole dispensationalism thing]. The point with our Dan 7:13 discussion is that I see three options for the text:
      1. there is something wrong with the translation [poor or intentionally misleading]
      2. the original source being translated from was significantly corrupted [textual variant usage]
      3. there is something significant that has been lost from what Daniel actually wrote. [i.e. what we have in the MT is wrong and we no longer have the original text].
      If you can see a fourth option please let me know.

      Second, the readings of the OG in Dan 7:13 [and elsewhere] seem to be so significantly different from the MT that they seem to postulate different theological statements as can be easily illustrated from the articles you gave.

      So while the exact words being used in translation don’t in themselves pose a problem for me, I do have the above considerations.


      1. Sorry Sam, let me think about rewording or at least clarifying my first and second qualifications. I don’t think I did such a good job trying to express my thoughts.


      2. Hello Sam, so trying this again… As I stated before, I cannot see any reason that multiple words could not be used to convey the idea of “arrival” or presence. I think I had too many ideas in my head pressing for expression and they just all got jumbled.

        So as I illuded to in my third qualifier, there is one thing with using different words to convey the same general idea when translating but I think it is another thing when trying to illude to a specific scripture. If I said to you, “you know that last days passage” you would understandable have to probe a little further as to what passage I had in mind, even if I said you know “Final Judgement” well we are narrowing the scope but, we may still have some disagreement on what exact passage I had in mind; it wouldn’t be until I said you know when Jesus separates the sheep and goats, now you have it Matthew 25:32-33.

        Trying to focus solely on one word like parousia would have this problem, we don’t even know for sure if the text in question actually contains that word similar to Matthew 25:32-33 and talking about ‘Last days’ not every group would even consider this as a ‘Last days’ passage. So when dealing with the disciples question we hope that the scripture passage actually has some variation of parousia in it. Now assuming the disciples were as familiar with every instance of the word parousia and pareimi in the LXX of their day [it is so much easier for us when I can type a few search terms into Logos and get every occurrence] we now have to ask questions about the context of the question, and really hope that there wasn’t some private conversation and understanding that the disciples knew that hasn’t been conveyed in the scriptures.

        This lead to what I filled out further in my third qualifier, which hopefully is clear enough, so that I can now go back and discuss my first two qualifiers.

        First Qualifier [keeping in mind what I just said because this is critical to matching context in my mind]. Pareimi is used twice in the Dan 7:13 passage and the two times it is used it only differs by if it is referencing a singular or plural subject. So my first qualifier is taking note of the idea that repletion of words in close proximity seems to convey a connection in the mind of the author [or possibly in the case of the translator]. The repetition I see as providing some help in understanding how the word is being used in this passage and if it has something similar to the context of the disciples question. This of course is where I had many competing ideas and thus the confusing post that followed.

        So my next point in the post was to discuss the fact that this word repetition only appears in the OG. Rahlfs’ OG-MT reverse interlinear connects pareimi with מְטָ֔ה [metah – He came up] and קרב [haqrebu – was presented]. So first if Rahlfs is correct and this is how the translator translated the Daniel, I can see on a positive note that both pareimi do in fact reference the Son of Man, but there are a lot more negatives.
        A. The translator has eliminated two distinct Aramaic terms and merged [personally I hate it when translations do this, if there are two words I want to know that there were two words – just look at Mt 24:39-41 at what happens when you translate αἴρω and παραλαμβάνω as took/taken, Or Mt 24:3,5 where παρουσία and ἔρχομαι are translated as coming/come].
        B. The subjects of the two instances of the pareimi in the OG are not the same and even possibly neither is the Son of Man. The second instance is plural seems to relates to the attendants and the first seems to be related to the Ancient of Days [compare the sentence structure to Dan 7:9 in the OG, the OG uses the same words for Ancient of Days and the sentence structure is almost identical and there is no doubt that it is the Ancient of Days that is seated and not the thrones].

        This is where I got into the asking if there is something wrong with the translation or there is a significantly different source for the OG [my third point honestly just falls into the consequences of the second point]. So I think if the OG is just a bad translation [which I don’t believe either of the articles you referenced believed – one outright said there was a different source and the other seemed to suggest it] then yes assuming the disciples could readily parse the OG back into the Aramaic text on the spot, then they could have been referencing Dan 7:13 in their question. This of course does raise another question of if this conversation was originally in Aramaic [wasn’t that the native language of first century Jews], if so why didn’t Matthew give the actual Aramaic word and then translate for us like he does in Mt 27:46, honestly to my mind the Disciples had no reason to be thinking of Dan 7:13 in terms of the OG if they could understand it from the untranslated source [or at least like us reading Chaucer (Canterbury Tales – Old English) or Shakespeare].

        If the OG was a translation of a lost version of Daniel, then we have the whole question of if the OG even teaches that the pareimi was about the Son of Man. This is where my second qualifier was trying to go. The theological behind Dan 7:13 from the OG doesn’t seem to really fit with the context of the Disciples question and the discussion that flows from it. There is no mention of the Ancient of Day in the Olivet Discourse, nothing in the Gospels in my mind to clarify that Jesus would have been teaching He was the Ancient of Days. The two pareimi from the OG now establish in my mind a contrast between the ἔρχομαι [erchomai – Coming, Quick note the OG uses a different tense from every NT quotation of this passage, OG is Imperfect, NT always Present] and πάρειμι [pareimi]. The Son of Man is coming to somewhere that the Ancient of Days and His attendants are present, which I think is also established since Dan 7:9. So even this direction leads me to think this doesn’t match the Matthew 24 context and again we have the question of if the Disciples had and could read the original verses from Daniel why bother with the OG, maybe if Matthew had actually given the Aramaic we could know if the MT was corrupted in this location.

        So in conclusion, while I have no problem using different terms to convey Arrival or presence, I don’t think Matthew 24:1-3 gives enough context to narrow down the Disciples use of parousia to be a definitive reference to Dan 7:13. There is no argument that they could have been referring to a much larger context of passages like when we talk about “Last Days” or “Day of Judgement”, we have many passages in mind. So in my mind the whole discussion we have been having could benefit from a broader look at the larger context of what old testament passages may have been in mind when asking about the parousia. Obviously from Jesus’ response Dan 7:13 is one, but in later posts [yes I still have more to say on the rest of the blog] I will start looking at the other OT passages Jesus references in His response to His Parousia.

        Thanks for the patience, hope you enjoy the read.


    2. Thought of a third qualifier which may better relate to our discussion thus far…

      While the OG does of course use the pareimi and I would agree that this version of Daniel seems to have been used in the NT to reference Daniel, I think the context of pareimi makes it an awkward hook for Dan 7:13.

      1. While there are multiple references to pareimi and parousia [66 OT & 48 NT], the word combination of ἔρχομαι [come] and νεφέλη [clouds] only has 1 OT [Dan 7:13] and 6 NT [Mt 24:30; 26:64; Mk 13:26; 14:62; Lk 21:27; Re 1:7]. This is how Jesus and John referenced Dan 7:13, it is clear and I have no reason to think the Apostles couldn’t have worked these two words into their question if they wanted to be clear to Jesus that this is what they had in mind.

      2. The OG usage of pareimi would assume that the Apostles recognized Jesus as the Ancient of Days as presented in the OG and to my knowledge [please correct me if I am wrong] there is no direct teaching in the NT of this beyond the description of Jesus in Revelation which assumes that John was recording Daniel’s description instead of recording what he was seeing first hand. The whole notion of the Son resembling the Father could have been just as much the point being made in Revelation without possibly equating/confusing the two persons of the Trinity [i.e. I would need more scripture to prove that Daniel 7:13 isn’t talking about 2 persons].

      3. I am not sure that the context of Mt 24:3 would immediately make me think of they are referencing Dan 7:13 with the single word parousia. They have just been told this great temple they are admiring is going to be leveled. Matthew just before this records Jesus’ warning to Jerusalem, suggesting to me that this may have just recently been spoken by Jesus. If I had to try and find a pareimi in the old testament that fit this context, I honestly would pick one the favorite NT books Isaiah. Isaiah 52:6 talks about God’s pareimi, this is a Jerusalem that God says to

      “Awake, awake, Clothe yourself in your strength, O Zion; Clothe yourself in your beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city; For the uncircumcised and the unclean Will no longer come into you. Shake yourself from the dust, rise up, O captive Jerusalem; Loose yourself from the chains around your neck, O captive daughter of Zion.” (Is 52:1-2)

      “Listen! Your watchmen lift up their voices, They shout joyfully together; For they will see with their own eyes When the LORD restores Zion. Break forth, shout joyfully together, You waste places of Jerusalem; For the LORD has comforted His people, He has redeemed Jerusalem. The LORD has bared His holy arm In the sight of all the nations, That all the ends of the earth may see The salvation of our God.” (Is 52:8-10)

      Could this not be the vision in the minds of the Apostles when Jesus is talking about the destruction of the Temple? For sure the promise the ‘the uncircumcised and unclean Will no longer come into you’ had not come to pass and the LORD had not yet ‘bared His holy arm In the sight of all the nations, That all the ends of the earth may see The salvation of God’.


      1. Sorry, thinking faster than my typing…

        I honestly would pick one the favorite NT books Isaiah.

        Should be… I honestly would pick one of the NT writers favourite OT books, Isaiah


    3. Hello Sam, when you have had a chance to treed through my comments on words conveying ‘arrival’ and ‘presence’ [again sorry about the incoherence of the first response post]; I would love to hear your thoughts on the impact of Dan 7:15-28 on the Parousia, what implications you would see if my view was right and if there are any holes in my reading.


  14. Hello Sam,

    So moving onto my next question about your post on the Parousia. So the first time Jesus uses the word παρουσία [parousia] in the Olivet Discourse (specifically Mt 24:27). You note these words when Jesus says “For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes as far as the west, so will be the parousia of the Son of Man” (Matthew 24.27) Your blog continues to argue that the ‘lightning’ is a sign of Jesus’ power and authority after He has ascended to heaven and is enthroned [an event I believe we both agree is in our past but was still future when these words were spoken].

    I think you give a good summary…

    Jesus is presented/enters (pareimi) in the heavens, and the world knows nothing – has no understanding of the power that has been given to the Son of Man that will strike without warning, without mercy – this is what it is “like.” Such is Matthew’s understanding. The son of man has been exalted, and “all power has been given” to him (Matthew 28.18; verbal of Daniel 7.14). After his resurrection and ascension, his installment with the glory he had, and now shares with humanity because he is a “son of man” in heaven, exalted, he is given “all power, authority, rule and dominion and his Dominion will never be destroyed.” He rules in the clouds of the heavens. His power is demonstrated in his rule over the nations as they fall.

    This seems totally in agreement with your understanding drawn from Dan 7:14 [at least as of the writing of your blog – not sure of our discussion have moved your possition]; but I think this understanding of Mt 24:27 opposes the context of Jesus’ own statements and may contradict Matthew’s own understanding of what Jesus is doing in this passage.

    Please note, I do see that you also pull in Mt 24:37-39 to build the chain toward the conclusion, I will focus first on walking through Jesus’ words leading up to and including Mt 24:27 before turning to these other passages.

    So prior to Jesus talking about ‘lightning’ He was talking about people in the time of great tribulation [following the Abomination of Desolation] exclaiming where to find the Christ…

    “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Behold [Ἰδοὺ], here is the Christ,’ or ‘There He is,’ do not believe him. “For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. “Behold [Ἰδοὺ], I have told you in advance. “So if they say to you, ‘Behold [Ἰδοὺ], He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out, or, ‘Behold [Ἰδοὺ], He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe them. “For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes [φαίνεται – appearing (present tense)] even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be. (Mt 24:23-27)

    Matthew seems to be the only New Testament author to use the Behold [ἰδού] – appear [φαίνω] combination, but Matthew 24 isn’t the first time Matthew has used this combination. Here are the other examples.

    But when he had considered this, behold [ἰδού], an angel of the Lord appeared [φαίνω] to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. (Mt 1:20)

    Now when they had gone, behold [ἰδού], an angel of the Lord appeared [φαίνω] to Joseph in a dream and said, “Get up! Take the Child and His mother and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is going to search for the Child to destroy Him.” (Mt 2:13)

    But when Herod died, behold [ἰδού], an angel of the Lord appeared [φαίνω] in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, and said, (Mt 2:19)

    As they were going away, behold [ἰδού], a demon-oppressed man who was mute was brought to him. And when the demon had been cast out, the mute man spoke. And the crowds marveled, saying, “Never was anything like this seen [φαίνω] in Israel.” (Mt 9:32-33, ESV)

    Not sure if Matthew learned this combination from hearing Jesus in the Olivet Discourse, or possibly from reading Isaiah 32:1-2 or 60:2 in the LXX; but however Matthew learned the combination, it seems likely that Matthew 24:23-27 is to be taken as a unit.

    What Jesus seems to be addressing is the people who will be prevalent following the Abomination of Desolation trying to draw people away to counterfeit Messiahs. Jesus is contrasting the constant word of Behold [ἰδού] the Christ is … with Jesus’ παρουσία [parousia] being like the appearing [φαίνω] of lightning. Are not every one of these behold statements examples of some kind of false παρουσία [parousia]? If they are then the message is simply, don’t listen to these charlatans, the TRUE παρουσία [parousia] will not be in secret, but will be obvious to everyone [assuming Jesus couldn’t have presented a greater metaphor that His listeners would have understood that isn’t conveyed later by stars falling, sun and moon going dark to convey a global event].

    Now we could discuss the time period for these charlatans, I still see them present today. To me [based on the specific promise of Rev 7:15-17] the Great Tribulation which started after the Abomination of Desolation has been going on throughout Christian history, but that is another discussion.


  15. Christopher,

    Again, thanks for a wonderful conversation. For me, the “comparison” of those pointing to a figure or person saying, “there he is” or “he is over here” (when, in fact, he is in heaven) is contrasted with “lightning” coming “out of the” heavens – which is not a person, but what a person is doing (sending lightning which is visible – typical of YHWH in the OT). The presence of Jesus of Nazareth in heaven will be visibly displayed in flashes of lightning (judgments) “out of” heaven. I like the Greek term used, “exerchomai” – coming out of. “hosper” (a conjunction, coordinate, comparison, “such as” “like””even as”) sets the comparison between being able to point to a person and say, “there he is”, and Jesus in heaven (where he is) sending down lightning “out of” heaven (Jesus is not the lightning).

    Let’s keep the ball rolling!


    1. Hello Sam, interesting… I think I would like to circle around this a little if you don’t mind. I will probably have more to add once I have a chance to listen to your debate with Dr. Hollett.

      I can definately see your way of understanding Jesus’ illustration of the lightning as judgement. Which does admittedly make sense with the backdrop of the Temple Destruction mentioned at the start. I hope you can understand my point, that instead of Jesus’ illustration being about judgment, it being about viability (i.e. why I focused on φαίνω [appearing] instead of ἐξέρχομαι [come out]). I do not think there is anything clear in the text to say which illustration Jesus had in mind. Ultimately as with many illustrations, could Jesus have picked this illustration to combine both meanings [i.e. neither is totally correct in isolation].

      So what I would like to examine if you are interested, is if this use of παρουσία in Mt 24 is primarily to do with Judgement and wrath [no doubt it does have that connotation] or if there is any room for the notion of God’s tangible presence among His people in this passage. To enjoy “the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day” (Gen 3:8) without us running for fear. I think of the secular use of παρουσία when the king/emperor would come to visit a city or province, the visit might be one of putting down a rebellion, it may be one of celebration, or sometimes a combination of both. If in the end all Mt 24 is about is answering the disciples question about when Jesus is going to be enthroned and finally rain judgement on those who rejected Him [funny, that makes me think of both the sons of thunder comment while at the same time Jesus’ parable in Lk 19:11-27, specifically verse 27 about what happened to those who did not want nobleman to rule over them] then I hope the passage will demonstrate that beyond question, but if there is more to Jesus’ παρουσία [as putting things right after this time of Great Tribulation] I would like to bring that out.

      Hopefully my thoughts make sense, I know those I have talked with who want all of Mt 24 to be fulfilled in 70 AD due to the generation passage [which I know you and I are quite a bit less rigid than others on] tend to get VERY focus on the whole wrath aspect of this passage, but I cannot help but think there is something been lost in this view. If only wrath was the focus, honestly Luke’s account does a great job, it is really odd that Matthew is the only Gospel that mentions the παρουσία, but we treat the whole thing as if only Luke was a valid witness of the discourse [maybe overstating, but some conversations have made me feel this way].

      Anyway, if there is anything I can clarify please let me know, by now you should see that this is a bit less sharpened of a train of thought, I am still trying to find the words for what I am seeing. Any help you could give to sharpen things would be appreciated


    2. Sorry Sam,

      Just realized I am still thinking of Mt 24:27 in English [where coming – parousia would be a verb and not a noun].

      So help me get this right

      Nouns being compared: Lightning and coming [parousia] of the Son of Man
      Verbs in comparison: comes [ἐξέρχομαι – present tense], flashes [φαίνω – present tense], be [εἰμί – future tense]

      Please help me with this, I am still working on my Greek…

      If I understand the Greek right, Jesus’ illustration is about how the parousia of the Son of Man will “come to into being” [εἰμί] in the future, not about the nature or effect of the parousia.

      The “parousia of the Son of Man” [an event???] will “come to into being” like “lightning comes from the east” or like “lightning flashes from east to the west”.

      I think this effects your interpretation of the passage, or can you help me understand how the grammar fits [again still learning Greek]. I do not understand how the parousia would already be a reality before the events mentioned in the Olivet Discourse when Jesus’ says that the parousia comes to be [εἰμί] in the future [like the Great Tribulation, arising of false prophets and false Christs]. So what impact would the parousia of the Son of Man being around or after the Great Tribulation?

      Anyway, some help interpreting the Greek would be helpful.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.