The word parousia in the New Testament means the second coming of Christ. What is the etymology of parousia? In Plato’s Phaedo, parousia means presence, that the idea of it feels like Beauty itself is present (parousia) incarnate in the beautiful thing. How do we get from the platonic Greek understanding of parousia as presence to the New Testament Greek usage as the second coming of Christ?

The word parousia (παρουσία) originates from Classical Greek, literally meaning “presence” or “being alongside.” While its use in Plato’s Phaedo represents an abstract, philosophical framework of an ideal form being “present” in a material object, the shift to the New Testament meaning—the Second Coming of Christ—was bridged by a highly specific political and cultural evolution during the Hellenistic and Roman periods.

1. The Etymology (Word History) of Parousia

Etymologically, the word is a compound of two Greek elements:

• Para (παρά): A preposition meaning “beside,” “alongside,” or “at.”
• Ousia (οὐσία): A noun meaning “being” or “substance” (derived from eimi, the verb “to be”).

Combined, parousia literally translates to “a being beside” or “the state of being present.” Its literal antonym is apousia (ἀπουσία), which means “absence.”

2. The Semantic Bridge: From Plato to the New Testament

The shift from Plato’s abstract “metaphysical presence” to the New Testament’s “apocalyptic event” happened in three historical phases:

Phase 1: Platonic Immanence (Philosophical)

In the Phaedo, Plato uses parousia to explain the relationship between the physical world and the World of Forms. For Plato, a beautiful thing is beautiful because the absolute concept of Beauty itself has a parousia—a dynamic, indwelling presence—within that object. I say of a mansion “Now that’s a house,” is houseness incarnate. Here, parousia is static and timeless; it does not mean an “arrival” from elsewhere, but rather an ongoing reality of spiritual manifestation.

Phase 2: Hellenistic and Roman Royal Visits (The Political Bridge)

During the centuries between Plato and the writing of the New Testament, the Greek language evolved. In Hellenistic culture and the Roman Empire, parousia became a technical term for the official, grand visit of a king, emperor, or high official to a province or city.

• These events were characterized by immense pageantry, trumpet blasts, and the city citizens marching out to meet the ruler to escort him back into the city.
• Concurrently, the term began to be used in Hellenistic religions to describe the visible manifestation of a deity coming to help their people.
• Consequently, the definition expanded from a passive “presence” to an active “arrival that establishes an impactful presence.”

Phase 3: New Testament Eschatology (The Theological Adoption)

When the early Christian writers (like Paul and Matthew) needed a word to describe the return of Jesus in glory, they subverted this Roman political imagery. By adopting parousia, they were making a profound theological claim:

Dimension	Platonic/Roman Imperial Context	New Testament Adaptation
The Subject	An abstract Form (Plato) or Caesar (Roman)	Jesus Christ, the true King of Kings.
The Action	Ultimate truth inhabiting matter or a local royal visit	A cosmic royal arrival on the clouds.
The Purpose	To explain beauty or collect taxes/tribute	To judge the earth and fully establish His physical presence.

The early church purposely utilized the imperial connotations of the word to assert that Jesus—not Caesar—was the ultimate ruler whose final arrival (parousia) would demand the allegiance of the entire world.

Summary of the Shift

The word traveled from a philosophical presence (Plato) → to a political arrival (the Roman Emperor’s visit) → to an eschatological return (Christ’s Second Coming). Yet, the core Platonic root of “presence” was never lost: the Second Coming is not just a brief hit-and-run event, but the definitive moment when God’s physical presence permanently dwells with humanity.

Berman argues The Epistles of Paul were composed from the years 94-97 CE as they remade Paul the Apostle in their image to suit the needs of the then-young Church that needed a unified theological system during a desperate time of massive persecution wrought by Emperor Domitian and they created the concept of the parousia i.e. the second coming of Jesus to help disguise their plot to assassinate Emperor Domitian and thus, it was not intended to be real literal second coming of Jesus Christ. 

This style of writing is highly characteristic of apocalyptic literature (found in books like Daniel and Revelation). Authors living under oppressive regimes used highly stylized, cryptic language to speak about contemporary political realities without getting themselves executed by the state

Berman notes this explains why Clement never mentioned Paul having a vision either and thus, Clement knew nothing of Paul’s so-called “conversion” because it did not occur. Furthermore, Clement never mentioned the second coming of Jesus that is the parousia anywhere in his letter which is indicative that the second coming of Christ is a development that occurred after Clement had composed his letter because it was about the plot to assassinate Emperor Domitian.

The idea of the parousia goes hand and hand with the Kingdom.  Jesus preaches the coming kingdom, but also that it is already around us or inside our hearts, even in the not-yet “circumcised hearts” of the hard-hearted pharisees (Luke 17:20–21).  Beyond Luke 17, multiple New Testament passages emphasize that the kingdom arrived with Jesus’ earthly ministry:

• Matthew 12:28 / Luke 11:20: Jesus explicitly links his actions to the arrival of the kingdom, stating, “But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.”
• Mark 1:15: At the very start of his ministry, Jesus announces, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”
• Romans 14:17: The Apostle Paul defines the present kingdom as a spiritual, internal, and community reality rather than a political boundary: “For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.”
• Colossians 1:13: pseudo Paul writes to believers as people who have already changed citizenships, stating that God “has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son.”

The eliminating of Domitian would be God’s kingdom and justice incarnating (Parousia) in the world. 

The two main theological strands in the bible are sacrifice theology and forgiveness theology.  The two go back Cain and Abel but are modelled with Abraham being stopped from sacrificing Isaac, the idea being God will ask for your firstborn, and you must comply, to show you love him more than yourself.  Isaac didn’t actually need to die. Love of God and caring for undesirables like widow, orphan, stranger and enemy as more important than self incarnates the kingdom.

Sacrifice theology was meant to make right-standing with God comprehensible and achievable by everyone.  But, the idea God can’t forgive and needs a sacrificial payment fly in the face of the forgiveness of the penitential psalms and the story of Jonah.  What the sacrifices are meant to do is train you to have a contrite heart.

The Bible explicitly states that God desires a contrite heart over ritual sacrifices. This is a major theme across both the Old and New Testaments. The prophets and psalmists consistently teach that outward religious rituals are meaningless to God if they are not accompanied by inward humility and genuine repentance.

Here are the key passages that address this directly:

1. The Core Passages on Contrition over Sacrifice

• Psalm 51:16–17: This is the most famous passage on the topic, written by King David after his affair with Bathsheba. He writes:

“For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it; you will not be pleased with a burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.“

• Isaiah 66:2: God explicitly declares what catches His attention, choosing a humble heart over grand temples or ritual acts:

“But this is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word.”

• Isaiah 57:15: God explains that He lives in two places: the high/holy place, and with the broken-hearted:

“I dwell in the high and holy place, and also with him who is of a contrite and lowly spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly, and to revive the heart of the contrite.”

2. Other Key Verses Rejecting Empty Rituals

The Bible contains many other passages where God rejects sacrifices because the people’s hearts and actions do not align with His character:

• Hosea 6:6: This verse is so central that Jesus quotes it twice in the New Testament (in Matthew 9:13 and 12:7):

“For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.”

• Micah 6:6–8: Micah asks if God wants thousands of rams or rivers of oil, and concludes:

“He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?“

• Proverbs 21:3: A simple summary of God’s priority:

“To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice.”

• Amos 5:21–24: In a fierce warning, God tells Israel that He actually hates their religious festivals and will not accept their grain offerings. Instead, He demands: “But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.”

Some people of Israel treated sacrifices like a transaction or a “get out of jail free” card. They believed they could sin, mistreat the poor, and live selfishly, and then simply buy God’s forgiveness with an animal sacrifice. These passages clarify that outward rituals are only valuable to God when they reflect an inward reality of love, humility, and repentance.

In a contrast between the two paths, we see the non-atonement theology of Luke where the veil tears before Jesus dies, and the sin payment of Mark and Matthew.  Paul in Romans seems to have both where sin is transgression, but also and evil enemy that needed to be booted out.

Ehrman points out in Mark we have competing tendencies to promote the cross, but also by contrast repentance and forgiveness theology. With the story of the rich young man and sheep/goats, we seem to have a Jesus who proclaimed a forgiving God rather than one who had to be paid a sacrifice.