Thelittlebookofrevelation - Tumblr Posts

Divine Providence & Concurrence

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim

——-

The Doctrine of Providence

The classical doctrine of “divine providence” asserts that all events occur according to God’s sovereign will. The Reformed tradition rejects “chance” as having any consequence or playing any part in the natural world. The Latin word provideo, from which is derived the term “providence,” means “foresight.” So, etymologically speaking, the term “providence” means foreknowledge & is related to predestination. In Calvinism, providence highlights the complete sovereignty of God & the radical corruption of man.

However, Arminianism theology doesn’t agree with Calvinism on the issues of election & predestination. Arminianism asserts that God has a limited mode of providence. According to this mode of providence, divine foreknowledge & free will are compatible but theological determinism is not. In this view, predestination is based on foreknowledge, and on conditional election (human faith), not on God’s absolute Sovereignty.

According to Paul’s teaching, God “will repay according to each one's deeds” (Rom. 2.6 NRSV). But how can there be moral culpability in a hard determinism model? Calvinists argue God has predestined everything “according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to his counsel and will” (Ephesians 1.11):

τὰ πάντα ἐνεργοῦντος κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν

τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ (προς Εφεσίους 1.11

SBLGNT).

Yes, everything works according to God’s will. But neither Calvin nor this verse tells us specifically to what degree or to what extent do all things work according to his will. To assume or presuppose that everything is wholly and completely working according to his will creates an inherent logical fallacy that implies either that God’s will is ineffective or that it is flawed. It would be considered ineffectual in bringing about the desired result, specifically when his will is seemingly opposed, or flawed in the sense that there is an unfavorable result as concerns his benevolent divine attributes. In either case, God would not be “God” in terms of sovereignty. In other words, the attribution of pure evil to the divine will would contradict his attributes of omnibenevolence (see Ps. 92.15; Ps. 106.1; 135.3; Isa. 65.16; Nah. 1.7; Mk 10.18; Jn 17.17; Tit. 1.1-2; Jas. 1.13). If we are to attribute the cause of all the horrific acts of evil in this world to the very God who is said to fight & oppose them, we are doing him a disservice. Calvin’s theology does not square well with the New Testament notion “that God is light and in him there is no darkness at all” (1 Jn 1.5)!

Calvinism also entails a theological contradiction because humans could not be held morally responsible for their actions and therefore could not be judged. Besides, if everything worked according to the will of God, then why does Paul say: “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling”? (Phil. 2.12). We wouldn’t need to work out anything. God would do it all. But that’s not what Paul’s teaching implies.

In my view, the doctrine of providence, expressed as the complete sovereignty of God, is as faulty as the pre-trib rapture doctrine. Both are based on wishful thinking and a false sense of security.

——-

The Doctrine of Concurrence

The term “concurrence” refers to the cooperation of God and a human being in a combined attempt to generate an action. In Calvinist theology, this means that human beings do not operate autonomously but that every one of their actions and thoughts is controlled by the sovereign will of God. Calvinists often present Biblical support for this view by quoting passages that might be misconstrued as referring to predestination when they’re actually talking about foreknowledge. For example, in Jos. 11.6, God’s assurance to Joshua of Israel’s victory may be due to foreknowledge rather than predestination. They also interpret many passages in the literal sense of the word, rejecting shades of meaning, nuances, or other levels of interpretation. So, for example, 1 Kings 22:20-23 says that “the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets.” In the narrative, it appears as if God is causing these actions, if read literally. However, the development & continuation of the scene shows that God permits rather than causes these actions to take place. And because he has the final say on the matter, it is written as if he has done it himself. In fact, this shows us, metaphorically, how the process of evil works and how God grants it permission. It’s the same story in Proverbs 21.1, which says that “The king's heart is … in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will.” These interpreters jump to conclusions without knowing if this is due to God’s permission, foreknowledge, or will. In fact, in Calvinism, God is said to cooperate with evil. In his book, “systematic theology,” Louis Berkhof writes:

it is also evident from Scripture that there is

some kind of divine co-operation in that

which is evil. According to II Sam. 16:11

Jehovah bade Shimei to curse David. The

Lord also calls the Assyrian ‘the rod of mine

anger, the staff in whose hand is mine

indignation,’ Isa. 10:5.

He goes on to say:

The work of God always has the priority, for

man is dependent on God in all that he

does. The statement of Scripture, ‘Without

me ye can do nothing,’ applies in every field

of endeavor.

However, what Jesus means by this saying is that without a spiritual rebirth we can do nothing. He’s not necessarily referring to the doctrine of concurrence per se. The doctrine of concurrence in Arminian theology rejects the Calvinist notion of exhaustive determinism. Calvinists have fired back at Arminians that they deny the sovereignty of God. Roger E. Olson, a classical Arminian, says:

If we begin by defining sovereignty

deterministically, the issue is already

settled; in that case, Arminians do not

believe in divine sovereignty. However, who

is to say that sovereignty necessarily

includes absolute control or meticulous

governance to the exclusion of real

contingency and free will?

In other words, there is no hard determinism in Arminianism. In this view, the implication is that God is not the author of sin or evil. He simply permits these to exist for a greater purpose. Arminians believe in God’s sovereignty. But that doesn’t mean that God controls every thought, every behavior, every word, or every choice one makes. The problem with Calvinism is that although they support the concurrence of God in all actions and events, they nevertheless deny that God is the author of evil or the responsible party for all corruption.

In discussing Wayne Grudem’s Calvinist views, Ken Schenck, a New Testament scholar, writes:

The understanding here of God's

‘cooperation’ with human action is subtle

and needs to be understood very carefully.

In Grudem's view, humans feel like they are

acting freely even though God is really

behind the scenes making them do what

they do. We experience our actions as free

actions even though God is really directing

them. This is a position that William James

called ‘soft determinism’ in the late 1800s.

——-

Conclusion

The absolute sovereignty of God presupposes that God is the author of sin. However, the attribution of pure evil to the divine will would scripturally contradict God’s attributes of omnibenevolence (e.g. Ps. 92.15; Ps. 106.1; 135.3; Isa. 65.16; Nah. 1.7; Mk 10.18; Jn 17.17; Tit. 1.1-2; Jas. 1.13). To attribute the cause of all the abominable acts of evil in this world to the very God who is said to fight & oppose them is equivalent to a misunderstanding of the fundamental “truths” of scripture. Calvin’s theology does not square well with the New Testament notion “that God is light and in him there is no darkness at all” (1 Jn 1.5)!

——-

Both Iris & Toxon mean Rainbow in the Bible

By Eli Kittim 🎓

All the Evidence Points to a Christ-Like Figure in Rev. 6.2

In this study I want to focus primarily on two words, iris & toxon, in order to show how they completely change our understanding of Revelation 6.2. But before I do this, I would first like to show you some proofs concerning the implied benevolence of the White horseman of the Apocalypse. That the white horse is a symbol of purity and righteousness is multiply attested by its linguistic usage patterns. For example, the phrase “and behold, a white horse,” in Rev. 19.11, is identical to the one used in Revelation 6.2. In other words, the two white horses of Revelation 19 & 6 represent the exact same figure who “is called Faithful and True” (Rev. 19.11)! That’s why Irenaeus, a second century theologian, held the same view, namely, that the first rider of the white horse who is depicted as a peacemaker represents Jesus Christ (Mounce, Robert H. The Book of Revelation. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Rev. ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997], p. 141).

This is also confirmed by the type of crown the rider of the white horse wears. Stephanos “crowns” are typically worn by believers and victors in Christ (see e.g. the Greek text of Matthew 27.29; James 1.12; 2 Timothy 4.8; 1 Peter 5.4; Revelation 2.10; 4.4; 14.14)! All these proofs clearly show that the white horseman of Rev. 6.2 is neither deceptive nor evil, as many Bible commentators would have us believe!

The Hebrew Bible Uses the Word Bow for Rainbow

In the New Testament, the Greek noun ἶρις (iris) means “rainbow” (see https://biblehub.com/greek/2463.htm). Curiously enough, the Greek noun τόξον (toxon), which we find in Rev. 6.2, means “bow” but——as we shall see——it also means “rainbow” (see https://biblehub.com/greek/5115.htm). Τόξον can be seen as a contraction for ουράνιον τόξον (rainbow), from Ancient Greek οὐρανός ("heaven") + τόξον ("bow").

Given that the Greek noun “iris” is the most widely used term for “rainbow” in the New Testament, some commentators argue that since the word in Rev. 6.2 is “toxon,” not “iris,” it means that “toxon” (τόξον) cannot possibly refer to a rainbow. However, many notable Bible commentators, such as Chuck Missler, have said that the “bow” (toxon) in Rev. 6.2 appears to represent the “rainbow” of Genesis 9.13. In other words, the bow (toxon) represents the peace-covenant of Genesis 9.13. The actual verse in Genesis 9.13 (NRSV) reads:

“I have set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth.”

Bear in mind that Genesis 9.13 uses the Hebrew phrase qaš·tî (קַשְׁתִּ֕י), which means “my bow.” It comes from the Hebrew noun קֶשֶׁת (qesheth), which means——wait for it——a bow (https://biblehub.com/hebrew/7198.htm).

The Septuagint (LXX) Translates the Hebrew Word for Rainbow with the Greek Word Toxon

Further evidence that “toxon” (bow) can mean “rainbow” comes from the Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. Lo and behold, the Septuagint translates “rainbow” as τόξον (toxon) in Genesis 9.13!

Thus, this brief study illustrates my point, namely, that “iris” and “toxon” are interchangeable in the Bible! The Septuagint (LXX) translation of Genesis 9.13 by L.C.L. Brenton reads as follows:

τὸ τόξον μου τίθημι ἐν τῇ νεφέλῃ, καὶ ἔσται εἰς σημεῖον διαθήκης ἀνὰ μέσον ἐμοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς.

Translation:

“I set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of covenant between me and the earth.”

Conclusion

Therefore, both “iris” and “toxon” mean “rainbow” in the Bible! They are interchangeable terms. This means that the rider of the “white horse … [who] had a bow” (τόξον), in Rev. 6.2, is symbolically holding the “rainbow,” which represents the covenant of peace between God & man in Genesis 9.13!

Breaking News‼️

The War of Gog & Magog Has Begun❗️

Follow this Twitter list for news & live updates from multiple sources. It’s a Twitter list called “Eli Kittim Prophecy News”:

https://mobile.twitter.com/i/lists/200355615

https://href.li/?https://mobile.twitter.com/i/lists/200355615

Is 1 John 5:20 Indicating a Past Event?

By Bible Researcher and Author Eli Kittim 🇬🇷 🇺🇸

Inaccurate Bible Translations

It appears that most English translations of 1 John 5:20 say that the Son of God “has come” or “is come” when referring to Jesus Christ. Specifically, they say “that the Son of God has come” (see e.g. NIV, NLT, ESV, BSB, NKJV, NASB, CSB, HCSB, GNT, ISV, LSV, NAB, NET Bible, NRSV, NHEB, WNT, WEB). The rest of the Bible versions use the variant “is come,” which is an archaic form of English. This construction employs the term “come” as an unaccusative intransitive verb. Essentially, to say “that the Son of God is come” (e.g. BLB, KJV, ASV, DRB, YLT) not only implies the state of “having come” but also of “now being here” as well. The meaning of this construction is that “the Son of God” didn't simply come but that he is here right now! As you will see, the “is come” construction is actually closer to the original Greek text than “has come.” The worst Bible version is the AMP which makes explicit and ambitious statements that the Greek text does not make, while also adding foreign elements that are not found in the original. It’s the least faithful English translation. It reads:

And we [have seen and] know [by personal

experience] that the Son of God has

[actually] come [to this world].

Grammatical Parsing & Concordance Studies

In 1 John 5:20, the key word in this sentence is the Greek verb ἥκει (hēkei), which is a present indicative active, 3rd person singular (Strong's 2240: meaning, “to be present”). The term ἥκει is derived from the verb ἥκω, which can mean “to come,” “I am present,” “to be present,” or “will come” (see https://biblehub.com/greek/2240.htm).

As a present active indicative verb, ἥκει describes a linear (ongoing) action, as opposed to a punctiliar (complete) action. Thus, ἥκει as a primary tense expresses the present & future times, whereas secondary or historical tenses (aorist, imperfect, pluperfect) express past time. So, present active indicative verbs show that the action happens in the present time. Therefore, the verb ἥκει, in 1 John 5:20, should be understood in the sense of an “ongoing present” action (in a transhistorical sense), otherwise the translation is not entirely accurate but rather misleading for the reader. Moreover, the fact that ἥκει describes an ongoing action in the *present tense* indicates that it should not be read as referring to an event that transpired in the past, during the writing of this letter, but rather to all generations of readers, that is to say, in the temporal context that they find themselves in. In other words, the term ἥκει in 1 John 5:20 should be equally read in the *present tense* whether a person is living in the Middle Ages or in the 21st century. It should not be understood as a completed event that took place in the past.

In cross-reference studies, e.g. in Luke 15:27, notice that ἥκει is translated as “is here” (now)! See the Christian Standard Bible & Holman Christian Standard Bible translations:

Your brother is here, he told him, and your

father has slaughtered the fattened calf

because he has him back safe and sound.

And in John 2:4 ἥκει is rendered as referring to the future: “My hour has not yet come” (οὔπω ἥκει ἡ ὥρα μου).

English Standard Version:

And Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, what does

this have to do with me? My hour has not

yet come.’

Conclusion

As you can see, the translation “has come”——which gives the false impression of an event that happened and was completed in the past——is obviously misleading and not faithful to the original Greek text!

The more I research the Bible, the more evidence I find of corruptions and mistranslations. Similar to the way in which almost all translations of Acts 1:11 wrongly render the Greek term ἐλεύσεται as “come back,” most translations of ἥκει in 1 John 5:20 wrongly render it as “has come.” That’s why I parsed it for you. So that we can analyze the sentence into its various components and thereby define their syntactic roles.

Another key word in 1 John 5:20 is δέδωκεν (dedōken), which is a verb, perfect indicative active, 3rd person singular. It comes from δίδωμι, which means “give.” So, all in all, when you consider the intricate workings of this sentence you will have a better appreciation of the fact that the present active indicative verb ἥκει describes a linear (ongoing) action, as opposed to a punctiliar (complete) action. Here, then, is my rendition of 1 John 5:20 (SBLGNT):

οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ἥκει, καὶ

δέδωκεν ἡμῖν διάνοιαν ἵνα γινώσκωμεν τὸν

ἀληθινόν· καὶ ἐσμὲν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ, ἐν τῷ

υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ. οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ

ἀληθινὸς θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος.

Eli Kittim translation (Formal equivalence):

We know, then, that the son of God comes

and gives to us intelligence so that we

might know the true——and we are in the

true, [if we are] in his son——Jesus Christ.

This is the true God and life eternal.

—

How Should Christian Scholars Respond to Attacks and Insults?

By Bible Researcher and Author Eli Kittim 🎓

Now these people were more noble-minded

than those in Thessalonica, for they

received the word with great eagerness,

examining the Scriptures daily to see

whether these things were so.

——- Acts 17:11 NASB

Should We Believe What Others Say Or Should We Investigate the Scriptures for Ourselves?

People believe in historical Christianity. They believe that if Christianity is not historical then nothing else about the Bible is true. They cannot interpret it in any other way. They can only see it backwards; never forwards. But what ever happened to Bible prophecy? Take, for example, the idea of questioning the historicity of a Biblical event, wondering whether it happened in the past or if it will happen in the future. Isn’t that ultimately a question of faith?

People believe in a historical Jesus and in the so-called “historical” gospel narratives. Believers think that if Jesus didn’t exist——or if he didn’t die and wasn’t resurrected in the past——then everything else in the New Testament is complete and utter fiction, fabricated out of whole cloth, and therefore false. For them, it’s all about past history. But future history (aka Bible prophecy) is just as valid! The notion that Jesus came in the flesh *at some point in human history* somehow seems to escape their hermeneutical purview. It never really occurred to them that if these incidents in the life of Jesus are prophesied to take place in the future, then the Bible is just as valid and just as reliable as if these events had happened in the past. Why? Because the Bible is ultimately not a historical chronicle but a Book on Faith!

People believe what they hear. But sometimes that’s just fake news or long-held assumptions that are based on *wrong interpretations* of the facts. The story of Jesus’ past death and resurrection is a story that has been told millions of times at the dinner table, on television, during Christmas, Easter, in all churches and denominations, it’s heard from preachers in the pulpit, it’s repeated by missionaries, taught in seminaries, and has generally been reiterated by pastors and teachers throughout the culture for thousands of years. So, it’s as if it is written in stone. It’s a foregone conclusion. It’s considered to be an undeniable fact. But what if a thorough Biblical investigation challenged any of these points? What then? Mind you, this type of inquiry would only be challenging *the man-made interpretations,* not the actual words of the Bible per se!

——-

A Biblical Consensus Is Always Evolving

In science, the role of agreement is paramount in establishing empirical facts, and it’s only through verifiable evidence that an epistemic agreement can be reached. However, the body of empirical knowledge is constantly changing. New information is constantly assessed and prior conclusions are always re-examined. What appeared to be a fact yesterday may not be so today. And the methodology is constantly improving and evolving. Today, we have better criteria and more knowledge at our disposal to understand the Bible than ever before. Therefore, our biblical findings can certainly change our previous assumptions and presuppositions. The Biblical consensus has changed considerably over time. With new interdisciplinary evidence at our disposal, our conclusions about Biblical authorship and composition have gradually changed. New evidence in lower and high criticism has prompted new questions that require a new set of criteria and more advanced methodologies to address them. So, as a rule, new findings replace older “facts,” thereby changing the previous consensus!

For example, advances in textual criticism have shown that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch. The date of the Pentateuch’s composition is also not as early as once believed. In fact, the scholarly consensus is that Moses probably never existed and that the Exodus never happened: it is a foundation myth. As it happens, no archaeological remains have ever been found in the Sinai Peninsula regarding the exodus or the Israelites.

But try telling that to Orthodox Jews who hold these “truths” to be self-evident, sacred, and non-negotiable. For them, history, archaeology, textual criticism, and Biblical studies are a “demonic” attempt to undermine their faith. But is that true? Of course not! On the contrary, many who are involved in these scientific and Biblical disciplines are themselves faithful Jews and Christians.

Then there was the emergence of other academic disciplines and methods that investigated the historical precursors of the biblical texts. Some of these were “source criticism” and “form criticism,” from which “redaction criticism” was derived. Finally, literary criticism added a new way of looking at the authorial intent via such methods as narrative criticism, rhetorical criticism, and canonical criticism. These emerging methods of biblical criticism, which did not previously exist, ultimately changed how we view and understand the Bible.

For example, the idea that the New Testament authors quoted predominantly from the Greek Old Testament rather than from the Jewish Bible must have certain important textual ramifications. Also, without the understanding of “intertextuality”——the literary dependence of the New Testament on the Old Testament——we would not know what literary material was borrowed from the Hebrew Bible. All you have to do is pick up a chain-reference Bible and you’ll see how much of the Old Testament is found in the New Testament, and how many words, speeches, and events that are attributed to Jesus are actually modelled on these earlier stories. These academic disciplines pave the way for a deeper understanding on various levels that heretofore were untraversed and unknown.

But how, then, can one explain to a believer that Jesus didn’t really say or do that? That it was just a literary narrative in which the evangelist put Jesus in a certain theological context in order to show that he is the prophesied Messiah of Hebrew Scripture. So, it seems that one must put away their emotional component when involved in this type of inquiry. One must leave their ego at the door. That is to say, one must temporarily suspend faith and atheism in dealing with Biblical studies. That’s because, just as in science, pure objectivity is strictly required. Once a person has gathered all the necessary evidence, they can then try to ascertain how it might fit with or be relevant to his/her faith, or how it may further inform it.

There are also many cross-reference and concordance studies that reveal Biblical *meanings* by focusing on certain repetitive linguistic idiomatic expressions, as they’re found throughout scripture. Parallel passages and verbal agreements help to further identify certain *meanings* that are consistently found across the text. Then there are the Biblical languages. Studying the original Biblical languages in Paleo-Hebrew and Koine Greek help us to create faithful and competent translations, which involve a more accurate knowledge and understanding of scripture’s details about timing, location, and authorial intention. Moreover, parsing (or syntax analysis) helps us to further understand the grammar and morphology of the Biblical languages! These methodologies are invaluable in providing a solid foundation that may not always be consistent with previous assumptions. Discoveries in these areas are obviously worthy of serious consideration.

But how do you explain these facts to a simple layperson who may think otherwise? In their eyes, you are seen either as a traitor to the faith, at best, or guided by the deceiver, at worst. To a believer——who is not engaged in these types of studies but reads the Bible literally and superficially——writing about these findings and complex issues may be interpreted as preaching godless heresies. In his/her mind you are simply a false teacher. . . And despite Jesus’ appeal for unity in the church (John 17:21), there have always been fights and quarrels among Christians (James 4:1). It has also become a fashion lately to slander Bible teachers. Many are quick to point fingers at each other and accuse other Christians of wrongdoing. This is antithetical to scripture!

In this case, the only thing a Bible scholar can do is to remind the reader that objectivity rather than fanaticism is more fruitful in biblical interpretation, and that name-calling is not biblical evidence. In fact, scholars welcome the opportunity for peer-review and academic criticism!

God’s Gender in Contextual Theology: Should We Preserve the Biblical Text in Light of New Age Interpretations?

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

I’m all for women’s rights, and I admit that in heaven there is no gender (Gen. 1:26-27; Mk. 12:25). I also know that many members of the LGBTQ+ community have been **reborn** in God. It’s also true that the masculine form of God is sometimes added to the English Bible translations, as Bruce Metzger argues.

However, from a textual perspective, I disagree with the idea that every name of God in the Bible means God/dess in its original language, as some feminist theologians contend. Although conventional Jewish theology doesn’t ascribe the notion of sex to God, it’s clear that the gender of God in the Tanakh is presented with masculine grammatical forms & imagery. For example, in the Hebrew Bible, Elohim is masculine in form. Also, when referring to YHWH, the verb vayomer (“he said”) is definitely masculine; we never find vatomer, the feminine form. In Psalms 89:26, God is explicitly referred to as “Father”:

He shall cry unto me, Thou art my Father,

My God, and the rock of my salvation.

In Isaiah 63:16, God is directly addressed as “our Father":

Thou, O Jehovah, art our Father; our

Redeemer from everlasting is thy name.

The same holds true in the Greek New Testament. For example, Κύριος (Kyrios) is a Nominative Masculine Singular noun which means “Lord.” Θεὸς (Theos) is a Nominative Masculine Singular noun which means God. In Luke 1:68, the definite article ὁ (ho), which refers to the God of Israel (ὁ θεὸς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ), is a Nominative Masculine Singular (he). None of these phrases referring to the Lord (ό Κύριος) or to God (ό Θεός) have feminine forms in the original Koine Greek. Even the incarnated God is said to be male (see Rev. 12:5)!

However, many modern Bible translations furnish us with new additions, paraphrases, and grammatical forms that clearly deviate from the Biblical texts. They do not remain faithful to the original biblical languages in preserving their literal meanings. For example, there are numerous modern Bible translations——such as the NLT, the CEV, and the NRSV——which attempt to reword the original texts by adopting gender-neutral language. This is not simply a benign translation philosophy based on a feminist biblical interpretation, but it can also be seen as a tool for political activism in trying to change gender perceptions and alter the Bible’s authorial intent. This is theologically dangerous because when we tamper with the Bible’s grammatical structures we gradually lose the precise words of the revelations as they were given in their original forms. According to Wayne Grudem, the translator’s job is to translate the original language accurately and precisely rather than to offer opinions regarding gender-related questions.

The doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration——the notion that each word was meaningfully chosen by God——supersedes the cultural milieu by virtue of its inspired revelation. Therefore, the language from which the text is operating must be preserved without additions, subtractions, or alterations (cf. Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18-19). Accordingly, it is incumbent on the Biblical scholars to maintain the integrity of the text.

For example, since the mid-nineteenth century, the New Testament was not only significantly changed by the Westcott and Hort text but it has also been evolving gradually with culturally sensitive translations regarding gender, sexual orientation, racism, inclusive language, and the like. Contextual theology has broadened the scope of the original text by adding a whole host of modern political and socioeconomic contexts (e.g. critical theory, feminist theology, etc.) that lead to many misinterpretations because they’re largely irrelevant to the core message of the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus!

BIBLE EXEGESIS RESOURCES LIST (ONLINE)

Compiled by Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

Critical Bible Commentaries

https://libguides.twu.ca/religiousstudies/ecommentariesNT

Bryan College Library - Bible Study Resources - Compiled by Kevin Woodruff, M. Div, MS

https://library.bryan.edu/christian-studies-subject-guide/bible-study-resources

Interlinear Greek English Septuagint Old Testament (LXX)

https://archive.org/details/InterlinearGreekEnglishSeptuagintOldTestamentPrint/page/n5

Internet Archive

Interlinear Greek English Septuagint Old Testament (LXX) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Interlinear Greek English Septuagint Old Testament (LXX)Does not include the deuterocanonical books. New Testament is here...

Hebrew---English Interlinear Bible (Old Testament)

https://www.logosapostolic.org/bibles/interlinear_ot1.htm

Greek—English Interlinear Bible (New Testament)

https://www.logosapostolic.org/bibles/interlinear_nt.htm

Academic Bibles: The Hebrew OT, the Greek NT, the Septuagint, and the Latin Bible—which scholars prefer to use for research and publications—share the same link:

1) Hebrew Old Testament following the text of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia

2) Greek New Testament following the text of the Novum Testamentum Graece (ed. Nestle-Aland), 28. Edition and the UBS Greek New Testament 5. Edition.

3) Greek Old Testament following the text of the Septuagint (ed. Rahlfs/Hanhart)

4) Latin Bible (Biblia Sacra Vulgata) following the text of the Vulgate (ed. Weber/Gryson)

5) King James Version

6) English Standard Version

7) NetBible

8)Luther-Bible 1984

https://www.academic-bible.com/en/online-bibles/novum-testamentum-graece-na-28/read-the-bible-text/

A Response to Bill Mounce’s God's Gracious Gift of Suffering (Phil 1:29)

By Author Eli Kittim 🎓

Bill Mounce is a well-known scholar of New Testament Greek. He serves on the Committee for the NIV translation of the Bible, and has written a classic biblical Greek textbook, “Basics of Biblical Greek,” among other things. He blogs regularly on New Testament Greek at BillMounce.com.

Does God Give us the Grace to Suffer? Or the Grace to Endure Suffering?

Recently, I came across a piece of writing by Greek scholar Bill Mounce. In that paper, Mounce took issue with what “a popular preacher” was saying, namely, that “All suffering … is outside of God’s will.” Mounce shot back at the pastor for making an “absurdly non-biblical statement.” In calling him out, Mounce began to expound Phil 1.27–30. He writes:

Translations generally are not able to bring

out the nuances of this verse, nor the

awkward Greek. Paul begins, ‘for it has

been granted (ἐχαρίσθη) to you on behalf of

Christ.’ χαρίζομαι means ‘to give freely as a

favor, give graciously’ (BDAG). χαρίζομαι is

the cognate verb for the familiar noun,

χάρις, meaning ‘grace.’ The NLT translates,

‘you have been given ... the privilege.’ The

following are gracious gifts to Christians: 

to believe in him (τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν πιστεύειν),

and

to suffer for him (τὸ ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ πάσχειν).

The theology of the “popular pastor” denies

God’s gracious gift of suffering.

In other words, Mounce believes that our suffering——regardless of what form it takes——is actually a gracious gift from God. Thus, one can reasonably argue that if a person has cancer, or if he has lost all his limbs, as well as his eyesight or hearing, then this is a wonderful, gracious gift from God, and, therefore, the person should thank him for it! Not only does this view attribute the cause of all evil to God (cf. 1 John 1.5), but it also calls evil good (cf. Isaiah 5.20). Paradoxically, it is a glorification of suffering and evil. Mounce writes:

I have heard sermons on God’s gracious gift

of faith to his children; I have yet to hear a

sermon on God’s gracious gift of suffering.

That’s unfortunate, to understate it in the

extreme.

But just because we may have faced similar struggles with our fellow Christians, or we may have suffered for righteousness’ sake, doesn’t mean that these evils were deliberately sent our way. And just because suffering can test us, through which we may be purified, doesn’t mean that God himself is behind these temptations, orchestrating them, one by one. It would be far more accurate to call it God's "permissive will” in allowing suffering and evil to exist.

This idea is often misunderstood by other writers as well. For example, if the followers of Christ are said to experience the same sufferings that the Apostles in the New Testament experienced, then it means that they, too, have entered into the kingdom of God, renewed their minds, and shared in God’s consolation. In other words, the afflictions exist to frighten us from walking along the spiritual path (cf. Phil. 2.12). It doesn’t mean that these obstacles, temptations, and afflictions are ipso facto created by God. That’s what Paul means in 2 Corinthians 1.6-7:

If we are being afflicted, it is for your

consolation and salvation; if we are being

consoled, it is for your consolation, which

you experience when you patiently endure

the same sufferings that we are also

suffering. Our hope for you is unshaken; for

we know that as you share in our sufferings,

so also you share in our consolation.

Mounce then goes on to enumerate the various benefits that suffering brings to the followers of Christ. He says “Suffering binds us together,” “strengthens our faith,” purifies our faith, and so on. And he rightly says that “if we are not suffering, then we need to ask if we are living out our allegiance to Christ.” That is quite true. He correctly points out that suffering is “so essential that without it one’s salvation is in question.” But he confuses the *benefits* of suffering with the *causes* of suffering. He assumes that since suffering brings the Christian so many blessings, then it must be part of God’s plan. God must be behind all this. It must be part of his sovereign will. Mounce writes:

Not only is belief a gracious gift from God,

but so also is entering into suffering on his

behalf. To deny the reality and the gift of

suffering is to rip out half of God’s gracious

gifts to us that Paul is discussing.

Then he admits that he’s reformed in his theology. To show the importance and necessity of suffering, he quotes Paul who says that “we are children of God, … and joint heirs with Christ—if, in fact, we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him” (Romans 8.16-17 NRSV). I concur with Mounce that “Our glorification depends on our suffering,” and that our suffering depends upon our courage to follow Christ no matter what the cost may be. Mounce concludes:

Suffering for Christ as we live out our lives is

a gracious gift from God, confirming and

strengthening his gracious gift of faith to us.

As Fee writes (quoting Lightfoot), “suffering

should not surprise or overwhelm them; it is

rather evidence that ‘God looks upon you

with favor’” (171).

Anyone who teaches otherwise is teaching

false doctrine and is robbing God’s children

of the joyful benefits of suffering.

Conclusion

Bill Mounce is essentially saying that suffering itself “is a gracious gift from God.” It’s a sign of God’s love for you. He’s basically saying that God gives us the grace to suffer. But I think that Bill Mounce is wrong. By contrast, I hold that God gives us the grace to endure suffering. In other words, God doesn’t predestine suffering; he foreknows it, and therefore gives us the grace to overcome it. Otherwise, God would be accused of being the author of evil. Mounce interprets Philippians 1.28-29 as if it is saying that God *causes* us to suffer. However, I think it teaches that God gives us the grace to *endure* suffering.

Philippians 1.28-29 (Stephens 1550 Greek

text):

28 καὶ μὴ πτυρόμενοι ἐν μηδενὶ ὑπὸ τῶν

ἀντικειμένων ἥτις αὐτοῖς μέν ἐστὶν

ἔνδειξις ἀπωλείας, ὑμῖν δὲ σωτηρίας,

καὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ θεοῦ,

29 ὅτι ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, οὐ

μόνον τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν πιστεύειν ἀλλὰ καὶ

τὸ ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ πάσχειν

My Translation (Philippians 1.28-29):

28 And don’t be terrified by anything with

regard to your adversaries, which to

them, on the one hand, is an indication

of perdition, but to you, on the other, of

salvation, and that of God.

29 Because unto you the grace has been

given concerning Christ, not only to

believe in him, but also to suffer for his

sake.

Biblical Greek Exegesis

The Greek text of Philippians chapter 1 verse 28 says σωτηρίας, καὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ θεοῦ, meaning that salvation is by God alone. That is, it’s granted only by God; it’s a grace. Verse 29 says ὅτι ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη, meaning, “to you the grace has been granted.” But what type of grace has God given us? The grace to suffer or the grace to endure suffering? The former view implies that God himself gives us the suffering. The latter position implies that God allows suffering, but gives us the ability to endure it. Being of the reform tradition, Mounce implies that God creates evil and thus brings suffering into our lives. However, this is not necessarily the only possible exegesis from the Greek. Verse 29 could also mean that God’s grace has been given to us not only to believe in Christ, but also to *endure* suffering for his sake!

For further details on the theological implications of Bill Mounce’s exegesis, read my paper:

Does God Create Evil?: Answering the Calvinists

https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/656643262452531200/does-god-create-evil-answering-the-calvinists

Eli of Kittim

Does God Create Evil?: Answering the Calvinists

By Award-Winning Author Eli Kittim ——- Calvinism Has Confused God's Foreknowledge With His Sovereignty Dr. R.C. Sproul once said:

——-

A Critical Review of the “TruthUnedited” YouTube Channel Which Teaches a Heretical Christian Doctrine

By Bible Researcher & Author Eli Kittim 🎓

What is the Truthunedited Platform?

Although the practical side of this YouTube channel appears to have a semblance of Christianity, the theology is definitely Judaic!

This YouTube channel is called “Truthunedited” and it also has an affiliated website: Truthunedited.com. These platforms are apparently run by the host, Mr. Ron Charles. Unfortunately, I could not find anything about his qualifications. This is a very popular YouTube channel that has 604k subscribers.

Their website seems to advertise books by the Restored Church of God (RCG), an offshoot of the teachings and doctrines of Herbert W. Armstrong who was the leader of the Worldwide Church of God (WCG). The RCG is a cult which,

denies the Trinity, says that God is a

composition of two beings … that being

born again means being resurrected from

flesh to spirit, that the earth was re-

created, that people will not go to hell and

will be annihilated, that Christians do not go

to heaven, … that the Holy Spirit is a force.”

——- Wiki

I skimmed through some of the videos that he’s put forth and they seem quite disturbing. For example, one of the videos refers to Easter as a goddess, which is based on the discredited 19th century book “The Two Babylons” by Alexander Hislop. The actual word Easter in Greek is “Pascha” (Πάσχα), from the Jewish “Passover” (aka Pesach). So, in trying to discredit Easter as a pagan holiday, his argument is irrelevant to the original Hebrew festival because he’s arguing only from the English translation, the so-called Month of Ēostre', which is historically a so-called “Paschal month" that corresponds to April.

In another video (“What is the true name of our creator & messiah?”), Mr. Ron Charles differentiates between the creator and the messiah, even though Hebrews 1.2 & John 1.1-3 tell us explicitly that Jesus is in fact the creator! Mr. Charles admits that he is part of the Hebrew Roots movement——which is a Jewish religious movement that advocates adherence to the Torah and the Law of Moses——something that Paul criticized vehemently. More on that later. He writes: “I want to discuss why I prefer using the Hebrew name of our creator and the Hebrew name of our Messiah.” But the messiah **Is** the creator! Why distinguish between the creator and the messiah? Well, because that is a Hebrew, not a Christian, position.

A Critical Review of the Truthunedited Video: “This is How a Believer Should Live in These Last Days”

While viewing this channel, I saw some other heretical videos as well but I would like to limit the discussion to one particular video which I listened to from start to finish, namely, a recent YouTube video entitled “This is How a Believer Should Live in These Last Days.”

The content of this video is quite shocking! As a case in point, what does the host mean by saying that he praises “Yah”? Is he a Hebrew convert? Because in the New Testament the name Yah is never mentioned, not even once! According to the New Testament, we must ONLY praise **Jesus**:

Salvation is found in no one else, for there is

no other name under heaven given to

mankind by which we must be saved.

——- Acts 4.12 NIV

Yet, in this entire video, Mr. Charles mentions the actual name of the God-incarnate-messiah “Jesus” only once, and that in passing, as a pejorative translation. And yet, the original Greek name of the Messiah is Iésous, the correct English translation of which is Jesus.

Moreover, Mr. Ron Charles keeps talking about his personal relationship with the Father. He never once mentions his personal relationship with the Son. As a matter of fact, when he refers to God’s Son, who’s coequal with the Father, he simply calls him by the vague term “messiah.” Mr. Charles claims to come from the Hebrew Roots Movement. But, as far as the Jews are concerned, the messiah is NOT Jesus. For example, a majority of the Jewish Chabad community believe that Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the deceased seventh Rebbe of the Chabad-Lubavitch dynasty, is the Jewish messiah. Is that who he’s referring to? Different religions have different messiahs. For instance, in Islam there is Imam Husayn and the Twelfth Imám (Shí’ih), and the Promised Qá’im in the Bábí Faith. There is also the Buddha Maitreya-Amitabha, the Shah Bahrám (Zoroastrianism), and the Avatar Kalki (Hinduism). These are different messiahs that are associated with different belief systems. To the Rastafari religion, it is Haile Selassie I from Ethiopia. So, which of these messiahs is he referring to? And if he’s a Christian, why doesn’t he mention the name of Jesus Christ, which is the name above all other names?

He discusses the cultural deception that is going on and “the marketing of Satan,” but his misleading approach to Jesus Christ and the New Testament is equally dangerous and deceptive because it not only mixes Christianity with Judaism, but it also destroys the New Testament from within by radically changing its terminology, it’s theology, and even the name of it’s God. If we don’t even know who we are praying to, why bother to pray at all? I don’t know enough about his soteriological views because I haven’t listened to any of his other videos, except one. I don’t know what salvation means to him. But given that he is part of the Hebrew Roots Movement, I suspect he thinks that we have to follow the laws of Moses, observe the sabbaths, etc. But Paul urges us to do the exact opposite (cf. Acts 16.31):

all are justified freely by his [God’s] grace

through the redemption that came by Christ

Jesus. ——- Rom 3.24

Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the

truth and the life. No one comes to the

Father except through me.’ ——- John 14.6

In the New Testament, is the Messiah’s Name Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic? Is it Ἰησοῦς or Yeshua?

In the video that we’re discussing, the host keeps repeating the name Yahusha. But who is Yahusha, anyway? Can he show us where that name is mentioned in the Greek New Testament as Jesus’ name? Answer: nowhere! The host mentions the name of Jesus only once, in passing, by erroneously stating that his name is “Yahusha, who in English is translated to Jesus.” In order to confirm this translation, please give us chapter and verse in the New Testament where Yahusha is written as the name of Jesus. This so-called “evidence” doesn’t exist. The New Testament only mentions the name Ἰησοῦς, which in English is translated as Jesus, not Yahusha (see the original Greek New Testament: Matthew 1.16; 3.13, 15-16; 4.1, 7, 10, 17; 7.28; 8.4, 10, 13, 14, 18, 20, 22; 9.2, 4, etc.). And I’m only partially citing the gospel of Matthew. There are many more references. Besides, there are three more gospels, the book of Acts, the epistles, and the Book of Revelation. The name Iesous (Jesus) is mentioned nearly 1,000 times in the New Testament. The Greek text never once refers to Jesus as Yahusha or Yeshua!

If Jesus’ name was in fact the Hebrew Yeshua, why didn’t the New Testament transliterate it as Yeshua? By contrast, the name “Ἰησοῦς” is not annotated as a transliteration, even though Hebraic transliterations are typically explained in the New Testament one way or another. For example:

1) In Mark 11.9, hosanna (ὡσαννὰ) is

explained.

2) ελωι ελωι λεμα σαβαχθανι is explained in

Mark 15.34; Matthew 27.46.

3) Talitha cum is explained in Mark 5.41.

4) In John 20.16, "Rabbouni” is explained.

5) In Romans 8.15, Abba is explained.

6) In Matthew 1.23, the name “Immanuel” is

explained.

The Aramaisms that exist in the Greek New Testament are typically explained or defined. For example, in Matthew 27.46, we read:

Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani? (which means

‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken

me?’).

By contrast, the name ΙΗΣΟΥΣ (Jesus) is *never* *ever* explained as an *aramaism,* nor defined as an Aramaic or Hebrew name. If what Mr. Charles says is true, why doesn’t the New Testament indicate that the name “Jesus” is the transliteration of Yeshua? You would think that a name as important as Jesus would necessitate such an explanation. The fact that there isn’t any indicates that the Greek name Iēsous is not a transliteration from the Late Biblical Hebrew Yēšūaʿ (Yeshūa):

The English name Jesus derives from the

Late Latin name Iesus, which transliterates

the Koine Greek name Ἰησοῦς Iēsoûs.

——- Wiki

By contrast:

The name יֵשׁוּעַ, Yeshua ([is] transliterated in

the English Old Testament as Jeshua).

——- Wiki

Conflating the Hebrew name of Joshua with Jesus Christ is confusing for various reasons:

In Nehemiah 8:17 this name refers to

Joshua son of Nun, the successor of Moses,

as leader of the Israelites. ——- Wiki

According to the Book of Numbers verse

13:16, the name of Joshua, the son of Nun

was originally Hosheaʿ (הוֹשֵעַ), and the

name Yehoshuaʿ (יְהוֹשֻׁעַ) is usually spelled

the same but with a yod added at the

beginning. ——- Wiki

So what do we call the messiah of the New Testament? Joshua son of Nun, Hoshea, Yəhōšūaʿ, Yeshua, or whatever other Hebrew name we could think of?

New Testament Misquotes and Hebrew Interpolations

Mr. Ron Charles, the host of this video, misquotes Paul as supposedly saying that “this is the Will of Elohim & Yahusha for you.” But Paul does not mention either Elohim or Yahusha in his letters. Why is he putting words in Paul’s mouth that Paul never said? This is misleading because he’s colouring the Greek New Testament with foreign elements from the Hebrew Roots movement. If he’s going to refer to the New Testament, it’s appropriate that he uses the original Greek words of the text. Hebrew is appropriate only for the Old Testament.

He further misquotes Ephesians 5.17. The text reads “Lord,” not master. Ephesians 5.17 uses the Greek term “kurios” to mean “Lord.” We are not talking about kung-fu, platonic philosophy, or Buddhism where there’s a master-disciple relationship. We’re talking about reverence to almighty God. The only appropriate translations are “Lord” or “God.” None of the credible Bible translations quote kurios as master. I’m not sure which Bible version he’s using. He also misquotes Romans 12.11, 19, and Philippians 3.1. The word is Κυρίῳ (Lord), not Yahuah! Furthermore, in Philippians 3.14, the words are God (θεοῦ, not Elohim), and Christ Jesus (Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, not Messiah Yahuah). In Philippians 3.20, the words are Lord Jesus Christ (κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν), not “master Yahusha the messiah.” This is a way of belittling the name of Jesus by not mentioning his name *properly* or *reverently* and not referring to him in a manner worthy of the name that is above all names. That name is actually Ἰησοῦs (i.e. Jesus) in the Greek New Testament. It is not a Hebrew name derived from the Old Testament or from Pharisaical Judaism.

Mr. Charles then misquotes James 1.27 and mentions a “Pure and undefiled religion before Elohim and the father.” And if the Father is not Elohim, then who is Elohim? In the New Testament, neither Jesus nor the Father is ever called Elohim. Mr. Ron Charles doesn’t seem to be familiar with textual criticism, the Greek New Testament, or with Christian theology.

He then misquotes 2 Corinthians 5.20 by using the vague term “messiah”——a term that means different things to different people——and also by mentioning Elohim who, once again, is never mentioned in the New Testament. Here is the phrase in the original Greek (2 Corinthians 5.20 SBLGNT):

ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ οὖν πρεσβεύομεν ὡς τοῦ

θεοῦ παρακαλοῦντος δι’ ἡμῶν · δεόμεθα

ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, καταλλάγητε τῷ θεῷ.

As you can see, the Greek words that Paul uses are Christ (Χριστοῦ) and God (θεῷ), not messiah or Elohim. That’s why Jesus is known as Jesus Christ, whom he never mentions, except once as a pejorative or pagan translation. Yet he claims that “we are representatives of the gospel.” But if he identifies with the New Testament, why is his theology derived from the Old Testament? I also noticed that his relationship is not with the Son, but rather with the Father, because he keeps saying that he had some issues that the father had to help him work through.

What is more, he keeps praising this unknown and obscure messiah without once revealing what his true name is: the name that is above all other names, mind you. This New Testament name stands far above the other Old Testament names (such as Elohim and Yahweh) because we are not supposed to call on these names for salvation. So, which name do we call upon for salvation? We are to call on the name of Jesus (Acts 4.12)!

Hebrew Roots Beliefs

In case you’re not familiar with the Hebrew Roots Movement, here are some of their beliefs:

Hebrew Roots followers believe that sin is

breaking the Torah (cf. 1 John 3:4), all of the

purity laws such as dietary restrictions and

sabbath keeping are in the Torah, thus it is

sinful to not keep the sabbath and to eat

forbidden animals, among other social and

religious observance laws. ——- Wiki

Unlike the New Testament that does away with the works of the law (legalism) in favor of grace, the Hebrew Roots followers believe in observing the Law of Moses and the Torah:

Old Testament/Torah Laws and the

teachings of the New Testament are to be

obeyed by both Jews and Gentiles in the

community of believers. (See Numbers

15:15–16 for the explanation). ——- Wiki

But these “Hebrew Roots” beliefs are the exact opposite of what the Greek New Testament teaches. In fact, this is precisely the charge that Paul brought against Judaizers in Galatians. Paul says in Galatians 2.16:

know that a person is not justified by the

works of the law, but by faith in Jesus

Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in

Christ Jesus that we may be justified by

faith in Christ and not by the works of the

law, because by the works of the law no one

will be justified.

In Galatians 2.21, Paul says:

I do not set aside the grace of God, for if

righteousness could be gained through the

law, Christ died for nothing!

In Galatians 3.11, Paul repeats the justification of faith teaching through grace:

Clearly no one who relies on the law is

justified before God, because ‘the righteous

will live by faith.’

It’s also found in many other places, including Romans 3.20:

Therefore no one will be declared righteous

in God’s sight by the works of the law.

It doesn’t get any clearer than that. We are not to observe the law. We are saved by faith in Jesus Christ alone! In fact, the entire New Testament can be summed up as the revelation of the person and work of Jesus Christ (Ιησούς Χριστός).

Alas, even as he ends his video, Mr. Ron Charles keeps talking about Elohim, while repeating the ambiguous and enigmatic term “messiah” over and over again. He also keeps mentioning “Yah” nonstop. But who is “Yah” in the New Testament? He is never mentioned. In fact, Mr. Charles ends the video by saying “praise yah.” Really? Not Jesus? And he is supposedly a Christian who identifies with the Gospel of the New Testament? I don’t think so. This is clearly a heretical Jewish theology that radically deviates from, and corrupts the truths of, Christianity!

See my essay:

“Yahweh is Never Once Mentioned in the New Testament”

https://www.instagram.com/p/BjOF_wqhKdv/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

——-

Speaking in Tongues

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

Speaking in tongues (aka glossolalia) is in fact a biblical spiritual gift. But it refers to speaking a known human language. It is mentioned in several places, including Acts 2.1-11, 1 Corinthians 13, and 14. It is said to be a gift from God. But not every believer receives this gift. Therefore, speaking in tongues is not a necessary manifestation of salvation. Paul says that there are various gifts distributed by one and the same spirit. In 1 Corinthians 12.8-11, Paul says:

To one is given through the Spirit the

utterance of wisdom, and to another the

utterance of knowledge according to the

same Spirit, to another faith by the same

Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one

Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to

another prophecy, to another the

discernment of spirits, to another various

kinds of tongues, to another the

interpretation of tongues. All these are

activated by one and the same Spirit, who

allots to each one individually just as the

Spirit chooses.

However, since everything in the spiritual life can be mimicked, so can this gift. In the spiritual life, there are authentic gifts of grace, but there are also false imitations. Some thinkers maintain that the *division* between authentic and inauthentic epistemic concepts doesn’t really exist. The assumption is that people create a false dichotomy out of whole cloth, which is labeled as the “No true Scotsman” fallacy. In other words, the appeal to purity or truth constitutes an informal fallacy in which one attempts to defend their generalization from a falsifying exception by precluding the said exception inappropriately. But very often the so-called “no true Scotsman fallacy” is not a fallacy at all. That’s because it wrongly presupposes that rhetorical concepts such as “true,” “real,” “authentic,” “genuine,” and “pure” are nonsubstantive platitudes that don’t exist. However, this form of Relativism is completely bogus and misinformed!

Although the “no true Scotsman fallacy” can be applied in some measure to expose fallacious argumentation, to indiscriminately repudiate truth-functional propositional logic is utterly erroneous. That’s because such a duality between the pure and the impure——between the true and the false, between the genuine and the bogus——does in fact exist in real life! This is *not* fallacious reasoning. For example, there are very expensive handbags that sell for millions of dollars. The Mouawad 1001 Nights Diamond Purse is selling at $3.8 million. The Hermes Kelly Rose Gold handbag is selling at $2 Million; the Chanel “Diamond Forever” Handbag at $261,000, and so on. But there are obvious copies and imitations, what we informally call “knockoff” merchandise. There are handbags made to look like these expensive ones that are of poor quality and that try to trick the buyer into thinking that they are authentic. Scammers with fraudulent merchandise abound in these types of businesses. These types of scams are happening everywhere at an alarming rate, whether we’re talking about the diamond industry, the home appliance industry, the technology industry, or the Clothing industry. So you can see that a real dichotomy between authentic and false versions does exist!

This carries over into the spiritual life as well. For instance, we have authentic versus inauthentic “salvation.” There are those who are radically changed and transformed by the spirit during a very painful experience called “the dark night of the soul,” and then there are those who go to a crusade and, without experiencing any suffering whatsoever, simply make a one-minute “pledge of allegiance” to Christ and mistake that for “rebirth” and “regeneration.” In the same way, there are those who receive the gift of tongues, but there are also those who exhibit false charismatic gifts without having received these gifts from God. You can find many of these false teachers in the pentecostal and charismatic movements, people like Benny Hinn, Peter Popoff, and Kenneth Copeland!

There are many YouTubers that have exposed these false spiritual imitations. However, they don’t usually do a good job of explaining the essential differences between the true and the false versions, and so they give off the wrong impression that almost all of them are fake. Some of these critics are “cessationists” who believe that the gifts of the spirit ceased during the apostolic age. But for those of us who have experienced the gifts of the spirit in a powerful way (i.e. “continuationists”), we know that this approach is dead wrong because it limits God in terms of what he can and cannot do. God is much bigger than that. God is neither dead nor inactive!

There’s also a further hermeneutical consideration, namely, how to interpret the biblical text when it refers to people speaking with new tongues. Is it always meant to be taken literally, or can speaking with new tongues be taken metaphorically? In some cases, it may not be a literal interpretation at all. Why? Well, take the concept of rebirth, for example. Rebirth means a new you: a new way of seeing, a new way of talking, a new way of being. A reborn person has a new language, new thoughts, new words. He doesn’t speak the way he used to. He speaks in a new language. Thus, speaking with new tongues can, in some rare instances, be taken metaphorically or symbolically. In Mark 16.17, Jesus says:

And these signs will accompany those who

believe: In my name they will drive out

demons; they will speak in new tongues.

In the final analysis, although speaking with new tongues is mentioned several times in the Bible as a gift of the Holy Spirit, we should, nevertheless, be cautious about people who advertise that they speak in new tongues, especially sensational Bible teachers who often preach on tithing and donations. Most of these claims are false, especially those made by people like pastor Bill Johnson——who heads up Bethel School of Supernatural Ministry——who will supposedly “equip you to walk in the gifts of the Spirit.” Nonetheless, there are authentic gifts of tongues that do in fact exist!

——-

Can People Be Saved After the Resurrection & the Rapture?

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

The pretribulational view teaches that there will be many who will be saved during the great tribulation, AFTER the Resurrection & the Rapture take place (cf. 1 Thess. 4.16-17). Is this possible, or does it contradict scripture? Just like the parable of the 10 virgins suggests, when the doors of salvation are finally slammed shut, no one else could be saved. It’s all over. No one can go in or out. The rapture is that end point. Once the church leaves, it’s game over! And even if the tribulation saints could be saved, where would they go? How would they be *rescued* by God, given that the rapture was that final ticket out of here?

Let’s not forget that there are certain contemporaneous events that have to occur during the resurrection and the rapture, just prior to the departure of the church. For instance, scripture affirms that Christ will radically transform God’s elect so that they will resemble his glorious appearance (Phil. 3.21). What is more, 1 Cor. 15.52-53 reveals that the elect will attain a glorious immortality, during the resurrection/rapture process, so that they will never ever die again! That’s when Christ will finally grant God’s elect his “exceeding great and precious promises” so that they can become “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1.4). But these divinely transformative events can only occur *once for all* during the resurrection & the rapture. So the question arises, if these momentous events take place once for all, and the elect eventually partake of the divine nature and are raptured out of here, how then can these glorious transformations reoccur over and over again in the absence of Christ, the Spirit, and the Church?

This demonstrates the fallacy of pretribulationism because it falsely maintains that people will continue to be saved even after the resurrection and the rapture. Really? And even if they could be saved, where would they go? The church has already left. How would they be rescued after the church has permanently left? Once again, it shows that pretribulationism is based on fallacious reasoning!

And how could the tribulation saints escape God’s wrath? If they die, how would they be resurrected again, given that the one and only resurrection of the dead already happened? Remember that there’s only one general resurrection of the dead in which both the saved and the damned will be raised together (Daniel 12.2). So, if the rapture already took place and the tribulation saints can no longer be resurrected, how could they escape God’s judgments? How would God rescue them? They would simply be forced to stay here on earth in the midst of unbridled terror? Would God allow his precious elect to remain here on earth during the zombie apocalypse, while his wrath was being poured out in judgment, and while all the rest of the elect were enjoying heavenly bliss?

So, if the tribulation saints could neither be resurrected nor raptured, what would be God’s rescue plan for them? In other words, *after* the resurrection & the rapture had taken place, what could the tribulation saints do here on earth? Would their task be to ride out the storm of God’s wrath during the day of the Lord? It’s reminiscent of Jean-Paul Sartre’s play, “No Exit.” It demonstrates the faulty reasoning and unscriptural position of the pretrib rapture view!

Conclusion

Mt. 24.29-31 says that the “gathering” of the Son of Man’s elect (i.e. ‘the rapture’) occurs AFTER the Great Tribulation (Gk. *μετὰ* τὴν θλῖψιν τῶν ἡμερῶν ἐκείνων). The clincher, the passage that settles the matter conclusively is Rev. 20.4-6. This passage tells us that those who were killed during the Great Tribulation took part in the first resurrection. However, given that the rapture is contemporaneous with the first resurrection (1 Thess. 4.16-17), and since those who took part in the first resurrection came out of the Great Tribulation, it means that the rapture must also take place *AFTER* the great tribulation. Hence, if this is the first resurrection that takes place AFTER the great tribulation, then there can’t possibly be an earlier one, as the pretrib doctrine assumes. Any way you look at it, the pretrib position doesn’t make any scriptural sense at all.

The reason people will continue to be saved during the great ordeal is because the *rapture* will take place at the *end* of the tribulation period, so that all God's elect will leave together as one church. Once the resurrection & the rapture take place (posttrib), it’s game over. No one else can be saved, or be resurrected, or go to heaven! Once again, these robust and cogent arguments prove that the pretrib position is completely bogus and misinformed.

——-

For further details, see my short essay:

Three Questions On the Rapture: Is it Pre-Trib or Post-Trib? Is it Secret or Not? And is it Imminent?

https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/628794727776632832/three-questions-on-the-rapture-is-it-pre-trib-or

Eli of Kittim

Three Questions On the Rapture: Is it Pre-Trib or Post-Trib? Is it Secret or Not? And is it Imminent?

By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim ——- Is the Rapture Visible or Invisible? The putative “secret rapture” and the “futurist eschatological vie

——-

🚫 Millennialism Debunked

By Eli Kittim

The Contradictions of Millennialism

Millennialism is a belief that there will be a paradise here on earth before the final judgment. There are, of course, various scriptural discrepancies within this view, as I have often pointed out in my other papers. For example, how will people live here on earth if the earth itself will be destroyed in a great conflagration? 2 Pet. 3.10 reads:

“the heavens will pass away with a loud

noise, and the elements will be dissolved

with fire.”

Besides, there are other contradictions. For instance, how could the same people who would not be resurrected “until the thousand years were completed” (Rev. 20.5) simultaneously live and reign with Christ for a millennium? (Rev. 20.4). They cannot be both dead and alive at the same time! There are other contradictions as well. For example, Millennialism directly contradicts scripture by implying that there will be at least 2 additional comings of Christ, 2 appearances by Satan, 2 Great Wars, 2 Great tribulations, 2 resurrections, 2 apocalypses, 2 Armageddons, 2 judgments, 2 Great Ends, and so on. This is preposterous. In Scripture, there is only one of each. Scripture mentions only one resurrection (Dan. 12.2) and only one Armageddon (Rev. 16.16)! Where else does it mention a second resurrection or a second Armageddon? Besides, 1 Thess. 4.17 says that after the rapture “we will be with the Lord forever,” not just for 1,000 years. And the Book of Daniel is clear that both the Saved and the Damned will be resurrected simultaneously, not successively (12.2). Therefore, this DOUBLING of scriptural events is unwarranted and without merit! It is worth mentioning that the doctrine of millennialism was formally condemned at the Second Ecumenical Council in 381 AD.

Millennialism Repeats Events a Second Time; But Revelation is Recording Single Events

The same event that is mentioned in Ezekiel 38 is repeated in Revelation 20. The endtime Gog/Magog war that Satan is said to unleash at the end of the millennium (Rev. 20.8) is the exact same Gog/Magog war that is mentioned in Ezekiel 38, which is also alluded to in Luke 21.20! The Book of Revelation isn’t saying that the exact same Gog/Magog war of Ezekiel will repeat 1,000 years later. That’s ridiculous. It’s actually talking about one and the same Gog-Magog war; not 2. In fact, the phrase that is used to indicate that Satan will be released “for a little while” (Rev 20.3) is actually a reference to the Great Tribulation, which only lasts for “a little while,” namely, only 3 and a half years, or 42 months, or 1,260 days, or a time, and times, and half a time (cf. Rev. 11.2; 12.6, 14; 13.5)!

Moreover, the narrative in Rev 19 & 20 is basically telling the reader what will happen when God no longer restrains Satan (see 2 Thess 2.7)——that is, when the restrainer is removed——and the Antichrist is finally revealed at the end of a thousand years. That’s when Satan will be unleashed, once and for all, to wreak havoc “for a little while” (i.e. for 3 and a half years, during the Great Tribulation)!

Why would the Book of Revelation REPEAT the exact same story TWICE, like the film “Edge Of Tomorrow”? Why would Satan (Incarnated; Rev. 12.9) come out TWICE “to deceive the nations at the four corners of the earth [from the exact same location, Gog & Magog (Ezekiel 38)] in order to gather them for the [exact same] battle” (Rev. 20.7-9)? And why is it that “fire came down from heaven and consumed them” (Rev 20.9) exactly as it did in Ezekiel 38.22? And why is it that they “surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city” exactly as they did in Luke 21.20? Are you kidding me? What is this, a repeat of “Groundhog Day”?

There’s an Interpretive Mixup: Millennialists Conflate Scenes that Occur Before 1,000 Years with Scenes that Occur After 1,000 Years

If Jesus appears BEFORE the millennium on a white horse, and the beast and his armies are killed, and the beast is then captured and “thrown alive into the lake of fire” (Rev 19.19-21), then how does Satan manage to escape “the lake of fire” and mount a comeback? Notice that following Christ’s FIRST encounter with the Beast, BEFORE the millennium (Rev. ch. 20), the Beast was captured & immediately “thrown alive into the lake of fire” (Rev. ch. 19)! But the lake of fire is the second death! It’s game over! No one survives the lake of fire and comes back to to tell stories about it. That’s another red flag. It would be a scriptural contradiction to state that AFTER being “thrown into the lake of fire,” the Antichrist escaped and mounted a comeback. That would constitute a scriptural contradiction. Notice the description of the “lake of fire” in Rev. 20.14:

“Then Death and Hades were thrown into the

lake of fire. This is the second death, the

lake of fire.”

This event is final! It is the final separation of life and death. So, it’s completely bogus to say that Satan survived the lake of fire in chapter 19 & came back physically to fulfill chapter 20. It’s complete nonsense! Moreover, Satan’s activities in Rev. 20 suggest that he’s incarnate, otherwise how does a nonphysical being fight a war on earth? Besides, Rev. 12.9 tells us that Satan will be incarnated on earth! So, the Millennialists are mixing apples with oranges. They’re conflating scenes that happen BEFORE the 1,000 years (Rev. 19) with scenes that take place AFTER the 1,000 years (Rev. 20)! And if the description in Rev 20.10—-concerning what happens to Satan AFTER the supposed 1,000 years——turns out to be the exact same version of Rev 19.20—-about what happens to Satan BEFORE the 1,000 years——then we obviously have one story, not two!

Conclusion

The Bible never mentions the alleged “thousand-year reign of Christ on earth.” Only 2 verses mention those who “reigned with Christ a thousand years.” These are temporal signs that reveal the timing of Christ’s coming and of the apocalyptic events! In other words, when the thousand years are completed, Satan will be loosed for a little while (a reference to the 3 and a half year Great Tribulation). Then, the resurrection will occur, followed by the rapture, and the believers will henceforth reign with Christ forever!

Was the Word “God” or “a god” in John 1.1?

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

John 1.1 (SBLGNT):

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς

τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

John 1.1, which is a throwback to Genesis 1.1, aims to define the primordial relationship of “the Word” (i.e. Christ) to God. But certain skeptics have challenged the idea that the fullness of the godhead was in Christ (Col. 2.9), who is said to be “the Word” (i.e. ὁ λόγος). Specifically, Jehovah's Witnesses have raised the argument of “a god” in John 1.1, implying that Christ is a lesser and inferior god that was created. Let’s explore that assertion. John 1.1 is traditionally broken up into three phrases that are separated by commas:

1st phrase: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος,

2nd phrase: καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς

τὸν θεόν,

3rd phrase: καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

First, to suppose that John is talking about many gods, or more than one god, is a theological speculation and a grammatical imposition that is going beyond what is written in the text or what we know about the theology of the Gospel of John.

Second, John *did* mention the definite article τόν in the second phrase, and so he is not obligated to repeat it in the third phrase, as that would be redundant and tautological.

Third, another reason why the third phrase of John 1.1 doesn’t require the definite article (before the term θεός) is because it was already *used* in the second phrase, and therefore it necessarily *carries over.* For example, if I were to write, “I have a pretty good temper, and a very amiable disposition,” I would not be required to repeat the first part of the phrase. In other words, I wouldn’t be required grammatically to write “I have a pretty good temper, and [I have] a very amiable disposition.” The “I have” is *carried over* and doesn’t need to be repeated. It would be considered redundant. Similarly, in addressing τόν Θεόν with a definite article in the second phrase, John doesn’t have to repeat τόν Θεόν in the third phrase, since it is *carried over.* Here’s another example. I could write “God is one being, not two beings.” But that’s redundant. Now, if I were to rewrite the same sentence correctly and say “God is one being, not two,” would anyone argue that the term “two” may not necessarily refer to the concept of being because the word “being” is not mentioned? That’s the same kind of argument that skeptics are raising here in John 1.1.

Since John has already established (as a monotheist) that he’s talking about one (and-only-one) particular God (namely, τόν Θεόν) in the second phrase, then this syntactical construction must necessarily *carry over* into the third phrase. In other words, the term Θεός in the third phrase grammatically refers back to “the God” (τόν Θεόν) mentioned in the second phrase. Therefore, when John writes——… τὸν θεόν (second phrase), καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (third phrase)——the “God” of the third phrase is a direct reference to “the God” of the second phrase. It’s obviously the same “God” in both phrases, not a different one. And given that God is one being, not two, which other god could John be possibly referring to?

In Greek, the third phrase in John 1.1 is actually read in two different ways, not only as “the Word was God,” but also as “God was the Word.” In the third phrase, there’s no ontological distinction between God and the Word——after all, they share one being: “I and the Father are one” (Jn 10.30)——because John already made the distinction (of persons) in the second phrase.

Thus, the “a god” argument of the Jehovah’s Witnesses——which is raised in “The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT)——is totally bogus and unwarranted both grammatically and theologically!

The Use of ἄλλος and έτερος in the New Testament

By Author & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

The Greek terms ἄλλος (allos) and ἕτερος (heteros) primarily mean “other,” or “another.” The standard koine Greek teaching that the definitions of the words ἄλλος and ἕτερος are qualitatively different has been taught throughout the world in many seminaries, universities, and Bible institutes. The difference between the two words is often explained as follows: állos means “another of the same kind,” whereas héteros means another “of a different kind.” Therefore, entrenched in Biblical scholarship is the notion that ἄλλος and ἕτερος are qualitatively *different* terms.

However, according to a published article by Dr. James Keith Elliott——Emeritus Professor of New Testament Textual Criticism at the University of Leeds——the terms ἄλλος and ἕτερος are essentially interchangeable and synonymous. Dr. Elliott writes:

Ετερος in Classical Greek is used of

division into two parts: in New Testament

Greek the sense of the dual has largely

disappeared and έτερος is often confused

with άλλος. Attempts by commentators and

grammars to differentiate the two words

are often strained. In the New Testament

the words are interchangeable and

synonymous as can be seen most clearly at

I Cor 12 10 … and Hbr 11 35-36.

(James Keith Elliott, “The Use of έτερος in

the New Testament,” Zeitschrift für die

neutestamentliche Wissenschaft [Vol. 60,

Issue 1-2, 1969]).

What Dr. Elliott is saying is that the aforesaid distinction in Classical Greek largely disappeared in New Testament times. He insists that the “attempts by commentators and grammars to differentiate the two words are often strained.” He asserts that the two “words are interchangeable and synonymous.” Let’s take a look at one example which, he claims, proves this point. It is a passage where Paul enumerates the various charismatic gifts that the Holy Spirit gives to believers for the purpose of building up the “church.” 1 Cor. 12.10-11 (SBLGNT) reads:

ἄλλῳ ἐνεργήματα δυνάμεων, ἄλλῳ

προφητεία, ἄλλῳ διακρίσεις πνευμάτων,

ἑτέρῳ γένη γλωσσῶν, ἄλλῳ ἑρμηνεία

γλωσσῶν · πάντα δὲ ταῦτα ἐνεργεῖ τὸ ἓν

καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα, διαιροῦν ἰδίᾳ ἑκάστῳ

καθὼς βούλεται.

Translation (NRSV):

to another the working of miracles, to

another prophecy, to another the

discernment of spirits, to another various

kinds of tongues, to another the

interpretation of tongues. All these are

activated by one and the same Spirit, who

allots to each one individually just as the

Spirit chooses.

Notice that “all these [gifts] are activated by one and the same Spirit.” So we are not talking about qualitative differences “of a different kind.” Observe also that the two words ἄλλῳ and ἑτέρῳ are used as interchangeable and synonymous terms! The aforementioned distinction between ἄλλος “of the same kind” versus έτερος “of a different kind” doesn’t apply in this particular context. Let’s now look at the second example, which Dr. James Keith Elliott provides, namely, Heb. 11.35-36:

ἔλαβον γυναῖκες ἐξ ἀναστάσεως τοὺς

νεκροὺς αὐτῶν · ἄλλοι δὲ ἐτυμπανίσθησαν,

οὐ προσδεξάμενοι τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν, ἵνα

κρείττονος ἀναστάσεως τύχωσιν · ἕτεροι δὲ

ἐμπαιγμῶν καὶ μαστίγων πεῖραν ἔλαβον, ἔτι

δὲ δεσμῶν καὶ φυλακῆς ·

Translation:

Women received their dead by resurrection.

Others were tortured, refusing to accept

release, in order to obtain a better

resurrection. Others suffered mocking and

flogging, and even chains and

imprisonment.

In this pericope, the author of Hebrews is praising the giants of faith who were all unquestionably “of one kind,” and “not of another.” But notice that in discussing the faith of the Patriarchs——who were afflicted, persecuted, and tortured——the words ἄλλοι and ἕτεροι are used interchangeably. The people thus described are not qualitatively different. On the contrary, they are of the same kind: the heroes of faith! Once again, the assumed qualitative distinction between ἄλλοι and ἕτεροι does not exist.

In many instances, Dr. James Keith Elliott says that “scribes simply replace έτερος by άλλος.” For example, at Mt 10.23 some manuscripts read έτέραν, “but most Greek witnesses read άλλην.“ Mt. 10.23 reads:

ὅταν δὲ διώκωσιν ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ πόλει ταύτῃ,

φεύγετε εἰς τὴν ἑτέραν · ἀμὴν γὰρ λέγω

ὑμῖν, οὐ μὴ τελέσητε τὰς πόλεις τοῦ

Ἰσραὴλ ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.

Translation:

When they persecute you in one town, flee

to the next; for truly I tell you, you will not

have gone through all the towns of Israel

before the Son of Man comes.

Dr. Elliott argues that “In both places έτέραν is used in a non Classical way and is likely therefore to be what the original author wrote.” Elliott points to similar variants that occur for the same reasons in Lk. 10.1 (άλλους); Acts 8.34 (άλλον); Lk. 14.20 (άλλος); Lk. 4.43 (έτερος); Lk. 11.26 (ἕτερα); Lk. 22.65 (ἕτερα); and Jn 9.9 (ἄλλοι). In other words, in New Testament times, άλλην and έτέραν are seen as interchangeable and synonymous terms. Elliott writes:

At Lc 16 18 some mss. read άλλην for

an original έτέραν where assimilation to Mt

19 9 and Mc 10 11 may have been

responsible for the variant. This parallel

shows how easily έτερος and άλλος were

interchangeable within the New Testament

period itself.

If that’s the case, then let’s look at Lk. 16.18, which uses the word ἑτέραν:

Πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ

γαμῶν ἑτέραν μοιχεύει, καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην

ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς γαμῶν μοιχεύει.

Translation:

Anyone who divorces his wife and marries

another commits adultery, and whoever

marries a woman divorced from her

husband commits adultery.

Now let’s compare Lk. 16.18 to a parallel passage, Mt 19.9, which uses the alternative term ἄλλην. Mt. 19.9 says thusly:

λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν

γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ

ἄλλην μοιχᾶται καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην

γαμήσας μοιχᾶται.

Translation:

And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife,

except for unchastity, and marries another

commits adultery.

Notice how ἑτέραν in Lk. 16.18 becomes ἄλλην in Mt. 19.9, which demonstrates that the two terms are indeed interchangeable. Let’s also follow Elliott’s advice and compare yet another parallel, namely, Mk. 10.11:

καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς · Ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν

γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται

ἐπ’ αὐτήν.

Translation:

He said to them, ‘Whoever divorces his wife

and marries another commits adultery

against her.’

Let’s now explore a different set of passages. Specifically, let’s look at Lk 8.6 and compare it to the parallel passage in Mk. 4.5. Lk 8.6 employs the term ἕτερον and reads as follows:

καὶ ἕτερον κατέπεσεν ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν, καὶ

φυὲν ἐξηράνθη διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν ἰκμάδα.

Translation:

Some fell on the rock; and as it grew up, it

withered for lack of moisture.

However, the parallel passage in Mk. 4.5 uses the word ἄλλο instead. It reads:

καὶ ἄλλο ⸃ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ τὸ πετρῶδες ὅπου

οὐκ εἶχεν γῆν πολλήν, καὶ εὐθὺς

ἐξανέτειλεν διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν βάθος γῆς ·

Translation:

Other seed fell on rocky ground, where it did

not have much soil, and it sprang up

quickly, since it had no depth of soil.

Elliott also adds Mt. 13.5 (ἄλλα) to the mix as a counterpoint:

ἄλλα δὲ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ τὰ πετρώδη ὅπου οὐκ

εἶχεν γῆν πολλήν, καὶ εὐθέως ἐξανέτειλεν

διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν βάθος γῆς.

Translation:

Other seeds fell on rocky ground, where

they did not have much soil, and they

sprang up quickly, since they had no depth

of soil.

Let’s now examine a completely different set of parallel passages and verbal agreements. According to Elliott, “at Mt. 16.14b έτεροι is read where the parallel passages in Mc 8 28 and Lc 9 19 read άλλοι.” So, let’s take a quick look at these final examples before we end our study. Mt. 16.14 uses both words (ἄλλοι and ἕτεροι) and says:

οἱ δὲ εἶπαν · Οἱ μὲν Ἰωάννην τὸν βαπτιστήν,

ἄλλοι δὲ Ἠλίαν, ἕτεροι δὲ Ἰερεμίαν ἢ ἕνα

τῶν προφητῶν.

Translation:

And they said, ‘Some say John the Baptist,

but others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah

or one of the prophets.’

Notice that the parallel passage in Mk. 8.28 uses ἄλλοι in the same place where Mt. 16.14 used ἕτεροι. Mk 8.28 reads as follows:

οἱ δὲ εἶπαν αὐτῷ λέγοντες ⸃ ὅτι Ἰωάννην

τὸν βαπτιστήν, καὶ ἄλλοι Ἠλίαν, ἄλλοι δὲ

ὅτι εἷς ⸃ τῶν προφητῶν.

Translation:

And they answered him, ‘John the Baptist;

and others, Elijah; and still others, one of

the prophets.’

Lk. 9.19 is yet another parallel passage which uses the variant ἄλλοι. Lk. 9.19 reads:

οἱ δὲ ἀποκριθέντες εἶπαν · Ἰωάννην τὸν

βαπτιστήν, ἄλλοι δὲ Ἠλίαν, ἄλλοι δὲ ὅτι

προφήτης τις τῶν ἀρχαίων ἀνέστη.

Translation:

They answered, ‘John the Baptist; but

others, Elijah; and still others, that one of

the ancient prophets has arisen.’

Conclusion

Based on the numerous parallel passages that we studied, it is quite obvious that the Classical Greek qualitative distinction between άλλος and έτερος had largely disappeared in New Testament times. As can be seen from the previous New Testament examples, and from Dr. James Keith Elliott’s study, the words άλλος (allos) and έτερος (heteros) are interchangeable and synonymous terms!

Answering Tuvia Pollack’s “Jesus, Yeshua or Yahshua?”

By Goodreads Author & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

Introduction

Tuvia Pollack writes for Kehila News, which seems to be a Messianic-Jewish apologetics blog. He has no formal biblical training, as far as I know. According to the Kehila news blog, “Tuvia Pollack is an unpublished writer of historical fiction novels depicting Judeo-Christian relations throughout history.”

According to his own words, Mr. Pollack is “an Israeli Messianic Jew” who believes “in the Jewish faith … and the Old and New Testament.” He wrote an essay (“Jesus, Yeshua or Yahshua?”) in which he’s basically trying to establish the notion that the Greek name for Jesus (Ἰησοῦs) in the New Testament comes from the Hebrew Yeshua or Yahshua, and he therefore concludes that it doesn’t really matter what we call the messiah. In other words, we can call him any of the 3 names that he mentions above. However, his whole thesis is flawed because he doesn’t understand the finer points of biblical scholarship and how details often go unnoticed. I will not go over his entire paper but rather explore a few key comments that he made therein.

Does it Matter What We Call the Object of Our Worship?

In reference to Jesus, Mr. Pollack writes:

Calling on his name is what mattered,

whether you would say Iesous as the

Greeks would, or Yeshua as the Jews would.

Not true. The New Testament is very specific with names, especially with the name that is above all other names. If any form of the name of Yeshua would do, then that means that any form of the name of God would do as well, right? Wrong! Acts 4:12 (NJB) declares:

of all the names in the world given to

men, this is the only one by which we can

be saved.

Notice that the NT doesn’t say “Salvation is found in no one else” except in Yahweh. Yahweh is never once mentioned in the NT. Not once! The name Elohim is never once mentioned in the NT either. Neither Yeshua nor Yehoshua are ever mentioned in the New Testament. Not even once! The only name that we are commanded to call on is Ἰησοῦς (translated into English as Jesus). We should not overlook this state of affairs. If the New Testament doesn’t even mention the name Yahweh, why would a Christian call on Yahweh instead of Jesus? Yet there are many so-called Christians who never mention the name of Jesus but keep praising Yahweh who is never mentioned by name in the Greek New Testament. Isn’t that bizarre, if not cultic? By that logic, why would a Christian call on Elohim or Yahshua in time of trouble? After all, we must know who we serve and who we worship. Throughout the New Testament, Christians are not instructed to call on Allah, Yahweh or Yahshua. They are repeatedly told to call on the “King of kings and Lord of lords” (Rev. 19.16). There is only one name associated with that title, namely, Christ Jesus (Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς)! After all, that’s the whole point of the New Testament’s revelation, namely, that Jesus is God and the great “I AM” (Rev. 1.8; 22.13). The NT trumps the OT. Therefore, we should not impose OT theology on the NT. Rather, we should get our final revelation of Iesous from the NT per se!

A Bad Theology Based On a Mistranslation

Pollack writes:

When the New Testament was written in

Greek, the name of the Messiah is said to

be Iesous ‘because he will save his people.’

That’s an unfaithful translation, which is based on a Hebrew theology that the name of Jesus is derived from Jewish sources. Mr. Pollack doesn’t understand Greek, so he’s relying on English translations to carry him through. Allow me to explain. Here is the critical Greek text (original text). Mt 1.21 (SBLGNT) says:

τέξεται δὲ υἱὸν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα

αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν, αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν

αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν.

My Translation:

She will then bear a son and you will call his

name Ἰησοῦν; he indeed will save his

people from their sins.

Keep in mind that this verse neither explains the name Ἰησοῦν as an Aramaic or Hebrew name, nor does it define it etymologically as a linguistic transliteration, translation, or pronunciation from the Hebrew language. This is precisely where *Hebrew Roots Theology* twists the Greek to make it say what it wants it to say. The English (Christian) translations typically try to connect the name with a cause, and so they’ll usually take the word γὰρ (which very often doesn't mean “for,” according to Bill Mounce) and they’ll try to assign to it a “reason” for the name. So, they usually end up translating it as “for,” in the sense of “because.” But even though it is commonly translated as such, the Greek grammatical construction sounds very awkward when you insert the conjunction “for” in between αὐτὸς and σώσει. It would literally read: “he for will save.” Just to give you an example, John 4.44 reads:

αὐτὸς γὰρ Ἰησοῦς ἐμαρτύρησεν ὅτι

προφήτης ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ πατρίδι τιμὴν οὐκ ἔχει.

Translation (NJB):

He himself had declared that a prophet is

not honoured in his own home town.

Notice that we have a similar clause: αὐτὸς γὰρ Ἰησοῦς. Where is the translation “for” in this verse? Nowhere! The conjunction γάρ is translated as “himself.” In many other cases, γάρ is translated as “indeed.” In fact that is the correct translation, here, in Mt 1.21 (My Translation):

She will then bear a son and you will call his

name Ἰησοῦν; he indeed will save his

people from their sins.

There is no explanatory factor here, just that Ἰησοῦς will indeed save his people. The term “indeed” acts as an assurance or a reaffirmation that this statement is in fact true.

Mr. Pollack doesn’t take into account the fact that Hebrew was a consonantal writing system with no vowels. That’s why we don’t really know what the tetragrámmaton יהוה (transliterated as YHWH) sounded like phonetically. Nor do we know what these other names sounded like. These are approximations at best, yet Mr. Pollack writes about these names as if they were written in stone and well known.

What Happens if the Greek New Testament is Suddenly Changed into the Hebrew New Testament?

Mr. Pollack then goes on to write that no matter what you call Jesus, it doesn’t really matter. Really? Could you call him Allah? Or Yahweh? Or Elohim? Or Lucifer? He mentions how some Christians abhor Judaizing, which I will get to in a minute. Judaizing is actually very dangerous. This is an attempt by the Hebrew Roots movement to revert Christians back to Judaism, to the laws of Moses, the Hebrew covenants, and the Sabbath, while pretending that Jews don’t really need Jesus to be saved because there are actually 2 groups of people within Christianity: the Jews and the church (Dual-covenant theology). Not only that, but they turn the Greek New Testament into a Jewish book, and they also manipulate the Greek words by changing them into Hebrew. This is a complete corruption of the Greek text, and of Christian theology. How many times have you heard the alpha and omega being declared as the aleph and the tav? Or Jesus being referred to as Yeshua Hamashiach? Others try to interpret the Greek NT passages by using the Hebrew language. Does that sound like a proper method of exegesis, or does it sound like a corruption of the inspired text? It’s like trying to understand Polish literature through the Chinese language. At any rate, returning to our vignette, Pollack objects to the Christian attack on Judaizers, and writes:

‘Saying Yeshua instead of Jesus is

Judaizing.’ Will you then please tell

me, what we Israeli Hebrew speakers are

supposed to say? How should we address

him in Hebrew? Do you expect us to adopt

the Greekified version instead of his original

name?

But the Greek version contains his original name, which is given to us in the Greek New Testament by God. Anything else is a perversion and a corruption of God’s word. Otherwise, we’re disrespecting the NT by implying that only the OT is inspired. When Mr. Pollack tries to usurp the original name that is inspired by God, and supplant it with a foreign one, he’s not only violating and corrupting God’s word, but he’s also imposing his own Jewish theology on the text, rather than respecting the principles of textual criticism.

By that logic, Christians should still call on Yahweh. But God is never mentioned as Yahweh in the NT. Jews may not care, but Christians do care and want to call God by his proper name. If we don’t know which God we believe in, and which God we serve, or whom we worship, then how can we even claim to be Christians who follow Christ? Calling and praising Yah is not Christianity. It’s Judaism.

Is the Ἰησοῦς of the Septuagint the Exact Same Name We Find in the New Testament?

Moreover, Mr. Pollack uses the logic that since the Book of Joshua in the Septuagint (LXX) translates the name Yeshua as Ἰησοῦς, then the matter is officially settled. It must come from Hebraic sources. Here’s the backstory. Joshua, son of Nun——who later succeeded Moses as the chief leader of the Israelite tribes——was originally called Hoshea (הוֹשֵׁעַ‎ Hōšēaʿ‍), and Moses changed his name to “Yehoshua,” which afterwards became shortened to “Yeshua.”

However, this is akin to a genetic fallacy. A genetic fallacy occurs when an argument is based on a word’s origin or history rather than its content. It asserts that a word's historical meaning is its only valid meaning and that its current meaning is invalid. But anyone who studies philology and linguistics knows that names and words change and evolve over time. For example, the word “nice,” derived from the Latin nescius, originally had a negative connotation and meant “unaware,” or “ignorant.” That is not what the word “nice” means today. There are many similar examples. In fact, many classical Greek words began to have different meanings or connotations in Koine within only a few hundred years. The point is, the meaning of words is not static. It changes over time, just as languages change and evolve. All languages undergo diachronic changes. Therefore, a name that was once ascribed to a Hebrew man named Hoshea, son of nun (based on a Hebrew meaning), may not have the same etymology as a diachronic name assigned to a different figure, centuries later, in a different language and based on a Greek meaning. From a philological standpoint, that’s the key difference between the LXX and the NT rendering of Iesous. Whatever the name may have meant in the 3rd century BC, it had a significantly different meaning centuries later as it was assigned to the Son of God. The name Iesous might have had the same referent in both the LXX and the NT but not necessarily the same sense (cf. Heb. 4:8). In fact, the argument of whether or not the NT Ἰησοῦς is a distinctly Greek name or a Hebraic transliteration (derived from the earlier LXX) is analogous to the argument of whether or not the OT Yahweh is a distinctly Hebraic name or the patron god of metallurgy (derived from the earlier Canaanite pantheon). It’s the exact same argument with the exact same conclusion. Although the name Yahweh is shared by both religions, Jews rightly believe that the earlier Canaanite Yahweh is not the same as the Yahweh of the Old Testament. In the same way, the earlier Ἰησοῦς of the LXX bears no resemblance to the Divine Ἰησοῦς of the New Testament!

Here’s a case in point. Cyril of Jerusalem was born at or near the city of Jerusalem and was steeped in the writings of the Christian scholars. He was a learned theologian who obviously understood both Greek & Hebrew. He knew the Septuagint extremely well because that was his Old Testament, given that the Latin Vulgate had not been written yet. Knowing Hebrew, he obviously knew that the Book of Joshua (Yeshua) was translated as Iesous. Yet, despite all that, Cyril nevertheless considered the name Iesous to be of Greek origin. The same thing occurred with another towering figure of Bible scholarship and one of the greatest theologians of early Christianity, Clement of Alexandria. He lived very early (150 – c. 215). He was a famous Christian theologian and Bible scholar who taught at the Catechetical School of Alexandria. Some of his pupils were Origen and Alexander of Jerusalem. He was obviously steeped in the LXX and yet he, too, attributed the name Ἰησοῦς to Greek sources. In fact, the Catholic Encyclopedia writes that many early church fathers considered the name Ἰησοῦς to be of Greek origin. For instance, both St. Cyril of Jerusalem (catechetical lectures 10.13) & Clement of Alexandria (Paedagogus, Book 3) considered the name Ἰησοῦς to be derived from Greek sources. Thus, it appears that the name Ἰησοῦς has different meanings in the Hebrew and Greek languages. Cyril of Jerusalem writes:

Jesus then means according to the Hebrew

‘Saviour‘, but in the Greek tongue ‘The

Healer.’

Cyril is most likely referring to the derivation of the name Ἰησοῦς from Ἰάσων (Iásōn), meaning "healer".

see 2392. iasis (“healing”)

https://biblehub.com/greek/2392.htm

We find the same idea in Revelation 9.11 in which *the same referent* (i.e. destroyer) of an angelic king has 2 different renderings in Hebrew (Abaddon) and Greek (Apollyon).

Evidence from Within the New Testament that Ἰησοῦs is a Greek Name

As serious students of the Bible, and especially of the NT, we should not accept a Hebrew alteration or a redefinition of what the New Testament says, as this would be equivalent to an eisegesis. Regardless of what the consensus might be, we should always demand an exegesis directly from within the Greek New Testament itself. Otherwise we’re changing not only what God said, but also how he said it!

Even in the introduction of the Greek name Ἰησοῦς, never once does the New Testament EXPLICITLY say, SUGGEST, or even REMOTELY hint that it is an Aramaic or Hebrew name. Nowhere, in any NT book, do you find a Hebraic definition or explanation for the name Ἰησοῦς. It doesn’t even work as a Hebraism. If it was a Hebraic transliteration, it would have been rendered as Ωσηέ (Hoshea הוֹשֵׁעַ‎ Hōšēaʿ). What is more, Hebraic transliterations are typically explained in the New Testament one way or another. For example:

1) In Mark 11.9, hosanna (ὡσαννὰ) is

explained.

2) In Mark 15.34; Matthew 27.46, «ελωι ελωι

λεμα σαβαχθανι» is explained.

3) In Mark 5.41, “Talitha cum” is explained.

4) In John 20.16, “Rabbouni” is explained.

5) In Romans 8.15, “Abba” is explained.

6) In Matthew 1.23, the name “Immanuel” is

explained.

The Aramaisms that exist in the Greek New Testament are typically explained or defined. By contrast, the name ΙΗΣΟΥΣ (Jesus) is *never* *ever* explained as an *aramaism,* nor defined as an Aramaic or Hebrew name.

You would think that a name as important as Jesus would **necessitate** such an explanation. The fact that there isn’t any indicates that the Greek name Iēsous is not a transliteration of Hōšēaʿ. At least not in NT times. Mt. 1.21 clearly says “you should call his name Jesus” (Ἰησοῦς). It doesn’t say that this is a pronunciation or a transliteration of the Hebrew name Hoshea or Yeshua.

The Hebrew Roots movement has attempted to turn Christianity into Judaism. Have you ever heard any pastor preaching about Ἰησοῦς? All you hear is “Yeshua Hamashiach” and Yahweh. Well, Yahweh is never once mentioned in the NT. Nor is Yashua. If God doesn’t mention them, why should we?

If people want to go back to the OT, that’s fine. But don’t call yourselves Christians and expect the third temple to be rebuilt, and the animal sacrifices to be reinstituted. Read Heb. 10.4:

Bulls' blood and goats' blood are incapable

of taking away sins.

It’s a complete rejection of Christ and his atonement. The Hebrew roots movement has also influenced Dispensationalism, to such an extent that the latter distinguishes between 2 classes of people in the Bible, namely, the Jews and the church. And they also assert that these 2 groups have supposedly two completely different programs of salvation. They believe that the Jews don’t need Jesus; they can be saved through their own covenants. And if some reasonable theologian rightly objects, he’s immediately attacked as an antisemite, or as one who resorts to replacement theology. However, the attempt to fuse Judaism with Christianity has been disastrous. In the final analysis, you either follow Christ or Moses, but not both!

🔎 What Does the Phrase καιροῖς ἰδίοις Mean in 1 Timothy 2.6? 🔍

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 📚🎓

There is a mysterious phrase in the Greek New Testament which seems to suggest that the evidence for Christ’s death has not yet been demonstrated. If one considers Christ’s historicity and death as a foregone conclusion, then this terse phrase certainly questions this assumption. Let’s go a little deeper and look at some of the details. The Greek text of First Timothy 2.5-6 (SBLGNT) declares:

εἷς γὰρ θεός, εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ

ἀνθρώπων ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, ὁ

δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων, τὸ

μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδίοις ·

The last clause literally means: the martyrdom/testimony [given] in its own times.

We must first understand what the Greek term μᾰρτῠ́ρῐον (martúrion) means. It actually has several meanings:

1. testimony, evidence, proof

2. martyrdom

3. shrine of a martyr

Since 1 Timothy 2.5-6 is explicitly referring to Christ’s death as a ransom (ἀντίλυτρον), it is therefore appropriate to regard the term μαρτύριον (martúrion) in this particular context both as a testimony and as a martyrdom. Let’s look at the translation of 1 Timothy 2.5-6 (KJV):

“For there is one God, and one mediator

between God and men, the man Christ

Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to

be testified in due time.”

There is something deeply perplexing about the last clause. If the testimony took place in Christ’s own time, then why will the evidence or proof be put forth “in due time”?

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the phrase “in due time” means “eventually at an appropriate time,” as in the sentence “I will answer all of your questions in due time.” Therefore, the KJV seems to suggest that the evidence establishing these facts will come at some future time period. The text is referring specifically to Christ’s death as “a ransom for all.” So, the KJV suggests that the evidence for Christ’s death will be demonstrated “in due time.” Bear in mind that this is the same English Bible translation which says elsewhere that Christ will die “ONCE IN THE END OF THE WORLD” (Hebrews 9.26b italics mine)! Let’s look at a cross-reference in 1 Timothy 6.14-15 (the same letter), which has the exact same phrase (καιροῖς ἰδίοις):

τηρῆσαί σε τὴν ἐντολὴν ἄσπιλον

ἀνεπίλημπτον μέχρι τῆς ἐπιφανείας τοῦ

κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἣν καιροῖς

ἰδίοις δείξει ὁ μακάριος καὶ μόνος

δυνάστης, ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων

καὶ κύριος τῶν κυριευόντων.

Translation (NASB):

“keep the commandment without fault or

reproach until the appearing of our Lord

Jesus Christ, which He will bring about at

the proper time—He who is the blessed and

only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord

of lords.”

First Tim. 6.15 has the exact same phrase that we find in 1 Tim. 2.6, namely, καιροῖς ἰδίοις, and in this particular context it is a reference to “the appearing of our Lord Jesus,” which elsewhere is called “the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1.7; 1 Pet. 1.7, 13; Rev. 1.1)! Here, the Greek phrase καιροῖς ἰδίοις means “at the proper time” or, more accurately, “in its own times” (YLT). And it refers to the future revelation of Jesus in his own time.

But if 1 Timothy was written at the end of the first century——and the evidence for Christ’s death had already, presumably, been demonstrated in the New Testament books——why would the author insist that the proof of Christ’s death comes “in its own times”? It doesn’t make any sense. If Jesus died ca. 30 AD, and the writer of 1 Timothy is writing at around 100 AD, 70 years later, then why would the testimony of Jesus’ death be given at the proper time, or in Christ’s own time? The author doesn’t say that the testimony was already given but rather suggests that it will be given in due time. In other words, why isn’t the testimony given right then and there? Or, why isn’t the testimony considered as something that was already given in the past about the occurrence of a previous event?

Readers often read 1 Timothy 2.6 and ignore the last clause, or they skip it as if it doesn’t really mean anything. But it does! In fact, it is the key to understanding the passage. First Timothy 2.5-6 (NASB) reads:

“For there is one God, and one mediator also

between God and mankind, the man Christ

Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for

all, the testimony given at the proper time.”

Notice how the last clause is translated in modern Bible versions. Most versions translate it correctly, without committing the clause to a past reference point, thereby suggesting that the evidence for Christ’s death is given in Christ’s own time (whenever that is…).

The New International Version gets it horribly wrong. The editors are clearly basing their translations on their theological bias. Nowhere does the Greek text say that the testimony “has now been witnessed.” Yet that’s what the NIV says at 1 Tim. 2.6:

“This has now been witnessed to at the

proper time.”

Unfortunately, that is unsubstantiated by the Greek text, which reads:

τὸ μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδίοις ·

However, most of the modern Bible translations actually get it right:

ESV - “which is the testimony given at the

proper time.”

KJV - “to be testified in due time.”

ASV - “the testimony to be borne in its own

times.”

DRB - “a testimony in due times.”

YLT - “the testimony in its own times.”

Conclusion

Hebrews 9.26b (KJV) says that Jesus will die “once in the end of the world.” First Peter 1.20 (NJB) says that Christ is “revealed at the final point of time.” Revelation 12.5 says that the Messiah is born in the end times. Acts 3.19-21 says that the Messiah cannot come “until the period of restoration of all things.” Galatians 4.4 says that Christ is born in “the fullness of the time,” which Eph. 1.9-10 defines as the consummation of the ages! Moreover, the auditory and visual impressions of the transfiguration narrative in 2 Peter 1.16-18 constitute an apocalyptic *prophecy,* which is revealed in verse 19:

“so we have the prophetic word made more

sure, to which you do well to pay attention

as to a lamp shining in a dark place.”

What is more, 1 Timothy 2.6 (written at ca. 100 AD) says that Christ’s death is meant “to be testified in due time.” The author is certainly NOT referring to 70 years prior to the time that he penned this letter (i.e. ca. 30 AD)! Therefore, it's perplexing why this mysterious phrase “to be testified in due time” is inserted in the text, and what is its temporal implication. That’s because it implies that the testimony of Christ’s death seems to be forthcoming rather than being already available!

[Vietnamese translation]

Đa-ni-ên 12.1 nói về sự sống lại từ cõi chết

Tác giả Eli Kittim

Đa-ni-ên 12,1 nằm trong bối cảnh của đại nạn trong thời kỳ cuối cùng! Nó được lặp lại trong Ma-thi-ơ 24,21 như là thời điểm của thử thách lớn: καιρός θλίψεως (xem Khải huyền 7,14).

Daniel Theodotion 12.1 LXX:

καὶ ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ ἀναστήσεται Μιχαηλ ὁ ἄρχων ὁ μέγας ὁ ἑστηκὼς ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ λαοῦ σου καὶ ἔσται καιρὸς θλίψεως θλῖψις οἵα οὐ γέγονεν ἀφ’ οὗ γεγένηται ἔθνος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἕως τοῦ καιροῦ ἐκείνου.

Theodotion Daniel 12.1 của Bản Septuagint dịch từ tiếng Do Thái עָמַד (amad) là αναστήσεται, có nguồn gốc từ từ gốc ανίστημι và có nghĩa là "sẽ chổi dậy.”

Đây là bản dịch:

Vào lúc đó Michael, hoàng tử vĩ đại, người bảo vệ dân tộc của bạn, sẽ xuất hiện. Sẽ có một thời điểm đau khổ, chẳng hạn như chưa bao giờ xảy ra kể từ khi các quốc gia lần đầu tiên xuất hiện.

Ý kiến ​​của tôi rằng từ Hy Lạp ἀναστήσεται (“sẽ chổi dậy”) đề cập đến sự sống lại từ cõi chết đã bị các nhà phê bình phản đối. Câu trả lời của tôi như sau.

Bằng chứng đầu tiên là thực tế rằng Michael lần đầu tiên được đề cập đến như là người “sẽ sống lại” (ἀναστήσεται; Daniel Theodotion 12.1 LXX) trước khi người chết sống lại (ἀναστήσονται; Daniel Hy Lạp cổ đại 12.2 LXX). Ở đây, có bằng chứng ngôn ngữ chắc chắn rằng từ ἀναστήσεται đang nói đến sự sống lại vì trong câu ngay sau đây (12.2), dạng số nhiều của cùng một từ (cụ thể là ἀναστήσονται) được sử dụng để mô tả sự sống lại nói chung của người chết! Nói cách khác, nếu cùng một từ có nghĩa là phục sinh trong Đa-ni-ên 12.2, thì nó cũng nhất thiết phải có nghĩa là phục sinh trong Đa-ni-ên 12.1!

Phần bằng chứng thứ hai đến từ phiên bản tiếng Hy Lạp cổ của Daniel của bản Septuagint sử dụng từ παρελεύσεται để định nghĩa từ tiếng Do Thái עָמַד (amad), được dịch là "sẽ chổi dậy.”

Sách Đa-ni-ên 12.1 bản LXX trong tiếng Hy Lạp cổ viết:

καὶ κατὰ τὴν ὥραν ἐκείνην παρελεύσεται Μιχαηλ ὁ ἄγγελος ὁ μέγας ὁ ἑστηκὼς ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ λαοῦ σου ἐκείνη ἡ ἡμέρα θλίψεως οἵα οὐκ ἐγενήθη ἀφ’ οὗ ἐγενήθησαν ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης.

Phiên bản tiếng Hy Lạp cổ của Đa-ni-ên của bản Septuagint chứng minh thêm rằng Đa-ni-ên 12.1 đang mô tả chủ đề chết và sống lại vì từ παρελεύσεται có nghĩa là “qua đời”, do đó chỉ cái chết của vị hoàng tử nổi tiếng này vào thời điểm cuối cùng! Do đó, nó đặt bối cảnh cho sự phục sinh của anh ấy khi hình thức được gọi là “Theodotion Daniel” của bản LXX lấp đầy khoảng trống bằng cách sử dụng từ αναστήσεται, có nghĩa là một sự phục sinh về thể xác, để thiết lập khoảng thời gian cuối cùng là thời gian mà vị hoàng tử này. sẽ được sống lại từ cõi chết!

The Error of Subordinationism

By Biblical Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

Ontological Subordinationism

The theological literature defines Subordinationism as comprising hierarchical rankings amongst the persons of the Trinity, thus signifying an ontological subordination of both the Son and the Spirit to the Father. The word ontological refers to “being.” Although some of the ante-Nicene fathers supported subordinationism, this doctrine was eventually condemned as heretical by the Post-Nicene fathers:

Athanasius opposed subordinationism, and

was highly hostile to hierarchical rankings

of the divine persons. It was also opposed

by Augustine. Subordinationism was

condemned in the 6th century along with

other doctrines taught by Origen.

Epiphanus writing against Origen attacked

his views of subordinationism. — wiki

Calvin also opposed subordinationism:

In his Institutes of the Christian Religion,

book 1, chapter 13 Calvin attacks those in

the Reformation family who while they

confess ‘that there are three [divine]

persons’ speak of the Father as ‘the

essence giver’ as if he were ‘truly and

properly the sole God’. This he says,

‘definitely cast[s] the Son down from his

rank.’ This is because it implies that the

Father is God in a way the Son is not.

Modern scholars are agreed that this was a

sixteenth century form of what today is

called, ‘subordinationism’. Richard Muller

says Calvin recognised that what his

opponents were teaching ‘amounted to a

radical subordination of the second and

third persons, with the result that the Father

alone is truly God.’ Ellis adds that this

teaching also implied tritheism, three

separate Gods. — wiki

The Eastern Orthodox position is yet another form of subordinationism that has asserted the Monarchy of the Father to this day:

According to the Eastern Orthodox view, the

Son is derived from the Father who alone is

without cause or origin. — wiki

The Catholic Church, however, is overtly antithetical to the subordinationism doctrine:

Catholic theologian John Hardon wrote that

subordinationism ‘denies that the second

and third persons are consubstantial with

the Father. Therefore it denies their true

divinity.’ — wiki

In theology proper, unlike ontological subordination, there is also the doctrine of “economic subordination” in which the Son and the Holy Spirit play subordinate roles in their functions, even though they may be ontologically equal to the Father. New Calvinists have been advancing this theory of late:

While contemporary Evangelicals believe

the historically agreed fundamentals of the

Christian faith, including the Trinity, among

the New Calvinist formula, the Trinity is one

God in three equal persons, among whom

there is ‘economic subordination’ (as, for

example, when the Son obeys the Father).

— wiki

According to the Oxford Encyclopedia, the doctrine of Subordinationism makes the Son inferior to the Father, and the Holy Spirit inferior to the Son. It reads thusly:

Subordinationism means to consider Christ,

as Son of God, as inferior to the Father.

This tendency was strong in the 2nd- and

3rd-century theology. It is evident in

theologians like Justin Martyr, Tertullian,

Origen, Novatian, and Irenaeus. Irenaeus,

for example, commenting on Christ's

statement, ‘the Father is greater than I’

(John 14:28), has no difficulty in

considering Christ as inferior to the Father.

… When Origen enlarged the conception of

the Trinity to include the Holy Spirit, he

explained the Son as inferior to the Father

and the Holy Spirit as inferior to the Son.

Subordination is based on statements

which Jesus made, such as (a) that ‘the

Father is greater than I’ (John 14:28); (b)

that, with respect to when the day of

Judgment will be, ‘of that day or hour no

one knows, not even the angels in heaven,

nor the Son, but the Father alone’ (Mark

13:32), and that He spoke of God as

somebody else (Mark 11:18). — wiki

However, Jesus’ statements are made from within the confines of his human condition, and thus they don’t pertain to his eternal status. As the Son of Man, namely, as a finite, limited human being, in comparison with the eternal Father, Jesus is obviously incapable of knowing all things. So Jesus’ statements must not be taken out of context and used to support the idea that he’s ontologically an inferior God. Micah 5.2 would certainly challenge that notion when it reveals that the messiah is actually uncreated: “His times of coming forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity.” Subordinationism ultimately leads to Arianism, the notion that the Son was created by the Father, and is not thus God:

Arius, therefore, held that the Son was

divine by grace and not by nature, and that

He was created by the Father, though in a

creation outside time. In response, the

Nicene Creed, particularly as revised by the

second ecumenical council in

Constantinople I in 381, by affirming the co-

equality of the Three Persons of the Trinity,

condemned subordinationism. — wiki

According to The Westminster Handbook to Patristic Theology, Subordinationism sees “the Son” and “the Spirit of God” as lesser deities, especially as demi-gods, or inferior gods:

Subordinationism. The term is a common

retrospective concept used to denote

theologians of the early church who

affirmed the divinity of the Son or Spirit of

God, but conceived it somehow as a lesser

form of divinity than that of the Father.

— wiki

Subordinationism is reminiscent of Gnosticism in which there’s a supreme God as well as lesser divinities. In Subordinationism, the Son is viewed as an inferior god, or a lesser god. However, as will be shown, Jesus is not a subordinate god in relation to God the Father. Some theologians argue that although the three persons of the Godhead are coequal, coeternal, and consubstantial ontologically, the Son and the Spirit are nevertheless subordinate in terms of economy, that is, in terms of their functions and roles. This notion of ranking or subordination within the trinity is supposedly supported by scripture when it says that the Father “sent” the Son (Jn 6.57), or that the Father and the Son “send” the Spirit (Jn 15.26), or that the spirit will “speak only what he hears” (Jn 16.13).

But this still implies a greater versus a lesser god, which makes the Trinity theologically indefensible! Not to mention that these verses are taken out of context. The temporal operations of the Son and the Spirit are scripturally depicted in anthropomorphic terms, ascribing human characteristics to divine operations and energies so that they can be better understood. As, for example, when scripture says that God changed his mind, or that he repented. And as regards Jesus’ connection to the God of the Hebrew Bible, appropriate New Testament language must be used so as to preclude a theological deviation from the monotheistic God of the Old Testament. Nevertheless, scripture does tell us categorically and unequivocally who Jesus is. Revelation 1.8 tells us that the Son is the Almighty! Who, then, ranks above him? Moreover, Jesus is Yahweh (the Lord) in the New Testament. Proverbs 8.28-30, John 1.3 and Hebrews 1.2 all indicate that Jesus is the creator. John 1.3 declares:

All things came into being through him

[Jesus], and without him not one thing

came into being.

Acts 4.12 reminds us of Jesus’ preeminent position within the Godhead:

there is salvation in no one else; for

there is no other name under heaven that

has been given among mankind by which

we must be saved.

In my view, subordinationism leads to tritheism!

The Eternal Subordination of the Son

The doctrine that the Son is eternally created by God the Father smacks of Arianism, as if his divinity is mediated to him by God the Father, implying that the Son doesn’t legitimately possess divinity in and of himself. It suggests that the Son and the Father were not always God in the same way, and that there was a time when the Son did not exist. Accordingly, only the Father was in the beginning. In other words, the Son is not eternal. This view holds that the Son is God only because Godhood is bestowed on him as a gift from the Father. To phrase it differently, the Son is God by grace and not by nature. Today, among the theologians who hold to Subordinationism are Bruce A. Ware, Wayne A. Grudem, and John W. Kleinig. But this doctrine contradicts John 1.1:

In the beginning was the Word, and the

Word was with God, and God was the word.

We must always remember that all of Jesus’ words must be understood within the context of the human condition. That is to say, Jesus is speaking of his human nature, as a human being, not as eternal God. He is a creature, a man, a finite being, located in time and space, and in that sense he is obviously in a subordinate relationship to the Father who remains eternal and is everywhere. So when Jesus employs the language of grace——specifying what the Father has “given” him——he is referring to what the eternal Father has done for the mortal Son of Man, namely, to give him authority, exaltation, worship, and glory (cf. Daniel 7.13-14). This apparent inequality between the Son and the Father is, strictly speaking, limited to Jesus’ humanity, a humanity which will then in turn redeem human nature and glorify his elect. It is not referring to Jesus’ ontological relationship with the Father, which is one of equality. And since he is appealing particularly to the monotheistic God of the old testament, which the Jews understood as a singular deity, Jesus is careful to use the language of grace in order to appease the Jews who would otherwise take exception to an incarnate God. But scripture is quite adamant about the fact that Jesus is both man and God! John 1.14 puts it thusly:

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt

among us.

Colossians 2.9 reveals that the Son is fully God, and that the fullness of the godhead (πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος) dwells in him bodily:

in him the whole fullness of the godhead

[θεότητος] dwells bodily.

Hebrews 1.3 proclaims that the Son is of the same essence as the Father:

The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and

the exact imprint of his being.

Titus 2.13 calls him “our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” And in John 1.3 and Hebrews 1.2 Jesus is the creator and the “heir of all things, through whom he [God] also created the worlds.” That is to say, the Son of Man, in his *human nature*——as the mediator and savior of mankind——becomes heir of all things. Not that the Godhood is given to him as a gift or as an inheritance. How can a lesser god or a created being act as the ultimate judge of the universe? John 5.22 reads:

For the Father judgeth no man, but hath

committed all judgment unto the Son.

It doesn’t mean that the Son is given this office as a gift because the Son is God by nature and not by grace! How can God the Father hand over his Sovereignty to God the Son as a gift if Yahweh never yields his glory to another?

I am the LORD [Yahweh]; that is my name! I

will not yield my glory to another.

— Isaiah 42.8

How can an inferior god, a lesser god, or a created god be completely sovereign over the entire universe? In Matthew 28.18, Jesus declares:

All authority in heaven and on earth has

been given to me.

The clincher, the verse that clearly demonstrates the Son’s divine authority is Revelation 1.8. Since we are not waiting for the Father but rather for the Son to arrive, it becomes quite obvious that this is a reference to Jesus Christ:

‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the

Lord God, ‘who is, and who was, and who is

to come, the Almighty.’

In Daniel 7.14, why was the Son of Man “given authority, glory and sovereign power”? Why did “all nations and peoples of every language worship[ed] him”? If he’s a created being, why do the heavenly host prostrate before the Son in heaven? Partly because he is God, but also because of his deeds on earth. Revelation 5.12 exclaims:

Worthy is the Lamb that was slaughtered to

receive power and wealth and wisdom and

might and honor and glory and blessing!

Not that the Son doesn’t have power, or wealth, or wisdom, or honor, or glory, or blessing. But it’s as if additional exaltation is offered to him because of his achievements as a human being (as the Son of Man)! First Timothy 6.15-16 calls Christ the “only Sovereign” God and that “It is he alone who has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light”:

he who is the blessed and only Sovereign

[μόνος δυνάστης], the King of kings and

Lord of lords. It is he alone who has

immortality [ἀθανασίαν] and dwells in

unapproachable light, whom no one has

ever seen or can see.

Hebrews 1.3 reveals that the Son (not the Father) “upholds the universe by the word of his power.” Colossians 1.17 also says: “He [Christ] is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (cf. Philippians 3.21). What is more, if the Son is subordinate to the Father, then the Father is the source of life, not the Son. Yet John 14.6 says the exact opposite, to wit, that the Son is both “the truth” and “existence” itself:

Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the

truth, and the life.’

Jesus also alludes to himself as Yahweh, using the ontological Divine Name “I AM” from Exodus 3.14:

Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly I say to you,

before Abraham was born, I am.’

— John 8.58

In Matthew 28.18, Jesus says that “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Ἐδόθη μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς·). That means that Jesus has *ALL AUTHORITY*; not just some authority or most authority. So, if the Son possesses all authority, how is he subject to a higher authority? Consequently, there’s no one higher than him! We also know this through Special Revelation❗️

Eternal Sonship vs Incarnational Sonship

In his essay “JOHN 1:14, 18 (et al.),” Edward Andrews writes:

Literal translation philosophy versus

interpretive translation philosophy plays a

role here too. I submit that rendering

monogenēs as “only begotten” is the literal

rendering. In translating the Updated

American Standard Version (UASV), our

primary purpose is to give the Bible readers

what God said by way of his human

authors, not what a translator thinks God

meant in its place.—Truth Matters! Our

primary goal is to be accurate and faithful

to the original text. The meaning of a word

is the responsibility of the interpreter (i.e.,

reader), not the translator.

Therefore, a literal reading of monogené̄s is “only begotten” or “only-born.” However, scholars commonly argue whether the meaning of the Greek word μονογενὴς (monogenēs) is “only begotten” or “unique.” I will discuss that in a moment. Moreover, theologians have devised the doctrine of eternal Sonship, and have viewed this process as an eternal begetting, namely, the eternal begetting of the Son. That is to say, the 2nd person of the Trinity has always been the Son of God throughout all eternity. This is primarily based on the Nicene Creed (325 A.D.) which states: "We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.” However, the preposition “from” (e.g. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God) is very problematic. So is the phrase “eternally begotten of the Father.” Both suggest that the the 2nd person is not fully God in his own right but derives his divinity eternally from the Greater God, the Father. So, for example, if the Father were to suddenly cut off the supply lines, for whatever reason, the Son would no longer be God. That’s the implication. Insofar as this language gives priority to the Father as the only true God, it suggests that the Son and Spirit are inferior and that they derive their divinity and existence from the Father. Yet Isaiah 9.6 calls the Messiah “Everlasting Father”!

In his book “Systematic Theology,” Wayne Grudem identifies one particular hermeneutical problem with these types of interpretations, namely, that they try to illustrate the eternal relationships within the Godhead based on scriptural information which only address their relationships in time. Therefore, it is both feasible and conceivable that the Bible uses the terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to describe the manner in which the members of the Trinity relate to humanity in space-time. For instance, the numerous references pertaining to the Father “sending” the Son into the world allude to time. Furthermore, the Father-Son-and-Holy-Spirit formula is an “analogy” to the human family and to human relationships, not an exact representation concerning the relationships of the persons within the Trinity. Moreover, the notion that the Son is “eternally begotten” of the Father is dangerously close to Arianism, which maintains that the Son of God didn’t always exist but was rather begotten by God the Father, thus implying that Jesus was not co-eternal with God the Father.

Those who take exception to the concept of eternal Sonship often espouse what is known as the doctrine of the Incarnational Sonship. While affirming the Son’s deity and eternality, this doctrine holds that he was not always the Son of God. Rather, his Sonship began when he was “begotten.” In other words, the Father-Son-and-Spirit formula only describes the manner in which the members of the Trinity relate to humanity in space-time. This means that the second person of the Trinity became the Son of God at some point in history, namely, at His incarnation. There are several nontrinitarian offshoots of this view, which hold that the second person of the Trinity was adopted as the Son of God at his baptism, his resurrection, or his ascension. This view is known as Adoptionism (also called dynamic monarchianism). Since this is a nontrinitarian formula which asserts that Christ was simply a mortal man who was later adopted as the Son of God at some point in human history, it has absolutely nothing to do with the Incarnational Sonship that I’m describing, which recognizes and affirms Christ’s deity and eternality. Advocates of this position view the Sonship of Christ as a title or a function that he historically assumed “in time,” at his incarnation. They do not view the Sonship of Christ as an essential element of “who he is” within the Trinity. The same is true of the Father. According to this view, the first person of the Trinity became the Father at the time of the incarnation.

MacArthur (who has since changed his position) originally denied that Jesus was “always subservient to God, always less than God, always under God.” He claimed that sonship is simply an “analogy.” In like manner, Ergun Caner describes Sonship as “metaphor.” Caner similarly argues that “sonship began in a point of time, not in eternity.” Other notable Christians who have taken exception to the doctrine of eternal Sonship are Albert Barnes, Walter Martin, Finis J. Dake, and Adam Clarke.

The language of Hebrews 1.5 clearly defines the relationship of the Father to the Son as beginning during Christ’s incarnation. That’s precisely why this verse is often used as proof of the Incarnational Sonship, in which the titles of Father and Son begin to be applied during a specific event that takes place at a particular point in time: “ ‘You are my Son; today I have become your Father.’ Or again, ‘I will be his Father, and he will be my Son.’ “ Thus, there seems to be an apparent subordination in the economy of God only insofar as Christ’s human nature is concerned.

Monogenēs

Scholars often argue whether the meaning of the Greek word μονογενὴς (monogenēs) is “only begotten” or “unique.” Given the view of Incarnational Sonship, in which the titles of Father and Son begin to be applied during Christ’s incarnation, the expression “the only begotten God” seemingly means “the only God who has ever been born on earth!” And in that sense it also means “unique,” or “one of its kind.” Otherwise, if we think of the Son begotten eternally of the Father, it implies that he is not God in and of himself but derives his divinity from the Father. Thus, he is not “true God from true God”!

Although the term monogenēs could mean the “only one of its kind,” the literal meaning is “only begotten” or “only born.” Given that the earliest papyri have μονογενης θεος in John 1.18, for example, monogenēs seemingly means “the only God who has ever been born in time,” or the “only-born God” (i.e. only-begotten). Put differently, no other God has ever been born in history. But the primary meaning is “only begotten,” or, literally, “only-born.” However, its meaning is commonly applied to mean "one of a kind,” or “one and only.” We can see the interplay between the two meanings in the book of Hebrews:

The word is used in Hebrews 11:17-19 to

describe Isaac, the son of Abraham.

However, Isaac was not the only-begotten

son of Abraham, but was the chosen,

having special virtue. Thus Isaac was ‘the

only legitimate child’ of Abraham. That is,

Isaac was the only son of Abraham that

God acknowledged as the legitimate son of

the covenant. It does not mean that Isaac

was not literally ‘begotten’ of Abraham, for

he indeed was, but that he alone was

acknowledged as the son that God had

promised. — wiki

Nevertheless, excerpts from Classical Greek literature, as well as from Josephus, the Nicene creed, Clement of Rome, and the New Testament suggest that the meaning of monogenēs is “only-born”:

Only-born

Herodotus [Histories] 2.79.3 ‘Maneros was

the only-born (monogenes) of their first

king, who died prematurely.’ — wiki

Herodotus [Histories] 7.221.1 ‘Megistias sent

to safety his only-born (o monogenes, as

noun) who was also with the army.’ — wiki

Luke 9:38 ‘only born (o

monogenes)’ {noun}. — wiki

Josephus, Antiquities 2.263 ‘Jephtha’s

daughter, she was also an only-born

(monogenes) and a virgin.’ — wiki

John 3.16 For God so loved the world, that

he gave his only-begotten Son (o

monogenes uios). — wiki

Nicene Creed - ‘And in one Lord Jesus

Christ, the only-begotten Son of God.’

Clement of Rome 25 [First Epistle of

Clement] – ‘the phoenix is the only one

[born] (monogenes) of its kind.” — wiki

Notice the *meaning* in the last quotation. It’s not just the only-born, but “the only one [born] of its kind”: a combination of both interpretations. And that seems to capture the meaning of *monogenes* in the New Testament. The titles of Father and Son seemingly begin when Christ is earth-begotten or earthborn:

Heb. 1:5 ‘For unto which of the angels said

he at any time, ‘Thou art my Son (uios mou

ei su), this day have I begotten thee (ego

semeron gegenneka se)’? And again, I will

be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a

Son?’ (citing Ps.2:7, also cited Acts 13:33,

Heb. 5:5) —wiki

Filioque

In the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Father is seen as Greater than the Son and the Spirit. To offset this imbalance, the Nicene creed was amended by the Roman Catholic Church with the addition of the filioque clause. The original creed from the First Council of Constantinople (381) states that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the Father,” to which the Roman Catholic West added, “and the Son,” as an additional origin point of the Holy Spirit. Maximus the Confessor, who is associated more with the Orthodox East than with the Catholic West, didn’t take issue with the filioque. Similarly, I. Voronov, Paul Evdokimov and S. Bulgakov saw the Filioque as a legitimate theologoumenon (i.e. theological opinion)!

The reason we’re discussing the filioque is because this issue bears on the question of whether Jesus is God by nature or by grace. The Filioque was added to the Creed as an anti-Arian addition by the Third Council of Toledo (589). It is well-known that The Eastern Orthodox Church promotes the “Monarchy of the Father,” which signifies that the Father alone is the only cause (αἰτία) of the Son and the Spirit:

The Eastern Orthodox interpretation is that

the Holy Spirit originates, has his cause for

existence or being (manner of existence)

from the Father alone as ‘One God, One

Father’, Lossky insisted that any notion of a

double procession of the Holy Spirit from

both the Father and the Son was

incompatible with Eastern Orthodox

theology. — wiki

The view of the superiority of the Father actually finds expression in both east and west:

The Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215):

‘The Father is from no one, the Son from the

Father only, and the Holy Spirit equally from

both.’ — wiki

This view leads to Arianism, as can be seen from the seventeenth ecumenical council:

The Council of Florence, session 11 (1442),

in Cantate Domino, on union with the Copts

and Ethiopians: ‘Father, Son and holy Spirit;

one in essence, three in persons;

unbegotten Father, Son begotten from the

Father, holy Spirit proceeding from the

Father and the Son; ... the holy Spirit alone

proceeds at once from the Father and the

Son. ... Whatever the holy Spirit is or has, he

has from the Father together with the Son.’

— wiki

This implies that both the Son and the Holy Spirit are not God by nature but by grace. Thus, they’re not fully God: they’re inferior, lesser gods, created eternally by the Father so to speak. This smacks of Arianism and contradicts scripture which states that “in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Colossians 2.9). Conversely, Eastern Orthodoxy tends to put the Father on a pedestal:

In Eastern Orthodox Christianity theology

starts with the Father hypostasis, not the

essence of God, since the Father is the God

of the Old Testament. The Father is the

origin of all things and this is the basis and

starting point of the Orthodox trinitarian

teaching of one God in Father, one God, of

the essence of the Father (as the uncreated

comes from the Father as this is what the

Father is). — wiki

Conclusion

It doesn’t appear as if there are hierarchical rankings amongst the persons of the Trinity, comprising an ontological subordination of both the Son and the Spirit to the Father. To say that “the Son is derived from the Father who alone is without cause or origin” is nothing short of Arianism. As Catholic theologian John Hardon put it, subordinationism denies that the Son and the Spirit are consubstantial with the Father. Thus, it denies their divinity. This doctrine can be construed as if Christ, the Son of God, were inferior to the Father. It would also invalidate the three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial divine persons of the Trinity. The New Testament also makes it abundantly clear that Jesus is Yahweh (i.e. the Lord) and the almighty (see Revelation 1.8)!

It’s also clear that there’s no eternal Sonship in which Christ is eternally begotten. The appellations of Father and Son relate to the economy of God as it pertains to the Incarnation of Christ (cf. Hebrews 1.5). And *monogenēs* doesn’t seem to mean that the Son is eternally begotten and ontologically subordinate to the Father. Rather, it seems to denote the only God who has ever been born in time, or the “only-born God” (i.e. only-begotten). That is to say, no other God has ever been born in human history. So, as the Son of Man, Christ can be described as both “unique” and as the “only begotten.”

Finally, it should be stressed that Jesus is God by nature, not by grace which suggests Adoptionism. The Filioque was added to the creed as an anti-Arian formula to offset the “Monarchy of the Father,” which signifies that the Father alone is the only cause (αἰτία) or principle of the Son and the Spirit. However, there’s no basis for claiming an ontological inequality within the Trinity. What is more, it’s *a contradiction in terms* to speak of an inferior and a superior God. God is God. And there’s only one God. Therefore, if we don’t want to fall into heresy, we must maintain the concept of the Trinity, which affirms the existence of one God in 3 coequal, coeternal, consubstantial divine persons who share one essence (homoousion)!

Christian Universalism Debunked

By Eli Kittim

Introduction

Universal reconciliation (also called “apocatastasis”) is the belief that, in the end, everyone will be saved. Advocates of this position assert that the concept of an eternal hell was never part of Judaism or early Christianity. Although this is certainly a very appealing view, there are many problems with it. For one thing, it is, in effect, a denial of free will, as if God will somehow coerce us into union with him. For another, morality has been thrown to the wind, as if there is no punishment for lawlessness. This doctrine essentially urges us to do what we please because, in the end, we will literally get away with murder! It reminds me of Aleister Crowley’s occultic expression, “Do what thou wilt.” The motto is, eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we’re saved. Thus, whether or not you murder, torture, molest, or harass innocent human beings is unimportant and irrelevant. You’re going to heaven. So carry on. There’s no need to stop. This position reminds me of free grace theology which essentially says the same thing: don’t stop sinning because you’re already saved. Therefore, both views are unscriptural and unacceptable!

The New Testament does not support universalism, and in fact mentions the reality of hell many times. The belief in hell is also contained in the Nicene creed and in the writings of the apostolic fathers. In fact, universalism was officially condemned as a heresy in the second Council of Constantinople (553 AD), when Origen’s teaching of apokatastasis was formally anathematized. Universalism is, therefore, not only a heresy but a denial of scripture. Nevertheless, since the apostolic age, there have been quite a few people who have affirmed the doctrine of universalism. The latest proponent is religious studies scholar David Bentley Hart with his 2019 book, That All Shall Be Saved: Heaven, Hell, and Universal Salvation.

Universalists come in many different flavors. Although some reject the existence of hell completely, others see it as a sort of purgatory prior to entering heaven. Universalists typically argue that the concept of eternal hell is based on a mistranslation of the Greek term αιών (aion). However, the word αἰώνιος means “ever-lasting,” or “eternal” (see Liddell and Scott. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon). Moreover, the idiomatic phrase «εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων» does mean “forever,” as seen in the following examples:

Gal 1.5 - ᾧ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν

αἰώνων ἀμήν.

Phil 4.20 - τῷ δὲ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ ἡμῶν ἡ

δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν

αἰώνων· ἀμήν.

1 Tim 1.17 - τῷ δὲ βασιλεῖ τῶν αἰώνων

ἀφθάρτῳ ἀοράτῳ μόνῳ θεῷ

τιμὴ καὶ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας

τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν.

Rev 1.6 - καὶ ἐποίησεν ἡμᾶς βασιλείαν

ἱερεῖς τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ

αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς

τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν.

Rev 1.18 - καὶ ὁ ζῶν καὶ ἐγενόμην νεκρὸς

καὶ ἰδοὺ ζῶν εἰμι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας

τῶν αἰώνων καὶ ἔχω τὰς κλεῖς

τοῦ θανάτου καὶ τοῦ ᾅδου.

The No-Hell Argument

Universalists claim that there’s no hell, and especially no “eternal hell.” Let’s see if their claims can be substantiated. How do the universalists explain the fallen angels who are locked away? Where are they imprisoned? (2 Pet 2.4). Doesn’t sound like the land of the dead (Sheol)! Plus, the Greek words that are used in these particular contexts suggest “eternity,” not annihilation or apocatastasis. For example, Jude 1.6-7 (NRSV) reads:

And the angels who did not keep their own

position but deserted their proper dwelling,

he has kept in eternal [ἀϊδίοις] chains

[δεσμοῖς] in deepest darkness for the

judgment of the great day. Likewise, Sodom

and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities,

which, in the same manner as they,

indulged in sexual immorality and pursued

unnatural lust, serve as an example by

undergoing [ὑπέχουσαι] a punishment

[δίκην] of eternal [αἰωνίου] fire [πυρὸς].

By the way, «αἰωνίου δίκην» means “eternal judgment.” So the question is, if all the damned are eventually saved (universalism), or if they simply die in the land of the dead (annihilationism), then why did God *prepare* (ἡτοιμασμένον) the eternal fire (τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον) for the devil & his angels? (Mt 25.41, 46 [eternal punishment; κόλασιν αἰώνιον]; cf. Mk 9.48; 2 Pet 2.4; Jude 1.13; Rev 14.11; 20.10)! The Greek phrase «κόλασιν αἰώνιον» actually means “eternal punishment.” Daniel 12.2, in the Septuagint (LXX), also mentions an “everlasting life” for the righteous, as well as an “everlasting shame” for the wicked:

καὶ πολλοὶ τῶν καθευδόντων ἐν γῆς χώματι

ἐξεγερθήσονται, οὗτοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον καὶ

οὗτοι εἰς ὀνειδισμὸν καὶ εἰς αἰσχύνην

αἰώνιον.

English translation by L.C.L. Brenton:

And many of them that sleep in the dust of

the earth shall awake, some to everlasting

life, and some to reproach and everlasting

shame.

The Greek phrases «ζωὴν αἰώνιον» and «αἰσχύνην αἰώνιον» mean “everlasting life” and “everlasting shame,” respectively. Look up the phrase «εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων» (Gal. 1.5; Phil. 4.20; 1 Tim. 1.17; 2 Tim. 4.18; Heb. 13.21; 1 Pet. 4.11; Rev. 1.6; 1.18; 4.9-10; 5.13; 7.12; 10.6; 11.15; 15.7; 19.3; 20.10; 22.5)! The phrase «εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων» means “for ever and ever.” Moreover, if the damned die once for all, then why is the word “eternal” used to frequently describe their punishment? Is it simply that our *memory* of them will be “eternal”? That’s not exactly what the Bible says. So, is the Bible (or God) lying to us or trying to confuse us?

Annihilationism: How ‬Bart Ehrman‪ Gets Things Wrong In His Book, Heaven and Hell

Although some believers in universal reconciliation (aka “apocatastasis”) might accept the notion of hell in some short-term temporal sense, they do not accept it either as a place of endless torment or as a place of ultimate “annihilation” for the wicked after the last judgment. And although this subsection is on the topic of annihilationism, I’m discussing it simply because it has a great deal to say about the term αἰώνιον (everlasting), which the universalists mistranslate!

In his “Fresh Air Interview” with Terry Gross, world-renowned biblical scholar Bart Ehrman falsely “states that eternal rewards and punishments aren’t found in the Old Testament.” This statement directly contradicts the teachings of the Old Testament. Much to Bart Ehrman‪’s‬ dismay, there is a clear reference to a resurrection from the dead in the Old Testament in which there are definite rewards and punishments that await both the righteous and the wicked. In fact, these rewards and punishments are said to be “everlasting.” The following constitutes a further treatment of Daniel 12.2 (NRSV), which reads:

Many of those who sleep in the dust of the

earth shall awake, some to everlasting life

and some to shame and everlasting

contempt.

The so-called “Theodotion Daniel” form of the Septuagint (LXX) confirms that the rewards and punishments in the aftermath of the resurrection are indeed *continuous* by using the Greek word αἰώνιον, which means “everlasting.” Daniel Th 12.2 proclaims:

καὶ πολλοὶ τῶν καθευδόντων ἐν γῆς χώματι

ἐξεγερθήσονται, οὗτοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον καὶ

οὗτοι εἰς ὀνειδισμὸν καὶ εἰς αἰσχύνην

αἰώνιον.

The Hebrew text (BHS) of Daniel 12.2 reads:

‎וְרַבִּ֕ים מִיְּשֵׁנֵ֥י אַדְמַת־עָפָ֖ר יָקִ֑יצוּ אֵ֚לֶּה לְחַיֵּ֣י עֹולָ֔ם

‎וְאֵ֥לֶּה לַחֲרָפֹ֖ות לְדִרְאֹ֥ון עֹולָֽם׃ ס

The key Hebrew words are עוֹלָ֔ם ‘ō·w·lām (everlasting) and לְדִרְא֥וֹן lə·ḏir·’ō·wn (contempt). In short, the dead are not annihilated, nor do they sleep forever, as Ehrman mistakenly assumes, but are rather *resurrected* to exist either in an “everlasting life” of Blessedness or in “everlasting contempt.” What is more, Daniel 12 is found in the Masoretic and Qumran texts and is not, therefore, a later edition.

As for Ehrman’s other false statement “that eternal rewards and punishments aren’t found . . . in the teachings of Jesus,” he should go back and restudy the Koine Greek of the earliest New Testament gospel, namely, the gospel of Mark! The English translation of Mark 9.47-48 reads as follows:

And if your eye causes you to stumble, tear

it out; it is better for you to enter the

kingdom of God with one eye than to have

two eyes and to be thrown into hell, where

their worm never dies, and the fire is never

quenched.

Two things are indisputably mentioned by Jesus that are both unequivocal and categorical: the *punishment* is •everlasting• in that neither human beings nor the fires of hell (γέενναν) are put out or extinguished. In short, human beings never die and the fires of hell never end. And this pericope is considered to be part of the sayings of Jesus! Thus, in accordance with Daniel 12.2, Jesus definitely confirms the duration, rather than the extinction, of the afterlife! In fact, the Greek term πῦρ (“fire” of hell) in Mark 9.48 is the exact same term used to designate “the lake of fire” (Gk. λίμνην τοῦ πυρὸς) in Revelation 20.10! The Greek text (NA28) of Mark 9.48 is illuminating in this regard. It reads:

ὅπου ὁ σκώληξ αὐτῶν οὐ τελευτᾷ καὶ τὸ

πῦρ οὐ σβέννυται.

The Greek term σκώληξ (skóléx) means “worm,” “symbolizing perhaps the loathsomeness of the penalty” (Thayer’s Greek Lexicon) or it maybe used figuratively as a general term of contempt for a living being. Moreover, the Greek phrase οὐ τελευτᾷ means that their “organism” (or “worm”) never ceases to exist; it does not come to an end. Equally, the Greek phrase οὐ σβέννυται means that the fires (Gk. πῦρ) of punishment are not put out: they are not extinguished or quenched! It’s also important to note that Mark 9.48 is not an interpolation because it’s preserved in Isaiah 66.24. It’s part of the Old Testament tradition.

In other words, Jesus clearly teaches in Mark 9.47-48 that there are eternal punishments precisely because people do not cease to exist after death, nor are the fires of hell put out (cf. Mt. 25.46). And Daniel 12.2, among other places in the Old Testament (cf. e.g., Isa. 66.24), supports the New Testament teaching of the abiding presence of rewards and punishments for both the righteous and the wicked in the afterlife! Further supportive evidence comes from Rev. 20.10, which contradicts annihilationism by explicitly stating that the damned “will be tormented day and night forever and ever” (Gk. βασανισθήσονται ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων)! Besides, if annihilationism is true, why, then, will the damned be resurrected? To die again? (Jn 5.29). It doesn’t make any sense! It is, therefore, deeply misleading and particularly dangerous to assume that the Bible does not speak of an afterlife or that there are no ultimate consequences for our actions here on earth!

Universalists Misinterpret Scripture

Universalists are putting a spin on practically every scriptural verse they mention, adding a speculative (private) interpretation that is not in the text, while ignoring other parts of scripture that say the exact opposite. It’s a sort of *confirmation bias* in which they add interpretations to the text that are not explicitly stated. For the sake of convenience, I’ll simply mention a few verses that they often use to twist scripture in order to make it say what it doesn’t actually say.

For example, Rev 5.13 is talking about the new creation——that is, everyone who has been reborn in Christ——when it says that all will sing praises to God. But it doesn’t mean that the most violent and wicked demons that ever lived (such as Satan) will hold candles and sing praises to God. Or, take 1 John 4.14. Yes, Christ is the Savior of the world, meaning that his atonement covers all human beings, provided that they’re freely willing to come to him. But that doesn’t mean that the will of the people can be forced into salvation. Similarly, 1 Timothy 2.4-6 says that God wants all men to be saved. But this verse is simply informing us of God’s disposition, not that all men will definitely be saved. Along the same lines, Philippians 2.9-11 says that every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord. But this could be referring to the new creation following the judgment, after the former things have passed away. Besides, during the judgment, the unsaved will certainly recognize that Jesus is Lord, even if they despise him. It’s a similar situation to the demons who acknowledge God’s existence in James 2.19. Moreover, the narratives in Ezekiel and Isaiah, which claim that all nations will come to worship God, are true. But they are symbolic of those particular nations that will be saved. They don’t imply that each and every person that ever lived will be saved, or that there is no judgement:

Psalm 1.5 - Therefore the wicked will not stand

in the judgment nor sinners in the

congregation of the righteous.

Psalm 7.6 - Rise up, O Lord, in your anger;
     lift yourself up against the fury of

my enemies; awake, O my God;

you have appointed a judgment.

Jn 5.24 - Very truly, I tell you, anyone who

hears my word and believes him

who sent me has eternal life and

does not come under judgment but

has passed from death to life.

Jn 5.29 - and [they] will come out: those

who have done good to the

resurrection of life, and those who

have done evil to the resurrection

of condemnation.

Rom 2.3 - Do you imagine, whoever you are,

that when you judge those who do

such things and yet do them

yourself, you will escape the

judgment of God?

1 Pet 4.17 - For the time has come for

judgment to begin with the

household of God; if it begins with

us, what will be the end for those

who do not obey the gospel of

God?

2 Pet 2.4 - God did not spare the angels when

they sinned but cast them into hell

and committed them to chains of

deepest darkness to be kept until

the judgment;

What is more, Ephesians 1.11 doesn’t say that God will bring all people under Christ, as some universalists have argued. Rather, it says that those who have been saved have been predestined to obtain an inheritance according to God’s will, and that all things work according to his will. Besides, in 1 Corinthians 15.22-28, Christ is said to eliminate all his enemies, and after that he will recreate a new universe in which God will be all in all (in the new creation, that is!). It means that God will be in all the righteous people that remain, not in all the wicked to whom he says “I never knew you; depart from me” (Mt. 7.23 ESV)! Moreover, if “the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it” (Mt. 7.14 NRSV), does that sound like universalism? And if “no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit” (Jn 3.5), how, then, can people who are not born of the Spirit be saved? And if all will be saved, then why are we commanded to preach the gospel? Why do we need to be reborn then? Why even believe in Jesus? Thus, universalism has clearly embraced aberrant teachings based on mistranslations and misinterpretations!

The Universalists Claim that Eternal Hell Does Not Exist Because God is Love

But God is also Justice. Everyone will be punished accordingly. Everyone will be judged. No one will get off scot-free. Everyone will get what they deserve. You don’t have to look very far to see the coming judgment, such as Jesus waging war on the Antichrist (2 Thess. 2.8), or waging a just war in Rev. 19.11, or the wrath of Christ that leaves corpses lying dead by the thousands (Rev. 19.18), or “the great winepress of the wrath of God”:

Rev 14.19-20

So the angel swung his sickle over the earth

and gathered the vintage of the earth, and

he threw it into the great winepress of the

wrath of God. And the winepress was

trodden outside the city, and blood flowed

from the winepress, as high as a horse’s

bridle, for a distance of about one thousand

six hundred stadia.

Rom 12.19

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave

room for the wrath of God, for it is written,

‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says the

Lord.’

Deut 32.35

for the day of vengeance and recompense,

for the time when their foot shall slip?

Because the day of their calamity is at

hand; their doom comes swiftly.

Isa 13.6

Wail, for the day of the Lord is near;

it will come like destruction from the

Almighty!

Isa 13.9

See, the day of the Lord is coming,

cruel, with wrath and fierce anger,
 to make the earth a desolation

and to destroy its sinners from it.

Jer 46.10

That day is the day of the Lord God of

hosts, a day of retribution,

to gain vindication from his foes.
 The sword shall devour and be sated

and drink its fill of their blood.


Does that sound like universal salvation? So even though God is good, he is also just.

Conclusion

There are two views on opposite sides of the spectrum. One claims that all the wicked will be destroyed, while the other asserts that they will be saved. Both are wrong! As we have seen, both annihilationism and universal reconciliation (apocatastasis) are not consistent with the teaching of Scripture. The Bible tells us that the wicked will continue to exist in “shame and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12.2). Their everlasting abode is described as an eternal place “where their worm never dies and the fire is never quenched” (Mark 9.48)! John 3.36 (NIV) says categorically and unequivocally: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.”

Kittim’s Eschatology:

The Kittim Method

By Eli Kittim 🎓

Kittim’s eschatology is a view in biblical studies that interprets the story of Jesus in exclusively eschatological terms. This unique approach was developed by Eli of Kittim, especially in his 2013 work, The Little Book of Revelation. Kittim doesn’t consider Jesus' life as something that happened in history but rather as something that will occur in the last days as a fulfillment of bible prophecy. It involves a new paradigm shift! Kittim holds to an exclusive futuristic eschatology in which the story of Jesus (his birth, death, and resurrection) takes place once and for all (hapax) in the end-times. Kittim’s eschatology provides a solution to the historical problems associated with the historical Jesus.

Biographizing the Eschaton: The Proleptic Eschatology of the Gospels

Kittim views God's inscripturated revelation of Jesus in the New Testament gospel literature as a proleptic account. That is to say, the New Testament gospels represent the future life of Jesus as if presently existing or accomplished. According to The Free Dictionary, an online encyclopedia, the term “prolepsis” refers to “the anachronistic representation of something as existing before its proper or historical time.”

According to Eli Kittim, the gospels are therefore written before the fact. They are conveyed from a theological angle by way of a proleptic narrative, a means of biographizing the eschaton as if presently accomplished. By contrast, Kittim’s work demonstrates that these events will occur at the end of the age. This argument is primarily founded on the authority of the Greek New Testament Epistles, which affirm the centrality of the future in Christ’s only visitation!

In the epistolary literature, the multiple time-references to Christ being “revealed at the end of the ages” (1 Pet. 1:20; cf. Heb. 9:26b) are clearly set in the future. It appears, then, that the theological (or apocalyptic) purpose of the Gospels is to provide a fitting introduction to the messianic story beforehand so that it can be passed down from generation to generation until the time of its fulfillment. It is as though New Testament history is written in advance. It is therefore thought advisable, according to Kittim, to consider the collection of New Testament writings as strikingly futurist books.

The Epistolary View of Christ

The Epistles seemingly contradict the Gospels regarding the timeline of Christ’s birth, death, and resurrection by placing it in eschatological categories. The Epistolary authors deviate from the Gospel writers in their understanding of the overall importance of eschatology in the chronology of Jesus. For them, Scripture comprises revelations and “prophetic writings” (see Rom. 16:25-26; 2 Pet. 1:19-21; Rev. 22:18-19). Consequently, the Epistolary literature of the New Testament sets Christ’s birth, death, and resurrection in a different light, while apparently contradicting some of the Gospel material. Only the Epistles give us the real Jesus. Thus, in order to have a high view of scripture, one doesn’t have to accept the historicity of the Bible, or of Christianity for that matter!

Kittim’s Eschatology: The Kittim Method

Ephesians 2:4-7 alludes to a redemption established “in faith” prior to the coming of Jesus. This implies that believers in Christ can receive the Holy Spirit retroactively “through faith” (1 Pet. 1:3-5) based on the merits of the prophetic message revealed by God in the New Testament! Similarly, Titus 1:2-3 talks about a salvation which was promised a long time ago “but at the proper time revealed” (cf. Isa. 46:10). This is not unlike Hebrews 1:1-2 which states that Jesus speaks to humankind not in Antiquity but in the “last days” (ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν). First Peter 1:10-11 also suggests an eschatological soteriology, given that the holy spirit “predicted the sufferings of Christ.”

What is more, Second Peter 1:16-19 demonstrates that the so-called “eyewitness accounts” were actually based on visions (i.e. prophetic words) that were then written down as if they had already happened (proleptically). Similarly, Acts 3:19-21, in speaking about “the regeneration,” implies that the Messiah will not be sent to earth “until the time of universal restoration” (cf. Mt. 19:28). Put differently, the legend of Jesus precedes his arrival.

The same anachronistic (or proleptic) interpretation is brought to bear on the issue of the Messiah’s future incarnation in Revelation 12:5. Despite the fact that the reference to Christ’s birth in Revelation 12:5 is clearly set in the future, Christian theology has, nevertheless, always maintained that it already happened. Thus, the notion of a historical Jesus does not square well with the context and content of these prophecies. In fact, according to Luke 17:30, the Son of Man has not yet been revealed (cf. 1 Cor. 1:7; Phil. 1:6; Col. 3:4; 2 Thess. 1:7; 1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 4:1; Titus 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:13; 1 Jn. 2:28). That’s precisely why the New Testament accounts of Jesus are essentially prophetic. For example, according to Revelation 19:10d, “the testimony to Jesus is the spirit of prophecy”!

Christ is born in the Fullness of Time

Interestingly enough, Ephesians 1:9-10 defines “the fullness of time” (τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, which we also find in Galatians 4:4) as the consummation of the ages. Thus, according to Galatians 4:4, Christ will be born in the end-times! That’s why 1 Peter 1:20 (NJB) informs us that although Christ was foreknown through visions and revelations by the agency of the Holy Spirit, nevertheless he will make his one and only appearance “at the final point of time.” What is more, Hebrews 9:26b (KJV) states quite explicitly that Jesus will die for the sins of the world “in the end of the world,” or “at the end of the age” (NRSV). A word study of the phrase ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων demonstrates that it refers to “the end of the world” (cf. Mt. 13:39-40, 49; 24:3; 28:20; Dan. 12:4 LXX; see also G.W.H. Lampe [ed.], A Patristic Greek Lexicon [Oxford: Oxford U, 1961], p. 1340)!

Christ’s Death and Resurrection at the End of the Age

In the Greek New Testament, Romans 5:6 intimates with hardly any ambiguity that Christ “died” (ἀπέθανεν) at some unspecified time of human history by using the phrase κατὰ καιρὸν, which means “at the right time” (cf. 1 Tim. 2:6), or at “the proper time,” and does not necessarily warrant a reference to history. Similarly, Isaiah 2:19 offers us a markedly different interpretation concerning the timing of the LORD’s resurrection, namely, as an event that takes place in the end time. Isaiah does not simply say that “the LORD” rises, only to quickly evanesce, but that he “rises to terrify the earth.” In other words, there’s no two thousand year gap between the LORD’s resurrection and judgment day. What is often overlooked in Isaiah 2:19 when doing exegetical work is the significance of the Hebrew term קוּם (qum), which is rendered in English as “rises,” and is often used in the Bible to mean “resurrection” (see e.g. Job 14:12; Isa. 26:19; Mk 5:41). Astoundingly, the Septuagint (LXX) translates it as ἀναστῇ (i.e. resurrection). The word ἀναστῇ (e.g. Mk 9:9; Lk. 16:31) is a derivative of ἀνίστημι, which is the root word of ἀνάστασις and means to “raise up” or to “raise from the dead.”

There is biblical support for this conclusion in Daniel 12:1-2. For instance, the end-time death and resurrection of “the great prince” in Daniel 12:1 (παρελεύσεται Dan OG 12:1 LXX; ἀναστήσεται Dan Th 12:1 LXX) occur just prior to the general resurrection of the dead (Dan. 12:2). Similarly, “Christ the first fruits” is said to be the first to rise from the dead during the future general resurrection of the dead in 1 Corinthians 15:23. This is confirmed in Zephaniah 1:7 in which the Lord’s sacrificial-death takes place during “the day of the Lord”!

Conclusion

Exegetes must interpret the implicit by the explicit and the narrative by the didactic. In practical terms, the New Testament Epistles and other more explicit and didactic portions of Scripture must clarify the implicit meaning and significance of the Gospel literature. Accordingly, this paper argues that the Epistles are the primary keys to unlocking the future timeline of Christ’s only visitation. Kittim’s method is therefore revolutionizing the field of historical Jesus Studies.

——-