#thelittlebookofrevelation | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

eli-kittim · 1 year

Text

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.

Biographising 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,” 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 biographising 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 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 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 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 (KJV), or “at the end of the age” (NRSV). A historical-grammatical 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 NT, 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 2,000 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 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 NT 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.

——-

5 notes · View notes

elikittim · 2 months

Text

Author Eli Kittim- YouTube Channel

__________________________

Author Eli of Kittim's unique interpretation of the New Testament account of Jesus!

__________________________

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@elikittim7960/videos

0 notes

eli-kittim · 10 months

Text

The Bible Attributes the Hidden Name of God to Greece

Eli kittim

The Greek New Testament Unlocks the Meaning of God’s Name

The meaning of God’s name (YHVH) was originally incoherent and indecipherable until the appearance of the Greek New Testament. In Isaiah 46:11, God says that he will call the Messiah “from a distant country” (cf. Matt. 28:18; 1 Cor. 15:24-25). Similarly, in Matt. 21:43, Jesus promised that the kingdom of God will be taken away from the Jews and given to another nation. That’s why Isaiah 61:9 says that the Gentiles will be the blessed posterity of God (through the messianic seed). Paul also says categorically and unequivocally, “It is not the children of the flesh [the Jews] … but the children of the promise [who] are regarded as descendants [of Israel]” (Rom. 9:6-8).

These passages demonstrate why the New Testament was not written in Hebrew but in Greek. In fact, most of the New Testament books were composed in Greece. The New Testament was written exclusively in Greek, and most of the epistles address Greek communities. Not to mention that the New Testament authors used the Greek Old Testament as their Inspired text and copied extensively from it. That’s also why Christ attributed the divine I AM to the Greek language (alpha and omega). Now why did all this happen? Was it a mere coincidence or an accident, or is it because God’s name is somehow associated with Greece? Let’s explore this question further.

YHVH (I AM)

Initially, God did not disclose the meaning of his name to Moses (Exod. 3:14), but only the status of his ontological being: “I Am.” The four-letter Hebrew theonym יהוה‎ (transliterated as YHVH) is the name of God in the Hebrew Bible, and it’s pronounced as yahva. In Judaism, this name is forbidden from being vocalized or even pronounced.

Hebrew was a consonantal language. Vowels and cantillation marks were devised much later by the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries AD. Thus, to call the divine name Yahva is a rough approximation. We really don’t know how to properly pronounce the name or what it actually means. But, through linguistic and biblical research, we can propose a scholarly hypothesis.

God Explicitly Identifies Himself with the Language of the Greeks

Since God’s name (the divine “I AM”) was revealed in the New Testament vis-à-vis the first and last letters of the Greek writing system (“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end” Rev. 22:13), then it necessarily must reflect a Greek name. The letters Alpha and Omega constitute “the beginning and the end” of the Greek alphabet. Put differently, the creator of the universe (Heb. 1:2) explicitly identifies himself with the language of the Greeks! That explains why the New Testament was written in Greek rather than Hebrew. That’s also why we are told “how God First concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for his name” (Acts 15:14):

“And with this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, … ‘THE GENTILES WHO ARE CALLED BY MY NAME’ “ (Acts 15:15-17).

This is a groundbreaking statement because it demonstrates that God’s name is not derived from Hebraic but rather Gentile sources. The Hebrew Bible asserts the exact same thing:

“All the Gentiles… are called by My name” (Amos 9:12).

The New Testament clearly tells us that God identifies himself with the language of the Greeks: “ ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God” (Rev. 1:8). In the following verse, John is “on the [Greek] island called Patmos BECAUSE of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus” (Rev. 1:9 italics mine). We thus begin to realize why the New Testament was written exclusively in Greek, namely, to reflect the Greek God: τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ⸂Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ⸃ (Titus 2:13)! Incidentally, God is never once called Yahva in the Greek New Testament. Rather, he is called Lord (kurios). Similarly, Jesus is never once called Yeshua. He is called Ἰησοῦς, a name which both Cyril of Jerusalem (catechetical lectures 10.13) and Clement of Alexandria (Paedagogus, Book 3) considered to be derived from Greek sources.

Yahva: Semantic and Phonetic Implications

If my hypothesis is accurate, we must find evidence of a Greek linguistic element within the Hebrew name of God (i.e. Yahva) as it was originally revealed to Moses in Exod. 3:14. Indeed, we do! In the Hebrew language, the term “Yahvan” represents the Greeks (Josephus Antiquities I, 6). Therefore, it is not difficult to see how the phonetic and grammatical mystery of the Tetragrammaton (YHVH, commonly pronounced as Yahva) is related to the Hebrew term Yahvan, which refers to the Greeks. In fact, the Hebrew names for both God and Greece (Yahva/Yahvan) are virtually indistinguishable from one another, both grammatically and phonetically! The only difference is in the Nun Sophit (Final Nun), which stands for "Son of" (Hebrew ben). Thus, the Tetragrammaton plus the Final Nun (Yahva + n) can be interpreted as “Son of God.” This would explain why strict injunctions were given that the theonym must remain untranslatable under the consonantal name of God (YV). The Divine Name can only be deciphered with the addition of vowels, which not only point to “YahVan,” the Hebrew name for Greece, but also anticipate the arrival of the Greek New Testament!

There’s further evidence for a connection between the Greek and Hebrew names of God in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In a few Septuagint manuscripts, the Tetragrammaton (YHVH) is actually translated in Greek as ΙΑΩ “IAO” (aka Greek Trigrammaton). In other words, the theonym Yahva is translated into Koine Greek as Ιαω (see Lev. 4:27 LXX manuscript 4Q120). This fragment is dated to the 1st century BC. Astoundingly, the name ΙΑΩΝ is the name of Greece (aka Ἰάων/Ionians/IAONIANS), the earliest literary records of whom can be found in the works of Homer (Gk. Ἰάονες; iāones) and also in the writings of the Greek poet Hesiod (Gk. Ἰάων; iāōn). Bible scholars concur that the Hebrew name Yahvan represents the Iaonians; that is to say, Yahvan is Ion (aka Ionia, meaning “Greece”).

We find further evidence that the Tetragrammaton (YHVH) is translated as ΙΑΩ (IAO) in the writings of the church fathers. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (1910) and B.D. Eerdmans, Diodorus Siculus refers to the name of God by writing Ἰαῶ (Iao). Irenaeus reports that the Valentinians use Ἰαῶ (Iao). Origen of Alexandria also employs Ἰαώ (Iao). Theodoret of Cyrus writes Ἰαώ (Iao) as well to refer to the name of God.

Summary

Therefore, the hidden name of God in the Septuagint, the New Testament, and the Hebrew Bible seemingly represents Greece! The ultimate revelation of God’s name is disclosed in the Greek New Testament by Jesus Christ who identifies himself with the language of the Greeks: Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ (Rev. 1:8). In retrospect, we can trace this Greek name back to the Divine “I am” in Exodus 3:14!

5 notes · View notes

eli-kittim · 2 years

Text

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)!

9 notes · View notes

eli-kittim · 2 years

Text

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❗️

8 notes · View notes

eli-kittim · 1 year

Text

Christian Universalism Debunked

By Bible Researcher & Author 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 and drink 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.” Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1889). 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 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)❗️

4 notes · View notes

eli-kittim · 2 years

Text

🔎 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❗️

4 notes · View notes

eli-kittim · 2 years

Text

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❗️

6 notes · View notes

eli-kittim · 2 years

Text

[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 κα�� 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!

3 notes · View notes

eli-kittim · 2 years

Text

🚫 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!

3 notes · View notes

eli-kittim · 6 days

Text

Is Paul Teaching an Imminent Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15:51?

Koine Greek——the language in which Paul wrote his epistles——is interested in the so-called “aspect” (how), not in the “time” (when), of an event. First Corinthians 15:51 does not suggest specifically when the rapture & the resurrection will happen. And it strongly suggests that the plural pronoun “we” is referring to the dead, not to the readers who, by contrast, are alive in Corinth. The argument, therefore, that 1 Corinthians 15:51 is referring to an imminent eschatology is not supported by the original Greek text. What is more, if we compare the Pauline corpus with the eschatology of Matthew 24 & 2 Peter 3:10, as well as with the totality of scripture, it will become quite obvious that all these texts are talking about the distant future!

youtube

0 notes

eli-kittim · 23 days

Text

The Priority of the Epistles

Eli Kittim

Principles of Interpretation

Using R.C. Sproul’s hermeneutical guidelines from his book, Knowing Scripture, I will argue that there is a chronological discrepancy in the New Testament (NT) in which the timeline of Jesus’ life in the gospels is not the same as the one mentioned in the epistles. Specifically, the epistles contradict the gospels regarding the timeline of Christ’s birth, death, and resurrection by placing it in eschatological categories. So I will argue that, based on principles of interpretation, priority must be given to the epistles. According to R.C. Sproul, exegetes must interpret the implicit by the explicit and the narrative by the didactic. In practical terms, the NT epistles and other more explicit and didactic portions of Scripture must clarify the implicit meaning and significance of the gospel literature. Accordingly, I will argue that the epistles are the primary keys to unlocking the future timeline of Christ’s only visitation. According to R.C. Sproul’s hermeneutical guidelines, the gospels must be interpreted by the epistles.

“The Historical Narrative Must be

Interpreted by the Didactic”

— R.C. Sproul

Case in point. The epistles——which are the clearest teachings of the NT——apparently 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)! For example, according to the NT epistles, Jesus Christ will die “once for all” (Gk. ἅπαξ hapax) “at the end of the age” (Heb. 9:26b), a phrase which consistently refers to the end of the world (cf. Mt. 13:39-40, 49; 24:3; 28:20). Similarly, just as Hebrews 1:2 says that the physical Son speaks to humanity in the “last days,” 1 Pet. 1:20 (NJB) clearly sets forth the eschatological timing of Christ’s initial appearance “at the final point of time.” Given that the epistles are the more didactic portions of Scripture, and that the gospel narratives are not considered historical by many scholars, it would therefore seem hermeneutically legitimate to interpret the narrative by the didactic!

The Explicit & the Implicit

“The implicit is to be interpreted in light of

the explicit. Not the other way around”

— R.C. Sproul

But we have it completely backwards. For centuries, we’ve tried to interpret the explicit (epistles) in light of the implicit (gospels). And yet, it’s the didactic portions of Scripture that teach with clear and explicit statements. For example, in terms of Jesus’ appearance and death, Hebrews 9:26 (KJV) says directly and clearly, “once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” This is an explicit statement that not only shows the time of his coming (ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων) but also the purpose of his appearance, namely, to sacrifice himself in order to put away sin (εἰς ἀθέτησιν ⸀ἁμαρτίας διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ). In both the Greek and English versions, the statement is very clear. Jesus’ death takes place at the consummation of the ages. We find a parallel passage in 1 Peter 1:20 (ASV):

“[Jesus] was foreknown indeed before

the foundation of the world, but was

manifested at the end of the times.”

These are straightforward, clear, and explicit teachings. To subordinate these explicit epistolary teachings of Scripture and to argue on the basis of implications drawn from the more obscure gospel narratives is a misuse of the Scripture. If we insist on the canonical context of the Bible, namely, that each book in the Old Testament (OT) & the NT is related to all the other books and is inspired by the Holy Spirit, then we have to be careful not to set these two divisions——namely, the gospels and the epistles——in opposition. The problem arises when we deduce certain things from the gospels, which then bring us into direct conflict with something that the Scripture teaches in the epistles very clearly and very plainly.

“Our implications must always be measured

by and made subordinate to what the

Scriptures explicitly teach” — R.C. Sproul

The Totality of Scripture

“Every particular passage of Scripture must

be measured and interpreted against the

whole of Scripture” — R.C. Sproul

Let’s look at the gospel narratives and the didactic literature of the epistles and compare them. The didactic literature clearly demonstrates that the NT is an Apocalypse, whereas the gospels claim to be historical eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ Life, Death, and Resurrection. The first problem is that Bible scholars don’t consider the gospels as historical accounts, but rather view them as theological documents. The second problem is that the epistles seemingly contradict the gospels with regard to the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ by placing them in eschatological categories.

Now, let’s take the principle that “every particular passage of Scripture must be measured and interpreted against the whole of Scripture” and apply it to the Messianic timeline. And let’s ask the question: according to Scripture, does the Messiah come to earth during the time of antiquity or in the end times? In fact, most of the evidence with regard to the Messianic timeline in both the OT & NT is consistent with the epistles rather than with the gospels. For example, Zephaniah 1:7-8 declares that the Lord’s sacrifice will occur during “the day of the Lord” (not in antiquity; cf. Zeph. 1:14-18). Isaiah 2:19 says that people will hide in the caves of rocks when “the Lord … arises to terrify the earth.” In other words, the Lord’s resurrection is not separate from but contemporaneous with judgement day (cf. Rev. 6:15-17)! Similarly, Daniel 12:1 puts the resurrection of the anointed prince just prior to the great tribulation. This can be proved with detailed exegesis from the Greek text. For instance, the Septuagint (LXX Daniel 12:1) says παρελεύσεται, which means to “pass away,” while the Theodotion (Daniel 12:1) has ἀναστήσεται, meaning a bodily resurrection in the end-times. In the following verse (Daniel 12:2), the plural form of the exact same word (ἀναστήσονται) is used to describe the general resurrection of the dead! In other words, if the exact same word means resurrection in Daniel 12:2, then it must also necessarily mean resurrection in Daniel 12:1! Acts 3:20-21 similarly says that Christ will not be sent to earth until the consummation of the ages. Even Luke 17:30 claims that the Son of man has not yet been revealed! In fact, 1 Corinthians 15:22-24 tells us explicitly that Christ will be resurrected in the end-times (an idea also entertained by James Dunn):

“For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all

will be made alive. But each in his own

order: Christ the first fruits, after that those

who are Christ’s at His coming, then comes

the end.”

What is more, Revelation 12:5 makes it clear that the messiah is born in the end times as a contemporary of the last world empire, which is depicted as a seven-headed dragon with ten horns (cf. Rev. 17:9-14). In fact, chapter 12 & verse 5 describes the birth of the messiah, & the immediate next verse talks about the great tribulation. Likewise, Galatians 4:4 says that Jesus will be born during the consummation of the ages, expressed by the apocalyptic phrase τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, which is defined in Ephesians 1:10 as the end of the world! And Hebrews 9:26 (KJV) says EXPLICITLY——categorically and unequivocally——that Jesus will die for the sins of mankind “once in the end of the world” (ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων)! Rev 19:10 also informs us that the TESTIMONY to Jesus is prophetic (not historical). Read Acts 10:40-41 where we are told that Jesus’ resurrection was based on visions because it was only visible “to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God.” First Peter 1:10-11 also says that the NT prophets “predicted the sufferings of the Messiah” in advance (cf. Isa 46:10)!

0 notes

eli-kittim · 5 months

Text

Eli Kittim X (Twitter)

For Bible Prophecy, Follow Eli Kittim on X (formerly known as Twitter):

0 notes

eli-kittim · 11 months

Text

youtube

THE FIRST HORSEMAN OF THE APOCALYPSE IS NOT THE ANTICHRIST ❌❌❌

By Eli Kittim 🎓

0 notes

eli-kittim · 1 year

Text

Who Wrote the Gospels? Are They Giving us History? Is Luke 1:1-4 a Case Study?

Eli Kittim

I think we need to seriously reevaluate our traditional view of the New Testament. Almost everything we believe about it is wrong. Christianity is not a historical religion, and it doesn’t need to be defended through archaeology or historical apologetics (e.g. listing eyewitnesses, or proving the resurrection), as is often done. Similarly, the gospels are not historical documents that correspond to real historical events. So, it’s a waste of time trying to reconstruct the so-called “historical Jesus” through fictional/theological stories that are largely based on the Old Testament.

For example, if Luke wrote his gospel based on other people’s opinions (Lk 1:1-4), we are in big trouble! Here’s what probably happened. There was no oral Aramaic tradition.

As scholars are now saying, the New Testament was probably written by the Greco-Roman literati (i.e. the educated upper class/intelligentsia). That’s precisely why the New Testament was composed, for the most part, in Greece and Rome. And that also explains why it was written in Greek by highly literate authors who didn’t understand the finer points of Jewish life in first century Palestine.

The New Testament authors must have been members of the Greco-Roman upper crust and very well-known, and that’s probably why they didn’t add their names to the texts. Some of the potential candidates who may have had a hand in writing the New Testament are Philo, Plutarch, and Josephus. And that’s probably why Luke seems to be familiar with Josephus’ works (Steve Mason). At any rate, it was obviously more than one writer, and all the authors, without exception, must have had transcendent experiences of God. There were no interviews and no “memories” involved, as Luke suggests. Every word they put on paper was coming directly from God. The New Testament is basically written in the form of prophetical writing (i.e. the genre called “apocalyptic literature”) because it’s based exclusively on visions and revelations (see Gal. 1:11-12; 1 Pet. 1:10-11)!

But we have completely misunderstood and misinterpreted these books. The problem is not with the New Testament; it’s with us. If you carefully analyze the New Testament, you’ll find that the epistles give us the “real” Jesus (meaning the actual *timing* of the parousia), whereas the gospels only give us a literary, fictional/theological rendering based on Old Testament material (intertextuality). That’s what’s going on!

Here’s the problem with our traditional interpretation of the preface to Luke’s Gospel. If Luke 1:1-4 is taken as prima facie evidence, then we’re no longer reading the word of God, but a case study. It’s as if Luke is saying: I interviewed someone, who knew someone, who knew someone, who knew one of the apostles. In other words, Luke is basing his gospel on the memories (or false memories) of some individuals. Is this the inspired word of God that we must now accept as eyewitness testimony? I think not!

There are many problems with that view.

First, if Luke is giving us reports from interviews, then his gospel would certainly not be considered as the inspired word of God, but rather a case study which contains the questionable memories of second generation Christians, who may or may not know much, or who may not remember things accurately.

Second, the composite work of Luke-Acts is a fictional composition. The Book of Acts, especially, creates a head-on collision with the authentic Pauline corpus, particularly with Galatians. Not to mention that many of the details in the story are seemingly fabricated (e.g. Pharisees working for Sadducees, the Sanhedrin had no jurisdiction in Syria, Paul’s journeys are contradicted, etc.), and even the term “Christian” was not used until the beginning of the 2nd century. That’s why scholars like EP Sanders and Paula Fredriksen view Acts as a work of historical fiction. In fact, Dr. Fredriksen seriously doubts whether the author of Luke-Acts was Paul's companion. According to her, Luke doesn’t seem to know Paul very well. Bottom line, if you want to understand the actual TIMING of the Birth, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus, read the epistles, not the gospels!

How Did God Inspire the Biblical Authors?

0 notes

eli-kittim · 1 year

Text

A Study in Textual Criticism: Who’s Copying Who in First Timothy 5:18 & Luke 10:7

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

First Corinthians 9:9 is the first New Testament verse to quote Deuteronomy 25:4. The Septuagint version reads:

Οὐ φιμώσεις βοῦν ἀλοῶντα.

English translation by L.C.L. Brenton:

Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treads

out the corn.

Remember that 1 Corinthians was written around 53–54 ce. by Paul.

First Corinthians 9:9 (SBLGNT) reads as follows:

ἐν γὰρ τῷ Μωϋσέως νόμῳ γέγραπται · Οὐ

κημώσεις βοῦν ἀλοῶντα. μὴ τῶν βοῶν

μέλει τῷ θεῷ.

Translation (NASB):

For it is written in the Law of Moses: ‘You

shall not muzzle the ox while it is threshing.’

God is not concerned about oxen, is He?

Then, 1 Cor. 9:10 gives us the “interpretation”:

ἢ δι’ ἡμᾶς πάντως λέγει; δι’ ἡμᾶς γὰρ

ἐγράφη, ὅτι ὀφείλει ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι ⸃ ὁ ἀροτριῶν

ἀροτριᾶν, καὶ ὁ ἀλοῶν ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι τοῦ

μετέχειν.

Translation:

Or is He speaking entirely for our sake? Yes,

it was written for our sake, because the

plowman ought to plow in hope, and the

thresher to thresh in hope of sharing in the

crops.

Interestingly enough, 1 Cor. 9:9 must be copying an alternative version of the Septuagint because it uses the word κημώσεις instead of the Septuagint’s φιμώσεις. Both words mean “to muzzle.”

Then, the unknown author of 1 Timothy——who composed the letter around the end of the first century——seems to be quoting directly from the Greek Septuagint, rather than from 1 Cor. 9:9. First Timothy 5:18 is actually quoting the Greek Septuagint verbatim but switching the word order around:

First Timothy 5:18 says:

λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή · Βοῦν ἀλοῶντα οὐ

φιμώσεις, καί · Ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ

αὐτοῦ.

Translation:

For the Scripture says, ‘YOU SHALL NOT

MUZZLE THE OX WHILE IT IS THRESHING,’

and ‘The laborer is worthy of his wages.’

But notice that the quotation from 1 Tim. 5:18 is backwards:

Βοῦν ἀλοῶντα οὐ φιμώσεις.

Compare Deut. 25:4 (LXX):

Οὐ φιμώσεις βοῦν ἀλοῶντα.

Perhaps 1 Tim. 5:18 is involved in a mop-up job to clean up the verse that 1 Cor. 9:9 kind of changed a little bit.

Anyway, 1 Tim. 5:18 also adds the “interpretation”:

Ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ.

Translation:

The laborer is worthy of his wages.

Luke 10:7 reads:

ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ.

Luke omits the “saying” from Deut. 25:4 and simply states the “interpretation,” which is found in 1 Cor. 9:10. But, surprisingly, Luke seems to be quoting from Exod. 22:15 (LXX):

ἐὰν δὲ μισθωτὸς ᾖ, ἔσται αὐτῷ ἀντὶ τοῦ

μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ.

English translation by L.C.L. Brenton:

but if it be a hired thing, there shall be [a

compensation] to him instead of his hire.

So it’s unclear whether Luke 10:7 is copying 1 Cor. 9:9-10, or an entirely different context from Exod. 22:15 (LXX). Remember that the saying “You shall not muzzle the ox while it is threshing” was first quoted in the NT by 1 Cor. 9:9, which then added the “interpretation” (NASB):

the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing in

the crops.

But the Greek text of Luke seems to be copying from elsewhere when it says: “the laborer is deserving of his wages” (Lk 10:7). Let’s not forget that 1 Corinthians was written by Paul in the 50s, prior to Luke’s gospel, which was written c. 80-85 ce.

Neither 1 Tim. 5:18 nor Lk 10:7 seem to be copying directly from 1 Cor. 9:9-10, even though the “saying” that we are studying (from Deut. 25:4) was first quoted and interpreted in 1 Corinthians back in the 50s. Rather, it appears as if 1 Tim. 5:18 is quoting Luke almost verbatim. The unknown author of 1 Tim. 5:18 simply omits the word γὰρ. Notice the 3 versions side by side (SBLGNT):

First Corinthians 9:10:

καὶ ὁ ἀλοῶν ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι τοῦ μετέχειν.

First Timothy 5:18:

Ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ.

Luke 10:7:

ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ.

To sum up, 1 Cor. 9:9 was the first to quote Deut. 25:4, probably using an alternative Septuagint reading from the pluriform textual tradition. And it appears as if 1 Tim. 5:18 is sanitizing 1 Cor. 9:9-10 by quoting the LXX verbatim, but simply altering the word order. Interestingly enough, 1 Tim. 5:18 uses Luke’s interpretation nearly verbatim, and doesn’t quote Paul from 1 Cor. 9:9-10. If Paul had written 1 Tim., we would have expected him to quote himself (from 1 Cor. 9:9). First Timothy 5:18 may also be sanitizing Luke, who might be copying a wrong verse, thus tying Luke to Paul. The connection between 1 Cor. 9:9-10 & Luke 10:7 only becomes apparent in 1 Tim. 5:18’s editorial work which harmonizes the two! So the copying sequence runs from Deuteronomy to 1 Corinthians to Luke to 1 Timothy. Given that 1 Timothy was written after Luke, it’s fair to assume that it is copying Luke. But this is not Paul. It’s an unknown author. The point of all these verses is that the followers of Christ, who labor for the kingdom, should know that they will be handsomely rewarded for their toil❗️

1 note · View note