Eli-kittim - Eli Of Kittim

Biblical Sin: Not as Behavior but as Ultimate Transgression

By Author Eli Kittim

I think the Greek phrase χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας (i.e. “without sin”) in reference to Jesus in Hebrews 4.15 has been greatly misunderstood. If in this particular context the phrase “no sin” (2 Cor. 5.21) is referring to Jesus’ action or behavior, it contradicts many New Testament (NT) passages. One that immediately comes to mind is Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness by Satan. If Jesus is sinless in the sense that he is born without a sin-nature——and therefore incapable of committing a sin, as the church proclaims——then the so-called temptation of Jesus becomes absolutely meaningless because how can you “tempt” someone who, by definition, cannot be tempted? And would Jesus “be like His brothers in every way” (Heb. 2.17), fully human, if he was unable to be tempted? The answer is a resounding no! If by “sin,” the NT is referring to behavior, it would also contradict aspects of human nature and common knowledge. It would imply that in his human development, from childhood to adulthood, Jesus never made a mistake and was without error, which is patently ridiculous (cf. Luke 2.52; 18.19).

So, what does the NT imply when it refers to Jesus being “without sin”? I would like to suggest that this reference has nothing to do with Jesus’ actions or behavior but rather with the nature of his being. According to Robert Mulholland, a NT scholar, “sins” (in the plural) are behavioral symptoms whereas “sin” (in the singular), out of which these symptomatic behaviors and attitudes arise, is a question of being. In this sense, it is a throwback to the garden of eden and the “sin” of Adam and Eve. There’s no particular “action “ or “behavior” that is associated with their transgression except that they accepted the serpent’s advice and partook of the idiomatic apple. Similarly, although It would have been utterly impossible for Jesus to avoid sin as an activity or behavior, nevertheless he did not sin in his being because, during his temptation by Satan, he ultimately did not transgress the law of God as Adam and Eve had done! He kept it!

Just as “Adam’s one sin brings condemnation for everyone, … [so] Christ’s one act of righteousness brings [salvation] … for everyone” (Rom. 5.18).

The Two Powers of the Godhead Were Part of Judaism During the Time of Jesus

Eli Kittim (Goodreads Author)

——-

Metatron and Jesus

The early Jewish concept of “Metatron”——(He who is said to be above the angels, either consubstantial with the Ancient of days or perhaps a manifestation of his very being) as referenced by Medieval Rabbinic scholars and also found in the Babylonian Talmud and 3 Enoch——is very similar to the messianic figure of Jesus Christ in the New Testament (NT) and is suggestive of two powers in the Godhead, an idea also attested by Philo of Alexandria (see “Confusion of Tongues" pp. 62-63 and pp. 146-47; “On Dreams" 1.215). The notion of the two powers in Heaven in early Jewish thinking has recently attracted the attention of both Christian and Jewish scholarship. Peter Schafer, the noted religious studies scholar, has written extensively on this subject emphasizing that, according to Jewish writings, Metatron was seen as a lesser yhwh and was prevalent in Jewish thought in the first century, and thus helped Christianity to chalk up that designation to Jesus.

——-

The Two Powers in Heaven in the Hebrew Bible

The two powers of the Godhead or the plurality in the Godhead is certainly suggested in Hebrew scripture where there seem to be two Yahwehs, one visible, the other invisible, and they often participate in the same scenes together. In fact, according to Alan F. Segal’s book “Two powers in Heaven,” “the idea of the 2nd power was not considered heretical until the 2nd century CE.” Alan Segal was a Jewish man and professor of Jewish and Talmudic literature. So, the concept of the two powers of the Godhead was part of Judaism at the time of Jesus and only became a heresy sometime around 100 CE. Scholars suggest it was probably due to an attempt on the part of Judaism to oppose Christianity that they suddenly decided to consider it heretical. Naturally, this second YHWH was seen as Jesus by the NT authors.

——-

There are 2 YHWHs in the Old Testament (OT)

The divine plurality was not a huge problem at that time because there was already a belief in two powers in Jewish thought. There are, for example, two Yhwhs in Gen. 19.24. You can also see this idea in Gen. 22.11-12; Exod. 3.2, 4; 23.20-21; Deut. 12.5, 11. In Amos 4.11, God speaks in the first person and then curiously refers to God in the 3d person. In Judg. 2.1-4, the angel of YHWH is using first person language and speaks as if he’s God who has made a covenant with Israel. Astoundingly, in Gen. 31.10-13, the angel of God reveals himself as the God of Bethel. How could he be both the angel of God and God himself at one and the same time unless we’re talking about two different persons? Similarly, in Judg. 6.11-16, the passage begins with the angel of YHWH who said x y and z but ends with YHWH who said x y and z. In other words, as the angel of YHWH begins to speak he is then identified with YHWH himself speaking in the first person.

——-

YHWH revealed as the Word of the Lord

Further examples are found in 1 Samuel 3.1, 7-8, 10, 19-21. In 1 Samuel 3.21, for instance, we are told that the LORD (YHWH) revealed himself by/as the word of the Lord. This has profound theological implications. It clearly suggests that the Logos in Jn 1.1 (“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”) is neither a new idea nor a Christian invention but rather a conceptual derivation from Jewish theology that is contained within the OT itself. Similarly, in Jeremiah 1.4-7, Jeremiah says that “the word of the Lord came to me saying,” such and such, and then he refers to him as YHWH, but in v. 9 “the word of the Lord” that had come to him appears to be embodied because an actual hand reaches out and touches Jeremiah’s mouth, suggestive of the embodied word of God.

——-

The OT YHWH embodied in human form

In Daniel 7.13 “a human being coming with the clouds of heaven” is mentioned even though traditionally it is said to be God who rides the clouds (cf. Deut. 33.26; Ps. 68.32-33; 104.1-3; Isa. 19.1). Thus, we have a visible, embodied, incarnate God as well as an invisible God at one and the same time! We all thought that the cloud-rider was Yahweh. That’s correct. But now we find another person, a human being who takes on the qualities and attributes of Yahweh. In fact, the Matthean Jesus quotes this very passage during his purported trial (26.63-65) when Caiphas inquires to know who he really is. According to Alan Segal’s book, Daniel 7 is describing “a heavenly enthronement scene involving two divine manifestations, ‘the son of man’ and then Ancient of Days’ . . . it may easily be describing two separate, divine figures.”

——-

Jesus is unique amongst the heavenly host

While it is true that the Tanach presents other so-called “sons of God” who are not human (e.g. Job 1-2; Ps. 82.1, 6), Jesus is distinguished from them in that he is clearly identified with Yahweh per se. The NT itself makes this point in various ways. One way that the NT distinguishes Jesus from the other sons of God, which the Septuagint often translates as angels (Deut. 32.8 LXX), is through the Greek term monogenēs, a term that is translated in English as “Only Begotten.” Etymologically, this term is a combination of monos (“only”) and gene (“type” or “kind”). In other words, one of a kind. There are none like him. It means he’s “unique.” It does not have anything to do with the concepts of “begetting” or “beginning.” Hebrews 11.17 is the proof-text which clarifies this point because Isaac is also referenced there as the monogenes of Abraham. But we know that Isaac was not the only begotten son of Abraham. Ergo, it means that Isaac is unique.

——-

Summary:

Thus the “Only begotten” language refers to uniqueness, not to a “point of origin” or to a beginning. Given that Yahweh is unique and that Jesus is identified with him, this term stresses an intimate relationship between the two. The NT affirms a divine plurality and specifically Christ’s ontological link with Yahweh. In fact, Jude 1.5 suggests that it was Jesus himself who led the people out of Egypt!

——-

What about the Spirit and the Trinity?

The Holy Spirit becomes distinct as a separate entity already in the OT, as when it is said that the people rebelled not against the angel of the Lord but against “his Holy Spirit.” It’s noteworthy that later the text alludes to God “who brought them out of the sea” and “put in the midst of them his Holy Spirit” (Isaiah 63.10, 11). But wasn’t the angel of the Lord put in the midst of them, according to other passages? Well, yes. But there’s more to the story. Psalm 78.40-41 is a parallel passage. The words “rebelled” and “grieved” in Ps 78 are the same Hebrew words used in the Isaian passage. The Isaian passage says that the people rebelled and grieved “his Holy Spirit” whereas Ps 78 says that “they rebelled against him [God] and grieved him in the desert.” Verse 41 goes on to say that “They tested God again and again and provoked the Holy One of Israel.” The comparison of the two passages aligns or conflates the Holy Spirit with God and yet shows a distinction between them. In fact, Ps. 78.41 says that they tempted God and the Holy One of Israel. This is a case where two divine powers are mentioned in the same scene while one figure that we’re familiar with is clearly absent, to wit, the angel of the Lord. A third element is thus added to the two-power structure of the Godhead, namely, the Holy Spirit or the Holy One of Israel, according to the parallel passage. That’s “three-thinking” language. Accordingly, the NT authors knew their Hebrew Scriptures extraordinarily well. They were very familiar with its thematic material. So, they’re not inventing new concepts. They’re actually borrowing their ideas from the OT.

——-

A Trinitarian narrative in OT theology

By way of illustration, Ezek. 8 introduces “a form that had the appearance of a man” (v. 1), and then goes on to describe this figure in v. 2, which is suggestive of God sitting on his throne in Ezek. ch. 1. But here God appears in human form. Ezekiel says that “He put out the form of a hand” by which he grabbed his hair (v. 3). But who actually lifted him up? Ezekiel says, “and the Spirit lifted me up between earth and heaven (v. 3). The text then reverts to speaking about God in the 3rd person (v. 5) and also in the first person in verse 6.

So, in this passage we have God himself speaking, but we also have an embodied God in human form (akin to the figure in Ezek. ch. 1) as well as the “Spirit” acting as an independent agent and yet as part of the Godhead. This must have been extremely confusing to the early rabbinical scholars who probably couldn't make heads or tails of these passages. To the NT authors, who were also guided by divine revelations, these passages were obviously trinitarian in nature. Thus, there appears to be a theological correspondance between the *OT-God* (comprising the two YHWHs and the Spirit) and the *NT-God* (consisting of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). These divine modes were certainly prevalent in OT theology concerning the Two (and possibly Three) Powers in the Godhead.

——-

Conclusion

The Jewish Bible clearly suggests a plurality in the Godhead (i.e. Yahweh as two figures).

The so-called “Name” of God is yet another reference to Yahweh and this “Name” is said to be in the Angel of Yahweh as well. Ergo, we cannot escape the semantic trajectory of OT theology, namely, the running narrative that the Angel is YHWH in human form, or the visible manifestation of Yahweh. What is more, the so-called “Word of the Lord” appears to be an embodiment of YHWH. In fact, the theology of the Jewish Bible depicts the second Yahweh figure as physically embodied in human form. And, as already mentioned, the theology of first-century Judaism already contained the notion that Yahweh is present in two persons, often in the same scene.

#Interview_with_Eli_Kittim #Author_of_The_Little_Book_of_Revelation https://rhondapattonauthor.wordpress.com/2018/07/06/welcome-author-eli-of-kittim/

Christ Says, “I Am Coming like a Thief”: In Other Words, like a Criminal

By Author Eli Kittim

The first point I’d like to make is that “there is no one who understands” Scripture (Rom. 3:11). Deuteronomy 21 declares that “someone guilty of a capital offense is put to death and their body is exposed on a pole” (v. 22), and further states that “anyone who is hung on a pole is under God’s curse” (v. 23). And yet, Galatians 3:13 maintains that “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.’” Moreover, Christ explicitly identifies himself with the snake mentioned in the Book of Numbers when he says, “Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up” (Jn. 3:14). Remember that the snake gave life, but only to those who beheld it: “So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they lived” (Num. 21:9). In other words, Christ is portrayed as a criminal (i.e., a snake, which represents a sinner) who is under God’s curse.

In his commentary on the Letter to the Galatians, Martin Luther wrote:

“All the prophets of old said that Christ should be the greatest transgressor, murderer, adulterer, thief, blasphemer that ever was or ever could be on earth. When he took the sins of the whole world upon himself, Christ was no longer an innocent person. . . . In short, Christ was charged with the sins of all men, that he should pay for them with his own blood. The curse struck him. The Law found him among sinners. He was not only in the company of sinners. He had gone so far as to invest himself with the flesh and blood of sinners. So the Law judged and hanged him for a sinner.”

This means that all the sins that have ever been committed throughout human history are put on the back of Jesus. Pastor Matt Richard writes,

“And then to top it off God judged Jesus to be GUILTY for the whole package. . . . The weight of that, the horror, the dread and the enormity of it all is incomprehensible. It caused Jesus to cry out to his Father, ‘My God.... Why have you forsaken me?’ . . . . As repulsive as it may sound to us, only in this truth—that Jesus became SIN—is our hope and our salvation found.”

Second Corinthians 5:21 provides the basis for this interpretation. It reads, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us.” However, when we look at the Greek text (Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th ed.), it reads: τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν (2 Cor. 5:21). The word ἐποίησεν is based on the verb ποιέω (poieó), which means to “make,” to “produce” (G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, p. 1107) or to “do.” It does not mean “to be,” as in the alternative translation: “God made him . . . to be sin for us” (cf. Jn 4:46 where ἐποίησεν means “made” water into wine). Thus, the correct reading of 2 Cor. 5:21 is as follows: “in our behalf He did make sin” (Young's Literal Translation). The Good News Translation—which reads, “God made him share our sin”—is far closer to the YLT and the original Greek text than the NIV, NASB or the KJV. Nevertheless, even the mainstream rendering of ἐποίησεν (i.e., “to be sin”) implies that Christ became “sin,” so to speak, by taking upon him our fallen, sinful nature: “He became like a human being and appeared in human likeness” (Phil. 2:7). How else could he be “fully human in every way” (Heb. 2:17), share our humanity (Heb. 2:14) and be tempted if he doesn’t have a sin nature? (cf. the Infancy Gospel of Thomas). You cannot tempt someone who, by definition, is incapable of being tempted: “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are” (Heb. 4:15). In this regard, 2 Peter 3:15—16 poignantly notes that “Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures.”

Sin is evil. If Christ became sin, or made sin, then Christ became evil in some sense via the incarnation because he took on our nature and became a sinner. Kenneth Copeland rightly asks: “Why did Moses raise a serpent instead of a lamb?” John Chrysostom, an important Early Church Father, writes: “God allowed His Son to suffer as if a condemned sinner . . .” (Homily on 1 Cor. 11:5). That is why Christ is punished; because “the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa. 53:6). And, according to the gospel narratives, Jesus is arrested, tried, condemned to death, and later executed as a criminal (i.e. an enemy of the state)!

But the real question is, did this happen in Antiquity or is God “declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done”? (Isa. 46:10). Revelation 12:5 suggests that Christ’s incarnation is a future event that takes place in the end-times. First Peter 1:20 similarly says, “God chose him as your ransom long before the world began, but he has now revealed him to you in these last days” (cf. Heb. 1:1—2). What’s more, Hebrews 9:26 explicitly states: “Once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” The NIV says that his death takes place “at the culmination of the ages,” while the NASB puts it, “at the consummation of the ages.” The NRSV associates Christ’s sacrifice with the end-times by rendering it “at the end of the age.” The Greek text is as follows: ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων εἰς ἀθέτησιν [τῆς] ἁμαρτίας διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ πεφανέρωται. Lampe defines the word συντελείᾳ as ‘consummation’ (i.e. the ultimate end), particularly in reference to Heb. 9:26 συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων and Mt.13:39 συντελείᾳ τοῦ αἰῶνος. Appropriately, the NJB equates Christ’s initial appearance on earth with the last days. It reads: “He was marked out before the world was made, and was revealed at the final point of time” (1 Pet. 1:20).

Let us now try to understand the meaning of the phrase, “I am coming like a thief!” (Rev. 16:15). In Matthew 24:43, a thief is depicted as one who breaks into a house to steal another person's property. He is commonly known as a burglar and is considered to be a criminal. Here is “Martin Luther’s Commentary on Galatians 3:13: Christ, The Greatest Of Sinners?”

(Galatians 3:13. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written: Cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree)

“It was appropriate for Him to become a thief and, as Isaiah says (53:12), to be 'numbered among the thieves.'" Similarly, C. H. Spurgeon’s sermon, “Christ Made Sin”—which was on 2 Corinthians 5:21: “For He has made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us”—echoes the words of Martin Luther. He exclaims:

“He bound His only begotten Son to the pillar and scourged and bruised Him! Sooner than sin should go unpunished, He put that sin upon Christ and punished Him—oh, how tremendously and with what terrific strokes! . . . And upon His Son He laid a tremendous, incomprehensible weight, till the griefs of the dying Redeemer utterly surpassed all our imagination or comprehension!”

In summary, Christ is “numbered among the thieves” (Isa. 53.12) and has “become a curse for us—for it is written: Cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree” (Gal. 3:13). He becomes the snake of Num. 21:9 (cf. Jn. 3:14), signifying a criminal (i.e., a sinner) who is under God’s curse. And according to the gospel narratives, he is in fact convicted of a crime: he’s arrested, tried, and condemned to death. If this story is played out in the end-times (cf. Heb. 9:26; 1 Pet. 1:20; Rev. 12:5), and if the word ἐποίησεν (2 Cor. 5:21) means that Christ "did make sin" rather than "be sin," then the exegesis of Rev. 16:15—“I come like a thief”—suggests a literal interpretation, namely, that we should expect Christ to come like a criminal; that is to say, like a thief!

Based on Translation and Exegesis of the Greek New Testament, the Woman of Revelation 12.4-5 Can Only be Placed in Eschatological Categories

By Author Eli Kittim

_________________________________________

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 12.4--5

καὶ ἡ οὐρὰ αὐτοῦ σύρει τὸ τρίτον τῶν ἀστέρων τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ ἔβαλεν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὴν γῆν. Καὶ ὁ δράκων ἕστηκεν ἐνώπιον τῆς γυναικὸς τῆς μελλούσης τεκεῖν, ἵνα ὅταν τέκῃ τὸ τέκνον αὐτῆς καταφάγῃ. καὶ ἔτεκεν υἱὸν ἄρσεν, ὃς μέλλει ποιμαίνειν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ. καὶ ἡρπάσθη τὸ τέκνον αὐτῆς πρὸς τὸν θεὸν καὶ πρὸς τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ.

---- Novum Testamentum Graece NA28

________________________________________

Translation:

REVELATION 12.4--5

His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, so that he might devour her child as soon as it was born. And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron. But her child was snatched away and taken to God and to his throne.

---- New Revised Standard Version 1989

________________________________________

The key words used in the original Greek text are as follows:

τῆς γυναικὸς τῆς μελλούσης τεκεῖν

which are traditionally interpreted as "the woman who was about to bear a child."

However, there seems to be a mistranslation of the original word μελλούσης, which essentially misleads the reader with regard to the proper chronological context of the passage in question! And we're not even covering the eschatological context of the seven-headed dragon with ten horns that "stood before the woman" (12.4), which is later depicted in Rev. 17 as a final empire on earth. So let's take a closer look.

The Greek term μελλούσης that is mentioned in Rev. 12.4 is derived from the root word μέλλω, which means "about to happen" and refers to "coming" or "future" events. An inflection of the word μελλούσης is the term μέλλουσα, a derivative of the root μέλλων, which means “future” (i.e. μέλλουσες γενεές ― future generations).

We must always bear in mind the future context of the Book of Revelation, which is firmly embedded in the very first verse concerning "what must soon take place" (cf. 22.6), and which then undergirds "the words of the prophecy" (v. 3), an expression that is later reiterated several times beginning in chapter 22 verse 7 with regard to "the words of the prophecy of this book." Thus, the eschatological nature of the Book of Revelation is clearly emphasized. This would imply that any interpretations which look to the past are, by definition, anachronistic!

Here are several New Testament quotations for the word μελλούσης and its inflections:

1) μέλλοντα (i.e. things to come), Rom. 8.38, cf. 1 Cor. 3.22;

2) εἰς τό μέλλον (i.e. in the future), Luke 13.9, cf. 1 Tim. 6.19;

3) σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων (i.e. a shadow of what is to come [things future]), Col. 2.17;

4) ζωῆς τῆς νῦν καί τῆς μελλούσης (i.e. the present life and the life to come), 1 Tim. 4.8;

5) τήν οἰκουμένην τήν μέλλουσαν (i.e. the world to come), Heb. 2.5;

6) τό κρίμα τό μέλλον (i.e. the coming judgment), Acts 24.25;

7) τὴν μέλλουσαν πόλιν (i.e. the city that is to come), Heb. 13.14.

As you can see, each time the Greek term μελλούσης or one of its inflections is used (i.e. μέλλοντα, μέλλον, μελλόντων, μέλλουσαν), it is always in reference to a future event. Nowhere does it refer to a past event. For example, just as Matt. 3.7 refers to a future wrath----ἀπὸ τῆς μελλούσης ὀργῆς (i.e. from the wrath to come?)----so Matt. 12.32 refers to a future age: ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι [αἰών] (i.e. in the age to come).

Conclusion

It cannot be gainsaid that the Greek term μελλούσης in Rev. 12.4 is referring to an eschatological figure. However, according to the standard interpretation of the New Testament, there is often a proleptic interpretation that accompanies this verse, which begs the question: how could a future woman possibly give birth in Antiquity? Such an interpretation seems anachronistic and contradicts not only the content but also the context of Rev. 12.4--5.