What If The Crucifixion Of Christ Is A Future Event?

What if the Crucifixion of Christ is a Future Event?

By Author Eli Kittim

Biblical Exegesis, the Canonical Context, and the Analogy of Scripture

Biblical studies must involve “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20.27) or the entire Biblical canon, in which all books must be examined equally as parts of a larger *canonical context,* not simply on an individual basis or as isolated parts. Moreover, in order to avoid confirmation bias, we must employ the hermeneutical principle known as “the analogy of Scripture” (Lat. ‘analogia Scripturae’). Thus, the inability of an expositor to remain completely objective is offset by the process in which Scripture interprets Scripture without outside interference or intervention.

Dogmatic theology: Proof-text and Coherence Fallacies

What is Classical Christianity’s foundational faith statement? The Protestant commentariat speaks highly of the Reformation, a movement that gradually freed itself from fiercely defended church traditions and council decrees through its fervent adherence to sola scriptura. But, unfortunately, the reformation didn’t go far enough. Sadly, reformed theology is, in many ways, a reprise of a long standing interpretation of Scripture which is based on ecclesiastical theology and authority. For example, the Nicene Creed——which was adopted during the First Council of Constantinople in 381 CE——reads:

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ . . . who for

us men, and for our salvation, came down

from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy

Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made

man, he was crucified for us under Pontius

Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and

the third day he rose again, according to

the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven,

and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;

from thence he shall come again, with glory,

to judge the quick and the dead.

Protestants have unquestionably accepted this church dogma. But a second coming begs the question as it is nowhere mentioned in the New Testament (NT). And there is no epistolary proof that Jesus was born of a virgin, nor is there any proof regarding the dogma of the Immaculate Conception that expounds on the implications of the virgin birth, which was only recently adopted by the Roman Catholic Church via an apostolic constitution in 1854!

And what of all the Scriptures that contradict the Nicene dogma, which erroneously asserts of a messianic sacrifice in Antiquity? What about Zeph. 1.7-9, 15-18 that clearly equates the Lord’s sacrifice with the “day of the Lord”? Are we to assume that the day of the Lord already happened in Antiquity? And what about the piercing of the Messiah “on that [apocalyptic] day”? (Zech. 12.9-10)! Can we seriously ignore the end-of-the-world timeline in Mt. 13.39-40, 49? Or in Mt. 24.3? Or in Mt. 28.20? Yet the exact same apocalyptic phrase that is used in all these verses is ALSO used in **Hebrews 9.26b**, which explicitly refers to a messianic sacrifice that will transpire “once for all” (hapax) “at the end of the age,” a period that is synonymous with the day of the Lord and with judgment day! And why ignore Scripture which says explicitly that Christ speaks to humanity in the “last days”? (Heb. 1.2). Why should we deliberately ignore the future incarnation of Christ in Rev. 12.5? Or the fact that the testimony to Jesus is prophetic? (Rev. 19.10d). Or the first coming of Jesus in 1 Pet. 1.20? Or the Son of Man that has not yet been revealed in Lk 17.30? Or the initial visitation of the messiah during “the time of universal restoration”? (Acts 3.19-21). Or Christ’s future resurrection in 1 Cor. 15.23-24? Or the admonition against the historical resurrection theology in 2 Tim. 2.18? Or the fact that Jesus’ one and only coming is associated with judgment day in John 9.39? (cf. Lk 12.49).

The Apocalyptic Aspect of the Gospels

If this is indeed the canonical context, then it cannot be overridden by Catholic dogmas against which the reformers fought so hard to free themselves from. Catholic dogmatic theology once set the theological standard against which all other theories were measured, whereby it inevitably lead to multiple coherence fallacies down through the ages. In other words, the church’s misreading of the gospel literature as historical is obviously not compatible with the overall existing theology of Scripture! In short, what was originally Apocalyptic Christianity was turned into Historical Christianity by Church dogma!

This plays such a crucial role that many Christian adherents today feel that if the historical component is discredited, then Christianity can no longer be viable or credible. Noted author John Ankerberg has said something to that effect, and so have many others, including philosopher/apologist William Lane Craig, who tries desperately to prove the historical aspects of the Christian faith. And yet Christianity is and always has been an *Apocalyptic Religion* that is based on a revelation or unveiling of the end times! Due to its prophetic and apocalyptic foundation, the NT text remains credible and viable even if its literary elements prove to be unhistorical. Ultimately, the Bible is a book on faith, not on history or science. As Kierkegaard would argue, the Christian tenets cannot be proved empirically or historically; they can only be experienced existentially! Christianity is not a belief of the mind but of the heart!

The Apocalyptic Aspect of the Epistles

If we shift theological gears and focus on the epistles, the earliest NT writings, we’ll find a completely different theology altogether, one in which the coherence of Scripture revolves around the *end-times*! For example, in 2 Pet. 1.16–21, the eyewitness testimony of Jesus’ transfiguration in vv. 16-18 is not historical but rather a vision of the future. That’s why verse 19 concludes: “So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed.” The same goes for the apocalyptic passage in 1 Pet. 1.10-11, which suggests an eschatological soteriology.

According to the principle of expositional constancy, if we compare the chronological time period or the timeline known as “the fullness of time” (τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου) in Gal. 4.4 to that of Eph. 1.9-10, we will come to realize that Christ’s birth, as recorded in the former, is in reference to the eschaton, not to a purported time period in Antiquity. The end-times incarnation of Christ in Gal. 4.4 is multiply and independently attested in Rev. 12.5, whose timeline is contemporaneous with the Great Tribulation and the apocalyptic events of the end-times!

Therefore, the church’s dogma that Jesus died in Antiquity appears to be a proof-text fallacy that is out of touch with the *teaching* of the epistles. For example, there are numerous passages in the epistles that place the timeline of Jesus’ life (i.e., his birth, death, and resurrection) in *eschatological* categories (e.g., 2 Thess. 2.1-3; Heb. 1.1-2; 9.26b; 1 Pet. 1.10-11, 20; Rev. 12.5; 19.10d).

Furthermore, if the canonical context demands that we coalesce the different Biblical texts as if we’re reading a single Book, then the overall “prophetic” message of Revelation must certainly play a significant exegetical role. Accordingly, the Book of Revelation places not only the timeline (12.5) but also the testimony to Jesus (19.10d) in “prophetic” categories.

The *apocalyptic theology* of the NT epistles is multiply attested in the Old Testament canon, which confirms the earthy, *end-time Messiah* of the epistolary literature (cf. Job 19.25; Isa. 2.19; Dan. 12.1-2; Zeph. 1.7-9, 15-18; Zech. 12.9-10)!

What About the Numerous NT References to the Revelation of Jesus: Are they Not References to a Second Coming?

A revelation by default means “a first-time” occurrence. In other words, it’s an event that is happening for the very first time. By definition, a “revelation” is never disclosed twice. If we examine the NT verses, which mention the future revelation of Christ, we will find that they are not referring to a second coming, a coming back, or a return, as is commonly thought, but rather to an initial appearance (see e.g. 1 Cor. 1.7; 16.22; 1 Thess. 2.19; 4.15; 2 Thess. 1.10; 2.1; Heb. 10.37; Jas. 5.7; 1 Pet. 1.7; 2 Pet. 1.16; 3.4; 1 Jn 2.28; Rev. 2.16; 22.20).

See my article: Why does the New Testament Refer to Christ’s Future Coming as a “Revelation”?

https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/187927555567/why-does-the-new-testament-refer-to-christs

Eli of Kittim

WHY DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT REFER TO CHRIST’S FUTURE COMING AS A “REVELATION”?

By Eli Kittim It’s important to note the language that’s often used with regard to the future coming of Christ, namely, as the “revelation

Another objection to the second coming of Christ goes something like this. If God wants to accomplish something, he’ll get it done on the first attempt. Why the need for a second attempt? It would imply that Christ’s mission on earth was a total failure and that nothing so clearly indicates his unsuccessful earthly mission to restore God’s kingdom as his much anticipated return to set things right. In other words, the second coming implies that Jesus couldn’t get it done the first time. He has to come back to finish the job.

Visions of the Resurrection

Most credible scholars view the so-called resurrection of Christ not as a historical phenomenon but rather as a visionary experience. And this seems to be the *apocalyptic* message of the NT as well (cf. 2 Tim. 2.17-18; 2 Thess. 2.1-3). For example, Lk. 24.23 explicitly states that the women “had indeed seen a vision.” Lk. 24.31 reads: “he [Jesus] vanished from their sight.” And Lk. 24.37 admits they “thought that they were seeing a ghost.” Here are some of the statements that scholars have made about the resurrection, which do not necessarily disqualify them as believers:

The resurrection itself is not an event of

past history. All that historical criticism can

establish is that the first disciples came to

believe the resurrection (Rudolph Bultmann,

‘The New Testament and Mythology,’ in

Kerygma and Myth: A Theological Debate,

ed. Hans Werner Bartsch, trans. Reginald H.

Fuller [London: S.P.C.K, 1953-62], 38, 42).

When the evangelists spoke about the

resurrection of Jesus, they told stories

about apparitions or visions (John Dominic

Crossan, ‘A Long Way from Tipperary: A

Memoir’ [San Francisco:

HarperSanFransisco, 2000], 164-165).

At the heart of the Christian religion lies a

vision described in Greek by Paul as

ophehe——‘he was seen.’ And Paul himself,

who claims to have witnessed an

appearance asserted repeatedly ‘I have

seen the Lord.’ So Paul is the main source

of the thesis that a vision is the origin of the

belief in resurrection . . . (Gerd Lüdemann,

‘The Resurrection of Jesus: History,

Experience, Theology.’ Translated by John

Bowden. [London: SCM, 1994], 97, 100).

It is undisputable that some of the followers

of Jesus came to think that he had been

raised from the dead, and that something

had to have happened to make them think

so. Our earliest records are consistent on

this point, and I think they provide us with

the historically reliable information in one

key aspect: the disciples’ belief in the

resurrection was based on visionary

experiences. I should stress it was visions,

and nothing else, that led to the first

disciples to believe in the resurrection (Bart

D. Ehrman, ‘How Jesus Became God: The

Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from

Galilee’ [New York: Harper One, 2014],

183-184).

Ehrman sides with the *visionary language* that Luke, Bultmann, Crossan, and Lüdemann use. British NT scholar, James Dunn also thought that Jesus was not resurrected in Antiquity but that Jesus probably meant he would be resurrected at the last judgment! Even NT textual critic Kurt Aland went so far as to question whether or not Jesus was a real person. In his book, “A History of Christianity” (Vol. 1, p. 106, emphasis added), he writes:

the real question arises . . . was there really

a Jesus? Can Jesus really have lived if the

writings of his closest companions are filled

with so little of his reality . . . so little in them

of the reality of the historical Jesus . . . .

When we observe this——assuming that the

writings about which we are speaking really

come from their alleged authors——it

almost then appears as if Jesus were a

mere PHANTOM . . .

Conclusion

This is not the proposal of a Mythicist, but of an *Ahistoricist.* In sharp contrast to mythicism, which attributes the Jesus-story solely to mythological causes, my *ahistoricism* ascribes it to future eschatology! Paradoxically, you can have a high view of Scripture, and even hold to a high Christology, and yet still reject the historicity of Jesus. In other words, you can completely repudiate historical Christianity without necessarily denying the Christian faith, the divinity of Jesus, eschatological salvation, or the authority of Scripture. In fact, this view seems to be more in line with the canonical context of the Bible than the classical one! This brief inquiry into the apocalyptic aspect of the NT has therefore provided a starting point and direction for subsequent studies.

Christianity preserved the apocalyptic tradition of Judaism and reevaluated it in light of its own messianic revelations. The NT refined this type of literature as it became the vehicle of its own prophetic and apocalyptic expressions. Apocalypticism, then, not historiography, is the essence of the NT, which is based on a foreknowledge of future events that is written in advance! It is therefore thought advisable to consider the collection of NT writings as strikingly futurist books.

Η Γέννηση, ο θάνατος, και η Ανάσταση του Χριστού στο Τέλος του Κόσμου

Από τον συγγραφέα Ελι Κιτίμ

Θάνατος καί Ανάσταση στο Τέλος του Κόσμου, στην Παλαιά Διαθήκη

Απόδειξη ότι Δανιήλ 12.1 Αναφέρεται σε Ανάσταση από Θάνατο με βάση την Μετάφραση και Εκτέλεση των Βιβλικών γλωσσών.

Το κείμενο του Δανιηλ 12.1 βρίσκεται στο πλαίσιο της μεγάλης δοκιμασίας των τελικών χρόνων! Επαναλαμβάνεται στο Ευαγγέλιο του Ματθαίου 24.21 ως η εποχή της μεγάλης δοκιμασίας— καιρός θλίψεως (βλ. Αποκ. 7.14).

Δανιήλ (Θεοδοτίων) 12.1,

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

Το Δανιήλ (Θεοδοτίων) 12.1 μεταφράζει την εβραϊκή λέξη עָמַד (amad) ως αναστήσεται, η οποία προέρχεται από τη ρίζα λέξη ανίστημι και σημαίνει *ανάσταση.*

Μετάφραση,

Εκείνη την εποχή, ο Μιχαήλ, ο μεγάλος πρίγκιπας, ο προστάτης του λαού σας, θα αναστηθεί. Θα υπάρξει μια περίοδος αγωνίας, όπως δεν έχει συμβεί ποτέ από την πρώτη ύπαρξη των εθνών.

Ο ισχυρισμός μου ότι η ελληνική λέξη ἀναστήσεται αναφέρεται σε ανάσταση από τους νεκρούς έχει αμφισβητηθεί από τους κριτικούς. Η απάντησή μου έχει ως εξής.

Το πρώτο αποδεικτικό στοιχείο είναι το γεγονός ότι ο Μιχαήλ αναφέρεται για πρώτη φορά ως αυτός που «ἀναστήσεται» (Δαν. Θεοδ. 12.1) πριν από τη γενική ανάσταση των νεκρών (ἀναστήσονται, Δαν. Θεοδ. 12.2). Εδώ, υπάρχουν ισχυρές γλωσσικές ενδείξεις ότι η λέξη *ἀναστήσεται* αναφέρεται σε ανάσταση, διότι στον αμέσως επόμενο στίχο (12.2) η πληθυντική μορφή της ίδιας λέξης (δηλ. ἀναστήσονται) χρησιμοποιείται για να περιγράψει τη γενική ανάσταση των νεκρών! Με άλλα λόγια, εάν η ίδια ακριβώς λέξη (ἀναστήσονται) σημαίνει ανάσταση στο Δανιήλ 12.2, τότε πρέπει επίσης η λέξη ἀναστήσεται να σημαίνει απαραίτητα ανάσταση και στο Δανιήλ 12.1! Είναι σημαντικό να σημειωθεί ότι το απόσπασμα του Δανιήλ 12.1 χρησιμοποιεί την εβραϊκή μεσσιανική ορολογία ενός χρισμένου πρίγκιπα (βλ. Δαν. 9.25 και ἄρχων ὑμῶν Δαν. 10.21 Ο', πρβλ. Ησα 9.6 Ο' μεγάλης βουλῆς ἄγγελός) για να σηματοδοτήσει την ανάσταση του Μεσσία στο τέλος του κόσμου.

Το δεύτερο αποδεικτικό στοιχείο προέρχεται από την παλαιά διαθήκη κατά τους εβδομήκοντα που χρησιμοποιεί τη λέξη παρελεύσεται για να ορίσει την εβραϊκή λέξη עָמַד (amad), η οποία μεταφράζεται ως *θα πεθάνει.*

Η παλαιά διαθήκη κατά τους εβδομήκοντα (Δανιήλ 12.1) είναι ως εξής,

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.

Η παλαιά διαθήκη κατά τους εβδομήκοντα καταδεικνύει περαιτέρω ότι το Δανιήλ 12.1 κείμενο περιγράφει ένα θέμα θανάτου και ανάστασης επειδή η λέξη παρελεύσεται σημαίνει *θα πεθάνει,* υποδεικνύοντας έτσι τον θάνατο αυτού του εμφανιζόμενου πρίγκιπα στο τέλος του κόσμου! Επομένως, θέτει τη σκηνή για την ανάστασή του, καθώς η λεγόμενη μορφή «Θεοδοτίων Δανιήλ» συμπληρώνει τα κενά χρησιμοποιώντας τη λέξη αναστήσεται, που σημαίνει σωματική ανάσταση, για να καθιερώσει την περίοδο της εσχάτης ημέρας ως την ώρα κατά την οποία αυτός ο πρίγκιπας θα αναστηθεί από τους νεκρούς!

Συγκρίνετε το κείμενο του Ησαΐα στην Μετάφραση των Εβδομήκοντα περί της Αναστάσεως του Κυρίου (δηλ. ὅταν ἀναστῇ θραῦσαι τὴν γῆν) ἐν ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις (Ησαΐας 2.2):

εἰσενέγκαντες εἰς τὰ σπήλαια καὶ εἰς τὰς

σχισμὰς τῶν πετρῶν καὶ εἰς τὰς τρώγλας

τῆς γῆς ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ φόβου Κυρίου

καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς δόξης τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ, ὅταν

ἀναστῇ θραῦσαι τὴν γῆν (Ησαΐας 2.19).

Η Γέννηση και ο θάνατος του Ιησού στο Τέλος του Κόσμου, στην Καινή Διαθήκη

Δύο Αρχές της Βιβλικής Ερμηνευτικής πρέπει να καθοδηγήσουν την έρευνά μας

Δύο αρχές της βιβλικής ερμηνευτικής πρέπει να θεωρηθούν θεμελιώδεις. Οι εξηγητές πρέπει να ερμηνεύουν το σιωπηρό από το ρητό και το αφηγηματικό από το διδακτικό. Στην πράξη, οι επιστολές της καινής διαθήκης και άλλες ρητές και διδακτικές μερίδες της Γραφής πρέπει να αποσαφηνίσουν την έμμεση σημασία των ευαγγελίων, η οποία δεν είναι βιογραφική αλλά *θεολογική* στη φύση, όπως οι Mπούλτμαν, Κροσάν, Λούντεμαν, Μάικ Λικόνα, Τζέιμς Κρόσλει, Ρόμπερτ Λ Τόμας, Φ Νταβίντ Φαρνελ, Ντένις Μακντόναλντ, Ρόμπερτ Γκάντρι, και Τόμας Λ Μπρόντι, μεταξύ άλλων, έχουν δείξει ξεκάθαρα!

Η ελληνική ερμηνεία, που μεταφράζεται κατευθείαν από το ίδιο το κείμενο, αμφισβητεί την κλασική χριστιανική ερμηνεία, η οποία βασίζεται κυρίως σε ιστορικές μυθοπλασίες. Η «ελληνική ερμηνεία» όχι μόνο συμπληρώνει τις εβραϊκές μεσσιανικές προσδοκίες, αλλά ταιριάζει απόλυτα με τα θέματα του μεσσιανικού θανάτου και της ανάστασης στο τέλος του κόσμου που αναφέρονται στην Παλαιά Διαθήκη (βλ. Π.χ. Ησαΐας 2.19, Δαν. 12.1-2)! Εν ολίγοις, τόσο η εβραϊκή όσο και η χριστιανική Γραφή φαίνεται να λένε το ίδιο ακριβώς πράγμα, δηλαδή, ότι ο Μεσσίας θα εμφανιστεί για πρώτη φορά στο τέλος του κόσμου (βλ. Εβρ. 9.26β)!

Ο μελλοντικός Χριστός

Ελληνική Εξήγηση

Σύμφωνα με τα ρητά και διδακτικά τμήματα της Γραφής της Καινής Διαθήκης, ο Χριστός *γεννιέται* όταν ο χρόνος θα φτάσει στην πληρότητα ή την ολοκλήρωσή του, που εκφράζεται στην αποκαλυπτική φράση τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου:

ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου,

ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ,

γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός (Γαλ. 4.4).

Σύμφωνα με την αναλογία γραφής, η χρονολογική περίοδος γνωστή ως *η πληρότητα του χρόνου* (τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου) στην Επιστολή προς Γαλάτες 4.4 ορίζεται στην προς Εφεσίους Επιστολή 1.9-10 ως η ολοκλήρωση των εποχών (πρβλ. Εβρ. 9.26β):

γνωρίσας ἡμῖν τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θελήματος

αὐτοῦ, κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν αὐτοῦ ἣν

προέθετο ἐν αὐτῷ εἰς οἰκονομίαν τοῦ

πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν,

ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι τὰ πάντα ἐν τῷ

Χριστῷ, τὰ ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς

γῆς· ἐν αὐτῷ.

Η πληρότητα του χρόνου (τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν) στην προς Εφεσίους Επιστολή αναφέρεται στην ολοκλήρωση (ανακεφαλαιώσασθαι) όλων των πραγμάτων εις τον Χριστόν, των πραγμάτων στον ουρανό, και των πραγμάτων στη γη! Έτσι, σύμφωνα με την Επιστολή προς Γαλάτες 4.4 ο Χριστός γεννιέται κατά την ολοκλήρωση των αιώνων (δηλ. στο τελευταίο χρονικό διάστημα, πρβλ. Λουκ. 17.30, Εβρ. 1.2, Αποκ. 12.5, 19.10δ, 22.7, 10, 18, 19)!

Η πρώτη εμφάνιση του Χριστού αποδίδεται «στο τελευταίο χρονικό σημείο» στην Α΄ Επιστολή Πέτρου 1,20 (Νέα Βίβλος της Ιερουσαλήμ),

προεγνωσμένου μὲν πρὸ καταβολῆς

κόσμου, φανερωθέντος δὲ ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν

χρόνων.

Περαιτέρω επιβεβαίωση κειμένου έρχεται μέσω της επιστολής προς Εβραίους 9.26β, το οποίο έχει ως εξής:

νυνὶ δὲ ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων εἰς

ἀθέτησιν ἁμαρτίας διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ

πεφανέρωται.

Μετάφραση,

Έχει εμφανιστεί μια φορά για πάντα στο τέλος του κόσμου για την εξάλειψη της αμαρτίας με τη θυσία του [δηλ. τον θάνατο του].

Η ιστορική-γραμματική μελέτη της φράσης επί συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων καταδεικνύει ότι αναφέρεται στο «τέλος της εποχής» (δηλ. στο τέλος του κόσμου, πρβλ. Ματθαίος 13.39-40, 49, 24.3, 28.20, Δανιήλ 12.4 Ο', δείτε επίσης Τζ.Γ.Χ. Λάμπ, «Ένα Πατερικό Ελληνικό Λεξικό» [Οξφόρδη: πανεπιστήμιο Οξφόρδης, 1961], σελ. 1340).

Συμπέρασμα

Η υποτιθέμενη ιστορικότητα του Ιησού πρέπει να επανεξεταστεί, δεδομένου ότι η μόνη παρουσία του πρόκειται να πραγματοποιηθεί στο τέλος του κόσμου! Κατά συνέπεια, αυτή η ερμηνεία υποστηρίζει ότι οι επιστολές είναι τα κύρια κλειδιά για το ξεκλείδωμα του μελλοντικού χρονοδιαγράμματος της μοναδικής επίσκεψης του Χριστού. Για να αποδείξουμε την εγκυρότητα αυτού του επιχειρήματος, πρέπει να επιστρέψουμε στην Ελληνιστική Κοινή της καινής διαθήκης προκειμένου να επικεντρωθούμε σε ζητήματα συγγραφικής πρόθεσης. Αν απορρίψουμε η αγνοήσουμε αυτή την υπόθεση ισοδυναμεί με ακαδημαϊκή ανεντιμότητα!

Which Church is the True Church of Jesus Christ?

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

The Decline of Christianity

Christianity has become a speculative art. It has created over 38,000 denominations as well as thousands of seminaries and Christian universities all over the world in an effort to promote its speculative and largely anthropomorphic doctrines. What’s more, academic faculties have hitherto bestowed higher degrees to qualified graduates who are deemed “knowledgeable” in doctrinal and pastoral matters. And so the theological baton has been passed from teacher to student seemingly ad infinitum.

In the seminary or the academy everyone has an opinion, and so there are, naturally, a wide variety of viewpoints and many different schools of thought. However, there can only be one truth, if it exists at all. So, which view is correct in any given case? Well, we’re living in the post-modern era of relativism, so take your pick. Both Christian methodology and epistemology are equally informed by currents in academia (i.e. interdisciplinary studies), so much so that doctrinal issues are beginning to reflect the modern culture more and more, from liberation theology and feminist theology, to even queer theology and trans-gendered theology.

What ever happened to the concept of one church, one body, one Lord, one spirit, one faith? (Eph. 4.4-6). Whatever happened to Paul’s appeal “that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose”? (1 Cor. 1.10 NRSV).

——-

A State of Theological Confusion

This state of affairs is primarily due to the fact that we have lost sight of who is a true Christian, and who is not. We can no longer differentiate between a nominal Christian and an authentic one. We don’t even know what constitutes a real Christian and what is the criteria for meeting that requirement. And we certainly don’t know who’s telling the truth. Fake news, false narratives, and the spread of misinformation have affected every aspect of Christianity. So, because we can’t tell the difference between what is true and what is false, we generally classify Christian doctrines into various levels based on their popularity. We decide which pastor to listen to according to their social status, academic degrees, reputation, experience, popularity, book sales, and the like. Or, we walk into a particular church simply because of how it makes us feel. These are not valid reasons for attending church, for following a particular denomination or pastor, or for assenting to their doctrines and believing in their creeds. That’s why modern Christianity has lost its direction and has gone so far astray that it no longer represents the teachings of Jesus Christ. It only represents human inventions, speculations, and secular academic endeavours. Sadly, modern Christianity doesn’t have a clue about the revelation of the New Testament (NT) or about its main object of study: Jesus Christ. Second Timothy 4.3-4 reads:

For the time is coming when people will not

put up with sound doctrine, but having

itching ears, they will accumulate for

themselves teachers to suit their own

desires, and will turn away from listening to

the truth and wander away to myths.

——-

True Christians Get their Information Directly from God

There are only a few regenerated people in this world who know the *truths* of the NT, and this is due to their intimate knowledge of, and personal relationship with, Jesus! These all share the exact same knowledge of Christ! For them, the truth does not vary. Their knowledge is identical without the slightest variation as to the basic truths of the faith. They are all one, united in one faith, under one spirit and one lord. How is that possible, you may ask? The information they receive does not come from seminaries or academic universities, or from books or distinguished scholars. No. It comes straight from the mouth of God (Deut. 8.3; cf. Mt. 4.4). How can that be, you ask?

In the Old Testament (OT), there is obviously a divine communication that is revealed between God and humankind, particularly when the prophets declare categorically what “the LORD says” (cf. Jer. 23.38; 1 Kgs 12.24; Ezek. 20.5; Amos 5.16). This OT divine communication is also promised to the NT believers who will be regenerated in the Spirit (Jn 16.13):

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will

guide you into all the truth; for he will not

speak on his own, but will speak whatever

he hears, and he will declare to you the

things that are to come [ερχόμενα].

So, the process of salvation, or regeneration, has everything to do with knowledge and truth! It is the dividing line or the threshold between authentic and false Christianity. And that makes all the difference in the world. People are confused about what salvation is. For instance, there are all sorts of scholarly debates between those who hold to “easy-believism” and those who adhere to lordship salvation. There are those who think they are saved, when they’re not. For example, pastors often tell people, who answer altar calls, that they have been reborn simply because they made a profession of faith. Joel Osteen is a case in point. Other folk think they can go on sinning because all they are required to do is to believe, according to their interpretation of Scripture. Steven Anderson, the pastor of Faithful Word Baptist Church, is such an example. But God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14.33). And, unfortunately, most people don’t know what authentic salvation in Christ really is. If people have believed lies, then the truth will necessarily seem false to them. So they react negatively by portraying true salvation as if it were evil, unbiblical, untraditional, or even revolting. However, if you reject true salvation, your Christianity is as fake as you are. Your pseudo-religion is nothing more than a bad caricature of Christianity. Just listen to one of Paul Washer’s sermons. There is only one way for you to know the truth and become a part of the one true church of Jesus. And that is by understanding the *process* by which you can be saved!

Every church and every ministry teaches something different, and most of their teachings are completely foreign to the NT. It’s reminiscent of Paul’s stern warning to the church of Corinth (1 Cor. 1.12, 13) that began to split into various divisions or denominations:

each of you says, ‘I belong to Paul,’ or ‘I

belong to Apollos,’ or ‘I belong to Cephas,’

or ‘I belong to Christ.’ Has Christ been

divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or

were you baptized in the name of Paul?

Paul explicitly condemns this fragmentation of church doctrine and says it is not of God. Accordingly, 1 Timothy 4.1-3 is prophesying of what is to come:

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later

times some will renounce the faith by

paying attention to deceitful spirits and

teachings of demons, through the hypocrisy

of liars whose consciences are seared with

a hot iron. They forbid marriage and

demand abstinence from foods, which God

created to be received with thanksgiving by

those who believe and know the truth.

——-

A Soteriological Crisis

Why all the splinter groups and all the contradictory doctrines? Because we lost touch with spirituality. In other words, we lost touch with God. We can no longer hear him. We can no longer communicate with him. Why? Because we’re suffering from bibliolatry! The Bible is not an end in itself. It’s supposed to lead us to Christ. Yet we have become idolaters, Bible-worshipping Christians with no spirituality whatsoever, as if the Bible alone had the capacity to transform us into Christ. As if the Bible has replaced Christ. Hence the reason for Jesus’ caveat in Jn 5.39:

You search the scriptures because you think

that in them you have eternal life; and it is

they that testify on my behalf.

We’ve also created new doctrines and man-made traditions. The various doctrines became officially mandated during the successive councils of the church. Thus, all the denominations are in error. They exist without NT authority. Consider what Christ will say to the fake Christians on Judgment day (Mt. 7.21-23):

Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,'

will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only

the one who does the will of my Father in

heaven. On that day many will say to me,

‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your

name, and cast out demons in your name,

and do many deeds of power in your

name?’ Then I will declare to them, ‘I never

knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.'

But what exactly does it mean to do the will of Christ’s father? Does it depend on us, forcing our will to conform to his, through repetitive behavioural acts? No. It means to surrender your will to God so that you can say with Paul, “it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me” (Gal. 2.20). Then, divine obedience becomes natural and automatic. But, unfortunately, that’s not what we’ve been told by the religious authorities. We’ve been taught to think that we’re Christians on our way to heaven. In other words, there’ll be upright people——people who even claim to believe in Jesus——that will be lost on the day of judgment! But what is the soteriological standard against which all other theories are measured? Notice the criterion that God uses: “I never knew you.” So, we must try to explain, then, how it is that God “knows us.” Answer: if we surrender our life to him, he will know us personally and intimately in a deep, unitive, and mystical sense. In short, he will permanently become an integral part of our lives (Jn 14.23):

Those who love me will keep my word, and

my Father will love them, and we will come

to them and make our home with them.

But how can you make this happen? How can you become a part of the true church? Some say by “obedience,” while others claim you only need to “believe.” But they are both wrong because both of these Pelagian premises are based on you saving yourself through personal works. In this scenario, Jesus becomes utterly irrelevant. So, that’s not it. The answer is, you have to be transformed! Notice in the undermentioned passage that Jesus inflicts “vengeance on those who do not know God” and who, therefore, disobey him. The text prophesies the final consummation (2 Thess. 1.7, 8),

when the Lord Jesus is revealed from

heaven with his mighty angels in flaming

fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do

not know God and on those who do not

obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

Most churches claim that all you have to do to be saved involves rote learning and habitual religious exercises. For example, the Church of Christ says that you have to obey the Gospel by hearing, Believing, Repenting, Confessing, and being baptised. And then you’ll be saved. How wonderful. How convenient. How painless. All man-made, all based on one’s own efforts, and the greatest thing of all, no spirituality is necessary, and there’s no need for a change of heart or a radical renewing of the mind (Rom. 12.2). By the way, when Paul speaks of baptism, he’s not referring to the immersion in water but to a painful baptism into Christ’s death that regenerates the believer “in newness of life” during the dark night of the soul (cf. Acts 19.5-6). He says in Rom. 6.3, 4:

Do you not know that all of us who have

been baptized into Christ Jesus were

baptized into his death? Therefore we have

been buried with him by baptism into death,

so that, . . . we too might walk in newness of

life.

So, congregants are being deceived into thinking that they are saved, when they are not! Church leaders will typically quote a few out-of-context verses about belief in Christ and his resurrection, and, if you meet these criteria, they’ll tell you that you’re good to go. You’re saved. This is downright nonsense! How pathetic has been the fall of so many people who were not properly trained or educated on the nature of salvation within the Christian faith. No wonder so many of them have left the faith and have turned to atheism, profoundly disillusioned with the form of Christianity that could neither solve their problems nor offer any meaning in the face of today’s postmodern world.

——-

You Will Know the Truth, and the Truth Will Make You Free (John 8.32)

As Paul reminds us, “Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him” (Rom. 8.9). So, how do we do our part in order to allow this transformation to take place and to invite the Spirit into our lives? There are many methods. However, one of the most effective means of doing so is by way of “stillness,” which is traditionally known as a prayer of silence! From a phenomenological perspective, this Kierkegaardian “leap of faith” requires a transcendent existential experience. This involves a deep meditation in which the mind leaves all knowledge behind and passes into a state of transcendent *unknowing* where the “intuition of naked truths” is “conveyed to the understanding” (John of the Cross. “Ascent of Mount Carmel.” Trans. E. Allison Peers. [Liguori: Triumph, 1991], p. 182). The point is that we’re not going to get there by discursive thinking but rather by “being,” in the existential sense!

Thus, being obedient is not enough. Being morally upright or having good intentions is not enough. Being a descendant of Abraham is not enough. Salvation is not based on a biological birth, but on a birth from above. In short, we must be born again (Jn 3.3):

Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the

kingdom of God without being born from

above.

See my article: How Are We Saved? https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/624396009262415872/how-are-we-saved-is-it-simply-by-belief-alone-or

Eli of Kittim

How Are We Saved: Is It Simply By Belief Alone, Or Do We Have To Go Out Of Ourselves Ecstatically In Order To Make That Happen?

By Eli Kittim ——- What does the Bible say about salvation? Romans 8.14 implies that if you’re not “led by the Spirit” you’re NOT a child of

Ο Χριστός είναι Έλληνας

Από τον συγγραφέα Ελι Κιτίμ

——-

Στην Καινή Διαθήκη υπάρχουν διάφοροι τρόποι με τους οποίους ο Ιησούς απεικονίζεται ως Εθνικός (μη Εβραίος). Μία από αυτές τις απεικονίσεις βρίσκεται στο Ευαγγέλιο του Ματθαίου (4.15-16), το οποίο μας λέει ότι ο Ιησούς δεν προέρχεται από τη Βασιλεία του Ιούδα (από Εβραίους) αλλά από την περιοχή της Γαλιλαίας (από Εθνικούς, βλ. Λουκά 1.26). Εκτός αυτού, στο κείμενο του Ιωάννη 8.48 οι Εβραίοι ονομάζουν τον Ιησού κατηγορηματικά ως «Σαμαρείτη» (δηλ. εθνικό) προκειμένου να αποδείξουν ότι δεν είναι Εβραίος.

Η διαίρεση των ανθρώπων έναντι του Ιησού επειδή δεν προέρχεται από τη Βηθλεέμ των Εβραίων αλλά από τη Γαλιλαία των Εθνών τονίζεται στο Ευαγγέλιο του Ιωάννη (7.41-43):

ἄλλοι ἔλεγον · Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός · οἱ δὲ

ἔλεγον· Μὴ γὰρ ἐκ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ὁ χριστὸς

ἔρχεται; οὐχ ἡ γραφὴ εἶπεν ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ

σπέρματος Δαυὶδ, καὶ ἀπὸ Βηθλέεμ τῆς

κώμης ὅπου ἦν Δαυὶδ, ἔρχεται ὁ χριστός;

σχίσμα οὖν ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ ὄχλῳ ⸃ δι’ αὐτόν.

Ο Ιησούς αψηφά τις εβραϊκές μεσσιανικές προσδοκίες:

ἐραύνησον καὶ ἴδε ὅτι ἐκ τῆς Γαλιλαίας

προφήτης ⸃ οὐκ ἐγείρεται (Κατά Ιωάννην

Ευαγγέλιο 7.52, βλ. Ματθαίος 4.15-16).

——-

Εξάλλου, τα περισσότερα βιβλία της Καινής Διαθήκης γράφτηκαν στην Ελλάδα: Ρωμαίοι, Α΄ και Β' Κορίνθιοι, Γαλάτες, Α΄ και Β΄ Θεσσαλονικείς, Α΄ Τιμόθεος, Τίτος, και το βιβλίο της Αποκάλυψης. Κανένα από τα βιβλία της Καινής Διαθήκης δεν γράφτηκε στην Παλαιστίνη. Και οι περισσότερες επιστολές απευθύνονται σε ελληνικές κοινότητες: Α΄ Κορινθίους, Β΄ Κορινθίους, Φιλιππησίους, Α΄ Θεσσαλονικείς και Β΄ Θεσσαλονικείς!

Είναι επίσης σημαντικό να σημειωθεί ότι όταν οι συγγραφείς της Καινής Διαθήκης παραθέτουν από την Παλαιά Διαθήκη, συχνά παραθέτουν από την ελληνική μετάφραση των εβδομήκοντα και όχι από τα αυθεντικά εβραϊκά γραπτά (ακαδημαϊκή συναίνεση). Αυτό μπορεί να υποδηλώνει ότι οι συγγραφείς της Καινής Διαθήκης δεν ήταν εξοικειωμένοι με την εβραϊκή γλώσσα. Αυτό δείχνει ότι οι συγγραφείς της Καινής Διαθήκης μάλλον δεν ήταν Εβραίοι αλλά Έλληνες, δεδομένου ότι χειρίζονταν άριστα την ελληνική γλώσσα. Και οι μελετητές μας λένε ότι οι συγγραφείς της Καινής Διαθήκης έγραφαν από διαφορετικά μέρη του κόσμου και όχι από την Παλαιστίνη.

——-

Και γιατί οι συγγραφείς της Καινής Διαθήκης δεν ολοκλήρωσαν την αφήγηση του Θεού στα Εβραϊκά; Υπάρχει καλύτερος τρόπος να πείσει κανείς τους Εβραίους ότι ο Ιησούς είναι η μεσσιανική εκπλήρωση της Εβραϊκής Γραφής από το να το γράψει στην εβραϊκή γλώσσα; Αλλά δεν το έκαναν! Ο λόγος είναι ο Ιησούς. Προφανώς δεν είναι Εβραίος αλλά Έλληνας! Έτσι η αφήγηση πρέπει να γραφτεί στα ελληνικά για να αντικατοπτρίζει τον έλληνα πρωταγωνιστή. Γι 'αυτό ακριβώς η Καινή Διαθήκη γράφτηκε στα Ελληνικά, όχι στα Εβραϊκά. Επιπλέον, εάν ο Χριστός ήταν Εβραίος θα έλεγε ότι είμαι τό Άλεφ και τό Ταβ. Αντ 'αυτού, ο Χριστός χρησιμοποιεί ελληνικά γράμματα για να ορίσει το θεϊκό «Εγώ ειμί»:

Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ (Αποκάλυψη

1:8).

Άλλωστε είναι σημαντικό να τονίσουμε ότι το εβραϊκό όνομα του Θεού (Γιαχβέ, που προφέρεται ως Ιεχωβά ή Γιαχβά) είναι επίσης το εβραϊκό όνομα για την Ελλάδα (Γιαβαν, βλ. Ιώσηπος Αρχαιολογία Βιβλ. 1, κεφ. 6). Αυτή η προφορική συμφωνία δεν είναι συμπτωματική. Υπάρχουν περαιτέρω στοιχεία σχετικά με το ελληνικό όνομα του Θεού. Σε μερικά σπάνια χειρόγραφα των εβδομήκοντα το τετραγράμματον μεταφράζεται ως *Ιαω* (γνωστό ως ελληνικό τρίγραμμα). Δηλαδή το θεϊκό όνομα Γιαχβά μετατρέπεται στην Κοινή Ελληνική ως Ιαω (βλ. π.χ. Λευ. 4.27 το χειρόγραφο των εβδομήκοντα [LXX] 4Q120). Αυτό το θραύσμα προέρχεται από τα Χειρόγραφα της Νεκρής Θάλασσας, που βρέθηκαν στο Κουμράν, και χρονολογείται από τον 1ο π.Χ. αιώνα.

Αυτό που έχει πολύ ενδιαφέρον είναι το γεγονός ότι το όνομα Ιαω φαίνεται να αντιπροσωπεύει τους Αρχαίους Έλληνες (γνωστούς ως ΙΑΩΝΕΣ), οι πρώτες λογοτεχνικές εικονογραφήσεις των οποίων βρίσκονται στα έπη του Ομήρου (Ἰάονες) και επίσης στα έργα του Ησιόδου (Ἰάων). Σχεδόν όλοι οι μελετητές της Βίβλου συμφωνούν ότι το εβραϊκό όνομα Γιαβάν αντιπροσωπεύει τους Ιάωνες, δηλαδή τους αρχαίους Έλληνες. Εξάλλου, ανεξάρτητες βεβαιώσεις προέρχονται από τα Πατερικά γραπτά για το Τετραγράμματο. Σύμφωνα με την Καθολική Εγκυκλοπαίδεια (1910) και Μπ. Ντ. Έρντμανς: Ο Διόδωρος ο Σικελός (1ος αιώνας π.Χ.) μεταφράζει το όνομα του Θεού ως Ἰαῶ. Ο Ειρηναίος (π. περ. 202) αναφέρει ότι οι Βαλεντινιανοί χρησιμοποιούν το θεϊκό όνομα Ἰαῶ. Ο Ωριγένης Αλεξανδρείας (π. περ. 254) γράφει Ἰαώ. Ο Θεοδώρητος του Κύρου (393 – περ. 458) γράφει επίσης Ἰαώ. Επομένως, το μυστικό όνομα του Θεού τόσο στην Μετάφραση των Εβδομήκοντα όσο και στην Εβραϊκή Βίβλο φαίνεται να αντιπροσωπεύει την Ελλάδα! Για αυτό και ο Ιωάννης ο Θεολόγος δεν βρίσκεται τυχαία στην Ελλάδα. Είναι εκεί επειδή το κείμενο του έχει να κάνει με την αποκάλυψη του Ιησού και τον λόγο του Θεού:

Ἐγὼ Ἰωάννης . . . ἐγενόμην ἐν τῇ νήσῳ τῇ

καλουμένῃ Πάτμῳ διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ

καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ (Αποκάλυψη 1.9).

——-

Textual Criticism: The Reliability of the New Testament

By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim

One has to be au courant with lower criticism to understand the significance and reliability of the New Testament. If we look at the number of extant NT manuscripts together with the relatively short period of time within which they were written (i.e, the time between the purported events and the written documents), no other book from Antiquity even comes close. First, we have over 5,800 manuscripts just in Greek (not counting those in other languages), more than any other book in history. Second, the texts were written within approximately two decades after the purported events. Other books have a much wider time-gap between the historical events and their initial documentations, as most were written hundreds of years later. Third, the New Testament has also been the most scrutinized book in all of literature. Its textual integrity has been relentlessly challenged down through the centuries. To date, no other book in history has been criticized and attacked as much as the New Testament. And yet its textual reliability has stood the test of time. Critical scholars still find it reliable! In fact, most of the variants are due to simple spelling errors, which do not significantly affect the meaning of the text. So, the textual reliability of the New Testament is well known among scholars. It’s the best attested book from the ancient world, as well as the bestseller of all time! And if you don’t think that it’s reliable, then you have no grounds to believe in Caesar, Homer, or Alexander the Great, whose biography, by the way, was written 400 years later! That’s how reliable the New Testament really is! In his blog, Bart Ehrman, the world-renowned textual scholar, writes:

“He [Bruce Metzger, Bart’s mentor] thought

that at the end of the day, we can be

reasonably confident of something like 99%

[reliability] of the text of the New

Testament. Textual scholars, in his

judgment, argue about that other 1%. As it

turns out, I don’t disagree with most of

that.”

Biblical Greek Exegesis: A Critique of Underhanded Methods

By Author Eli Kittim

The reason I’m posting a brief excerpt of my recent exchange with Mr. Marcelo Souza, an apparent priest and member of the *Koine Greek Study Group* on Facebook, is to respond to his libel in order to show that he was guilty of mishandling and misrepresenting my position. In fact, he touted himself as being a grammatical pundit, but in a rather dishonest manner he never actually gave the readers a satisfactory and robust *answer* to the Original Post’s (OP) question, but only pretended to do so using a red herring fallacy.

Here’s how it all began . . .

——-

Koine Greek Study Group *OP*

The OP was posted by Joe Hawley:

Have a question for all of you here. In

Matthew 28:1, the Greek word for "sabbath"

is pluralized, but it is translated singular in

every translation I can find. The one

exception I have found is with an old

interlinear I have around the house. Even

A.T. Robertson's commentary set on the

Greek text failed to say anything about it. I

am stumped. Any ideas? Thank you.

Joe’s basic dilemma is that although the Greek word for “Sabbath” (σαββάτων) is pluralized, nevertheless it’s translated in singular form in almost every translation he can find. So, he’s wondering, why is that so? Excellent question!

The OP reference is to the Greek text of Mt. 28.1:

Ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων, τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν σαββάτων, ἦλθεν Μαριὰμ ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ ἡ ἄλλη Μαρία θεωρῆσαι τὸν τάφον.

Translation (NRSV):

“After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb.”

This, then, is the text under investigation. I will now post the most important comments that fellow discussants made on this thread.

——-

Eric S Weiss (commenter)

ICC on Matthew:

καὶ ἐὰν ἐμπέσῃ τοῦτο τοῖς σάββασιν εἰς βόθυνον. Compare 15:14 (εἰς βόθυνον πεσοῦνται) and Lk 14:5 (εἰς φρέαρ πεσεῖται). The plural, ‘sabbaths’, is to be accounted for by the Aramaic šabbětā˒, which is an emphatic singular.

Joe Hawley (the Original Poster) replied:

Not sure if I follow you. ... Not sure how the Aramaic figures in with this. Thank you for your response.

Marcelo Souza:

Joe Hawley it’s just usage. Remember Sabbath is a Hebrew word that comes into Greek (and other languages) transliterated. When that happens, it often acquires its own usage.

[what does that have to do with Greek syntax?]

Even the LXX already used Σαββάτων for a Sabbath, e.g., Num. 15:32

[Not so. That’s a form of underhanded exegesis. In the Greek LXX, it is plural (σαββάτων). It is only the English LXX translation that renders it Sabbath due to dynamic equivalence translations that will be discussed later. What is more, Souza doesn’t even give us the grammatical rule for the LXX’s usage]

32 Καὶ ἦσαν οἱ υἱοὶ ᾿Ισραὴλ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ καὶ εὗρον ἄνδρα συλλέγοντα ξύλα τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων

Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day.

‎וַיִּהְיוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, בַּמִּדְבָּר; וַיִּמְצְאוּ, אִישׁ מְקֹשֵׁשׁ עֵצִים--בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת.

(B’yom ha shabat)

——-

Let’s pause the conversation for a second for some well-needed commentary. Based on his post, Marcelo Souza seems ignorant of Greek syntax, as he attributes the translation of Sabbath in the singular simply to a Hebrew usage. He completely ignores Greek grammar by appealing to Hebrew to make his case, even posting Num. 15.32 in Hebrew. Good grief! That’s why Souza’s use of the *English* version of Num. 15.32 LXX τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων as the syntactical basis of the singular form in Mt. 28.1 is erroneous. Why? Because unlike Mt. 28.1, Num. 15.32 LXX employs the genitive plural article τῶν (i.e. τῶν σαββάτων), which should be translated as “of the Sabbaths” (plural), whereas Mt.28.1 has the conjunction δὲ σαββάτων instead. So, the LXX-NT comparison is unwarranted, not only because of the *different words* that precede the term “Sabbath” in both texts but also because Souza is not using the original Greek LXX but rather its English translation. That’s arguing in a circle. In other words, instead of comparing the Greek NT against the Greek LXX, he’s comparing the Greek NT against English translations of the Greek LXX. For example, he doesn’t mention the genitive plural article τῶν, which turns σαββάτων into plural, in the Greek LXX but rather the fact that the English translations of the LXX render it in the singular as “Sabbath.” His entire eisegesis is a sham! It’s like mixing apples and oranges. Besides, he never even gave us the grammatical rule why the Septuagint translates τῶν σαββάτων in the plural form or how that is related to the singular form in Mt. 28.1. Instead, he leaves us guessing as to why that is so by pretending to have answered it.

In fact, throughout the entire thread, none of the discussants gave a sufficient grammatical reason why the pluralized Greek word for “sabbath” is nevertheless translated in the singular and not in the plural form in Mt. 28.1. As you will see, I’m the only one who did that. Weiss tried to answer the question by saying that it is due to the Aramaic šabbětā, which is irrelevant because he’s trying to argue Greek syntax from a foreign language, even if it does involve a transliteration. And then Souza followed suit and tried to do the same by way of a dubious attribution to the Hebrew usage (as a transliteration). However, whether the term “Sabbath” was originally a Hebrew word or not is completely irrelevant to the OP’s discussion. It’s the Greek syntax that’s all-important. The Hebraic etymology is irrelevant as to whether “Sabbath” is in singular or plural form in the Greek. So, the notion of using Hebrew etymology to understand and even justify Greek syntax is a fallacy; it’s completely bogus and misinformed!

I suspect this is probably due to the fact that Marcelo Souza is not a native Greek speaker and doesn’t seem to understand the grammatical depths, nuances, and complexities of the Greek language. This was exemplified later in the conversation by his sleight of hand performance in which he maintained that he conclusively answered the OP, when in fact he didn’t. He even pats himself on the back as if having been congratulated by the inquirer. It reminds me of Americans who study NT Greek for a few years at a Seminary and then become haughty and conceited, deluding themselves that they really understand Koine Greek in all its sophistication, when in fact all they have learned is a few basic rules of grammar, at best. They can’t even order a glass of wine in a Greek restaurant. And just as their pretentious western Erasmian pronunciation is fake and invalid, so are most of their grammatical and syntactic evaluations.

——-

I’m the only one who actually posted the correct answer to the OP, arguing from the Greek, not from Aramaic or Hebrew, as Weiss and, especially, Souza erroneously did. And I explicitly mentioned that to Souza. In reference to the Greek text in Mt. 28.1, I wrote:

“In the first-mentioned sabbath, the author [Matthew] does NOT use the genitive plural τῶν, as in τῶν σαββάτων. That’s why all credible translations translate it in the singular form.”

Bingo! That’s the correct answer!

——-

Back to the Conversation . . .

This is how the Debate Began Between Me and Marcelo Souza

After a few discussants posted their commentaries on this particular post in the Koine Greek Study Group, I made a comment that “the term σαββάτων in Mt. 28.1 is Not Plural [i.e. it’s not translated in the plural]; it’s a Declension.” And I interpreted Souza’s under-mentioned reply to mean that σαββάτων (being a genitive plural) BY ITSELF can answer the OP’s question. Thus began our heated exchange. . .

Marcelo Souza:

The word is a genitive plural [he seems to imply that this is the answer to the OP. Otherwise why mention such an obvious fact?].

Eli Kittim:

No it isn’t [meaning, the answer to the OP]. That’s a mistranslation [meaning, you can’t use the genitive plural form ALONE as the basis for translation].

[When I replied “no it isn’t,” it was a shorthand for saying that the genitive plural FORM of the noun σαββάτων BY ITSELF (in and of itself) is NOT the *REASON* why it’s translated in singular rather than in plural form in Mt. 28.1. Rather, it is because it lacks the genitive plural *article* τῶν! In other words, the presence or absence of the preceding article τῶν determines whether σαββάτων should be translated as singular or plural, not on the basis of its genitive plural form alone, or on the Hebraic grounds that Souza suggested earlier. And this is correct. As I explicitly stated later, I obviously did not deny that σαββάτων per se is a genitive plural. How could I? That would be patently ridiculous. That’s where the miscommunication began. And based on his misunderstanding of what I meant, he concocted a whole smearing campaign, slandering me and accusing me of being ignorant of Greek syntax, and its relation to translation, and hurling derogatory and condescending comments and insults].

——-

The exchange continued as follows . . .

Marcelo Souza:

Eli Kittim I think you’re confused as to what grammar is. It’s a genitive plural and that’s not a matter of translation. So you are incorrect . . .

[It is a matter of translation because translation closely follows the grammar & syntax of the original language].

Eli Kittim:

In the first-mentioned sabbath, the author does NOT use the genitive plural τῶν, as in τῶν σαββάτων. That’s why all credible translations translate it in the singular form.

Marcelo Souza:

We even gave an example from the LXX, with the corresponding Hebrew.

So maybe you don't know the difference between syntax and translation [there go the insults], and you don't know what a genitive plural is [more insults . . . ] and you think that if one says it's a genitive plural, it needs to be translated in the plural [talk about presumption].

He went on to say:

So you deny it's a genitive plural because you don't know what that is . . .

Eli Kittim (my response):

Marcelo Souza It’s a miscommunication. You’re completely misrepresenting me with misperceived ideas of what you think I meant or what you assume I know, etc. . . . I NEVER DENIED THAT σαββάτων PER SE IS A GENITIVE PLURAL [emphasis added]. . . . I was referring to the fact that there is no genitive plural article τῶν before or prior to the word, and why the term would not normally be translated in the plural as Sabbaths. Incidentally, your deviation into Hebrew is completely irrelevant in this particular case because Matthew is writing in New Testament Greek, not translating Hebrew into Greek.

Our exchange ended shortly thereafter. . .

——-

Biblical Greek Exegesis: How dynamic equivalence has corrupted the translation of the expression τῶν σαββάτων in the New Testament

The dynamic (thought for thought) method of translation translates the idiomatic expression τῶν σαββάτων in singular form. But that is not a faithful translation. By contrast, literal translations (i.e. formal equivalence) render it as “of the weeks” or “of the Sabbaths.” For example, Mark 16.2 τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων should read “on the first day of the weeks” (cf. A Faithful Version [formal equivalence]) or “in the morning of the first of the sabbaths” (YLT [formal equivalence]).

Notice that in Mark 16.2 the phrase τῶν σαββάτων is preceded by the dative singular adjective μιᾷ (first). The parsing in Mark 16.2 is as follows:

τῇ (on the) Article - dative singular

μιᾷ (first) Adjective - dative singular

τῶν (of the) Article - genitive plural

σαββάτων (weeks) Noun - genitive plural

In other words, the action occurs during one of the Sabbaths or on the first day of the Sabbaths. Why is “Sabbaths” plural and not singular (in translation)? Because it is preceded by the genitive plural article τῶν. Had it been preceded by the genitive singular article τοῦ, then “Sabbath” would have been translated in singular form. That is the raison d'être for the expression’s singular form in the Mt. 28.1 translation. And that is the correct answer to the Original Post! In other words, the translation of “sabbath” in singular form obviously has nothing to do with the genitive plural form of σαββάτων PER SE or with its attribute as a Greek transliteration of Hebrew, as Souza erroneously suggests.

Similarly, in Luke 4.16, the expression ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων should be translated “on the day of the Sabbaths” (Berean Literal Bible [word for word translation]). The parsing of Luke 4.16 is thusly:

ἐν (on) Preposition

τῇ (the) Article - Dative Singular

ἡμέρᾳ (day) Noun - Dative Singular

τῶν (of the) Article - genitive plural

σαββάτων (weeks) Noun - genitive plural

Acts 13.14 τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων is a similar case that corroborates the aforementioned exegesis. Thus, in these cases, the most faithful translation seems to be “on the day of the Sabbaths.” The genitive plural article τῶν cannot be used to refer to a single Sabbath. That would have been the case if it were the genitive singular article τοῦ (i.e. τοῦ σαββάτου)!

(see e.g. the following concordance https://biblehub.com/greek/sabbatou_4521.htm).

——-