Author of “The Little Book of Revelation.” Get your copy now!!https://www.xlibris.com/en/bookstore/bookdetails/597424-the-little-book-of-revelation
447 posts
Eli Kittim - Amazon Author Page
Eli Kittim - Amazon Author Page
https://www.amazon.com/author/ekittim
More Posts from Eli-kittim
The Fullness of Time
By Bible Researcher and Author Eli Kittim 🎓
What does the Bible mean when it says that God sent his son in “the fullness of time”? Many scholars and pastors automatically take for granted that this phrase refers to the birth and first coming of Jesus 2,000 years ago. In other words, instead of doing rigorous linguistic research to find out exactly what this phrase actually means, many experts simply rely on their *theological assumptions* and speculations in hopes that they can carry them through. But there’s no linguistic or biblical support for their conclusion.
In order to bolster their point of view that “the fulness of time” simply means the “appropriate” time or the “fulfillment” of time, they often cite Mark 1.15, which uses the term πεπλήρωται. But, as we shall see, this term is different from its cognate (πλήρωμα) in Galatians 4.4, from where we get the phrase “the fullness of time.” So, let’s compare both texts. Mk 1.15 (SBLGNT) reads:
καὶ λέγων ὅτι Πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς καὶ
ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ·
My translation:
And saying that the time has been fulfilled
and the kingdom of God has drawn near.
In the aforementioned verse, the verb πεπλήρωται (peplērōtai) is in the perfect indicative form and it’s translated as “has been fulfilled.” But this so-called *fulfillment* of time (Πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς) in Mk 1.15 is not grammatically equivalent to the *completion* of time (τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου) in Gal 4.4! Not to mention that Mark 1.15 doesn’t even tell us which particular time-period or age has been fulfilled.
What is more, according to verbal aspect theory, we cannot establish the objective “time of an action” (or the Aktionsart) simply by looking at the “aspect” (or the semantics of a tense-form), which is the author’s subjective portrayal of an action. Moreover, if we apply “the criteria of authenticity”——the various methods of ascertaining the historical plausibility and probability of an event——to the gospel genre, it will probably turn out that the narratives are purely theological and literary constructs rather than historical or biographical accounts.
Two principles of Biblical hermeneutics should also be considered foundational. 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.
Accordingly, the epistle to the Galatians chapter 4 and verse 4 gives us the exact period of time when Jesus’ incarnation will take place, namely, when time reaches its "fullness" or "completion." Galatians 4.4 gives us a specific point in time that is indicated by the nominative noun πλήρωμα, which is translated as “fullness.” This means that Christ's incarnation will transpire when time reaches its “fullness” or “completion.” Ephesians 1.10 further demonstrates that “the fullness of the times” will occur at the final consummation, when all things will conclude in Christ, “things in the heavens and things on the earth.” Therefore, “the fullness of time” coincides with “the completion of time” and with “the end of the age.”
By contrast, Mk 1.15 only tells us that an indefinite time-period has been fulfilled, without ever objectively specifying “when” or “what” has been fulfilled, irrespective of the theological genre. In other words, how do we even know that this timeframe was actually fulfilled? Because from a literary standpoint, given the subsequent rhetorical development and embellishment of the gospel literature, it’s quite difficult to deconstruct the authors’ literary assumptions, or to separate history from theology, or the “historical Jesus” from the “literary Jesus.”
The Greek text of Mark 1.15 reads πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς (the time has been fulfilled). The verb πεπλήρωται (peplērōtai) is the perfect passive indicative of πληρόω and it means to “make full,” “fulfill,” or “accomplish.” It’s used 4 other times in the New Testament to mean that “the time has come” or “the time has been fulfilled” (Πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς). Interestingly enough, the term πεπλήρωται (peplērōtai) is derived from the root word πληρόω (pléroó), which means “to make full” or “to complete.” And pléroó in turn comes from the term πλήρης (plérés), which means “full” or “complete.” It actually means “completely filled up.” Think of the hour hand of a clock which turns 360 degrees in 12 hours. At 9 o’clock it has turned 270 degrees, or 3/4 of a circle. It’s not yet full or complete. It’s only when the hour hand of a clock has come full circle that it is plérés or “full.” Or think of a cup that is half full. It will become πλήρης or “completely full” when it’s filled to the brim. This same idea is conveyed in the New Testament. See, e.g., Mt 14.20: “twelve full [πλήρεις] baskets”; Lk 4.1: “Jesus full [πλήρης] of the Holy Spirit”; Acts 19.28: “they were full [πλήρεις] of wrath.” That’s why Colossians 2.9 tells us that in Christ dwells not simply a part of the deity but rather the “fullness” (πλήρωμα) of the deity bodily:
ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς
θεότητος σωματικῶς.
Similarly, the Greek text of Galatians 4.4 reads: τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου (the fullness of time). The term πλήρωμα (plḗrōma) also comes from πληρόω (pléroó) and means “fullness,” “completion,” “summing up,” or “total” (see Liddell & Scott [1940] “A Greek–English Lexicon,” Oxford: Clarendon Press). Thus, when the term πλήρωμα (plḗrōma) is used in the New Testament (in 18 occurrences), it usually means “fullness” or “completion” (as in Gal 4.4: τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου [the fulness of time]; cf. e.g. Mk 6.43; 8.20; Jn 1.16; Rom 11.25; 15.29; 1 Cor 10.26, 28; Gal 4.4; Eph 1.10, 23; 3.19; 4.13; Col 1.19; 2.9)!
In fact, none of the Bible versions of Gal 4.4 (that I’m aware of) translate πλήρωμα as a *fulfillment* of prophecy that has already taken place. On the contrary, all of them, without exception, render πλήρωμα as the *completion* of historical time in one form or another! Most Bible versions say “when the fullness of time came.” For example, the Aramaic Bible in Plain English says “But when the end of time arrived.” The Christian Standard & the Holman Christian Standard Bibles are far more explicit in saying “When the time came to completion.” Not one version translates τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου (in Gal 4.4) as fulfilled prophecy. None!
Furthermore, if we read the New Testament in canonical context, using the analogy of scripture, we’ll come to realize that Ephesians 1.10 actually interprets and expounds Galatians 4.4! Ephesians 1.10 clearly defines God’s “plan of the fullness of the times” (οἰκονομίαν τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν) as the “summing up” or “completion” (ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι) of all things in Christ (τὰ πάντα ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ), “things in the heavens” (τὰ ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς), “and things on the earth” (καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς · ἐν αὐτῷ). Thus, in both Galatians 4.4 and Ephesians 1.10, *the fullness of time* clearly denotes *the completion of time,* when all things will conclude in Christ. For this reason, the alternative expressions τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου/τῶν καιρῶν act as signifiers for “the end of the age.” Yet remarkably, according to Gal. 4.4, this is also the time of Christ’s incarnation! Consequently, the Epistolary literature of the NT sets Christ’s birth in a different light, while apparently contradicting some of the Gospel material.
According to the Collins English Dictionary:
If you say that something will happen in the
fullness of time, you mean that it will
eventually happen after a long time or after
a long series of events.
And, as an example, it quotes a written excerpt:
…a mystery that will be revealed in the
fullness of time.
The conclusion drawn from this brief study of “the fullness of time” matches the results obtained from other areas of research. For instance, it squares well with an eschatological Jesus who makes his initial appearance “at the final point of time” (1 Pet 1.20 NJB). It also fits well with the messianic male-child who is said to be born in the end-times (Rev 12.5), and who is expected to *sacrifice* himself and *die* “in the end of the world” (Heb 9.26 KJV). Accordingly, Christ will subsequently resurrect at the time of the end (Dan 12.1 LXX) and abolish “all rule and all authority and power” (1 Cor 15.22-24)! And there’s no two-thousand-year gap between Christ’s *resurrection* and *judgment-day* because “He arises to terrify the earth” (Isa 2.19)!
For further details, please consult the following articles:
——-
1. THE LORD RESURRECTS TO TERRIFY THE EARTH
——-
2. PROOF THAT DANIEL 12.1 IS REFERRING TO A RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD BASED ON TRANSLATION AND EXEGESIS OF THE BIBLICAL LANGUAGES
——-
3. WHY DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT REFER TO CHRIST’S FUTURE COMING AS A “REVELATION”?
——-
A Biblical Greek Translation of Hebrews 9:26 that Changes Everything We Thought We Knew About Jesus
By Eli Kittim 🎓
Does Katechó mean “Restrainer” in 2 Thess. 2:6-7? And Does the Phrase ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται mean “until he be taken out of the way”?
By Goodreads Author and Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
What Does Κατέχω (katechó) Mean?
This paper is a Biblical bombshell because it demonstrates that scholars have traditionally misunderstood and misinterpreted 2 Thess. 2:6-7. So let’s begin by analyzing the Greek text. The Greek term κατέχω (katechó)——which is the basis of the two variant terms used in 2 Thess. 2:6-7—-is derived from the word ἔχω (echó), which means “have,” “hold,” “possess,” or “keep”:
G2192 ἔχω (echó)
https://biblehub.com/greek/2192.htm
It would be advantageous to examine the uses and applications of the term katechó in both the New Testament (NT) and the Septuagint (LXX). Although the term κατέχω (katechó) is somewhat nuanced with certain subtle qualities, depending on the context, it essentially has the same meaning: hold, have, possess, keep, or retain. With the exception of one idiomatic instance——in which it could mean “make for,” or “go toward”——it’s usually rendered in the NT as per the aforementioned meanings:
Keep - (Luke 4:42).
Possessing - (2 Cor. 6:10).
Hold - (Luke 8:15; Rom. 7:6; 1 Cor. 11:2; 15:2;
1 Thess. 5:21; Hebrews 3:6; 3:14; 10:23).
Made for [go toward] - (Acts 27:40).
Κατέχω (katechó) in the LXX
In Gen. 24:56 of the LXX, κατέχετε (katechete) means “keep/hold.” It’s rendered as “don’t *keep* me/don’t *hold* me” (μὴ κατέχετέ με):
ὁ δὲ εἶπε πρὸς αὐτούς· μὴ κατέχετέ με, καὶ
Κύριος εὐώδωσε τὴν ὁδόν μου ἐν ἐμοί·
ἐκπέμψατέ με, ἵνα ἀπέλθω πρὸς τὸν
κύριόν μου.
Another variation of the word κατέχων (katechōn) is found in Isa. 40:22 LXX:
ὁ κατέχων τὸν γῦρον τῆς γῆς καὶ οἱ
ἐνοικοῦντες ἐν αὐτῇ ὡς ἀκρίδες ὁ στήσας
ὡς καμάραν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ διατείνας ὡς
σκηνὴν κατοικεῗν.
Here, κατέχων (katechōn) means “has/possesses.” The sentence is roughly translated as “He who *has* or *possesses* [knowledge] of the circle of the earth.”
The same holds true in Song 3:8 (LXX) in which κατέχοντες (katechontes) is rendered as “hold”:
πάντες κατέχοντες ῥομφαίαν, δεδιδαγμένοι
πόλεμον, ἀνὴρ ρομφαία αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ μηρὸν
αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ θάμβους ἐν νυξί.
English translation by L.C.L. Brenton:
They all hold a sword, being expert in war:
every man [has] his sword upon his thigh
because of fear by night.
Thus, just as in the NT, the term κατέχω (katechó) has the exact same meanings in the LXX, namely, “have,” hold,” “keep,” and “possess.” Although this study is certainly not exhaustive, it furnishes pretty solid evidence nonetheless!
So how can the term “restraining” possibly be related to the idea of “having” or “holding” something? The only way we can use the term κατέχω (katechó) in the erstwhile meaning is through an expansion of meaning or augmentation in which additional words are used in the context to indicate that there’s a particular set of circumstances that keeps something from happening, as, for example, in 2 Thess. 2:6. However, κατέχω (katechó), in and of itself, does not mean “restrain.”
Bill Mounce’s translations are, therefore, not faithful to the original Greek text. According to Mounce, in Rom. 1:18, κατέχω means “to hinder, restrain.” In fact, most standard Bible versions translate κατεχόντων as “suppressing.” But this is an incorrect translation. In Rom. 1:18, the term katechontōn simply means they “have” the truth, and then Paul uses a few additional verses (1:18-20 NIV) to show how God has made known to them the very fact of his existence:
For since the creation of the world God’s
invisible qualities—his eternal power and
divine nature—have been clearly seen,
being understood from what has been
made, so that people are without excuse.
What is more, Mounce insists that κατέχειν, in Phlm. 13, means “to hinder, restrain.” But that’s also an erroneous translation. How could it possibly mean “restrain” or “hinder” when Paul is saying that he would have liked to “keep” Onesimus by his side for consolation?
I would have liked to keep him with me, so
that on your behalf he could minister to me
in my chains for the gospel.
— Berean Study Bible
What Does Γένηται (genētai) Mean?
In 2 Thess. 2:5, the author (presumably Paul) says to the Thessalonians, don’t you remember? I’ve already explained all these things to you. In vv. 6-7 (SBLGNT), he goes on to say:
καὶ νῦν τὸ κατέχον οἴδατε, εἰς τὸ
ἀποκαλυφθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ καιρῷ
· τὸ γὰρ μυστήριον ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται τῆς
ἀνομίας · μόνον ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι ἕως ἐκ
μέσου γένηται.
Paul is essentially saying: you guys already know that which keeps him (Antichrist) from being revealed in his own time (because I already told you; v. 5). For the mystery of iniquity has already begun, except that there’s a keeper for the time being [who holds it back] until he’s born in the midst of them!
The key verb γένηται (genētai) is a third-person singular aorist middle subjunctive of γίγνομαι (gígnomai). And γίγνομαι primarily means to “be born,” to “come into being,” or to “become.” An alternative form is γίνομαι (gínomai) – Ionic, Koine (see γίγνομαι in Liddell & Scott [1940] A Greek–English Lexicon, Oxford: Clarendon Press).
As you can see, the verb γένηται (genētai) has nothing to do with being taken out of the way. Rather, in this particular context, it means being “born”! So, 2 Thess. 2:7 means until someone is “born,” *not* until someone is taken out of the way. Incidentally, this verse is not talking about childbirth but about a *spiritual birth,* or “rebirth,” that initiates endtime events.
So, I concur that the person indicated in 2 Thess. 2:7 is not the Antichrist, and that he acts, to a certain extent, as a “restrainer.” The text is therefore indicating that he must be “born” first before the Antichrist can be revealed. Interestingly enough, we have the exact same scenario in Revelation chapter 6 in which the 2nd seal (the Antichrist) cannot be revealed until the appearance of the 1st seal (the White horseman). Thus, in 2 Thess. 2:7, the “restrainer” is equivalent to the first horseman of the Apocalypse!
The verse that introduces the idea of a “restrainer” is 2 Thess. 2:6 (GNT):
Yet there is something that keeps this from
happening now, and you know what it is. At
the proper time, then, the Wicked One will
appear.
In 2 Thess. 2:6, the neuter definite article τὸ is used to signify “that [which] keeps” (i.e. τὸ κατέχον) this event from happening. But in 2 Thess. 2:7, ὁ κατέχων (katechōn)——pres act ptcp nom sg masc (holding)——turns out to be a “person” who must be “born” before the Antichrist can appear on the world stage. Therefore, the traditional translation——“until he be taken out of the way” (KJV)——is incorrect. The closest translation of 2 Thess. 2:7 that I could find comes from a Bible called “A Faithful Version”:
For the mystery of lawlessness is already
working; only there is one Who is restraining
at the present time until it arises out of the
midst.
But even this translation contains errors. The definite article ὁ (sg masc) refers to a man (a person), whereas this translation has the neuter “it.” And the word “arises” is also slightly off since the word γένηται essentially means “born.”
Jesus is the Keeper (Restrainer)
In the Old Testament (OT), God is mentioned several times as being the “keeper” (the κατέχον/katechon) of his people and of his kingdom. For example, in Psalm 121:5, the Hebrew text says that Yahweh [is] שֹׁמְרֶ֑ךָ (šō·mə·re·ḵā), meaning your “keeper.” Psalm 121:5 (KJV) declares:
The LORD is thy keeper: the LORD is thy
shade upon thy right hand.
Similarly, Isaiah 27:3 uses the word that comes from נָצַר (natsar), meaning “keep.” Isaiah 27:3 (RSV) reads:
I, the LORD, am its keeper; every moment I
water it. Lest any one harm it, I guard it
night and day.
In the NT, Jesus claims to be the preeminent “keeper” of the flock. In John 10:14, Jesus says, “I am the good shepherd [ποιμὴν].” The Greek term ποιμὴν (poimén) means the “keeper” of the flock. In the OT, Abel is a good shepherd——aka “a keeper of sheep”——who is also slain, just like Jesus. Gen. 4:2 (KJV) says:
Abel was a keeper of sheep.
So, if Jesus is the “keeper” (the κατέχον/katechon), and if the Antichrist cannot be revealed until Christ is “born,” then the idea of 2 Thess. 2:6-7 is similar to that of Rev 6:2-4, to wit, first comes the Christ, then comes the Antichrist. That’s precisely what Paul is trying to tell us in the 2 Thess. 2:6-7 pericope, namely, that there’s a “keeper” who must be “born” before the Antichrist can be revealed!
To further explore the parallels between 2
Thess. 2:6-7 and Revelation 6:2-4, see my
article:
WHO IS THE FIRST HORSEMAN OF THE APOCALYPSE?
https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/168159235542/who-is-the-first-horseman-of-the-apocalypse
——-
A Critical Review of the “TruthUnedited” YouTube Channel Which Teaches a Heretical Christian Doctrine
By Bible Researcher & Author Eli Kittim 🎓
What is the Truthunedited Platform?
Although the practical side of this YouTube channel appears to have a semblance of Christianity, the theology is definitely Judaic!
This YouTube channel is called “Truthunedited” and it also has an affiliated website: Truthunedited.com. These platforms are apparently run by the host, Mr. Ron Charles. Unfortunately, I could not find anything about his qualifications. This is a very popular YouTube channel that has 604k subscribers.
Their website seems to advertise books by the Restored Church of God (RCG), an offshoot of the teachings and doctrines of Herbert W. Armstrong who was the leader of the Worldwide Church of God (WCG). The RCG is a cult which,
denies the Trinity, says that God is a
composition of two beings … that being
born again means being resurrected from
flesh to spirit, that the earth was re-
created, that people will not go to hell and
will be annihilated, that Christians do not go
to heaven, … that the Holy Spirit is a force.”
——- Wiki
I skimmed through some of the videos that he’s put forth and they seem quite disturbing. For example, one of the videos refers to Easter as a goddess, which is based on the discredited 19th century book “The Two Babylons” by Alexander Hislop. The actual word Easter in Greek is “Pascha” (Πάσχα), from the Jewish “Passover” (aka Pesach). So, in trying to discredit Easter as a pagan holiday, his argument is irrelevant to the original Hebrew festival because he’s arguing only from the English translation, the so-called Month of Ēostre', which is historically a so-called “Paschal month" that corresponds to April.
In another video (“What is the true name of our creator & messiah?”), Mr. Ron Charles differentiates between the creator and the messiah, even though Hebrews 1.2 & John 1.1-3 tell us explicitly that Jesus is in fact the creator! Mr. Charles admits that he is part of the Hebrew Roots movement——which is a Jewish religious movement that advocates adherence to the Torah and the Law of Moses——something that Paul criticized vehemently. More on that later. He writes: “I want to discuss why I prefer using the Hebrew name of our creator and the Hebrew name of our Messiah.” But the messiah **Is** the creator! Why distinguish between the creator and the messiah? Well, because that is a Hebrew, not a Christian, position.
A Critical Review of the Truthunedited Video: “This is How a Believer Should Live in These Last Days”
While viewing this channel, I saw some other heretical videos as well but I would like to limit the discussion to one particular video which I listened to from start to finish, namely, a recent YouTube video entitled “This is How a Believer Should Live in These Last Days.”
The content of this video is quite shocking! As a case in point, what does the host mean by saying that he praises “Yah”? Is he a Hebrew convert? Because in the New Testament the name Yah is never mentioned, not even once! According to the New Testament, we must ONLY praise **Jesus**:
Salvation is found in no one else, for there is
no other name under heaven given to
mankind by which we must be saved.
——- Acts 4.12 NIV
Yet, in this entire video, Mr. Charles mentions the actual name of the God-incarnate-messiah “Jesus” only once, and that in passing, as a pejorative translation. And yet, the original Greek name of the Messiah is Iésous, the correct English translation of which is Jesus.
Moreover, Mr. Ron Charles keeps talking about his personal relationship with the Father. He never once mentions his personal relationship with the Son. As a matter of fact, when he refers to God’s Son, who’s coequal with the Father, he simply calls him by the vague term “messiah.” Mr. Charles claims to come from the Hebrew Roots Movement. But, as far as the Jews are concerned, the messiah is NOT Jesus. For example, a majority of the Jewish Chabad community believe that Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the deceased seventh Rebbe of the Chabad-Lubavitch dynasty, is the Jewish messiah. Is that who he’s referring to? Different religions have different messiahs. For instance, in Islam there is Imam Husayn and the Twelfth Imám (Shí’ih), and the Promised Qá’im in the Bábí Faith. There is also the Buddha Maitreya-Amitabha, the Shah Bahrám (Zoroastrianism), and the Avatar Kalki (Hinduism). These are different messiahs that are associated with different belief systems. To the Rastafari religion, it is Haile Selassie I from Ethiopia. So, which of these messiahs is he referring to? And if he’s a Christian, why doesn’t he mention the name of Jesus Christ, which is the name above all other names?
He discusses the cultural deception that is going on and “the marketing of Satan,” but his misleading approach to Jesus Christ and the New Testament is equally dangerous and deceptive because it not only mixes Christianity with Judaism, but it also destroys the New Testament from within by radically changing its terminology, it’s theology, and even the name of it’s God. If we don’t even know who we are praying to, why bother to pray at all? I don’t know enough about his soteriological views because I haven’t listened to any of his other videos, except one. I don’t know what salvation means to him. But given that he is part of the Hebrew Roots Movement, I suspect he thinks that we have to follow the laws of Moses, observe the sabbaths, etc. But Paul urges us to do the exact opposite (cf. Acts 16.31):
all are justified freely by his [God’s] grace
through the redemption that came by Christ
Jesus. ——- Rom 3.24
Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the
truth and the life. No one comes to the
Father except through me.’ ——- John 14.6
In the New Testament, is the Messiah’s Name Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic? Is it Ἰησοῦς or Yeshua?
In the video that we’re discussing, the host keeps repeating the name Yahusha. But who is Yahusha, anyway? Can he show us where that name is mentioned in the Greek New Testament as Jesus’ name? Answer: nowhere! The host mentions the name of Jesus only once, in passing, by erroneously stating that his name is “Yahusha, who in English is translated to Jesus.” In order to confirm this translation, please give us chapter and verse in the New Testament where Yahusha is written as the name of Jesus. This so-called “evidence” doesn’t exist. The New Testament only mentions the name Ἰησοῦς, which in English is translated as Jesus, not Yahusha (see the original Greek New Testament: Matthew 1.16; 3.13, 15-16; 4.1, 7, 10, 17; 7.28; 8.4, 10, 13, 14, 18, 20, 22; 9.2, 4, etc.). And I’m only partially citing the gospel of Matthew. There are many more references. Besides, there are three more gospels, the book of Acts, the epistles, and the Book of Revelation. The name Iesous (Jesus) is mentioned nearly 1,000 times in the New Testament. The Greek text never once refers to Jesus as Yahusha or Yeshua!
If Jesus’ name was in fact the Hebrew Yeshua, why didn’t the New Testament transliterate it as Yeshua? By contrast, the name “Ἰησοῦς” is not annotated as a transliteration, even though Hebraic transliterations are typically explained in the New Testament one way or another. For example:
1) In Mark 11.9, hosanna (ὡσαννὰ) is
explained.
2) ελωι ελωι λεμα σαβαχθανι is explained in
Mark 15.34; Matthew 27.46.
3) Talitha cum is explained in Mark 5.41.
4) In John 20.16, "Rabbouni” is explained.
5) In Romans 8.15, Abba is explained.
6) In Matthew 1.23, the name “Immanuel” is
explained.
The Aramaisms that exist in the Greek New Testament are typically explained or defined. For example, in Matthew 27.46, we read:
Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani? (which means
‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken
me?’).
By contrast, the name ΙΗΣΟΥΣ (Jesus) is *never* *ever* explained as an *aramaism,* nor defined as an Aramaic or Hebrew name. If what Mr. Charles says is true, why doesn’t the New Testament indicate that the name “Jesus” is the transliteration of Yeshua? You would think that a name as important as Jesus would necessitate such an explanation. The fact that there isn’t any indicates that the Greek name Iēsous is not a transliteration from the Late Biblical Hebrew Yēšūaʿ (Yeshūa):
The English name Jesus derives from the
Late Latin name Iesus, which transliterates
the Koine Greek name Ἰησοῦς Iēsoûs.
——- Wiki
By contrast:
The name יֵשׁוּעַ, Yeshua ([is] transliterated in
the English Old Testament as Jeshua).
——- Wiki
Conflating the Hebrew name of Joshua with Jesus Christ is confusing for various reasons:
In Nehemiah 8:17 this name refers to
Joshua son of Nun, the successor of Moses,
as leader of the Israelites. ——- Wiki
According to the Book of Numbers verse
13:16, the name of Joshua, the son of Nun
was originally Hosheaʿ (הוֹשֵעַ), and the
name Yehoshuaʿ (יְהוֹשֻׁעַ) is usually spelled
the same but with a yod added at the
beginning. ——- Wiki
So what do we call the messiah of the New Testament? Joshua son of Nun, Hoshea, Yəhōšūaʿ, Yeshua, or whatever other Hebrew name we could think of?
New Testament Misquotes and Hebrew Interpolations
Mr. Ron Charles, the host of this video, misquotes Paul as supposedly saying that “this is the Will of Elohim & Yahusha for you.” But Paul does not mention either Elohim or Yahusha in his letters. Why is he putting words in Paul’s mouth that Paul never said? This is misleading because he’s colouring the Greek New Testament with foreign elements from the Hebrew Roots movement. If he’s going to refer to the New Testament, it’s appropriate that he uses the original Greek words of the text. Hebrew is appropriate only for the Old Testament.
He further misquotes Ephesians 5.17. The text reads “Lord,” not master. Ephesians 5.17 uses the Greek term “kurios” to mean “Lord.” We are not talking about kung-fu, platonic philosophy, or Buddhism where there’s a master-disciple relationship. We’re talking about reverence to almighty God. The only appropriate translations are “Lord” or “God.” None of the credible Bible translations quote kurios as master. I’m not sure which Bible version he’s using. He also misquotes Romans 12.11, 19, and Philippians 3.1. The word is Κυρίῳ (Lord), not Yahuah! Furthermore, in Philippians 3.14, the words are God (θεοῦ, not Elohim), and Christ Jesus (Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, not Messiah Yahuah). In Philippians 3.20, the words are Lord Jesus Christ (κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν), not “master Yahusha the messiah.” This is a way of belittling the name of Jesus by not mentioning his name *properly* or *reverently* and not referring to him in a manner worthy of the name that is above all names. That name is actually Ἰησοῦs (i.e. Jesus) in the Greek New Testament. It is not a Hebrew name derived from the Old Testament or from Pharisaical Judaism.
Mr. Charles then misquotes James 1.27 and mentions a “Pure and undefiled religion before Elohim and the father.” And if the Father is not Elohim, then who is Elohim? In the New Testament, neither Jesus nor the Father is ever called Elohim. Mr. Ron Charles doesn’t seem to be familiar with textual criticism, the Greek New Testament, or with Christian theology.
He then misquotes 2 Corinthians 5.20 by using the vague term “messiah”——a term that means different things to different people——and also by mentioning Elohim who, once again, is never mentioned in the New Testament. Here is the phrase in the original Greek (2 Corinthians 5.20 SBLGNT):
ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ οὖν πρεσβεύομεν ὡς τοῦ
θεοῦ παρακαλοῦντος δι’ ἡμῶν · δεόμεθα
ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, καταλλάγητε τῷ θεῷ.
As you can see, the Greek words that Paul uses are Christ (Χριστοῦ) and God (θεῷ), not messiah or Elohim. That’s why Jesus is known as Jesus Christ, whom he never mentions, except once as a pejorative or pagan translation. Yet he claims that “we are representatives of the gospel.” But if he identifies with the New Testament, why is his theology derived from the Old Testament? I also noticed that his relationship is not with the Son, but rather with the Father, because he keeps saying that he had some issues that the father had to help him work through.
What is more, he keeps praising this unknown and obscure messiah without once revealing what his true name is: the name that is above all other names, mind you. This New Testament name stands far above the other Old Testament names (such as Elohim and Yahweh) because we are not supposed to call on these names for salvation. So, which name do we call upon for salvation? We are to call on the name of Jesus (Acts 4.12)!
Hebrew Roots Beliefs
In case you’re not familiar with the Hebrew Roots Movement, here are some of their beliefs:
Hebrew Roots followers believe that sin is
breaking the Torah (cf. 1 John 3:4), all of the
purity laws such as dietary restrictions and
sabbath keeping are in the Torah, thus it is
sinful to not keep the sabbath and to eat
forbidden animals, among other social and
religious observance laws. ——- Wiki
Unlike the New Testament that does away with the works of the law (legalism) in favor of grace, the Hebrew Roots followers believe in observing the Law of Moses and the Torah:
Old Testament/Torah Laws and the
teachings of the New Testament are to be
obeyed by both Jews and Gentiles in the
community of believers. (See Numbers
15:15–16 for the explanation). ——- Wiki
But these “Hebrew Roots” beliefs are the exact opposite of what the Greek New Testament teaches. In fact, this is precisely the charge that Paul brought against Judaizers in Galatians. Paul says in Galatians 2.16:
know that a person is not justified by the
works of the law, but by faith in Jesus
Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in
Christ Jesus that we may be justified by
faith in Christ and not by the works of the
law, because by the works of the law no one
will be justified.
In Galatians 2.21, Paul says:
I do not set aside the grace of God, for if
righteousness could be gained through the
law, Christ died for nothing!
In Galatians 3.11, Paul repeats the justification of faith teaching through grace:
Clearly no one who relies on the law is
justified before God, because ‘the righteous
will live by faith.’
It’s also found in many other places, including Romans 3.20:
Therefore no one will be declared righteous
in God’s sight by the works of the law.
It doesn’t get any clearer than that. We are not to observe the law. We are saved by faith in Jesus Christ alone! In fact, the entire New Testament can be summed up as the revelation of the person and work of Jesus Christ (Ιησούς Χριστός).
Alas, even as he ends his video, Mr. Ron Charles keeps talking about Elohim, while repeating the ambiguous and enigmatic term “messiah” over and over again. He also keeps mentioning “Yah” nonstop. But who is “Yah” in the New Testament? He is never mentioned. In fact, Mr. Charles ends the video by saying “praise yah.” Really? Not Jesus? And he is supposedly a Christian who identifies with the Gospel of the New Testament? I don’t think so. This is clearly a heretical Jewish theology that radically deviates from, and corrupts the truths of, Christianity!
See my essay:
“Yahweh is Never Once Mentioned in the New Testament”
https://www.instagram.com/p/BjOF_wqhKdv/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
——-
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!