Does Katech Mean Restrainer In 2 Thess. 2:6-7? And Does The Phrase Mean Until He Be Taken Out Of The

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

——-

Eli Kittim - Amazon Author Page

https://www.amazon.com/author/ekittim

amazon.com

Eli of Kittim

Follow Eli of Kittim and explore their bibliography from Amazon.com's Eli of Kittim Author Page.

Polish Translation of Eli Kittim’s article

Polskie tłumaczenie artykułu Eli Kittima

——-

DOWÓD, ŻE DANIEL 12.1 ODNOSI SIĘ DO ZMARTWYCHWSTANIA NA PODSTAWIE TŁUMACZENIA I EGEGEZY JĘZYKÓW BIBLIJNYCH

Autor Eli Kittim

Księga Daniela 12.1 jest w kontekście wielkiego ucisku czasów ostatecznych! Jest powtórzony w Mateusza 24.21 jako czas wielkiej próby: καιρός θλίψεως (por. Ap 7,14).

Daniel Teodotion 12.1 LXX:

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

Teodotion Daniel 12,1 z Septuaginty tłumaczy hebrajskie słowo עָמַד (amad) jako αναστήσεται, które pochodzi od rdzenia ανίστημι i oznacza „powstanie”.

Tłumaczenie:

W tym czasie powstanie Michał, wielki książę, obrońca twojego ludu. Nastanie czas udręki, jakiej nie było, odkąd narody po raz pierwszy powstały.

Moje twierdzenie, że greckie słowo ἀναστήσεται („powstanie”) odnosi się do zmartwychwstania, zostało zakwestionowane przez krytyków. Moja odpowiedź jest następująca.

Pierwszym dowodem jest fakt, że Michał jest po raz pierwszy wymieniony jako ten, który „powstanie” (ἀναστήσεται; Daniel Teodotion 12.1 LXX) przed powszechnym zmartwychwstaniem (ἀναστήσονται; Starogrecki Daniel 12.2 LXX). W tym przypadku istnieje solidny dowód językowy, że słowo ἀναστήσεται odnosi się do zmartwychwstania, ponieważ w następnym wersecie (12.2) liczba mnoga tego samego słowa (tj. ἀναστήσονται) została użyta do opisania ogólnego zmartwychwstania! Innymi słowy, jeśli dokładnie to samo słowo oznacza zmartwychwstanie w Daniela 12.2, to musi również oznaczać zmartwychwstanie w Daniela 12.1!

Drugi dowód pochodzi ze starogreckiej wersji Septuaginty Daniela, która używa słowa παρελεύσεται do określenia hebrajskiego słowa עָמַד (amad), które jest tłumaczone jako „powstanie”.

Starogrecki Daniel 12.1 wersja LXX brzmi:

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.

Starogrecka wersja Septuaginty Daniela dalej pokazuje, że Daniel 12.1 opisuje temat śmierci i zmartwychwstania, ponieważ słowo παρελεύσεται oznacza „odejść” (umrzeć), tym samym wskazując na śmierć tego księcia w czasie koniec! Dlatego przygotowuje scenę dla jego zmartwychwstania, ponieważ tak zwana forma „Teodotion Daniel” z LXX wypełnia luki, używając słowa αναστήσεται, oznaczającego zmartwychwstanie cielesne, aby ustalić okres dni ostatnich jako czas, w którym ta książęca postać zostanie wskrzeszony z martwych!

[Vietnamese translation]

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

Tác giả Eli Kittim

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

Daniel Theodotion 12.1 LXX:

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

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

Đây là bản dịch:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

🚫 Millennialism Debunked

By Eli Kittim

The Contradictions of Millennialism

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

“the heavens will pass away with a loud

noise, and the elements will be dissolved

with fire.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Then Death and Hades were thrown into the

lake of fire. This is the second death, the

lake of fire.”

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

Conclusion

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