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

——-

Speaking in Tongues

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

Speaking in tongues (aka glossolalia) is in fact a biblical spiritual gift. But it refers to speaking a known human language. It is mentioned in several places, including Acts 2.1-11, 1 Corinthians 13, and 14. It is said to be a gift from God. But not every believer receives this gift. Therefore, speaking in tongues is not a necessary manifestation of salvation. Paul says that there are various gifts distributed by one and the same spirit. In 1 Corinthians 12.8-11, Paul says:

To one is given through the Spirit the

utterance of wisdom, and to another the

utterance of knowledge according to the

same Spirit, to another faith by the same

Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one

Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to

another prophecy, to another the

discernment of spirits, to another various

kinds of tongues, to another the

interpretation of tongues. All these are

activated by one and the same Spirit, who

allots to each one individually just as the

Spirit chooses.

However, since everything in the spiritual life can be mimicked, so can this gift. In the spiritual life, there are authentic gifts of grace, but there are also false imitations. Some thinkers maintain that the *division* between authentic and inauthentic epistemic concepts doesn’t really exist. The assumption is that people create a false dichotomy out of whole cloth, which is labeled as the “No true Scotsman” fallacy. In other words, the appeal to purity or truth constitutes an informal fallacy in which one attempts to defend their generalization from a falsifying exception by precluding the said exception inappropriately. But very often the so-called “no true Scotsman fallacy” is not a fallacy at all. That’s because it wrongly presupposes that rhetorical concepts such as “true,” “real,” “authentic,” “genuine,” and “pure” are nonsubstantive platitudes that don’t exist. However, this form of Relativism is completely bogus and misinformed!

Although the “no true Scotsman fallacy” can be applied in some measure to expose fallacious argumentation, to indiscriminately repudiate truth-functional propositional logic is utterly erroneous. That’s because such a duality between the pure and the impure——between the true and the false, between the genuine and the bogus——does in fact exist in real life! This is *not* fallacious reasoning. For example, there are very expensive handbags that sell for millions of dollars. The Mouawad 1001 Nights Diamond Purse is selling at $3.8 million. The Hermes Kelly Rose Gold handbag is selling at $2 Million; the Chanel “Diamond Forever” Handbag at $261,000, and so on. But there are obvious copies and imitations, what we informally call “knockoff” merchandise. There are handbags made to look like these expensive ones that are of poor quality and that try to trick the buyer into thinking that they are authentic. Scammers with fraudulent merchandise abound in these types of businesses. These types of scams are happening everywhere at an alarming rate, whether we’re talking about the diamond industry, the home appliance industry, the technology industry, or the Clothing industry. So you can see that a real dichotomy between authentic and false versions does exist!

This carries over into the spiritual life as well. For instance, we have authentic versus inauthentic “salvation.” There are those who are radically changed and transformed by the spirit during a very painful experience called “the dark night of the soul,” and then there are those who go to a crusade and, without experiencing any suffering whatsoever, simply make a one-minute “pledge of allegiance” to Christ and mistake that for “rebirth” and “regeneration.” In the same way, there are those who receive the gift of tongues, but there are also those who exhibit false charismatic gifts without having received these gifts from God. You can find many of these false teachers in the pentecostal and charismatic movements, people like Benny Hinn, Peter Popoff, and Kenneth Copeland!

There are many YouTubers that have exposed these false spiritual imitations. However, they don’t usually do a good job of explaining the essential differences between the true and the false versions, and so they give off the wrong impression that almost all of them are fake. Some of these critics are “cessationists” who believe that the gifts of the spirit ceased during the apostolic age. But for those of us who have experienced the gifts of the spirit in a powerful way (i.e. “continuationists”), we know that this approach is dead wrong because it limits God in terms of what he can and cannot do. God is much bigger than that. God is neither dead nor inactive!

There’s also a further hermeneutical consideration, namely, how to interpret the biblical text when it refers to people speaking with new tongues. Is it always meant to be taken literally, or can speaking with new tongues be taken metaphorically? In some cases, it may not be a literal interpretation at all. Why? Well, take the concept of rebirth, for example. Rebirth means a new you: a new way of seeing, a new way of talking, a new way of being. A reborn person has a new language, new thoughts, new words. He doesn’t speak the way he used to. He speaks in a new language. Thus, speaking with new tongues can, in some rare instances, be taken metaphorically or symbolically. In Mark 16.17, Jesus says:

And these signs will accompany those who

believe: In my name they will drive out

demons; they will speak in new tongues.

In the final analysis, although speaking with new tongues is mentioned several times in the Bible as a gift of the Holy Spirit, we should, nevertheless, be cautious about people who advertise that they speak in new tongues, especially sensational Bible teachers who often preach on tithing and donations. Most of these claims are false, especially those made by people like pastor Bill Johnson——who heads up Bethel School of Supernatural Ministry——who will supposedly “equip you to walk in the gifts of the Spirit.” Nonetheless, there are authentic gifts of tongues that do in fact exist!

——-

French translation of Eli Kittim’s article

Traduction française de l'article d'Eli Kittim

——-

PREUVE QUE DANIEL 12.1 FAIT RÉFÉRENCE À UNE RÉSURRECTION D'ENTRE LES MORTS BASÉE SUR LA TRADUCTION ET L'EXEGÈSE DES LANGUES BIBLIQUES

Par l'auteur Eli Kittim

Daniel 12.1 se situe dans le contexte de la grande tribulation de la fin des temps !  Matthieu 24.21 en parle aussi comme le temps de la grande épreuve : καιρός θλίψεως (cf. Apocalypse 7.14).

Daniel Théodotion 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.

La Théodotion Daniel 12.1 de la Septante traduit le mot hébreu עָמַד (amad) par αναστήσεται, qui est dérivé de la racine du mot ανίστημι et signifie « se lèvera ».

Traduction:

À ce moment-là, Michel, le grand prince, le protecteur de ton peuple, se lèvera. Il y aura un temps d'angoisse, tel qu'il n'y en a jamais eu depuis que les nations ont vu le jour.

Mon affirmation selon laquelle le mot grec ἀναστήσεται ("se lèvera") fait référence à une résurrection d'entre les morts a été contestée par des critiques. Ma réponse est la suivante.

Le premier élément de preuve est le fait que Michel est mentionné pour la première fois comme celui qui « ressuscitera » (ἀναστήσεται ; Daniel Theodotion 12.1 LXX) avant la résurrection générale des morts (ἀναστήσονται ; l'ancien grec Daniel 12.2 LXX). Ici, il existe des preuves linguistiques solides que le mot ἀναστήσεται fait référence à une résurrection parce que dans le verset suivant (12.2) le même mot au pluriel (à savoir, ἀναστήσονται) est utilisé pour décrire la résurrection générale des morts ! En d'autres termes, si ce même mot signifie résurrection dans Daniel 12.2, alors il doit aussi nécessairement signifier résurrection dans Daniel 12.1 !

Le deuxième élément de preuve provient de la version grecque ancienne de Daniel de la Septante qui utilise le mot παρελεύσεται pour définir le mot hébreu עָמַד (amad), qui est traduit par « surgira ».

La version de la LXX de l'ancien grec Daniel 12.1 se lit comme suit :

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.

La version de la septante de Daniel en grec ancien démontre en outre que Daniel 12.1 décrit un thème de mort et de résurrection parce que le mot παρελεύσεται signifie « mourir » (mourir), indiquant ainsi le décès de ce grand prince au moment de la fin! Il plante le décor de sa résurrection alors que la forme dite « Theodotion Daniel » de la LXX comble les lacunes en utilisant le mot αναστήσεται, signifiant une résurrection corporelle, pour établir la période des derniers jours comme le temps pendant lequel cette figure princière sera ressuscitée d'entre les morts !

The Error of Subordinationism

By Biblical Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

Ontological Subordinationism

The theological literature defines Subordinationism as comprising hierarchical rankings amongst the persons of the Trinity, thus signifying an ontological subordination of both the Son and the Spirit to the Father. The word ontological refers to “being.” Although some of the ante-Nicene fathers supported subordinationism, this doctrine was eventually condemned as heretical by the Post-Nicene fathers:

Athanasius opposed subordinationism, and

was highly hostile to hierarchical rankings

of the divine persons. It was also opposed

by Augustine. Subordinationism was

condemned in the 6th century along with

other doctrines taught by Origen.

Epiphanus writing against Origen attacked

his views of subordinationism. — wiki

Calvin also opposed subordinationism:

In his Institutes of the Christian Religion,

book 1, chapter 13 Calvin attacks those in

the Reformation family who while they

confess ‘that there are three [divine]

persons’ speak of the Father as ‘the

essence giver’ as if he were ‘truly and

properly the sole God’. This he says,

‘definitely cast[s] the Son down from his

rank.’ This is because it implies that the

Father is God in a way the Son is not.

Modern scholars are agreed that this was a

sixteenth century form of what today is

called, ‘subordinationism’. Richard Muller

says Calvin recognised that what his

opponents were teaching ‘amounted to a

radical subordination of the second and

third persons, with the result that the Father

alone is truly God.’ Ellis adds that this

teaching also implied tritheism, three

separate Gods. — wiki

The Eastern Orthodox position is yet another form of subordinationism that has asserted the Monarchy of the Father to this day:

According to the Eastern Orthodox view, the

Son is derived from the Father who alone is

without cause or origin. — wiki

The Catholic Church, however, is overtly antithetical to the subordinationism doctrine:

Catholic theologian John Hardon wrote that

subordinationism ‘denies that the second

and third persons are consubstantial with

the Father. Therefore it denies their true

divinity.’ — wiki

In theology proper, unlike ontological subordination, there is also the doctrine of “economic subordination” in which the Son and the Holy Spirit play subordinate roles in their functions, even though they may be ontologically equal to the Father. New Calvinists have been advancing this theory of late:

While contemporary Evangelicals believe

the historically agreed fundamentals of the

Christian faith, including the Trinity, among

the New Calvinist formula, the Trinity is one

God in three equal persons, among whom

there is ‘economic subordination’ (as, for

example, when the Son obeys the Father).

— wiki

According to the Oxford Encyclopedia, the doctrine of Subordinationism makes the Son inferior to the Father, and the Holy Spirit inferior to the Son. It reads thusly:

Subordinationism means to consider Christ,

as Son of God, as inferior to the Father.

This tendency was strong in the 2nd- and

3rd-century theology. It is evident in

theologians like Justin Martyr, Tertullian,

Origen, Novatian, and Irenaeus. Irenaeus,

for example, commenting on Christ's

statement, ‘the Father is greater than I’

(John 14:28), has no difficulty in

considering Christ as inferior to the Father.

… When Origen enlarged the conception of

the Trinity to include the Holy Spirit, he

explained the Son as inferior to the Father

and the Holy Spirit as inferior to the Son.

Subordination is based on statements

which Jesus made, such as (a) that ‘the

Father is greater than I’ (John 14:28); (b)

that, with respect to when the day of

Judgment will be, ‘of that day or hour no

one knows, not even the angels in heaven,

nor the Son, but the Father alone’ (Mark

13:32), and that He spoke of God as

somebody else (Mark 11:18). — wiki

However, Jesus’ statements are made from within the confines of his human condition, and thus they don’t pertain to his eternal status. As the Son of Man, namely, as a finite, limited human being, in comparison with the eternal Father, Jesus is obviously incapable of knowing all things. So Jesus’ statements must not be taken out of context and used to support the idea that he’s ontologically an inferior God. Micah 5.2 would certainly challenge that notion when it reveals that the messiah is actually uncreated: “His times of coming forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity.” Subordinationism ultimately leads to Arianism, the notion that the Son was created by the Father, and is not thus God:

Arius, therefore, held that the Son was

divine by grace and not by nature, and that

He was created by the Father, though in a

creation outside time. In response, the

Nicene Creed, particularly as revised by the

second ecumenical council in

Constantinople I in 381, by affirming the co-

equality of the Three Persons of the Trinity,

condemned subordinationism. — wiki

According to The Westminster Handbook to Patristic Theology, Subordinationism sees “the Son” and “the Spirit of God” as lesser deities, especially as demi-gods, or inferior gods:

Subordinationism. The term is a common

retrospective concept used to denote

theologians of the early church who

affirmed the divinity of the Son or Spirit of

God, but conceived it somehow as a lesser

form of divinity than that of the Father.

— wiki

Subordinationism is reminiscent of Gnosticism in which there’s a supreme God as well as lesser divinities. In Subordinationism, the Son is viewed as an inferior god, or a lesser god. However, as will be shown, Jesus is not a subordinate god in relation to God the Father. Some theologians argue that although the three persons of the Godhead are coequal, coeternal, and consubstantial ontologically, the Son and the Spirit are nevertheless subordinate in terms of economy, that is, in terms of their functions and roles. This notion of ranking or subordination within the trinity is supposedly supported by scripture when it says that the Father “sent” the Son (Jn 6.57), or that the Father and the Son “send” the Spirit (Jn 15.26), or that the spirit will “speak only what he hears” (Jn 16.13).

But this still implies a greater versus a lesser god, which makes the Trinity theologically indefensible! Not to mention that these verses are taken out of context. The temporal operations of the Son and the Spirit are scripturally depicted in anthropomorphic terms, ascribing human characteristics to divine operations and energies so that they can be better understood. As, for example, when scripture says that God changed his mind, or that he repented. And as regards Jesus’ connection to the God of the Hebrew Bible, appropriate New Testament language must be used so as to preclude a theological deviation from the monotheistic God of the Old Testament. Nevertheless, scripture does tell us categorically and unequivocally who Jesus is. Revelation 1.8 tells us that the Son is the Almighty! Who, then, ranks above him? Moreover, Jesus is Yahweh (the Lord) in the New Testament. Proverbs 8.28-30, John 1.3 and Hebrews 1.2 all indicate that Jesus is the creator. John 1.3 declares:

All things came into being through him

[Jesus], and without him not one thing

came into being.

Acts 4.12 reminds us of Jesus’ preeminent position within the Godhead:

there is salvation in no one else; for

there is no other name under heaven that

has been given among mankind by which

we must be saved.

In my view, subordinationism leads to tritheism!

The Eternal Subordination of the Son

The doctrine that the Son is eternally created by God the Father smacks of Arianism, as if his divinity is mediated to him by God the Father, implying that the Son doesn’t legitimately possess divinity in and of himself. It suggests that the Son and the Father were not always God in the same way, and that there was a time when the Son did not exist. Accordingly, only the Father was in the beginning. In other words, the Son is not eternal. This view holds that the Son is God only because Godhood is bestowed on him as a gift from the Father. To phrase it differently, the Son is God by grace and not by nature. Today, among the theologians who hold to Subordinationism are Bruce A. Ware, Wayne A. Grudem, and John W. Kleinig. But this doctrine contradicts John 1.1:

In the beginning was the Word, and the

Word was with God, and God was the word.

We must always remember that all of Jesus’ words must be understood within the context of the human condition. That is to say, Jesus is speaking of his human nature, as a human being, not as eternal God. He is a creature, a man, a finite being, located in time and space, and in that sense he is obviously in a subordinate relationship to the Father who remains eternal and is everywhere. So when Jesus employs the language of grace——specifying what the Father has “given” him——he is referring to what the eternal Father has done for the mortal Son of Man, namely, to give him authority, exaltation, worship, and glory (cf. Daniel 7.13-14). This apparent inequality between the Son and the Father is, strictly speaking, limited to Jesus’ humanity, a humanity which will then in turn redeem human nature and glorify his elect. It is not referring to Jesus’ ontological relationship with the Father, which is one of equality. And since he is appealing particularly to the monotheistic God of the old testament, which the Jews understood as a singular deity, Jesus is careful to use the language of grace in order to appease the Jews who would otherwise take exception to an incarnate God. But scripture is quite adamant about the fact that Jesus is both man and God! John 1.14 puts it thusly:

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt

among us.

Colossians 2.9 reveals that the Son is fully God, and that the fullness of the godhead (πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος) dwells in him bodily:

in him the whole fullness of the godhead

[θεότητος] dwells bodily.

Hebrews 1.3 proclaims that the Son is of the same essence as the Father:

The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and

the exact imprint of his being.

Titus 2.13 calls him “our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” And in John 1.3 and Hebrews 1.2 Jesus is the creator and the “heir of all things, through whom he [God] also created the worlds.” That is to say, the Son of Man, in his *human nature*——as the mediator and savior of mankind——becomes heir of all things. Not that the Godhood is given to him as a gift or as an inheritance. How can a lesser god or a created being act as the ultimate judge of the universe? John 5.22 reads:

For the Father judgeth no man, but hath

committed all judgment unto the Son.

It doesn’t mean that the Son is given this office as a gift because the Son is God by nature and not by grace! How can God the Father hand over his Sovereignty to God the Son as a gift if Yahweh never yields his glory to another?

I am the LORD [Yahweh]; that is my name! I

will not yield my glory to another.

— Isaiah 42.8

How can an inferior god, a lesser god, or a created god be completely sovereign over the entire universe? In Matthew 28.18, Jesus declares:

All authority in heaven and on earth has

been given to me.

The clincher, the verse that clearly demonstrates the Son’s divine authority is Revelation 1.8. Since we are not waiting for the Father but rather for the Son to arrive, it becomes quite obvious that this is a reference to Jesus Christ:

‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the

Lord God, ‘who is, and who was, and who is

to come, the Almighty.’

In Daniel 7.14, why was the Son of Man “given authority, glory and sovereign power”? Why did “all nations and peoples of every language worship[ed] him”? If he’s a created being, why do the heavenly host prostrate before the Son in heaven? Partly because he is God, but also because of his deeds on earth. Revelation 5.12 exclaims:

Worthy is the Lamb that was slaughtered to

receive power and wealth and wisdom and

might and honor and glory and blessing!

Not that the Son doesn’t have power, or wealth, or wisdom, or honor, or glory, or blessing. But it’s as if additional exaltation is offered to him because of his achievements as a human being (as the Son of Man)! First Timothy 6.15-16 calls Christ the “only Sovereign” God and that “It is he alone who has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light”:

he who is the blessed and only Sovereign

[μόνος δυνάστης], the King of kings and

Lord of lords. It is he alone who has

immortality [ἀθανασίαν] and dwells in

unapproachable light, whom no one has

ever seen or can see.

Hebrews 1.3 reveals that the Son (not the Father) “upholds the universe by the word of his power.” Colossians 1.17 also says: “He [Christ] is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (cf. Philippians 3.21). What is more, if the Son is subordinate to the Father, then the Father is the source of life, not the Son. Yet John 14.6 says the exact opposite, to wit, that the Son is both “the truth” and “existence” itself:

Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the

truth, and the life.’

Jesus also alludes to himself as Yahweh, using the ontological Divine Name “I AM” from Exodus 3.14:

Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly I say to you,

before Abraham was born, I am.’

— John 8.58

In Matthew 28.18, Jesus says that “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Ἐδόθη μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς·). That means that Jesus has *ALL AUTHORITY*; not just some authority or most authority. So, if the Son possesses all authority, how is he subject to a higher authority? Consequently, there’s no one higher than him! We also know this through Special Revelation❗️

Eternal Sonship vs Incarnational Sonship

In his essay “JOHN 1:14, 18 (et al.),” Edward Andrews writes:

Literal translation philosophy versus

interpretive translation philosophy plays a

role here too. I submit that rendering

monogenēs as “only begotten” is the literal

rendering. In translating the Updated

American Standard Version (UASV), our

primary purpose is to give the Bible readers

what God said by way of his human

authors, not what a translator thinks God

meant in its place.—Truth Matters! Our

primary goal is to be accurate and faithful

to the original text. The meaning of a word

is the responsibility of the interpreter (i.e.,

reader), not the translator.

Therefore, a literal reading of monogené̄s is “only begotten” or “only-born.” However, scholars commonly argue whether the meaning of the Greek word μονογενὴς (monogenēs) is “only begotten” or “unique.” I will discuss that in a moment. Moreover, theologians have devised the doctrine of eternal Sonship, and have viewed this process as an eternal begetting, namely, the eternal begetting of the Son. That is to say, the 2nd person of the Trinity has always been the Son of God throughout all eternity. This is primarily based on the Nicene Creed (325 A.D.) which states: "We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.” However, the preposition “from” (e.g. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God) is very problematic. So is the phrase “eternally begotten of the Father.” Both suggest that the the 2nd person is not fully God in his own right but derives his divinity eternally from the Greater God, the Father. So, for example, if the Father were to suddenly cut off the supply lines, for whatever reason, the Son would no longer be God. That’s the implication. Insofar as this language gives priority to the Father as the only true God, it suggests that the Son and Spirit are inferior and that they derive their divinity and existence from the Father. Yet Isaiah 9.6 calls the Messiah “Everlasting Father”!

In his book “Systematic Theology,” Wayne Grudem identifies one particular hermeneutical problem with these types of interpretations, namely, that they try to illustrate the eternal relationships within the Godhead based on scriptural information which only address their relationships in time. Therefore, it is both feasible and conceivable that the Bible uses the terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to describe the manner in which the members of the Trinity relate to humanity in space-time. For instance, the numerous references pertaining to the Father “sending” the Son into the world allude to time. Furthermore, the Father-Son-and-Holy-Spirit formula is an “analogy” to the human family and to human relationships, not an exact representation concerning the relationships of the persons within the Trinity. Moreover, the notion that the Son is “eternally begotten” of the Father is dangerously close to Arianism, which maintains that the Son of God didn’t always exist but was rather begotten by God the Father, thus implying that Jesus was not co-eternal with God the Father.

Those who take exception to the concept of eternal Sonship often espouse what is known as the doctrine of the Incarnational Sonship. While affirming the Son’s deity and eternality, this doctrine holds that he was not always the Son of God. Rather, his Sonship began when he was “begotten.” In other words, the Father-Son-and-Spirit formula only describes the manner in which the members of the Trinity relate to humanity in space-time. This means that the second person of the Trinity became the Son of God at some point in history, namely, at His incarnation. There are several nontrinitarian offshoots of this view, which hold that the second person of the Trinity was adopted as the Son of God at his baptism, his resurrection, or his ascension. This view is known as Adoptionism (also called dynamic monarchianism). Since this is a nontrinitarian formula which asserts that Christ was simply a mortal man who was later adopted as the Son of God at some point in human history, it has absolutely nothing to do with the Incarnational Sonship that I’m describing, which recognizes and affirms Christ’s deity and eternality. Advocates of this position view the Sonship of Christ as a title or a function that he historically assumed “in time,” at his incarnation. They do not view the Sonship of Christ as an essential element of “who he is” within the Trinity. The same is true of the Father. According to this view, the first person of the Trinity became the Father at the time of the incarnation.

MacArthur (who has since changed his position) originally denied that Jesus was “always subservient to God, always less than God, always under God.” He claimed that sonship is simply an “analogy.” In like manner, Ergun Caner describes Sonship as “metaphor.” Caner similarly argues that “sonship began in a point of time, not in eternity.” Other notable Christians who have taken exception to the doctrine of eternal Sonship are Albert Barnes, Walter Martin, Finis J. Dake, and Adam Clarke.

The language of Hebrews 1.5 clearly defines the relationship of the Father to the Son as beginning during Christ’s incarnation. That’s precisely why this verse is often used as proof of the Incarnational Sonship, in which the titles of Father and Son begin to be applied during a specific event that takes place at a particular point in time: “ ‘You are my Son; today I have become your Father.’ Or again, ‘I will be his Father, and he will be my Son.’ “ Thus, there seems to be an apparent subordination in the economy of God only insofar as Christ’s human nature is concerned.

Monogenēs

Scholars often argue whether the meaning of the Greek word μονογενὴς (monogenēs) is “only begotten” or “unique.” Given the view of Incarnational Sonship, in which the titles of Father and Son begin to be applied during Christ’s incarnation, the expression “the only begotten God” seemingly means “the only God who has ever been born on earth!” And in that sense it also means “unique,” or “one of its kind.” Otherwise, if we think of the Son begotten eternally of the Father, it implies that he is not God in and of himself but derives his divinity from the Father. Thus, he is not “true God from true God”!

Although the term monogenēs could mean the “only one of its kind,” the literal meaning is “only begotten” or “only born.” Given that the earliest papyri have μονογενης θεος in John 1.18, for example, monogenēs seemingly means “the only God who has ever been born in time,” or the “only-born God” (i.e. only-begotten). Put differently, no other God has ever been born in history. But the primary meaning is “only begotten,” or, literally, “only-born.” However, its meaning is commonly applied to mean "one of a kind,” or “one and only.” We can see the interplay between the two meanings in the book of Hebrews:

The word is used in Hebrews 11:17-19 to

describe Isaac, the son of Abraham.

However, Isaac was not the only-begotten

son of Abraham, but was the chosen,

having special virtue. Thus Isaac was ‘the

only legitimate child’ of Abraham. That is,

Isaac was the only son of Abraham that

God acknowledged as the legitimate son of

the covenant. It does not mean that Isaac

was not literally ‘begotten’ of Abraham, for

he indeed was, but that he alone was

acknowledged as the son that God had

promised. — wiki

Nevertheless, excerpts from Classical Greek literature, as well as from Josephus, the Nicene creed, Clement of Rome, and the New Testament suggest that the meaning of monogenēs is “only-born”:

Only-born

Herodotus [Histories] 2.79.3 ‘Maneros was

the only-born (monogenes) of their first

king, who died prematurely.’ — wiki

Herodotus [Histories] 7.221.1 ‘Megistias sent

to safety his only-born (o monogenes, as

noun) who was also with the army.’ — wiki

Luke 9:38 ‘only born (o

monogenes)’ {noun}. — wiki

Josephus, Antiquities 2.263 ‘Jephtha’s

daughter, she was also an only-born

(monogenes) and a virgin.’ — wiki

John 3.16 For God so loved the world, that

he gave his only-begotten Son (o

monogenes uios). — wiki

Nicene Creed - ‘And in one Lord Jesus

Christ, the only-begotten Son of God.’

Clement of Rome 25 [First Epistle of

Clement] – ‘the phoenix is the only one

[born] (monogenes) of its kind.” — wiki

Notice the *meaning* in the last quotation. It’s not just the only-born, but “the only one [born] of its kind”: a combination of both interpretations. And that seems to capture the meaning of *monogenes* in the New Testament. The titles of Father and Son seemingly begin when Christ is earth-begotten or earthborn:

Heb. 1:5 ‘For unto which of the angels said

he at any time, ‘Thou art my Son (uios mou

ei su), this day have I begotten thee (ego

semeron gegenneka se)’? And again, I will

be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a

Son?’ (citing Ps.2:7, also cited Acts 13:33,

Heb. 5:5) —wiki

Filioque

In the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Father is seen as Greater than the Son and the Spirit. To offset this imbalance, the Nicene creed was amended by the Roman Catholic Church with the addition of the filioque clause. The original creed from the First Council of Constantinople (381) states that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the Father,” to which the Roman Catholic West added, “and the Son,” as an additional origin point of the Holy Spirit. Maximus the Confessor, who is associated more with the Orthodox East than with the Catholic West, didn’t take issue with the filioque. Similarly, I. Voronov, Paul Evdokimov and S. Bulgakov saw the Filioque as a legitimate theologoumenon (i.e. theological opinion)!

The reason we’re discussing the filioque is because this issue bears on the question of whether Jesus is God by nature or by grace. The Filioque was added to the Creed as an anti-Arian addition by the Third Council of Toledo (589). It is well-known that The Eastern Orthodox Church promotes the “Monarchy of the Father,” which signifies that the Father alone is the only cause (αἰτία) of the Son and the Spirit:

The Eastern Orthodox interpretation is that

the Holy Spirit originates, has his cause for

existence or being (manner of existence)

from the Father alone as ‘One God, One

Father’, Lossky insisted that any notion of a

double procession of the Holy Spirit from

both the Father and the Son was

incompatible with Eastern Orthodox

theology. — wiki

The view of the superiority of the Father actually finds expression in both east and west:

The Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215):

‘The Father is from no one, the Son from the

Father only, and the Holy Spirit equally from

both.’ — wiki

This view leads to Arianism, as can be seen from the seventeenth ecumenical council:

The Council of Florence, session 11 (1442),

in Cantate Domino, on union with the Copts

and Ethiopians: ‘Father, Son and holy Spirit;

one in essence, three in persons;

unbegotten Father, Son begotten from the

Father, holy Spirit proceeding from the

Father and the Son; ... the holy Spirit alone

proceeds at once from the Father and the

Son. ... Whatever the holy Spirit is or has, he

has from the Father together with the Son.’

— wiki

This implies that both the Son and the Holy Spirit are not God by nature but by grace. Thus, they’re not fully God: they’re inferior, lesser gods, created eternally by the Father so to speak. This smacks of Arianism and contradicts scripture which states that “in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Colossians 2.9). Conversely, Eastern Orthodoxy tends to put the Father on a pedestal:

In Eastern Orthodox Christianity theology

starts with the Father hypostasis, not the

essence of God, since the Father is the God

of the Old Testament. The Father is the

origin of all things and this is the basis and

starting point of the Orthodox trinitarian

teaching of one God in Father, one God, of

the essence of the Father (as the uncreated

comes from the Father as this is what the

Father is). — wiki

Conclusion

It doesn’t appear as if there are hierarchical rankings amongst the persons of the Trinity, comprising an ontological subordination of both the Son and the Spirit to the Father. To say that “the Son is derived from the Father who alone is without cause or origin” is nothing short of Arianism. As Catholic theologian John Hardon put it, subordinationism denies that the Son and the Spirit are consubstantial with the Father. Thus, it denies their divinity. This doctrine can be construed as if Christ, the Son of God, were inferior to the Father. It would also invalidate the three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial divine persons of the Trinity. The New Testament also makes it abundantly clear that Jesus is Yahweh (i.e. the Lord) and the almighty (see Revelation 1.8)!

It’s also clear that there’s no eternal Sonship in which Christ is eternally begotten. The appellations of Father and Son relate to the economy of God as it pertains to the Incarnation of Christ (cf. Hebrews 1.5). And *monogenēs* doesn’t seem to mean that the Son is eternally begotten and ontologically subordinate to the Father. Rather, it seems to denote the only God who has ever been born in time, or the “only-born God” (i.e. only-begotten). That is to say, no other God has ever been born in human history. So, as the Son of Man, Christ can be described as both “unique” and as the “only begotten.”

Finally, it should be stressed that Jesus is God by nature, not by grace which suggests Adoptionism. The Filioque was added to the creed as an anti-Arian formula to offset the “Monarchy of the Father,” which signifies that the Father alone is the only cause (αἰτία) or principle of the Son and the Spirit. However, there’s no basis for claiming an ontological inequality within the Trinity. What is more, it’s *a contradiction in terms* to speak of an inferior and a superior God. God is God. And there’s only one God. Therefore, if we don’t want to fall into heresy, we must maintain the concept of the Trinity, which affirms the existence of one God in 3 coequal, coeternal, consubstantial divine persons who share one essence (homoousion)!

The God-Messiah of the Old Testament

By Author Eli Kittim 🎓

In the original Hebrew text, Isaiah 9:6 paints a divine picture of the Messiah, unlike the one erroniously drawn by traditional Judaism of a mere human being. In particular, Isaiah 9:6 claims that the “son” (בֵּ֚ן ben) that is given to us is called “mighty” (גִּבּ֔וֹר gibbor) “God” (אֵ֣ל el). This is reminiscent of Leviticus 26:12 in which God **literally** promises to become **incarnated** as a human being:

I will also walk among you and be your

God.

What is more, in Isaiah 9:6 the Messiah is called “the Prince” (שַׂר־ sar), “the everlasting” (Hb. עַד “ad,” derived from “adah,” which means “perpetuity,” “continually,” or “eternally”). In other words, this “son” that “is given” to us is from everlasting. As a supplemental observation, compare the similarities of Micah 5:2 (NASB) regarding the Messiah:

His times of coming forth are from long ago,

From the days of eternity.

In other words, he is **uncreated**! The Septuagint (LXX), an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, confirms this interpretation by also stating that this upcoming (messianic) ruler is from all **eternity.** In Micah 5:2 of the Septuagint (which is technically Micah 5:1 in the LXX), the prophecy is as follows:

ΚΑΙ σύ, Βηθλεέμ, οἶκος τοῦ ᾿Εφραθά,

ὀλιγοστὸς εἶ τοῦ εἶναι ἐν χιλιάσιν ᾿Ιούδα· ἐκ

σοῦ μοι ἐξελεύσεται τοῦ εἶναι εἰς ἄρχοντα

ἐν τῷ ᾿Ισραήλ, καὶ αἱ ἔξοδοι αὐτοῦ ἀπ᾿

ἀρχῆς ἐξ ἡμερῶν αἰῶνος.

English translation by L.C.L. Brenton:

And thou, Bethleem, house of Ephratha, art

few in number to be [reckoned] among the

thousands of Juda; [yet] out of thee shall

one come forth to me, to be a ruler of Israel;

and his goings forth were from the

beginning, [even] from eternity.

So we have compelling evidence from the very early Septuagint translation that the messiah to come is actually **uncreated,** and that he has existed from all **eternity.** This suggests that the “mighty God” of Isaiah 9:6, “the everlasting,” who is promised to become incarnated in Leviticus 26:12, is the same forthcoming messianic ruler that is mentioned in Micah 5:2 (Micah 5:1 LXX), whose “goings forth were from the beginning, [even] from eternity.”

Conclusion

Keep in mind that all this is coming from the Old Testament. We haven’t even touched the New Testament yet. Nevertheless, we find in the Old Testament numerous references to the messiah as an eternal, mighty, and incarnate God! And we haven’t even mentioned the deity of Jesus Christ in the New Testament:

In Jn 1:1 (‘the word was God’); Col. 2:9 (‘in

him the whole fullness of the godhead

[θεότητος] dwells bodily’); Heb. 1:3 (‘The

Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the

exact imprint of his being’); Tit. 2:13 (‘our

great God and Savior Jesus Christ’); ‘being

in very nature God’ (Phil. 2:6); ‘The Son is

the image of the invisible God’ (Col. 1:15);

‘our God and Savior Jesus Christ’ (2 Pet.

1:1); & in Jn 1:3 and Heb. 1:2 Jesus is the

creator and the ‘heir of all things, through

whom he [God] also created the worlds’; Jn

1:3: ‘All things came into being through him

[Jesus], and without him not one thing

came into being.’

Therefore, the eternal, timeless, uncreated, everlasting, almighty God (Rev. 1:8), who has always existed from all eternity, is the very same Creator-God who is promised to be born among us (Isa. 9:6; Mic. 5:2), and to “walk [וְהִתְהַלַּכְתִּי֙] among [בְּת֣וֹכְכֶ֔ם]” us (Lev. 26:12) “and be” our God!

The LXX was initially translated back in the 3rd century BC. This is clear evidence from the earliest sources that the messiah would be divine! The Micah 5:2 version of the LXX essentially confirms the DIVINE origin of the prophesied Messiah:

ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ἐξ ἡμερῶν αἰῶνος.

It means that his origins are “from the beginning of days.” In other words, the messiah is the “Ancient of Days” (Aramaic: עַתִּיק יֹומִין, ʿatīq yōmīn; παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν, palaiòs hēmerôn), which is another name for God in Daniel 7:9!

The Use of ἄλλος and έτερος in the New Testament

By Author & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

The Greek terms ἄλλος (allos) and ἕτερος (heteros) primarily mean “other,” or “another.” The standard koine Greek teaching that the definitions of the words ἄλλος and ἕτερος are qualitatively different has been taught throughout the world in many seminaries, universities, and Bible institutes. The difference between the two words is often explained as follows: állos means “another of the same kind,” whereas héteros means another “of a different kind.” Therefore, entrenched in Biblical scholarship is the notion that ἄλλος and ἕτερος are qualitatively *different* terms.

However, according to a published article by Dr. James Keith Elliott——Emeritus Professor of New Testament Textual Criticism at the University of Leeds——the terms ἄλλος and ἕτερος are essentially interchangeable and synonymous. Dr. Elliott writes:

Ετερος in Classical Greek is used of

division into two parts: in New Testament

Greek the sense of the dual has largely

disappeared and έτερος is often confused

with άλλος. Attempts by commentators and

grammars to differentiate the two words

are often strained. In the New Testament

the words are interchangeable and

synonymous as can be seen most clearly at

I Cor 12 10 … and Hbr 11 35-36.

(James Keith Elliott, “The Use of έτερος in

the New Testament,” Zeitschrift für die

neutestamentliche Wissenschaft [Vol. 60,

Issue 1-2, 1969]).

What Dr. Elliott is saying is that the aforesaid distinction in Classical Greek largely disappeared in New Testament times. He insists that the “attempts by commentators and grammars to differentiate the two words are often strained.” He asserts that the two “words are interchangeable and synonymous.” Let’s take a look at one example which, he claims, proves this point. It is a passage where Paul enumerates the various charismatic gifts that the Holy Spirit gives to believers for the purpose of building up the “church.” 1 Cor. 12.10-11 (SBLGNT) reads:

ἄλλῳ ἐνεργήματα δυνάμεων, ἄλλῳ

προφητεία, ἄλλῳ διακρίσεις πνευμάτων,

ἑτέρῳ γένη γλωσσῶν, ἄλλῳ ἑρμηνεία

γλωσσῶν · πάντα δὲ ταῦτα ἐνεργεῖ τὸ ἓν

καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα, διαιροῦν ἰδίᾳ ἑκάστῳ

καθὼς βούλεται.

Translation (NRSV):

to another the working of miracles, to

another prophecy, to another the

discernment of spirits, to another various

kinds of tongues, to another the

interpretation of tongues. All these are

activated by one and the same Spirit, who

allots to each one individually just as the

Spirit chooses.

Notice that “all these [gifts] are activated by one and the same Spirit.” So we are not talking about qualitative differences “of a different kind.” Observe also that the two words ἄλλῳ and ἑτέρῳ are used as interchangeable and synonymous terms! The aforementioned distinction between ἄλλος “of the same kind” versus έτερος “of a different kind” doesn’t apply in this particular context. Let’s now look at the second example, which Dr. James Keith Elliott provides, namely, Heb. 11.35-36:

ἔλαβον γυναῖκες ἐξ ἀναστάσεως τοὺς

νεκροὺς αὐτῶν · ἄλλοι δὲ ἐτυμπανίσθησαν,

οὐ προσδεξάμενοι τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν, ἵνα

κρείττονος ἀναστάσεως τύχωσιν · ἕτεροι δὲ

ἐμπαιγμῶν καὶ μαστίγων πεῖραν ἔλαβον, ἔτι

δὲ δεσμῶν καὶ φυλακῆς ·

Translation:

Women received their dead by resurrection.

Others were tortured, refusing to accept

release, in order to obtain a better

resurrection. Others suffered mocking and

flogging, and even chains and

imprisonment.

In this pericope, the author of Hebrews is praising the giants of faith who were all unquestionably “of one kind,” and “not of another.” But notice that in discussing the faith of the Patriarchs——who were afflicted, persecuted, and tortured——the words ἄλλοι and ἕτεροι are used interchangeably. The people thus described are not qualitatively different. On the contrary, they are of the same kind: the heroes of faith! Once again, the assumed qualitative distinction between ἄλλοι and ἕτεροι does not exist.

In many instances, Dr. James Keith Elliott says that “scribes simply replace έτερος by άλλος.” For example, at Mt 10.23 some manuscripts read έτέραν, “but most Greek witnesses read άλλην.“ Mt. 10.23 reads:

ὅταν δὲ διώκωσιν ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ πόλει ταύτῃ,

φεύγετε εἰς τὴν ἑτέραν · ἀμὴν γὰρ λέγω

ὑμῖν, οὐ μὴ τελέσητε τὰς πόλεις τοῦ

Ἰσραὴλ ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.

Translation:

When they persecute you in one town, flee

to the next; for truly I tell you, you will not

have gone through all the towns of Israel

before the Son of Man comes.

Dr. Elliott argues that “In both places έτέραν is used in a non Classical way and is likely therefore to be what the original author wrote.” Elliott points to similar variants that occur for the same reasons in Lk. 10.1 (άλλους); Acts 8.34 (άλλον); Lk. 14.20 (άλλος); Lk. 4.43 (έτερος); Lk. 11.26 (ἕτερα); Lk. 22.65 (ἕτερα); and Jn 9.9 (ἄλλοι). In other words, in New Testament times, άλλην and έτέραν are seen as interchangeable and synonymous terms. Elliott writes:

At Lc 16 18 some mss. read άλλην for

an original έτέραν where assimilation to Mt

19 9 and Mc 10 11 may have been

responsible for the variant. This parallel

shows how easily έτερος and άλλος were

interchangeable within the New Testament

period itself.

If that’s the case, then let’s look at Lk. 16.18, which uses the word ἑτέραν:

Πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ

γαμῶν ἑτέραν μοιχεύει, καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην

ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς γαμῶν μοιχεύει.

Translation:

Anyone who divorces his wife and marries

another commits adultery, and whoever

marries a woman divorced from her

husband commits adultery.

Now let’s compare Lk. 16.18 to a parallel passage, Mt 19.9, which uses the alternative term ἄλλην. Mt. 19.9 says thusly:

λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν

γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ

ἄλλην μοιχᾶται καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην

γαμήσας μοιχᾶται.

Translation:

And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife,

except for unchastity, and marries another

commits adultery.

Notice how ἑτέραν in Lk. 16.18 becomes ἄλλην in Mt. 19.9, which demonstrates that the two terms are indeed interchangeable. Let’s also follow Elliott’s advice and compare yet another parallel, namely, Mk. 10.11:

καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς · Ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν

γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται

ἐπ’ αὐτήν.

Translation:

He said to them, ‘Whoever divorces his wife

and marries another commits adultery

against her.’

Let’s now explore a different set of passages. Specifically, let’s look at Lk 8.6 and compare it to the parallel passage in Mk. 4.5. Lk 8.6 employs the term ἕτερον and reads as follows:

καὶ ἕτερον κατέπεσεν ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν, καὶ

φυὲν ἐξηράνθη διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν ἰκμάδα.

Translation:

Some fell on the rock; and as it grew up, it

withered for lack of moisture.

However, the parallel passage in Mk. 4.5 uses the word ἄλλο instead. It reads:

καὶ ἄλλο ⸃ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ τὸ πετρῶδες ὅπου

οὐκ εἶχεν γῆν πολλήν, καὶ εὐθὺς

ἐξανέτειλεν διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν βάθος γῆς ·

Translation:

Other seed fell on rocky ground, where it did

not have much soil, and it sprang up

quickly, since it had no depth of soil.

Elliott also adds Mt. 13.5 (ἄλλα) to the mix as a counterpoint:

ἄλλα δὲ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ τὰ πετρώδη ὅπου οὐκ

εἶχεν γῆν πολλήν, καὶ εὐθέως ἐξανέτειλεν

διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν βάθος γῆς.

Translation:

Other seeds fell on rocky ground, where

they did not have much soil, and they

sprang up quickly, since they had no depth

of soil.

Let’s now examine a completely different set of parallel passages and verbal agreements. According to Elliott, “at Mt. 16.14b έτεροι is read where the parallel passages in Mc 8 28 and Lc 9 19 read άλλοι.” So, let’s take a quick look at these final examples before we end our study. Mt. 16.14 uses both words (ἄλλοι and ἕτεροι) and says:

οἱ δὲ εἶπαν · Οἱ μὲν Ἰωάννην τὸν βαπτιστήν,

ἄλλοι δὲ Ἠλίαν, ἕτεροι δὲ Ἰερεμίαν ἢ ἕνα

τῶν προφητῶν.

Translation:

And they said, ‘Some say John the Baptist,

but others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah

or one of the prophets.’

Notice that the parallel passage in Mk. 8.28 uses ἄλλοι in the same place where Mt. 16.14 used ἕτεροι. Mk 8.28 reads as follows:

οἱ δὲ εἶπαν αὐτῷ λέγοντες ⸃ ὅτι Ἰωάννην

τὸν βαπτιστήν, καὶ ἄλλοι Ἠλίαν, ἄλλοι δὲ

ὅτι εἷς ⸃ τῶν προφητῶν.

Translation:

And they answered him, ‘John the Baptist;

and others, Elijah; and still others, one of

the prophets.’

Lk. 9.19 is yet another parallel passage which uses the variant ἄλλοι. Lk. 9.19 reads:

οἱ δὲ ἀποκριθέντες εἶπαν · Ἰωάννην τὸν

βαπτιστήν, ἄλλοι δὲ Ἠλίαν, ἄλλοι δὲ ὅτι

προφήτης τις τῶν ἀρχαίων ἀνέστη.

Translation:

They answered, ‘John the Baptist; but

others, Elijah; and still others, that one of

the ancient prophets has arisen.’

Conclusion

Based on the numerous parallel passages that we studied, it is quite obvious that the Classical Greek qualitative distinction between άλλος and έτερος had largely disappeared in New Testament times. As can be seen from the previous New Testament examples, and from Dr. James Keith Elliott’s study, the words άλλος (allos) and έτερος (heteros) are interchangeable and synonymous terms!