An Additional Nuance Of Meaning To (ponrs)

An Additional Nuance of Meaning to Πονηρός (ponērós)

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

Definitions of Πονηρός (ponērós)

Koine is the immediate ancestor to modern Greek and the language that’s still used in the liturgy of the Greek Orthodox Church. In modern Greek, πονηρός (ponērós) means “cunning, sneaky, sly, wily, devious, insidious,” as well as “evil.” And since many linguists claim that Koine is very close to modern Greek, I propose that the New Testament (NT) definition of ponērós, in many instances, has certain sinister undertones of “cunning” and “devious” cognition. I intend to demonstrate that by looking at the way the term is used in both the Septuagint (LXX) and the NT. This is not an exhaustive study, by any means, but it does have sufficient evidence to at least warrant such an endeavor.

Mounce gives us several standard meanings of πονηρός (ponērós), such as evil, afflictive (Eph. 5:16; 6:13; Rev. 16:2), the evil one, or the devil (Mt. 13:19, 38; Jn. 17:15). But he also adds envious (Mt. 20:15; Mk. 7:22) and covetous (Mt. 7:11) to the list. Both of these terms presuppose planning, premeditation, scheming, plotting, and the like, in order to achieve these ends. In other words, these intentions originate from thoughts and imaginations that can, if they’re quite overwhelming, turn people into evil and malicious beings. So, I’m basically trying to demonstrate that the word ponērós has the added connotative meaning of “cunning” or “crafty” in koine Greek, which has been neglected by modern lexicons.

Πονηρός (ponērós) in the LXX

The LXX has many instances where ponērós could mean “affliction” (Gen. 12:17; Deut. 7:15) or “grievous” (Exod. 33:4), or simply “evil” (Gen. 2:9). However, there are cases where the definition of ponērós goes beyond the standard definitions and implies “thinking evil thoughts” (Gen. 6:5). Case in point, the English translation by L.C.L. Brenton of Gen. 8:21 (LXX) reads:

the imagination [διάνοια] of man is intently

bent upon evil [πονηρὰ] things.

The LXX demonstrates that the functional aspect of ponērós is not just thinking but also uttering evil words. Gen. 31:29 (LXX) writes:

speak not evil [πονηρά] words.

Numbers 11:1 (LXX) goes even further by showing that the term ponērós suggests a certain amount of premeditated plotting in a cunning or underhanded fashion:

the people murmured sinfully [πονηρά]

before [έναντι] the Lord [Κυρίου].

In other words, the people complained, not in a justifiable way, but rather “sinfully” (πονηρά], which suggests that they were plotting against God in a devious and insidious manner.

In Num. 14:27 (LXX) God declares that those “murmuring against me” (γογγύζουσιν εναντίον μου) are a “wicked generation” (την συναγωγήν την πονηράν). That is to say, these people are murmuring and planting seeds of dissension, plotting against God in an attempt to create discord and division.

Numbers 14:36-37 (LXX) suggests that those who were dispatched by Moses to scout out the Land of Canaan were slandering God by devising lies and false reports. Numbers 14:36 (LXX) reads as follows:

[they] murmured against it to the assembly

so as to bring out evil words concerning the

land [ρήματα πονηρά περι της γης].

Numbers 14:37 (LXX) is even clearer, suggesting that these were false and fabricated reports. Numbers 14:37 (LXX) says thusly:

the men … spoke evil [πονηρά] reports

against the land.

As we move on to Gen. 50:20 (LXX), it becomes apparent that the word πονηρά implies underhanded schemes and evil plots. Gen. 50:20 (LXX) reads as follows:

ὑμεῖς ἐβουλεύσασθε κατ᾿ ἐμοῦ εἰς πονηρά.

English translation by L.C.L. Brenton:

Ye took counsel against me for evil.

This was a case where wily and devious ideas where exchanged, evil plots were devised and considered, and then cunningly executed.

Similarly, Isaiah 32:7 (LXX) says:

For the counsel of the wicked [πονηρῶν]

will devise iniquity.

In other words, the term πονηρῶν indicates devising, plotting, and scheming in an underhanded way.

Finally, our last example comes from Psalm 109:20 (which is actually 108:20 LXX). It reads:

τοῦτο τὸ ἔργον τῶν ἐνδιαβαλλόντων με

παρὰ Κυρίου καὶ τῶν λαλούντων πονηρὰ

κατὰ τῆς ψυχῆς μου.

English translation by L.C.L. Brenton:

This is the dealing of the Lord with those

who falsely accuse me, and of them that

speak evil against my soul.

It becomes clear, then, that πονηρὰ means false allegations, false claims, or downright lies! Thus, πονηρὰ refers to cunning plots and schemes.

Πονηρός (ponērós) in the NT

Matthew 5:37, 6:13, and 13:19 all have the standard ponērós (πονηροῦ/πονηρὸς) meaning that refers to Satan per se. But Mt. 5:11 links insults (ὀνειδίσωσιν), lies, and slanders (ψευδόμενοι) to the term *ponērós* because it refers to cunning deceivers who “falsely say all kinds of evil [πᾶν πονηρὸν] against” the elect. Thus, false accusations, slanders, insults, and personal attacks are all considered as part of the wily, devious, and evil (ponērós) schemes that are often used to persecute Christians.

Matthew 9:4 identifies the thoughts in our hearts as being ponēra (πονηρὰ) or evil. Thus, we all have ponēra thoughts. Matthew 20:15 adds more color to the mix because it translates πονηρός as envious or jealous, depending on which Bible version you read. Finally, Matthew 15:19 presents a list in which he identifies evil thoughts (διαλογισμοὶ πονηροί). The list is as follows: 1) premeditated murders, which are certainly insidious, 2) adulteries and sexual immorality, which involve lies and deceptions in order to keep the affair concealed; 3) thefts are also included as διαλογισμοὶ πονηροί, which require the thief to be cunning, sneaky, and sly in order to achieve his aims; 4) false testimonies fall under the same category of deviousness and deception; 5) slanders are also part of the scheming διαλογισμοὶ πονηροί, as they cunningly aim to dishonor and discredit people.

Mark 7:22 defines ponērós as a cunning deception because it undergirds covetousness, lies, slanders, and pride (cf. 1 Jn 2:16). So Mark adds greed, malice, deceit, envy, slander, and arrogance to the list of meanings associated with the Greek word “ponērós.”

Conclusion

As we have seen, both the LXX and the NT often define ponērós as a cunning and devious cognition. Numbers 11:1, for example, demonstrates that ponērós means plotting & devising in a cunning and underhand fashion. The text suggests that the people were plotting against God in a devious and insidious manner. Similarly, Numbers 14:36-37 (LXX) suggests that ponērós is associated with slanders, lies, and false reports. In Psalm 109:20 (108:20 LXX), it becomes clear that πονηρὰ means false allegations, false claims, or downright lies! Thus, it refers to cunning plots and schemes.

And in the NT, Mt. 5:11 links insults, lies and slanders to the term ponērós because it refers to cunning deceivers who “falsely say all kinds of evil [πᾶν πονηρὸν] against” the elect. Thus, false accusations, slanders, insults, and personal attacks are all considered as part of the wily, devious, and evil (ponērós) schemes that are often used to persecute Christians.

Mark 7:22 defines ponērós as a cunning deception because it undergirds covetousness, lies, slanders, and pride (cf. 1 Jn 2:16). So Mark adds greed, malice, deceit, envy, slander, and arrogance to the list of meanings associated with the Greek word “ponērós.” As we have seen, in both the LXX & the NT, aside from the standard meanings of πονηρός (ponērós)——such as evil, afflictive, the evil one, or the devil——there are additional connotative meanings which suggest the terms “cunning, crafty, sneaky, sly, wily, devious, insidious, slanderous, and deceitful.” Thus, the koine word ponērós does have the modern-Greek connotative meaning of “cunning,” which has been neglected by modern lexicons!

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 Fullness of Time

By Bible Researcher and Author Eli Kittim 🎓

What does the Bible mean when it says that God sent his son in “the fullness of time”? Many scholars and pastors automatically take for granted that this phrase refers to the birth and first coming of Jesus 2,000 years ago. In other words, instead of doing rigorous linguistic research to find out exactly what this phrase actually means, many experts simply rely on their *theological assumptions* and speculations in hopes that they can carry them through. But there’s no linguistic or biblical support for their conclusion.

In order to bolster their point of view that “the fulness of time” simply means the “appropriate” time or the “fulfillment” of time, they often cite Mark 1.15, which uses the term πεπλήρωται. But, as we shall see, this term is different from its cognate (πλήρωμα) in Galatians 4.4, from where we get the phrase “the fullness of time.” So, let’s compare both texts. Mk 1.15 (SBLGNT) reads:

καὶ λέγων ὅτι Πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς καὶ

ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ·

My translation:

And saying that the time has been fulfilled

and the kingdom of God has drawn near.

In the aforementioned verse, the verb πεπλήρωται (peplērōtai) is in the perfect indicative form and it’s translated as “has been fulfilled.” But this so-called *fulfillment* of time (Πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς) in Mk 1.15 is not grammatically equivalent to the *completion* of time (τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου) in Gal 4.4! Not to mention that Mark 1.15 doesn’t even tell us which particular time-period or age has been fulfilled.

What is more, according to verbal aspect theory, we cannot establish the objective “time of an action” (or the Aktionsart) simply by looking at the “aspect” (or the semantics of a tense-form), which is the author’s subjective portrayal of an action. Moreover, if we apply “the criteria of authenticity”——the various methods of ascertaining the historical plausibility and probability of an event——to the gospel genre, it will probably turn out that the narratives are purely theological and literary constructs rather than historical or biographical accounts.

Two principles of Biblical hermeneutics should also be considered foundational. Exegetes must interpret the implicit by the explicit and the narrative by the didactic. In practical terms, the NT Epistles and other more explicit and didactic portions of Scripture must clarify the implicit meaning and significance of the Gospel literature. Accordingly, this paper argues that the Epistles are the primary keys to unlocking the future timeline of Christ’s only visitation.

Accordingly, the epistle to the Galatians chapter 4 and verse 4 gives us the exact period of time when Jesus’ incarnation will take place, namely, when time reaches its "fullness" or "completion." Galatians 4.4 gives us a specific point in time that is indicated by the nominative noun πλήρωμα, which is translated as “fullness.” This means that Christ's incarnation will transpire when time reaches its “fullness” or “completion.” Ephesians 1.10 further demonstrates that “the fullness of the times” will occur at the final consummation, when all things will conclude in Christ, “things in the heavens and things on the earth.” Therefore, “the fullness of time” coincides with “the completion of time” and with “the end of the age.”

By contrast, Mk 1.15 only tells us that an indefinite time-period has been fulfilled, without ever objectively specifying “when” or “what” has been fulfilled, irrespective of the theological genre. In other words, how do we even know that this timeframe was actually fulfilled? Because from a literary standpoint, given the subsequent rhetorical development and embellishment of the gospel literature, it’s quite difficult to deconstruct the authors’ literary assumptions, or to separate history from theology, or the “historical Jesus” from the “literary Jesus.”

The Greek text of Mark 1.15 reads πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς (the time has been fulfilled). The verb πεπλήρωται (peplērōtai) is the perfect passive indicative of πληρόω and it means to “make full,” “fulfill,” or “accomplish.” It’s used 4 other times in the New Testament to mean that “the time has come” or “the time has been fulfilled” (Πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς). Interestingly enough, the term πεπλήρωται (peplērōtai) is derived from the root word πληρόω (pléroó), which means “to make full” or “to complete.” And pléroó in turn comes from the term πλήρης (plérés), which means “full” or “complete.” It actually means “completely filled up.” Think of the hour hand of a clock which turns 360 degrees in 12 hours. At 9 o’clock it has turned 270 degrees, or 3/4 of a circle. It’s not yet full or complete. It’s only when the hour hand of a clock has come full circle that it is plérés or “full.” Or think of a cup that is half full. It will become πλήρης or “completely full” when it’s filled to the brim. This same idea is conveyed in the New Testament. See, e.g., Mt 14.20: “twelve full [πλήρεις] baskets”; Lk 4.1: “Jesus full [πλήρης] of the Holy Spirit”; Acts 19.28: “they were full [πλήρεις] of wrath.” That’s why Colossians 2.9 tells us that in Christ dwells not simply a part of the deity but rather the “fullness” (πλήρωμα) of the deity bodily:

ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς

θεότητος σωματικῶς.

Similarly, the Greek text of Galatians 4.4 reads: τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου (the fullness of time). The term πλήρωμα (plḗrōma) also comes from πληρόω (pléroó) and means “fullness,” “completion,” “summing up,” or “total” (see Liddell & Scott [1940] “A Greek–English Lexicon,” Oxford: Clarendon Press). Thus, when the term πλήρωμα (plḗrōma) is used in the New Testament (in 18 occurrences), it usually means “fullness” or “completion” (as in Gal 4.4: τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου [the fulness of time]; cf. e.g. Mk 6.43; 8.20; Jn 1.16; Rom 11.25; 15.29; 1 Cor 10.26, 28; Gal 4.4; Eph 1.10, 23; 3.19; 4.13; Col 1.19; 2.9)!

In fact, none of the Bible versions of Gal 4.4 (that I’m aware of) translate πλήρωμα as a *fulfillment* of prophecy that has already taken place. On the contrary, all of them, without exception, render πλήρωμα as the *completion* of historical time in one form or another! Most Bible versions say “when the fullness of time came.” For example, the Aramaic Bible in Plain English says “But when the end of time arrived.” The Christian Standard & the Holman Christian Standard Bibles are far more explicit in saying “When the time came to completion.” Not one version translates τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου (in Gal 4.4) as fulfilled prophecy. None!

Furthermore, if we read the New Testament in canonical context, using the analogy of scripture, we’ll come to realize that Ephesians 1.10 actually interprets and expounds Galatians 4.4! Ephesians 1.10 clearly defines God’s “plan of the fullness of the times” (οἰκονομίαν τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν) as the “summing up” or “completion” (ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι) of all things in Christ (τὰ πάντα ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ), “things in the heavens” (τὰ ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς), “and things on the earth” (καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς · ἐν αὐτῷ). Thus, in both Galatians 4.4 and Ephesians 1.10, *the fullness of time* clearly denotes *the completion of time,* when all things will conclude in Christ. For this reason, the alternative expressions τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου/τῶν καιρῶν act as signifiers for “the end of the age.” Yet remarkably, according to Gal. 4.4, this is also the time of Christ’s incarnation! Consequently, the Epistolary literature of the NT sets Christ’s birth in a different light, while apparently contradicting some of the Gospel material.

According to the Collins English Dictionary:

If you say that something will happen in the

fullness of time, you mean that it will

eventually happen after a long time or after

a long series of events.

And, as an example, it quotes a written excerpt:

…a mystery that will be revealed in the

fullness of time.

The conclusion drawn from this brief study of “the fullness of time” matches the results obtained from other areas of research. For instance, it squares well with an eschatological Jesus who makes his initial appearance “at the final point of time” (1 Pet 1.20 NJB). It also fits well with the messianic male-child who is said to be born in the end-times (Rev 12.5), and who is expected to *sacrifice* himself and *die* “in the end of the world” (Heb 9.26 KJV). Accordingly, Christ will subsequently resurrect at the time of the end (Dan 12.1 LXX) and abolish “all rule and all authority and power” (1 Cor 15.22-24)! And there’s no two-thousand-year gap between Christ’s *resurrection* and *judgment-day* because “He arises to terrify the earth” (Isa 2.19)!

For further details, please consult the following articles:

——-

1. THE LORD RESURRECTS TO TERRIFY THE EARTH

eli-kittim.tumblr.com

Eli of Kittim

THE LORD RESURRECTS TO TERRIFY THE EARTH By Eli Kittim Ἡ μετάφρασις τῶν Ἑβδομήκοντα (Septuagint): εἰσενέγκαντες εἰς τὰ σπήλαια καὶ  εἰς

——-

2. PROOF THAT DANIEL 12.1 IS REFERRING TO A RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD BASED ON TRANSLATION AND EXEGESIS OF THE BIBLICAL LANGUAGES

eli-kittim.tumblr.com

PROOF THAT DANIEL 12.1 IS REFERRING TO A RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD BASED ON TRANSLATION AND EXEGESIS OF THE BIBLICAL LANGUAGES

By Author Eli Kittim Dan. 12.1 is in the context of the great tribulation of the end times! It’s repeated in Mt. 24.21 as the time of the g

——-

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

eli-kittim.tumblr.com

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

By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim It’s important to note the language that’s often used with regard to the future coming of Christ, namely, a

——-

A Critical Review of the “TruthUnedited” YouTube Channel Which Teaches a Heretical Christian Doctrine

By Bible Researcher & Author Eli Kittim 🎓

What is the Truthunedited Platform?

Although the practical side of this YouTube channel appears to have a semblance of Christianity, the theology is definitely Judaic!

This YouTube channel is called “Truthunedited” and it also has an affiliated website: Truthunedited.com. These platforms are apparently run by the host, Mr. Ron Charles. Unfortunately, I could not find anything about his qualifications. This is a very popular YouTube channel that has 604k subscribers.

Their website seems to advertise books by the Restored Church of God (RCG), an offshoot of the teachings and doctrines of Herbert W. Armstrong who was the leader of the Worldwide Church of God (WCG). The RCG is a cult which,

denies the Trinity, says that God is a

composition of two beings … that being

born again means being resurrected from

flesh to spirit, that the earth was re-

created, that people will not go to hell and

will be annihilated, that Christians do not go

to heaven, … that the Holy Spirit is a force.”

——- Wiki

I skimmed through some of the videos that he’s put forth and they seem quite disturbing. For example, one of the videos refers to Easter as a goddess, which is based on the discredited 19th century book “The Two Babylons” by Alexander Hislop. The actual word Easter in Greek is “Pascha” (Πάσχα), from the Jewish “Passover” (aka Pesach). So, in trying to discredit Easter as a pagan holiday, his argument is irrelevant to the original Hebrew festival because he’s arguing only from the English translation, the so-called Month of Ēostre', which is historically a so-called “Paschal month" that corresponds to April.

In another video (“What is the true name of our creator & messiah?”), Mr. Ron Charles differentiates between the creator and the messiah, even though Hebrews 1.2 & John 1.1-3 tell us explicitly that Jesus is in fact the creator! Mr. Charles admits that he is part of the Hebrew Roots movement——which is a Jewish religious movement that advocates adherence to the Torah and the Law of Moses——something that Paul criticized vehemently. More on that later. He writes: “I want to discuss why I prefer using the Hebrew name of our creator and the Hebrew name of our Messiah.” But the messiah **Is** the creator! Why distinguish between the creator and the messiah? Well, because that is a Hebrew, not a Christian, position.

A Critical Review of the Truthunedited Video: “This is How a Believer Should Live in These Last Days”

While viewing this channel, I saw some other heretical videos as well but I would like to limit the discussion to one particular video which I listened to from start to finish, namely, a recent YouTube video entitled “This is How a Believer Should Live in These Last Days.”

The content of this video is quite shocking! As a case in point, what does the host mean by saying that he praises “Yah”? Is he a Hebrew convert? Because in the New Testament the name Yah is never mentioned, not even once! According to the New Testament, we must ONLY praise **Jesus**:

Salvation is found in no one else, for there is

no other name under heaven given to

mankind by which we must be saved.

——- Acts 4.12 NIV

Yet, in this entire video, Mr. Charles mentions the actual name of the God-incarnate-messiah “Jesus” only once, and that in passing, as a pejorative translation. And yet, the original Greek name of the Messiah is Iésous, the correct English translation of which is Jesus.

Moreover, Mr. Ron Charles keeps talking about his personal relationship with the Father. He never once mentions his personal relationship with the Son. As a matter of fact, when he refers to God’s Son, who’s coequal with the Father, he simply calls him by the vague term “messiah.” Mr. Charles claims to come from the Hebrew Roots Movement. But, as far as the Jews are concerned, the messiah is NOT Jesus. For example, a majority of the Jewish Chabad community believe that Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the deceased seventh Rebbe of the Chabad-Lubavitch dynasty, is the Jewish messiah. Is that who he’s referring to? Different religions have different messiahs. For instance, in Islam there is Imam Husayn and the Twelfth Imám (Shí’ih), and the Promised Qá’im in the Bábí Faith. There is also the Buddha Maitreya-Amitabha, the Shah Bahrám (Zoroastrianism), and the Avatar Kalki (Hinduism). These are different messiahs that are associated with different belief systems. To the Rastafari religion, it is Haile Selassie I from Ethiopia. So, which of these messiahs is he referring to? And if he’s a Christian, why doesn’t he mention the name of Jesus Christ, which is the name above all other names?

He discusses the cultural deception that is going on and “the marketing of Satan,” but his misleading approach to Jesus Christ and the New Testament is equally dangerous and deceptive because it not only mixes Christianity with Judaism, but it also destroys the New Testament from within by radically changing its terminology, it’s theology, and even the name of it’s God. If we don’t even know who we are praying to, why bother to pray at all? I don’t know enough about his soteriological views because I haven’t listened to any of his other videos, except one. I don’t know what salvation means to him. But given that he is part of the Hebrew Roots Movement, I suspect he thinks that we have to follow the laws of Moses, observe the sabbaths, etc. But Paul urges us to do the exact opposite (cf. Acts 16.31):

all are justified freely by his [God’s] grace

through the redemption that came by Christ

Jesus. ——- Rom 3.24

Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the

truth and the life. No one comes to the

Father except through me.’ ——- John 14.6

In the New Testament, is the Messiah’s Name Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic? Is it Ἰησοῦς or Yeshua?

In the video that we’re discussing, the host keeps repeating the name Yahusha. But who is Yahusha, anyway? Can he show us where that name is mentioned in the Greek New Testament as Jesus’ name? Answer: nowhere! The host mentions the name of Jesus only once, in passing, by erroneously stating that his name is “Yahusha, who in English is translated to Jesus.” In order to confirm this translation, please give us chapter and verse in the New Testament where Yahusha is written as the name of Jesus. This so-called “evidence” doesn’t exist. The New Testament only mentions the name Ἰησοῦς, which in English is translated as Jesus, not Yahusha (see the original Greek New Testament: Matthew 1.16; 3.13, 15-16; 4.1, 7, 10, 17; 7.28; 8.4, 10, 13, 14, 18, 20, 22; 9.2, 4, etc.). And I’m only partially citing the gospel of Matthew. There are many more references. Besides, there are three more gospels, the book of Acts, the epistles, and the Book of Revelation. The name Iesous (Jesus) is mentioned nearly 1,000 times in the New Testament. The Greek text never once refers to Jesus as Yahusha or Yeshua!

If Jesus’ name was in fact the Hebrew Yeshua, why didn’t the New Testament transliterate it as Yeshua? By contrast, the name “Ἰησοῦς” is not annotated as a transliteration, even though Hebraic transliterations are typically explained in the New Testament one way or another. For example:

1) In Mark 11.9, hosanna (ὡσαννὰ) is

explained.

2) ελωι ελωι λεμα σαβαχθανι is explained in

Mark 15.34; Matthew 27.46.

3) Talitha cum is explained in Mark 5.41.

4) In John 20.16, "Rabbouni” is explained.

5) In Romans 8.15, Abba is explained.

6) In Matthew 1.23, the name “Immanuel” is

explained.

The Aramaisms that exist in the Greek New Testament are typically explained or defined. For example, in Matthew 27.46, we read:

Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani? (which means

‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken

me?’).

By contrast, the name ΙΗΣΟΥΣ (Jesus) is *never* *ever* explained as an *aramaism,* nor defined as an Aramaic or Hebrew name. If what Mr. Charles says is true, why doesn’t the New Testament indicate that the name “Jesus” is the transliteration of Yeshua? You would think that a name as important as Jesus would necessitate such an explanation. The fact that there isn’t any indicates that the Greek name Iēsous is not a transliteration from the Late Biblical Hebrew Yēšūaʿ (Yeshūa):

The English name Jesus derives from the

Late Latin name Iesus, which transliterates

the Koine Greek name Ἰησοῦς Iēsoûs.

——- Wiki

By contrast:

The name יֵשׁוּעַ, Yeshua ([is] transliterated in

the English Old Testament as Jeshua).

——- Wiki

Conflating the Hebrew name of Joshua with Jesus Christ is confusing for various reasons:

In Nehemiah 8:17 this name refers to

Joshua son of Nun, the successor of Moses,

as leader of the Israelites. ——- Wiki

According to the Book of Numbers verse

13:16, the name of Joshua, the son of Nun

was originally Hosheaʿ (הוֹשֵעַ), and the

name Yehoshuaʿ (יְהוֹשֻׁעַ) is usually spelled

the same but with a yod added at the

beginning. ——- Wiki

So what do we call the messiah of the New Testament? Joshua son of Nun, Hoshea, Yəhōšūaʿ, Yeshua, or whatever other Hebrew name we could think of?

New Testament Misquotes and Hebrew Interpolations

Mr. Ron Charles, the host of this video, misquotes Paul as supposedly saying that “this is the Will of Elohim & Yahusha for you.” But Paul does not mention either Elohim or Yahusha in his letters. Why is he putting words in Paul’s mouth that Paul never said? This is misleading because he’s colouring the Greek New Testament with foreign elements from the Hebrew Roots movement. If he’s going to refer to the New Testament, it’s appropriate that he uses the original Greek words of the text. Hebrew is appropriate only for the Old Testament.

He further misquotes Ephesians 5.17. The text reads “Lord,” not master. Ephesians 5.17 uses the Greek term “kurios” to mean “Lord.” We are not talking about kung-fu, platonic philosophy, or Buddhism where there’s a master-disciple relationship. We’re talking about reverence to almighty God. The only appropriate translations are “Lord” or “God.” None of the credible Bible translations quote kurios as master. I’m not sure which Bible version he’s using. He also misquotes Romans 12.11, 19, and Philippians 3.1. The word is Κυρίῳ (Lord), not Yahuah! Furthermore, in Philippians 3.14, the words are God (θεοῦ, not Elohim), and Christ Jesus (Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, not Messiah Yahuah). In Philippians 3.20, the words are Lord Jesus Christ (κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν), not “master Yahusha the messiah.” This is a way of belittling the name of Jesus by not mentioning his name *properly* or *reverently* and not referring to him in a manner worthy of the name that is above all names. That name is actually Ἰησοῦs (i.e. Jesus) in the Greek New Testament. It is not a Hebrew name derived from the Old Testament or from Pharisaical Judaism.

Mr. Charles then misquotes James 1.27 and mentions a “Pure and undefiled religion before Elohim and the father.” And if the Father is not Elohim, then who is Elohim? In the New Testament, neither Jesus nor the Father is ever called Elohim. Mr. Ron Charles doesn’t seem to be familiar with textual criticism, the Greek New Testament, or with Christian theology.

He then misquotes 2 Corinthians 5.20 by using the vague term “messiah”——a term that means different things to different people——and also by mentioning Elohim who, once again, is never mentioned in the New Testament. Here is the phrase in the original Greek (2 Corinthians 5.20 SBLGNT):

ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ οὖν πρεσβεύομεν ὡς τοῦ

θεοῦ παρακαλοῦντος δι’ ἡμῶν · δεόμεθα

ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, καταλλάγητε τῷ θεῷ.

As you can see, the Greek words that Paul uses are Christ (Χριστοῦ) and God (θεῷ), not messiah or Elohim. That’s why Jesus is known as Jesus Christ, whom he never mentions, except once as a pejorative or pagan translation. Yet he claims that “we are representatives of the gospel.” But if he identifies with the New Testament, why is his theology derived from the Old Testament? I also noticed that his relationship is not with the Son, but rather with the Father, because he keeps saying that he had some issues that the father had to help him work through.

What is more, he keeps praising this unknown and obscure messiah without once revealing what his true name is: the name that is above all other names, mind you. This New Testament name stands far above the other Old Testament names (such as Elohim and Yahweh) because we are not supposed to call on these names for salvation. So, which name do we call upon for salvation? We are to call on the name of Jesus (Acts 4.12)!

Hebrew Roots Beliefs

In case you’re not familiar with the Hebrew Roots Movement, here are some of their beliefs:

Hebrew Roots followers believe that sin is

breaking the Torah (cf. 1 John 3:4), all of the

purity laws such as dietary restrictions and

sabbath keeping are in the Torah, thus it is

sinful to not keep the sabbath and to eat

forbidden animals, among other social and

religious observance laws. ——- Wiki

Unlike the New Testament that does away with the works of the law (legalism) in favor of grace, the Hebrew Roots followers believe in observing the Law of Moses and the Torah:

Old Testament/Torah Laws and the

teachings of the New Testament are to be

obeyed by both Jews and Gentiles in the

community of believers. (See Numbers

15:15–16 for the explanation). ——- Wiki

But these “Hebrew Roots” beliefs are the exact opposite of what the Greek New Testament teaches. In fact, this is precisely the charge that Paul brought against Judaizers in Galatians. Paul says in Galatians 2.16:

know that a person is not justified by the

works of the law, but by faith in Jesus

Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in

Christ Jesus that we may be justified by

faith in Christ and not by the works of the

law, because by the works of the law no one

will be justified.

In Galatians 2.21, Paul says:

I do not set aside the grace of God, for if

righteousness could be gained through the

law, Christ died for nothing!

In Galatians 3.11, Paul repeats the justification of faith teaching through grace:

Clearly no one who relies on the law is

justified before God, because ‘the righteous

will live by faith.’

It’s also found in many other places, including Romans 3.20:

Therefore no one will be declared righteous

in God’s sight by the works of the law.

It doesn’t get any clearer than that. We are not to observe the law. We are saved by faith in Jesus Christ alone! In fact, the entire New Testament can be summed up as the revelation of the person and work of Jesus Christ (Ιησούς Χριστός).

Alas, even as he ends his video, Mr. Ron Charles keeps talking about Elohim, while repeating the ambiguous and enigmatic term “messiah” over and over again. He also keeps mentioning “Yah” nonstop. But who is “Yah” in the New Testament? He is never mentioned. In fact, Mr. Charles ends the video by saying “praise yah.” Really? Not Jesus? And he is supposedly a Christian who identifies with the Gospel of the New Testament? I don’t think so. This is clearly a heretical Jewish theology that radically deviates from, and corrupts the truths of, Christianity!

See my essay:

“Yahweh is Never Once Mentioned in the New Testament”

https://www.instagram.com/p/BjOF_wqhKdv/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

——-

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!

Can People Be Saved After the Resurrection & the Rapture?

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

The pretribulational view teaches that there will be many who will be saved during the great tribulation, AFTER the Resurrection & the Rapture take place (cf. 1 Thess. 4.16-17). Is this possible, or does it contradict scripture? Just like the parable of the 10 virgins suggests, when the doors of salvation are finally slammed shut, no one else could be saved. It’s all over. No one can go in or out. The rapture is that end point. Once the church leaves, it’s game over! And even if the tribulation saints could be saved, where would they go? How would they be *rescued* by God, given that the rapture was that final ticket out of here?

Let’s not forget that there are certain contemporaneous events that have to occur during the resurrection and the rapture, just prior to the departure of the church. For instance, scripture affirms that Christ will radically transform God’s elect so that they will resemble his glorious appearance (Phil. 3.21). What is more, 1 Cor. 15.52-53 reveals that the elect will attain a glorious immortality, during the resurrection/rapture process, so that they will never ever die again! That’s when Christ will finally grant God’s elect his “exceeding great and precious promises” so that they can become “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1.4). But these divinely transformative events can only occur *once for all* during the resurrection & the rapture. So the question arises, if these momentous events take place once for all, and the elect eventually partake of the divine nature and are raptured out of here, how then can these glorious transformations reoccur over and over again in the absence of Christ, the Spirit, and the Church?

This demonstrates the fallacy of pretribulationism because it falsely maintains that people will continue to be saved even after the resurrection and the rapture. Really? And even if they could be saved, where would they go? The church has already left. How would they be rescued after the church has permanently left? Once again, it shows that pretribulationism is based on fallacious reasoning!

And how could the tribulation saints escape God’s wrath? If they die, how would they be resurrected again, given that the one and only resurrection of the dead already happened? Remember that there’s only one general resurrection of the dead in which both the saved and the damned will be raised together (Daniel 12.2). So, if the rapture already took place and the tribulation saints can no longer be resurrected, how could they escape God’s judgments? How would God rescue them? They would simply be forced to stay here on earth in the midst of unbridled terror? Would God allow his precious elect to remain here on earth during the zombie apocalypse, while his wrath was being poured out in judgment, and while all the rest of the elect were enjoying heavenly bliss?

So, if the tribulation saints could neither be resurrected nor raptured, what would be God’s rescue plan for them? In other words, *after* the resurrection & the rapture had taken place, what could the tribulation saints do here on earth? Would their task be to ride out the storm of God’s wrath during the day of the Lord? It’s reminiscent of Jean-Paul Sartre’s play, “No Exit.” It demonstrates the faulty reasoning and unscriptural position of the pretrib rapture view!

Conclusion

Mt. 24.29-31 says that the “gathering” of the Son of Man’s elect (i.e. ‘the rapture’) occurs AFTER the Great Tribulation (Gk. *μετὰ* τὴν θλῖψιν τῶν ἡμερῶν ἐκείνων). The clincher, the passage that settles the matter conclusively is Rev. 20.4-6. This passage tells us that those who were killed during the Great Tribulation took part in the first resurrection. However, given that the rapture is contemporaneous with the first resurrection (1 Thess. 4.16-17), and since those who took part in the first resurrection came out of the Great Tribulation, it means that the rapture must also take place *AFTER* the great tribulation. Hence, if this is the first resurrection that takes place AFTER the great tribulation, then there can’t possibly be an earlier one, as the pretrib doctrine assumes. Any way you look at it, the pretrib position doesn’t make any scriptural sense at all.

The reason people will continue to be saved during the great ordeal is because the *rapture* will take place at the *end* of the tribulation period, so that all God's elect will leave together as one church. Once the resurrection & the rapture take place (posttrib), it’s game over. No one else can be saved, or be resurrected, or go to heaven! Once again, these robust and cogent arguments prove that the pretrib position is completely bogus and misinformed.

——-

For further details, see my short essay:

Three Questions On the Rapture: Is it Pre-Trib or Post-Trib? Is it Secret or Not? And is it Imminent?

https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/628794727776632832/three-questions-on-the-rapture-is-it-pre-trib-or

Eli of Kittim

Three Questions On the Rapture: Is it Pre-Trib or Post-Trib? Is it Secret or Not? And is it Imminent?

By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim ——- Is the Rapture Visible or Invisible? The putative “secret rapture” and the “futurist eschatological vie

——-