Author of “The Little Book of Revelation.” Get your copy now!!https://www.xlibris.com/en/bookstore/bookdetails/597424-the-little-book-of-revelation
447 posts
The Exact Month And Year Of Jesus Birth Are Revealed In The Bible
The Exact Month and Year of Jesus’ Birth Are Revealed in the Bible
By Bible Researcher & Goodreads Author Eli Kittim 🎓
Matthew 1.17 tells us the year of Jesus’ birth
Astoundingly, the gospel of Matthew imparts a cryptic clue concerning the birth of Jesus that hardly anyone knows about. Specifically, the ancestry of Jesus, as recorded in the gospel of Matthew, is actually a mathematical riddle whose solution reveals the precise year of his birth! The key to solving this puzzle can be found in Chapter 1 and Verse 17. Notice that there is a constant repetition of 14 generations throughout the foregoing lineage. We also know from Scripture that a generation is equal to 70 years (Ps. 90.10). Matthew 1.17 reads as follows:
there were fourteen generations in all from
Abraham to David, fourteen from David to
the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the
exile to the Messiah.
One final clue: the calculation does not begin from the time of Abraham but from the time of David who alone represents the Messiah! Do the math.
So, let’s work out the calculation. Matthew tells us that there were 14 generations from David to Babylon. Each generation is equal to 70 years. Thus, 14 x 70 = 980 years from David to Babylon. And there were 14 generations from the exile to the Messiah. Therefore, 14 x 70 = 980 years. So, from David to the exile are 980 years, and from the exile to the Messiah are another 980 years. Hence 980 (+) 980 = 1960, the year of the Messiah’s birth! Mind you, this is not a historical but rather an esoteric rendering, which contains a cryptic clue concerning the year of Jesus’ birth!
Luke 1.26 tells us the month of Jesus’ birth
The Bible is very clear and very simple when it comes to imparting cryptic and esoteric clues. We don’t need to use overly technical, heavy-handed, and convoluted mathematical equations. For instance, in an attempt to figure out the month of Jesus’ birth, some scholars begin by applying the months pertaining to the 24 courses of the Levitical priests that rotate to minister in the Tabernacle (based on John the Baptist’s father in Luke 1.5, “Zechariah, of the division of Abijah”), and then, after figuring out the date of Elizabeth’s conception, they add 6 months to determine the timing of Mary’s conception (Luke 1.26, 36), and so on and so forth. But this calculation is far too complex and very confusing. By contrast, Luke’s gospel makes it very, very simple and very clear. Luke 1.26-27 reads thusly:
Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel
was sent from God to a city in Galilee
named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a
man whose name was Joseph, of the
descendants of David; and the virgin’s
name was Mary.
In Luke 1.26, the angel was sent “in the sixth month.” That’s the clue. That’s the key! Simple and to the point. The sixth month (in the Jewish religious calendar) is called Elul. In the Gregorian calendar it falls on the month of August. Thus, that’s the month that the Messiah is born!
Conclusion
In chapter 1 verse 17, Matthews’ genealogy is theological, not historical. That’s because “historically” it doesn’t make any sense. For example, we know that the Babylonian exile took place sometime around 586 BCE. If David lived approximately 980 years earlier, that would put David’s timeline at around 1566 BCE, which is historically inaccurate. David lived around 1,000 BCE. Similarly, 980 years after the Babylonian exile would put Jesus’ birth at around 394 CE (the fourth century), making him a contemporary of Jerome. So Matthew’s genealogy is obviously crypto-theological, not historical. It is meant to impart a mathematical riddle whose solution reveals the precise year of the Messiah’s birth!
But you may object and say, wait a minute. I thought Jesus was born in 4 BCE and died sometime around 30 CE, right? Well, not exactly. The gospels are theological, not historical, documents. Scholars know that the early extra-biblical references to Jesus by people like Josephus and Tacitus were tampered with (interpolations). What is more, there are no eyewitnesses and no first-hand accounts of Jesus. There are also many literary discrepancies in the New Testament. For example, the earliest New Testament writings (the Pauline letters) don’t contain the embellishments and legends we find in the later writings (the gospels). Not to mention the historical discrepancies as to whether Jesus was supposedly born in 4 BCE (Matthew) or 6 CE (Luke).
But, more importantly, the New Testament epistles themselves tell us that Jesus will actually be born during the consummation of the ages, or “in the fullness of time” (Gal. 4.4; Eph. 1.9-10), and that he will be “revealed [for the very first time] at the final point of time” (1 Pet. 1.20 NJB). Moreover, Hebrews 1.2 tells us that Jesus will speak to humankind in the “last days,” while Rev. 12.5 confirms that Jesus will be born in the end-times as a contemporary of the last empire on earth (the so-called “7-headed dragon with 10 horns”), during a time period just prior to *the great tribulation* that lasts 3 and a half years (see Rev. 12.5-6, 13-14). Similarly, Isaiah 2.19 says that the Lord rises (or resurrects) “to terrify the earth.” In other words, there’s no 2,000 year gap between Jesus’ resurrection and judgment day! Rather, they’re contemporaneous events. And Daniel 12.1-2 prophesies (in the Greek Septuagint) about a princely figure who will die and resurrect in the last days, just prior to the *general resurrection* of the dead.
So, there are many, many references to the Messiah’s one-and-only visitation in the end-times (e.g. Job 19.25; Zeph. 1.8—9, 15—18; Zech. 12.9—10; Lk. 17.30; Acts 2.17—21; 1 Cor. 1.7; Phil. 1.6; Col. 3.4; 1 Thess. 1.10; 2 Thess. 1.7; 2.1—3; 1 Tim. 6.14; 2 Tim. 4.1; Titus 2.13; 1 Pet. 1.13; 5.1; 1 Jn. 2.28; Rev. 19.10d)! But probably the most important and explicit reference to Jesus’ *atonement* and *death* at the end of days comes from Hebrews 9.26b (KJV), which says categorically and unequivocally that the timeline of this event is in the end-times:
once in the end of the world hath he [Jesus]
appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice
[or death] of himself.
So, according to Hebrews 9.26b, Jesus’ death takes place “in the end of the world,” not 2,000 years ago! Therefore, the one-and-only visitation of Jesus in the end-times is well-supported and multiply attested!
——-
For further scholarly details (from the original Greek) on the future incarnation of Christ, watch the following (short) video: ⬇️
A Biblical Greek Translation of Hebrews 9:26 that Changes Everything We Thought We Knew About Jesus
——-
I just spent some time giving you the backstory concerning the Jesus prophecy. Now that you understand the biblical timeline and context of Jesus’ one-and-only coming, let’s get back to what we were talking about earlier. So, in conclusion, Matthew 1.17 reveals the year of the Messiah’s birth (1960)! Similarly, Luke 1.26 reveals the month that the Messiah is born (in August)! Thus, Jesus the Messiah has already been born and will soon appear on the world stage. That’s precisely why the countdown to Armageddon began after the restoration of Israel in 1948. The rebirth of Israel in 1948 (Ezek. 38.8) marks a turning point in apocalyptic expectations in that modern Israel becomes the preeminent sign as regards the end of days (cf. Mt. 24.32-34; Acts 1.6). So the idea that the Messiah would be born 12 years after the rebirth of modern Israel coincides with the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel. Accordingly, the so-called *restoration* of “Jerusalem, until Messiah the Prince” (Dan. 9.25), in the 70 weeks of Daniel, also began during this same time period! In other words, the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel also prophesies of a coming messiah after the restoration of Israel. If you do the work of modern critical scholarship, it all fits like a glove. So, are we living in the last days? You better believe it!
——-
For further details on the 70 weeks of Daniel, see the following article: ⬇️
The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9: A Critique of Questionable Interpretations
——-
More Posts from Eli-kittim
The Gospels are Nonhistorical Theological Documents: Only the Epistles Give Us the Real Jesus
By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
The Theological Gospels Versus the Prophetic Epistles
First, the epistles are the more explicit and didactic portions of the New Testament.
Second, they are expositional writings, giving us facts, not theological narratives with plots, subplots, characters, etc. The gospels are more like broadway plays (theatrical productions) whereas the epistles are more like matter-of-fact newspapers.
Third, the epistles are not only devoid of all the legendary elements of the gospels, but they also apparently contradict the gospels with regard to Jesus’ birth, death, and resurrection, by placing them in eschatological categories. For them, Scripture comprises revelations and “prophetic writings” (see Rom. 16.25-26; 2 Pet. 1.19-21; Rev. 22.18-19)! According to the NT Epistles, the Christ will die “once for all” (Gk. ἅπαξ hapax) “at the end of the age” (Heb. 9.26b), a phrase which consistently refers to the end of the world (cf. Mt. 13.39-40, 49; 24.3; 28.20). Similarly, just as Heb. 1.2 says that the physical Son speaks to humanity in the “last days,” 1 Pet. 1.20 (NJB) demonstrates the eschatological timing of Christ’s initial appearance by saying that he will be “revealed at the final point of time.”!
Was There An Oral Tradition?
The oral tradition is hypothetical and presupposed. There is no evidence for it. In fact, the evidence seems to refute it.
There Was No Pre-Pauline Oral Tradition
First, the gospels are written anonymously.
Second, there are no eyewitnesses.
Third, there are no firsthand accounts.
Fourth, how is a supposed Aramaic story suddenly taken over, less than 2 decades after the purported events, by highly articulate Greeks and written about in other countries like Greece and Rome? Do you realize that none of the New Testament books were ever written in Palestine by Jews? None! That doesn’t make any sense and it certainly casts much doubt about the idea of a supposed Aramaic oral tradition.
When, Where, and By Whom Was Each Book of the New Testament Written?
Fifth, you can certainly compare a novel with the gospels. Almost every event in Jesus’ life is borrowed from the Old Testament and reworked as if it’s a new event. This is called intertextuality, meaning a heavy dependence of the New Testament literature on Hebrew Scripture. A few examples from the gospels serve to illustrate these points. It’s well-known among biblical scholars that the Feeding of the 5,000 (aka the miracle of the five loaves and two fish) in Jn 6.5-13 is a literary pattern that can be traced back to the OT tradition of 2 Kings 4.40-44. Besides the parallel thematic motifs, there are also near verbal agreements: "They shall eat and have some left” (2 Kings 4.43). Compare Jn 6.13: “So they gathered ... twelve baskets ... left over by those who had eaten.” The magi are also taken from Ps. 72.11: “May all kings fall down before him.” The phrase “they have pierced my hands and my feet” is from Ps. 22.16; “They put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst” is from Psalm 69.21. The virgin birth comes from a Septuagint translation of Isaiah 7.14. The “Calming the storm” episode is taken from Ps. 107.23-30, and so on & so forth. Is there anything real that actually happened which is not taken from the Jewish Bible? Moreover, everything about the trial of Jesus is at odds with what we know about Jewish Law and Jewish proceedings. It could not have occurred in the middle of the night during Passover, among other things. This is historical fiction. That’s precisely why E.P. Sanders once called the book of Acts (the so-called fifth gospel) historical fiction:
“The majority of New Testament scholars
agree that the Gospels do not contain
eyewitness accounts; but that they present
the theologies of their communities rather
than the testimony of eyewitnesses”. — Wiki
“Many biblical scholars view the discussion
of historicity as secondary, given that
gospels were primarily written as
theological documents rather than historical
accounts”. — Wiki
Scholarship is not necessarily a bad thing for evangelical Christians. It actually helps them to clear up the apparent theological and historical confusion.
8 Theses or Disputations on Modern Christianity’s View of the Bible
What About the Extra-Biblical Sources that Seem to Support the Historicity of Jesus?
First, Jesus is not your everyday, garden-variety Jew, as most apologists depict him when trying to explain why Jesus is never mentioned by any secular contemporary authors.
Mark 1.28
“News about him spread quickly over the
whole region of Galilee”.
Mt. 4.24
“News about him spread all over Syria.”
Matthew 4.25
“Large crowds followed Him from Galilee and
the Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea
and from beyond the Jordan.”
So why is it that in approximately 65 years there is not so much as a single word about him in any extra-biblical book?
Why aren’t the meticulous Roman historians (who wrote just about everything) mentioning Jesus? Why is Plutarch and Philo unaware of Jesus’ existence? You’d think they would have, at least, heard of him. So something doesn’t add up. Not even the local Jewish writers mention Jesus, even in passing.
Second, the so-called extra-biblical sources that briefly mention Jesus have all been tampered with. The first mention of Jesus outside the New Testament was at the close of the first century by Josephus’ Testimonium Flavianum. Scholars know that this account is inauthentic and unacceptable, containing an interpolation. Josephus scholars suspect that Eusebius might be the culprit.
Third, Pliny the Younger, writing from the 2nd century, was in communication with Tacitus so his account cannot be viewed as an independent attestation.
Fourth, the Talmud was written many centuries later and contains no eyewitnesses. It is totally irrelevant.
Fifth, Tacitus’ Annals was in the possession of Christians (Medicis) and was most probably altered by 11th century monks:
“It is the second Medicean manuscript, 11th
century and from the Benedictine abbey at
Monte Cassino, which is the oldest surviving
copy of the passage describing Christians.
Scholars generally agree that these copies
were written at Monte Cassino and the end
of the document refers to Abbas Raynaldus
cu ... [sic] who was most probably one of
the two abbots of that name at the abbey
during that period”. — Wiki
Moreover, Tacitus probably lifted the passage from Luke 3.1 and even got Pontius Pilate’s title wrong. Scholars have found traces of letters being altered in the text, and they have pointed out that Tacitus, an unbeliever, would not have referred to Jesus as the Christ. Besides, these Roman writers were not even eyewitnesses and are too far removed from the purported events to have any bearing on them. If we can’t make heads or tails from the second generation Christians who themselves were not eyewitnesses, how much more information can these Roman writers give us, writing from nearly one century later? So it’s a strawman argument to use these 2nd century writers, who were drawing on earlier materials, as independent attestations for the existence of Jesus.
Sixth, a consensus can also be used as a fallacious argument, namely, as an appeal to authority fallacy. We know of many things that were once held to be true that were later proven to be false. Like the idea that everything revolved around the earth. That was once a consensus. It was false. Similarly, the current consensus concerning Christ may be equally false! If Bible scholars reject the historicity of Noah, Abraham, and Moses, then why do they support the historicity of Jesus? If there were no eyewitnesses and no firsthand accounts, if Paul tells us almost nothing about the life of Jesus, if the Testimonium Flavianum and the Annals of Tacitus are inauthentic, and if Bertrand Russell and world-renowned textual critic Kurt Aland questioned the existence of Jesus (as if he were a phantom), then on what grounds does the scholarly consensus affirm the historicity of Jesus? It seems to be a case of special pleading. A nonhistorical Jesus would obviously put a damper on sales and profits. Jesus sells. Everyone knows that. Perhaps that’s the reason why the consensus is maintained!
But Didn’t the Early Church Fathers’ Writings Attribute Authorship to Jesus’ Disciples?
Let’s cut to the chase. The gospels were written anonymously. There were no firsthand accounts. And there were no eyewitnesses. The names of the authors were added in the 2nd century. Even the second generation Christians who wrote the gospels don’t claim to be eyewitnesses. They claim to know someone who knew someone, who knew someone, who knew someone, and so on. The earliest case of attributing a gospel to a particular person comes from the writings of Papias, whom both modern scholars and Eusebius distrust. Eusebius had a "low esteem of Papias' intellect" (Wikipedia). And scholars generally dismiss Papias’ claim that the original gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew.
As for the purported authorship by the disciples themselves, that is utterly impossible for three main reasons. One, they would have been long dead by the close of the first century. Two, they were illiterate fishermen from the backwoods of Galilee. See Acts 4.13 in which Peter and John are described as uneducated and illiterate (ἀγράμματοι) men. Three, they were unable to write in highly sophisticated and articulate Greek. Not to mention that the authors of the gospels spoke very sophisticated Greek and copied predominantly from the Greek rather than from the Hebrew Old Testament. So, the traditional story that we’ve been told just doesn't hold water. It needs to be revisited.
Am I Inconsistent in Trusting Only Part of the New Testament While Tossing Out the Gospels and Claiming to Be a Follower of Christ?
First, I know what Christ’s teachings are by way of direct revelations from the Holy Spirit, similar to those Paul experienced and wrote about in Galatians 1:11-12 (NASB):
“For I would have you know, brothers and
sisters, that the gospel which was preached
by me is not of human invention. For I
neither received it from man, nor was I
taught it, but I received it through a
revelation of Jesus Christ.”
Second, I’m not trusting only part of the New Testament and tossing out the gospels, while claiming to be a follower of Christ. I actually believe in the entire New Testament. I have a high view of scripture and I believe that every word was given by inspiration of God (including those of the gospels). The Bible has many genres: poetry, parable, metaphor, wisdom, prophecy, apocalyptic, history, theology, etc. If someone doesn’t interpret poetry as history, that doesn’t mean that he’s tossing out the poetic part of scripture and claiming that it’s not inspired. He’s simply saying that this part of scripture is not meant to be historical but rather poetic. Similarly, my view that the gospels are theological doesn’t mean that they are not inspired by God or that they’re false. It simply means that I’m interpreting genres correctly, unlike others who have confused biblical literature with history, and turned prophecy into biography. It appears, then, that the theological purpose of the Gospels is to provide a fitting introduction to the messianic story beforehand so that it can be passed down from generation to generation until the time of its fulfillment. It is as though NT history is written in advance. So the gospels have a certain role to play.
There’s No Such Thing As a Follower of Christ
I keep seeing profiles on Facebook and Twitter where people claim to be “followers of Christ.” What does that even mean? You’re either in-Christ or out-of-Christ. Only someone who is not in Christ is a follower of Christ. People often confuse the terminology. They think that a true Christian is a follower of Christ. False! A true Christian is not following Christ. He is in Christ! Only those who have not yet been reborn are “followers of Christ,” seeking to become united with him. Those who are already reborn from above through the spirit (Jn 3.3; Acts 2.1-4) are already in-Christ. They’re not followers of Christ. And you don’t get to be in-Christ through belief alone (Jas. 2:19), professions of faith, the sinner’s prayer, altar calls, by an intellectual assent to the truths of Christianity, or by following Christ through performance-based behaviors (i.e. observing the commandments, etc.). These are all false conversions. You must first get rid of the false self and put on God as your new identity (the true self). I’m afraid there’s no other way.
How Are We Saved: Is It Simply By Belief Alone, Or Do We Have To Go Out Of Ourselves Ecstatically In Order To Make That Happen?
There Was No Pre-Pauline Oral Tradition
By Eli Kittim 🎓
When asked why Paul didn’t give us more details about Jesus’ existence, some scholars often use a common strawman argument that everyone already knew the story and so Paul didn’t have to write anything about it. But after thinking about this explanation for some time, I didn’t find it convincing. A key problem besetting the assumed pre-Pauline tradition is that it is a) based entirely on the gospel literature, which came much later, and b) it hasn’t been verified because there were no eyewitnesses and no firsthand accounts. Plus, the stories that we’re all familiar with (from the gospels) were not written until a few decades after Paul’s writings. So the life of Jesus was not written before, but after, Paul. Given that Paul’s knowledge of the story of Jesus is based entirely on “a revelation,” and that Paul himself admits that he didn’t receive it from man, nor was he taught it (Gal 1:11-12), it’s reasonable to assume that no one else knew the story prior to Paul’s writings, at least from a literary standpoint. After all, Paul was the first to write about it!
There are a lot of presuppositions that are implied by the oral Pre-Pauline-tradition hypothesis that most people aren’t aware of. Many people also presuppose that the gospels are historical, even though that has not been verified either. On the contrary, the fact that they were anonymously written, and that there were no eyewitnesses and no firsthand accounts, and that the events in Jesus’ life were, for the most part, borrowed from the Old Testament, seems to suggest that they were written in the literary genre known as “theological fiction.”
What is more, because the gospel texts are found at the beginning of the New Testament, people often presuppose that the gospels were the first Christian writings, and so they completely misunderstand the New Testament literary chronology. This presupposition leads to many other false assumptions that are very misleading and totally unrelated to the actual chronological development of the New Testament writings.
They have it all backwards❗️
What is more, because of the hypothetical Q source (for which there’s no evidence), even scholars often talk as if the gospels preceded the epistles, and so given that everyone already knew about the story, Paul didn’t have to mention all the details…
But wait just a second… ⛔️
The full-fledged story we usually refer to actually starts around 70 AD with Mark, and ends at the end of the first century with John. But surprise surprise, Paul is writing much much earlier than that. Paul’s letters are the FIRST Christian writings, which are written over two decades earlier (49-50 AD)! Paul’s writings are actually the EARLIEST Christian writings. So, presumably, no one knew the story yet, at least from a literary perspective. It was Paul’s task to tell the reader all about it.
But Paul failed to mention the pertinent information regarding the details of Jesus’ life, even though it is assumed that he was in a position to know this information. If Paul was expected to have all the pertinent information regarding the Jesus-story, and intending to write a complete account of these events, and if the details of the Jesus-story were important enough to deserve to be mentioned, then why didn’t Paul talk about any of them? Astoundingly, Paul didn’t mention any of the legendary elements that we find in the later embellishments of the 70s, 80s, and 90s. In Paul’s letters, there’s no nativity, no virgin birth, no shepherds, no star of Bethlehem, no magi, no census, no Elizabeth, no Zechariah, no John the Baptist, no flight to Egypt, no slaughter of the innocents, nothing about
“Jesus healing anyone,
casting out a demon, doing any other
miracle, arguing with Pharisees or
other leaders, teaching the multitudes, even
speaking a parable, being baptized, being
transfigured, going to Jerusalem, being
arrested, put on trial, found guilty of
blasphemy, appearing before Pontius Pilate
on charges of calling himself the King of the
Jews, being flogged, etc. etc. etc. It’s a very,
very long list of what he doesn’t tell us
about.” —Source credit: Bart D. Ehrman
This doesn’t mean that Paul is writing letters to people who already knew about the story.
It means that such a story didn’t exist. It was added later!
Conclusion
How is a supposed Aramaic story suddenly taken over, less than 2 decades after the purported events, by highly articulate Greeks and written about in other countries, such as Greece and Rome? None of the New Testament books were ever written in Palestine by Jews! That doesn’t make any sense and it certainly casts much doubt about the idea of a supposed Aramaic oral tradition.
In fact, most of the New Testament Books were written in Greece: Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Titus, the Book of Revelation, and possibly others as well! To sum up, most of the New Testament Books were composed in Greece. Most of the epistles were penned in Greece and addressed to Greek communities. The New Testament was written exclusively in Greek, outside of Palestine, by “Greek” authors who copied the Greek Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Bible when quoting from the Old Testament. So where is the Aramaic tradition?
Does the Phrase Ἔτι ἅπαξ in Hebrews 12.26 Mean “Once” or “Once More”?
By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
The New Testament Versions
There are various theories about past catastrophic Biblical events. For example, some biblical narratives describe a time when the earth trembled, such as the mighty earth-quake at Mount Sinai when God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, or the cataclysmic Noachian Deluge. Some Biblical scholars even theorize about a so-called “Gap Theory" (between the first and second verses of Genesis) regarding two different creations, or even an earlier creation-and-destruction of the universe prior to the current one.
So when we encounter biblical verses that seem to suggest some type of primordial earthly destruction, scholars often theorize about the probability of such events taking place as the ones mentioned above. Hebrews 12.26 is a case in point. It talks about some form of judgment in which God “will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.” But there seems to be a difference of opinion as to whether or not this event will happen for the very first time. That’s because the key phrase Ἔτι ἅπαξ has been variously translated in two different ways: “once” and “once more.” The former suggests a first time, the latter, a second. Hence, the meaning of the text remains an open question. Hebrews 12.26 (SBLGNT) declares:
οὗ ἡ φωνὴ τὴν γῆν ἐσάλευσεν τότε, νῦν δὲ
ἐπήγγελται λέγων · Ἔτι ἅπαξ ἐγὼ σείσω οὐ
μόνον τὴν γῆν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν οὐρανόν.
Translation (NIV):
At that time his voice shook the earth, but
now he has promised, ‘Once more I will
shake not only the earth but also the
heavens.’
Most of the Bible versions of Hebrews 12.26 (with the exception of a few that I’m aware of) translate Ἔτι ἅπαξ as “once more.” That’s because Ἔτι can mean not only “still,” “yet,” “again,” but it can also relate to *time* and mean “longer” (Mt. 5.13; Lk 16.2; 20.36; Jn 7.33), “further” (Mt. 26.65; Lk 22.71), as well as “moreover” (Acts 2.26).
So, if the correct translation of Heb. 12.26 is “Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens,” then the question arises: is this verse referring to Mt Sinai, the flood, the gap theory, or perhaps to a previous universe that was once-destroyed to make way for the creation of our own?
For example, one particular Bible version speculates that the reference in Heb. 12.26 is to the mighty earth-quake at Mount Sinai. The Amplified Bible reads:
His voice shook the earth [at Mount Sinai]
then, but now He has given a promise,
saying, ‘YET ONCE MORE I WILL SHAKE
NOT ONLY THE EARTH, BUT ALSO THE
[starry] HEAVEN.’
However, on closer inspection, the aforementioned translation is speculative because this “shaking” does not only involve the earth but also the heavens. At Mount Sinai, only the earth trembled (with a mighty earth-quake), not the heavens. Similarly, during the flood, neither the earth nor the heavens were destroyed: only living things (Genesis 6.7). So, the Hebrews 12.26-reference seems to imply a much larger catastrophic destruction of both the earth and the heavens. Therefore, if the verse has been faithfully translated, it can only refer to the so-called “gap theory,” or to a previously-destroyed universe.
On the other hand, the majority of the translations might be completely flawed, and the few Bible versions which suggest that this event will occur only “once” might be correct! Accordingly, the YLT version of Hebrews 12.26 proclaims:
‘Yet once -- I shake not only the earth, but
also the heaven.’
Similarly, the Darby Bible Translation exclaims:
Yet once will I shake not only the earth, but
also the heaven.
We find a similar reading in the Godbey New Testament:
I will still once shake not only the earth, but
also heaven.
Therefore, these latter versions would imply that this impending destruction will occur only once, in the future, in the same way as described, for example, in 2 Peter 3.10!
The Old Testament Versions
In trying to figure out the correct translation, it’s important to go back and look at the sources of the quoted material from the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint. Hebrews 12.26 is actually quoting Haggai 2.6 via the Septuagint. Therefore, let’s go back and look at what that verse actually says both in the Hebrew Bible and in the Greek Septuagint. Haggai 2.6 (NIV) reads:
This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘In a
little while I will once more shake the
heavens and the earth, the sea and the dry
land.’
It’s important to note that most of the modern Bible versions of Haggai 2.6 say “once more,” but some say “once” (see e.g. ASV, Douay-Rheims Bible, Good News Translation, JPS Tanakh 1917, and a few others). The KJB also says “once” at Haggai 2.6:
For thus saith the LORD of hosts; Yet once,
it is a little while, and I will shake the
heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and
the dry land;
Here, however, the KJB is inconsistent. While it says “once” in Haggai 2.6, it says “once more” in the parallel verse of Hebrews 12.26:
Yet once more I shake not the earth only,
but also heaven.
In Haggai 2.6, the Hebrew text (BHS) has אַחַ֖ת (once) ע֥וֹד (yet/again). In other words, the term ע֥וֹד (od) can be translated either as “yet” or “again.” But even the Hebrew Bible versions have conflicting translations. For example, the Sefaria Bible implies that this destructive event will occur only “once.” It reads thusly:
For thus said the LORD of Hosts: In just a
little while longer I will shake the heavens
and the earth, the sea and the dry land.
Similarly, the JPS Tanakh (1985) says:
For thus said the LORD of Hosts: In just a
little while longer I will shake the heavens
and the earth, the sea and the dry land.
The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) also seems to suggest “yet once in a little while”:
כִּ֣י כֹ֤ה אָמַר֙ יְהוָ֣ה צְבָאֹ֔ות עֹ֥וד אַחַ֖ת מְעַ֣ט הִ֑יא וַאֲנִ֗י מַרְעִישׁ֙ אֶת־הַשָּׁמַ֣יִם וְאֶת־הָאָ֔רֶץ וְאֶת־הַיָּ֖ם וְאֶת־הֶחָרָבָֽה׃
By contrast, the Hebrew Bible——edited by translator and scholar, Rabbi A.J. Rosenberg——featured in Chabad.org reads:
For so said the Lord of Hosts: [There will
rise] another one, and I will shake up the
heaven and the earth and the sea and the
dry land [for] a little while.
So, even these Hebrew versions conflict. Most of them imply “once,” while the last one suggests “another.” So there are arguments on both sides. However, the most credible ones seem to suggest “once” for all. That’s probably why the Greek translations (LXX & NT) employ the term hapax (ἅπαξ), which also means “once for all”!
Let’s now explore how the Greek Septuagint (LXX) translates it. The LXX renders Haggai 2.6 thusly:
διότι τάδε λέγει Κύριος παντοκράτωρ· ἔτι
ἅπαξ ἐγὼ σείσω τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν
καὶ τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ τὴν ξηράν·
English translation by L.C.L. Brenton:
For thus saith the Lord Almighty; Yet once I
will shake the heaven, and the earth, and
the sea, and the dry [land].
Thus, the Septuagint agrees with most of the Hebrew Bible versions that Haggai 2.6 is saying “once,” not “once more.”
Interestingly enough, Hebrews 12.26 quotes the Septuagint-phrase ἔτι ἅπαξ ἐγὼ σείσω verbatim (word for word), with a slight variation on the theme concerning “the heavens and the earth” at the end of the sentence. Hebrews 12.26 reads:
Ἔτι ἅπαξ ἐγὼ σείσω οὐ μόνον τὴν γῆν
ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν οὐρανόν.
Notice that both the LXX and the NT texts use the exact same key-phrase ἔτι ἅπαξ. Yet the LXX and most of the Hebrew versions say “once,” while most of the New Testament translations render it as “once more.” So which is it? If both the Septuagint and the New Testament are saying the exact same thing, then why are these texts translated differently? Both cannot be correct. According to the law of non-contradiction, contradictory statements cannot both be true. So, somewhere, somehow, someone got it wrong! The question is, what’s the right answer? What’s the correct translation?
Conclusion
The Septuagint translates the term עוֹד (od) as ἔτι (yet), and renders the phrase ‘ō·wḏ ’a·ḥaṯ as “yet once.” As far as the Hebrew translations are concerned, both the Sefaria Bible and the JPS Tanakh (1985) imply “once.” The BHS also seems to imply “once.” Only the Chabad.org Bible (with Rashi's commentary) seems to suggest “once more.” So, most of the Old Testament Hebrew and Greek texts support the phrase “yet once,” not “once more” or “once again”! All in all, from the point of view of the Old Testament concerning Haggai 2.6, it seems that both the Hebrew and the Greek versions agree on the “yet once” meaning!
Carrying this information over into the New Testament, we come to realize that the key phrase (ἔτι ἅπαξ) in Haggai 2.6 (LXX), which is quoted in Hebrews 12.26, should have the exact same meaning in the New Testament as it does in the Old Testament, namely, “yet once.” Yet, surprisingly, most of the modern NT translations say “once more,” although there are some that do say “once,” as has already been noted. Therefore, the modern translations of the New Testament are actually conflicting with the Old Testament data. Apparently, the range of meanings for the word Ἔτι makes it unclear as to which word should be applied.
So, if we combine our findings, it seems that more attention should be placed on the Hebrew and Greek Old Testament versions from which the quote of Haggai 2.6 is derived. Given that they are the sources of the Hebrews 12.26-phrase, the usages in these versions carry more weight than those of the New Testament translations in steering us in the right linguistic direction. Therefore, despite the fact that most of the modern Bible versions have “once more” for Hebrews 12.26, the few translations that have “yet once” (e.g. the YLT, Darby, etc.) might be closer to the truth!
Bottom line, given the range of meanings for the aforementioned terms, it’s difficult to pinpoint the exact rendering of both the Haggai 2.6 and Hebrews 12.26 phrases, especially since even the Hebrew translations have divergent meanings. Nevertheless, given that most of the Hebrew and Greek Old Testament versions agree on the phrase “yet once,” it seems more likely that this is the authorial intent of Haggai 2.6. And since that happens to be the exact same phrase in Hebrews 12.26, there’s no reason for the meaning to be any different than that which we find in Haggai 2.6 (LXX). Thus, it appears that the meaning of Hebrews 12.26 is faithfully translated in the YLT version which reads:
‘Yet once -- I shake not only the earth, but
also the heaven.’
This exegetical conclusion, of course, would not support the so-called “Gap Theory" or an earlier destruction of the universe prior to the current one. Rather, it would point to one final destruction at the end of the world!
Easy believism
By Eli Kittim 🎓
Before the reward there must be labor.
You plant before you harvest. You sow in
tears before you reap joy. ~Ralph Ransom
Christians typically debate over the nature of the godhead (e.g. modalism vs. the trinity), the best English Bible translation (KJV only vs. Critical edition), the rapture (pre vs post-tribulation), and many other different doctrines that are peripheral to soteriology. However, the topic that we’re about to discuss is a salvation-issue of the utmost importance.
Easy believism holds that only belief in Jesus is necessary for salvation. Nothing else is required in order to be saved. Proponents of this view teach that no commitment to Christian discipleship or spiritual formation is required. In other words, no efforts whatsoever are necessary on the part of the believer in order to be saved. It is certainly very appealing, particularly to those who are lazy and who dislike efforts and commitments. Plus it allows you to indulge your carnal desires to your heart’s content!
There are only two categories in the spiritual life: the “saved” and the “unsaved”; the “saint” and the “sinner.” By that I mean the Christian and the nonChristian. That is to say, the person who has been born-again in a Holy Spirit experience versus the person who has not yet been regenerated. The topic of “easy believism” only concerns those people who have not yet experienced a rebirth. It refers to those people who are interested in salvation and want to know what they have to do to attain it. By contrast, those who have been reborn have received the Holy Spirit and are already saved!
Just because Jesus is said to die for our sins doesn’t mean that we should continue to practice sin, whether it be pedophilia, adultery, murder, or the like. The idea of making an effort to align our behavior with God’s will doesn’t mean that we are saving ourselves or that we reject Christ’s ultimate sacrifice. It is true that only Jesus can regenerate us. It is a gift of God. But those who are not yet regenerated need to purify themselves in order to receive God’s gift of salvation. Just like the farmer ploughs the field, prepares the soil for planting, and then plants the seeds and waits for the harvest, we, too, must prepare the soil of our heart in order to receive the harvest of God’s gift. It takes much time and effort. Not that rebirth itself has anything to do with us, but the preparation towards it definitely does. Once we receive it, God then does all the work inside us through his Holy Spirit!
Scriptural verses should be read in **canonical context,** not in isolation. The notion that we must do certain things (beyond just believing) is quite obvious throughout scripture. For example, Jesus says I know about your “deeds and your labor and perseverance” (Rev. 2.2), but you need to “repent, and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and I will remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent” (Rev. 2.5)! Notice that Jesus doesn’t say “continue to sin because you will be saved as long as you believe in my death, burial, and resurrection.” No! Jesus doesn’t say “sit back, relax, and do nothing because I will take care of all the details.” Rather, he says:
To the one who overcomes, I will grant to
eat from the tree of life, which is in the
Paradise of God (Rev. 2.7).
This is a theme that runs throughout the Bible. We have to struggle against sin so as to overcome. According to the Oxford Languages Dictionary, to overcome means to “defeat (an opponent); prevail.” We do not defeat anyone or anything if we don’t exert any effort at all. In Revelation 3.3, Christ commands the believers to stay alert and vigilant and to repent:
remember what you have received and
heard; and keep it, and repent. Then if you
are not alert, I will come like a thief, and you
will not know at what hour I will come to
you.
Proponents of easy believism claim that *repentance* and *avoidance of sin* are practices based on “works” and are, therefore, not required. Yet 1 John 1.6 declares:
If we say that we have fellowship with Him
and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do
not practice the truth.
Similarly, 1 John 3.4 says:
Everyone who practices sin also practices
lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
In 1 Timothy 6.11-12, Paul addressed the believers and issued a categorical imperative to actively flee from sin. He pronounced a solemn exhortation:
flee from these things, you man of God,
and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith,
love, perseverance, and gentleness. Fight
the good fight of faith; take hold of the
eternal life to which you were called, and for
which you made the good confession in the
presence of many witnesses.
Paul is urging us to actively flee from sin and to practice righteousness. Just like Jesus, Paul is not telling us to do nothing except believe. On the contrary, he’s urging us to fervently fight against evil thoughts, against sinful emotions & desires, and against temptations to disobey God. If no efforts were required, then why would Paul say that we must fight and struggle against sin, against falsehood, and against everything that opposes the knowledge of God (2 Cor. 10.5)? In Ephesians 6.10-14, Paul writes:
Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the
strength of His might. Put on the full armor
of God, so that you will be able to stand firm
against the schemes of the devil. For our
struggle is not against flesh and blood, but
against the rulers, against the powers,
against the world forces of this darkness,
against the spiritual forces of wickedness in
the heavenly places. Therefore, take up the
full armor of God, so that you will be able to
resist on the evil day, and having done
everything, to stand firm. Stand firm
therefore, having belted your waist with
truth, and having put on the breastplate of
righteousness.
In 1 Corinthians 6.18, Paul’s caveat to “Flee sexual immorality” explicitly contradicts the doctrine of easy believism. So does John 8.11 where Jesus says “go, and do not sin again." Same with Ephesians 4.26: “Be angry but do not sin.” Are these verses teaching that only belief is necessary? In Romans 6.13, Paul issues a command: “do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness.” These proof-texts, therefore, expose the horrific errors of easy believism!
Paul never says “it doesn’t matter if you keep sinning as long as you believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Paul never says “don’t worry if you’re having an adulterous relationship with someone’s wife, or if you keep robbing people’s homes, or if you keep molesting little children, as long as you believe in the finished work of Jesus Christ.” That’s like saying that the head of the mafia may have already killed many people——and may kill many more in the foreseeable future——but he’s actually *saved* because he believes that Jesus is the Christ. How crazy is that? In other words, Free Grace theology holds that “carnal Christians” and “unbelieving Christians” who even denounce their faith will, nevertheless, be saved. Obviously, there’s something seriously flawed with the doctrine of easy believism!
This is a perversion of the gospel. In fact, Romans 8.5-8 says that “those who live according to the flesh” are not believers. Salvation is a gift. No one is denying that. But the goal is to take up our cross daily and die to ourselves so as to become more Christ-like (Mt. 16.24). Without preparation and discipleship we are not heading towards Christ. Therefore, easy believism is a false teaching that deceives and misleads people by offering them a fake salvation that does not save! In fact, Zane Hodges and the Grace Evangelical Society have gone so far as to say that it’s not even a requirement (for salvation) to believe that Jesus is God, or that he died for sin, or that he was bodily resurrected at some point in human history!
Easy believism is a perversion of the Bible (see Mt. 7.14; Acts 2.1-4, 15; Rom. 6.3; 8.9; 2 Cor. 5.13; Eph. 4.22-24; Gal. 2.20; Rev. 3.20)! Bottom line, unless you’ve had an *existential experience* of rebirth (Jn 3.3), you’re not saved. If you think salvation is so easy that all you have to do is simply name it and claim it, then you’re only having an imaginary relationship with Jesus. Paul demonstrates that there’s far more to salvation than easy believism. He exclaims:
Work out your salvation with fear and
trembling (Phil. 2.12).
Do We Suffer Because We Have “Free Will”?: Answering Bart Ehrman
By Bible researcher and author Eli Kittim 🎓
In his blog post (entitled “Do We Suffer Because We Have ‘Free Will’?”), Bart Ehrman asked the question whether the Christian response to evil and suffering is sufficient. He asked the question whether or not we suffer because we have so-called “free will.”? He then proceeded to show that in spite of the fact that people can choose to mistreat their fellow man, there are other things, like plagues and natural disasters, that go far beyond human free-will in causing suffering and death, such as droughts, hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, diseases, and so on and so forth. Bart Ehrman, therefore, concluded that there is no satisfactory answer. In response, I have created a systematic theology of evil to try to explain how all these phenomena are possible from a biblical perspective and that, unlike science, the Christian response is the only one which demonstrates that suffering has a meaning and a purpose. So let’s start at the beginning.
The presence of evil is not limited to the brain and to human thought and behavior (i.e. free will), but it permeates all of creation and the natural order. If you study diseases and viruses, you will quickly come to realize that they act as if they were highly intelligent and sophisticated computer programs that are intended to hack and infiltrate a host (e.g. they mimic, hide, and impersonate it) and then, at the right time, they duplicate themselves inside the nucleus (or the headquarters of the host, so to speak) in an attempt to overwhelm and destroy it. It’s as if diseases, say, like cancer, have a mind of their own. This represents evil at the biological, chemical, genetic, or physiological level.
We can also detect this battle of good and evil being played out in the physical world of matter and antimatter. When matter and antimatter come into close contact, they mutually annihilate each other. One could say that evil, death, and destruction exist just as much in the material world as they do in human consciousness. The presence of evil, death, and destruction in the physical world consists of antimatter, which comprises antiprotons, antineutrons, and so on. Therefore, life and death are played out on a cosmic scale between matter and antimatter, as well as between health and well-being, on the one hand, and illness and disease, on the other. In fact, Paul stresses that the whole of creation will one day be reversed from its present state of entropy in which the universe is gradually declining into chaos and disorder (Romans 8:21-22):
the creation itself also will be set free from
its slavery to corruption into the freedom of
the glory of the children of God. For we
know that the whole creation groans and
suffers the pains of childbirth together until
now.
So, when we speak about the problem of evil in our world, it isn’t as simple as reducing it to “free will” and saying that humans choose to act in accordance with either life or death. That’s because this destructive force also permeates the physical world (e.g. natural disasters, plagues, etc.), as well as the metaphysical world. In the Bible, Ephesians 2:2 attributes the origin of all this cosmic death and entropy to an autonomous metaphysical being who is said to be the "prince of the power of the air,” and whom John 12:31 describes as the "ruler of this world.” In 2 Corinthians 4:4, Paul attests to the enormous power that this entity possesses by calling him “the god of this world,” as if he has ontological status and somehow reigns over the entire world and its people. In other words, these computer-like viruses that we call “diseases,” as well as the antimatter that tries to destroy matter, are somehow guided by this malevolent metaphysical intelligence that is invisible to the naked eye. That’s precisely why Revelation 9:11 refers to this supernatural being as a king called “Abaddon”——whose name in Hebrew means “destruction”——who is said to be the chief angel of the abyss!
Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, realized that both life and death exist side by side and reside within human beings. He called these principles eros (life) and thanatos (death). You may call them good and evil, or God and the devil, if you will. The point is, there’s a cosmic battle taking place on many levels of existence (biological, physical, natural, cognitive, and metaphysical) between life and death, between creation and destruction, between being and nonbeing, between matter and antimatter, between good and evil, and ultimately between God and the devil!
This cosmic war comes to a head during the consummation of the ages when the universal battle between the gods will take place. We are told in the Bible that life will ultimately triumph over death, and that light will prevail over darkness. This cosmic battle is summarized in Revelation 12:7-8. That’s why in 1 Corinthians 15:23-28, we are told that, in the end-times, Christ will abolish “all rule and all authority and power” and reign over them. “The last enemy that will be abolished is death.” Thus all physical laws of the universe, including the entities that have been acting autonomously, will finally come under the control of Christ. At that time, “All things are put in subjection” to Christ. That’s precisely why there will be a new universe, namely, a new heavens and a new earth (Rev. 21:1). So, there is much more at stake here than one realizes. It’s true that humanity is at a precipice. But more than that, the future of the entire universe, and of “reality“ itself, is at stake.
Fortunately, Revelation 21:4 informs us that this cosmic battle, which has been causing so much pain and suffering for hundreds of thousands of years, will finally come to an end, and life will ultimately triumph over death. All the cosmic forces of death and destruction will be completely abolished and eliminated. This is, in fact, the ultimate purpose of the universe and of humanity itself. Thus, Revelation gives us something worth looking forward to:
He will wipe away every tear from their
eyes; and there will no longer be any death;
there will no longer be any mourning, or
crying, or pain; the first things have passed
away.
In 1 Corinthians 2:9, Paul reveals this future world as a fantastic vacation spot of utter bliss, contentment, fun, joy, peace, happiness, and satisfaction:
Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have
entered into the heart of man The things
which God has prepared for those who love
Him.