There Was No Pre-Pauline Oral Tradition

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?

Who are the 144,000 and what is their purpose?

By Eli Kittim 📚

The Elect are Depicted as Jews

Paul gives us an exact definition of what it means to be a "Jew" within the New Testament context: the biblical term "Jew" does not denote a race but rather an inner essence or, more precisely, an indwelling spirit pertaining to God. In Romans 2.28-29 (NASB), Paul declares:

For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly,

nor is circumcision that which is outward in

the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one

inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart.

That is to say, “Jewishness” (in the New Testament) doesn’t necessarily refer to race, ethnicity, ancestry, or religion, but rather to the inward operations “by the Spirit” (Rom. 2.29). Similarly, in 1 Pet. 1.1-2, Peter is addressing those who are regenerated in Christ:

those … who are chosen according to the

foreknowledge of God the Father, by the

sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus

Christ.

Notice that Peter is addressing “neither Jew nor Gentile” (Gal. 3.28) but rather the “elect” in Christ. In fact, in 1 Pet. 2.9, Peter describes Christ’s elect using the exact same language that God employs for the Jews in the Old Testament:

But you are a chosen people, a royal

priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special

possession, that you may declare the

praises of him who called you out of

darkness into his wonderful light.

What is more, in 1 Pet. 2.5, Peter says to the elect that you “are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices that are acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” This indicates that the Old Testament language of “a chosen people”——“God’s special possession,” & “a holy priesthood”——is now being applied to the New Testament saints “who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 1.1-2)!

Therefore, the elect in Christ are often depicted as spiritual Jews. As we will see, the New Testament itself tells us that the 144 thousand (in the Book of Revelation) represent all the *saved* inhabitants of the earth, not just the Jews. Another problem with the theory that the 144 thousand represent literal Jews (from the 12 tribes of Israel) is that the tribes of Dan and Ephraim are not mentioned at all in Revelation 7. Since these two tribes are excluded from the 12 tribes of Israel, it would naturally imply that Samson (from the tribe of Dan) and Joshua (from the tribe of Ephraim) would not be saved, which is obviously absurd!

The Elect are Depicted as the 144 Thousand

As has already been noted, in the New Testament, Christ’s elect are sometimes figuratively called “Jews” (Rom. 2.28), while “the holy city … coming down out of heaven from God” is spiritually called the “new Jerusalem” (Rev. 21.2). Notice that this new earth is said to have 12 gates, which represent 12 angels and 12 tribes. Rev 21.12 explains:

It had a great and high wall, with twelve

gates, and at the gates twelve angels; and

names were written on the gates, which are

the names of the twelve tribes of the sons

of Israel.

More symbols are further added, using sets of 12, to represent 12 foundation stones and 12 apostles. Rev. 21.14 states:

And the wall of the city had twelve

foundation stones, and on them were the

twelve names of the twelve apostles of the

Lamb.

In Rev. 21.17, the implicit multiplication of the 12 tribes by the 12 apostles is expressed via the symbolic sum of “144”:

And he measured its wall, 144 cubits, by

human measurements, which are also

angelic measurements.

In the same way, the 144,000 chosen-ones are said to come from the 12 tribes of Israel. This is obviously figurative or metaphorical language. We know that they represent Christ’s *elect* because the wrath of God is held back until these chosen ones are secured. These symbolic Jews comprise only one group, namely, “the bond-servants of our God,” that is to say, “those who were sealed” in Christ (Rev. 7.4)! As we will see later on, Revelation 7 is not referring to literal Jews per se. And the angels want to seal them before the terrible day of the Lord commences. Revelation 7.1-3 reads:

After this I saw four angels standing at the

four corners of the earth, holding back the

four winds of the earth so that no wind

would blow on the earth, or on the sea, or

on any tree. And I saw another angel

ascending from the rising of the sun,

holding the seal of the living God; and he

called out with a loud voice to the four

angels to whom it was granted to harm the

earth and the sea, saying, ‘Do not harm the

earth, or the sea, or the trees until we have

sealed the bond-servants of our God on

their foreheads.’

Notice the linguistic and conceptual parallels between Rev. 7.1-3 and Matthew 24.31:

And He [Christ] will send forth His angels

with a great trumpet blast, and they will

gather [or seal] together His elect from the

four winds, from one end of the sky to the

other.

In both passages, “the four winds” of the earth are mentioned and the gathering or sealing of the elect are described before the wrath of God is unleashed. Remember that the Great Tribulation in Matthew 24.29 ff. is not God’s wrath but Satan’s wrath (Rev. 12.12). So, all the elect are gathered, sealed, and raptured “after the tribulation of those days” (see Mt. 24.29-41; Rev. 20.4-6)! Put differently, the elect are gathered & “protected” from the divine judgments and from the wrath of God to come. Question: how exactly are they protected? Answer: by way of the rapture! Therefore, Rev 7.4-8 is obviously describing not just the tribulation saints but the entire church as a whole, which represents Christ’s “elect.” Compare Mt. 24.21-22:

For then there will be a great tribulation,

such as has not occurred since the

beginning of the world until now, nor ever

will again. And if those days had not been

cut short, no life would have been saved;

but for the sake of the elect those days will

be cut short.

Why would there be a need for those days to be cut short if the elect are no longer here because they have already been raptured? Therefore, if the days are said to be cut short “for the sake of the elect,” then this passage implies that the bride of Christ will still be here on earth during the great tribulation. Similarly, Rev 7.13-14 explains that the 144,000 are the elect “who come out of the great tribulation”:

Then one of the elders responded, saying to

me, ‘These who are clothed in the white

robes, who are they, and where have they

come from?’ I said to him, ‘My lord, you

know.’ And he said to me, ‘These are the

ones who come out of the great tribulation,

and they have washed their robes and

made them white in the blood of the Lamb.’

In Revelation 7.4, John says “And I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000, sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel.” This number is meant to signify an innumerable multitude by multiplying 12,000 times 12,000 (the number of completion). That is, Revelation is multiplying 12 times itself to give us what we today would call 12 to the second power. So, this “great multitude” represents those who are “sealed” or who are *saved,* to wit, the “elect” who belong to Jesus Christ. In fact, Revelation 7.9 gives us the identity of the 144 thousand by stating that they’re “a great multitude which no one could count,” and that they come from every nation on earth:

I looked, and behold, a great multitude

which no one could count, from every nation

and all the tribes, peoples, and languages,

standing before the throne and before the

Lamb.

Revelation 14.1 mentions no other group except this great multitude——symbolized by the 144K——as the *only* large gathering of people who belong to Christ via the Spirit:

Then I looked, and behold, the Lamb was

standing on Mount Zion, and with Him

144,000 who had His name and the name

of His Father written on their foreheads.

Furthermore, Revelation 14.3-5 describes the 144 thousand as the only “ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These have been purchased [redeemed] from mankind as first fruits to God and to the Lamb”:

And they sang a new song before the

throne and before the four living creatures

and the elders; and no one was able to

learn the song except the 144,000 who had

been purchased from the earth. … These

are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever

He goes. These have been purchased from

mankind as first fruits to God and to the

Lamb. And no lie was found in their mouths;

they are blameless.

If they are said to be the “first fruits to God and to the Lamb,” then there cannot be an earlier group of believers who temporally precede them. In other words, after the Great Tribulation, these are the ones who take part in the resurrection & the rapture! This is clearly explained in Rev. 20.4-6. 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 obviously means that the *rapture* must also take place *after* the Great Tribulation. Thus, these symbolic 144,000 saved believers represent both the living & the resurrected “elect” who will be raptured *after* the Great Tribulation (cf. Mt. 24.29-41)! In other words, the 144K represent the entire church of Christ, which comprises people from every nation on earth. Therefore, their *purpose* is the same as ours, namely, to get *saved* (and not to take the mark of the beast) so that they can escape “the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord” (Mal. 4.5)!

For further details on the rapture, see the following article:

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

eli-kittim.tumblr.com

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

How Should We Translate John 1.1: “the Word was God,” or “God was the Word”?

By (native Greek speaker) Eli Kittim 🎓

John 1.1:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς

τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

John 1.1 is often broken down into 3 phrases:

Phrase 1: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος

Phrase 2: καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν

Phrase 3: καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

From the outset, before they even consider the process of biblical interpretation and exegesis, textual critics and Greek scholars set out to produce a faithful *translation* of the original Greek New Testament. Bear in mind that the processes of translation and interpretation are not the same. We expect the translation committees to translate (not to interpret) the text!

Therefore, a literal and accurate translation of the Greek language should correctly translate the last phrase of Jn 1.1 as “God was the word.” In other words, the third phrase of Jn 1.1 (καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος) should be translated exactly as it was written in the original Greek (for emphasis), not rearranged and reassembled (in the target language) as we would wish it would be. In the original Greek, the text doesn’t actually say that “the Word was God,” as most modern translations maintain:

That’s an interpretation!

Rather, the original Greek New Testament says that “God was the Word”! So, the *interpretative* rearrangement is forcing the critical reader to read it backwards, which neglects the emphasis of the word order in the original Greek. It’s as if we were told to read Hebrew backwards, from left to right. What is more, the third phrase of John 1.1 doesn’t actually say ὁ λόγος ἦν (the word was). It says θεὸς ἦν (God was). If the text wanted to emphasize that “the word was God,” the phrase would have been: καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεὸς. It would have been written as follows:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς

τὸν θεόν, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεὸς.

But that’s not what it says! To try to manipulate what the original Greek New Testament is actually emphasizing——by rearranging or *reinterpreting* it during the translation process——is equivalent to editing and, therefore, corrupting the “inspired” text.

Admittedly, the third phrase of Jn 1.1 is somewhat of a Gestalt configuration in which different *meanings* can arise depending on the angle from which it is viewed. One could make the *interpretative* argument that the original phrase “God was the Word” might be equivalent to or interchangeable with “the Word was God.” In other words, on an *exegetical* level, one could make the case that the phrase “the Word was God” might be the converse of “God was the Word.” I don’t deny that possibility on grammatical grounds. That is certainly worthy of exegetical consideration. But when we’re initially *translating* the text, we shouldn’t be interested in theories of exegesis. Rather, we should be entirely focused on producing a faithful translation, which precedes interpretation and subsequent theological ramifications.

In *interpreting* the third phrase of Jn 1.1, many textual scholars typically reverse the word-order of the original Greek phrase (via a grammatical rule) so that we’re forced to read the words backwards. According to this rule, we can determine the *subject* of a phrase if a noun falls into one of the following categories: a) if it’s a proper name; b) if it’s preceded by an article; or c) if it’s a personal pronoun. However, in contradistinction to this grammatical rule, θεὸς can actually be the subject that precedes the verb ἦν (here, a form of "to be"), while λόγος can be the predicate nominative. On the other hand, in order to identify θεὸς as the predicate nominative and λόγος as the subject, one has to invoke what is known as the “Subset Proposition" rule, or the "Convertible Proposition" rule. In other words, this alteration involves a complex set of esoteric grammatical assumptions and decisions which essentially turn the text upside down.

By contrast, the straightforward way of reading the text seems to be the smoothest and the most natural. Not to mention that the phrase “God was the Word” is actually a faithful translation, whereas the phrase “the Word was God” is merely an *interpretation.* I’m not arguing that the phrase “the Word was God” is a wrong interpretation. I’m arguing that it’s a wrong translation! In the critical edition, we must always let the reader know what the text ACTUALLY says, not our INTERPRETATION of what we think it might mean. That can go in the commentary section. In translating a text——if the word-order of the original Greek doesn’t make any sense——translators are allowed to rearrange the words in order for it to make sense. But this exception to the rule doesn’t apply here because the original Greek makes perfect sense! Therefore, our decision to abandon our fidelity to the lexical details and grammatical structures of the Greek New Testament makes us no better than the scribes who corrupted it.

Moreover, the decision to change the *meaning* of the text (or to *reinterpret* it) is done for obvious theological reasons. Christian translators have a theological axe to grind. In order to validate and uphold the Trinity, they want to maintain the *distinction* between God the Father (the first person of the Trinity) and the Word of God (the second person of the Trinity). Hence why they deliberately *translate* the last part of Jn 1.1 backwards. Because if they were to translate it as the author intended it, namely, that “God was the word,” it might give the wrong impression that there’s no distinction between the Father and the Word. However, the third phrase of Jn 1.1 is not necessarily making a *modalistic* theological claim that there’s no distinction between the Father and the Word. Rather, since the second phrase (καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν) clearly distinguished the two persons of the Trinity, the third phrase establishes their *ontological* unity by affirming that God was not simply separate from the Word, but that God himself was, in fact, the Word per se! After all, the first and second persons of the Trinity share one homoousion (essence): “I and the Father are one” (Jn 10.30)!

At any rate, this *interpretation* has become so wide spread, to such an extent that it has become a dogmatic and systematic standard, not only overriding or supplanting the original *translation* but also prompting modern translations to follow suit. It’s a case of special pleading where an *interpretation* has supplanted a *translation*!

However, there are many credible Bible translations that *translate* the last phrase of Jn 1.1 as “God was the Word”:

Coverdale Bible of 1535

In the begynnynge was the worde, and the

worde was with God, and God was ye

worde.

Smith's Literal Translation

In the beginning was the Word, and the

Word was with God, and God was the Word.

Literal Emphasis Translation

In the beginning was the Word, and the

Word was with God, and God was the Word.

Catholic Public Domain Version

In the beginning was the Word, and the

Word was with God, and God was the Word.

Lamsa Bible

THE Word was in the beginning, and that

very Word was with God, and God was that

Word.

Aramaic New Covenant: In the beginning

the Word having been and the Word having

been unto God and God having been the

Word.

Concordant Literal New Testament: In the

beginning was the word, and the word was

toward God, and God was the word.

Coptic Version of the New Testament: In

(the) beginning was the Word, and the Word

was with God, and God was the Word.

Great Bible (Cranmer 1539): In the

begynnynge was the worde, and the worde

was wyth God: and God was the worde.

New English Bible: When all things began,

the Word already was. The Word dwelt with

God, and what God was, the Word was.

Revised English Bible: In the beginning the

Word already was. The Word was in God’s

presence, and what God was, the Word

was.

Today’s English New Testament: In the

beginning was the Logos. And the Logos

was with God. And God was the Logos.

The Wyclif Translation (by John Wycliffe): In

the bigynnynge was the word and the word

was at god, and god was the word.

Latin Vulgate: in principio erat Verbum et

Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat

Verbum.

Vulgate translation: in the beginning was

the Word and the Word was with God and

God was the Word.

See also:

Was the Word “God” or “a god” in John 1.1?

https://at.tumblr.com/eli-kittim/was-the-word-god-or-a-god-in-john-11/0e69dfesk5oj

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!

Who or What is the Ark of the Covenant?

Eli Kittim

The Ark of the Covenant was a gold-plated wooden chest that housed the two tablets of the covenant (Heb. 9:4). Jewish folklore holds that the ark of the covenant disappeared sometime around 586 B.C. when the Babylonian empire destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. Throughout the centuries, many writers, novelists, ufologists, and religious authors have invented two kinds of wild and adventurous stories about the ark of the covenant. They either talk about fearless treasure-hunters, archaeologists, and paleographers who went hunting for the Lost Ark of the Covenant, or about ancient alien civilizations that made contact with humans in prehistoric times. This has led some authors to the startling conclusion that the ark of the covenant may have been part of a highly advanced ancient-alien technology. But the Biblical data do not support such outrageous and outlandish conclusions.

From a Biblical standpoint, both the “ark of the covenant” and “Noah’s Ark” are symbols that represent salvation in the death of the Messiah. Isaiah 53:5 reads thusly:

he was pierced for our transgressions;

he was crushed for our iniquities;


upon him was the chastisement that

brought us peace, and with his wounds we

are healed.

We can also call it the covenant of salvation based on the atoning death of Christ (Heb. 9:17). If you pay close attention to the biblical symbols and details, you’ll notice that both Noah’s ark and the ark of the covenant represent some type of casket, which signifies the atoning death of the Messiah (that saves humanity). Christ’s covenant is based on his death. Without Christ’s death there is no salvation. That’s what ultimately redeems humanity from death and hell, and allows for resurrection and glorification to occur. Christ, then, is the ark of the covenant, also represented by Noah’s ark (which saves a few faithful humans who believe in God). The caskets are of different sizes. The smaller casket (the ark of the covenant) could only carry one person (the Messiah), whereas the larger one (Noah’s Ark) can accommodate all of humanity (symbolizing those who are baptized into Christ’s death). According to the Book “After the Flood,” by Bill Cooper, “The Hebrew word for ark, tebah, may be related to the Egyptian word db't, = ‘coffin.’ “ Romans 6:3 declares:

Do you not know that all of us who have

been baptized into Christ Jesus were

baptized into his death?

In other words, it’s not Christ’s incarnation but rather his death that saves humanity. All those who follow him and are baptized into his death are saved!

How is Christ the “ark of the covenant”? Christ is the Word of God (Jn 1:1), the Logos, or the Law of God (the Torah)! That’s why the ark of the covenant doesn’t dwell on earth but in heaven. Rev 11:19 reads:

Then God’s temple in heaven was opened,

and the ark of his covenant was seen within

his temple. There were flashes of lightning,

rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake,

and heavy hail.

Who dwells within God’s throne-room, within God’s temple, and is represented by the ark of the covenant? Answer: Jesus Christ! A similar scenario takes place in Revelation 21:2-3:

And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem,

coming down out of heaven from God,

prepared as a bride adorned for her

husband. And I heard a loud voice from the

throne saying, ‘Behold, the dwelling place of

God is with man. He will dwell with them,

and they will be his people, and God himself

will be with them as their God.’

Notice that the terms “God” and “the dwelling place of God” are used interchangeably. In other words, the metaphors of the dwelling place, the tent of meeting (ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ θεοῦ; i.e. the tabernacle), the temple and its sacrificial system, as well as the ark of the covenant, all represent God and signify the blood of the covenant or the blood of the lamb (1 Pet. 1:19; Rev. 7:14; 12:11)! Christ is not only the mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5), but also the high priest who offers up his own life for the salvation of humanity (Heb. 7:17). According to Acts 4:12, there is “no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved”: not Moses, or Muhammad, or Buddha, or Krishna, or Confucius, or Allah, or Yahweh. According to Philippians 2:10-11:

at the name of Jesus every knee should

bow, in heaven and on earth and under the

earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus

Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the

Father.

Therefore, he who is within the throne-room of God, and “among the people,” is none other than the Second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, who “will dwell with them” forevermore (Rev. 21:3). It’s a throwback to Leviticus, which prophesied the incarnation of God, but which the Jews misunderstood and misinterpreted. Leviticus 26:12:

I will be ever present in your midst: I will be

your God, and you shall be My people.

Compare Revelation 21.3:

He will dwell with them, and they will be his

people, and God himself will be with them

as their God.

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.