Biblicalinterpretation - Tumblr Posts

A Critique of Contextual Theology: Are the Meanings of the Biblical Texts Changeless or Adaptable?

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

What is Contextual Theology?

Is all theology contextual? Do different contexts have the role of attributing theological meanings to Christian texts? Or is there a subtext that does not change? And, if so, what are some of the criteria that assign meaning to theology, particularly to Christian theology?

First of all, what is “contextual theology” anyway? It’s basically a way of doing theology that takes into account both past and present contexts, be they anthropological, biological, psychological, philosophical, or otherwise. That is to say, it reconsiders the cultural milieu or the Sitz im Leben (i.e. the “setting in life") in which a text has been produced, as well as its particular purpose and function at that time. Contextual theology, then, considers both the traditions of the past, which received the revelations, as well as those of the present, and reassesses them within the framework of today’s socioeconomic and political context. In other words, the term contextual theology is a reference to the way in which Christianity has adapted its teachings to fit the successive cultural periods.

Some Examples of Contextual

Theology

For example, the early church fathers were heavily influenced by Greek thought, so their interpretation of scripture was largely derived from Platonism (e.g. Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, etc.). That was their particular form of contextualizing theology. Every book of the Bible was composed and edited within a specific context, be it the Exodus, the Law given to Moses at Sinai, the Babylonian Exile, or the occasional letters of the New Testament that were prompted by some crisis. And we could go on and on. Aquinas’ philosophical conceptions were heavily influenced by the rediscovery of Aristotle’s works. Not too long ago, existentialism provided the impetus for a new type of theology, and so on and so forth.

It seems as if Christian theology has hitherto been articulated in the context of the life and times in which the texts were interpreted and read. Hence the shifting theological paradigms, down through the ages, appear to be byproducts of this cultural phenomenon. As time passes, people’s ideas about theology seem to change as well. Questions associated with the quest for the historical Jesus, the nature of the triune God, and the like, arose out of much debate and discussion that often included diametrically opposed contexts. As the church councils began in the early part of the 4th century, one contextual paradigm triumphed over another. Similarly, various paradigms and approaches to scripture began to shift during the reformation and counterreformation. At the end of the day, who is to say which was the true one?

A Brief Introduction to Contextual

Theologies

Contextual theology, therefore, is a response to the dynamics of a specific cultural context. People from a different cultural worldview, such as Latin or Asian or Arabic culture, have distinct economic and social issues. That’s why there are so many contextual theologies, employing various interdisciplinary approaches, to try to explore these different sociopolitical issues, such as African theology, Minjung theology, Liberation theology, and so on.

Let’s briefly define some of these theologies to get a taste of their doctrines. Minjung theology (lit. the people's theology) is based on the South-Korean Christian fight for social justice. This theology has developed a political-gospel hermeneutic to address the Korean reality. From this point of view, Jesus is seen more as an activist for social reform than as a spiritual teacher.

Another branch of Christian theology from the Indian subcontinent is called Dalit theology. It places heavy emphasis on Jesus’ mission statement, which some theologians call the Nazareth Manifesto (Lk 4.16-20), namely, the proclamation of “good news to the poor,” the release of prisoners, the “recovery of sight to the blind,” as well as letting “the oppressed go free.” From this perspective, Jesus is identified as a marginalized Dalit (i.e. a servant) whose mission is seen as liberating individuals not only from their sociopolitical and economic oppression but also from racial segregation and persecution. But does this theology really capture the core message of Jesus’ mission? Is Jesus really a political “liberator” who is solely interested in an economic and political system that guarantees equality of the rights of citizens? Or are the impoverished those who are not materially but rather spiritually poor? Although the physical dimension of these Biblical passages cannot be denied——after all, many were physically healed of all diseases, according to the narratives——nevertheless, given that the sermons of Jesus emphasize sin and the issues of the heart, one might reasonably argue that he’s referring to the prisoners of sin, and that the recovery of sight might be a metaphor for the truth that “will make you free” (Jn 8.32).

Similarly, many contextual theologies misinterpret the Beatitudes as political manifestos. Notice that Jesus says “Blessed are the poor in spirit,” not the materially poor (Mt. 5.3). Moreover, he doesn’t say blessed are those who are physically hungry and thirst. Rather, he says, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled” (v. 6). So, we have the poor in spirit who will inherit “the kingdom of heaven” (v. 3), and those who hunger for spiritual righteousness who “will be filled” (v. 6). It beggars belief that any theologian can misinterpret this pericope from the Sermon on the Mount as nothing more than a social concern for the materially poor, while promising some sort of Marxist political and economic liberation for oppressed peoples.

This is precisely how Liberation theology interprets such passages. Liberation theology was developed in Latin America and was employed politically as a “preferential option for the poor.” It is true that the Bible is concerned about the welfare of the poor and needy. But it is not a political manifesto designed to liberate them through some new political system. To see Jesus as a prototype of Adam Smith or Karl Marx is to miss the point entirely. Although the Bible certainly addresses these issues and urges us to be equitable and compassionate, its primary message is soteriological, urging us to be born again: “be transformed by the renewing of your minds” (Rom. 12.2); be “born from above” (Jn 3.3)! Clearly, this is a *spiritual* message that has few political implications. It’s also important to note that Jesus did not want the crowds to politicize his message (Jn 6.15 NRSV):

When Jesus realized that they were about

to come and take him by force to make him

king, he withdrew again to the mountain by

himself.

The Excesses of Feminist Theology

A subset of this view is Feminist theology, which is primarily concerned with the oppression of women. The aim of feminist theology is to liberate women from a hitherto patriarchal society by giving them equal rights among the religious authorities and clergy. This theology attempts to reinterpret patriarchal language and imagery about God, while reevaluating the status of women in sacred texts. Feminist reinterpretations of scripture will often reject the male gender of God and will omit using male pronouns to refer to this figure. Feminist theology will often call into question authoritarian, pontific, or disciplinarian images of God and replace them with “nurturing” and “maternal” attributes.

This theology has inevitably led to the excesses of various sects who even describe Jesus as a woman. For instance, the “Dongfang Shandian” (aka Eastern Lightning) is a Christian cult from central China which teaches that Christ has been reincarnated as a woman, and that the saints are engaged in an apocalyptic battle against China's Communist Party. However, these are gross exegetical errors which take liberties in manipulating the language of the original text to suit their theological needs.

Case in point. In his recent book “What Jesus Learned from Women,” author James F. McGrath took a simple verse (mentioned only once in the entire Bible; Rom. 16.7) and turned it into a novel where both Paul and even the great Jesus himself have come under Junia’s spell. The implication is that both Paul and Jesus may have gained valuable knowledge from a woman named Junia. It’s all based on a single, isolated verse which doesn’t even hold a single shred of historical, textual, or literary evidence to substantiate the claim. Not only does it contradict Paul’s explicit statement in Galatians 1.11-12—-in which he says that his gospel is not of human origin and that he “did not receive it from a human source”——but it also subordinates the status of the miracle-working Son of God to that of an unknown female follower, who supposedly taught him everything he knows. Unfortunately, this one-verse doctrine is equivalent to speculative fiction. It simply doesn’t meet scholarly and academic parameters.

Problems of Contextual Theology

The Contextualization process is employed in the study of Biblical translations as regards their cultural settings. Hermeneutically speaking, contextualization seeks to comprehend the origins of words that were used by the Hebrew and Greek texts, and Latin translations. However, it has also allowed secular and political groups to read their own message into the text by expanding the cultural contexts so as to accommodate such meanings. Given that modern liberal contexts are intrinsically alien and sometimes even contradictory to the authorial intent of the scriptures, the contextualization process of attributing cultural or political “meaning” to a text can have dire consequences.

The omission and replacement of the words of scripture with more “context appropriate” terminology with regard to race, gender, inclusive language, sexual orientation, and sociopolitical considerations, coupled with large-scale contextual *reinterpretations,* not only violates its integrity but it also represents a desecration of the text, which actually expresses a fundamental equality of all people whose identity is derived exclusively from Christ: “There is no longer Jew or Greek [race], there is no longer slave or free [power structure], there is no longer male and female [gender]; for all of you are one [equal] in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3.28 NRSV).

Even though the Biblical texts were created within a cultural context and not in a vacuum, nevertheless the verbal plenary inspiration——the notion that each word was meaningfully chosen by God——supersedes the cultural milieu by virtue of its inspired revelation, if indeed it is a revelation. In that case, the language from which the text is operating must be preserved without additions, subtractions, or alterations (cf. Deut. 4.2; Rev. 22.18-19). Therefore, It is incumbent on the Biblical scholars to maintain the integrity of the text. One thing is certain. The New Testament was not only significantly changed by the Westcott and Hort text, but it has also been evolving gradually with culturally sensitive translations regarding gender, sexual orientation, racism, inclusive language, and the like. Contextual theology has broadened the scope of the original text by adding a whole host of modern political and socioeconomic contexts (e.g. critical theory) that lead to many misinterpretations because they’re largely irrelevant to the core message of the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus!

——-

The Heresy of the “Grace Road Church” of Korea

By Author Eli Kittim 🎓

A Cult Movement

According to Wiki,

The Grace Road Church is a South Korean

quasi-Christian new religious movement

and cult (although its members call it a

Church) founded in 2002.

This so-called “church” is currently based in Fiji. It moved there because its pastor Shin Okjoo predicted a famine in Korea. This is a shrewd and calculating woman who demanded strict obedience as she seized the passports of about 400 followers so that they wouldn’t leave. Many nearby churches have hurled accusations that this is a cult movement.

The church has diversified and raised funds by opening businesses across Fiji that range from the hospitality industry to construction to agriculture. Footage has emerged of physical abuse and violence, including slave labor. In 2019, its leader Shin Okjoo was found guilty and sentenced to six years in jail.

The Grace Road Church Claims that the Holy Spirit Is a Woman & that Jesus Is Not God the Son

The Deity of the Holy Spirit

The personhood of the Holy Spirit is multiply-attested in the New Testament. There are many verses which hint at the deity of the Holy Spirit, calling Him, for example, a “person” (ἐκεῖνος, meaning “He” Jn. 16:13-14; ὁ Παράκλητος, which depicts “a person”; & ἐκεῖνος, meaning “he” Jn. 15:26). Note that the Biblical references to the Holy Spirit don’t use the feminine but rather the masculine, third-person pronoun “he.”

The Holy Spirit is also called the “eternal Spirit” (Heb. 9:14), a term that is often used interchangeably with the concept of God (1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19; Acts 5:3-4; Rom. 8:9; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21). For example, the Holy Spirit is called “Lord” in 2 Corinthians 3:17:

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the

Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

Moreover, the Holy Spirit is said to have insight into “the depths of God” (1 Corinthians 2:10-11). He also possesses knowledge (Romans 8:27). The Spirit is also said to have a personal will (1 Corinthians 12:11). He is capable of convicting the world of sin (John 16:8), and performs signs and miracles (Acts 8:39). He also guides (John 16:13) and intercedes between people (Romans 8:26). He utters commands and is also obeyed (Acts 10:19-20; 16:6). The Spirit talks (Revelation 2:7; 14:13; 22:17). He warns and prophesies of things to come (John 16:13; Acts 20:23). And the New Testament certainly depicts Him as a member of the Trinity (John 16:14; Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14).

The Deity of Jesus Christ

We also have multiple texts which refer to the deity of Jesus Christ, depicting him as the Son of God, such as in Jn 1 (“the word was God”), Col. 2:9 (“in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily”), Jn 8:58 (“before Abraham was, I am”), Heb. 1.2 (God’s “Son, … through whom he also created the worlds”), Heb. 1:3 (“The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact imprint of his being”), Tit. 2:13 (“our great God and Savior Jesus Christ”), as well as the explicit worship Christ willingly received from his followers (Luke 24:52; John 20:28) and the accusations of blasphemy leveled against him for equating himself with God (Mark 2:7).

Hence, the Grace Road Church’s Biblical claims that the Holy Spirit is a woman and that Jesus is not God the Son are completely bogus and misinformed!

—

How Old Was Abraham When He Left Haran?

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

The Apparent Contradiction

There’s a seeming contradiction in the Bible concerning Abraham’s age when he left Haran. The apparent contradiction is as follows. If Terah died when he was 205 years old, but fathered Abram when he was 70, then Abram must have been 135 years old when his father Terah died (as Gen. 11.26, 32 suggest), not 75, as Gen. 12.4 indicates. For the story to work without any discrepancies, Terah would literally have to be 130 years old when he fathered Abram. But it seemed as if he were only 70 years old. Hence the apparent contradiction. Below are the relevant citations that appear to contradict each other.

—-

Genesis 12.4 (ESV):

So Abram went, as the LORD had told him,

and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-

five years old when he departed from

Haran.

Acts 7.2:

And Stephen said: ‘Brothers and fathers,

hear me. The God of glory appeared to our

father Abraham when he was in

Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran.’

Acts 7.4:

Then he went out from the land of the

Chaldeans and lived in Haran. And after his

father died, God removed him from there

into this land in which you are now living.

Genesis 11.26:

When Terah had lived 70 years, he fathered

Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

Genesis 11.32:

The days of Terah were 205 years, and

Terah died in Haran.

—————

Apologetic Exegesis

The key passage is Gen. 11.26. The Hebrew text doesn’t explicitly say that *when* Terah was 70 years old he begat Abram. Rather, it puts it thusly (Gen. 11.26 KJV):

And Terah lived seventy years, and begat

Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

Nowhere is it explicitly mentioned that Terah had all 3 children when he was 70 years old. Nor is there any direct evidence that these children were triplets, or that they were born on the exact same date, month, or year. The verse in Gen. 11.26 merely indicates that after Terah reached a certain age——namely, 70 years old——he began to father children. But exactly when these children were actually born is unknown. The only thing that’s clear from Gen. 11.26 is that they were born after Terah had reached a certain age.

It’s quite possible, for example, that some of his children could have been born when Terah was 130 years old. Nothing in the text would contradict the timing of such a birth. As long as Terah fathered at least one child after he was 70, the rest could have been born anytime between Terah’s 70th and 205th birthday.

The order in which the names of Terah’s sons are listed may not reflect the precise chronological order in which the children were actually born. The text is simply indicating their order of importance. Given that Abram is a key figure in the Old Testament and the common patriarch of the Abrahamic religions, he’s obviously mentioned first:

there is yet a question whether Abram was

born first as listed, or perhaps he is listed

first because he was the wisest similar to

Shem, Ham, and Jafeth where Shem was

not the oldest, but was the wisest. … the

Talmud leaves the above question open.

(Wikipedia)

—————

Conclusion

Actually, Abram could have been 75 years old when he left Haran, as the text indicates (Gen. 12.4). And maybe he did leave Haran “after his father died” (Acts 7.4) at the age of 205 (Gen. 11.32). There is no contradiction with regard to the dates. The assumed contradiction is actually based on fallacious reasoning and speculation. It’s based on an eisegesis, that is, a misinterpretation of the text. Readers often assume that the text is telling us that Abram was born *when* Terah was 70 years old. But that’s a conjecture. The text doesn’t say that at all. All the text says is that once Terah reached a certain age, he began fathering sons. But exactly when each and every son was born is unknown.

—

The Tower of Babel: History or Prophecy?

By Biblical Researcher & Goodreads Author Eli Kittim 📖

The New World Order

For decades, atheists, anarchists, and irreligious organizations——such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation & the American Atheists——have tried to ban religious freedom and religious expression from society, culture, education, and the media. And, by and large, these secular humanists have won that fight. The Bible was removed from American classrooms in the 1960s, and shortly thereafter prayer and the Ten Commandments were also removed.

The current shift toward atheism in America and Europe is largely due to these political endeavours. And in the globalist agenda——as propounded by Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum, & António Guterres (the Secretary-General of the United Nations)——religion plays a subordinate role in the upcoming one-world government.

In fact, powerful leaders have been conspiring for decades. We’re talking about a global dictatorship that has been in the making since the founding of the Federal Reserve in the early part of the 20th century. It has been affectionately called by Henry Kissinger, George H. W. Bush, Barack Obama, & Gordon Brown, among others, as “the new world order.” It’s not a conspiracy theory since many US presidents, British prime ministers, and high level officials——including Charles, Prince of Wales——have explicitly referred to it as an ideal future government that they’re all working towards as if “they are one people” (cf. Genesis 11.6)! This is no longer a conspiracy theory since this totalitarian world government——which has now reared its ugly head by censoring the masses through social media-driven panic, fake news, government lockdowns, and forced mask and passport mandates——is emerging before our very eyes. Surprisingly, the Bible foresaw this attack on religion, and especially on Christianity, and recorded it in Scripture. Psalm 2.1-3 (NRSV) reads:

Why do the nations conspire, and the

peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth

set themselves, and the rulers take counsel

together, against the Lord and his anointed,

saying, ‘Let us burst their bonds asunder,

and cast their cords from us.’

The Tower of Babel & the One-World Government

The modern discoveries & innovations in virology, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, robotics, genetics, molecular biology, as well as the harnessing of nuclear energy are seemingly implied in the following Biblical excerpt from Genesis 11.6:

and this is only the beginning of what they

will do; nothing that they propose to do will

now be impossible for them.

Might the scheme to “confuse their language” be a form of electromagnetic pulse attack known as EMP? An EMP is a massive burst of electromagnetic energy that can be generated using nuclear weapons. It creates an enormous magnetic field that can cause widespread damage & disruption to electrical and power grids within range. According to Peter Pry, a defense analyst with the Congressional EMP Commission:

You can use a single weapon to collapse

the entire North American power grid. …

Once the electric grid goes down,

everything would collapse … Everything

depends on electricity: telecommunications,

transportation, even water.

This is certainly one way to “confuse” or disrupt all forms of communication.

Since the towers or ziggurats that ancient people built were no match for the modern skyscrapers, might the Tower-of-Babel narrative be a *prophecy* instead of an origin myth about why people speak different languages? Let’s look at the evidence. The Hebrew Bible (Gen. 11.4) says that the people built a tower (וּמִגְדָּל֙ ū·miḡ·dāl) whose top (וְרֹאשׁ֣וֹ wə·rō·šōw) is in the heavens, or will reach into heaven (בַשָּׁמַ֔יִם ḇaš·šā·ma·yim)! Have the ancients ever built a tower that soared above the clouds? Hardly! However, the Jeddah Tower (aka Kingdom Tower), currently built in Saudi Arabia, will be 1 km (3,281 ft) high, “whose top” will literally be “in the heavens.” And it is appropriately called: a “tower.”

Notice also that many of today’s highest skyscrapers are actually called “towers” and they do, in fact, reach the clouds: the Jin Mao Tower, in Shanghai, the Willis Tower, in Chicago, the Petronas Towers, in Kuala Lumpur, the Burj Khalifa, in Dubai, even the Empire State Building, in New York City. Here’s a shot of the Empire State Building peeking above the clouds!

The Prophecy Concerning Babylon the Great

Revelation 18.8-21

‘therefore her plagues will come in a single

day — pestilence and mourning and famine

— and she will be burned with fire; for

mighty is the Lord God who judges her.’ And

the kings of the earth, who committed

fornication and lived in luxury with her, will

weep and wail over her when they see the

smoke of her burning; they will stand far off,

in fear of her torment, and say, ‘Alas, alas,

the great city, Babylon, the mighty city! For

in one hour your judgment has come.’ …

Then a mighty angel took up a stone like a

great millstone and threw it into the sea,

saying, ‘With such violence Babylon the

great city will be thrown down, and will be

found no more.’

Conclusion

All of the evidence——including the language of the Hebrew Bible——supports an *apocalyptic* rather than a pseudo-historical Tower-of-Babel. The so-called “confusion” or disruption of communication may indicate the coming world Judgment in the form of EMP attacks & nuclear weapons, as alluded to in Daniel 12.1, Joel 2.31, Zechariah 14.12, Matthew 24.6-21, Luke 21.20-26, & Revelation 6.12-15 (i.e. the Great Tribulation). And the prophecy is set to take place when the whole world will be united as “one people” (Genesis 11.6), or one-world government!

Genesis 11.4-9:

Then they said, ‘Come, let us build

ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in

the heavens, and let us make a name for

ourselves; otherwise we shall be scattered

abroad upon the face of the whole earth.’

The Lord came down to see the city and the

tower, which mortals had built. And the Lord

said, ‘Look, they are one people, and they

have all one language; and this is only the

beginning of what they will do; nothing that

they propose to do will now be impossible

for them. Come, let us go down, and

confuse their language there, so that they

will not understand one another's speech.’

So the Lord scattered them abroad from

there over the face of all the earth, and they

left off building the city. Therefore it was

called Babel, because there the Lord

confused the language of all the earth; and

from there the Lord scattered them abroad

over the face of all the earth.

—

Babel and Babylon Refer to the Same Place

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🔎

Definition & Location

Babel is a transliteration of the Hebrew word בָּבֶל (Ba-bel), while Babylon is derived from the Greek Βαβυλῶνος (Babylonos). In the Old Testament, the word “Babel” is most often translated as “Babylon” in Greek! But besides the linguistic connection, there’s further evidence that both Babel & Babylon are located in the exact same place. For example, Genesis 10.10 & 11.2 locate Babel in the land of Shinar (שִׁנְעָֽר׃). Astoundingly, Daniel 1.2 tells us that Babylon is also located in the land of Shinar (שִׁנְעָ֖ר)! This means that Babel and Babylon are synonymous or interchangeable terms!

The Septuagint & Most English Bibles Translate Babel As Babylon

The Hebrew term “Babel” is most often translated as “Babylon” (Βαβυλὼν) in the Septuagint (aka LXX; L.C.L. Brenton translation), an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. Below are the English Bible versions that *also* translate Babel as Babylon:

Gen. 10.10 (LXX, NIV); Gen. 11.9 (CSB,

HCSB, ISV); Ps. 87.4 (LXX & Most Versions);

Ps. 137.1 (LXX & Most Versions); Ps. 137.8

(LXX & Most Versions); Ezek. 12.13 (LXX &

Most Versions); Ezek. 19.9 (LXX & Most

Versions).

Even the JPS Tanakh 1917—-the Jewish Publication Society of America——often translates Babel as Babylon!

In the Greek, Babel is called Βαβυλῶνος, a term that is derived from the word Βαβυλών (Babylon). The Greek New Testament follows the Septuagint translation of rendering Babel as Babylon (see e.g. Mt 1.11-12, 17; cf. 2 Kings 24.8-10 LXX)!

Conclusion

So, if Babel & Babylon are one and the same, and if Babylon the Great——with its high towers & powerful economy——is said to be destroyed in the end-times (Rev. 18), then Babel’s apparent destruction (in Genesis 11) must also be prophetic rather than historical!

—

Who Are the Two Witnesses of Revelation?

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

The Coming Elijah & the Two Witnesses: Symbols of Christ

Let’s start from the beginning so that you could understand how various Old Testament (OT) and New Testament (NT) passages pertain to this topic. Here’s an excerpt from my book “The Little Book of Revelation,” chapter 1, pp. 60-63:

“. . . there are strong scriptural indications

that ‘Elijah’ prophetically signifies the

forthcoming Messiah. In the last book of

the Jewish scriptures, virtually the last

words of the entire OT are as follows [Mal.

4.5]:

‘Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the

prophet before the coming of the great

and terrible day of the Lord.’ “

“This is probably the single most

perplexing oracle in the Bible because the

only figure who is expected to arrive on

earth during ‘the day of the Lord’ is Jesus

Christ himself [cf. Lk. 17.30; 1 Cor. 1.7; Phil.

1.6; Col. 3.4; 1 Thess. 1.10; 2 Thess. 1.7; 1

Tim. 6.14; 2 Tim. 4.1; Titus 2.13; 1 Pet. 1.13;

5.1; 1 Jn. 2.28; Rev. 1.1]. And he is not only

known as a prophet, he is also known as the

‘Lord’ . . . [Mt. 21.11]. . . . Could it be that

the earlier Elijah narratives, from the

‘books of Kings,’ were prophesying about

the time of the end? Since no ordinary

human is either qualified or prophesied to

accomplish such extraordinary feats, we

are left with only one conclusion: the last

days’ ‘Elijah’ can be none other than the

foretold God-Messiah! In that event, this

oracle regarding Elijah can be viewed as a

subtle allegorical sign of Christ’s

incarnation ‘before the coming of the

great and terrible day of the Lord.’ . . .”

“This type of symbolism is then carried

forward into the book of Revelation where

we find two ‘last days’ witnesses who

prophesy for 1,260 days (Rev. 11.2-13). In

the text, God declares, ‘I will grant

“authority” to my two witnesses’ (Rev.

11.3, emphasis added). But let us back up

for a moment. Was it not Jesus who once

said, ‘All authority has been given to Me in

heaven and on earth’? (Mt. 28.18; cf. Rev.

18.1 . . .). Thus, the biblical jargon is

suggesting an intimate relationship

between these figures and Christ.

Returning to our vignette, the two

witnesses are also capable of performing

astonishing miracles, and just like Moses

and Jesus, they even ‘have power over the

waters to turn them into blood, and to

smite the earth with every plague, as

often as they desire’ (Rev. 11.6; 14.19-20;

19.15; Exod. 7.20). At the end of their

ministry, they are killed in a ‘city which

mystically is called Sodom and Egypt,

where also their Lord was crucified’ (Rev.

11.8). So they prophesy in the same place

where Jesus lived, and they die in the

same city where he died. We think you can

guess the rest of the script: ‘And after . . .

three . . . days the breath of life from God

came into them, and they stood on their

feet [they were resurrected]’ (Rev. 11.11).”

What Exactly Is the Day of Christ?

As I will show later, the two witnesses are symbols of the messiah. But first, in chapter 3, p. 99, of my book I try to explain the pericope of 2 Thess. 2.1-3 (NKJV), where Paul says:

“Now, brethren, concerning the coming of

our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering

together to Him, we ask you, not to be

soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by

spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us,

as though the day of Christ had come. Let

no one deceive you by any means; for that

Day will not come unless the falling away

comes first, and the man of sin is

revealed, the son of perdition . . .”

“Before we begin our analysis, it is

imperative that we provide a definition for

what Paul refers to as ‘the day of Christ.’

As the preceding segment maintains, this

unique ‘day’ concerns ‘the coming of our

Lord and our gathering together to him.’

This kind of language is used consistently

throughout scripture (cf. Acts 2.1; Mt. 24.

39-42) to represent the concept of the

‘rapture’: the ascent of the living and the

dead into heaven (1 Cor. 15.51-52; 1

Thess. 4.16-17). Hence, Paul is not simply

indicating the human manifestation of

Jesus on the world scene; rather, he is

emphasizing Christ’s postresurrection

activities that begin to have a real and

substantial impact on life as we know it.

By implication, ‘the day of Christ’

primarily signifies the risen Messiah.”

In fact, 2 Thess. 2.1 uses the exact same word for the rapture that Mt. 24.31 uses, namely, episunagógé. That’s precisely why Christ warns us, in Mt. 24.23-28, not to be overly concerned about the earthly messiah, but rather to focus on the risen messiah who comes like lightning in the sky. Thus, Christ’s earthly manifestation can be deemed to be his “unofficial” appearance, so to speak, whereas his postresurrection parousia is the one that’s scripturally regarded as his official coming. It is the ultimate event to which everything in scripture is pointing!

The Two Witnesses: Symbols of the OT & NT Messiah

In order to understand the identity of the two witnesses (δύο μαρτύρων) in Rev. 11.3-12, we must first trace them back to the Hebrew Bible from which they emerge. According to Judaism, there are two Messiahs: one is a high priest, the other is an anointed king of the Davidic line. This is what Zech. 4.14 is referring to when it says (cf. Rev. 11.4):

“These are the two anointed ones who stand

by the Lord of the whole earth.”

In an academic article (The Doctrine of the Two Messiahs in Sectarian Literature in the Time of the Second Commonwealth, Harvard Theological Review, vol. 52, issue 3, 1959, pp. 149-185), author J. Liver writes:

“The problem of the two Messiahs in

Apocryphal literature, especially in the

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and in

the Damascus Covenant, occupied scholars

at the beginning of the present century and

has revealed new facets with the discovery

of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Especially

pertinent to this problem are some of the

texts from Qumran Cave 1, and some

fragments from Qumran Cave 4, recently

published. We shall here endeavor to make

clear the distinctive features of these

Messiahs, their status and their tasks at the

end of days, and to elucidate the historical

setting from which the doctrine of the two

Messiahs sprang.”

However, in the NT, these 2 Messiahs are morphed into one priestly/kingly figure: Jesus the Son of God (cf. Heb. 4.14 and Mt. 2.1–2). Notice the parallels between Christ and the Two Witnesses. They are killed immediately after their testimony is proclaimed; they are killed in the same place where Jesus died; and just like Christ, they arise from the dead approximately 3 days later!

There are further parallels between Christ (Rev. 12.4--5) and the 2 witnesses (Rev. 11.7--12; cf. Acts 1.9), which are stunningly similar. The mainstream view that the 2 witnesses represent Moses and Elijah (signifying the Law and the Prophets) appears to be inaccurate. According to Heb. 9:27, each person is destined to die once, which would disqualify Moses from a second human birth. As for the purported ascension of Elijah, it seems to be a theological narrative that foreshadows the ascension of Christ.

So when we trace the identity of the two witnesses back to the OT and the context in which they appear, we find that they represent the 2 Messiahs of Rabbinic Judaism. But these 2 figures later became coalesced, commingled into one, in the figure of Jesus Christ, who’s given the titles of king and high priest in the order of Melchizedek, who is also a king and priest (Heb. 7.13-17). Therefore, the 2 witnesses appear to represent the coming Messiah: Jesus Christ!

First Comes Christ; Then Comes the Antichrist

“Keep the commandment . . . until the

appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which

He [God] will bring about at the proper

time— . . . whom no man has seen” (1 Tim.

6.14-16).

On the authority of this fascinating passage, we come to realize that Jesus is not revealed according to the pseudohistorical period of the gospel narratives, but instead, he is manifested “at the proper time”: a forthcoming event frequently alluded to by the NT epistles. We know that Christ will initiate the end-time events by being the first major figure to appear on the world stage (i.e. the first horseman of Revelation). We also know that he’s born in the last days during the completion or “fullness of time” (τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου Gal.4.4; Eph. 1.9-10; see also Rev. 12.5; Heb. 1.2; 9.26b; 1 Pet. 1.20)! For further details, see my paper “WHO IS THE FIRST HORSEMAN OF THE APOCALYPSE?”: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/168159235542/who-is-the-first-horseman-of-the-apocalypse

Tumblr

Who is the First Horseman of the Apocalypse?

By Author Eli of Kittim There are No Counterfeit Signs in the Bible There are no counterfeit signs found anywhere in the Bible. So why sho

According to 2 Thess. 2.1-3, the official coming of Christ & the rapture cannot occur until the revolt takes place and the Antichrist (AC) is revealed. This refers to the AC claiming to be God with signs & wonders (vv. 4, 9). Therefore, the basic sequence is that Christ will appear first, unobserved (Lk 17.20), followed by the apostasy and the AC. Then, and only then, can the “official” postresurrection coming of Christ & the rapture take place.

Revelation 11.4 associates the two witnesses with the 2 lamp stands or 2 messiahs of Hebrew scripture. Verse 2 discusses the abomination of desolation (aka the Great Tribulation or GT) when the nations will trample underfoot the holy city (Jerusalem) for 42 months. Verse 3 says that God will give testimony to his 2 witnesses and they’ll prophesy for 1,260 days dressed in sackcloth (mourning attire). Verse 5 says that they will perform great signs. And whoever tries to harm them, fire proceeds from their mouth and devours their enemies (cf. 2 Thess. 2.8: “the Lord will slay [him] with the breath of His mouth”). Verse 6 warns that these have great authority (exousian) to control the weather and to cause plagues. Verse 7 is the key. It says that when they complete their witness (testimony), the beast that arises out of the abyss* (AC) will make war with them, defeat them, and kill them (cf. 2 Thess. 2.7; Rev. 12.4b).

Verse 8 reveals that they’ll die in the great city which is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, where also Christ was purportedly crucified. Verse 11 announces that after 3 and a half days the spirit of God will enter them and raise them from the dead. The 3 and a half days appear to symbolize 3 and a half years, according to the day-year principle (see Num. 14.34; Ezek. 4.5–6). So Christ seemingly rises at the end of 3 plus years. Moreover, verse 12 tells us that they hear a loud voice from heaven saying “come up here” (anabēte hōde). And they went up in the cloud. Compare Acts 1.9 where the exact same word nephelē is used for Christ’s ascension (see also Rev. 12.5). Nowhere does it say that they prophesied during the GT, as most prophecy experts teach. In fact, the text implies that they arrived first on the scene, because later on, the beast that arose out of the abyss killed them. Since the beast is not revealed until the outset of the GT, and since the 2 witnesses precede him, it means that they must prophesy prior to the GT, during the first 3 & a half years of the supposed 7-year tribulation period.

Conclusion

Christ comes first, 42 months or 1,260 days prior to the “abomination of desolation” (aka the starting point of the GT) because that’s the allotted time given to the 2 witnesses to prophesy (Rev. 11.3). Then, the beast (aka Abaddon & Apollyon, meaning “destroyer” Rev. 9.11) that comes up out of the abyss and initiates the GT will kill him. The beast is also given authority for 42 months (Rev. 13.5). However, the beast’s time slot is equivalent to the duration of the GT. By contrast, Christ’s 42 months cannot occur at the same time, otherwise the rest of the passages would contradict this chronological time frame. How so? Well, according to 2 Thess. 2.7, Christ the restrainer must first be removed before the AC can be revealed. So, Christ must come first. Furthermore, Revelation 6.2 begins with the peacemaker or the white horseman (Christ; cf. Rev. 19.11) before it gets to the second horseman who “was granted to take peace from the earth, and that men would slay one another” (Rev. 6.4). And since 42 months were also allotted to Christ, his timeline is necessarily not equivalent to that of the AC.

The phrase, “the beast that comes up from the bottomless pit” (Rev. 11.7) suggests either the AC’s resurrection from the dead (Rev. 13.3, 12, 14), or nuclear war (Rev 9.2-3), or both. More specifically, Rev 9.2 equates the opening of the abyss with smoke arising and darkening the sun & the air, suggestive of nuclear explosions (cf. Zech. 14.12). And given that the AC’s authority only lasts for 42 months, it seems feasible that the AC’s resurrection occurs at the beginning of the GT. After the completion of that time period he has no further authority. Which means that Christ will die sometime around the onset of the GT (or in the midst of the 7-year tribulation period as traditionally understood). It seems, then, that toward the end of the GT Christ will resurrect & initiate the rapture!

In Rev 13.3-4, the beast dies and is subsequently resurrected, and the whole earth marvels and worships him. Christ, on the other hand, will be rejected (Lk 17.25; Jn 1.11). That’s an important clue as to who is who! Rev. 13.5 says that the AC was given authority for 42 months. So, it seems as if he’s resurrected first, and then he holds sway for 42 months. Moreover, Rev. 13.7 tells us that he wages war & defeats the saints, and that authority was given to him over every tribe and tongue and nation. In fact, Rev. 13.16 is reminiscent of the passport vaccines because it says that all, rich and poor will receive a mark (charagma) on their hand so that they may not buy or sell without this mark! Seems like we’re getting close to that time period.

If the AC already controlled all the inhabitants of the earth, he wouldn’t need to start a global war. So, if the GT is his attempt to conquer the world, then his total domination must come to an end at the completion of the 42 months. Incidentally, the verse where he defeats the saints is right next to the verse about his control over every tribe, tongue, and nation (Rev. 13.7). And everyone, except the saved, will worship him (Rev. 13.8). So it seems that all the hype starts with his resurrection. And yet we are told that his authority is limited to only 42 months. Rev 11 says that the AC will kill the witnesses (i.e. the messiah) when he comes out of the abyss (v. 7). By the way, this is the exact same time period that Christ is said to *die* as the atonement for our sins. Afterwards, he will *resurrect* and translate us to heaven (Heb. 9.26-28 NRSV):

“he has appeared once for all at the end of

the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of

himself. And just as it is appointed for

mortals to die once, and after that the

judgment, so Christ, having been offered

once to bear the sins of many, will appear

a second time, not to deal with sin, but to

save those who are eagerly waiting for him.”

Was the Charge Against Jesus Insurrection or Blasphemy?

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

Many have written on Jesus the Galilean——often portraying him as someone who “was involved in anti-Roman seditious activity” and “put to death as an insurrectionist” (see e.g. Dr. Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, “[Why] Was Jesus the Galilean Crucified Alone? Solving a False Conundrum,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36.2 [2013] 127-154; & “Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth,” a book by Muslim writer and scholar Reza Aslan).

But these speculative reconstructions have nothing to do with the New Testament literary accounts. These religious scholars should not be allowed to tamper with the internal evidence by altering it to suit their theological objectives. Let me give you an example why that would run counter to the standards of textual criticism. If modern scholars, who are far removed from ancient times, were to be given such artistic license as to change the words of Homer or Virgil, for instance, then it would no longer be Homer or Virgil that we would be reading but rather a modern 21st century forgery or adaptation of their works. Classicists would rightly be outraged! So then, if these interpolations are inexcusable in classical literature (e.g. in ancient Greco-Roman works), why are these religious scholars allowed to rewrite history and change the words of the New Testament accounts by superimposing their own imaginations on the text? Who gave them the licentia poetica (poetic license) to do so? Such books abound in the popular literature whose authors helped shape our modern views of Jesus!

Sadly, it would seem that none of these scholars have carefully consulted the Greek New Testament to see what it says on the matter, including the scriptural *messianic context* in which it says it. For example, Matthew 26.63-66 says categorically and unequivocally that Jesus was accused of blasphemy by the Jewish leaders. Specifically, Jesus purportedly blasphemed by claiming to be the Messiah, the king of the Jews (i.e. the new David cf. Ezekiel 37.24 [NRSV]: “My servant David shall be king over them;” Ezekiel 37.25 “and my servant David shall be their prince forever”). In fact, during Caiaphas’ interrogation, Jesus purportedly responded by identifying himself with the Danielic Son of Man (Υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου), a messianic figure who will one day come in the clouds of heaven (Matthew 26.64). That’s precisely when the high priest cried out (v. 65): “He has blasphemed!” (Ἐβλασφήμησεν). Then at Matthew 26.66, the high priest asked the attending council:

What is your verdict? They answered, ‘He

deserves death.’

The members of the Sanhedrin (vv. 57, 59) answered in unison: “He deserves death” (Ἔνοχος θανάτου ἐστίν)! This is explicitly recorded at Mark 15.26 as well, where the official charge against Jesus was said to be inscribed on his cross:

The inscription of the charge against him

read, ‘The King of the Jews.’

Conclusion

The context of the literary account in Gethsemane, prior to the crucifixion, is one of prayer and supplication. It has absolutely nothing to do with violence or any plans to overthrow the Roman legions. Moreover, the Sanhedrin’s verdict, that was later inscribed on Jesus’ cross, was NOT insurrection but rather blasphemy, namely, that he claimed to be the Messiah: “The King of the Jews” (i.e. Mashiach Ben David cf. Jn 19.7)! In fact, the so-called charge against Jesus of political insurrection is never once mentioned in the New Testament!

So, if we’re going to engage in academic exegesis, we must avoid presuppositions, assumptions, speculations, & conjectures. We must allow expositional constancy or the analogy of scripture, and the original biblical languages, to guide our hermeneutic. In other words, we must not impose our own private interpretations on the text. Rather, we must allow the text ITSELF to give us the authorial intent (meaning)! Thus, even though some liberal scholars are very familiar with the gospel literature, nevertheless they’re constantly inserting or imposing extraneous, extra-biblical material to put a Roman spin on it. This is a clear violation of the standard principles of biblical interpretation!

Both Iris & Toxon mean Rainbow in the Bible

By Eli Kittim 🎓

All the Evidence Points to a Christ-Like Figure in Rev. 6.2

In this study I want to focus primarily on two words, iris & toxon, in order to show how they completely change our understanding of Revelation 6.2. But before I do this, I would first like to show you some proofs concerning the implied benevolence of the White horseman of the Apocalypse. That the white horse is a symbol of purity and righteousness is multiply attested by its linguistic usage patterns. For example, the phrase “and behold, a white horse,” in Rev. 19.11, is identical to the one used in Revelation 6.2. In other words, the two white horses of Revelation 19 & 6 represent the exact same figure who “is called Faithful and True” (Rev. 19.11)! That’s why Irenaeus, a second century theologian, held the same view, namely, that the first rider of the white horse who is depicted as a peacemaker represents Jesus Christ (Mounce, Robert H. The Book of Revelation. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Rev. ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997], p. 141).

This is also confirmed by the type of crown the rider of the white horse wears. Stephanos “crowns” are typically worn by believers and victors in Christ (see e.g. the Greek text of Matthew 27.29; James 1.12; 2 Timothy 4.8; 1 Peter 5.4; Revelation 2.10; 4.4; 14.14)! All these proofs clearly show that the white horseman of Rev. 6.2 is neither deceptive nor evil, as many Bible commentators would have us believe!

The Hebrew Bible Uses the Word Bow for Rainbow

In the New Testament, the Greek noun ἶρις (iris) means “rainbow” (see https://biblehub.com/greek/2463.htm). Curiously enough, the Greek noun τόξον (toxon), which we find in Rev. 6.2, means “bow” but——as we shall see——it also means “rainbow” (see https://biblehub.com/greek/5115.htm). Τόξον can be seen as a contraction for ουράνιον τόξον (rainbow), from Ancient Greek οὐρανός ("heaven") + τόξον ("bow").

Given that the Greek noun “iris” is the most widely used term for “rainbow” in the New Testament, some commentators argue that since the word in Rev. 6.2 is “toxon,” not “iris,” it means that “toxon” (τόξον) cannot possibly refer to a rainbow. However, many notable Bible commentators, such as Chuck Missler, have said that the “bow” (toxon) in Rev. 6.2 appears to represent the “rainbow” of Genesis 9.13. In other words, the bow (toxon) represents the peace-covenant of Genesis 9.13. The actual verse in Genesis 9.13 (NRSV) reads:

“I have set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth.”

Bear in mind that Genesis 9.13 uses the Hebrew phrase qaš·tî (קַשְׁתִּ֕י), which means “my bow.” It comes from the Hebrew noun קֶשֶׁת (qesheth), which means——wait for it——a bow (https://biblehub.com/hebrew/7198.htm).

The Septuagint (LXX) Translates the Hebrew Word for Rainbow with the Greek Word Toxon

Further evidence that “toxon” (bow) can mean “rainbow” comes from the Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. Lo and behold, the Septuagint translates “rainbow” as τόξον (toxon) in Genesis 9.13!

Thus, this brief study illustrates my point, namely, that “iris” and “toxon” are interchangeable in the Bible! The Septuagint (LXX) translation of Genesis 9.13 by L.C.L. Brenton reads as follows:

τὸ τόξον μου τίθημι ἐν τῇ νεφέλῃ, καὶ ἔσται εἰς σημεῖον διαθήκης ἀνὰ μέσον ἐμοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς.

Translation:

“I set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of covenant between me and the earth.”

Conclusion

Therefore, both “iris” and “toxon” mean “rainbow” in the Bible! They are interchangeable terms. This means that the rider of the “white horse … [who] had a bow” (τόξον), in Rev. 6.2, is symbolically holding the “rainbow,” which represents the covenant of peace between God & man in Genesis 9.13!

Who are the “Earth Dwellers” in the Bible? And Will There Be a Zombie Apocalypse?

By Award-Winning Goodreads Author & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

There are many pre-tribulation pastors today who are preaching that the so-called “earth dwellers” of the Bible represent a particular class of people who are distinct from the church of God (i.e. “the elect”) and are therefore under God’s judgment. To prove their point, they’ll typically take a verse where the phrase seems to be used in that particular way, and then they’ll make false generalizations that this is how it’s typically used throughout the Bible. Revelation 13.8 (SBLGNT) is a case in point. It reads:

καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν αὐτὸν πάντες οἱ

κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς

Translation (KJV):

And all that dwell upon the earth shall

worship him [the beast].

The pre-trib expositors typically argue that since the church has been raptured by the time we get to Revelation 4, then obviously the phrase “all that dwell upon the earth” (in Revelation 13 and elsewhere) must be referring to those who have been left behind, namely, the damned. However, since the *great tribulation* is mentioned several times in the Book of Revelation, one would naturally expect that all the inhabitants of the earth, both good & bad, will experience much suffering and turmoil (cf. Rev. 8.13; 13.12; 13.14; 17.8). Besides, this is not the way the Greek phrase οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς is used throughout the Bible. Therefore, these pre-trib pastors are deliberately taking the *meaning* of the phrase οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (all that dwell upon the earth) out of context!

Their teaching is actually erroneous and misleading. It all starts from a false pre-trib rapture position. The logic goes something like this. Because the church will be supposedly raptured early on, this means that the so-called “earth dwellers,” who are mentioned later in the Book of Revelation, must be a particular class of people who are left behind (i.e. the *unsaved*). Moreover, these teachers often try to impose their own view by wrongly interpreting every instance where the “earth dwellers” are mentioned, in both the OT and NT, as the *unsaved.* But this is a false teaching. It’s not only false because the original Hebrew & Greek do not support these interpretations, but also because they’re mangling scripture by the inaccurate eschatological eisegeses concerning the sequence of end time events. This mishandling of scripture is suggestive of gross incompetence on the part of those who are making these claims!

For example, the Greek phrase τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς simply means “those who inhabit the earth,” or “those who live on the earth.” Whether we look at the OT, the NT, or the LXX, the meaning is the same. This phrase is obviously referring to all the people who live on the earth, irrespective of belief or unbelief. Yet pastors like Tiff Shuttlesworth, as well as other pre-tribbers, falsely interpret the so-called “earth dwellers” as the “damned,” or as a particular classification of people who are left behind. They obviously don’t understand Koine Greek!

When the Hebrew OT talks about “earth dwellers,” it implies the entire world, not just the damned. For instance, Isaiah 18.3 (BHS) reads:

‎ כָּל־יֹשְׁבֵ֥י תֵבֵ֖ל וְשֹׁ֣כְנֵי אָ֑רֶץ

Transliteration:

kāl (all) yō·šə·ḇê (inhabitants) tê·ḇêl (of the

world) wə·šō·ḵə·nê (and dwellers on)

’ā·reṣ (the earth).

Alternative Translations:

All you people of the world, everyone who

lives on the earth (NLT).

All you inhabitants of the world, you who

dwell on the earth (ESV).

Contrary to what pre-tribbers are claiming, the OT is referring to all the people of the earth, both good and bad, not simply to the damned per se!

The LXX follows suit and uses the Greek terms κατοικουμένη and κατοικηθήσεται to mean “inhabited.” These terms are obviously cognate with κατοικοῦντας, the word that is used in the NT for “inhabitants.” The Greek terms in the LXX are referring to all the inhabitants of a country, not simply to the damned. For example, Isaiah 18.3 LXX reads:

πάντες ὡς χώρα κατοικουμένη·

κατοικηθήσεται ἡ χώρα αὐτῶν.

L.C.L. Brenton Translation:

Now all the rivers of the land shall be

inhabited as an inhabited country.

The LXX uses the terms κατοικουμένη and κατοικηθήσεται——which are derived from κατοικέω (G2730)——to refer to the “inhabited” land, and, by implication, to the “dwellers” or “inhabitants” thereof. In other words, it’s referring to the entire population of a country as a whole, not simply to its evil constituents!

The cognate κατοικοῦντας (G2730) is the word that the NT uses for those people who are “inhabiting” cities (Acts 9.22, 32), provinces (Acts 19.10), as well as the entire world (Rev. 11.10)! For example, the phrase τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ⸃ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (Rev. 8.13) simply refers to all those who inhabit (or dwell on) the earth. In and of itself, this expression does not make a value judgment. Neither does the Greek term κατοικοῦντες (i.e. “dwellers”; see Acts 2.5). Depending on the particular context of a verse, it can take on different meanings. But the above-mentioned phrase is simply referring to the inhabitants of the entire world, not to a certain class of people, let alone the damned. See the *Blue Letter Bible*:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/inflections.cfm?strongs=G2730&t=MGNT&ot=MGNT&word=%CE%BA%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%BF%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%BF%E1%BF%A6%CE%BD%CF%84%CE%B5%CF%82

Blue Letter Bible

Genesis 1:1 (MGNT)

Inflectional distribution for the Greek word κατοικοῦντες in the mGNT text

The aforementioned confusion stems from the false theory that Christians will be raptured early on, prior to the great tribulation, which implies that the “earth dwellers” who will remain——and who are later mentioned in the Book of Revelation——must be the damned. But the church is mentioned many times after Revelation 4. And the church will certainly go through the tribulation, which is *not* God’s wrath. So, the Biblical references to the “earth dwellers” concern all people, good and bad, unless otherwise indicated by the context!

Will there be a Zombie Apocalypse?

In the OT, Daniel 12.2 (NIV) was prophesying a general resurrection of the dead:

Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the

earth will awake: some to everlasting life,

others to shame and everlasting contempt.

This means that the general resurrection of the dead will include both the saved and the unsaved. According to Daniel 12.2, both groups will be resurrected together. But keep in mind that, according to 1 Thess. 4.16-17, the *rapture* and *resurrection* events will be contemporaneous with each other. So, if the *saved*——who will be resurrected from the dead——are “caught up … in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air,” then there will definitely be a *zombie apocalypse* because the *damned* will also be *resurrected* and roam the earth!

——-

For further details, see my essay:

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

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

Eli of Kittim

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

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

——-

🚫 Millennialism Debunked

By Eli Kittim

The Contradictions of Millennialism

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

“the heavens will pass away with a loud

noise, and the elements will be dissolved

with fire.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Then Death and Hades were thrown into the

lake of fire. This is the second death, the

lake of fire.”

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Tumblr

The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9: A Critique of Questionable Interpretations

By Author Eli Kittim ——- Christological readings The Prophecy of Seventy Weeks is given by the angel Gabriel and inscripturated in the Boo

——-

The Sign of Jonah: Christ’s Death at Sea

By Eli Kittim

Jonah is the English form of the Hebrew name Yona, which is rendered as Ionas in the Greek. The Ionians were the ancient Greeks (see Josephus Antiquities I, 6). So Ionia means Greece, and an ancient citizen of Ion was called Ionas. So Jonah (Ionas), who is a type of Christ, is depicted as a Greek figure. Let us not forget that Jonah was going to Tarshish, which has been identified as Ancient Greece (see the undermentioned article).

Tumblr

Where Was Tarshish Located?

By Author Eli Kittim In Second Chronicles 9.21, the Septuagint (LXX L.C.L. Brenton) translates the Hebrew “Tarshish” (תַּרְשִׁ֔ישׁ BHS) as

What is more, it seems as if the sign of Jonah is a typological metaphor for Christ’s death and resurrection that is employed by the evangelists in order to demonstrate that Jesus is the Messiah. But, as I will show, it also represents an event in prophetic history, although this has not as yet taken place. In the gospel narrative, Matthew connects Jesus’ death to that of Jonah, after the latter’s body was cast into the sea. Matthew 12:39-40 (NASB) reads thusly:

“An evil and adulterous generation craves a

sign; and so no sign will be given to it except

the sign of Jonah the prophet; for just as

Jonah was in the stomach of the sea

monster for three days and three nights, so

will the Son of Man be in the heart of the

earth for three days and three nights.”

We find analogous parallels and motifs in the Psalms as well. For example, Psalm 69:1-2 reads:

“Save me, God, For the waters have

threatened my life. I have sunk in deep mud,

and there is no foothold; I have come into

deep waters, and a flood overflows me.”

Similarly, Psalm 18:16 says:

“He sent from on high, He took me;

He drew me out of many waters.”

Ephesians 4:9 says that Jesus “descended into the lower parts of the earth.” That is, he descended to the ocean floor. The average depth of the ocean floor is approximately 12,000 feet. So, Matthew is drawing comparative conclusions between Jonah’s and Jesus's death at sea. Let’s see what happened to Jonah. Jonah 1:15-17 says:

“So they picked up Jonah and hurled him

into the sea, and the sea stopped its raging.

… And the Lord designated a great fish to

swallow Jonah, and Jonah was in the

stomach of the fish for three days and three

nights.”

The typological sign of the resurrection is suggested in Jonah 2:10:

“Then the Lord commanded the fish, and it

vomited Jonah up onto the dry land.”

This, then, is the sign of Jonah——which says in effect that God literally “drew … [him] out of many waters”——that Matthew applies to Jesus (cf. Isaiah 43:2)! This is reminiscent of another messianic type who was named “Moses” by Pharaoh's daughter “because … [she] drew him out of the water” (Exod. 2:10). It is also the sign of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. I will not focus on the phrase “three days and three nights” because it will divert us from the topic at hand. Suffice it to say that it need not refer to a literal three-day period. It seems to be a figure of speech that may signify the three-year great tribulation period.

At any rate, the so-called “sign of Jonah” is not simply a metaphor or a unique sign that would establish the deity of Christ, but it is also a factual event! And although I agree with C.S. Lewis who held that Jonah is ahistorical, nevertheless, I believe that the sign of Jonah, as a type, represents the literal, actual death of its antitype: the Messiah! We know that Jonah did not survive. The Book of Jonah 2:2-6 explicitly says that Jonah, after being hurled into the sea, cried out to God “from the depth of Sheol”:

“I called out of my distress to the Lord, And

He answered me. I called for help from the

depth of Sheol; You heard my voice. For You

threw me into the deep, Into the heart of the

seas, And the current flowed around me. All

Your breakers and waves passed over me.

So I said, ‘I have been cast out of Your

sight.’ … Water encompassed me to the

point of death. The deep flowed around me,

Seaweed was wrapped around my head. …

But You have brought up my life from the

pit, Lord my God.”

It’s important to note that the terms “pit” and “Sheol,” in the Hebrew Bible, are references to the realm of the dead (see e.g. Job 7:9; Ps. 49:14-15; 89:48). The resurrection is depicted in Jonah’s own words: “You have brought up my life from the pit, Lord my God.”

So it appears as if the sign of Jonah is also the sign of Christ’s death. Just as Tim Mackie (co-founder of the Bibleproject) explains in one of his sessions that there is a literary redundancy of the word “hurled” in the Jonah text, especially regarding its main character Jonah who is literally “hurled” into the water, I believe that Christ is similarly “hurled” into the water and eaten by a shark. Hence the symbolism of being born in a manger or a feeding trough. This, of course, is closely related to the last supper (i.e. the sacrament of the Eucharist), the idea that Jesus is literally consumed. There are also overtones of Noah's flood in this parallel (cf. Matthew 24:37), as well as of Osiris, who also drowned and whose coffin (like the Ark) floated in the sea (cf. the story of Perseus who was also cast into the sea in a wooden chest).

Another key point is that, according to the Hebrew text, Jonah's fish is not a whale but rather some kind of “great fish". Through special revelation, this appears to be a shark. And the term “swallow”——in the clause, “the Lord designated a great fish to swallow Jonah”——is a euphemism for a great fish feasting on Jonah and consequently fatally injuring him. This, of course, ties in with the idea that we die and are reborn by going under water (Immersion baptism), a symbolic ritual that is unique to Christianity! Hence why Immersion baptism is not only tied to Jonah but is also symbolic of Christ’s death, being re-enacted in the New Testament through the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist!

This study of Jonah takes us back to the origin of the Christian fish symbol, the so-called “ichthys” (ἰχθύς), which is now known as the Jesus fish. And despite the acrostic use of this word: Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, Θεοῦ Υἱός, Σωτήρ (i.e. Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour)—— nevertheless, the fish symbolism has a variety of other theological overtones in the New Testament, such as the Feeding of the 5,000 with 2 fishes and 5 loaves, as well as the Feeding of the 4,000 with seven loaves of bread and a few small fish, not to mention that Jesus calls his disciples "fishers of men." That is precisely why Immersion baptism in the early church signified a parallel between fish and converts (i.e. born again Christians). The early Christian theologian Tertullian explained it thusly:

“we, little fishes, after the image of our

Ichthys, Jesus Christ, are born in the water."

Study the Bible with the “Eli of Kittim Bible Exegesis Group” (on Facebook)

If you're interested in Bible exegesis, Biblical languages and interpretation, then join the #Eli_of_Kittim_Bible_Exegesis_Group on Facebook.

The Priority of the Epistles

Eli Kittim

Principles of Interpretation

Using R.C. Sproul’s hermeneutical guidelines from his book, Knowing Scripture, I will argue that there is a chronological discrepancy in the New Testament (NT) in which the timeline of Jesus’ life in the gospels is not the same as the one mentioned in the epistles. Specifically, the epistles contradict the gospels regarding the timeline of Christ’s birth, death, and resurrection by placing it in eschatological categories. So I will argue that, based on principles of interpretation, priority must be given to the epistles. According to R.C. Sproul, exegetes must interpret the implicit by the explicit and the narrative by the didactic. In practical terms, the NT epistles and other more explicit and didactic portions of Scripture must clarify the implicit meaning and significance of the gospel literature. Accordingly, I will argue that the epistles are the primary keys to unlocking the future timeline of Christ’s only visitation. According to R.C. Sproul’s hermeneutical guidelines, the gospels must be interpreted by the epistles.

“The Historical Narrative Must be

Interpreted by the Didactic”

— R.C. Sproul

Case in point. The epistles——which are the clearest teachings of the NT——apparently contradict the gospels regarding the timeline of Christ’s birth, death, and resurrection by placing it in eschatological categories. The epistolary authors deviate from the gospel writers in their understanding of the overall importance of eschatology in the chronology of Jesus. For them, Scripture comprises revelations and “prophetic writings” (see Rom. 16:25-26; 2 Pet. 1:19-21; Rev. 22:18-19)! For example, according to the NT epistles, Jesus 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 Hebrews 1:2 says that the physical Son speaks to humanity in the “last days,” 1 Pet. 1:20 (NJB) clearly sets forth the eschatological timing of Christ’s initial appearance “at the final point of time.” Given that the epistles are the more didactic portions of Scripture, and that the gospel narratives are not considered historical by many scholars, it would therefore seem hermeneutically legitimate to interpret the narrative by the didactic!

The Explicit & the Implicit

“The implicit is to be interpreted in light of

the explicit. Not the other way around”

— R.C. Sproul

But we have it completely backwards. For centuries, we’ve tried to interpret the explicit (epistles) in light of the implicit (gospels). And yet, it’s the didactic portions of Scripture that teach with clear and explicit statements. For example, in terms of Jesus’ appearance and death, Hebrews 9:26 (KJV) says directly and clearly, “once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” This is an explicit statement that not only shows the time of his coming (ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων) but also the purpose of his appearance, namely, to sacrifice himself in order to put away sin (εἰς ἀθέτησιν ⸀ἁμαρτίας διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ). In both the Greek and English versions, the statement is very clear. Jesus’ death takes place at the consummation of the ages. We find a parallel passage in 1 Peter 1:20 (ASV):

“[Jesus] was foreknown indeed before

the foundation of the world, but was

manifested at the end of the times.”

These are straightforward, clear, and explicit teachings. To subordinate these explicit epistolary teachings of Scripture and to argue on the basis of implications drawn from the more obscure gospel narratives is a misuse of the Scripture. If we insist on the canonical context of the Bible, namely, that each book in the Old Testament (OT) & the NT is related to all the other books and is inspired by the Holy Spirit, then we have to be careful not to set these two divisions——namely, the gospels and the epistles——in opposition. The problem arises when we deduce certain things from the gospels, which then bring us into direct conflict with something that the Scripture teaches in the epistles very clearly and very plainly.

“Our implications must always be measured

by and made subordinate to what the

Scriptures explicitly teach” — R.C. Sproul

The Totality of Scripture

“Every particular passage of Scripture must

be measured and interpreted against the

whole of Scripture” — R.C. Sproul

Let’s look at the gospel narratives and the didactic literature of the epistles and compare them. The didactic literature clearly demonstrates that the NT is an Apocalypse, whereas the gospels claim to be historical eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ Life, Death, and Resurrection. The first problem is that Bible scholars don’t consider the gospels as historical accounts, but rather view them as theological documents. The second problem is that the epistles seemingly contradict the gospels with regard to the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ by placing them in eschatological categories.

Now, let’s take the principle that “every particular passage of Scripture must be measured and interpreted against the whole of Scripture” and apply it to the Messianic timeline. And let’s ask the question: according to Scripture, does the Messiah come to earth during the time of antiquity or in the end times? In fact, most of the evidence with regard to the Messianic timeline in both the OT & NT is consistent with the epistles rather than with the gospels. For example, Zephaniah 1:7-8 declares that the Lord’s sacrifice will occur during “the day of the Lord” (not in antiquity; cf. Zeph. 1:14-18). Isaiah 2:19 says that people will hide in the caves of rocks when “the Lord … arises to terrify the earth.” In other words, the Lord’s resurrection is not separate from but contemporaneous with judgement day (cf. Rev. 6:15-17)! Similarly, Daniel 12:1 puts the resurrection of the anointed prince just prior to the great tribulation. This can be proved with detailed exegesis from the Greek text. For instance, the Septuagint (LXX Daniel 12:1) says παρελεύσεται, which means to “pass away,” while the Theodotion (Daniel 12:1) has ἀναστήσεται, meaning a bodily resurrection in the end-times. In the following verse (Daniel 12:2), the plural form of the exact same word (ἀναστήσονται) is used to describe the general resurrection of the dead! In other words, if the exact same word means resurrection in Daniel 12:2, then it must also necessarily mean resurrection in Daniel 12:1! Acts 3:20-21 similarly says that Christ will not be sent to earth until the consummation of the ages. Even Luke 17:30 claims that the Son of man has not yet been revealed! In fact, 1 Corinthians 15:22-24 tells us explicitly that Christ will be resurrected in the end-times (an idea also entertained by James Dunn):

“For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all

will be made alive. But each in his own

order: Christ the first fruits, after that those

who are Christ’s at His coming, then comes

the end.”

What is more, Revelation 12:5 makes it clear that the messiah is born in the end times as a contemporary of the last world empire, which is depicted as a seven-headed dragon with ten horns (cf. Rev. 17:9-14). In fact, chapter 12 & verse 5 describes the birth of the messiah, & the immediate next verse talks about the great tribulation. Likewise, Galatians 4:4 says that Jesus will be born during the consummation of the ages, expressed by the apocalyptic phrase τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, which is defined in Ephesians 1:10 as the end of the world! And Hebrews 9:26 (KJV) says EXPLICITLY——categorically and unequivocally——that Jesus will die for the sins of mankind “once in the end of the world” (ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων)! Rev 19:10 also informs us that the TESTIMONY to Jesus is prophetic (not historical). Read Acts 10:40-41 where we are told that Jesus’ resurrection was based on visions because it was only visible “to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God.” First Peter 1:10-11 also says that the NT prophets “predicted the sufferings of the Messiah” in advance (cf. Isa 46:10)!

Biographizing the Eschaton: The Proleptic Eschatology of the Gospels

Eli Kittim

The canonical epistles strongly indicate that the narratives concerning the revelation of Jesus in the New Testament (NT) gospel literature are proleptic accounts. That is to say, the NT gospels represent the future life of Jesus as if presently accomplished. The term “prolepsis,” here, refers to the anachronistic representation of Jesus’ generation as if existing before its actual historical time. Simply put, the gospels are written before the fact. They are conveyed from a theological angle by way of a proleptic narrative, a means of biographizing the eschaton as if presently accomplished. In other words, these are accounts about events that haven’t happened yet, which are nevertheless narrated as if they have already occurred.

By contrast, the epistles demonstrate that these events will occur at the end of the age. This argument is primarily founded on the authority of the Greek NT Epistles, which affirm the centrality of the future in Christ’s only visitation! In the epistolary literature, the multiple time-references to Christ being “revealed at the end of the ages” (1 Pet. 1.20; cf. Heb. 9.26b) are clearly set in the future, including his birth, death, and resurrection (see Gal. 4.4; Eph. 1.9-10; Rev 12.5). It is as though NT history is written in advance (cf. Isa. 46.10)!

The Proleptic versus the Prophesied Jesus

The historical view is extremely problematic, involving nothing less than a proleptic interpretation of Jesus. It gives rise to numerous chronological discrepancies that cannot be easily reconciled with eschatological contexts of critical importance. What is even more troubling is that it evidently contradicts many explicit passages from both the Old and New Testaments regarding an earthly, end-time Messiah and uses bizarre gaps and anachronistic juxtapositions in chronology in order to make heterogeneous passages appear homogeneous (e.g. Job 19.25; Isa. 2.19; Dan. 12.1—2; Zeph. 1.8—9, 15—18; Zech. 12.9—10; Lk. 17.30; Acts 2.17—21; 2 Thess. 2.1—3, 7—8; Heb. 1.1—2; 9.26; 1 Pet. 1.20; Rev 12.5, 7—10).

Intertextuality in the Gospels

The canonical gospel accounts add another level of intertextual reference to the Old Testament (OT). Almost every event in Jesus’ life is borrowed from the OT and reworked as if it’s a new event. This is called “intertextuality,” meaning a heavy dependence of the NT 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. 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 Ps. 69.21. The virgin birth comes from a Septuagint translation of Isa. 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.

There is only One Coming, not Two

The belief in the two comings of Christ equally contradicts a number of NT passages (e.g. 1 Cor. 15.22—26, 54—55; 2 Tim. 2.16—18; Rev 19.10; 22.7, 10, 18—19), not to mention those of the OT that do not separate the Messiah’s initial coming from his reign (e.g. Isa. 9.6—7; 61.1—2). Rather than viewing them as two separate and distinguishable historical events, Scripture sets forth a single coming and does not make that distinction (see Lk. 1.31—33). Indeed, each time the “redeeming work” of Messiah is mentioned, it is almost invariably followed or preceded by some kind of reference to judgment (e.g. “day of vengeance”), which signifies the commencement of his reign on earth (see Isa. 63.4). In 2 Thess 2, the author implores us not to be deceived by any rumors claiming that the Lord has already appeared: “to the effect that the day of the Lord is already here” (v. 2; cf. v. 1). His disclaimer insists that these conventions are divisive in view of the fact that they profess to be Biblically based, “as though from us” (v. 2), even though this is not the official message of Scripture.

Why Does the New Testament Refer to Christ’s Future Coming as a “Revelation”?

Why do the NT authors refer to Christ’s future coming as a “revelation”? The actual Greek word used is ἀποκάλυψις (apokalupsis). The English word apocalypse comes from the Greek word apokalupsis, which means “revelation.” The term revelation indicates the disclosure of something that was previously unknown. Thus, according to the meaning of the term revelation, no one knows the mystery or secret prior to its disclosure. Therefore, we cannot use the biblical term “revelation” to imply that something previously known is made known a second time. That’s not what the Greek term apokalupsis means. If it was previously revealed, then it cannot be revealed again. It’s only a revelation if it is still unknown. Thus, the word “revelation” necessarily implies a first time disclosure or an initial unveiling, appearing, or manifestation. It means that something that was previously unknown and/or unseen has finally been revealed and/or manifested. Thus, a revelation by default means “a first-time” occurrence. In other words, it’s an event that is happening for the very first time. By definition, a “revelation” is never disclosed twice.

Accordingly, the NT verses, which refer to the future revelation of Christ, never mention a second coming, a coming back, or a return, as is commonly thought. See the following verses:

1 Cor. 1.7-8; 4.5; 15.23; Phil. 1.6; 2.16; Col. 3.4; 2 Thess. 1.7; 1.10; 2.1-2; 1 Tim. 6.14; Titus 2.13; Jas. 5.7; 1 Pet. 1.13; 1 Jn. 2.28; Rev 1.1; 22.20.

In the aforementioned verses, a second coming is nowhere indicated. Conversely, Jesus’ Coming is variously referred to as an appearance, a manifestation, or a “revelation” in the last days, which seems to imply an initial coming, a first coming, and the only coming. Surprisingly, it’s not referred to as a return, a coming back, or a second coming. As N.T. Wright correctly points out, the eschatological references to Jesus in the New Testament don’t mention a second coming but rather a future appearance or manifestation. Not only do the NT writers refrain from calling Jesus’ future visitation “a second coming,” but, conversely, they further indicate that this is his first and only advent, a momentous event that will occur hapax (“once for all”) “in the end of the world” (Heb. 9.26 KJV), or “at the final point of time” (1 Peter 1.20 NJB). None of the NT authors refer to the future visitation of Christ as a second coming. It’s as though these communities expected Jesus to appear for the first time in the end of the world! The takeaway is that the NT is an apocalypse. It’s not a history.