Biblicallanguages - Tumblr Posts

Why is it that both Jesus and Satan are called the “Morningstar”?

By Author Eli Kittim

In his essay, “Why is Jesus Called the ‘Morning Star’?”, author Randy Alcorn explains:

the name Morning Star is not tainted—it is

Satan who is tainted. Obviously this is the

case, or Morning Star wouldn't be used of

Christ.

Isaiah 14.12 uses the Hebrew term הֵילֵ֣ל (helel), meaning “a shining one,” to describe the great fall from heaven (Lk 10.18) of an angel who is called “ben shachar” (son of dawn or son of the morning), who is said to have weakened the nations (cf. Ezek. 28.13-17). In Christianity, this is considered to be a reference to Satan, the morning star, who at his creation possessed both great virtue and beauty but, due to pride (or ego), subsequently rebelled against God. The Septuagint (aka LXX), an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, renders Isa. 14.12 as follows:

πῶς ἐξέπεσεν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὁ

ἑωσφόρος ὁ πρωΐ ἀνατέλλων;

The Septuagint renders the Hebrew helel (Morningstar/Venus) as ἑωσφόρος (from ἕως [“dawn”] +‎ φόρος [“bearing” or “carrying”] cf. 1 Sam. 30.17; Job 3.9; Ps. 110.3 LXX). This is obviously a reference to Satan’s original status, prior to his rebellion, as “the anointed cherub” (Ezek. 28.14 KJV). Moreover, Job 38.7 suggests that angels were created before the Big Bang and were actually present to celebrate God’s creation of the universe. In fact, all the angels prior to the creation of the world were called “Morningstars” (Job 38.4-7):

Where wast thou when I laid the

foundations of the earth? . . . When the

morning stars sang together, and

all the sons of God shouted for joy . . .

Quite appropriately, the Septuagint (Job 38.7) calls these angels (ἄγγελοί) stars (ἄστρα). Interestingly enough, Jesus Christ also calls himself ὁ ἀστὴρ ὁ λαμπρός ὁ πρωϊνός (the bright and morning star) in Rev. 22.16. And in Rev. 2.28 Jesus promises to give the overcomers τὸν ἀστέρα τὸν πρωϊνόν (“the morning star”). What is more, Second Peter 1.19 describes regeneration or rebirth in Christ as a process in which “the morning star rises in your hearts” (NKJV). In this verse, the term Morningstar is referring to Jesus as the φωσφόρος (light-bringing; cf. John 1.4; 8.12)!

Therefore, by definition, the term Morningstar refers to a state of purity and holiness. So, it can no longer apply to Satan except insofar as it refers to his original status at the time of creation. Hence why the term Morningstar is used in the Bible as a reference to both Satan and Christ.

But there is a twist in the tale. When the King James Version of 1611 translated the Hebrew term hêylêl (Morningstar) into English, instead of using the Hebrew text or the Greek Septuagint, it used the Vulgate, a Latin translation of the Bible. However, in Latin, the term Morningstar (Venus) is “Lucifer.” That’s how the word Lucifer entered our Bible and became part of Christian folklore. But because Jesus is also called “the bright Morning Star,” in Revelation 22.16, this Latin translation introduced a semantic confusion. Given that the term “Lucifer” is inextricably linked with Satan, this Latin version of Morningstar corrupted the original meaning of the term. That’s why many modern Bible versions have gone back to using the original Hebrew term “Morningstar” or “daystar” as opposed to the Latin-based “Lucifer.” The reason is obvious. The pejorative term Lucifer can neither technically refer to Jesus nor to Satan, who is no longer a morning star!

What is Predestination?

By Bible Researcher, Eli Kittim

——-

Introduction

Predestination is the doctrine that all events in the universe have been willed by God (i.e. fatalism). It is a form of theological determinism, which presupposes that all history is pre-ordained or predestined to occur. It is based on the absolute sovereignty of God (aka omnipotence). However, there seems to be a paradox in which God’s will appears to be incompatible with human free-will.

The concept of predestination is found only several times in the Bible. It is, however, a very popular doctrine as it is commonly held by many different churches and denominations. But it’s also the seven-headed dragon of soteriology because of its forbidding controversy, which arises when we ask the question, “on what basis does God make his choice?” Not to mention, how do you tell people God loves them and that Jesus died for you?

If we study both the Old and New Testaments, especially in the original Biblical languages, we will come to realize that predestination doesn’t seem to be based on God’s sovereignty but rather on his “foreknowledge.” This is the *Prescience* view of Predestination, namely, that the decision of salvation and/or condemnation is ultimately based on an individual’s free choice!

——-

Free Will

John MacArthur argues that the salvation “offer is always unlimited, otherwise why would we be told to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature?” He went on to say, “The offer is always unlimited or man couldn’t be condemned for rejecting it.”

Let’s take a look at the Old Testament. Isaiah 65.12 (ESV) employs the Hebrew term וּמָנִ֨יתִי (ū·mā·nî·ṯî) to mean “I will destine,” which is derived from the word מָנָה (manah) and means to “appoint” or “reckon.” But on what basis does God make his choice of predestination to damnation (aka the doctrine of reprobation)? God says:

I will destine [or predestine] you to the

sword, and all of you shall bow down to the

slaughter, because, when I called, you did

not answer; when I spoke, you did not listen,

but you did what was evil in my eyes and

chose what I did not delight in.

It’s important to note that those who are condemned to damnation are predestined to go there because when God called them, they didn’t respond to his call. When God tried to enlighten them, they “did not listen,“ but instead “did what was evil” in his sight. In fact, they did what God disapproved of! That’s a far cry from claiming, as the Calvinists do, that God willed it all along. Notice that God’s predestination for the reprobates is not based on his will for them not to be saved, but rather because they themselves had sinned. This is an explicit textual reference which indicates that it was something God “did not delight in.” So, it’s not as if God predestined reprobates to hell based on his sovereign will, as Calvinism would have us believe, but rather because they themselves chose to “forsake the LORD” (Isa. 65.11).

The New Testament offers a similar explanation of God’s official verdict pertaining to the doctrine of reprobation, namely, that condemnation depends on human will, not on God’s will. John 3.16 (NIV) reads:

For God so loved the world that he gave his

one and only Son, that whoever believes in

him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Notice, it doesn’t say that only a limited few can believe and be saved by Jesus. Rather, it says “whoever believes in him [ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν] shall not perish but have eternal life.” That is, anyone who believes in Jesus will not be condemned but will be saved, and will therefore be reckoned as one of the elect. Verse 17 says:

For God did not send his Son into the world

to condemn the world, but to save the world

through him.

Once again, there’s a clear distinction between the individual and the world as a whole, as well as a contrast between condemning and saving the world, and we are told that the Son was sent to save the entire world. The next verse (v. 18) explains that condemnation itself ultimately lies not with God but with our own personal choices and decisions. “Whoever does not believe stands condemned already” (i.e. is predestined to condemnation):

Whoever believes in him is not condemned,

but whoever does not believe stands

condemned already because they have not

believed in the name of God’s one and only

Son.

Verse 19 puts this dilemma in its proper perspective and gives us the judicial verdict, as it were, that we are ultimately responsible for our actions:

This is the verdict: Light has come into the

world, but people loved darkness instead of

light because their deeds were evil.

This conclusion can be easily illustrated. In Rev. 3.20 (KJV), does Christ imply that man’s free will doesn’t really matter at all? Does he say?:

Behold, I stand at the door. Don’t worry, I

won’t bother knocking on the door. Your

your response is unnecessary. You don’t

even have to open the door. I will break it

down and force my way inside.

Is that what he says? No. He says:

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if

any man hear my voice, and open the door,

I will come in to him, and will sup with him,

and he with me.

God respects our free will. Notice the condition that is set before us: someone has to open the door, which is equivalent to granting Christ permission to come in and become a part of them. But the choice ultimately rests with us, not with God. Unless we say yes, nothing happens. We must answer the call (cf. Isa. 65.12) and respond in the affirmative, just as Mary did in the gospel of Luke (1.38 NASB):

‘may it be done to me according to your

word.’

Similarly, Mt. 22.14 clearly shows that those that are not chosen are nevertheless “called”:

‘For many are called, but few are chosen.’

What is more, according to the Biblical text, anyone can become a member of God’s family. Just because God already “foreknows” who will accept and who will reject his invitation doesn’t mean that people are held unaccountable. For Christ doesn’t only take away the sin of the elect, but of the entire world (Jn 1.29 NKJV):

Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away

the sin of the world!

First John 2.2 reads:

And He Himself is the propitiation for our

sins, and not for ours only but also for the

whole world.

In a similar fashion, Rev 22.17 (KJ) says:

Come. And let him that is athirst come. And

whosoever will, let him take the water of life

freely [δωρεάν].

That doesn’t sound to me like a “predestined” election in which only a select few will receive the water of life, but rather a proclamation that salvation is “freely” (δωρεάν) offered to anyone who desires it. Moreover, in 2 Pet. 3.9 (ESV), we are told that “The Lord” doesn’t want to condemn anyone at all:

[he’s] not wishing that any should perish,

but that all should reach repentance.

Is this biblical reference compatible with Calvin’s views? Definitely not! Calvin suggests that God is the author of sin and the only one who ultimately decides on who will repent and who will perish.

Unlimited Atonement

There seems to be a comparison and contrast between the “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” (in Rom. 9.22), and the “vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory” (v. 23). But we cannot jump to any conclusions because the text doesn’t explicitly say that both classes of people are predestined either to election or condemnation by the sovereign will of God. Furthermore, the terms that are used, here, are not the same as the ones used for predestination elsewhere in the Bible. For example, the Greek term often used for “predestination” is προορίζω or proorizó (cf. Acts 4.28; Rom. 1.4; 8.29; Eph. 1.5, 11). However, the Greek word used in Rom. 9.22 is καταρτίζω (katartizó), which means to complete or prepare (not predestine). It could simply refer to the remainder of the population that will miss out on salvation. it doesn’t necessarily follow that these are predestined (κατηρτισμένα) to destruction.

The next verse employs the term προητοίμασεν (prepared) to refer to the elect, or the “vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory.” But caution is advised. The term used is proētoimasen (prepared), not proorizó (predestined). This expression can refer to that portion of the population that God adopted into his family and nourished into maturity. The text is unclear as to whether the term “prepared” suggests that God coerced them into “election” by overriding their free will, while they were kicking and screaming. Besides, their personal choice may have been *foreknown* and acknowledged from the foundation of the world. It still doesn’t prove predestination, as defined by Augustine and Calvin.

If, in fact, God predestined some to salvation and some to perdition, so that Jesus didn’t die for all people but only for a limited few, then it wouldn’t make any sense for the New Testament to say that Christ “gave himself a ransom for all.” Nor would God contradict himself by saying that “he desires everyone to be saved.” First Timothy 2.3-6 (NRSV) reads:

This is right and is acceptable in the sight of

God our Savior, who desires everyone to be

saved and to come to the knowledge of the

truth. For there is one God; there is also one

mediator between God and humankind,

Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave

himself a ransom for all [not for some].

Notice that Christ’s atonement potentially covers even sinners who are not yet part of the “elect.” In the following verse, observe what the text says. There were apostates who denied “the Lord who bought them.” This means that Christ’s atonement is not “limited”; it covers them, as well. Second Peter 2.1 (NKJV) reads:

But there were also false prophets among

the people, even as there will be false

teachers among you, who will secretly bring

in destructive heresies, even denying the

Lord who bought them, and bring on

themselves swift destruction.

Prescience (Foreknowledge)

The Greek term that is typically used for predestination is also used in Rom. 1.4 (ESV), namely, the term ὁρισθέντος (from ὁρίζω), which carries the meaning of “determining beforehand,” “appointing,” or “designating.” However, notice that, here, this term is translated as “declared”:

and was declared to be the Son of God in

power according to the Spirit of holiness by

his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ

our Lord.

But was Jesus Christ predestined to be the Son of God? No. He already was the Son of God. Nevertheless, what he would perform in the future was “declared” beforehand, or announced in advance. This verse, then, demonstrates that the word “foreknown” would be a more accurate term than “predestined”!

Similarly, Rom. 8.29 (ESV) tells us that those he “foreknew” (προέγνω), the same God προώρισεν (from προορίζω), that is, foreordained, predetermined, or pre-appointed beforehand. And Rom. 8.30 goes on to say that those he προώρισεν (predetermined) were the same that God also called, justified, and glorified. Verse 29 says:

For those whom he foreknew he also

predestined to be conformed to the image

of his Son.

Notice that God’s *foreknowledge* temporally precedes predestination. If God actually chose to save some and not to save others before the foundation of the world, then his foreknowledge would be irrelevant. But since it is on this basis that God predestines, it doesn’t sound as if predestination is chosen on the basis of God’s sovereign will.

Conclusion

Acts 4.28 does say that God’s will προώρισεν (predetermined beforehand) what will happen. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that everything that has occurred in human history is based on the will of God (i.e. fatalism). And we don’t know to what extent God influences reality. So, we cannot jump to any conclusions that God is behind everything that happens. Why? Because with absolute responsibility comes absolute blame. Is God responsible for murder, or rape, or genocide? I think not! So, we are on safer ground if we acknowledge that God “foreknew” what would happen and declared it beforehand (cf. Isa. 46.10). This notion would be far more consistent with the Bible than placing the full blame for everything that has ever occurred in the world on God. This seems to be the Achilles' heel of Calvinism.

Ephesians 1.5 is another controversial verse. The Greek term used is προορίσας (from προορίζω), meaning “foreordain,” “predetermine,” or “pre-approve beforehand.” The verse reads:

he predestined us for adoption to himself as

sons through Jesus Christ, according to the

purpose of his will.

But what exactly does the term “will” mean, here? Does it refer to God’s choice to save only a limited few and no one else, or to his overall plan of salvation that includes all people? It seems as if God saved those who answered his invitation, as it were, which would explain why he has “foreknown” them and predestined them for glory. I think that the latter explanation seems far more compatible with the Bible by a preponderance of the evidence.

Finally, let’s look at Ephesians 1.11. The Greek term that is used is προορισθέντες (from proorizó), meaning to “predetermine” or “foreordain beforehand.” The verse says that we have been predestined according to his purpose. Granted, it does say that all things work according to God’s will. However, to be fair, we don’t know exactly how that works, and so we can’t offer premature assumptions and presuppositions, especially when they contradict other passages in the Bible.

It would be utterly foolish to suppose that the God of the universe does not affect, influence, or sustain his creation. The fact that he created the universe obviously implies that he had a purpose for it. So, I’m not discounting the notion that all things are, in a certain sense, guided by his ultimate purpose. However, I take issue with those thinkers who take it to the extreme and portray the deity as an authoritarian and capricious God who bypasses the principles of truth and wisdom and intervenes by forcibly coercing man's free will. That type of God is inconsistent with the infinitely wise, holy, true, and good God of the Bible. That is precisely why “Arminius taught that Calvinist predestination and unconditional election made God the author of evil” (Wiki)!

——-

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!

—

What Are the Biblical Grounds for Divorce?

The inspiration for this paper came from a Facebook “Eli_of_Kittim_Bible_Exegesis_Group” member.

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🔎

——-

Marriage: When One Spouse is an Unbeliever

In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul discusses some cases about marriage. He explains that marriage is a remedy against fornication; that it is better to marry than to burn with lust (vv. 1-9). If we focus specifically on 1 Cor. 7.15, Paul is talking about married partners, where one is a believer and the other is not, and is giving biblical instructions as to how to handle that particular situation. Notice that verses 10-11 (NRSV) represent a *direct command* from God “that the wife should not separate from her husband … and that the husband should not divorce his wife.” Here, Paul makes it absolutely clear that the mere notion that one’s partner is an unbeliever (a heathen) is not yet ground for divorce!

By contrast, verses 12-13, which apply to verse 15, are offered “by way of concession, not of command” (cf. v. 6):

if any believer has a wife who is an

unbeliever, and she consents to live with

him, he should not divorce her. And if any

woman has a husband who is an unbeliever,

and he consents to live with her, she should

not divorce him.

In other words, this is not based on a command from God but rather on Paul’s advice for a suitable compromise. Paul asserts that if the unbelieving partner agrees to stay married, the believing partner has no legitimate right to divorce them. Why? Because the believer edifies and influences the unbeliever towards holiness (v. 14).

However, in 1 Cor. 7.15 there’s an exception. If the unbeliever doesn’t wish to stay married, the believing partner (the Christian) is under no obligation. He/she may get a divorce. For God called us to peace, not quarrels & fights. The “brother” (ἀδελφὸς) or “sister” (ἀδελφὴ) in verse 15 are obvious references to a “brother” or “sister” in the faith. It’s also clear from verse 12 that the so-called “brother” refers to the Christian *believer,* not to the unbeliever. So when Paul says, “in such a case the brother or sister is not bound” (οὐ δεδούλωται), he’s referring to the Christian husband or wife who is under no obligation to continue in this marriage (SBLGNT):

εἰ δὲ ὁ ἄπιστος χωρίζεται, χωριζέσθω · οὐ

δεδούλωται ὁ ἀδελφὸς ἢ ἡ ἀδελφὴ ἐν τοῖς

τοιούτοις, ἐν δὲ εἰρήνῃ κέκληκεν ἡμᾶς ὁ

θεός.

Translation (v. 15):

But if the unbelieving partner separates, let

it be so; in such a case the brother or sister

is not bound. It is to peace that God has

called you.

The term δεδούλωται (dedoulōtai) means “enslaved” or “under bondage.” It’s a verb. Specifically, it’s a perfect indicative middle or passive 3rd person singular. Strong's 1402: it comes from doulos; to enslave (douloó).

Returning to 1 Cor. 7.15, remember that the Pauline recommendation that’s offered with regard to marriage is “by way of concession, not of command” (cf. v. 6, 12). In other words, the believing partner can legally divorce if the unbelieving partner doesn’t want to stay married, but this is not based on the Lord’s command but rather on Paul’s advice! That is to say, you can still try to salvage your marriage, seek reconciliation, and try to work things out, provided both parties agree. But if they don’t, and the unbelieving partner doesn’t want to remain married, the Christian partner is allowed to divorce them. That’s essentially what Paul is saying in 1 Cor. 7.15!

We can speculate as to what this divorce entails, but Paul doesn’t actually spell it out for us. It can involve a number of issues. Some commentators think that the verse implies that the unbelieving party seeks a divorce on account of religion, and in hatred to it, and that they will not live with the believer unless Christ is denied. In that case, Paul exhorts us to let them depart.

Although that can certainly be one of the reasons for the divorce, there can be many others. The married life can be made intolerable if the unbeliever, for example, urges the believer to join in such acts as conscience cannot approve. Then there can be grounds for divorce.

Paul doesn’t tell us but leaves the question open because it applies to so many different situations and circumstances. One thing is certain. If one’s spouse is not a believer and wants a divorce, you are not under any obligation to remain married. But if the unbelieving partner wants to remain married, you are not allowed to divorce them. According to God, there’s only one ground for divorce, namely, infidelity. That’s the basic New Testament message concerning marriage!

——-

Remarriage

Later on in the chapter, another advice (v. 25) is given regarding remarriage, specifically the widow’s right to remarry (v. 39). Let’s take a closer look at the Greek text.

In 1 Cor. 7.39, the verb δέδεται is used, which comes from the verb δέω, meaning “to bind” or “to tie.” There’s also an alternative form of δέω derived from Ancient Greek, namely, δέννω ‎(dénnō)! And, of course, from this verb comes the verb δέδεται (1 Cor 7:39). Thus, *δέδεται* essentially means that someone or something “is bound” or “is chained.” The term δέδεται is a verb, perfect indicative middle or passive - 3rd person plural, with a ται ending! 1 Cor. 7.39 reads:

Γυνὴ δέδεται ἐφ’ ὅσον χρόνον ζῇ ὁ ἀνὴρ

αὐτῆς· ἐὰν δὲ κοιμηθῇ ὁ ἀνήρ, ἐλευθέρα

ἐστὶν ᾧ θέλει γαμηθῆναι, μόνον ἐν κυρίῳ ·

Translation:

A wife is bound as long as her husband

lives. But if the husband dies, she is free to

marry anyone she wishes, only in the Lord.

So, a wife is allowed to remarry (a Christian) if her husband passes away.

——-

Conclusion

This is simply a brief study of 1 Cor. 7. Rather than drawing conclusions from a few verses, a further study is needed to see how the entire New Testament (in canonical context) deals with the issue of marriage. In other words, the exegesis might be correct, but there may be additional elements that are mentioned elsewhere that change the overall meaning of the text. We should never build a theology based on one or two verses. That’s why we need a wider study (in canonical context) in order to verify the exegesis!

——-

Who Is Eli Kittim & What Does He Believe?

By Award-Winning Author Eli Kittim 🎓

——-

Why Do I Write Under the Pseudonym of Eli of Kittim?

For the record, “Eli of Kittim” is my pen name, not my real name. I chose this name because it points directly to Jesus Christ himself. The name “Eli of Kittim” is a cryptic reference to Jesus, and it really means, “The God of Greece.” The idea that the Messiah’s name is Eli is mentioned in many passages of the Old and New Testaments. For instance, Matthew 27.46 defines the name “Eli” as God. It reads: “Eli, Eli ... that is, My God, my God.” Similarly, Daniel 12.1 refers to “the great [messianic] prince” named, “Michael” (Mika-el). Michael means “Who is like God?” But if you break-up the word, the prefix “Mika” means “who is like,” while “el,” the suffix, refers to God himself. The same holds in Matthew 1.23 where the author informs us that Jesus’ name is “Emmanuel," which means, "God is with us." Once again, the prefix is based on the root (im) עִם, which means “with,” while the root-suffix (el) אֵל means “God” (cf. Isaiah 7.14). This is probably why God says in Malachi 4.5 (DRB), “Behold I will send you Elias the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.” So, the common denominator in all these Biblical verses is that the Messiah is called Eli.

Moreover, Kittim is a repeated Old Testament Biblical name that represents the island of Cyprus, which was inhabited by Greeks since ancient times, and thus represents the Greeks. In Genesis 10.4 we are told that the Kittim are among the sons of Javan (Yavan), meaning Greece (see Josephus “Antiquities” I, 6). Even the War Scroll, found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, foretells the end-time battle that will take place between Belial and the King of the Kittim. This is all in my book, chapter 9. So, accordingly, Eli of Kittim roughly means, “The God of Greece.” That’s the name’s cryptic significance. And since the name Eli of Kittim represents the main argument of my book, I use it as my pen name!

——-

Bio

I’ve been involved in the study of serious Bible scholarship for over 30 years. I’m what you might call a Bible maven! I hold an MA degree in psychology from the New School for Social Research in New York City, and I’m also a graduate of the John W. Rawlings School of Divinity and of the Koinonia (Bible) Institute. I’ve also studied Biblical criticism at both Queens College and The New School (Eugene Lang). I’m fluent in Koine Greek, and I’m also a native Greek speaker. I also read Biblical Hebrew. I read the New Testament in the original languages. Currently, I’m a Bible researcher, published writer, and an award-winning Goodreads book-author. My book is called “The Little Book of Revelation: The First Coming of Jesus at the End of Days.” I advise all my readers to also read my *blog* because it furnishes *additional information* that usually answers most of their FAQs. I highly recommend that you read at least a few *related-articles* which flesh out certain ideas that are sometimes sparely developed in the book. It acts as a companion study-guide to “The Little Book of Revelation.” See Tumblr: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/

eli-kittim.tumblr.com

Eli of Kittim

Eli Kittim is a Biblical Researcher and an Award-Winning Author of the Christian-Nonfiction Book,...

I have also contributed academic articles to numerous journals and magazines, such as “Rapture Ready,” the “Journal of Higher Criticism,” “The American Journal of Psychoanalysis,” and the “Aegean Review” (which has published works by Jorge Luis Borges, Lawrence Durrell, Truman Capote, Alice Bloom), among others.

——-

Rethinking Christianity: An Einsteinian Revolution of Theology

Just like Paul’s doctrine——which “is not of human origin; for … [he] did not receive it from a human source, … but … [he] received it through a revelation” (Gal. 1.11-12)——my doctrine was received in the exact same way! Mine is an Einsteinian revolution of theology. No one will do theology the same. I made 2 electrifying discoveries that turn historical Christianity on its head:

A) What if the crucifixion of Christ is a

future event?

B) What if Christ is Greek?

Both of these concepts were communicated to me via special revelation! Hermeneutically speaking, they involve an absolutely groundbreaking paradigm shift! Mine is the only view that appropriately combines the end-time messianic expectations of the Jews with Christian scripture! And most of the Biblical data, both academic and otherwise, actually supports my conclusions. The fact that it’s new doesn’t mean it’s not true. This new hermeneutic is worthy of serious consideration. No one has ever said that before. This can only be revealed by the spirit!

Arthur Schopenhauer once wrote:

All truth goes through three stages:

At first it is ridiculed.

In the second, it is violently rejected

In the third, it is accepted as self-evident.

I would suggest that readers do their due diligence by investigating my extensive writings in order to examine what my view is all about and on what grounds it is established.

——-

Kittim’s Systematic Theology

I have written about my systematic theology many times before, but only vis-à-vis my evidence (i.e. in trying to prove it). But I’ve never tried to clarify its foundations. In systematic theology, a theologian seeks to establish a coherent theoretical framework that connects all the diverse doctrines within a tradition, such as Bibliology, Soteriology, Eschatology, and the like. However, one of the major problems involved in such a study is the theological bias of the researcher who might “force” the data to fit the theory in an attempt to maintain coherence and consistency.

So, where does my systematic theology come from? I’m neither Protestant, nor Catholic, nor Eastern Orthodox (though I used to be Greek-Orthodox). I don’t belong to any particular church or denomination. Nor am I trying to create one. I’m rather selective, but I don’t identify with the various denominations of whose views I sometimes embrace. The reason is that——although I may agree with certain theological positions, nevertheless——I do not necessarily agree with their overall systems.

Unlike most other systematic theologies that are based on probabilities and guesswork, the starting point of my system is based on “special revelation”! This revelation, or rather these revelations (for I’ve had a number of them through the years) do not add any new content to the canon of scripture, but they do clarify it, especially in terms of chronology or the timing and sequence of certain prophetic events. So they don’t add anything new to the Biblical canon per se. The only thing they do change is *our interpretation* of the text. Incidentally, this revelation has been multiply-attested and unanimously confirmed by innumerable people. Due to time constraints, I can’t go into all the details. Suffice it to say that a great multitude of people have received the exact same revelation! Essentially, this is my spiritual navigation system. But I never force it on the text. I always approach the text with impartiality in order to “test the spirits,” as it were. The last thing I want to do is to engage in confirmation bias.

And my views fit all the evidence. For example, I agree with Biblical scholarship that most of the Old Testament is not historical. I fully agree that many of the Patriarchs did not exist. I concur that the same holds true for the New Testament, but not to the same degree. What is more, I’m in full agreement that the gospels are anonymously written, and that they’re nonhistorical accounts that contain many legendary elements. I further concur that the gospel writers were not eyewitnesses. I also agree with many credible Bible scholars who question the historicity of Jesus, such as Robert M. Price and Kurt Aland. I admit that some of the New Testament texts involve historical fiction. And I don’t believe that in order to have a high view of scripture one has to necessarily accept the historicity of the Bible, or of Christianity for that matter. Rudolf Bultmann was right: the Bible sometimes mythologizes the word of God!

——-

The High Quality of My Work

The truth is, I demand of my work nothing less than the highest possible quality so that it is able to withstand the rigors of modern scholarship! To that end, a solution to a particular problem must be multiply-attested and unanimously confirmed by all parts of Scripture, thus eliminating the possibility of error in establishing its legitimacy. I’m very comprehensive in my work and I use a very similar quasi-scientific method when interpreting the text. In order to avoid the possibility of misinterpretation during the exegetical process, I observe exactly *what* the text says, exactly *how* it says it, without entertaining any speculations, preconceptions, or presuppositions, and without any theological agendas. This eliminates any personal predispositions toward the text while preserving the hermeneutical integrity of the method.

And then I translate it into English with the assistance of scholarly dictionaries and lexicons. After that, I cross-reference information to check for parallels and/or verbal agreements. Thus, the translation of the original biblical languages becomes the starting point of my exegesis. This type of approach is unheard of. Almost everyone comes to the text with certain theological preconceptions. I’ve been heavily influenced by my academic and scientific backgrounds in this respect, and that’s why I’m very demanding and always strive to achieve the highest possible quality of work! I take a lot of pride in my work! And it is only after this laborious process has been completed that I finally check it against my original “blueprints”——namely, my revelations——to see if they match. It’s an airtight case because it’s not guided by speculation and conjecture, as most theologies seem to be.

The best explanation of my views comes from the following work. This is the pdf of my article——published in the Journal of Higher Criticism, volume 13, number 3 (Fall 2018)——entitled, “The Birth, Death, and Resurrection of Christ According to the Greek New Testament Epistles”:

https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:6b2a560b-9940-4690-ad29-caf086dbdcd6

——-

Are the So-Called “gods” of the Old Testament Angels or Men?

By Author Eli Kittim 🎓

“Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are

gods'? “ (Jn 10.34).

Are the gods Human?

First, whatever the exegesis might be, and regardless of the diverse interpretations, it is certainly NOT the case that we’re all gods, equal to Jesus and God the father, the co-creators (Jn 1.1-3; Heb. 1.1-2).

That is not the authorial intent of the term “gods” in Jn 10.34, nor Jesus’ explanation of it, where he actually appeals to the Old Testament terminology regarding the “sons of god” (vv. 34-36) in order to apply it to his particular status as the unique Son of God (Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ SBLGNT).

Second, the notion that the term “gods” refers to men is refuted by both the Masoretic and LXX texts which suggest that these are rulers and powers in God’s kingdom, namely, the angelic host. For instance, in Genesis 6.2, “the sons of god” (בְנֵי־ ḇə·nê הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ hā·’ĕ·lō·hîm) are clearly fallen angels.

Third, Ephesians 3.10 speaks of “rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms.” Ephesians 6.12 says:

our struggle is not against flesh and blood,

but against the rulers, against the

authorities, against the powers of this dark

world and against the spiritual forces of evil

in the heavenly realms.

Ephesians 1.21 differentiates Jesus (God) from all other heavenly powers, indicating that he’s “above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come.” These then are the rulers and powers in high places, the sons of Elohim who are called “gods” in Ps 82.6, not men.

Psalm 82

The Greek text of the Septuagint from the LCL Brenton edition/“translation” of Psalm 82 (Ps. 81 LXX) reads as follows:

1 Ο ΘΕΟΣ ἔστη ἐν συναγωγῇ θεῶν, ἐν μέσῳ δὲ θεοὺς διακρινεῖ. . . . 6 ἐγὼ εἶπα· θεοί ἐστε καὶ υἱοὶ ῾Υψίστου πάντες· 7 ὑμεῖς δὲ ὡς ἄνθρωποι ἀποθνήσκετε καὶ ὡς εἷς τῶν ἀρχόντων πίπτετε. 8 ἀνάστα, ὁ Θεός, κρίνων τὴν γῆν, ὅτι σὺ κατακληρονομήσεις ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσι.

NRSV translation

1 God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: . . . 6 I say, "You are gods, children of the Most High, all of you; 7 nevertheless, you shall die like mortals, and fall like any prince." 8 Rise up, O God, judge the earth; for all the nations belong to you!

First, notice that just like the angelic host who are called “sons of God” in Gen. 6.2, in Ps. 82 the term “gods” does not imply deity but rather being “children of the Most High” (v. 6) or υἱοὶ ῾Υψίστου (LXX). Second, if they are in fact “gods,” divine as it were, why then will they “die like mortals” (v. 7)? That would contradict their divine status. What is more, the text DOES NOT say that they ARE mortals, but that they will die AS IF they were mortals. The text seems to be addressing the evil angelic host that rebelled against God the most high. Besides, if they were in fact mortals, why would they die “like” mortals? The analogy only works if they were something other than mortals and are being compared to mortals. You don’t say to a mortal that you’re going to die like a mortal. That’s a given if he’s a mortal. You can only use this language if the person is something other than a mortal.

Question: So if these beings are neither divine nor mortal, then what are they?

Answer: part of the angelic hierarchy of rulers and powers.

The clue is given in the very first verse of Psalm 82:

Ο ΘΕΟΣ ἔστη ἐν συναγωγῇ θεῶν, ἐν μέσῳ

δὲ θεοὺς διακρινεῖ (LXX).

Translation:

God has taken his place in the divine

council; in the midst of the gods he holds

judgment.

Question: When did God Almighty ever summon the judges & rulers of Israel in his presence for a divine council?

Answer: Never!

The phrase συναγωγῇ θεῶν (divine council; in the midst of the gods) can only refer to heavenly places. Thus, the idea that the term “gods” refers to men is unwarranted and without merit!

It’s also important to note that the use of the word “gods” as a reference to human beings in the Old Testament is rare.

God versus gods: Elohim versus elohim

The language of 1 Chronicles 5.25 is one which pits “God” against “gods,” which in the Hebrew language is actually Elohim versus elohim. Since Biblical Hebrew is an “aspectual” language, it’s the *context* that determines the meaning:

But they transgressed against the God

[Elohim] of their ancestors, and prostituted

themselves to the gods [elohim] of the

peoples of the land, whom God [Elohim]

had destroyed before them.

The Septuagint sets it up as the God of their fathers (ἐν Θεῷ/ὁ Θεὸς πατέρων αὐτῶν) versus the gods of the peoples of the earth (θεῶν τῶν λαῶν τῆς γῆς).

In 2 chron. 32.17, “the Lord the God of Israel [Yahweh Elohim]” or the “God [Elohim] of Hezekiah” is pitted against the “gods [elohim] of the nations.” The LXX distinguishes the terms as the Lord God of Israel/God of Hezekiah (Κύριον Θεὸν ᾿Ισραὴλ/Θεὸς ᾿Εζεκίου) versus the gods of the nations of the earth (οἱ θεοὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν τῆς γῆς). So despite the fact that identical words are used for both one God and many gods, the difference is clear based on the context. For example, in Deuteronomy 12.31, “the Lord your God [Yahweh Elohim]” is distinguished from “their gods [elohim].” Similarly, the LXX differentiates the terminology as your God (Θεῷ σου), which refers to the true God, versus their gods (θεοῖς αὐτῶν), which is elsewhere depicted as the false gods or idols. Notice that the designation “gods” in all these examples is not a reference to humans.

Another way to distinguish Yahweh Elohim from all the other elohim is that he is addressed as the “God of gods” (Θεὸς θεῶν LXX) in Dan 2.47, and elsewhere as the “creator” or the “most high” (Deut. 32.15; Gen. 14.22). Even though the Hebrew term elohim is sometimes translated as “judges” in Exodus 22.8, 9, nevertheless the LXX clarifies that those who are said to judge do so in the presence of God (ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ). Hence the reference is to God, not men.

Eloha Versus El

Eloha could refer to a True or a false god. To determine which is which, it all depends on the context. For example, Deut. 32.15 is clear that this is a reference to (אֱל֣וֹהַ ’ĕ·lō·w·ha), the God of Israel, the creator who made him (עָשָׂ֔הוּ ā·śā·hū). The LXX clarifies this Eloha as the God who made him (Θεὸν τὸν ποιήσαντα αὐτὸν), as well as the God of his salvation (Θεοῦ σωτῆρος αὐτοῦ). In Deut 32.17 there’s a difference between Eloha (אֱלֹ֔הַ God) and elohim (אֱלֹהִ֖ים gods). The Septuagint presents the dichotomy as one God (Θεῷ) versus many gods (θεοῖς). Although in 2 Chronicles 32.15 ’ĕ·lō·w·ha (אֱל֙וֹהַ֙) is used as “god,” but not as the true God, in Nehemiah 9.17 ’ĕ·lō·w·ah (אֱל֨וֹהַּ) is now the true God (Θεὸς LXX). In fact, in Ps. 114.7 ’ĕ·lō·w·ah (אֱל֣וֹהַּ) is the God of Jacob (τοῦ Θεοῦ ᾿Ιακὼβ LXX). So context is king!

El, on the other hand, is usually a reference to the Almighty, but the term could also be used to refer to both God or god. For example, in Gen. 14.18 Melchizedek is priest of God (לְאֵ֥ל el) most high (עֶלְיֽוֹן׃ el·yō·wn), which in vv. 19-20 is associated with the God of Abram (Αβραμ τῷ Θεῷ τῷ ὑψίστῳ LXX). But in verse 22 he is identified as יְהוָה֙ Yah·weh God (אֵ֣ל el) most high. The Septuagint confirms this viewpoint as it says in v. 18 that Melchizedek is a priest of God most high (Μελχισεδέκ ἱερεὺς τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου). In verse 22, the LXX calls God, the most high, the creator of heaven and earth (τὸν Θεὸν τὸν ὕψιστον, ὃς ἔκτισε τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν). In Gen. 16.13, Yahweh (yhvh is the proper name of the God of Israel) is also the el (which depending on the context can be interpreted either as sg. God or pl. gods) or the true God (ὁ Θεὸς LXX). In Gen 17.1 Yahweh appeared to Abram and said I am el Shadday (the almighty). However, the LXX renders it simply as your God (ὁ Θεός σου). Gen. 21.33 renders *Yahweh el olam* as Yahweh God the eternal (Θεὸς αἰώνιος LXX).

So, we should not be confused by the terms used for God simply because they’re sometimes used to refer to false gods. The context will always indicate which is which. The name Yahweh especially differentiates God most high from all other gods. But, as you can clearly see from our brief study, the term “gods” can only be applied to the heavenly host, not to human beings!

——-

How Should Christian Scholars Respond to Attacks and Insults?

By Bible Researcher and Author Eli Kittim 🎓

Now these people were more noble-minded

than those in Thessalonica, for they

received the word with great eagerness,

examining the Scriptures daily to see

whether these things were so.

——- Acts 17:11 NASB

Should We Believe What Others Say Or Should We Investigate the Scriptures for Ourselves?

People believe in historical Christianity. They believe that if Christianity is not historical then nothing else about the Bible is true. They cannot interpret it in any other way. They can only see it backwards; never forwards. But what ever happened to Bible prophecy? Take, for example, the idea of questioning the historicity of a Biblical event, wondering whether it happened in the past or if it will happen in the future. Isn’t that ultimately a question of faith?

People believe in a historical Jesus and in the so-called “historical” gospel narratives. Believers think that if Jesus didn’t exist——or if he didn’t die and wasn’t resurrected in the past——then everything else in the New Testament is complete and utter fiction, fabricated out of whole cloth, and therefore false. For them, it’s all about past history. But future history (aka Bible prophecy) is just as valid! The notion that Jesus came in the flesh *at some point in human history* somehow seems to escape their hermeneutical purview. It never really occurred to them that if these incidents in the life of Jesus are prophesied to take place in the future, then the Bible is just as valid and just as reliable as if these events had happened in the past. Why? Because the Bible is ultimately not a historical chronicle but a Book on Faith!

People believe what they hear. But sometimes that’s just fake news or long-held assumptions that are based on *wrong interpretations* of the facts. The story of Jesus’ past death and resurrection is a story that has been told millions of times at the dinner table, on television, during Christmas, Easter, in all churches and denominations, it’s heard from preachers in the pulpit, it’s repeated by missionaries, taught in seminaries, and has generally been reiterated by pastors and teachers throughout the culture for thousands of years. So, it’s as if it is written in stone. It’s a foregone conclusion. It’s considered to be an undeniable fact. But what if a thorough Biblical investigation challenged any of these points? What then? Mind you, this type of inquiry would only be challenging *the man-made interpretations,* not the actual words of the Bible per se!

——-

A Biblical Consensus Is Always Evolving

In science, the role of agreement is paramount in establishing empirical facts, and it’s only through verifiable evidence that an epistemic agreement can be reached. However, the body of empirical knowledge is constantly changing. New information is constantly assessed and prior conclusions are always re-examined. What appeared to be a fact yesterday may not be so today. And the methodology is constantly improving and evolving. Today, we have better criteria and more knowledge at our disposal to understand the Bible than ever before. Therefore, our biblical findings can certainly change our previous assumptions and presuppositions. The Biblical consensus has changed considerably over time. With new interdisciplinary evidence at our disposal, our conclusions about Biblical authorship and composition have gradually changed. New evidence in lower and high criticism has prompted new questions that require a new set of criteria and more advanced methodologies to address them. So, as a rule, new findings replace older “facts,” thereby changing the previous consensus!

For example, advances in textual criticism have shown that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch. The date of the Pentateuch’s composition is also not as early as once believed. In fact, the scholarly consensus is that Moses probably never existed and that the Exodus never happened: it is a foundation myth. As it happens, no archaeological remains have ever been found in the Sinai Peninsula regarding the exodus or the Israelites.

But try telling that to Orthodox Jews who hold these “truths” to be self-evident, sacred, and non-negotiable. For them, history, archaeology, textual criticism, and Biblical studies are a “demonic” attempt to undermine their faith. But is that true? Of course not! On the contrary, many who are involved in these scientific and Biblical disciplines are themselves faithful Jews and Christians.

Then there was the emergence of other academic disciplines and methods that investigated the historical precursors of the biblical texts. Some of these were “source criticism” and “form criticism,” from which “redaction criticism” was derived. Finally, literary criticism added a new way of looking at the authorial intent via such methods as narrative criticism, rhetorical criticism, and canonical criticism. These emerging methods of biblical criticism, which did not previously exist, ultimately changed how we view and understand the Bible.

For example, the idea that the New Testament authors quoted predominantly from the Greek Old Testament rather than from the Jewish Bible must have certain important textual ramifications. Also, without the understanding of “intertextuality”——the literary dependence of the New Testament on the Old Testament——we would not know what literary material was borrowed from the Hebrew Bible. All you have to do is pick up a chain-reference Bible and you’ll see how much of the Old Testament is found in the New Testament, and how many words, speeches, and events that are attributed to Jesus are actually modelled on these earlier stories. These academic disciplines pave the way for a deeper understanding on various levels that heretofore were untraversed and unknown.

But how, then, can one explain to a believer that Jesus didn’t really say or do that? That it was just a literary narrative in which the evangelist put Jesus in a certain theological context in order to show that he is the prophesied Messiah of Hebrew Scripture. So, it seems that one must put away their emotional component when involved in this type of inquiry. One must leave their ego at the door. That is to say, one must temporarily suspend faith and atheism in dealing with Biblical studies. That’s because, just as in science, pure objectivity is strictly required. Once a person has gathered all the necessary evidence, they can then try to ascertain how it might fit with or be relevant to his/her faith, or how it may further inform it.

There are also many cross-reference and concordance studies that reveal Biblical *meanings* by focusing on certain repetitive linguistic idiomatic expressions, as they’re found throughout scripture. Parallel passages and verbal agreements help to further identify certain *meanings* that are consistently found across the text. Then there are the Biblical languages. Studying the original Biblical languages in Paleo-Hebrew and Koine Greek help us to create faithful and competent translations, which involve a more accurate knowledge and understanding of scripture’s details about timing, location, and authorial intention. Moreover, parsing (or syntax analysis) helps us to further understand the grammar and morphology of the Biblical languages! These methodologies are invaluable in providing a solid foundation that may not always be consistent with previous assumptions. Discoveries in these areas are obviously worthy of serious consideration.

But how do you explain these facts to a simple layperson who may think otherwise? In their eyes, you are seen either as a traitor to the faith, at best, or guided by the deceiver, at worst. To a believer——who is not engaged in these types of studies but reads the Bible literally and superficially——writing about these findings and complex issues may be interpreted as preaching godless heresies. In his/her mind you are simply a false teacher. . . And despite Jesus’ appeal for unity in the church (John 17:21), there have always been fights and quarrels among Christians (James 4:1). It has also become a fashion lately to slander Bible teachers. Many are quick to point fingers at each other and accuse other Christians of wrongdoing. This is antithetical to scripture!

In this case, the only thing a Bible scholar can do is to remind the reader that objectivity rather than fanaticism is more fruitful in biblical interpretation, and that name-calling is not biblical evidence. In fact, scholars welcome the opportunity for peer-review and academic criticism!

An Additional Nuance of Meaning to Πονηρός (ponērós)

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

Definitions of Πονηρός (ponērós)

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

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

Πονηρός (ponērós) in the LXX

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

the imagination [διάνοια] of man is intently

bent upon evil [πονηρὰ] things.

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

speak not evil [πονηρά] words.

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

the people murmured sinfully [πονηρά]

before [έναντι] the Lord [Κυρίου].

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

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

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

[they] murmured against it to the assembly

so as to bring out evil words concerning the

land [ρήματα πονηρά περι της γης].

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

the men … spoke evil [πονηρά] reports

against the land.

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

ὑμεῖς ἐβουλεύσασθε κατ᾿ ἐμοῦ εἰς πονηρά.

English translation by L.C.L. Brenton:

Ye took counsel against me for evil.

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

Similarly, Isaiah 32:7 (LXX) says:

For the counsel of the wicked [πονηρῶν]

will devise iniquity.

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

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

τοῦτο τὸ ἔργον τῶν ἐνδιαβαλλόντων με

παρὰ Κυρίου καὶ τῶν λαλούντων πονηρὰ

κατὰ τῆς ψυχῆς μου.

English translation by L.C.L. Brenton:

This is the dealing of the Lord with those

who falsely accuse me, and of them that

speak evil against my soul.

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

Πονηρός (ponērós) in the NT

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Does the Phrase Ἔτι ἅπαξ in Hebrews 12.26 Mean “Once” or “Once More”?

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

The New Testament Versions

There are various theories about past catastrophic Biblical events. For example, some biblical narratives describe a time when the earth trembled, such as the mighty earth-quake at Mount Sinai when God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, or the cataclysmic Noachian Deluge. Some Biblical scholars even theorize about a so-called “Gap Theory" (between the first and second verses of Genesis) regarding two different creations, or even an earlier creation-and-destruction of the universe prior to the current one.

So when we encounter biblical verses that seem to suggest some type of primordial earthly destruction, scholars often theorize about the probability of such events taking place as the ones mentioned above. Hebrews 12.26 is a case in point. It talks about some form of judgment in which God “will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.” But there seems to be a difference of opinion as to whether or not this event will happen for the very first time. That’s because the key phrase Ἔτι ἅπαξ has been variously translated in two different ways: “once” and “once more.” The former suggests a first time, the latter, a second. Hence, the meaning of the text remains an open question. Hebrews 12.26 (SBLGNT) declares:

οὗ ἡ φωνὴ τὴν γῆν ἐσάλευσεν τότε, νῦν δὲ

ἐπήγγελται λέγων · Ἔτι ἅπαξ ἐγὼ σείσω οὐ

μόνον τὴν γῆν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν οὐρανόν.

Translation (NIV):

At that time his voice shook the earth, but

now he has promised, ‘Once more I will

shake not only the earth but also the

heavens.’

Most of the Bible versions of Hebrews 12.26 (with the exception of a few that I’m aware of) translate Ἔτι ἅπαξ as “once more.” That’s because Ἔτι can mean not only “still,” “yet,” “again,” but it can also relate to *time* and mean “longer” (Mt. 5.13; Lk 16.2; 20.36; Jn 7.33), “further” (Mt. 26.65; Lk 22.71), as well as “moreover” (Acts 2.26).

So, if the correct translation of Heb. 12.26 is “Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens,” then the question arises: is this verse referring to Mt Sinai, the flood, the gap theory, or perhaps to a previous universe that was once-destroyed to make way for the creation of our own?

For example, one particular Bible version speculates that the reference in Heb. 12.26 is to the mighty earth-quake at Mount Sinai. The Amplified Bible reads:

His voice shook the earth [at Mount Sinai]

then, but now He has given a promise,

saying, ‘YET ONCE MORE I WILL SHAKE

NOT ONLY THE EARTH, BUT ALSO THE

[starry] HEAVEN.’

However, on closer inspection, the aforementioned translation is speculative because this “shaking” does not only involve the earth but also the heavens. At Mount Sinai, only the earth trembled (with a mighty earth-quake), not the heavens. Similarly, during the flood, neither the earth nor the heavens were destroyed: only living things (Genesis 6.7). So, the Hebrews 12.26-reference seems to imply a much larger catastrophic destruction of both the earth and the heavens. Therefore, if the verse has been faithfully translated, it can only refer to the so-called “gap theory,” or to a previously-destroyed universe.

On the other hand, the majority of the translations might be completely flawed, and the few Bible versions which suggest that this event will occur only “once” might be correct! Accordingly, the YLT version of Hebrews 12.26 proclaims:

‘Yet once -- I shake not only the earth, but

also the heaven.’

Similarly, the Darby Bible Translation exclaims:

Yet once will I shake not only the earth, but

also the heaven.

We find a similar reading in the Godbey New Testament:

I will still once shake not only the earth, but

also heaven.

Therefore, these latter versions would imply that this impending destruction will occur only once, in the future, in the same way as described, for example, in 2 Peter 3.10!

The Old Testament Versions

In trying to figure out the correct translation, it’s important to go back and look at the sources of the quoted material from the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint. Hebrews 12.26 is actually quoting Haggai 2.6 via the Septuagint. Therefore, let’s go back and look at what that verse actually says both in the Hebrew Bible and in the Greek Septuagint. Haggai 2.6 (NIV) reads:

This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘In a

little while I will once more shake the

heavens and the earth, the sea and the dry

land.’

It’s important to note that most of the modern Bible versions of Haggai 2.6 say “once more,” but some say “once” (see e.g. ASV, Douay-Rheims Bible, Good News Translation, JPS Tanakh 1917, and a few others). The KJB also says “once” at Haggai 2.6:

For thus saith the LORD of hosts; Yet once,

it is a little while, and I will shake the

heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and

the dry land;

Here, however, the KJB is inconsistent. While it says “once” in Haggai 2.6, it says “once more” in the parallel verse of Hebrews 12.26:

Yet once more I shake not the earth only,

but also heaven.

In Haggai 2.6, the Hebrew text (BHS) has אַחַ֖ת (once) ע֥וֹד (yet/again). In other words, the term ע֥וֹד (od) can be translated either as “yet” or “again.” But even the Hebrew Bible versions have conflicting translations. For example, the Sefaria Bible implies that this destructive event will occur only “once.” It reads thusly:

For thus said the LORD of Hosts: In just a

little while longer I will shake the heavens

and the earth, the sea and the dry land.

Similarly, the JPS Tanakh (1985) says:

For thus said the LORD of Hosts: In just a

little while longer I will shake the heavens

and the earth, the sea and the dry land.

The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) also seems to suggest “yet once in a little while”:

‎כִּ֣י כֹ֤ה אָמַר֙ יְהוָ֣ה צְבָאֹ֔ות עֹ֥וד אַחַ֖ת מְעַ֣ט הִ֑יא וַאֲנִ֗י מַרְעִישׁ֙ אֶת־הַשָּׁמַ֣יִם וְאֶת־הָאָ֔רֶץ וְאֶת־הַיָּ֖ם וְאֶת־הֶחָרָבָֽה׃

By contrast, the Hebrew Bible——edited by translator and scholar, Rabbi A.J. Rosenberg——featured in Chabad.org reads:

For so said the Lord of Hosts: [There will

rise] another one, and I will shake up the

heaven and the earth and the sea and the

dry land [for] a little while.

So, even these Hebrew versions conflict. Most of them imply “once,” while the last one suggests “another.” So there are arguments on both sides. However, the most credible ones seem to suggest “once” for all. That’s probably why the Greek translations (LXX & NT) employ the term hapax (ἅπαξ), which also means “once for all”!

Let’s now explore how the Greek Septuagint (LXX) translates it. The LXX renders Haggai 2.6 thusly:

διότι τάδε λέγει Κύριος παντοκράτωρ· ἔτι

ἅπαξ ἐγὼ σείσω τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν

καὶ τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ τὴν ξηράν·

English translation by L.C.L. Brenton:

For thus saith the Lord Almighty; Yet once I

will shake the heaven, and the earth, and

the sea, and the dry [land].

Thus, the Septuagint agrees with most of the Hebrew Bible versions that Haggai 2.6 is saying “once,” not “once more.”

Interestingly enough, Hebrews 12.26 quotes the Septuagint-phrase ἔτι ἅπαξ ἐγὼ σείσω verbatim (word for word), with a slight variation on the theme concerning “the heavens and the earth” at the end of the sentence. Hebrews 12.26 reads:

Ἔτι ἅπαξ ἐγὼ σείσω οὐ μόνον τὴν γῆν

ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν οὐρανόν.

Notice that both the LXX and the NT texts use the exact same key-phrase ἔτι ἅπαξ. Yet the LXX and most of the Hebrew versions say “once,” while most of the New Testament translations render it as “once more.” So which is it? If both the Septuagint and the New Testament are saying the exact same thing, then why are these texts translated differently? Both cannot be correct. According to the law of non-contradiction, contradictory statements cannot both be true. So, somewhere, somehow, someone got it wrong! The question is, what’s the right answer? What’s the correct translation?

Conclusion

The Septuagint translates the term עוֹד (od) as ἔτι (yet), and renders the phrase ‘ō·wḏ ’a·ḥaṯ as “yet once.” As far as the Hebrew translations are concerned, both the Sefaria Bible and the JPS Tanakh (1985) imply “once.” The BHS also seems to imply “once.” Only the Chabad.org Bible (with Rashi's commentary) seems to suggest “once more.” So, most of the Old Testament Hebrew and Greek texts support the phrase “yet once,” not “once more” or “once again”! All in all, from the point of view of the Old Testament concerning Haggai 2.6, it seems that both the Hebrew and the Greek versions agree on the “yet once” meaning!

Carrying this information over into the New Testament, we come to realize that the key phrase (ἔτι ἅπαξ) in Haggai 2.6 (LXX), which is quoted in Hebrews 12.26, should have the exact same meaning in the New Testament as it does in the Old Testament, namely, “yet once.” Yet, surprisingly, most of the modern NT translations say “once more,” although there are some that do say “once,” as has already been noted. Therefore, the modern translations of the New Testament are actually conflicting with the Old Testament data. Apparently, the range of meanings for the word Ἔτι makes it unclear as to which word should be applied.

So, if we combine our findings, it seems that more attention should be placed on the Hebrew and Greek Old Testament versions from which the quote of Haggai 2.6 is derived. Given that they are the sources of the Hebrews 12.26-phrase, the usages in these versions carry more weight than those of the New Testament translations in steering us in the right linguistic direction. Therefore, despite the fact that most of the modern Bible versions have “once more” for Hebrews 12.26, the few translations that have “yet once” (e.g. the YLT, Darby, etc.) might be closer to the truth!

Bottom line, given the range of meanings for the aforementioned terms, it’s difficult to pinpoint the exact rendering of both the Haggai 2.6 and Hebrews 12.26 phrases, especially since even the Hebrew translations have divergent meanings. Nevertheless, given that most of the Hebrew and Greek Old Testament versions agree on the phrase “yet once,” it seems more likely that this is the authorial intent of Haggai 2.6. And since that happens to be the exact same phrase in Hebrews 12.26, there’s no reason for the meaning to be any different than that which we find in Haggai 2.6 (LXX). Thus, it appears that the meaning of Hebrews 12.26 is faithfully translated in the YLT version which reads:

‘Yet once -- I shake not only the earth, but

also the heaven.’

This exegetical conclusion, of course, would not support the so-called “Gap Theory" or an earlier destruction of the universe prior to the current one. Rather, it would point to one final destruction at the end of the world!