GreekNewTestament - Tumblr Posts
The Fallacies of Millennialism
By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim
This article is partly excerpted from chapter 10 of my book, “The Little Book of Revelation.” Therein, I explain that there are not 2 resurrections but only one! Daniel 12.2 explicitly mentions that both the saved & the damned will be resurrected TOGETHER in one general resurrection. By contrast, the second death in Revelation 20.14 is incorporeal, NOT physical. It’s the lake of fire; a spiritual death. So, only 1 physical resurrection is indicated in the Bible; not 2! Notice what the passage of Rev. 20.4 (KJV) actually says:
“And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them,
and judgment was given unto them: and I
saw the souls of them that were beheaded
for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of
God, and which had not worshipped the
beast, neither his image, neither had
received his mark upon their foreheads, or
in their hands; and they lived and reigned
with Christ a thousand years.”
Notice that the verse doesn’t tell us if and when they were resurrected. Only that they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years; (not “for” a thousand years).
Then, the following verse (Rev. 20.5) goes on to say:
“But the rest of the dead lived not again until
the thousand years were finished. This is
the first resurrection.”
But that’s the only resurrection! Biblically speaking, there is no other physical resurrection. And if it’s explicitly mentioned as the first resurrection, then it means that there couldn’t have been an earlier one. We erroneously assume that the previous verse (v. 4) mentions an earlier resurrection. Not so! Revelation 20.4 and 20.5 appear to be two different versions of the SAME resurrection!
It seems to me that Revelation 20 verses 4 and 5 are talking about the *same resurrection* but in light of varying reward scenarios. The implication is that the believers of verse 4 (probably the tribulation saints or the recently deceased) lived and reigned after the thousand years (καὶ ἔζησαν καὶ ἐβασίλευσαν μετὰ . . . τὰ χίλια ἔτη)! Similarly, in verse 5, the rest of the dead (presumably the believers who had been dead for many centuries) were not raised from the dead until the thousand years were finished, which is the first resurrection:
οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔζησαν ἄχρι τὰ
τελεσθῇ χίλια ἔτη. αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ
πρώτη.
In other words, it appears that the faithful throngs (both the recent dead and those who had been dead for a long time) took part in the first resurrection after the thousand years had passed. But the details of their rewards——namely, that they lived & reigned, and that they were resurrected——are differentiated for a more comprehensive elaboration!
5 Questions Need to be Asked
A) According to the text, when does the 1st resurrection take place? Answer: when the thousand years were finished (Rev. 20.5)!
B) Can there be 2 resurrections? Answer: No. There can’t be 2 physical resurrections. According to the Bible, there is only one (Dan. 12.2)!
C) Which physical resurrection is explicitly mentioned in Rev. 20? Answer: The one in verse 5, which is said to occur at the end of the millennium or at the end of the thousand years. Verse 4 does not explicitly mention a resurrection. It simply says: καὶ ἔζησαν (and lived). It doesn’t say that they came back to life or that they were resurrected, as some modern Bible versions do. Nor does the original Greek text have any parentheses, as you find in the NRSV. It reads:
καὶ ἔζησαν καὶ
ἐβασίλευσαν μετὰ τοῦ
χριστοῦ χίλια ἔτη
(Rev. 20.4 SBLGNT).
The textus receptus has it as follows:
καὶ ἔζησαν καὶ
ἐβασίλευσαν μετὰ τοῦ
χριστοῦ τὰ [the] χίλια
ἔτη;
The Greek New Testament doesn’t say “for” a thousand years. And the Greek word μετά can be translated as either “with” or “after” Christ. In other words, this could also be translated or paraphrased as follows: [after] the thousands years were completed, they lived and reigned forever. In other words, the original Greek text doesn’t say “for” one thousand years.
D) which resurrection is referred to as the 1st resurrection? Answer: the one in verse 5 that occurs when the thousand years are finished. The one in verse 4 is neither mentioned as a resurrection nor as being the first.
E) So then, 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). Answer: They cannot be both dead and alive at the same time! The only explanation is that the people who are said to reign with Christ are the same people who took part in “the first resurrection” (Rev. 20.5), but they’re described differently in the earlier verse (v. 4) in order to furnish the reader with further details about this particular time-period. It’s similar to the different descriptions in Revelation chs. 19 & 20 about the beast who is thrown into the lake of fire in Rev. 19 but who nevertheless continues to be active in Rev. 20! There are not two Beasts or Antichrists; only one. The same satanic beast who is captured in Rev. 20.2-3 is the exact same figure who was captured and thrown into the lake of fire in Rev. 19.20, but in the following chapter (ch. 20) he is described in more detail as the text provides further descriptions of his release and whereabouts prior to being cast into the lake of fire (see Rev. 20.7-10).
Conclusion
There is also a judgment (κρίμα) mentioned in Rev. 20.4. But are there really 2 judgments? No. Only one! Thus, the millennium implies 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 and so forth. This binary eschatology is biblically unfounded because there is only one of each!
It demonstrates that this brief passage must be taken symbolically, not literally. So, the passage really indicates that when the thousand years are completed the believers will be raised from the dead and begin to reign with Christ. This is also the chronological time period when the Antichrist is released for a short time. This is probably a reference to the Great Tribulation which only lasts for 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). This is also the time when the apocalyptic events will commence!
It took 21 symbolic days for God’s word to arrive on earth (Dan. 10.13–14). There are also 21 Judgments in the Book of Revelation. And since “one day is like a thousand years” (2 Pet. 3.8), the implication seems to be that the apocalyptic events are set to take place in the 21st century. It is a symbol of our century! Thus, the millennium seems to be referring to the end of the 20th century (i.e. 2,000 CE) and the beginning of the 21st!
By the way, 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 not to be taken literally but rather as *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 first resurrection will occur and the believers will henceforth reign with Christ!
What is the ultimate signpost that indicates when these events will commence? These apocalyptic events will begin when the thousand years are completed!
So, the thousand years act as the defining moment, the temporal mark, the chronological signal, the millennial warning that the end is near. It is not a coincidence that the 70 weeks of Daniel, the Mayan Calendar, Malachy’s Prophecy of the Popes, the recent Blood moon prophecy, and all the other biblical & extra-biblical doomsday prophecies began to hold sway after the thousand years were completed in 2,000 CE. Moreover, the Bible clearly prophesies the arrival of the Antichrist (Dan. 9.26-27). And I believe that he has already made his appearance on the world stage, namely, on the eve of the 2,000 year mark, that is to say, on December 31, 1999, precisely at the end of the thousand years, as prophesied in Rev. 20.7. For further details, see my article: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/623534877070016512/nostradamus-and-the-bible-seemingly-predict-the
The reference to the chiliasm, then, serves as a caveat that Satan will be loosed when the thousand years are over. In my view, that’s what the millennium actually means! Thus, I don’t believe in a literal millennial kingdom because it contradicts the Bible. It implies, 2 comings of Christ, 2 apocalypses, 2 Great Wars, and so on. That’s probably why the doctrine of millennialism was condemned at the Second Ecumenical Council in 381 CE. In addition, the endtime war that Satan is said to unleash at the end of the millennium (Rev. 20.8) is the exact same war mentioned in Ezekiel 38: Gog & Magog. Also, 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, the millennium represents the sign of the times when the thousand years are completed. It signifies the beginning of the apocalypse, that is to say, the period of the Antichrist, who will gather the kings of the earth for Armageddon. It also represents the time of the Great Tribulation, the rapture, and the resurrection of the dead, when the faithful will be glorified and reign with Christ not simply for a thousand years, but forever (cf. Dan. 7.18; 12.2; 1 Thess. 4.17)!
Although there are some similarities between my view and that of Amillennialism, I don’t consider myself an Amillennialist because I don’t share their core views on realized millennialism, perfect/imperfect amillenarism, or that “Christ’s reign during the millennium is spiritual in nature.” We have completely different views on a number of topics! Similarly, my view is in agreement with that of postmillennialism in regard to a literal thousand years, after which Christ will come. However, I disagree both with the quality as well as with the timing of the millennium as explained by postmillennialism. I don’t view the millennium as a literal thousand-year-Kingdom of peace nor as an interim period (or parenthesis) that will transpire in the far distant future. Rather, I see it as a period that already started in the year 1,000 CE (with the crusades) and culminated in the year 2,000. That’s when the Antichrist came to power (in the year 1999 = 666) in Russia (see my articles on that subject), at the end of the thousand years, and Satan was released from prison (Rev 20.7), so to speak, and was allowed to gather the kings of the earth for Armageddon! And since I have a number of disagreements with postmillennialism, I don’t consider myself a postmillennialist either.
Has Anyone Ever Seen Jesus?
By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
—
Jesus Christ, Whom No Human Being Has Ever Seen
Writing at the end of the first century AD, 1 Timothy 6.14-16 (SBLGNT) surprisingly says that Jesus Christ “WILL BE REVEALED” in due time:
τηρῆσαί σε τὴν ἐντολὴν ἄσπιλον
ἀνεπίλημπτον μέχρι τῆς ἐπιφανείας τοῦ
κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἣν καιροῖς
ἰδίοις δείξει ὁ μακάριος καὶ μόνος
δυνάστης, ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων
καὶ κύριος τῶν κυριευόντων, ὁ μόνος ἔχων
ἀθανασίαν, φῶς οἰκῶν ἀπρόσιτον, ὃν εἶδεν
οὐδεὶς ἀνθρώπων.
Translation (NJB):
do all that you have been told, with no faults
or failures, until the appearing of our Lord
Jesus Christ, who at the due time will be
revealed by God, the blessed and only Ruler
of all, the King of kings and the Lord of
lords, who alone is immortal, whose home is
in inaccessible light, whom no human being
has seen.
According to Bible scholars, the First Epistle to Timothy was written by an unknown author in Macedonia, Greece at the end of the first century AD. But according to the gospels, the chronology of Jesus’ ministry (which is typically dated to around 27-36 AD) supposedly took place at least 64 years earlier. Yet these two accounts appear to contradict each other. If either one of them is true, the other must be false. However, in my view, both of them are true. We’re just comparing different genres (Theological versus Didactic literature).
About whom is the passage written? The aforementioned passage is clearly talking about the so-called “king of kings and lord of lords,” a title that is uniquely associated with Jesus Christ. In fact, it mentions him by name and says that he will be revealed in due time. That means that he was never previously revealed! It further exhorts believers to do good “until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ … whom no human being has seen.”
First Timothy 6.14-16 therefore confirms Heb. 9.26b, 1 Peter 1.20, and Rev. 12.5, among other verses, that Christ’s initial revelation takes place in the end-times!
—
The Son of Man Comes at Some Point in Human History
2 John 1.7 (SBLGNT) reads:
πολλοὶ πλάνοι ἐξῆλθον εἰς τὸν κόσμον,
οἱ μὴ ὁμολογοῦντες Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν
ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί · οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ πλάνος
καὶ ὁ ἀντίχριστος.
Translation (YLT):
many leading astray did enter into
the world, who are not confessing Jesus
Christ coming in flesh; this one is he who is
leading astray, and the antichrist.
Yet in deference to Biblical usage, I’m not denying John’s proclamation of “Jesus Christ coming in [the] flesh” (2 John 1.7) but rather qualifying it in terms of its chronological relevance. In other words, I deny the *timing* of this event, not the event itself! Put differently, I certainly don’t deny the notion of Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh at some point in human history. I’m simply asking, “WHEN,” according to Scripture.
—
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!
——-
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!
BIBLE EXEGESIS RESOURCES LIST (ONLINE)
Compiled by Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
Critical Bible Commentaries
https://libguides.twu.ca/religiousstudies/ecommentariesNT
Bryan College Library - Bible Study Resources - Compiled by Kevin Woodruff, M. Div, MS
https://library.bryan.edu/christian-studies-subject-guide/bible-study-resources
Interlinear Greek English Septuagint Old Testament (LXX)
https://archive.org/details/InterlinearGreekEnglishSeptuagintOldTestamentPrint/page/n5
Hebrew---English Interlinear Bible (Old Testament)
https://www.logosapostolic.org/bibles/interlinear_ot1.htm
Greek—English Interlinear Bible (New Testament)
https://www.logosapostolic.org/bibles/interlinear_nt.htm
Academic Bibles: The Hebrew OT, the Greek NT, the Septuagint, and the Latin Bible—which scholars prefer to use for research and publications—share the same link:
1) Hebrew Old Testament following the text of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia
2) Greek New Testament following the text of the Novum Testamentum Graece (ed. Nestle-Aland), 28. Edition and the UBS Greek New Testament 5. Edition.
3) Greek Old Testament following the text of the Septuagint (ed. Rahlfs/Hanhart)
4) Latin Bible (Biblia Sacra Vulgata) following the text of the Vulgate (ed. Weber/Gryson)
5) King James Version
6) English Standard Version
7) NetBible
8)Luther-Bible 1984
https://www.academic-bible.com/en/online-bibles/novum-testamentum-graece-na-28/read-the-bible-text/
Was the Word “God” or “a god” in John 1.1?
By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
John 1.1 (SBLGNT):
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς
τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
John 1.1, which is a throwback to Genesis 1.1, aims to define the primordial relationship of “the Word” (i.e. Christ) to God. But certain skeptics have challenged the idea that the fullness of the godhead was in Christ (Col. 2.9), who is said to be “the Word” (i.e. ὁ λόγος). Specifically, Jehovah's Witnesses have raised the argument of “a god” in John 1.1, implying that Christ is a lesser and inferior god that was created. Let’s explore that assertion. John 1.1 is traditionally broken up into three phrases that are separated by commas:
1st phrase: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος,
2nd phrase: καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς
τὸν θεόν,
3rd phrase: καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
First, to suppose that John is talking about many gods, or more than one god, is a theological speculation and a grammatical imposition that is going beyond what is written in the text or what we know about the theology of the Gospel of John.
Second, John *did* mention the definite article τόν in the second phrase, and so he is not obligated to repeat it in the third phrase, as that would be redundant and tautological.
Third, another reason why the third phrase of John 1.1 doesn’t require the definite article (before the term θεός) is because it was already *used* in the second phrase, and therefore it necessarily *carries over.* For example, if I were to write, “I have a pretty good temper, and a very amiable disposition,” I would not be required to repeat the first part of the phrase. In other words, I wouldn’t be required grammatically to write “I have a pretty good temper, and [I have] a very amiable disposition.” The “I have” is *carried over* and doesn’t need to be repeated. It would be considered redundant. Similarly, in addressing τόν Θεόν with a definite article in the second phrase, John doesn’t have to repeat τόν Θεόν in the third phrase, since it is *carried over.* Here’s another example. I could write “God is one being, not two beings.” But that’s redundant. Now, if I were to rewrite the same sentence correctly and say “God is one being, not two,” would anyone argue that the term “two” may not necessarily refer to the concept of being because the word “being” is not mentioned? That’s the same kind of argument that skeptics are raising here in John 1.1.
Since John has already established (as a monotheist) that he’s talking about one (and-only-one) particular God (namely, τόν Θεόν) in the second phrase, then this syntactical construction must necessarily *carry over* into the third phrase. In other words, the term Θεός in the third phrase grammatically refers back to “the God” (τόν Θεόν) mentioned in the second phrase. Therefore, when John writes——… τὸν θεόν (second phrase), καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (third phrase)——the “God” of the third phrase is a direct reference to “the God” of the second phrase. It’s obviously the same “God” in both phrases, not a different one. And given that God is one being, not two, which other god could John be possibly referring to?
In Greek, the third phrase in John 1.1 is actually read in two different ways, not only as “the Word was God,” but also as “God was the Word.” In the third phrase, there’s no ontological distinction between God and the Word——after all, they share one being: “I and the Father are one” (Jn 10.30)——because John already made the distinction (of persons) in the second phrase.
Thus, the “a god” argument of the Jehovah’s Witnesses——which is raised in “The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT)——is totally bogus and unwarranted both grammatically and theologically!
🔎 What Does the Phrase καιροῖς ἰδίοις Mean in 1 Timothy 2.6? 🔍
By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 📚🎓
There is a mysterious phrase in the Greek New Testament which seems to suggest that the evidence for Christ’s death has not yet been demonstrated. If one considers Christ’s historicity and death as a foregone conclusion, then this terse phrase certainly questions this assumption. Let’s go a little deeper and look at some of the details. The Greek text of First Timothy 2.5-6 (SBLGNT) declares:
εἷς γὰρ θεός, εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ
ἀνθρώπων ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, ὁ
δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων, τὸ
μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδίοις ·
The last clause literally means: the martyrdom/testimony [given] in its own times.
We must first understand what the Greek term μᾰρτῠ́ρῐον (martúrion) means. It actually has several meanings:
1. testimony, evidence, proof
2. martyrdom
3. shrine of a martyr
Since 1 Timothy 2.5-6 is explicitly referring to Christ’s death as a ransom (ἀντίλυτρον), it is therefore appropriate to regard the term μαρτύριον (martúrion) in this particular context both as a testimony and as a martyrdom. Let’s look at the translation of 1 Timothy 2.5-6 (KJV):
“For there is one God, and one mediator
between God and men, the man Christ
Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to
be testified in due time.”
There is something deeply perplexing about the last clause. If the testimony took place in Christ’s own time, then why will the evidence or proof be put forth “in due time”?
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the phrase “in due time” means “eventually at an appropriate time,” as in the sentence “I will answer all of your questions in due time.” Therefore, the KJV seems to suggest that the evidence establishing these facts will come at some future time period. The text is referring specifically to Christ’s death as “a ransom for all.” So, the KJV suggests that the evidence for Christ’s death will be demonstrated “in due time.” Bear in mind that this is the same English Bible translation which says elsewhere that Christ will die “ONCE IN THE END OF THE WORLD” (Hebrews 9.26b italics mine)! Let’s look at a cross-reference in 1 Timothy 6.14-15 (the same letter), which has the exact same phrase (καιροῖς ἰδίοις):
τηρῆσαί σε τὴν ἐντολὴν ἄσπιλον
ἀνεπίλημπτον μέχρι τῆς ἐπιφανείας τοῦ
κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἣν καιροῖς
ἰδίοις δείξει ὁ μακάριος καὶ μόνος
δυνάστης, ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων
καὶ κύριος τῶν κυριευόντων.
Translation (NASB):
“keep the commandment without fault or
reproach until the appearing of our Lord
Jesus Christ, which He will bring about at
the proper time—He who is the blessed and
only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord
of lords.”
First Tim. 6.15 has the exact same phrase that we find in 1 Tim. 2.6, namely, καιροῖς ἰδίοις, and in this particular context it is a reference to “the appearing of our Lord Jesus,” which elsewhere is called “the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1.7; 1 Pet. 1.7, 13; Rev. 1.1)! Here, the Greek phrase καιροῖς ἰδίοις means “at the proper time” or, more accurately, “in its own times” (YLT). And it refers to the future revelation of Jesus in his own time.
But if 1 Timothy was written at the end of the first century——and the evidence for Christ’s death had already, presumably, been demonstrated in the New Testament books——why would the author insist that the proof of Christ’s death comes “in its own times”? It doesn’t make any sense. If Jesus died ca. 30 AD, and the writer of 1 Timothy is writing at around 100 AD, 70 years later, then why would the testimony of Jesus’ death be given at the proper time, or in Christ’s own time? The author doesn’t say that the testimony was already given but rather suggests that it will be given in due time. In other words, why isn’t the testimony given right then and there? Or, why isn’t the testimony considered as something that was already given in the past about the occurrence of a previous event?
Readers often read 1 Timothy 2.6 and ignore the last clause, or they skip it as if it doesn’t really mean anything. But it does! In fact, it is the key to understanding the passage. First Timothy 2.5-6 (NASB) reads:
“For there is one God, and one mediator also
between God and mankind, the man Christ
Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for
all, the testimony given at the proper time.”
Notice how the last clause is translated in modern Bible versions. Most versions translate it correctly, without committing the clause to a past reference point, thereby suggesting that the evidence for Christ’s death is given in Christ’s own time (whenever that is…).
The New International Version gets it horribly wrong. The editors are clearly basing their translations on their theological bias. Nowhere does the Greek text say that the testimony “has now been witnessed.” Yet that’s what the NIV says at 1 Tim. 2.6:
“This has now been witnessed to at the
proper time.”
Unfortunately, that is unsubstantiated by the Greek text, which reads:
τὸ μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδίοις ·
However, most of the modern Bible translations actually get it right:
ESV - “which is the testimony given at the
proper time.”
KJV - “to be testified in due time.”
ASV - “the testimony to be borne in its own
times.”
DRB - “a testimony in due times.”
YLT - “the testimony in its own times.”
Conclusion
Hebrews 9.26b (KJV) says that Jesus will die “once in the end of the world.” First Peter 1.20 (NJB) says that Christ is “revealed at the final point of time.” Revelation 12.5 says that the Messiah is born in the end times. Acts 3.19-21 says that the Messiah cannot come “until the period of restoration of all things.” Galatians 4.4 says that Christ is born in “the fullness of the time,” which Eph. 1.9-10 defines as the consummation of the ages! Moreover, the auditory and visual impressions of the transfiguration narrative in 2 Peter 1.16-18 constitute an apocalyptic *prophecy,* which is revealed in verse 19:
“so we have the prophetic word made more
sure, to which you do well to pay attention
as to a lamp shining in a dark place.”
What is more, 1 Timothy 2.6 (written at ca. 100 AD) says that Christ’s death is meant “to be testified in due time.” The author is certainly NOT referring to 70 years prior to the time that he penned this letter (i.e. ca. 30 AD)! Therefore, it's perplexing why this mysterious phrase “to be testified in due time” is inserted in the text, and what is its temporal implication. That’s because it implies that the testimony of Christ’s death seems to be forthcoming rather than being already available!
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