LXX - Tumblr Posts
THE LORD RESURRECTS TO TERRIFY THE EARTH
By Eli Kittim
Ἡ μετάφρασις τῶν Ἑβδομήκοντα (Septuagint):
εἰσενέγκαντες εἰς τὰ σπήλαια καὶ εἰς τὰς σχισμὰς τῶν πετρῶν καὶ εἰς τὰς τρώγλας τῆς γῆς ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ φόβου κυρίου καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς δόξης τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ ὅταν ἀναστῇ θραῦσαι τὴν γῆν (῾Ησαΐας 2.19 LXX).
Translation:
“Enter the caves of the rocks and the holes of the ground, from the terror of the Lord, and from the glory of his majesty, when he rises to terrify the earth” (Isaiah 2.19 NRSV).
The game changer in this verse is the Hebrew term “qum,” which is rendered in English as “rises.” Interestingly enough, the Septuagint translates it as *αναστη* (from the Greek *ανάσταση*, which means “resurrection”). This gives us a completely different interpretation concerning the timing of the Lord’s (Messiah’s) resurrection, namely, as taking place in the end times!
TRANSLATION AND EXEGESIS OF BIBLICAL GREEK
Eli Kittim
Ἡ μετάφρασις τῶν Ἑβδομήκοντα (Septuagint)
In the Septuagint’s version of Isa. 33.10, YHWH uses the Greek word *ἀναστήσομαι* (a derivative of the term *ἀνίστημι*, which means to ‘make to stand up’ or to ‘raise up’, but often meaning to ‘rise from the dead’) as a reference to His personal *resurrection*, which is then followed by His ascension (ὑψωθήσομαι) and exaltation (δοξασθήσομαι)
νῦν ἀναστήσομαι λέγει κύριος νῦν δοξασθήσομαι νῦν ὑψωθήσομαι (Isa. 33.10 LXX)
Translation
Now I will arise, says the Lord, now I will lift myself up; now I will be exalted (NRSV)
Compare the Greek terms *ἀναστῇ* (Isa. 2.19 LXX), *ἀναστήσεται* (Dan. 12.1 LXX), and *ἀναστήσονται* (Dan. 12.2 LXX), all of which refer to an eschatological *resurrection* from the dead!
THE NAME AND PREEXISTENCE OF JESUS WAS KNOWN AND ATTESTED BY PRE-CHRISTIAN SOURCES
If the New Testament (NT) was written in advance, as I have suggested, then one could reasonably argue that the NT writers knew of Jesus before he became man by way of revelations, including Paul as well as Philo who preceded him.
Case in point. Philo of Alexandria is a Jewish mystic philosopher and theologian who is writing between 20 - 40 CE, thus predating the New Testament writings.
In his "Confusion of Tongues" pp. 62-63 and pp. 146-47 as well as in his work entitled "On Dreams" 1.215, he attests that there existed within the Jewish Angelology of that period a belief in a celestial being - who in Zechariah 6 LXX is named Jesus - and that it is precisely this archangel who is considered to be the firstborn son of God (cf. Rom. 8.29), the celestial image of God (cf. 2 Cor. 4.4), God's agent of creation (cf. 1 Cor. 8.6), and God's celestial high priest (cf. Heb. 2.17, 4.14).
Source credit: Richard Carrier
In fact, Philo often refers to him as the Logos (cf. John 1.1) or the highest emanation of God. Similarly, many Christian scholars consider Jesus to be the preincarnated so-called "Angel of the Lord" in the Old Testament!
Thus, despite vast doctrinal and philosophical differences, there is considerable evidence to suggest that the name and preexistence of Jesus was known and attested by multiple independent sources!
The Septuagint's Translation of Daniel 12.1-2 Suggests an Eschatological Messianic Resurrection
By Author Eli Kittim
The Hebrew name מִיכָאֵל (i.e. Mikha'el) means "who is like God?". It is a rhetorical question, the implication of which is that no person is like God. Interestingly enough, the biblical terminology used to describe Michael is often similar to that of the Messiah. For example, "the archangel Michael" (Jude 1.9), who is described in the Old Testament as "one of the chief princes" (Dan. 10.13), is clearly identified with Christ the "anointed prince" (Dan. 9.25) in 1 Thess. 4.16:
"For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel's call and with the sound of God's trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first" (NRSV).
In Dan. 12.1 there is a reference to a great prince named Michael, depicted as "the protector of your people," who “shall arise” during the time of the great ordeal (i.e. the great tribulation).
The so-called ‘Theodotion Daniel’ form of the LXX translates the Hebrew term עָמַד aw-mad (i.e. "shall arise") as *ἀναστήσεται*, meaning a bodily resurrection.
The Theodotion Daniel (Δανιηλ 12.1) reads:
Καὶ ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ ἀναστήσεται Μιχαήλ ὁ ἄρχων ὁ μέγας, ὁ ἑστηκὼς ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ λαοῦ σου· καὶ ἔσται καιρὸς θλίψεως, θλίψις οἵα οὐ γέγονεν ἀφ’ οὗ γεγένηται ἔθνος ἐν τῇ γῇ, ἕως τοῦ καιροῦ ἐκείνου·
Translation:
"At that time Michael, the great prince, the protector of your people, shall arise. There shall be a time of anguish, such as has never occurred since nations first came into existence" (NRSV).
The Old Greek (LXX) goes on to say:
καὶ πολλοὶ τῶν καθευδόντων ἐν τῷ πλάτει τῆς γῆς ἀναστήσονται, οἱ μὲν εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον, οἱ δὲ εἰς ὀνειδισμόν, οἱ δὲ εἰς διασπορὰν καὶ αἰσχύνην αἰώνιον (Dan. 12.2).
It is translated as follows:
"Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt" (NRSV).
The word *ἀναστήσεται* is the future middle indicative from ἀνίστημι, which is the root word of *ἀνάστασις* and means to ‘raise up’ or to 'raise from the dead.' Accordingly, notice how the term *ἀναστήσεται* in its singular and plural form conveys the meaning of resurrection. In the Th Dan. 12.1, we have the singular form *ἀναστήσεται* ("shall arise"). Similarly, *ἀναστήσονται* (the plural form in the OG Dan. 12.2) represents an explicit reference to a resurrection from the dead, thereby establishing its meaning. And since both of these resurrection events (namely, Michael's resurrection followed by the general resurrection of the dead) are set for "the time of the end" (Dan. 12.4), the implication is that they are eschatological in nature!
Proof that Daniel 12.1 is Referring to a Resurrection from the Dead Based on Translation and Exegesis of the Biblical Languages
By Author Eli Kittim
Dan. 12.1 is in the context of the great tribulation of the end times! It’s repeated in Mt. 24.21 as the time of the great ordeal: καιρός θλίψεως (cf. Rev. 7.14).
Daniel Th 12.1 LXX:
καὶ ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ ἀναστήσεται Μιχαηλ ὁ ἄρχων ὁ μέγας ὁ ἑστηκὼς ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ λαοῦ σου καὶ ἔσται καιρὸς θλίψεως θλῖψις οἵα οὐ γέγονεν ἀφ’ οὗ γεγένηται ἔθνος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἕως τοῦ καιροῦ ἐκείνου.
The Theodotion Daniel 12.1 of the Septuagint translates the Hebrew word עָמַד (amad) as αναστήσεται, which is derived from the root word ανίστημι and means “shall arise.”
Translation:
At that time Michael, the great prince, the protector of your people, shall arise. There shall be a time of anguish, such as has never occurred since nations first came into existence.
My contention that the Greek word ἀναστήσεται (“shall arise”) is referring to a resurrection from the dead has been challenged by critics. My response is as follows.
The first piece of evidence is the fact that Michael is first mentioned as the one who “shall arise” (ἀναστήσεται; Dan Th 12.1 LXX) prior to the general resurrection of the dead (ἀναστήσονται; Dan OG 12.2 LXX). Here, there is solid linguistic evidence that the word ἀναστήσεται is referring to a resurrection because in the immediately following verse (12.2) the plural form of the exact same word (namely, ἀναστήσονται) is used to describe the general resurrection of the dead! In other words, if the exact same word means resurrection in Dan 12.2, then it must also necessarily mean resurrection in Dan 12.1!
The second piece of evidence comes from the Old Greek Daniel version of the Septuagint that uses the word παρελεύσεται to define the Hebrew word עָמַד (amad), which is translated as “shall arise.”
The OG Daniel 12.1 LXX reads:
καὶ κατὰ τὴν ὥραν ἐκείνην παρελεύσεται Μιχαηλ ὁ ἄγγελος ὁ μέγας ὁ ἑστηκὼς ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ λαοῦ σου ἐκείνη ἡ ἡμέρα θλίψεως οἵα οὐκ ἐγενήθη ἀφ’ οὗ ἐγενήθησαν ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης.
The OG Daniel version of the Septuagint further demonstrates that Daniel 12.1 is describing a death-and-resurrection theme because the word παρελεύσεται means to “pass away” (to die), thereby indicating the decease of this featured prince at the time of the end! It therefore sets the scene for his resurrection as the so-called “Theodotion Daniel” form of the LXX fills in the gaps by using the word αναστήσεται, meaning a bodily resurrection, to establish the latter day period as the time during which this princely figure will be resurrected from the dead!
The Two Powers of the Godhead Were Part of Judaism During the Time of Jesus
Eli Kittim (Goodreads Author)
——-
Metatron and Jesus
The early Jewish concept of “Metatron”——(He who is said to be above the angels, either consubstantial with the Ancient of days or perhaps a manifestation of his very being) as referenced by Medieval Rabbinic scholars and also found in the Babylonian Talmud and 3 Enoch——is very similar to the messianic figure of Jesus Christ in the New Testament (NT) and is suggestive of two powers in the Godhead, an idea also attested by Philo of Alexandria (see “Confusion of Tongues" pp. 62-63 and pp. 146-47; “On Dreams" 1.215). The notion of the two powers in Heaven in early Jewish thinking has recently attracted the attention of both Christian and Jewish scholarship. Peter Schafer, the noted religious studies scholar, has written extensively on this subject emphasizing that, according to Jewish writings, Metatron was seen as a lesser yhwh and was prevalent in Jewish thought in the first century, and thus helped Christianity to chalk up that designation to Jesus.
——-
The Two Powers in Heaven in the Hebrew Bible
The two powers of the Godhead or the plurality in the Godhead is certainly suggested in Hebrew scripture where there seem to be two Yahwehs, one visible, the other invisible, and they often participate in the same scenes together. In fact, according to Alan F. Segal’s book “Two powers in Heaven,” “the idea of the 2nd power was not considered heretical until the 2nd century CE.” Alan Segal was a Jewish man and professor of Jewish and Talmudic literature. So, the concept of the two powers of the Godhead was part of Judaism at the time of Jesus and only became a heresy sometime around 100 CE. Scholars suggest it was probably due to an attempt on the part of Judaism to oppose Christianity that they suddenly decided to consider it heretical. Naturally, this second YHWH was seen as Jesus by the NT authors.
——-
There are 2 YHWHs in the Old Testament (OT)
The divine plurality was not a huge problem at that time because there was already a belief in two powers in Jewish thought. There are, for example, two Yhwhs in Gen. 19.24. You can also see this idea in Gen. 22.11-12; Exod. 3.2, 4; 23.20-21; Deut. 12.5, 11. In Amos 4.11, God speaks in the first person and then curiously refers to God in the 3d person. In Judg. 2.1-4, the angel of YHWH is using first person language and speaks as if he’s God who has made a covenant with Israel. Astoundingly, in Gen. 31.10-13, the angel of God reveals himself as the God of Bethel. How could he be both the angel of God and God himself at one and the same time unless we’re talking about two different persons? Similarly, in Judg. 6.11-16, the passage begins with the angel of YHWH who said x y and z but ends with YHWH who said x y and z. In other words, as the angel of YHWH begins to speak he is then identified with YHWH himself speaking in the first person.
——-
YHWH revealed as the Word of the Lord
Further examples are found in 1 Samuel 3.1, 7-8, 10, 19-21. In 1 Samuel 3.21, for instance, we are told that the LORD (YHWH) revealed himself by/as the word of the Lord. This has profound theological implications. It clearly suggests that the Logos in Jn 1.1 (“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”) is neither a new idea nor a Christian invention but rather a conceptual derivation from Jewish theology that is contained within the OT itself. Similarly, in Jeremiah 1.4-7, Jeremiah says that “the word of the Lord came to me saying,” such and such, and then he refers to him as YHWH, but in v. 9 “the word of the Lord” that had come to him appears to be embodied because an actual hand reaches out and touches Jeremiah’s mouth, suggestive of the embodied word of God.
——-
The OT YHWH embodied in human form
In Daniel 7.13 “a human being coming with the clouds of heaven” is mentioned even though traditionally it is said to be God who rides the clouds (cf. Deut. 33.26; Ps. 68.32-33; 104.1-3; Isa. 19.1). Thus, we have a visible, embodied, incarnate God as well as an invisible God at one and the same time! We all thought that the cloud-rider was Yahweh. That’s correct. But now we find another person, a human being who takes on the qualities and attributes of Yahweh. In fact, the Matthean Jesus quotes this very passage during his purported trial (26.63-65) when Caiphas inquires to know who he really is. According to Alan Segal’s book, Daniel 7 is describing “a heavenly enthronement scene involving two divine manifestations, ‘the son of man’ and then Ancient of Days’ . . . it may easily be describing two separate, divine figures.”
——-
Jesus is unique amongst the heavenly host
While it is true that the Tanach presents other so-called “sons of God” who are not human (e.g. Job 1-2; Ps. 82.1, 6), Jesus is distinguished from them in that he is clearly identified with Yahweh per se. The NT itself makes this point in various ways. One way that the NT distinguishes Jesus from the other sons of God, which the Septuagint often translates as angels (Deut. 32.8 LXX), is through the Greek term monogenēs, a term that is translated in English as “Only Begotten.” Etymologically, this term is a combination of monos (“only”) and gene (“type” or “kind”). In other words, one of a kind. There are none like him. It means he’s “unique.” It does not have anything to do with the concepts of “begetting” or “beginning.” Hebrews 11.17 is the proof-text which clarifies this point because Isaac is also referenced there as the monogenes of Abraham. But we know that Isaac was not the only begotten son of Abraham. Ergo, it means that Isaac is unique.
——-
Summary:
Thus the “Only begotten” language refers to uniqueness, not to a “point of origin” or to a beginning. Given that Yahweh is unique and that Jesus is identified with him, this term stresses an intimate relationship between the two. The NT affirms a divine plurality and specifically Christ’s ontological link with Yahweh. In fact, Jude 1.5 suggests that it was Jesus himself who led the people out of Egypt!
——-
What about the Spirit and the Trinity?
The Holy Spirit becomes distinct as a separate entity already in the OT, as when it is said that the people rebelled not against the angel of the Lord but against “his Holy Spirit.” It’s noteworthy that later the text alludes to God “who brought them out of the sea” and “put in the midst of them his Holy Spirit” (Isaiah 63.10, 11). But wasn’t the angel of the Lord put in the midst of them, according to other passages? Well, yes. But there’s more to the story. Psalm 78.40-41 is a parallel passage. The words “rebelled” and “grieved” in Ps 78 are the same Hebrew words used in the Isaian passage. The Isaian passage says that the people rebelled and grieved “his Holy Spirit” whereas Ps 78 says that “they rebelled against him [God] and grieved him in the desert.” Verse 41 goes on to say that “They tested God again and again and provoked the Holy One of Israel.” The comparison of the two passages aligns or conflates the Holy Spirit with God and yet shows a distinction between them. In fact, Ps. 78.41 says that they tempted God and the Holy One of Israel. This is a case where two divine powers are mentioned in the same scene while one figure that we’re familiar with is clearly absent, to wit, the angel of the Lord. A third element is thus added to the two-power structure of the Godhead, namely, the Holy Spirit or the Holy One of Israel, according to the parallel passage. That’s “three-thinking” language. Accordingly, the NT authors knew their Hebrew Scriptures extraordinarily well. They were very familiar with its thematic material. So, they’re not inventing new concepts. They’re actually borrowing their ideas from the OT.
——-
A Trinitarian narrative in OT theology
By way of illustration, Ezek. 8 introduces “a form that had the appearance of a man” (v. 1), and then goes on to describe this figure in v. 2, which is suggestive of God sitting on his throne in Ezek. ch. 1. But here God appears in human form. Ezekiel says that “He put out the form of a hand” by which he grabbed his hair (v. 3). But who actually lifted him up? Ezekiel says, “and the Spirit lifted me up between earth and heaven (v. 3). The text then reverts to speaking about God in the 3rd person (v. 5) and also in the first person in verse 6.
So, in this passage we have God himself speaking, but we also have an embodied God in human form (akin to the figure in Ezek. ch. 1) as well as the “Spirit” acting as an independent agent and yet as part of the Godhead. This must have been extremely confusing to the early rabbinical scholars who probably couldn't make heads or tails of these passages. To the NT authors, who were also guided by divine revelations, these passages were obviously trinitarian in nature. Thus, there appears to be a theological correspondance between the *OT-God* (comprising the two YHWHs and the Spirit) and the *NT-God* (consisting of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). These divine modes were certainly prevalent in OT theology concerning the Two (and possibly Three) Powers in the Godhead.
——-
Conclusion
The Jewish Bible clearly suggests a plurality in the Godhead (i.e. Yahweh as two figures).
The so-called “Name” of God is yet another reference to Yahweh and this “Name” is said to be in the Angel of Yahweh as well. Ergo, we cannot escape the semantic trajectory of OT theology, namely, the running narrative that the Angel is YHWH in human form, or the visible manifestation of Yahweh. What is more, the so-called “Word of the Lord” appears to be an embodiment of YHWH. In fact, the theology of the Jewish Bible depicts the second Yahweh figure as physically embodied in human form. And, as already mentioned, the theology of first-century Judaism already contained the notion that Yahweh is present in two persons, often in the same scene.
Is the Old Testament Inspired?: The Case Against Marcion
By Award-Winning Author Eli Kittim
——-
Is the Old Testament Uninspired Because it Doesn’t Mention Jesus?
Marcion of Sinope (ca. 85 – 160 CE) preached that Jesus’ teachings, especially those on love, were completely at odds with the Old Testament (OT) revelations regarding the God of the Jews, whom he saw as legalistic and punitive, with no connection at all to the essential message of the New Testament (NT). One key Marcionite objection to the authority of the Jewish Bible is that the name of Jesus is never once mentioned there. However, the exclusivity of Jesus in the NT does not preclude the inspiration of the Hebrew Bible. The notion that the father cannot be known apart from Jesus has absolutely nothing to do with the question of the OT’s canonicity. For example, Acts 4.12 says:
Salvation is found in no one else, for there is
no other name under heaven given to
mankind by which we must be saved.
The fact that the name of Jesus is not found in the OT has no bearing on whether this collection of ancient Hebrew writings is inspired or not. After all, the name of Jesus (Ιησοῦς) is found in the Septuagint’s Book of Joshua, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible: https://www.academic-bible.com/en/online-bibles/septuagint-lxx/read-the-bible-text/bibel/text/lesen/?tx_buhbibelmodul_bibletext%5Bscripture%5D=Joshua+4
At any rate, these are two fundamentally different questions. The former has to do with Christology (i.e. the study of Christ), whereas the latter has to do with Biblical theology (i.e. the study of the Bible)!
The former has to to do with “Theology proper,” that is to say, with the exclusivity of Jesus as the unique preexistent Word of God (the Logos) through whom “All things came into being” (John 1.1-4), or as the “only begotten Son” (1 John 4.9) who prior to his incarnation “was in the form of God” (Phil. 2.6). Marcionites will therefore argue that Christ is the *only one* who is capable of revealing the Father, given that “He is the image of the invisible God” (Col 1.15) “through whom he [the Father] also created the worlds” (Heb. 1.1-2). For example, John 14.6 reads:
Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth
and the life. No one comes to the Father
except through me.’
But this declaration is not a proof-text demonstrating that the OT is not authoritative simply because it doesn’t mention Jesus’ divinity. That has to do with progressive revelation, the idea that revelation is given a little at a time.
Holding to a high Christology has little to do with whether or not the Hebrew Bible is inspired. That’s an entirely different issue involving Biblical theology, Pneumatology, and the like. So, the fact that Jesus is not mentioned by name in the Hebrew Bible is not a sufficient reason to dismiss this collection of Books as uninspired.
——-
Is the OT Uncanonical?
If the OT is not authoritative, as some Marcionites have argued, then why would the NT writers quote extensively from an “uninspired” book? And what would be the purpose of the standard *Biblical canon* if the NT authors extensively quoted from so-called “uninspired” books? In other words, if the OT is not authoritative, it would *contradict* the “canon of scripture” principle in which only Biblically-inspired books are accepted into the canon. Not to mention that the OT is widely viewed as authoritative by the NT precisely because it is included as a source of prophetic predictions in many different places, notably in Matthew 24, and especially in the Book of Revelation!
As a matter of fact, the NT authors insist that the OT is inspired! For example, at the time of the composition of the second letter to Timothy, there was no NT Scripture as yet. So, when the Biblical writers referred to Scripture, with the exception of two instances——namely, 2 Pet. 3.16, wherein Paul’s letters are referred to as “Scripture,” and 1 Tim. 5.18, in which Luke’s gospel is referred to as “Scripture”——they always meant the Hebrew Bible. The proof that they considered the Hebrew Bible to be *inspired* is in Second Timothy 3.16, which reads:
All scripture is inspired [πᾶσα γραφὴ
Θεόπνευστος] by God and is useful for
teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for
training in righteousness.
——-
Does Intertextuality Prove that the OT is Inspired?
All the books of the NT are constantly borrowing and quoting extensively from the OT, a “Book” without which the NT would be lacking a foundation. If we were to remove all those OT quotations, the NT would be insupportable, not to mention incomprehensible!
So, whoever thinks that the OT is uncanonical and uninspired is clearly not familiar with the heavy literary dependence of the NT on the OT (i.e. a process known as “intertextuality”). If you were to open up a critical edition of the NT, you’d be astounded by how much of the OT is actually quoted in the NT. Prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, and Daniel abound all over the place. The Book of Revelation, in particular, is mostly based on a reorganization of OT prophetic material from Zechariah, Joel, Amos, Daniel, and many others. A brief look at a *Chain-Reference-Bible* would quickly illustrate this fact: https://archive.org/details/ThompsonChainReferenceBible/page/n47/mode/2up
So, the proposal to remove this material——-suggested by Marcion of Sinope and, to a lesser extent, by some modern day preachers and closet Marcionites, such as Andy Stanley——is rather absurd as the NT would be without any foundation or justification concerning messianic, eschatological, or prophetic terminology. For example, various questions would inevitably arise: Where did the NT get the idea of the day of the Lord? Or the idea of the resurrection of the dead? Or that of the great tribulation? Or the concept of the Antichrist? Or the notion of the Messiah? All these concepts are deeply rooted in the Hebrew Bible!
If the OT is not authoritative, then the verbal agreements between the OT and the NT would equally disqualify those same statements as inauthentic NT references. For example, Paul quotes Isaiah verbatim. Many of the Jesus sayings are from the OT. If, say, a Marcionite were to claim that the OT is not inspired, then he would have to concede that some of Paul’s and Jesus’ sayings are equally uninspired, since they are derived from the OT. In other words, unbeknownst to the Marcionites, in rejecting the OT, they would also be rejecting the NT as well!
For example, most of the Matthew-24 prophetic material is based on the OT: from the abomination of desolation (Mt. 24.15; cf. Dan. 9.27) to the time when “the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light” (Mt.24.29; cf. Joel 3:15). If these OT prophecies were not inspired or authoritative, then they would certainly not have been used in the NT prophetic literature!
The explicit approval of OT passages as authoritative by the NT writers, and especially by Paul and Jesus——as well as the explicit message that “All scripture is inspired by God” (2 Tim. 3.16), which obviously includes the OT, given that It has been heavily employed in the NT——argues for the inspiration of the OT!
——-
As for Marcionism, it really involves a syncretism of Christianity and Gnosticism, with all the extra-biblical distortions that this fusion entails, such as the assumed existence of two deities (a lesser and a higher one), and the evil inherent in the material world. These are two diametrically opposed belief-systems between the monotheism of the NT and the polytheism of the Gnostics!
——-
Conclusion
Thus, Marcion, who was an anti-Semite, not only rejected Yahweh as a lesser, evil god, but he went on to dismiss the entire OT as if it were completely uninspired. He felt that it lacked the extravagant love story of the NT, which was ultimately derived from the Supreme God and father of Jesus Christ. He thought that these two testaments pertained to two fundamentally different gods. And so he urged Christians to steer clear of the OT because he considered it to be the product of an inferior deity. However, this is not the view of the NT authors, nor is it part of mainstream NT theology, soteriology, ecclesiology, or eschatology.
What is more, Marcion obviously did not critically assess both testaments to fully explore the extent to which *intertextuality* was involved within these manuscripts (i.e. the literary dependence of one testament on the other) and how inextricably linked they really were! Therefore, a rejection of the entire OT is simultaneously a rejection of many portions of the NT, including many of Jesus’ sayings. Such a separation would render the NT completely useless both theologically and Christologically, if not also eschatologically. Marcion’s claims would therefore undermine Christianity’s overall integrity, and this is probably why Marcion was denounced as a heretic and was excommunicated by the church of Rome ca. 144 CE.
To be fair, Marcion had the right idea, but the wrong approach. It’s true that there’s a radical shift in the NT from an active obedience to the 10-commandments to a passive acceptance of God’s Grace; from an external circumcision of the flesh to an internal circumcision of the heart (and the consequent indwelling of the Holy Spirit). Contrary to the Aleph and Tav in the Hebrew Scriptures, we are suddenly introduced to the NT revelation of God in Jesus Christ as the Alpha and Omega (using the first and last letters of the Greek rather than the Hebrew alphabet). After all, the NT is written exclusively in Greek, by Greeks, and written predominantly to Greek communities within the Roman empire. Paul himself maintains that we are “justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law” (e.g. Gal. 2.16). So, there is very little here that is Jewish!
But although the NT is a uniquely Greek “Book,” in which the name of Yahweh is never once mentioned, nevertheless the Hebrew Bible is still its foundation, without which the former would lose not only its historical lineage and theological context but also its reliability, validity, and, ultimately, its credibility!
Biblical Greek Exegesis: A Critique of Underhanded Methods
By Author Eli Kittim
The reason I’m posting a brief excerpt of my recent exchange with Mr. Marcelo Souza, an apparent priest and member of the *Koine Greek Study Group* on Facebook, is to respond to his libel in order to show that he was guilty of mishandling and misrepresenting my position. In fact, he touted himself as being a grammatical pundit, but in a rather dishonest manner he never actually gave the readers a satisfactory and robust *answer* to the Original Post’s (OP) question, but only pretended to do so using a red herring fallacy.
Here’s how it all began . . .
——-
Koine Greek Study Group *OP*
The OP was posted by Joe Hawley:
Have a question for all of you here. In
Matthew 28:1, the Greek word for "sabbath"
is pluralized, but it is translated singular in
every translation I can find. The one
exception I have found is with an old
interlinear I have around the house. Even
A.T. Robertson's commentary set on the
Greek text failed to say anything about it. I
am stumped. Any ideas? Thank you.
Joe’s basic dilemma is that although the Greek word for “Sabbath” (σαββάτων) is pluralized, nevertheless it’s translated in singular form in almost every translation he can find. So, he’s wondering, why is that so? Excellent question!
The OP reference is to the Greek text of Mt. 28.1:
Ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων, τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν σαββάτων, ἦλθεν Μαριὰμ ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ ἡ ἄλλη Μαρία θεωρῆσαι τὸν τάφον.
Translation (NRSV):
“After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb.”
This, then, is the text under investigation. I will now post the most important comments that fellow discussants made on this thread.
——-
Eric S Weiss (commenter)
ICC on Matthew:
καὶ ἐὰν ἐμπέσῃ τοῦτο τοῖς σάββασιν εἰς βόθυνον. Compare 15:14 (εἰς βόθυνον πεσοῦνται) and Lk 14:5 (εἰς φρέαρ πεσεῖται). The plural, ‘sabbaths’, is to be accounted for by the Aramaic šabbětā˒, which is an emphatic singular.
Joe Hawley (the Original Poster) replied:
Not sure if I follow you. ... Not sure how the Aramaic figures in with this. Thank you for your response.
Marcelo Souza:
Joe Hawley it’s just usage. Remember Sabbath is a Hebrew word that comes into Greek (and other languages) transliterated. When that happens, it often acquires its own usage.
[what does that have to do with Greek syntax?]
Even the LXX already used Σαββάτων for a Sabbath, e.g., Num. 15:32
[Not so. That’s a form of underhanded exegesis. In the Greek LXX, it is plural (σαββάτων). It is only the English LXX translation that renders it Sabbath due to dynamic equivalence translations that will be discussed later. What is more, Souza doesn’t even give us the grammatical rule for the LXX’s usage]
32 Καὶ ἦσαν οἱ υἱοὶ ᾿Ισραὴλ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ καὶ εὗρον ἄνδρα συλλέγοντα ξύλα τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων
Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day.
וַיִּהְיוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, בַּמִּדְבָּר; וַיִּמְצְאוּ, אִישׁ מְקֹשֵׁשׁ עֵצִים--בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת.
(B’yom ha shabat)
——-
Let’s pause the conversation for a second for some well-needed commentary. Based on his post, Marcelo Souza seems ignorant of Greek syntax, as he attributes the translation of Sabbath in the singular simply to a Hebrew usage. He completely ignores Greek grammar by appealing to Hebrew to make his case, even posting Num. 15.32 in Hebrew. Good grief! That’s why Souza’s use of the *English* version of Num. 15.32 LXX τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων as the syntactical basis of the singular form in Mt. 28.1 is erroneous. Why? Because unlike Mt. 28.1, Num. 15.32 LXX employs the genitive plural article τῶν (i.e. τῶν σαββάτων), which should be translated as “of the Sabbaths” (plural), whereas Mt.28.1 has the conjunction δὲ σαββάτων instead. So, the LXX-NT comparison is unwarranted, not only because of the *different words* that precede the term “Sabbath” in both texts but also because Souza is not using the original Greek LXX but rather its English translation. That’s arguing in a circle. In other words, instead of comparing the Greek NT against the Greek LXX, he’s comparing the Greek NT against English translations of the Greek LXX. For example, he doesn’t mention the genitive plural article τῶν, which turns σαββάτων into plural, in the Greek LXX but rather the fact that the English translations of the LXX render it in the singular as “Sabbath.” His entire eisegesis is a sham! It’s like mixing apples and oranges. Besides, he never even gave us the grammatical rule why the Septuagint translates τῶν σαββάτων in the plural form or how that is related to the singular form in Mt. 28.1. Instead, he leaves us guessing as to why that is so by pretending to have answered it.
In fact, throughout the entire thread, none of the discussants gave a sufficient grammatical reason why the pluralized Greek word for “sabbath” is nevertheless translated in the singular and not in the plural form in Mt. 28.1. As you will see, I’m the only one who did that. Weiss tried to answer the question by saying that it is due to the Aramaic šabbětā, which is irrelevant because he’s trying to argue Greek syntax from a foreign language, even if it does involve a transliteration. And then Souza followed suit and tried to do the same by way of a dubious attribution to the Hebrew usage (as a transliteration). However, whether the term “Sabbath” was originally a Hebrew word or not is completely irrelevant to the OP’s discussion. It’s the Greek syntax that’s all-important. The Hebraic etymology is irrelevant as to whether “Sabbath” is in singular or plural form in the Greek. So, the notion of using Hebrew etymology to understand and even justify Greek syntax is a fallacy; it’s completely bogus and misinformed!
I suspect this is probably due to the fact that Marcelo Souza is not a native Greek speaker and doesn’t seem to understand the grammatical depths, nuances, and complexities of the Greek language. This was exemplified later in the conversation by his sleight of hand performance in which he maintained that he conclusively answered the OP, when in fact he didn’t. He even pats himself on the back as if having been congratulated by the inquirer. It reminds me of Americans who study NT Greek for a few years at a Seminary and then become haughty and conceited, deluding themselves that they really understand Koine Greek in all its sophistication, when in fact all they have learned is a few basic rules of grammar, at best. They can’t even order a glass of wine in a Greek restaurant. And just as their pretentious western Erasmian pronunciation is fake and invalid, so are most of their grammatical and syntactic evaluations.
——-
I’m the only one who actually posted the correct answer to the OP, arguing from the Greek, not from Aramaic or Hebrew, as Weiss and, especially, Souza erroneously did. And I explicitly mentioned that to Souza. In reference to the Greek text in Mt. 28.1, I wrote:
“In the first-mentioned sabbath, the author [Matthew] does NOT use the genitive plural τῶν, as in τῶν σαββάτων. That’s why all credible translations translate it in the singular form.”
Bingo! That’s the correct answer!
——-
Back to the Conversation . . .
This is how the Debate Began Between Me and Marcelo Souza
After a few discussants posted their commentaries on this particular post in the Koine Greek Study Group, I made a comment that “the term σαββάτων in Mt. 28.1 is Not Plural [i.e. it’s not translated in the plural]; it’s a Declension.” And I interpreted Souza’s under-mentioned reply to mean that σαββάτων (being a genitive plural) BY ITSELF can answer the OP’s question. Thus began our heated exchange. . .
Marcelo Souza:
The word is a genitive plural [he seems to imply that this is the answer to the OP. Otherwise why mention such an obvious fact?].
Eli Kittim:
No it isn’t [meaning, the answer to the OP]. That’s a mistranslation [meaning, you can’t use the genitive plural form ALONE as the basis for translation].
[When I replied “no it isn’t,” it was a shorthand for saying that the genitive plural FORM of the noun σαββάτων BY ITSELF (in and of itself) is NOT the *REASON* why it’s translated in singular rather than in plural form in Mt. 28.1. Rather, it is because it lacks the genitive plural *article* τῶν! In other words, the presence or absence of the preceding article τῶν determines whether σαββάτων should be translated as singular or plural, not on the basis of its genitive plural form alone, or on the Hebraic grounds that Souza suggested earlier. And this is correct. As I explicitly stated later, I obviously did not deny that σαββάτων per se is a genitive plural. How could I? That would be patently ridiculous. That’s where the miscommunication began. And based on his misunderstanding of what I meant, he concocted a whole smearing campaign, slandering me and accusing me of being ignorant of Greek syntax, and its relation to translation, and hurling derogatory and condescending comments and insults].
——-
The exchange continued as follows . . .
Marcelo Souza:
Eli Kittim I think you’re confused as to what grammar is. It’s a genitive plural and that’s not a matter of translation. So you are incorrect . . .
[It is a matter of translation because translation closely follows the grammar & syntax of the original language].
Eli Kittim:
In the first-mentioned sabbath, the author does NOT use the genitive plural τῶν, as in τῶν σαββάτων. That’s why all credible translations translate it in the singular form.
Marcelo Souza:
We even gave an example from the LXX, with the corresponding Hebrew.
So maybe you don't know the difference between syntax and translation [there go the insults], and you don't know what a genitive plural is [more insults . . . ] and you think that if one says it's a genitive plural, it needs to be translated in the plural [talk about presumption].
He went on to say:
So you deny it's a genitive plural because you don't know what that is . . .
Eli Kittim (my response):
Marcelo Souza It’s a miscommunication. You’re completely misrepresenting me with misperceived ideas of what you think I meant or what you assume I know, etc. . . . I NEVER DENIED THAT σαββάτων PER SE IS A GENITIVE PLURAL [emphasis added]. . . . I was referring to the fact that there is no genitive plural article τῶν before or prior to the word, and why the term would not normally be translated in the plural as Sabbaths. Incidentally, your deviation into Hebrew is completely irrelevant in this particular case because Matthew is writing in New Testament Greek, not translating Hebrew into Greek.
Our exchange ended shortly thereafter. . .
——-
Biblical Greek Exegesis: How dynamic equivalence has corrupted the translation of the expression τῶν σαββάτων in the New Testament
The dynamic (thought for thought) method of translation translates the idiomatic expression τῶν σαββάτων in singular form. But that is not a faithful translation. By contrast, literal translations (i.e. formal equivalence) render it as “of the weeks” or “of the Sabbaths.” For example, Mark 16.2 τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων should read “on the first day of the weeks” (cf. A Faithful Version [formal equivalence]) or “in the morning of the first of the sabbaths” (YLT [formal equivalence]).
Notice that in Mark 16.2 the phrase τῶν σαββάτων is preceded by the dative singular adjective μιᾷ (first). The parsing in Mark 16.2 is as follows:
τῇ (on the) Article - dative singular
μιᾷ (first) Adjective - dative singular
τῶν (of the) Article - genitive plural
σαββάτων (weeks) Noun - genitive plural
In other words, the action occurs during one of the Sabbaths or on the first day of the Sabbaths. Why is “Sabbaths” plural and not singular (in translation)? Because it is preceded by the genitive plural article τῶν. Had it been preceded by the genitive singular article τοῦ, then “Sabbath” would have been translated in singular form. That is the raison d'être for the expression’s singular form in the Mt. 28.1 translation. And that is the correct answer to the Original Post! In other words, the translation of “sabbath” in singular form obviously has nothing to do with the genitive plural form of σαββάτων PER SE or with its attribute as a Greek transliteration of Hebrew, as Souza erroneously suggests.
Similarly, in Luke 4.16, the expression ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων should be translated “on the day of the Sabbaths” (Berean Literal Bible [word for word translation]). The parsing of Luke 4.16 is thusly:
ἐν (on) Preposition
τῇ (the) Article - Dative Singular
ἡμέρᾳ (day) Noun - Dative Singular
τῶν (of the) Article - genitive plural
σαββάτων (weeks) Noun - genitive plural
Acts 13.14 τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων is a similar case that corroborates the aforementioned exegesis. Thus, in these cases, the most faithful translation seems to be “on the day of the Sabbaths.” The genitive plural article τῶν cannot be used to refer to a single Sabbath. That would have been the case if it were the genitive singular article τοῦ (i.e. τοῦ σαββάτου)!
(see e.g. the following concordance https://biblehub.com/greek/sabbatou_4521.htm).
——-
When, Where, and By Whom Was Each Book of the New Testament Written?
By Writer Eli Kittim
——-
The New Testament: Book by Book
Matthew.
Place Written: Antioch?
Written in 80-85 CE.
Author: anonymous; traditionally ascribed to Matthew, the tax collector disciple of Jesus. An account of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection that stresses he is the Jewish messiah sent from the Jewish God to the Jewish people in fulfillment of the prophecies of the Jewish Scriptures.
Mark.
Place Written: Rome?
Written in 70 CE.
Author: anonymous; traditionally ascribed to Mark, the personal secretary of the apostle Peter. The earliest record of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, which portrays him as the messiah no one expected or understood, who was sent to die for the sins of the world and be raised from the dead.
Luke.
Place Written: Antioch.
Written in 80-85 CE.
Author: anonymous; traditionally ascribed to Luke, a traveling companion of Paul. An account of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection that stresses he was the final prophet sent from God, destined to be rejected by his own people so salvation would go to gentiles.
John.
Place Written: Ephesus?
Written in 90-95 CE.
Author: anonymous; traditionally ascribed to Jesus’ disciple John the Son of Zebedee. An account of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection focusing on his identity as a pre-existent divine being sent from above to bring eternal life to all who believe in him.
Acts.
Place Written: Rome.
Written in 85-90 CE.
Author: anonymous: same author as Gospel of Luke. An account of the miraculous spread of the Christian church after Jesus’ resurrection, through the preaching and miracles of the apostles, especially Paul, who took the message to gentiles.
Romans.
Place Written: Corinth.
Written 60-64 CE.
Author: Paul. Written to the Christian church of Rome to explain the essentials of Paul’s gospel message, that only the death of Jesus can bring salvation from sin, for both Jews and gentiles.
1 Corinthians.
Place Written: Macedonia.
Written: mid 50s CE.
Author: Paul. Written to the church in Corinth, in response to numerous problems experienced after Paul’s departure, including divisions in the church, sexual immorality, proper worship, and the reality of the future resurrection.
2 Corinthians.
Place Written: Macedonia.
Written: mid 50s CE.
Author: Paul. Follow-up letter to 1 Corinthians, which attacks “super-apostles” who claim precedence over Paul and explains that followers of Jesus in this age will experience hardship rather than glory.
Galatians.
Place Written: Corinth.
Written: late 50s CE.
Author: Paul. Written with urgency to gentile churches throughout region of Galatia to attack those arguing that gentile Christians must adopt the ways of Judaism, especially circumcision.
Ephesians.
Place Written: Rome.
Written: end of first century.
Author: unknown, in the name of Paul. Letter to church of Ephesus, giving a plea for the unity provided by Christ and the free salvation he provides, to a church experiencing splits between Jewish and gentile factions.
Philippians.
Place Written: Rome/Ephesus?
Written: late 50s CE.
Author: Paul. Joyful letter thanking the church in Philippi for its moral and material support and urging church unity among members who should live for others in imitation of Christ.
Colossians.
Place Written: Rome/Ephesus?
Written: end of first century.
Author: unknown, in the name of Paul. Letter urging Christians in Colossae not to worship spiritual powers other than Christ, who alone provides all that is needed for salvation and spiritual completion.
1 Thessalonians.
Place Written: Corinth.
Written: 49-50 CE.
Author: Paul. Paul’s earliest letter. A joyful recollection of his time with the church, stressing the imminent arrival of Christ from heaven and the salvation he will then bring, even to believers who had already died.
2 Thessalonians.
Place Written: Corinth.
Written: ca 70s CE?
Author: unknown, in the name of Paul. Written in imitation of 1 Thessalonians, an appeal to Christians not to think the return of Christ is immediate. The end is coming, but it will be preceded by clear signs.
1 Timothy.
Place Written: Macedonia.
Written: end of first century.
Author: unknown, in the name of Paul. Allegedly written to Paul’s young follower Timothy, pastor of church in Ephesus, giving instructions about how to organize and run his church.
2 Timothy.
Place Written: Rome.
Written: end of first century.
Author: unknown, in the name of Paul. By the same author as 1 Timothy and Titus, also addressed to Timothy, giving Paul’s final thoughts and instructions as he is preparing soon to die.
Titus.
Place Written: Macedonia?
Written: end of first century.
Author: unknown, in the name of Paul. By the same author as 1 and 2 Timothy. Addressed to Paul’s follower Titus, pastor of church on Cyprus, giving instructions about how to organize and run his church.
Philemon.
Place Written: Rome.
Written: late 50s CE.
Author: Paul. Letter written to a wealthy Christian, Philemon, urging him to receive back and forgive his slave Onesimus, who had absconded with his property and fled to Paul for help.
Hebrews.
Place Written: Rome?
Written: end of first century.
Author: Anonymous; traditionally ascribed to Paul. A plea to readers not to leave the Christian faith for Judaism, since Christ is superior to everything in the Hebrew Bible, which foreshadowed the salvation he would bring.
James.
Place Written: unknown.
Written: end of first century.
Author unknown, in the name of Jesus’ brother James. A moral essay correcting Christians who believed that “faith alone” would save, by stressing the need to do “good works,” since faith without works “is dead.”
1 Peter.
Place Written: Babylon/Rome?
Written: end of first century.
Author unknown: in the name of Jesus’ disciple Peter. A letter encouraging Christians experiencing suffering for their faith, emphasizing that Christ himself suffered, as would all those who strive to be his witnesses in the world.
2 Peter.
Place Written: Rome?
Written: ca. 120 CE.
Author unknown: in the name of Jesus’ disciple Peter. A letter explaining why the “imminent” return of Jesus had not yet happened, assuring its readers that a delay was necessary but all was going according to God’ plan.
1 John.
Place Written: Ephesus?
Written: end of first century.
Author: anonymous; traditionally ascribed to Jesus’ disciple John the Son of Zebedee. An essay written to urge followers of Jesus to be fulling loving to one another and not to be led astray by a separatist faction that suggested Jesus was a phantasmal being and not fully human.
2 John.
Place Written: Ephesus?
Written: end of first century.
Author anonymous; same author as 1 John; traditionally ascribed to Jesus’ disciple John the Son of Zebedee. Brief letter addressing a church leader’s community urging unity in love and the avoidance of false teaching.
3 John.
Place Written: Ephesus?
Written: end of first century.
Author anonymous; same author as 1 John; traditionally ascribed to Jesus’ disciple John the Son of Zebedee. Very brief letter addressing similar issues of 2 John in light of a specific problem, the reception of a visiting church leader who was rejected by some in the congregation.
Jude.
Place Written: Unknown.
Written: end of first century.
Author anonymous; in the name of Jude, the brother of Jesus. Brief and vitriolic letter attacking false teachers who had infiltrated the Christian community, without indicating the nature of their teaching.
Revelation.
Place Written: Patmos Island.
Written 90-95 CE.
Author: an unknown John; traditionally ascribed to Jesus’ disciple, John the Son of Zebedee. A description of mysterious visions of the heavenly realm and the cataclysmic disasters to strike the earth before all God’s enemies are destroyed and a new utopian world arrives for the followers of Christ.
Source credit: Bart D. Ehrman (edited)
——-
Conclusion
Most of the New Testament Books were written in Greece: Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Titus, the Book of Revelation, and possibly others as well! Astoundingly, not a single New Testament Book was ever written in Palestine by a Jew! Not one! Not even the letters of James and Jude. According to scholars, the cultivated Greek language of these epistles could not have possibly been written by Jerusalem Jews! Besides, according to Bart Ehrman, “most of the apostles were illiterate and could not in fact write. They could not have left an authoritative writing if their soul depended on it.”
What is more, there are more Epistles addressed to Greek communities than any other: 1 & 2 Corinthians, Philippians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians. And most of the New Testament letters are written in Greece. Nine in all! It’s also important to note that when the New Testament authors quote from the Old Testament, they often quote from the Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, and not from the Hebrew scriptures per se. It’s true that Greek was the lingua franca. But the lingua franca was only used for commerce, not for writing sacred scripture! If the New Testament was written in Greek because it was the lingua franca, then we would expect most of the Dead Sea Scrolls to be written in Greek. But most of them are in Hebrew, thus disproving the lingua franca hypothesis! Devout Jews preferred Hebrew. Besides, the New Testament was supposed to be a continuation of Jewish scripture! This indicates that the New Testament authors were not familiar with the Hebrew language. This lends plausibility to the argument that the New Testament authors were not Hebrews, but Greeks! For example, it could be argued that the “New Perspective on Paul” needs to be revisited, given Paul’s polemic against the Judaizers, his extraordinary command of the Greek language, his extensive quotations from the Greek rather than from the Hebrew Bible, as well as the puzzling discrepancies regarding his supposed Jewish identity (cf. Rom. 2.28-29; 1 Cor. 9.20)!
To sum up, most of the New Testament Books were composed in Greece. Most of the epistles were penned in Greece and addressed to Greek communities. The New Testament was written exclusively in Greek, outside of Palestine, by non-Jews who used the Greek Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Bible when quoting from the Old Testament. It seems, then, that the New Testament is an entirely sui generis Greek Book, which was largely composed in Greece by Greeks. Thus, the Greek origin of the New Testament speaks volumes about its Hellenistic *messianic* message, ideas, and content!
——-
Where Was Tarshish Located?
By Author Eli Kittim
In Second Chronicles 9.21, the Septuagint (LXX L.C.L. Brenton) translates the Hebrew “Tarshish” (תַּרְשִׁ֔ישׁ BHS) as Θαρσεῖς. The location of Θαρσεῖς——according to Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities (LCL 242: 62-63)——was in Tarsus Cilicia (the birth place of Saul of Tarsus, aka Paul the Apostle; Acts 22.3) in Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey), near the Mediterranean Sea. Greeks comprised a large portion of the population. It was a Greek colony. So, Tarshish does not appear to be in Spain as some commenters have suggested:
https://www.loebclassics.com/view/josephus-jewish_antiquities/1930/pb_LCL242.63.xml
In Jonah 1.3 (LXX), the term “Tarshish” is spelled Tharsis and translated in the Greek as Θαρσὶς. In the Bible, Tarshish is said to comprise a cluster of islands: “For the coastlands shall wait for me, the ships of Tarshish first” (Isa. 60.9 NRSV cf. Isa. 23.6). The great ships of Tarshish are also mentioned in Isa. 2.16. Then, as now, Greece controlled one of the largest merchant fleets in the world. Moreover, according to Gen. 10.4, Tarshish was one of “The descendants of Javan [Greece]: Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim [Cyprus], and Rodanim [Rhodes]” (cf. 1 Chr 1.7)!
Conclusion
Thus, both the internal and external evidence strongly suggest that Tarshish was located on the southern part of Anatolia, and that the region had undergone Greek ‘colonization’ by Greek and Aegean settlers:
https://research-bulletin.chs.harvard.edu/2017/08/02/rough-cilicia/
After all, Ionia itself——located on the western coast of Anatolia in present-day Turkey——comprised the territories of the Ionian League of Greek settlements. As far back as 600–480 BCE, Greeks had settled on the shores and islands of the eastern Aegean Sea.
—————
Is Russia on the Brink of Nuclear War?
By Author Eli Kittim
Who or What is Gog?
Joseph Stalin——the Soviet Union’s longest serving ruler from 1927 until 1953 (for nearly 3 decades)——was born in Gori, Georgia. Curiously enough, in both English and Russian, the initials of Gori, Georgia would be Gog or ΓοΓ (i.e. Гори, Грузия). If the Bible wanted to symbolize the terror of Communism in the 20th century, as well as the final empire on earth, what better way to do so than by pointing to its cruelest and most infamous leader, who was born in the land of Gog and Magog.
In the Bible, Γώγ or Gog symbolically represents the final leader of the last superpower on earth. The last-days prophecy of Ezekiel 38.1-2 (LXX) reads:
ΚΑΙ ἐγένετο λόγος Κυρίου πρός με λέγων·
υἱὲ ἀνθρώπου, στήρισον τὸ πρόσωπόν σου
ἐπὶ Γὼγ καὶ τὴν γῆν τοῦ Μαγώγ, ἄρχοντα
Ῥώς, Μοσὸχ καὶ Θοβέλ, καὶ προφήτευσον
ἐπ’ αὐτὸν.
Translation (NKJV):
Now the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
Son of man, set your face against Gog, of the land
of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and
Tubal, and prophesy against him.
The term Γώγ might actually be an abridged version of the word Γεωργία (Georgia), the country that has a northern border with Russia and was once part of the Soviet Union. Based on both linguistic and historical studies, the rest of the names indicate a Russian connection: prince of Ρώς (Gk. Ρωσία/Russia), Μοσόχ (Gk. Μόσχα/Moscow) and Θοβέλ (Tobolsk). In his book The Footsteps of the Messiah (p. 70), the biblical scholar Arnold Fruchtenbaum provides a supplementary elaboration of Ezekiel 38:
The identification of Magog, Rosh,
Meshech, and Tubal is to be determined
from the fact that these tribes of the
ancient world occupied the areas of modern
day Russia. Magog, Meshech and Tubal
were between the Black and Caspian Seas
which today is southern Russia. The tribes
of Meshech and Tubal later gave names to
cities that today bear the names of
Moscow, the capital, and Tobolsk, a major
city in the Urals in Siberia. Rosh was in what
is now northern Russia. The name Rosh is
the basis for the modern name Russia.
Similarly, according to Wikipedia:
Josephus refers to Magog son of Japheth
as progenitor of Scythians, or peoples north
of the Black Sea [Josephus, Antiquities of
the Jews, Book I, Chapter 6]. According to
him, the Greeks called Scythia Magogia.
The Scythians were a group of nomadic warriors who lived in what is now southern Russia. More importantly, the Bible seems to point to Russia as the birthplace of the last-days Antichrist (see e.g. Ezekiel 38). In order to understand the historical reasons for tying the Ezekiel 38 narrative to Russia, see “The Magog Identity” article by Chuck Missler: https://www.khouse.org/articles/2002/427/print/
The Septuagint Conflates the Biblical References to Gog and Agag
In Numbers 24.7 of the Septuagint, Agag is called Gog (Γώγ), and the LSV translation of the Bible uses the two titles interchangeably in Numbers 24.7 (cf. Amos 7.1 LXX; Rev. 9.3, 7-12):
He makes water flow from his buckets,
‘And his seed [is] in many waters; And his
King [is] higher than Gog [or Agag],’
And his kingdom is exalted.
Here’s the Septuagint version of Numbers 24.7:
ἐξελεύσεται ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος
αὐτοῦ καὶ κυριεύσει ἐθνῶν πολλῶν, καὶ
ὑψωθήσεται ἢ Γὼγ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ, καὶ
αὐξηθήσεται βασιλεία αὐτοῦ.
In Hebrew, the pronunciation of Agag is Ag-awg, similar to that of Gog (gawg). Some scholars think that Agag represented a dynastic name for the kings of Amalek, much like the title Pharaoh that was used for the Egyptian kings. Interestingly enough, according to scholars, the root of the word Georgia (Γεωργία), which, as mentioned earlier, may represent the biblical Gog (Γώγ), is the Persian word gurğ (“wolf”), a possible cognate of Agag. One of Agag’s descendants is Haman the Agagite (Esther 3.1), whose cruel plot against the Jews can only be matched by those of Hitler and Stalin. Thus, the name Agag (or, alternatively, “Gog”) has become synonymous with antisemitism and with evil! It seems, then, that the titles Gog and Agag are interchangeable.
Old & New Testament Prophecies About the Same Cataclysmic Event
Even though in Ezekiel 38 the term Gog is an appellation of rank and status, notice that in Revelation 20.8 Gog and Magog (Γώγ και Μαγώγ) are references to nations (ἔθνη), not titles:
καὶ ἐξελεύσεται πλανῆσαι τὰ ἔθνη τὰ ἐν
ταῖς τέσσαρσι γωνίαις τῆς γῆς, τὸν Γὼγ καὶ
Μαγώγ, συναγαγεῖν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν
πόλεμον, ὧν ὁ ἀριθμὸς αὐτῶν ὡς ἡ ἄμμος
τῆς θαλάσσης.
Translation (NRSV):
and will come out to deceive the nations at
the four corners of the earth, Gog and
Magog, in order to gather them for battle;
they are as numerous as the sands of the
sea.
And the next verse (Rev. 20.9) is seemingly talking about the exact same event that Luke 21, Zechariah 14, and Ezekiel 38 are describing, namely, “Jerusalem [being] surrounded by armies” (Lk 21.20), or a gathering of “all the nations against Jerusalem to battle” (Zech. 14.2; cf. Ezek. 38.16):
καὶ ἀνέβησαν ἐπὶ τὸ πλάτος τῆς γῆς, καὶ
ἐκύκλευσαν τὴν παρεμβολὴν τῶν ἁγίων καὶ
τὴν πόλιν τὴν ἠγαπημένην. καὶ κατέβη πῦρ
ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ⸃ καὶ κατέφαγεν αὐτούς ·
Translation:
They marched up over the breadth of the
earth and surrounded the camp of the
saints and the beloved city [Jerusalem].
And fire came down from heaven and
consumed them.
This so-called “fire” may refer to a nuclear blast that causes the desolation of Jerusalem (cf. Ezek. 38.19-20; 39.6, 8; Dan. 11.31; 12.11; Zech. 14.11; Mt. 24.15-22).
Notice that the exact same word that is used in Revelation 20.9 to refer to the armies of Gog and Magog that “surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city [Jerusalem],” namely, the word ἐκύκλευσαν (derived from the word κυκλόω, meaning to encircle, besiege, or surround), is also used in Luke 21.20 (κυκλουμένην) to describe “Jerusalem surrounded by armies.”
This is presumably the same event prophesied by Jeremiah the prophet (10.22):
Hear, a noise! Listen, it is coming— a great
commotion from the land of the north to
make the cities of Judah a desolation.
For a detailed study on the nuclear implications of the phrase, “the desolating sacrilege standing in the holy place” (Mt. 24.15), see my article “What is the Abomination of Desolation?”: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/651654379241406464/what-is-the-abomination-of-desolation
If experts claim that it wouldn’t be difficult for terrorists to build and detonate an improvised nuclear device, how much easier would it be for an invading army to do likewise?
According to Wiki:
Since 1947, the Doomsday Clock of the
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has
visualized how close the world is to a
nuclear war. As of 2021, the current time to
'midnight,' (midnight representing nuclear
war,) is 100 seconds.
See the following article: “Are we on the brink of nuclear war? Un researcher says yes”: https://www.google.com/amp/s/sofrep.com/amp/news/are-we-on-the-brink-of-nuclear-war-un-researcher-says-yes/
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!
The Septuagint’s Clue to the Identity of Gog of Magog
By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim
The Hebrew Bible
כֹּ֤ה הִרְאַ֙נִי֙ אֲדֹנָ֣י יְהוִ֔ה וְהִנֵּה֙ יוֹצֵ֣ר גֹּבַ֔י בִּתְחִלַּ֖ת עֲל֣וֹת הַלָּ֑קֶשׁ
וְהִ֨נֵּה־ לֶ֔קֶשׁ אַחַ֖ר גִּזֵּ֥י הַמֶּֽלֶךְ׃
In the Masoretic Text, the Book of Amos, chapter 7 and verse 1, mentions ham·me·leḵ (the King). It also employs the term gō·ḇay, which means “grasshoppers” or “locusts.”
But let’s not forget that the Masoretic text arrived late on the scene. It began to circulate between the 7th and 10th centuries CE. In fact, the oldest, complete copy is the Leningrad Codex, which dates from the 11th century CE. And we also know that there was not one version but several. This can clearly be shown in the Jewish theological writings of the Talmud and the Mishnah where different versions are being adduced (see the textual history of the Hebrew Bible explained by Drs. Emanuel Tov & Michael S. Heiser).
The Septuagint
By contrast, the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament), an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, was translated between the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE. So, it’s a much older text than the Masoretic. Not surprisingly, the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date back to roughly 200 BCE, corroborate the accuracy of the Septuagint’s translation!
When comparing the Masoretic text with that of the Septuagint (aka LXX), we know from Deuteronomy 32.8, for example, that the LXX has the correct reading (sons of God) as opposed to the Masoretic text which has (sons of Israel), a late theological redaction. We can demonstrate the correct reading by comparing these texts to the older Dead Sea Scrolls, which corroborate the LXX version. The point is that the LXX is a lot older than the Masoretic and we need to pay closer attention to this text!
The Prophetic Book of Amos in the LXX
Amos 7.1 (LXX English translation by L.C.L. Brenton) reads:
ΟΥΤΩΣ ἔδειξέ μοι Κύριος ὁ Θεός, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐπιγονὴ ἀκρίδων ἐρχομένη ἑωθινή, καὶ ἰδοὺ βροῦχος εἷς Γὼγ ὁ βασιλεύς.
Translation:
Thus has the Lord God shewed me; and, behold, a swarm of locusts coming from the east; and, behold, one caterpillar, king Gog.
So, the LXX gives us an insight into Bible prophecy and eschatology. The name Γὼγ (Gog) is also referenced in Ezekiel 38.2 ff. (LXX):
υἱὲ ἀνθρώπου, στήρισον τὸ πρόσωπόν σου
ἐπὶ Γὼγ καὶ τὴν γῆν τοῦ Μαγώγ, ἄρχοντα
Ῥώς, Μοσὸχ καὶ Θοβέλ, καὶ προφήτευσον
ἐπ’ αὐτὸν.
Translation:
Son of man, set thy face against Gog, and
the land of Magog, Rhos, prince of Mesoch
and Thobel, and prophesy against him.
As I’ve mentioned in previous publications, the LXX translates the term “Rosh” (Ezek. 38:2) with the Greek word Ρως, which stands for Ρωσία (the Greek word for Russia). Furthermore, the LXX’s Μοσόχ seems to be a close approximation to the modern-day term Μόσχα (the Greek word for Moscow, the capital and largest city of Russia). The earlier Ezekiel quotation referred to “the land of Magog.” In ancient times, it comprised the lands where the Scythians once lived, and thus represents contemporary Russia. Wikipedia confirms that this view was held by some credible historians of antiquity:
Jewish historian Josephus knew them as
the nation descended from Magog the
Japhetite, as in Genesis, and explained
them to be the Scythians.
Today, most Bible Prophecy scholars identify Magog as a reference to modern day Russia! Moreover, Amos corroborates Gog’s location as “coming from the east” (7.1 LXX).
(For further evidence, see “The Magog Identity” by Bible-prophecy expert Chuck Missler: https://www.khouse.org/articles/2002/427/print/).
The Gog of Amos (LXX)
The prophet’s use of the name Γὼγ (Gog) in the LXX suggests that Amos 7 may be a dual fulfilment of prophecy, that is, it may have both a short-term (prophecy of the northern kingdom of Israel) and a long-term fulfilment (prophecy of the end-times invasion of Israel). Similarly, Ezekiel 38 names a confederacy of nations that will invade many countries, including Israel, in the last days. According to Ezekiel 38 (LXX), the leader of that powerful coalition will be Γὼγ (Gog), the leader of Ῥώς (Gk. Ρωσία = Russia) and Μοσὸχ (Gk. Μόσχα = Moscow). If that’s the case, then Amos’ Gog would suggest that certain Biblical references to “locusts” and “grasshoppers” might have some relevance to Ezekiel 38 and the battle of Gog and Magog (cf. e.g. 1 Kings 8.37; Psalm 105.34; Isaiah 33.4; Joel 1.4; 2.25; Nahum 3.15).
Gog: The King of the Locusts
If Gog (Γὼγ) is the king of the locusts, according to Amos 7.1 (LXX), then the 5th trumpet of Revelation 9, which talks extensively about an invasion of locusts, may be about Gog of the land of Magog. In other words, Amos 7.1 (LXX) would suggest that the king of the locusts in Revelation 9.11 may represent the Russian Gog (Γὼγ) of Ezekiel 38. Perhaps the famous saying in Proverbs 30.27 (ESV) means that the king of the locusts is not a mere mortal:
the locusts have no king, yet all of them
march in rank.
Similarly, in Revelation 9, the king of the locusts is likened to “a star that had fallen from heaven” and who holds “the key to the … bottomless pit.” Later on in the chapter, he’s identified as the king of the locusts, “the angel of the bottomless pit,” whose “name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek … Apollyon,” meaning “destroyer” (i.e. Antichrist)! Revelation 9.1-11 (NRSV) reads as follows:
And the fifth angel blew his trumpet, and I
saw a star that had fallen from heaven to
earth, and he was given the key to the shaft
of the bottomless pit; he opened the shaft
of the bottomless pit, and from the shaft
rose smoke like the smoke of a great
furnace, and the sun and the air were
darkened with the smoke from the shaft.
Then from the smoke came locusts on the
earth, and they were given authority like the
authority of scorpions of the earth. They
were told not to damage the grass of the
earth or any green growth or any tree, but
only those people who do not have the seal
of God on their foreheads. They were
allowed to torture them for five months, but
not to kill them, and their torture was like
the torture of a scorpion when it stings
someone. And in those days people will
seek death but will not find it; they will long
to die, but death will flee from them. In
appearance the locusts were like horses
equipped for battle. On their heads were
what looked like crowns of gold; their faces
were like human faces, their hair like
women's hair, and their teeth like lions'
teeth; they had scales like iron breastplates,
and the noise of their wings was like the
noise of many chariots with horses rushing
into battle. They have tails like scorpions,
with stingers, and in their tails is their power
to harm people for five months. They have
as king over them the angel of the
bottomless pit; his name in Hebrew is
Abaddon, and in Greek he is called
Apollyon.
Conclusion
Thus, if we read the Bible in canonical context and according to the principle of expositional constancy, we will come to realize that both the linguistic and symbolic elements of Scripture with regard to Gog, the king of the locusts, refer not only to the Russian Gog of Magog in Ezekiel 38 but also to the king of the locusts in Revelation 9.11, namely, “the angel of the bottomless pit,” whose “name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek … Apollyon,” meaning “destroyer” or *Antichrist*!
—
(P.S. I’d like to offer a supplementary observation of Revelation 9.9-10. The aforementioned images of “iron breastplates” with noisy “wings” and “tails like scorpions” would certainly suggest some type of modern aerial warfare)!
—
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!
—
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!
——-
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!
Is There Really a Virgin Birth?
By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
The Hebrew word “almah” means “young woman,” but the Septuagint translated it as “virgin” (ἡ παρθένος). Since the New Testament writers usually quote from the Greek Septuagint rather than from the Hebrew Bible, Matthew 1.23 follows suit and uses the word “virgin” (παρθένος) in quoting Isaiah 7.14:
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5959.htm
So, that’s how we got the word “virgin” in our New Testament. Henceforth, Marian theology emerges. From here begins Mariolatry, the worship of Mary as a Goddess, otherwise known as the “Theotokos” (God-bearer) in the Greek Orthodox Church. And although it is true that Luke praises Mary for being chosen as the mother of God, in time, however, Mary’s status is elevated, so much so that she becomes almost the fourth person of the Trinity, as the dogmas of Mary gradually become intertwined with doctrines of the faith with regard to redemption, intercession, and grace. Christian Mariology became an integral part of the Catholic church as the faithful began to pray to Mary for intercession and help, such as praying the rosary or glorifying Mary as part of their daily prayer. She became like a Goddess. Of course, there is no Biblical support for these Marian dogmas, prayers, devotions, and exultations.
——-
If that’s not enough, the Catholic church then went on to devise the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, the idea that Mary was like a divine being who was born without sin. This Catholic dogma was created in 1854, declaring that Mary was conceived free from original sin, which was then followed by the doctrine regarding the Assumption of Mary, the notion that Mary was taken up or raptured into heaven like Elijah. The dogma is unclear as to whether Mary died or not, only that she was taken up into heaven, perhaps imitating the ascension of Jesus.
——-
The earliest writings of Christianity are Paul’s letters, written between 48-60 AD. Paul does not mention the nativity (the birth of Jesus), or the magi, or the star of Bethlehem, or the massacre of the innocents, or the flight to Egypt, or the virgin birth! These embellishments come much later (between 70-100 AD) with the writings of the gospels, and even then the virgin birth is only recorded in Matthew and Luke. So, it appears that Paul doesn’t know anything about a virgin birth. Otherwise, he would have told us about it!
——-
Conclusion
The Greek term παρθένος can be masculine or feminine. The definite article (“the”), which precedes it, tells us the gender, whether it is male (o/ho) or female (eta/η). At any rate, the point of the Septuagint’s translation, regarding the Messianic birth, is to show that the male child (cf. Rev. 12.5) is special. He is holy: a virgin, so to speak. He is monogenēs (“the only one"; cf. Heb. 11:17-19). That’s what the Bible is trying to depict. Not that he simply appeared out of nowhere, defying the laws of nature. His birth is natural. But he himself is more than human (cf. Isa. 9.6). That’s the point! The reason Joseph is depicted as Jesus’ nonbiological father has nothing to do with biology and everything to do with THEOLOGY! The gospels are theological narratives which are trying to show that Jesus is not simply a descendant of Adam, but of God. That’s the reasoning behind the theology of the virgin birth! So, the so-called “virgin birth” has been blown out of proportion to the point that even Muslims are talking about a literal, miraculous virgin birth. This is utter nonsense. In his book “miracles,” CS Lewis says that God never breaks the laws of nature; he only transcends them. That’s why Paul tells us nothing about the virgin birth. That’s also why Galatians 4.4 doesn’t say that Jesus is *born* of a virgin but rather “of a woman” (ἐκ γυναικός). Yes, Jesus is God and he certainly has the power to do miracles. But his birth doesn’t break the laws of nature. He is born naturally, like every other human being!
Hebrews 2.17:
For this reason he [Jesus] had to be made
like them, fully human in every way.
——-
🔎 Bible Contradictions: In Using the Term “Arnion,” Does the Book of Revelation Contradict John’s Gospel Which Uses the Word “Amnos” Instead? 🔍
By Award-Winning Goodreads Author and Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
This short essay is a brief reply to a question that was posed by a member of my “Eli Kittim Theology” group on MeWe.
——-
The member’s name is Marlo Bliss. This was his Question:
The writer of the Book of Revelation used
the term "Lambkin" / ARNI'ON <G721> for
Jesus Christ instead of "lamb" / AMNO'S <>
(lambkins require feeding). He did so 26
times. Why this contradiction to John 1.29
and 1.36?
Thanks for any reply.
*I use the DLT (Dabhar Literal Translation)
software in hebrew, greek, english and
german.*
——-
He’s basically asking the following question: if John’s Gospel uses the Greek term Ἀμνὸς twice to refer to Jesus, then why does the Book of Revelation repeatedly use the word ἀρνίον instead? Isn’t that a deviation from the canonical context? Doesn’t that constitute a Biblical contradiction? The implication is that the Book of Revelation appears to be wrong and contradictory in its terminological usage.
First of all, it is important to establish at the outset that both ἀμνός (amnós) and ἀρνίον (arníon) mean the same thing. These terms are not self-contradictory, but rather interchangeable and complementary. Whereas **ἀμνός** (amnós) has the connotation of a consecrated or sacrificial lamb, especially a one-year old lamb, **ἀρνίον** refers to a “little lamb,” under a year old (Henry George Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1940). According to J. Thayer, the connotation of ἀρνίον (arníon) is that of pure innocence, with virgin-like (gentle) intentions.
Second, John’s Gospel uses both amnós and arníon. It’s true that John chapter 1 and verses 29 & 36 use the term Ἀμνὸς (lamb) to refer to Jesus Christ. But this term occurs only twice. And yet, the exact same gospel of John uses the alternative ἀρνία (lambs) in chapter 21 verse 15—-which is the plural form of the singular term ἀρνίον (lamb)——to refer to the *Christ-like* followers, namely, the saints of God who are becoming like Christ.
Third, the use of the word ἀρνίον (arníon) in a “messianic canonical context” is in fact scriptural, as can be seen, for example, in the Book of Jeremiah. In Jeremiah 11.19, the Septuagint (LXX) uses the Greek term ἀρνίον in an overtly messianic context:
ἐγὼ δὲ ὡς ἀρνίον ἄκακον ἀγόμενον τοῦ
θύεσθαι οὐκ ἔγνων ἐπ᾽ ἐμὲ ἐλογίσαντο
λογισμὸν πονηρὸν λέγοντες δεῦτε καὶ
ἐμβάλωμεν ξύλον εἰς τὸν ἄρτον αὐτοῦ καὶ
ἐκτρίψωμεν αὐτὸν ἀπὸ γῆς ζώντων καὶ τὸ
ὄνομα αὐτοῦ οὐ μὴ μνησθῇ ἔτι.
English translation by L.C.L. Brenton:
But I as an innocent lamb led to the
slaughter, knew not: against me they
devised an evil device, saying, Come and let
us put wood into his bread, and let us
utterly destroy him from off the land of the
living, and let his name not be remembered
any more.
This is reminiscent of Isaiah 53. In fact, Jeremiah’s aforementioned verse is a parallel to——and presents a near-verbal agreement with——Isaiah 53.7 (LXX):
καὶ αὐτὸς διὰ τὸ κεκακῶσθαι οὐκ ἀνοίγει
τὸ στόμα· ὡς πρόβατον ἐπὶ σφαγὴν ἤχθη
καὶ ὡς ἀμνὸς ἐναντίον τοῦ κείροντος αὐτὸν
ἄφωνος οὕτως οὐκ ἀνοίγει τὸ στόμα
αὐτοῦ.
Translation (NRSV):
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth; like a lamb
that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep
that before its shearers is silent, so he did
not open his mouth.
In Jeremiah 11.19, the L.C.L. Brenton translates ἀρνίον “as an innocent lamb led to the slaughter,” while the NRSV similarly renders it as a “gentle lamb led to the slaughter.” The theological idea in Jeremiah 11.19 is consistent with that of Isaiah 53.7—-which says “like a lamb that is led to the slaughter”——even though Isaiah employs the terms πρόβατον (lamb) and ἀμνὸς (sheep) instead of Jeremiah’s use of the word ἀρνίον (lamb). These thematic parallels demonstrate that the above terms are interchangeable.
Thus, the Septuagint (LXX) uses 3 alternative terms to refer to this so-called messianic “lamb” of God who “was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; … and by his bruises we are healed” (Isaiah 53.5). Two of the three terms that the LXX uses for this *slaughtered messiah* are found in Isaiah 53.7, namely, πρόβατον and ἀμνὸς. Incidentally, πρόβατον (probaton) means ἀρνίον, which comes from ἀρήν (meaning “lamb”). Thus, ἀμνός (amnós), πρόβατον (próbaton), and ἀρνίον (arníon) are essentially interchangeable terms.
The word πρόβατον (probaton), which means ἀρνίον, is also used in Gen 22.8 by the LXX to refer to the sacrificial lamb of God:
Abraham said, ‘God himself will provide the
lamb for a burnt offering, my son.’ (NRSV)
The Septuagint also uses the Greek term πρόβατον (which means ἀρνίον) to refer to the sheep which is slaughtered as a “sin offering” in Lev 4.32.
Therefore, the Book of Revelation uses the exact same term that is found not only within the Biblical canonical-context itself (Jn 21.15), but also within the writings of the Septuagint as well. So how is it contradictory? It is not!
Conclusion
As you can see, the way in which the Koine Greek language has been used in both the Septuagint (LXX) and the New Testament clearly shows that the words ἀμνός (amnós), πρόβατον (próbaton), and ἀρνίον (arníon) are essentially interchangeable and complementary terms. These 3 words have all been used in terms of a “messianic sin offering,” that is, in reference to an innocent lamb that is led to the slaughter (cf. Rev. 5.6 ἀρνίον ἑστηκὸς ὡς ἐσφαγμένον/“a Lamb standing as if it had been slaughtered”). Although these terms have slightly different nuances, nevertheless they have been used consistently within a “messianic scriptural context” across the board. This is based on the principle of expositional constancy, the idea that similar terms and images are used consistently throughout scripture.
Since most scholars don’t think that John’s Gospel and the Book of Revelation were written by the same author, this would explain why they don't use the exact same terminology. Different biblical authors use different vocabularies. This fact alone doesn’t preclude their books from being seen as authoritative or inspired. On the contrary, if we look at the 27 New Testament books, this seems to be the rule rather than the exception!
Thus, Mr. Marlo Bliss’ accusation——that “the writer of the Book of Revelation [who] used the term "Lambkin" / ARNI'ON … for Jesus Christ instead of "lamb" / AMNO'S” was contradicting “John 1.29 and 1.36”——is unwarranted and without merit!
Incidentally, I looked at the so-called “DLT” (Dabhar Literal Translation) that Mr. Bliss uses, but unfortunately it is not faithful to the original Greek New Testament text. Besides, there is no disclosure or commentary about which text-types were used or if there even was a committee of scholars who edited it, which I seriously doubt, given the poor quality of the translation. I’ve also come across some YouTube videos, that are put out by the same sect, which endorse the Dabhar Literal Translation. Unfortunately, this English translation is of an inferior quality. Adherents of this cult further claim that the Book of Revelation is a “spurious” book. This sounds like a sect that has drifted away from sound Bible teaching!
——-
Who are the “Earth Dwellers” in the Bible? And Will There Be a Zombie Apocalypse?
By Award-Winning Goodreads Author & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
There are many pre-tribulation pastors today who are preaching that the so-called “earth dwellers” of the Bible represent a particular class of people who are distinct from the church of God (i.e. “the elect”) and are therefore under God’s judgment. To prove their point, they’ll typically take a verse where the phrase seems to be used in that particular way, and then they’ll make false generalizations that this is how it’s typically used throughout the Bible. Revelation 13.8 (SBLGNT) is a case in point. It reads:
καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν αὐτὸν πάντες οἱ
κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς
Translation (KJV):
And all that dwell upon the earth shall
worship him [the beast].
The pre-trib expositors typically argue that since the church has been raptured by the time we get to Revelation 4, then obviously the phrase “all that dwell upon the earth” (in Revelation 13 and elsewhere) must be referring to those who have been left behind, namely, the damned. However, since the *great tribulation* is mentioned several times in the Book of Revelation, one would naturally expect that all the inhabitants of the earth, both good & bad, will experience much suffering and turmoil (cf. Rev. 8.13; 13.12; 13.14; 17.8). Besides, this is not the way the Greek phrase οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς is used throughout the Bible. Therefore, these pre-trib pastors are deliberately taking the *meaning* of the phrase οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (all that dwell upon the earth) out of context!
Their teaching is actually erroneous and misleading. It all starts from a false pre-trib rapture position. The logic goes something like this. Because the church will be supposedly raptured early on, this means that the so-called “earth dwellers,” who are mentioned later in the Book of Revelation, must be a particular class of people who are left behind (i.e. the *unsaved*). Moreover, these teachers often try to impose their own view by wrongly interpreting every instance where the “earth dwellers” are mentioned, in both the OT and NT, as the *unsaved.* But this is a false teaching. It’s not only false because the original Hebrew & Greek do not support these interpretations, but also because they’re mangling scripture by the inaccurate eschatological eisegeses concerning the sequence of end time events. This mishandling of scripture is suggestive of gross incompetence on the part of those who are making these claims!
For example, the Greek phrase τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς simply means “those who inhabit the earth,” or “those who live on the earth.” Whether we look at the OT, the NT, or the LXX, the meaning is the same. This phrase is obviously referring to all the people who live on the earth, irrespective of belief or unbelief. Yet pastors like Tiff Shuttlesworth, as well as other pre-tribbers, falsely interpret the so-called “earth dwellers” as the “damned,” or as a particular classification of people who are left behind. They obviously don’t understand Koine Greek!
When the Hebrew OT talks about “earth dwellers,” it implies the entire world, not just the damned. For instance, Isaiah 18.3 (BHS) reads:
כָּל־יֹשְׁבֵ֥י תֵבֵ֖ל וְשֹׁ֣כְנֵי אָ֑רֶץ
Transliteration:
kāl (all) yō·šə·ḇê (inhabitants) tê·ḇêl (of the
world) wə·šō·ḵə·nê (and dwellers on)
’ā·reṣ (the earth).
Alternative Translations:
All you people of the world, everyone who
lives on the earth (NLT).
All you inhabitants of the world, you who
dwell on the earth (ESV).
Contrary to what pre-tribbers are claiming, the OT is referring to all the people of the earth, both good and bad, not simply to the damned per se!
The LXX follows suit and uses the Greek terms κατοικουμένη and κατοικηθήσεται to mean “inhabited.” These terms are obviously cognate with κατοικοῦντας, the word that is used in the NT for “inhabitants.” The Greek terms in the LXX are referring to all the inhabitants of a country, not simply to the damned. For example, Isaiah 18.3 LXX reads:
πάντες ὡς χώρα κατοικουμένη·
κατοικηθήσεται ἡ χώρα αὐτῶν.
L.C.L. Brenton Translation:
Now all the rivers of the land shall be
inhabited as an inhabited country.
The LXX uses the terms κατοικουμένη and κατοικηθήσεται——which are derived from κατοικέω (G2730)——to refer to the “inhabited” land, and, by implication, to the “dwellers” or “inhabitants” thereof. In other words, it’s referring to the entire population of a country as a whole, not simply to its evil constituents!
The cognate κατοικοῦντας (G2730) is the word that the NT uses for those people who are “inhabiting” cities (Acts 9.22, 32), provinces (Acts 19.10), as well as the entire world (Rev. 11.10)! For example, the phrase τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ⸃ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (Rev. 8.13) simply refers to all those who inhabit (or dwell on) the earth. In and of itself, this expression does not make a value judgment. Neither does the Greek term κατοικοῦντες (i.e. “dwellers”; see Acts 2.5). Depending on the particular context of a verse, it can take on different meanings. But the above-mentioned phrase is simply referring to the inhabitants of the entire world, not to a certain class of people, let alone the damned. See the *Blue Letter Bible*:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/inflections.cfm?strongs=G2730&t=MGNT&ot=MGNT&word=%CE%BA%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%BF%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%BF%E1%BF%A6%CE%BD%CF%84%CE%B5%CF%82
The aforementioned confusion stems from the false theory that Christians will be raptured early on, prior to the great tribulation, which implies that the “earth dwellers” who will remain——and who are later mentioned in the Book of Revelation——must be the damned. But the church is mentioned many times after Revelation 4. And the church will certainly go through the tribulation, which is *not* God’s wrath. So, the Biblical references to the “earth dwellers” concern all people, good and bad, unless otherwise indicated by the context!
Will there be a Zombie Apocalypse?
In the OT, Daniel 12.2 (NIV) was prophesying a general resurrection of the dead:
Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the
earth will awake: some to everlasting life,
others to shame and everlasting contempt.
This means that the general resurrection of the dead will include both the saved and the unsaved. According to Daniel 12.2, both groups will be resurrected together. But keep in mind that, according to 1 Thess. 4.16-17, the *rapture* and *resurrection* events will be contemporaneous with each other. So, if the *saved*——who will be resurrected from the dead——are “caught up … in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air,” then there will definitely be a *zombie apocalypse* because the *damned* will also be *resurrected* and roam the earth!
——-
For further details, see my essay:
Three Questions On the Rapture: Is it Pre-Trib or Post-Trib? Is it Secret or Not? And is it Imminent?
https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/628794727776632832/three-questions-on-the-rapture-is-it-pre-trib-or
——-
Answering Tuvia Pollack’s “Jesus, Yeshua or Yahshua?”
By Goodreads Author & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
Introduction
Tuvia Pollack writes for Kehila News, which seems to be a Messianic-Jewish apologetics blog. He has no formal biblical training, as far as I know. According to the Kehila news blog, “Tuvia Pollack is an unpublished writer of historical fiction novels depicting Judeo-Christian relations throughout history.”
According to his own words, Mr. Pollack is “an Israeli Messianic Jew” who believes “in the Jewish faith … and the Old and New Testament.” He wrote an essay (“Jesus, Yeshua or Yahshua?”) in which he’s basically trying to establish the notion that the Greek name for Jesus (Ἰησοῦs) in the New Testament comes from the Hebrew Yeshua or Yahshua, and he therefore concludes that it doesn’t really matter what we call the messiah. In other words, we can call him any of the 3 names that he mentions above. However, his whole thesis is flawed because he doesn’t understand the finer points of biblical scholarship and how details often go unnoticed. I will not go over his entire paper but rather explore a few key comments that he made therein.
Does it Matter What We Call the Object of Our Worship?
In reference to Jesus, Mr. Pollack writes:
Calling on his name is what mattered,
whether you would say Iesous as the
Greeks would, or Yeshua as the Jews would.
Not true. The New Testament is very specific with names, especially with the name that is above all other names. If any form of the name of Yeshua would do, then that means that any form of the name of God would do as well, right? Wrong! Acts 4:12 (NJB) declares:
of all the names in the world given to
men, this is the only one by which we can
be saved.
Notice that the NT doesn’t say “Salvation is found in no one else” except in Yahweh. Yahweh is never once mentioned in the NT. Not once! The name Elohim is never once mentioned in the NT either. Neither Yeshua nor Yehoshua are ever mentioned in the New Testament. Not even once! The only name that we are commanded to call on is Ἰησοῦς (translated into English as Jesus). We should not overlook this state of affairs. If the New Testament doesn’t even mention the name Yahweh, why would a Christian call on Yahweh instead of Jesus? Yet there are many so-called Christians who never mention the name of Jesus but keep praising Yahweh who is never mentioned by name in the Greek New Testament. Isn’t that bizarre, if not cultic? By that logic, why would a Christian call on Elohim or Yahshua in time of trouble? After all, we must know who we serve and who we worship. Throughout the New Testament, Christians are not instructed to call on Allah, Yahweh or Yahshua. They are repeatedly told to call on the “King of kings and Lord of lords” (Rev. 19.16). There is only one name associated with that title, namely, Christ Jesus (Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς)! After all, that’s the whole point of the New Testament’s revelation, namely, that Jesus is God and the great “I AM” (Rev. 1.8; 22.13). The NT trumps the OT. Therefore, we should not impose OT theology on the NT. Rather, we should get our final revelation of Iesous from the NT per se!
A Bad Theology Based On a Mistranslation
Pollack writes:
When the New Testament was written in
Greek, the name of the Messiah is said to
be Iesous ‘because he will save his people.’
That’s an unfaithful translation, which is based on a Hebrew theology that the name of Jesus is derived from Jewish sources. Mr. Pollack doesn’t understand Greek, so he’s relying on English translations to carry him through. Allow me to explain. Here is the critical Greek text (original text). Mt 1.21 (SBLGNT) says:
τέξεται δὲ υἱὸν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα
αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν, αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν
αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν.
My Translation:
She will then bear a son and you will call his
name Ἰησοῦν; he indeed will save his
people from their sins.
Keep in mind that this verse neither explains the name Ἰησοῦν as an Aramaic or Hebrew name, nor does it define it etymologically as a linguistic transliteration, translation, or pronunciation from the Hebrew language. This is precisely where *Hebrew Roots Theology* twists the Greek to make it say what it wants it to say. The English (Christian) translations typically try to connect the name with a cause, and so they’ll usually take the word γὰρ (which very often doesn't mean “for,” according to Bill Mounce) and they’ll try to assign to it a “reason” for the name. So, they usually end up translating it as “for,” in the sense of “because.” But even though it is commonly translated as such, the Greek grammatical construction sounds very awkward when you insert the conjunction “for” in between αὐτὸς and σώσει. It would literally read: “he for will save.” Just to give you an example, John 4.44 reads:
αὐτὸς γὰρ Ἰησοῦς ἐμαρτύρησεν ὅτι
προφήτης ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ πατρίδι τιμὴν οὐκ ἔχει.
Translation (NJB):
He himself had declared that a prophet is
not honoured in his own home town.
Notice that we have a similar clause: αὐτὸς γὰρ Ἰησοῦς. Where is the translation “for” in this verse? Nowhere! The conjunction γάρ is translated as “himself.” In many other cases, γάρ is translated as “indeed.” In fact that is the correct translation, here, in Mt 1.21 (My Translation):
She will then bear a son and you will call his
name Ἰησοῦν; he indeed will save his
people from their sins.
There is no explanatory factor here, just that Ἰησοῦς will indeed save his people. The term “indeed” acts as an assurance or a reaffirmation that this statement is in fact true.
Mr. Pollack doesn’t take into account the fact that Hebrew was a consonantal writing system with no vowels. That’s why we don’t really know what the tetragrámmaton יהוה (transliterated as YHWH) sounded like phonetically. Nor do we know what these other names sounded like. These are approximations at best, yet Mr. Pollack writes about these names as if they were written in stone and well known.
What Happens if the Greek New Testament is Suddenly Changed into the Hebrew New Testament?
Mr. Pollack then goes on to write that no matter what you call Jesus, it doesn’t really matter. Really? Could you call him Allah? Or Yahweh? Or Elohim? Or Lucifer? He mentions how some Christians abhor Judaizing, which I will get to in a minute. Judaizing is actually very dangerous. This is an attempt by the Hebrew Roots movement to revert Christians back to Judaism, to the laws of Moses, the Hebrew covenants, and the Sabbath, while pretending that Jews don’t really need Jesus to be saved because there are actually 2 groups of people within Christianity: the Jews and the church (Dual-covenant theology). Not only that, but they turn the Greek New Testament into a Jewish book, and they also manipulate the Greek words by changing them into Hebrew. This is a complete corruption of the Greek text, and of Christian theology. How many times have you heard the alpha and omega being declared as the aleph and the tav? Or Jesus being referred to as Yeshua Hamashiach? Others try to interpret the Greek NT passages by using the Hebrew language. Does that sound like a proper method of exegesis, or does it sound like a corruption of the inspired text? It’s like trying to understand Polish literature through the Chinese language. At any rate, returning to our vignette, Pollack objects to the Christian attack on Judaizers, and writes:
‘Saying Yeshua instead of Jesus is
Judaizing.’ Will you then please tell
me, what we Israeli Hebrew speakers are
supposed to say? How should we address
him in Hebrew? Do you expect us to adopt
the Greekified version instead of his original
name?
But the Greek version contains his original name, which is given to us in the Greek New Testament by God. Anything else is a perversion and a corruption of God’s word. Otherwise, we’re disrespecting the NT by implying that only the OT is inspired. When Mr. Pollack tries to usurp the original name that is inspired by God, and supplant it with a foreign one, he’s not only violating and corrupting God’s word, but he’s also imposing his own Jewish theology on the text, rather than respecting the principles of textual criticism.
By that logic, Christians should still call on Yahweh. But God is never mentioned as Yahweh in the NT. Jews may not care, but Christians do care and want to call God by his proper name. If we don’t know which God we believe in, and which God we serve, or whom we worship, then how can we even claim to be Christians who follow Christ? Calling and praising Yah is not Christianity. It’s Judaism.
Is the Ἰησοῦς of the Septuagint the Exact Same Name We Find in the New Testament?
Moreover, Mr. Pollack uses the logic that since the Book of Joshua in the Septuagint (LXX) translates the name Yeshua as Ἰησοῦς, then the matter is officially settled. It must come from Hebraic sources. Here’s the backstory. Joshua, son of Nun——who later succeeded Moses as the chief leader of the Israelite tribes——was originally called Hoshea (הוֹשֵׁעַ Hōšēaʿ), and Moses changed his name to “Yehoshua,” which afterwards became shortened to “Yeshua.”
However, this is akin to a genetic fallacy. A genetic fallacy occurs when an argument is based on a word’s origin or history rather than its content. It asserts that a word's historical meaning is its only valid meaning and that its current meaning is invalid. But anyone who studies philology and linguistics knows that names and words change and evolve over time. For example, the word “nice,” derived from the Latin nescius, originally had a negative connotation and meant “unaware,” or “ignorant.” That is not what the word “nice” means today. There are many similar examples. In fact, many classical Greek words began to have different meanings or connotations in Koine within only a few hundred years. The point is, the meaning of words is not static. It changes over time, just as languages change and evolve. All languages undergo diachronic changes. Therefore, a name that was once ascribed to a Hebrew man named Hoshea, son of nun (based on a Hebrew meaning), may not have the same etymology as a diachronic name assigned to a different figure, centuries later, in a different language and based on a Greek meaning. From a philological standpoint, that’s the key difference between the LXX and the NT rendering of Iesous. Whatever the name may have meant in the 3rd century BC, it had a significantly different meaning centuries later as it was assigned to the Son of God. The name Iesous might have had the same referent in both the LXX and the NT but not necessarily the same sense (cf. Heb. 4:8). In fact, the argument of whether or not the NT Ἰησοῦς is a distinctly Greek name or a Hebraic transliteration (derived from the earlier LXX) is analogous to the argument of whether or not the OT Yahweh is a distinctly Hebraic name or the patron god of metallurgy (derived from the earlier Canaanite pantheon). It’s the exact same argument with the exact same conclusion. Although the name Yahweh is shared by both religions, Jews rightly believe that the earlier Canaanite Yahweh is not the same as the Yahweh of the Old Testament. In the same way, the earlier Ἰησοῦς of the LXX bears no resemblance to the Divine Ἰησοῦς of the New Testament!
Here’s a case in point. Cyril of Jerusalem was born at or near the city of Jerusalem and was steeped in the writings of the Christian scholars. He was a learned theologian who obviously understood both Greek & Hebrew. He knew the Septuagint extremely well because that was his Old Testament, given that the Latin Vulgate had not been written yet. Knowing Hebrew, he obviously knew that the Book of Joshua (Yeshua) was translated as Iesous. Yet, despite all that, Cyril nevertheless considered the name Iesous to be of Greek origin. The same thing occurred with another towering figure of Bible scholarship and one of the greatest theologians of early Christianity, Clement of Alexandria. He lived very early (150 – c. 215). He was a famous Christian theologian and Bible scholar who taught at the Catechetical School of Alexandria. Some of his pupils were Origen and Alexander of Jerusalem. He was obviously steeped in the LXX and yet he, too, attributed the name Ἰησοῦς to Greek sources. In fact, the Catholic Encyclopedia writes that many early church fathers considered the name Ἰησοῦς to be of Greek origin. For instance, both St. Cyril of Jerusalem (catechetical lectures 10.13) & Clement of Alexandria (Paedagogus, Book 3) considered the name Ἰησοῦς to be derived from Greek sources. Thus, it appears that the name Ἰησοῦς has different meanings in the Hebrew and Greek languages. Cyril of Jerusalem writes:
Jesus then means according to the Hebrew
‘Saviour‘, but in the Greek tongue ‘The
Healer.’
Cyril is most likely referring to the derivation of the name Ἰησοῦς from Ἰάσων (Iásōn), meaning "healer".
see 2392. iasis (“healing”)
https://biblehub.com/greek/2392.htm
We find the same idea in Revelation 9.11 in which *the same referent* (i.e. destroyer) of an angelic king has 2 different renderings in Hebrew (Abaddon) and Greek (Apollyon).
Evidence from Within the New Testament that Ἰησοῦs is a Greek Name
As serious students of the Bible, and especially of the NT, we should not accept a Hebrew alteration or a redefinition of what the New Testament says, as this would be equivalent to an eisegesis. Regardless of what the consensus might be, we should always demand an exegesis directly from within the Greek New Testament itself. Otherwise we’re changing not only what God said, but also how he said it!
Even in the introduction of the Greek name Ἰησοῦς, never once does the New Testament EXPLICITLY say, SUGGEST, or even REMOTELY hint that it is an Aramaic or Hebrew name. Nowhere, in any NT book, do you find a Hebraic definition or explanation for the name Ἰησοῦς. It doesn’t even work as a Hebraism. If it was a Hebraic transliteration, it would have been rendered as Ωσηέ (Hoshea הוֹשֵׁעַ Hōšēaʿ). What is more, Hebraic transliterations are typically explained in the New Testament one way or another. For example:
1) In Mark 11.9, hosanna (ὡσαννὰ) is
explained.
2) In Mark 15.34; Matthew 27.46, «ελωι ελωι
λεμα σαβαχθανι» is explained.
3) In Mark 5.41, “Talitha cum” is explained.
4) In John 20.16, “Rabbouni” is explained.
5) In Romans 8.15, “Abba” is explained.
6) In Matthew 1.23, the name “Immanuel” is
explained.
The Aramaisms that exist in the Greek New Testament are typically explained or defined. By contrast, the name ΙΗΣΟΥΣ (Jesus) is *never* *ever* explained as an *aramaism,* nor defined as an Aramaic or Hebrew name.
You would think that a name as important as Jesus would **necessitate** such an explanation. The fact that there isn’t any indicates that the Greek name Iēsous is not a transliteration of Hōšēaʿ. At least not in NT times. Mt. 1.21 clearly says “you should call his name Jesus” (Ἰησοῦς). It doesn’t say that this is a pronunciation or a transliteration of the Hebrew name Hoshea or Yeshua.
The Hebrew Roots movement has attempted to turn Christianity into Judaism. Have you ever heard any pastor preaching about Ἰησοῦς? All you hear is “Yeshua Hamashiach” and Yahweh. Well, Yahweh is never once mentioned in the NT. Nor is Yashua. If God doesn’t mention them, why should we?
If people want to go back to the OT, that’s fine. But don’t call yourselves Christians and expect the third temple to be rebuilt, and the animal sacrifices to be reinstituted. Read Heb. 10.4:
Bulls' blood and goats' blood are incapable
of taking away sins.
It’s a complete rejection of Christ and his atonement. The Hebrew roots movement has also influenced Dispensationalism, to such an extent that the latter distinguishes between 2 classes of people in the Bible, namely, the Jews and the church. And they also assert that these 2 groups have supposedly two completely different programs of salvation. They believe that the Jews don’t need Jesus; they can be saved through their own covenants. And if some reasonable theologian rightly objects, he’s immediately attacked as an antisemite, or as one who resorts to replacement theology. However, the attempt to fuse Judaism with Christianity has been disastrous. In the final analysis, you either follow Christ or Moses, but not both!