____ - Tumblr Posts
Can People Be Saved After the Resurrection & the Rapture?
By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
The pretribulational view teaches that there will be many who will be saved during the great tribulation, AFTER the Resurrection & the Rapture take place (cf. 1 Thess. 4.16-17). Is this possible, or does it contradict scripture? Just like the parable of the 10 virgins suggests, when the doors of salvation are finally slammed shut, no one else could be saved. It’s all over. No one can go in or out. The rapture is that end point. Once the church leaves, it’s game over! And even if the tribulation saints could be saved, where would they go? How would they be *rescued* by God, given that the rapture was that final ticket out of here?
Let’s not forget that there are certain contemporaneous events that have to occur during the resurrection and the rapture, just prior to the departure of the church. For instance, scripture affirms that Christ will radically transform God’s elect so that they will resemble his glorious appearance (Phil. 3.21). What is more, 1 Cor. 15.52-53 reveals that the elect will attain a glorious immortality, during the resurrection/rapture process, so that they will never ever die again! That’s when Christ will finally grant God’s elect his “exceeding great and precious promises” so that they can become “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1.4). But these divinely transformative events can only occur *once for all* during the resurrection & the rapture. So the question arises, if these momentous events take place once for all, and the elect eventually partake of the divine nature and are raptured out of here, how then can these glorious transformations reoccur over and over again in the absence of Christ, the Spirit, and the Church?
This demonstrates the fallacy of pretribulationism because it falsely maintains that people will continue to be saved even after the resurrection and the rapture. Really? And even if they could be saved, where would they go? The church has already left. How would they be rescued after the church has permanently left? Once again, it shows that pretribulationism is based on fallacious reasoning!
And how could the tribulation saints escape God’s wrath? If they die, how would they be resurrected again, given that the one and only resurrection of the dead already happened? Remember that there’s only one general resurrection of the dead in which both the saved and the damned will be raised together (Daniel 12.2). So, if the rapture already took place and the tribulation saints can no longer be resurrected, how could they escape God’s judgments? How would God rescue them? They would simply be forced to stay here on earth in the midst of unbridled terror? Would God allow his precious elect to remain here on earth during the zombie apocalypse, while his wrath was being poured out in judgment, and while all the rest of the elect were enjoying heavenly bliss?
So, if the tribulation saints could neither be resurrected nor raptured, what would be God’s rescue plan for them? In other words, *after* the resurrection & the rapture had taken place, what could the tribulation saints do here on earth? Would their task be to ride out the storm of God’s wrath during the day of the Lord? It’s reminiscent of Jean-Paul Sartre’s play, “No Exit.” It demonstrates the faulty reasoning and unscriptural position of the pretrib rapture view!
Conclusion
Mt. 24.29-31 says that the “gathering” of the Son of Man’s elect (i.e. ‘the rapture’) occurs AFTER the Great Tribulation (Gk. *μετὰ* τὴν θλῖψιν τῶν ἡμερῶν ἐκείνων). The clincher, the passage that settles the matter conclusively is Rev. 20.4-6. This passage tells us that those who were killed during the Great Tribulation took part in the first resurrection. However, given that the rapture is contemporaneous with the first resurrection (1 Thess. 4.16-17), and since those who took part in the first resurrection came out of the Great Tribulation, it means that the rapture must also take place *AFTER* the great tribulation. Hence, if this is the first resurrection that takes place AFTER the great tribulation, then there can’t possibly be an earlier one, as the pretrib doctrine assumes. Any way you look at it, the pretrib position doesn’t make any scriptural sense at all.
The reason people will continue to be saved during the great ordeal is because the *rapture* will take place at the *end* of the tribulation period, so that all God's elect will leave together as one church. Once the resurrection & the rapture take place (posttrib), it’s game over. No one else can be saved, or be resurrected, or go to heaven! Once again, these robust and cogent arguments prove that the pretrib position is completely bogus and misinformed.
——-
For further details, see my short 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
——-
🚫 Millennialism Debunked
By Eli Kittim
The Contradictions of Millennialism
Millennialism is a belief that there will be a paradise here on earth before the final judgment. There are, of course, various scriptural discrepancies within this view, as I have often pointed out in my other papers. For example, how will people live here on earth if the earth itself will be destroyed in a great conflagration? 2 Pet. 3.10 reads:
“the heavens will pass away with a loud
noise, and the elements will be dissolved
with fire.”
Besides, there are other contradictions. For instance, how could the same people who would not be resurrected “until the thousand years were completed” (Rev. 20.5) simultaneously live and reign with Christ for a millennium? (Rev. 20.4). They cannot be both dead and alive at the same time! There are other contradictions as well. For example, Millennialism directly contradicts scripture by implying that there will be at least 2 additional comings of Christ, 2 appearances by Satan, 2 Great Wars, 2 Great tribulations, 2 resurrections, 2 apocalypses, 2 Armageddons, 2 judgments, 2 Great Ends, and so on. This is preposterous. In Scripture, there is only one of each. Scripture mentions only one resurrection (Dan. 12.2) and only one Armageddon (Rev. 16.16)! Where else does it mention a second resurrection or a second Armageddon? Besides, 1 Thess. 4.17 says that after the rapture “we will be with the Lord forever,” not just for 1,000 years. And the Book of Daniel is clear that both the Saved and the Damned will be resurrected simultaneously, not successively (12.2). Therefore, this DOUBLING of scriptural events is unwarranted and without merit! It is worth mentioning that the doctrine of millennialism was formally condemned at the Second Ecumenical Council in 381 AD.
Millennialism Repeats Events a Second Time; But Revelation is Recording Single Events
The same event that is mentioned in Ezekiel 38 is repeated in Revelation 20. The endtime Gog/Magog war that Satan is said to unleash at the end of the millennium (Rev. 20.8) is the exact same Gog/Magog war that is mentioned in Ezekiel 38, which is also alluded to in Luke 21.20! The Book of Revelation isn’t saying that the exact same Gog/Magog war of Ezekiel will repeat 1,000 years later. That’s ridiculous. It’s actually talking about one and the same Gog-Magog war; not 2. In fact, the phrase that is used to indicate that Satan will be released “for a little while” (Rev 20.3) is actually a reference to the Great Tribulation, which only lasts for “a little while,” namely, only 3 and a half years, or 42 months, or 1,260 days, or a time, and times, and half a time (cf. Rev. 11.2; 12.6, 14; 13.5)!
Moreover, the narrative in Rev 19 & 20 is basically telling the reader what will happen when God no longer restrains Satan (see 2 Thess 2.7)——that is, when the restrainer is removed——and the Antichrist is finally revealed at the end of a thousand years. That’s when Satan will be unleashed, once and for all, to wreak havoc “for a little while” (i.e. for 3 and a half years, during the Great Tribulation)!
Why would the Book of Revelation REPEAT the exact same story TWICE, like the film “Edge Of Tomorrow”? Why would Satan (Incarnated; Rev. 12.9) come out TWICE “to deceive the nations at the four corners of the earth [from the exact same location, Gog & Magog (Ezekiel 38)] in order to gather them for the [exact same] battle” (Rev. 20.7-9)? And why is it that “fire came down from heaven and consumed them” (Rev 20.9) exactly as it did in Ezekiel 38.22? And why is it that they “surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city” exactly as they did in Luke 21.20? Are you kidding me? What is this, a repeat of “Groundhog Day”?
There’s an Interpretive Mixup: Millennialists Conflate Scenes that Occur Before 1,000 Years with Scenes that Occur After 1,000 Years
If Jesus appears BEFORE the millennium on a white horse, and the beast and his armies are killed, and the beast is then captured and “thrown alive into the lake of fire” (Rev 19.19-21), then how does Satan manage to escape “the lake of fire” and mount a comeback? Notice that following Christ’s FIRST encounter with the Beast, BEFORE the millennium (Rev. ch. 20), the Beast was captured & immediately “thrown alive into the lake of fire” (Rev. ch. 19)! But the lake of fire is the second death! It’s game over! No one survives the lake of fire and comes back to to tell stories about it. That’s another red flag. It would be a scriptural contradiction to state that AFTER being “thrown into the lake of fire,” the Antichrist escaped and mounted a comeback. That would constitute a scriptural contradiction. Notice the description of the “lake of fire” in Rev. 20.14:
“Then Death and Hades were thrown into the
lake of fire. This is the second death, the
lake of fire.”
This event is final! It is the final separation of life and death. So, it’s completely bogus to say that Satan survived the lake of fire in chapter 19 & came back physically to fulfill chapter 20. It’s complete nonsense! Moreover, Satan’s activities in Rev. 20 suggest that he’s incarnate, otherwise how does a nonphysical being fight a war on earth? Besides, Rev. 12.9 tells us that Satan will be incarnated on earth! So, the Millennialists are mixing apples with oranges. They’re conflating scenes that happen BEFORE the 1,000 years (Rev. 19) with scenes that take place AFTER the 1,000 years (Rev. 20)! And if the description in Rev 20.10—-concerning what happens to Satan AFTER the supposed 1,000 years——turns out to be the exact same version of Rev 19.20—-about what happens to Satan BEFORE the 1,000 years——then we obviously have one story, not two!
Conclusion
The Bible never mentions the alleged “thousand-year reign of Christ on earth.” Only 2 verses mention those who “reigned with Christ a thousand years.” These are temporal signs that reveal the timing of Christ’s coming and of the apocalyptic events! In other words, when the thousand years are completed, Satan will be loosed for a little while (a reference to the 3 and a half year Great Tribulation). Then, the resurrection will occur, followed by the rapture, and the believers will henceforth reign with Christ forever!
Was the Word “God” or “a god” in John 1.1?
By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
John 1.1 (SBLGNT):
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς
τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
John 1.1, which is a throwback to Genesis 1.1, aims to define the primordial relationship of “the Word” (i.e. Christ) to God. But certain skeptics have challenged the idea that the fullness of the godhead was in Christ (Col. 2.9), who is said to be “the Word” (i.e. ὁ λόγος). Specifically, Jehovah's Witnesses have raised the argument of “a god” in John 1.1, implying that Christ is a lesser and inferior god that was created. Let’s explore that assertion. John 1.1 is traditionally broken up into three phrases that are separated by commas:
1st phrase: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος,
2nd phrase: καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς
τὸν θεόν,
3rd phrase: καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
First, to suppose that John is talking about many gods, or more than one god, is a theological speculation and a grammatical imposition that is going beyond what is written in the text or what we know about the theology of the Gospel of John.
Second, John *did* mention the definite article τόν in the second phrase, and so he is not obligated to repeat it in the third phrase, as that would be redundant and tautological.
Third, another reason why the third phrase of John 1.1 doesn’t require the definite article (before the term θεός) is because it was already *used* in the second phrase, and therefore it necessarily *carries over.* For example, if I were to write, “I have a pretty good temper, and a very amiable disposition,” I would not be required to repeat the first part of the phrase. In other words, I wouldn’t be required grammatically to write “I have a pretty good temper, and [I have] a very amiable disposition.” The “I have” is *carried over* and doesn’t need to be repeated. It would be considered redundant. Similarly, in addressing τόν Θεόν with a definite article in the second phrase, John doesn’t have to repeat τόν Θεόν in the third phrase, since it is *carried over.* Here’s another example. I could write “God is one being, not two beings.” But that’s redundant. Now, if I were to rewrite the same sentence correctly and say “God is one being, not two,” would anyone argue that the term “two” may not necessarily refer to the concept of being because the word “being” is not mentioned? That’s the same kind of argument that skeptics are raising here in John 1.1.
Since John has already established (as a monotheist) that he’s talking about one (and-only-one) particular God (namely, τόν Θεόν) in the second phrase, then this syntactical construction must necessarily *carry over* into the third phrase. In other words, the term Θεός in the third phrase grammatically refers back to “the God” (τόν Θεόν) mentioned in the second phrase. Therefore, when John writes——… τὸν θεόν (second phrase), καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (third phrase)——the “God” of the third phrase is a direct reference to “the God” of the second phrase. It’s obviously the same “God” in both phrases, not a different one. And given that God is one being, not two, which other god could John be possibly referring to?
In Greek, the third phrase in John 1.1 is actually read in two different ways, not only as “the Word was God,” but also as “God was the Word.” In the third phrase, there’s no ontological distinction between God and the Word——after all, they share one being: “I and the Father are one” (Jn 10.30)——because John already made the distinction (of persons) in the second phrase.
Thus, the “a god” argument of the Jehovah’s Witnesses——which is raised in “The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT)——is totally bogus and unwarranted both grammatically and theologically!
Does Katechó mean “Restrainer” in 2 Thess. 2:6-7? And Does the Phrase ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται mean “until he be taken out of the way”?
By Goodreads Author and Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
What Does Κατέχω (katechó) Mean?
This paper is a Biblical bombshell because it demonstrates that scholars have traditionally misunderstood and misinterpreted 2 Thess. 2:6-7. So let’s begin by analyzing the Greek text. The Greek term κατέχω (katechó)——which is the basis of the two variant terms used in 2 Thess. 2:6-7—-is derived from the word ἔχω (echó), which means “have,” “hold,” “possess,” or “keep”:
G2192 ἔχω (echó)
https://biblehub.com/greek/2192.htm
It would be advantageous to examine the uses and applications of the term katechó in both the New Testament (NT) and the Septuagint (LXX). Although the term κατέχω (katechó) is somewhat nuanced with certain subtle qualities, depending on the context, it essentially has the same meaning: hold, have, possess, keep, or retain. With the exception of one idiomatic instance——in which it could mean “make for,” or “go toward”——it’s usually rendered in the NT as per the aforementioned meanings:
Keep - (Luke 4:42).
Possessing - (2 Cor. 6:10).
Hold - (Luke 8:15; Rom. 7:6; 1 Cor. 11:2; 15:2;
1 Thess. 5:21; Hebrews 3:6; 3:14; 10:23).
Made for [go toward] - (Acts 27:40).
Κατέχω (katechó) in the LXX
In Gen. 24:56 of the LXX, κατέχετε (katechete) means “keep/hold.” It’s rendered as “don’t *keep* me/don’t *hold* me” (μὴ κατέχετέ με):
ὁ δὲ εἶπε πρὸς αὐτούς· μὴ κατέχετέ με, καὶ
Κύριος εὐώδωσε τὴν ὁδόν μου ἐν ἐμοί·
ἐκπέμψατέ με, ἵνα ἀπέλθω πρὸς τὸν
κύριόν μου.
Another variation of the word κατέχων (katechōn) is found in Isa. 40:22 LXX:
ὁ κατέχων τὸν γῦρον τῆς γῆς καὶ οἱ
ἐνοικοῦντες ἐν αὐτῇ ὡς ἀκρίδες ὁ στήσας
ὡς καμάραν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ διατείνας ὡς
σκηνὴν κατοικεῗν.
Here, κατέχων (katechōn) means “has/possesses.” The sentence is roughly translated as “He who *has* or *possesses* [knowledge] of the circle of the earth.”
The same holds true in Song 3:8 (LXX) in which κατέχοντες (katechontes) is rendered as “hold”:
πάντες κατέχοντες ῥομφαίαν, δεδιδαγμένοι
πόλεμον, ἀνὴρ ρομφαία αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ μηρὸν
αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ θάμβους ἐν νυξί.
English translation by L.C.L. Brenton:
They all hold a sword, being expert in war:
every man [has] his sword upon his thigh
because of fear by night.
Thus, just as in the NT, the term κατέχω (katechó) has the exact same meanings in the LXX, namely, “have,” hold,” “keep,” and “possess.” Although this study is certainly not exhaustive, it furnishes pretty solid evidence nonetheless!
So how can the term “restraining” possibly be related to the idea of “having” or “holding” something? The only way we can use the term κατέχω (katechó) in the erstwhile meaning is through an expansion of meaning or augmentation in which additional words are used in the context to indicate that there’s a particular set of circumstances that keeps something from happening, as, for example, in 2 Thess. 2:6. However, κατέχω (katechó), in and of itself, does not mean “restrain.”
Bill Mounce’s translations are, therefore, not faithful to the original Greek text. According to Mounce, in Rom. 1:18, κατέχω means “to hinder, restrain.” In fact, most standard Bible versions translate κατεχόντων as “suppressing.” But this is an incorrect translation. In Rom. 1:18, the term katechontōn simply means they “have” the truth, and then Paul uses a few additional verses (1:18-20 NIV) to show how God has made known to them the very fact of his existence:
For since the creation of the world God’s
invisible qualities—his eternal power and
divine nature—have been clearly seen,
being understood from what has been
made, so that people are without excuse.
What is more, Mounce insists that κατέχειν, in Phlm. 13, means “to hinder, restrain.” But that’s also an erroneous translation. How could it possibly mean “restrain” or “hinder” when Paul is saying that he would have liked to “keep” Onesimus by his side for consolation?
I would have liked to keep him with me, so
that on your behalf he could minister to me
in my chains for the gospel.
— Berean Study Bible
What Does Γένηται (genētai) Mean?
In 2 Thess. 2:5, the author (presumably Paul) says to the Thessalonians, don’t you remember? I’ve already explained all these things to you. In vv. 6-7 (SBLGNT), he goes on to say:
καὶ νῦν τὸ κατέχον οἴδατε, εἰς τὸ
ἀποκαλυφθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ καιρῷ
· τὸ γὰρ μυστήριον ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται τῆς
ἀνομίας · μόνον ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι ἕως ἐκ
μέσου γένηται.
Paul is essentially saying: you guys already know that which keeps him (Antichrist) from being revealed in his own time (because I already told you; v. 5). For the mystery of iniquity has already begun, except that there’s a keeper for the time being [who holds it back] until he’s born in the midst of them!
The key verb γένηται (genētai) is a third-person singular aorist middle subjunctive of γίγνομαι (gígnomai). And γίγνομαι primarily means to “be born,” to “come into being,” or to “become.” An alternative form is γίνομαι (gínomai) – Ionic, Koine (see γίγνομαι in Liddell & Scott [1940] A Greek–English Lexicon, Oxford: Clarendon Press).
As you can see, the verb γένηται (genētai) has nothing to do with being taken out of the way. Rather, in this particular context, it means being “born”! So, 2 Thess. 2:7 means until someone is “born,” *not* until someone is taken out of the way. Incidentally, this verse is not talking about childbirth but about a *spiritual birth,* or “rebirth,” that initiates endtime events.
So, I concur that the person indicated in 2 Thess. 2:7 is not the Antichrist, and that he acts, to a certain extent, as a “restrainer.” The text is therefore indicating that he must be “born” first before the Antichrist can be revealed. Interestingly enough, we have the exact same scenario in Revelation chapter 6 in which the 2nd seal (the Antichrist) cannot be revealed until the appearance of the 1st seal (the White horseman). Thus, in 2 Thess. 2:7, the “restrainer” is equivalent to the first horseman of the Apocalypse!
The verse that introduces the idea of a “restrainer” is 2 Thess. 2:6 (GNT):
Yet there is something that keeps this from
happening now, and you know what it is. At
the proper time, then, the Wicked One will
appear.
In 2 Thess. 2:6, the neuter definite article τὸ is used to signify “that [which] keeps” (i.e. τὸ κατέχον) this event from happening. But in 2 Thess. 2:7, ὁ κατέχων (katechōn)——pres act ptcp nom sg masc (holding)——turns out to be a “person” who must be “born” before the Antichrist can appear on the world stage. Therefore, the traditional translation——“until he be taken out of the way” (KJV)——is incorrect. The closest translation of 2 Thess. 2:7 that I could find comes from a Bible called “A Faithful Version”:
For the mystery of lawlessness is already
working; only there is one Who is restraining
at the present time until it arises out of the
midst.
But even this translation contains errors. The definite article ὁ (sg masc) refers to a man (a person), whereas this translation has the neuter “it.” And the word “arises” is also slightly off since the word γένηται essentially means “born.”
Jesus is the Keeper (Restrainer)
In the Old Testament (OT), God is mentioned several times as being the “keeper” (the κατέχον/katechon) of his people and of his kingdom. For example, in Psalm 121:5, the Hebrew text says that Yahweh [is] שֹׁמְרֶ֑ךָ (šō·mə·re·ḵā), meaning your “keeper.” Psalm 121:5 (KJV) declares:
The LORD is thy keeper: the LORD is thy
shade upon thy right hand.
Similarly, Isaiah 27:3 uses the word that comes from נָצַר (natsar), meaning “keep.” Isaiah 27:3 (RSV) reads:
I, the LORD, am its keeper; every moment I
water it. Lest any one harm it, I guard it
night and day.
In the NT, Jesus claims to be the preeminent “keeper” of the flock. In John 10:14, Jesus says, “I am the good shepherd [ποιμὴν].” The Greek term ποιμὴν (poimén) means the “keeper” of the flock. In the OT, Abel is a good shepherd——aka “a keeper of sheep”——who is also slain, just like Jesus. Gen. 4:2 (KJV) says:
Abel was a keeper of sheep.
So, if Jesus is the “keeper” (the κατέχον/katechon), and if the Antichrist cannot be revealed until Christ is “born,” then the idea of 2 Thess. 2:6-7 is similar to that of Rev 6:2-4, to wit, first comes the Christ, then comes the Antichrist. That’s precisely what Paul is trying to tell us in the 2 Thess. 2:6-7 pericope, namely, that there’s a “keeper” who must be “born” before the Antichrist can be revealed!
To further explore the parallels between 2
Thess. 2:6-7 and Revelation 6:2-4, see my
article:
WHO IS THE FIRST HORSEMAN OF THE APOCALYPSE?
https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/168159235542/who-is-the-first-horseman-of-the-apocalypse
——-
The Use of ἄλλος and έτερος in the New Testament
By Author & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
The Greek terms ἄλλος (allos) and ἕτερος (heteros) primarily mean “other,” or “another.” The standard koine Greek teaching that the definitions of the words ἄλλος and ἕτερος are qualitatively different has been taught throughout the world in many seminaries, universities, and Bible institutes. The difference between the two words is often explained as follows: állos means “another of the same kind,” whereas héteros means another “of a different kind.” Therefore, entrenched in Biblical scholarship is the notion that ἄλλος and ἕτερος are qualitatively *different* terms.
However, according to a published article by Dr. James Keith Elliott——Emeritus Professor of New Testament Textual Criticism at the University of Leeds——the terms ἄλλος and ἕτερος are essentially interchangeable and synonymous. Dr. Elliott writes:
Ετερος in Classical Greek is used of
division into two parts: in New Testament
Greek the sense of the dual has largely
disappeared and έτερος is often confused
with άλλος. Attempts by commentators and
grammars to differentiate the two words
are often strained. In the New Testament
the words are interchangeable and
synonymous as can be seen most clearly at
I Cor 12 10 … and Hbr 11 35-36.
(James Keith Elliott, “The Use of έτερος in
the New Testament,” Zeitschrift für die
neutestamentliche Wissenschaft [Vol. 60,
Issue 1-2, 1969]).
What Dr. Elliott is saying is that the aforesaid distinction in Classical Greek largely disappeared in New Testament times. He insists that the “attempts by commentators and grammars to differentiate the two words are often strained.” He asserts that the two “words are interchangeable and synonymous.” Let’s take a look at one example which, he claims, proves this point. It is a passage where Paul enumerates the various charismatic gifts that the Holy Spirit gives to believers for the purpose of building up the “church.” 1 Cor. 12.10-11 (SBLGNT) reads:
ἄλλῳ ἐνεργήματα δυνάμεων, ἄλλῳ
προφητεία, ἄλλῳ διακρίσεις πνευμάτων,
ἑτέρῳ γένη γλωσσῶν, ἄλλῳ ἑρμηνεία
γλωσσῶν · πάντα δὲ ταῦτα ἐνεργεῖ τὸ ἓν
καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα, διαιροῦν ἰδίᾳ ἑκάστῳ
καθὼς βούλεται.
Translation (NRSV):
to another the working of miracles, to
another prophecy, to another the
discernment of spirits, to another various
kinds of tongues, to another the
interpretation of tongues. All these are
activated by one and the same Spirit, who
allots to each one individually just as the
Spirit chooses.
Notice that “all these [gifts] are activated by one and the same Spirit.” So we are not talking about qualitative differences “of a different kind.” Observe also that the two words ἄλλῳ and ἑτέρῳ are used as interchangeable and synonymous terms! The aforementioned distinction between ἄλλος “of the same kind” versus έτερος “of a different kind” doesn’t apply in this particular context. Let’s now look at the second example, which Dr. James Keith Elliott provides, namely, Heb. 11.35-36:
ἔλαβον γυναῖκες ἐξ ἀναστάσεως τοὺς
νεκροὺς αὐτῶν · ἄλλοι δὲ ἐτυμπανίσθησαν,
οὐ προσδεξάμενοι τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν, ἵνα
κρείττονος ἀναστάσεως τύχωσιν · ἕτεροι δὲ
ἐμπαιγμῶν καὶ μαστίγων πεῖραν ἔλαβον, ἔτι
δὲ δεσμῶν καὶ φυλακῆς ·
Translation:
Women received their dead by resurrection.
Others were tortured, refusing to accept
release, in order to obtain a better
resurrection. Others suffered mocking and
flogging, and even chains and
imprisonment.
In this pericope, the author of Hebrews is praising the giants of faith who were all unquestionably “of one kind,” and “not of another.” But notice that in discussing the faith of the Patriarchs——who were afflicted, persecuted, and tortured——the words ἄλλοι and ἕτεροι are used interchangeably. The people thus described are not qualitatively different. On the contrary, they are of the same kind: the heroes of faith! Once again, the assumed qualitative distinction between ἄλλοι and ἕτεροι does not exist.
In many instances, Dr. James Keith Elliott says that “scribes simply replace έτερος by άλλος.” For example, at Mt 10.23 some manuscripts read έτέραν, “but most Greek witnesses read άλλην.“ Mt. 10.23 reads:
ὅταν δὲ διώκωσιν ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ πόλει ταύτῃ,
φεύγετε εἰς τὴν ἑτέραν · ἀμὴν γὰρ λέγω
ὑμῖν, οὐ μὴ τελέσητε τὰς πόλεις τοῦ
Ἰσραὴλ ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.
Translation:
When they persecute you in one town, flee
to the next; for truly I tell you, you will not
have gone through all the towns of Israel
before the Son of Man comes.
Dr. Elliott argues that “In both places έτέραν is used in a non Classical way and is likely therefore to be what the original author wrote.” Elliott points to similar variants that occur for the same reasons in Lk. 10.1 (άλλους); Acts 8.34 (άλλον); Lk. 14.20 (άλλος); Lk. 4.43 (έτερος); Lk. 11.26 (ἕτερα); Lk. 22.65 (ἕτερα); and Jn 9.9 (ἄλλοι). In other words, in New Testament times, άλλην and έτέραν are seen as interchangeable and synonymous terms. Elliott writes:
At Lc 16 18 some mss. read άλλην for
an original έτέραν where assimilation to Mt
19 9 and Mc 10 11 may have been
responsible for the variant. This parallel
shows how easily έτερος and άλλος were
interchangeable within the New Testament
period itself.
If that’s the case, then let’s look at Lk. 16.18, which uses the word ἑτέραν:
Πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ
γαμῶν ἑτέραν μοιχεύει, καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην
ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς γαμῶν μοιχεύει.
Translation:
Anyone who divorces his wife and marries
another commits adultery, and whoever
marries a woman divorced from her
husband commits adultery.
Now let’s compare Lk. 16.18 to a parallel passage, Mt 19.9, which uses the alternative term ἄλλην. Mt. 19.9 says thusly:
λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν
γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ
ἄλλην μοιχᾶται καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην
γαμήσας μοιχᾶται.
Translation:
And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife,
except for unchastity, and marries another
commits adultery.
Notice how ἑτέραν in Lk. 16.18 becomes ἄλλην in Mt. 19.9, which demonstrates that the two terms are indeed interchangeable. Let’s also follow Elliott’s advice and compare yet another parallel, namely, Mk. 10.11:
καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς · Ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν
γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται
ἐπ’ αὐτήν.
Translation:
He said to them, ‘Whoever divorces his wife
and marries another commits adultery
against her.’
Let’s now explore a different set of passages. Specifically, let’s look at Lk 8.6 and compare it to the parallel passage in Mk. 4.5. Lk 8.6 employs the term ἕτερον and reads as follows:
καὶ ἕτερον κατέπεσεν ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν, καὶ
φυὲν ἐξηράνθη διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν ἰκμάδα.
Translation:
Some fell on the rock; and as it grew up, it
withered for lack of moisture.
However, the parallel passage in Mk. 4.5 uses the word ἄλλο instead. It reads:
καὶ ἄλλο ⸃ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ τὸ πετρῶδες ὅπου
οὐκ εἶχεν γῆν πολλήν, καὶ εὐθὺς
ἐξανέτειλεν διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν βάθος γῆς ·
Translation:
Other seed fell on rocky ground, where it did
not have much soil, and it sprang up
quickly, since it had no depth of soil.
Elliott also adds Mt. 13.5 (ἄλλα) to the mix as a counterpoint:
ἄλλα δὲ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ τὰ πετρώδη ὅπου οὐκ
εἶχεν γῆν πολλήν, καὶ εὐθέως ἐξανέτειλεν
διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν βάθος γῆς.
Translation:
Other seeds fell on rocky ground, where
they did not have much soil, and they
sprang up quickly, since they had no depth
of soil.
Let’s now examine a completely different set of parallel passages and verbal agreements. According to Elliott, “at Mt. 16.14b έτεροι is read where the parallel passages in Mc 8 28 and Lc 9 19 read άλλοι.” So, let’s take a quick look at these final examples before we end our study. Mt. 16.14 uses both words (ἄλλοι and ἕτεροι) and says:
οἱ δὲ εἶπαν · Οἱ μὲν Ἰωάννην τὸν βαπτιστήν,
ἄλλοι δὲ Ἠλίαν, ἕτεροι δὲ Ἰερεμίαν ἢ ἕνα
τῶν προφητῶν.
Translation:
And they said, ‘Some say John the Baptist,
but others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah
or one of the prophets.’
Notice that the parallel passage in Mk. 8.28 uses ἄλλοι in the same place where Mt. 16.14 used ἕτεροι. Mk 8.28 reads as follows:
οἱ δὲ εἶπαν αὐτῷ λέγοντες ⸃ ὅτι Ἰωάννην
τὸν βαπτιστήν, καὶ ἄλλοι Ἠλίαν, ἄλλοι δὲ
ὅτι εἷς ⸃ τῶν προφητῶν.
Translation:
And they answered him, ‘John the Baptist;
and others, Elijah; and still others, one of
the prophets.’
Lk. 9.19 is yet another parallel passage which uses the variant ἄλλοι. Lk. 9.19 reads:
οἱ δὲ ἀποκριθέντες εἶπαν · Ἰωάννην τὸν
βαπτιστήν, ἄλλοι δὲ Ἠλίαν, ἄλλοι δὲ ὅτι
προφήτης τις τῶν ἀρχαίων ἀνέστη.
Translation:
They answered, ‘John the Baptist; but
others, Elijah; and still others, that one of
the ancient prophets has arisen.’
Conclusion
Based on the numerous parallel passages that we studied, it is quite obvious that the Classical Greek qualitative distinction between άλλος and έτερος had largely disappeared in New Testament times. As can be seen from the previous New Testament examples, and from Dr. James Keith Elliott’s study, the words άλλος (allos) and έτερος (heteros) are interchangeable and synonymous terms!
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!
The God-Messiah of the Old Testament
By Author Eli Kittim 🎓
In the original Hebrew text, Isaiah 9:6 paints a divine picture of the Messiah, unlike the one erroniously drawn by traditional Judaism of a mere human being. In particular, Isaiah 9:6 claims that the “son” (בֵּ֚ן ben) that is given to us is called “mighty” (גִּבּ֔וֹר gibbor) “God” (אֵ֣ל el). This is reminiscent of Leviticus 26:12 in which God **literally** promises to become **incarnated** as a human being:
I will also walk among you and be your
God.
What is more, in Isaiah 9:6 the Messiah is called “the Prince” (שַׂר־ sar), “the everlasting” (Hb. עַד “ad,” derived from “adah,” which means “perpetuity,” “continually,” or “eternally”). In other words, this “son” that “is given” to us is from everlasting. As a supplemental observation, compare the similarities of Micah 5:2 (NASB) regarding the Messiah:
His times of coming forth are from long ago,
From the days of eternity.
In other words, he is **uncreated**! The Septuagint (LXX), an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, confirms this interpretation by also stating that this upcoming (messianic) ruler is from all **eternity.** In Micah 5:2 of the Septuagint (which is technically Micah 5:1 in the LXX), the prophecy is as follows:
ΚΑΙ σύ, Βηθλεέμ, οἶκος τοῦ ᾿Εφραθά,
ὀλιγοστὸς εἶ τοῦ εἶναι ἐν χιλιάσιν ᾿Ιούδα· ἐκ
σοῦ μοι ἐξελεύσεται τοῦ εἶναι εἰς ἄρχοντα
ἐν τῷ ᾿Ισραήλ, καὶ αἱ ἔξοδοι αὐτοῦ ἀπ᾿
ἀρχῆς ἐξ ἡμερῶν αἰῶνος.
English translation by L.C.L. Brenton:
And thou, Bethleem, house of Ephratha, art
few in number to be [reckoned] among the
thousands of Juda; [yet] out of thee shall
one come forth to me, to be a ruler of Israel;
and his goings forth were from the
beginning, [even] from eternity.
So we have compelling evidence from the very early Septuagint translation that the messiah to come is actually **uncreated,** and that he has existed from all **eternity.** This suggests that the “mighty God” of Isaiah 9:6, “the everlasting,” who is promised to become incarnated in Leviticus 26:12, is the same forthcoming messianic ruler that is mentioned in Micah 5:2 (Micah 5:1 LXX), whose “goings forth were from the beginning, [even] from eternity.”
Conclusion
Keep in mind that all this is coming from the Old Testament. We haven’t even touched the New Testament yet. Nevertheless, we find in the Old Testament numerous references to the messiah as an eternal, mighty, and incarnate God! And we haven’t even mentioned the deity of Jesus Christ in the New Testament:
In Jn 1:1 (‘the word was God’); Col. 2:9 (‘in
him the whole fullness of the godhead
[θεότητος] dwells bodily’); Heb. 1:3 (‘The
Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the
exact imprint of his being’); Tit. 2:13 (‘our
great God and Savior Jesus Christ’); ‘being
in very nature God’ (Phil. 2:6); ‘The Son is
the image of the invisible God’ (Col. 1:15);
‘our God and Savior Jesus Christ’ (2 Pet.
1:1); & in Jn 1:3 and Heb. 1:2 Jesus is the
creator and the ‘heir of all things, through
whom he [God] also created the worlds’; Jn
1:3: ‘All things came into being through him
[Jesus], and without him not one thing
came into being.’
Therefore, the eternal, timeless, uncreated, everlasting, almighty God (Rev. 1:8), who has always existed from all eternity, is the very same Creator-God who is promised to be born among us (Isa. 9:6; Mic. 5:2), and to “walk [וְהִתְהַלַּכְתִּי֙] among [בְּת֣וֹכְכֶ֔ם]” us (Lev. 26:12) “and be” our God!
The LXX was initially translated back in the 3rd century BC. This is clear evidence from the earliest sources that the messiah would be divine! The Micah 5:2 version of the LXX essentially confirms the DIVINE origin of the prophesied Messiah:
ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ἐξ ἡμερῶν αἰῶνος.
It means that his origins are “from the beginning of days.” In other words, the messiah is the “Ancient of Days” (Aramaic: עַתִּיק יֹומִין, ʿatīq yōmīn; παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν, palaiòs hēmerôn), which is another name for God in Daniel 7:9!
🔎 What Does the Phrase καιροῖς ἰδίοις Mean in 1 Timothy 2.6? 🔍
By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 📚🎓
There is a mysterious phrase in the Greek New Testament which seems to suggest that the evidence for Christ’s death has not yet been demonstrated. If one considers Christ’s historicity and death as a foregone conclusion, then this terse phrase certainly questions this assumption. Let’s go a little deeper and look at some of the details. The Greek text of First Timothy 2.5-6 (SBLGNT) declares:
εἷς γὰρ θεός, εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ
ἀνθρώπων ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, ὁ
δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων, τὸ
μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδίοις ·
The last clause literally means: the martyrdom/testimony [given] in its own times.
We must first understand what the Greek term μᾰρτῠ́ρῐον (martúrion) means. It actually has several meanings:
1. testimony, evidence, proof
2. martyrdom
3. shrine of a martyr
Since 1 Timothy 2.5-6 is explicitly referring to Christ’s death as a ransom (ἀντίλυτρον), it is therefore appropriate to regard the term μαρτύριον (martúrion) in this particular context both as a testimony and as a martyrdom. Let’s look at the translation of 1 Timothy 2.5-6 (KJV):
“For there is one God, and one mediator
between God and men, the man Christ
Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to
be testified in due time.”
There is something deeply perplexing about the last clause. If the testimony took place in Christ’s own time, then why will the evidence or proof be put forth “in due time”?
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the phrase “in due time” means “eventually at an appropriate time,” as in the sentence “I will answer all of your questions in due time.” Therefore, the KJV seems to suggest that the evidence establishing these facts will come at some future time period. The text is referring specifically to Christ’s death as “a ransom for all.” So, the KJV suggests that the evidence for Christ’s death will be demonstrated “in due time.” Bear in mind that this is the same English Bible translation which says elsewhere that Christ will die “ONCE IN THE END OF THE WORLD” (Hebrews 9.26b italics mine)! Let’s look at a cross-reference in 1 Timothy 6.14-15 (the same letter), which has the exact same phrase (καιροῖς ἰδίοις):
τηρῆσαί σε τὴν ἐντολὴν ἄσπιλον
ἀνεπίλημπτον μέχρι τῆς ἐπιφανείας τοῦ
κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἣν καιροῖς
ἰδίοις δείξει ὁ μακάριος καὶ μόνος
δυνάστης, ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων
καὶ κύριος τῶν κυριευόντων.
Translation (NASB):
“keep the commandment without fault or
reproach until the appearing of our Lord
Jesus Christ, which He will bring about at
the proper time—He who is the blessed and
only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord
of lords.”
First Tim. 6.15 has the exact same phrase that we find in 1 Tim. 2.6, namely, καιροῖς ἰδίοις, and in this particular context it is a reference to “the appearing of our Lord Jesus,” which elsewhere is called “the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1.7; 1 Pet. 1.7, 13; Rev. 1.1)! Here, the Greek phrase καιροῖς ἰδίοις means “at the proper time” or, more accurately, “in its own times” (YLT). And it refers to the future revelation of Jesus in his own time.
But if 1 Timothy was written at the end of the first century——and the evidence for Christ’s death had already, presumably, been demonstrated in the New Testament books——why would the author insist that the proof of Christ’s death comes “in its own times”? It doesn’t make any sense. If Jesus died ca. 30 AD, and the writer of 1 Timothy is writing at around 100 AD, 70 years later, then why would the testimony of Jesus’ death be given at the proper time, or in Christ’s own time? The author doesn’t say that the testimony was already given but rather suggests that it will be given in due time. In other words, why isn’t the testimony given right then and there? Or, why isn’t the testimony considered as something that was already given in the past about the occurrence of a previous event?
Readers often read 1 Timothy 2.6 and ignore the last clause, or they skip it as if it doesn’t really mean anything. But it does! In fact, it is the key to understanding the passage. First Timothy 2.5-6 (NASB) reads:
“For there is one God, and one mediator also
between God and mankind, the man Christ
Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for
all, the testimony given at the proper time.”
Notice how the last clause is translated in modern Bible versions. Most versions translate it correctly, without committing the clause to a past reference point, thereby suggesting that the evidence for Christ’s death is given in Christ’s own time (whenever that is…).
The New International Version gets it horribly wrong. The editors are clearly basing their translations on their theological bias. Nowhere does the Greek text say that the testimony “has now been witnessed.” Yet that’s what the NIV says at 1 Tim. 2.6:
“This has now been witnessed to at the
proper time.”
Unfortunately, that is unsubstantiated by the Greek text, which reads:
τὸ μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδίοις ·
However, most of the modern Bible translations actually get it right:
ESV - “which is the testimony given at the
proper time.”
KJV - “to be testified in due time.”
ASV - “the testimony to be borne in its own
times.”
DRB - “a testimony in due times.”
YLT - “the testimony in its own times.”
Conclusion
Hebrews 9.26b (KJV) says that Jesus will die “once in the end of the world.” First Peter 1.20 (NJB) says that Christ is “revealed at the final point of time.” Revelation 12.5 says that the Messiah is born in the end times. Acts 3.19-21 says that the Messiah cannot come “until the period of restoration of all things.” Galatians 4.4 says that Christ is born in “the fullness of the time,” which Eph. 1.9-10 defines as the consummation of the ages! Moreover, the auditory and visual impressions of the transfiguration narrative in 2 Peter 1.16-18 constitute an apocalyptic *prophecy,* which is revealed in verse 19:
“so we have the prophetic word made more
sure, to which you do well to pay attention
as to a lamp shining in a dark place.”
What is more, 1 Timothy 2.6 (written at ca. 100 AD) says that Christ’s death is meant “to be testified in due time.” The author is certainly NOT referring to 70 years prior to the time that he penned this letter (i.e. ca. 30 AD)! Therefore, it's perplexing why this mysterious phrase “to be testified in due time” is inserted in the text, and what is its temporal implication. That’s because it implies that the testimony of Christ’s death seems to be forthcoming rather than being already available!
The Quran: A Critical Review
By Bible Researcher & Author Eli Kittim 🎓
Islamic Origins
Aside from the fact that the Quran was initially built on bloodshed and violence——in which the founder of Islam, Muhammad, participated in many military battles to convert neighbouring peoples and tribes——there are many other problem areas with the history of Islam as well. Many Jews were slaughtered who would not convert, as well as many other innocent people. The motto is the same now as it was then: “convert or be killed by the sword.” The question is, would the pure and holy God of Heaven and earth condone, or even encourage, such behavior? It’s true that during the Middle Ages the Catholic Church did the same. However, the founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ, did not engage in any military battles or in any terrorist attacks to convert people to Christianity by force. Muhammad did! One began with peace; the other with war. That’s the main difference.
Bloodshed and violence also marked the beginning of the Islamic period following the death of Muhammad. Rival Muslim leaders were vying for control of the Caliphate. Many killed their rivals or were themselves assassinated. Even Ali (aka ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib)——a cousin, son-in-law, and companion of Muhammad——was himself assassinated in 661 AD. That’s when the Shia–Sunni split began. Since then, there have been so many different splintering sects (denominations) and myriads of different schools and branches of Islamic theology that it is downright misleading to claim that there’s only one interpretation of the Quran:
Islamic schools and branches have
different understandings of Islam. There are
many different sects or denominations,
schools of Islamic jurisprudence, and
schools of Islamic theology, or ʿaqīdah
(creed). Within Islamic groups themselves
there may be differences, such as different
orders (tariqa) within Sufism, and within
Sunnī Islam different schools of theology
(Aṯharī, Ashʿarī, Māturīdī) and jurisprudence
(Ḥanafī, Mālikī, Shāfiʿī, Ḥanbalī). Groups in
Islam may be numerous (the largest
branches are Shīʿas and Sunnīs), or
relatively small in size (Ibadis, Zaydīs,
Ismāʿīlīs). Differences between the groups
may not be well known to Muslims outside
of scholarly circles, or may have induced
enough passion to have resulted in political
and religious violence (Barelvi, Deobandi,
Salafism, Wahhabism). There are informal
movements driven by ideas (such as Islamic
modernism and Islamism) as well as
organized groups with a governing body
(Ahmadiyya, Ismāʿīlism, Nation of Islam).
Some of the Islamic sects and groups
regard certain others as deviant or not truly
Muslim (Ahmadiyya, Alawites, Quranists).
Some Islamic sects and groups date back
to the early history of Islam between the 7th
and 9th centuries CE (Kharijites, Sunnīs,
Shīʿas), whereas others have arisen much
more recently (Islamic neo-traditionalism,
liberalism and progressivism, Islamic
modernism, Salafism and Wahhabism) or
even in the 20th century (Nation of Islam).
Still others were influential in their time but
are not longer in existence (non-Ibadi
Kharijites, Muʿtazila, Murji'ah).
—- Wikipedia (Islamic schools and
branches)
Another criticism that has been levelled against the Quran is that it has not been critically scrutinized rigorously in the same manner as the Bible, neither does it have a critical edition, nor is the manuscript evidence made available to scholars for serious study. There’s a secrecy surrounding it that seems to prevent scholarly investigations. For example, because it lacks a critical edition, there are no footnotes in the Quran to notify the reader about manuscript evidence, textual discrepancies, or omissions!
Textual and Linguistic Problems with the Quran
But these are not the only problems. There are many more problems with the Quran. While the Bible remained uniform, even though it was revealed to many different authors and prophets——written in different languages, during different time periods, and in many different locations——the Quran was only revealed to one man who happened to be illiterate. And how good was his memory? We don’t know. How much of what he heard was he able to retain? Let’s face it, the Quran is a relatively large book that is virtually impossible to memorize word for word, especially in the consonantal language of its day. Add to this the fact that in 632 CE, following Muhammad’s death, the Battle of Yamama ensued where a great number of those who had supposedly retained the Quran in their memory (hafiz) actually died. How then can Muslims claim the preservation of the Quran through memory and oral transmission?
Muslims often claim that the Quran is a reliable, uncorrupted text because there is supposedly only one Quran. However, that is actually a misleading and fallacious argument. For one, Classical Arabic was a consonantal language that had no vowels and was thus open to various interpretations. It was different from the Arabic of today. For another, the controlled transmission of the Quran makes it impossible to know what was the original text. Hence its textual integrity has been seriously compromised. The text was in fact controlled by one person, the khalifa, as attested by Uthman's authority to recall and uniformly revise all the manuscripts. Therefore, when Uthman ibn Affan (the 3rd Caliph of Islam) burned all the existing variant copies of the Quran, he uniformly corrupted it in a textually undetectable manner. That’s actually a manipulation of the evidence. Why? Because the Quran doesn’t allow us to come any closer to the original text than the Uthmanic Revised Standard Version 20 years removed from Muhammad. Any errors which found their way into the URSV would be permanent and uncorrectable. And, unfortunately, historical accounts from early Islam tell us that such errors existed because we have, for example, the “Sanaa manuscript,” which contains earlier developments of the Quran, demonstrating textual variances that diverge from the Uthman copy. Besides, there are so many different “readings” of the Quran which give rise to so many different Islamic interpretations.
Moreover, Islam has nothing new to offer by way of revelation. Its doctrine could simply be classified as a modified theological redundancy of the Judeo-Christian tradition and the Biblical heritage that preceded it. The main difference between Islam and Christianity is this. Unlike the Quran’s singular witness and source——given that it was only revealed to *one* man (Muhammad)——the revelations of the New Testament were imparted to many different people, thereby authenticating its message by multiple attestations and witnesses!
But there is more. With regard to source criticism——that is, the sources that the Quran’s message is derived from——there are some very serious issues of forgery involved. For example, there are well-known parallelisms between the Quran and the extra-biblical, non-inspired book of Talmud (e.g. Surah 5:32; cf. Sanhedrin 37a) as well as borrowing from Christian apocryphal works. Case in point, the Quran copies from the non-canonical Infancy Gospel of Thomas in which Jesus gives life to clay birds. The Quran also uses the Second Treatise of the Great Seth, an apocryphal Gnostic text of the 3rd century. This is one of the texts where the idea that Jesus was not crucified comes from. The text claims that Simon of Cyrene was crucified in Jesus’ place. Jesus is seen as standing by and supposedly "laughing at their ignorance.” The Quran also employs the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter, an “uninspired” text that is part of the New Testament apocrypha. This text also denies the crucifixion of Jesus and suggests that there was a substitute. This is attested in the Quran, which says that Jesus was neither killed nor crucified (Sura 4:157-158). So, the Quran clearly employs Jewish and Christian apocryphal works that were never accepted as “inspired” either by the Jews or the Christians. Thus, the sources of the Quran are highly dubious, even though they are described within the text as “revelations” from God.
Theological and Historical Discrepancies
Muslims claim that the Quran is neither corrupted nor influenced by Judeo-Christian sources, and yet upon further scrutiny the book clearly incorporates passages from both the Jewish Talmud and from various Christian apocryphal works. Plagiarism abounds, and so does forgery. Therefore, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to maintain that it’s a “revelation” when at least some of the sources of the Quran are highly dubious! In fact, the evidence suggests that the Quran is the product of a late *Gnostic Christian revolt* against Byzantine Orthodoxy. What I am proposing is that the *Gnostic-Christian Sects* that were marginalized by Byzantine Orthodoxy from the fourth century onwards didn’t go away quietly but seemingly conspired against the Church during the early part of the dark ages! The result of those efforts eventuated in the Book we now call the Quran. The syncretistic-gnostic elements present in the Quran suggest that it was in fact an amalgamation of heresies that characterized many different Gnostic Christian sects. In other words, Islam was originally a heretical Eastern-Christian sect!
The aforementioned textual criticisms are further compounded when we realize that the Quran contains further theological discrepancies. For example, there are numerous verses in the Quran where Allah is swearing by created things that are less-than-God, thus committing “shirk” (i.e. the sin of ascribing divine status to any other beings beside Allah). Here’s a case in point. In sura 81:15, Allah says: “But nay! I swear by the stars.” Another example is sura 91 verse 1: “I swear by the sun and its brilliance.” When God supposedly swears by something which is less than himself the truth value of his assertion is obviously weakened. By definition, an oath is meant to buttress an argument, not to decrease the weight thereof. Therefore, the truth value of an oath is equivalent to, and connected with, the truth value of the one who declares it. As such, Allah’s oaths (swearing by created things) directly contradict his so-called divine status. By contrast, the God of the Bible swears by Himself, since there is nothing greater to swear under (cf. Gen. 22.16; Isa. 45.23; Heb. 6.13). By definition, an oath is a solemn attestation of the truth of one's words. In this case, how can Allah’s oaths be trustworthy if they appeal to something that is less than himself? Answer: they cannot! It appears, then, that the aforementioned oaths in the Quran are reflecting a human rather than a divine author.
These are just some of the problems of the Quran. But there are many, many more. The Quran lacks historicity. Mecca and Medina, for example, were deserts without water or vegetation, making it highly unlikely for a civilization to live there, let alone thrive, according to Islamic expert Dr. Jay Smith. Not to mention that these cities are not mentioned anywhere until the late 8th century. This would strongly suggest that the stories concerning these locations are probably nothing more than historical fiction.
The Biblical Stories are Altered in the Quran
There’s also a great deal of deliberate misinformation that is coming from Islamic scholars. For example, I’m currently reading “The Clear Quran Series: A Thematic English Translation” (Lombard: Book of Signs Foundation, 2016), translated by Dr. Mustafa Khattab, with chief editors: Abu-Isa Webb, Aaron Wannamaker, and Hisham Sharif. They are affiliated with the site: TheClearQuran.org. In the preface, Dr. Khattab says (p. xvi):
Arab Muslims, Christians, and Jews call
God ‘Allah.’
This is false. Neither Jews nor Christians call God Allah. In providing a definition for the name, Dr. Khattab is disingenuous because he fails to inform readers that Allah was a pre-Islamic god who was worshipped long before the writing of the Quran. On the same page, he makes another linguistic error by stating that “Jesus used ‘Alaha’ to refer to God.” This is false. Jesus never called God Alaha. On the following page (xvii), Dr. Khattab begins a paragraph with the title “Was the Quran Copied from the Bible?” He writes:
It is worth mentioning that the first Arabic
translation of the Bible was done centuries
after the Prophet’s death.
He attributes the similarities between the Quran and the Bible not on “intertextuality” (i.e. literary copying) but rather on “divine revelation.” However, this is another misleading argument. The Bible had been translated into Syriac, Coptic, Aramaic, and Latin within the first few centuries of the common era, which makes it highly improbable that the first Arabic translation occurred in the 9th century. Just because we haven’t found earlier Arabic manuscripts doesn’t mean they did not exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Besides, we know that there existed an Arab-Christian community long before the time of Muhammad. There were certainly Christian churches in the East where the Bible was regularly preached. Textual criticism demonstrates a literary dependence of the Quran on various spurious works of a Christian and Jewish bent. Scholars can trace many of the stories of the Quran back to the Bible and the early Gnostic apocryphal texts. How would the early Muslims know about these texts or be able to copy them if they were not written in Arabic? Dr. Khattab makes many other erroneous and fallacious comments that I will not mention at this juncture because they will divert us from the topic in question.
Things actually get much worse once we start reading the Quran. Dr. Khattab claims that it is a masterpiece of Arabic literature, something akin to Shakespeare. But once you start reading it, it quickly becomes apparent that it doesn’t have the majestic refinement, eloquence, elegance, loftiness, or the wisdom of the Bible. In fact, it is so crude, unrefined, and tasteless that it doesn’t even sound “inspired,” let alone revealed. It actually reads like a second rate text in which a very insecure author is trying to establish himself either by gaslighting the readers or by blowing smoke about his knowledge of the Bible via the use of repetitive phrases such as “remember” Moses, “remember” Abraham, etc. But who gave him the literary license to alter the Biblical stories and to present them mangled and distorted? How is the reader supposed to “remember” the Bible if the author of the Quran is constantly interpolating new material and changing the stories, either deliberately or because he never really understood them?
As I started to read the Quran, I noticed that God is not talking in the first person. Rather, there seems to be a human narrator, which begs the question: how is this text divine? The preface claims that the Quran is scientifically accurate, yet Surah 2:22 refers to God who made “the sky a canopy.” The sky is obviously not a canopy. Also, the author seems to have little confidence because he’s constantly challenging the reader to defy him. God would not speak in that tone. As you read on, it becomes apparent that the author wants to discredit the Christian Trinity. But he devised a clever rhetorical device to do so. He has God supposedly saying “We” did this, or “We” did that. And then he explains that God is talking to the Angels. This would suggest that God used the help of angels to co-create. This would elevate the status of angels to “co-creators,” which is certainly a theological and hermeneutical contradiction! This is also theologically problematic because when God says in Genesis 1.26 “Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness,” he is obviously not talking to angels because humankind is not made in the image of (created) angels but rather in the image of (the uncreated) God! Yet the Quran (Surah 2:30) directly contradicts this by claiming that God was talking to the angels about the creation of human beings:
‘Remember’ when your Lord said to the
angels, ‘I am going to place a successive
‘human’ authority on earth.’
Further theological discrepancies occur in Surah 2:32 in which the angels admit to not knowing “the names of all things” (Surah 2:31). But, surprisingly, “God said, ‘O Adam! Inform them of their names’ “ (Surah 2:33). In other words, the human Adam had more extensive knowledge than the divine angelic host combined. I’m not sure how a finite and limited human being who doesn’t have access to divine knowledge can possibly know more than the angelic beings who have existed for aeons upon aeons before the creation of the universe! This passage is yet another instance that reveals Allah’s lack of confidence, in which he’s constantly challenging the angels in order to prove that he knows more than they do. To make matters worse, the author once again invokes the memory of an episode that doesn’t exist in the Bible. So, there’s actually nothing to “remember.” This is a fabrication out of whole cloth. Yet, in Surah 2:34, the author writes:
And ‘remember’ when We said to the
angels, ‘Prostrate before Adam,’ so they all
did——but not Iblis [Satan], who refused
and acted arrogantly.
This Quranic commandment actually violates the 1st commandment of the Torah: “You shall have no other God’s before me.” In the New Testament, Romans 1:25 also condemns those who have “worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator.” The Book of Revelation 19.10 strictly prohibits people from worshipping even angels, let alone humans. Therefore, this Quranic passage not only directly contradicts the Bible but is also ironically forcing us to “remember” a false memory, namely, that God commanded the angels to worship Adam. But there’s no evidence that God ever said that. So how can anyone “remember” something that never happened? This is nothing short of literary gaslighting.
What is more, Surah 2:35-36 directly contradicts the Genesis creation account by claiming that Adam and Eve lived “in Paradise,” and after the fall had to “Descend from the heavens ‘to the earth.’ “ This also contradicts the Bible which states that Adam was created on earth (Genesis 1:27). In Surah 2:51-52, the author says that even though “you worshipped the calf in his [Moses’] absence, … We ‘still’ forgave you.” It appears that the angels have the power to forgive sins. I thought only God forgave sins. Apparently, the angels forgive, too. Then, in Surah 2:57, the author says to the Israelites:
And ‘remember when’ We shaded you with
clouds and sent down to you manna and
quails, ‘saying’, ‘Eat from the good things
We have provided for you.’ The evildoers
‘certainly’ did not wrong Us, but wronged
themselves.
Since the author will later deny the Trinity by proclaiming that God is one, it begs the question: who does the plural pronoun “We” refer to? It seems as if the author of the Quran is trying to reinterpret the plural pronoun “Us” in Genesis 1.26—-when God said “Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness”——by suggesting that God was talking to the angels. Thus, the “We” plural pronoun, once again, suggests a reference to the angelic host. However, this theological language is problematic because God wouldn’t speak about the angels as being co-creators or providers of the human race. On the contrary, Philippians 4:19 says that it is God (and God alone) who supplies “every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus.” Furthermore, God wouldn’t share his glory with the angels by implying that they’re co-creators, co-providers, and co-forgivers. Isaiah 42:8 reads:
I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not
yield my glory to another or my praise to
idols.
Therefore, in using the plural pronoun “We” to describe the joint efforts of God and the angels, the author of the Quran clearly demonstrates that he has misunderstood the theology of the Old and New Testaments. That’s precisely why the Quran doesn’t sound like divine scripture. It doesn’t have the ring of truth; it doesn’t sound genuine. This unbiblical conflation of God with angels is seen again in Surah 2:59, which reads: “We sent down a punishment from the heavens upon them for their rebelliousness.” Notice, it is not God who sent it; “We sent” it! Not to mention that God’s language in the Quran is rather vulgar and insulting. Surah 2:65 records the punishment for the Sabbath-Breakers:
You are already aware of those of you who
broke the Sabbath. We said to them, ‘Be
disgraced apes!’
A very insulting and demeaning language is used that is uncharacteristic of a pure and holy God. This is certainly not the language of the Bible. Incidentally, Jesus also broke the Sabbath and healed a man who had been unable to walk for 38 years (John 5:1-18). Is the author of the Quran alluding to Jesus as well, calling him an ape? How insulting!
Then comes a projection. We already know that Muhammad was illiterate. We also know that the Quran knows nothing about Holy Scripture because it keeps getting the stories wrong, misinterpreting them, distorting them, and adding to them. But, ironically, instead of admitting this, the author of the Quran pronounces a condemnation on those who do these things. But that’s exactly what the Quran is doing. He writes in Surah 2:78-79:
And among them are the illiterate who know
nothing about the Scripture except lies, and
‘so’ they ‘wishfully’ speculate. So woe to
those who distort the Scripture with their
own hands [writings] then say, ‘This is from
God’——seeking a fleeting gain! So woe to
them for what their hands have written.
In Surah 2:102, the Quran talks of magical themes:
They ‘instead’ followed the magic promoted
by the devils during the reign of Solomon.
This reference is not found anywhere in Scripture. As far as I know, the only known text to discuss demonic magic during the time of Solomon is a pseudepigraphical text, ascribed to King Solomon, which is known as The “Testament of Solomon.”
Another linguistic problem with the Quran is that it has God openly disrespecting Christians and Jews and their scriptures in a manner that is not theologically persuasive or convincing. God would not talk down to Christians and Jews by mocking their Scriptural beliefs. This is uncharacteristic of the holy and pure God of Scripture (see e.g. Surah 2:111, 113, 120). The Quran is also embellishing and contradicting the Scriptural stories by adding extraneous elements. If these stories were revealed in the 7th century, why were they not known to the earlier prophets or mentioned in Scripture? Nowhere throughout the Old and New Testaments is there the slightest clue, for example, that Abraham was in Mecca. So how are the readers supposed to remember this story? Yet Surah 2:126 declares:
And ‘remember’ when Abraham said, ‘My
Lord, make this city ‘of Mecca’ secure and
provide fruits to its people.
Unless this is copied from a spurious, apocryphal Gnostic text, there’s really nothing to remember. What is more, the Quran distorts Scripture. In the Bible, Ishmael and Hagar are disowned by Abraham. In Genesis 21:8-21, Abraham sends Hagar and Ishmael away. Moreover, Isaac is the promised seed or the heir of the promises (see Gen. 13:15; 15:5; 22:17). But in the Quran it’s the exact opposite. It is Ishmael who is the promised one, and Abraham celebrates him. This is called “twisting God’s Word,” which is a manipulation of the Scriptural evidence. It represents a kind of underhanded (sleight of hand) Islamic apologetics. It is as if we have a new film director who decided to change the plot. In this 7th century (dark ages) sequel to the Bible, it’s all about Abraham and Ishmael. And we have another plot twist in which the second commandment that prohibits the worship of idols is broken. There’s also an allusion to the Kaaba in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, which was also venerated in pre-Islamic pagan times. Paradoxically, Surah 2:125 urges the reader to remember a time that never existed. I suppose it’s a clever way of attempting to historicize a fictional narrative that has no basis in history or literature:
And ‘remember’ when We made the Sacred
House [Ka’bah] a centre and a sanctuary
for the people ‘saying’, ‘You may take the
standing-place of Abraham as a site of
prayer.’ And We entrusted Abraham and
Ishmael to purify My House for those who
circle it, who meditate in it, and who bow
and prostrate themselves ‘in prayer’.
Then there is a theological fabrication of the one true God which departs from Scripture and tradition. It also falsifies Hebrew Scripture which never mentions Yahweh as the God of Ishmael. Surah 2:133 declares:
Or did you witness when death came to
Jacob? He asked his children, ‘Who will
you worship after my passing?’ They
replied, ‘We will continue to worship your
God, the God of your forefathers——
Abraham, Ishmael, and Isaac——the One
God. And to him we all submit.’
There is also a seeming allusion to the Christians, whom the anonymous author of the Quran is denouncing as polytheists (see Surah 2:135). The author of the Quran obviously doesn’t understand the theological concept of the Trinity. It doesn’t evoke polytheism. The Triune God is defined as one God who exists in three coeternal, coequal, consubstantial divine persons. An analogy would be the fingers of a hand. Although there may be 5 fingers, it is still one (1) hand!
——-
For further details on the Trinity, see the following article:
Is the Trinity a Biblical Teaching?
https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/631800420436754432/is-the-trinity-a-biblical-teaching
——-
The Quran Contradicts Itself
Finally, I will put forth one last statement before I make my closing arguments. The anonymous author of the Quran claims that he follows the revelations of the Hebrew patriarchs and of Jesus. He writes (Surah 2:136):
Say, O believers, ‘We believe in God and
what has been revealed to us; and what
was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac,
Jacob, and his descendants; and what was
given to Moses, Jesus, and other prophets
from the Lord. We make no distinction
between any of them.
There are two things, here, worthy of consideration. On the one hand, the author claims to accept the revelation of Jesus. On the other hand, he contradicts the revelation of Jesus by saying that Jesus is no different than anyone else. Well, which is it? Does he accept Jesus’ revelation or not? He’s violating the law of non-contradiction, which states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. Jesus claimed that God is a trinity. Matthew 28.19, for example, is an authentic verse that is part of the New Testament critical edition. In this verse, Jesus describes what God is:
Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the
nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
If the anonymous author of the Quran accepts Jesus’ revelation, as he claims, then it is incumbent upon him to also accept the revelation of the Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit! Moreover, if this author accepts Jesus’ revelation, then it is incumbent upon him to also accept the divinity of Jesus! Otherwise he is contradicting himself.
The Deity of Jesus Christ
In John 1:1 (“the word was God”); Colossians 2:9 (“in him the whole fullness of the godhead [θεότητος] dwells bodily”); Hebrews 1:3 (“The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact imprint of his being”); Titus 2:13 (“our great God and Savior Jesus Christ”); Philippians 2:6 (“being in very nature God”); Colossians 1:15 (“The Son is the image of the invisible God”); 2 Peter 1:1 (“our God and Savior Jesus Christ”). And in John 1:3 and Hebrews 1:2 Jesus is the creator and the “heir of all things, through whom he [God] also created the worlds.” John 1:3: “All things came into being through him [Jesus], and without him not one thing came into being.”
——-
Jesus’ Incarnation Prophesied in the Tanakh (Old Testament)
Leviticus 26.12:
“I will walk among you and be your God”
Micah 5.2:
“out of you will come forth for Me One to be ruler over Israel—One whose origins are of old, from the days of eternity.”
Daniel 7.13-14:
“one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. … He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him.”
Isaiah 53.3-5:
“He was despised and rejected …, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. … Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.”
Zechariah 12:10
“They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn”
Isaiah 9.6 (emphasis added):
“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, MIGHTY GOD, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”
You have to be exegetically ignorant or completely illiterate not to notice that the divine Messiah was prophesied in both the Tanakh and the Habrit Hachadashah. If the author of the Quran accepts Jesus as the Messiah——as well as Jesus’ revelation, and his future coming——then he must also accept the aforementioned revelations!
Conclusion
So, the Quran was built on bloodshed and violence in which its prophet, Muhammad, participated in many military battles to convert people to Islam. Bloodshed and violence also marked the beginning of the Islamic period following the death of Muhammad. Rival Muslim leaders were vying for control of the Caliphate killing each other off and forcing conversion by the sword. The Quran was written in consonantal Arabic, a language which is susceptible to multiple interpretations. There were also multiple versions that were burned and destroyed, so that the controlled transmission of the Quran makes it impossible to know what was the original text. What is more, the Quran lacks a critical edition, and has no scholarly apparatus to inform us about important text-critical questions. The hafiz died, and so did the oral tradition. And the Quran itself is full of discrepancies and contradictions, constantly changing and falsifying the Biblical stories to suit the author’s theological needs. But Adam was created on earth, not in heaven. God never asked the angels to worship Adam, nor did he make man in their image. And Yahweh is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not the God of Abraham, Ishmael, and Isaac. So, when the Quran tells us to “remember” these fabricated stories that have been ripped out of their original contexts and altered, this is a deceptive way to gaslight its readers. The Quran is also a collection of forgeries of many different apocryphal and pseudepigraphical Jewish and Christian texts. The Quran lacks the majestic refinement, eloquence, and loftiness of the Bible. In fact, it is rather crude and unrefined, so much so that it doesn’t even sound “inspired,” let alone revealed. It actually reads like a second rate text in which a very insecure author is trying to establish himself either by gaslighting his readers or by trying to persuade them of his biblical knowledge through the use of repetitive phrases such as “remember” Moses, “remember” Abraham, etc. But who gave him the literary license to alter the Biblical stories and to present them mangled and distorted? No! The Quran doesn’t read like Scripture. It doesn’t have the ring of truth.
An Additional Nuance of Meaning to Πονηρός (ponērós)
By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
Definitions of Πονηρός (ponērós)
Koine is the immediate ancestor to modern Greek and the language that’s still used in the liturgy of the Greek Orthodox Church. In modern Greek, πονηρός (ponērós) means “cunning, sneaky, sly, wily, devious, insidious,” as well as “evil.” And since many linguists claim that Koine is very close to modern Greek, I propose that the New Testament (NT) definition of ponērós, in many instances, has certain sinister undertones of “cunning” and “devious” cognition. I intend to demonstrate that by looking at the way the term is used in both the Septuagint (LXX) and the NT. This is not an exhaustive study, by any means, but it does have sufficient evidence to at least warrant such an endeavor.
Mounce gives us several standard meanings of πονηρός (ponērós), such as evil, afflictive (Eph. 5:16; 6:13; Rev. 16:2), the evil one, or the devil (Mt. 13:19, 38; Jn. 17:15). But he also adds envious (Mt. 20:15; Mk. 7:22) and covetous (Mt. 7:11) to the list. Both of these terms presuppose planning, premeditation, scheming, plotting, and the like, in order to achieve these ends. In other words, these intentions originate from thoughts and imaginations that can, if they’re quite overwhelming, turn people into evil and malicious beings. So, I’m basically trying to demonstrate that the word ponērós has the added connotative meaning of “cunning” or “crafty” in koine Greek, which has been neglected by modern lexicons.
Πονηρός (ponērós) in the LXX
The LXX has many instances where ponērós could mean “affliction” (Gen. 12:17; Deut. 7:15) or “grievous” (Exod. 33:4), or simply “evil” (Gen. 2:9). However, there are cases where the definition of ponērós goes beyond the standard definitions and implies “thinking evil thoughts” (Gen. 6:5). Case in point, the English translation by L.C.L. Brenton of Gen. 8:21 (LXX) reads:
the imagination [διάνοια] of man is intently
bent upon evil [πονηρὰ] things.
The LXX demonstrates that the functional aspect of ponērós is not just thinking but also uttering evil words. Gen. 31:29 (LXX) writes:
speak not evil [πονηρά] words.
Numbers 11:1 (LXX) goes even further by showing that the term ponērós suggests a certain amount of premeditated plotting in a cunning or underhanded fashion:
the people murmured sinfully [πονηρά]
before [έναντι] the Lord [Κυρίου].
In other words, the people complained, not in a justifiable way, but rather “sinfully” (πονηρά], which suggests that they were plotting against God in a devious and insidious manner.
In Num. 14:27 (LXX) God declares that those “murmuring against me” (γογγύζουσιν εναντίον μου) are a “wicked generation” (την συναγωγήν την πονηράν). That is to say, these people are murmuring and planting seeds of dissension, plotting against God in an attempt to create discord and division.
Numbers 14:36-37 (LXX) suggests that those who were dispatched by Moses to scout out the Land of Canaan were slandering God by devising lies and false reports. Numbers 14:36 (LXX) reads as follows:
[they] murmured against it to the assembly
so as to bring out evil words concerning the
land [ρήματα πονηρά περι της γης].
Numbers 14:37 (LXX) is even clearer, suggesting that these were false and fabricated reports. Numbers 14:37 (LXX) says thusly:
the men … spoke evil [πονηρά] reports
against the land.
As we move on to Gen. 50:20 (LXX), it becomes apparent that the word πονηρά implies underhanded schemes and evil plots. Gen. 50:20 (LXX) reads as follows:
ὑμεῖς ἐβουλεύσασθε κατ᾿ ἐμοῦ εἰς πονηρά.
English translation by L.C.L. Brenton:
Ye took counsel against me for evil.
This was a case where wily and devious ideas where exchanged, evil plots were devised and considered, and then cunningly executed.
Similarly, Isaiah 32:7 (LXX) says:
For the counsel of the wicked [πονηρῶν]
will devise iniquity.
In other words, the term πονηρῶν indicates devising, plotting, and scheming in an underhanded way.
Finally, our last example comes from Psalm 109:20 (which is actually 108:20 LXX). It reads:
τοῦτο τὸ ἔργον τῶν ἐνδιαβαλλόντων με
παρὰ Κυρίου καὶ τῶν λαλούντων πονηρὰ
κατὰ τῆς ψυχῆς μου.
English translation by L.C.L. Brenton:
This is the dealing of the Lord with those
who falsely accuse me, and of them that
speak evil against my soul.
It becomes clear, then, that πονηρὰ means false allegations, false claims, or downright lies! Thus, πονηρὰ refers to cunning plots and schemes.
Πονηρός (ponērós) in the NT
Matthew 5:37, 6:13, and 13:19 all have the standard ponērós (πονηροῦ/πονηρὸς) meaning that refers to Satan per se. But Mt. 5:11 links insults (ὀνειδίσωσιν), lies, and slanders (ψευδόμενοι) to the term *ponērós* because it refers to cunning deceivers who “falsely say all kinds of evil [πᾶν πονηρὸν] against” the elect. Thus, false accusations, slanders, insults, and personal attacks are all considered as part of the wily, devious, and evil (ponērós) schemes that are often used to persecute Christians.
Matthew 9:4 identifies the thoughts in our hearts as being ponēra (πονηρὰ) or evil. Thus, we all have ponēra thoughts. Matthew 20:15 adds more color to the mix because it translates πονηρός as envious or jealous, depending on which Bible version you read. Finally, Matthew 15:19 presents a list in which he identifies evil thoughts (διαλογισμοὶ πονηροί). The list is as follows: 1) premeditated murders, which are certainly insidious, 2) adulteries and sexual immorality, which involve lies and deceptions in order to keep the affair concealed; 3) thefts are also included as διαλογισμοὶ πονηροί, which require the thief to be cunning, sneaky, and sly in order to achieve his aims; 4) false testimonies fall under the same category of deviousness and deception; 5) slanders are also part of the scheming διαλογισμοὶ πονηροί, as they cunningly aim to dishonor and discredit people.
Mark 7:22 defines ponērós as a cunning deception because it undergirds covetousness, lies, slanders, and pride (cf. 1 Jn 2:16). So Mark adds greed, malice, deceit, envy, slander, and arrogance to the list of meanings associated with the Greek word “ponērós.”
Conclusion
As we have seen, both the LXX and the NT often define ponērós as a cunning and devious cognition. Numbers 11:1, for example, demonstrates that ponērós means plotting & devising in a cunning and underhand fashion. The text suggests that the people were plotting against God in a devious and insidious manner. Similarly, Numbers 14:36-37 (LXX) suggests that ponērós is associated with slanders, lies, and false reports. In Psalm 109:20 (108:20 LXX), it becomes clear that πονηρὰ means false allegations, false claims, or downright lies! Thus, it refers to cunning plots and schemes.
And in the NT, Mt. 5:11 links insults, lies and slanders to the term ponērós because it refers to cunning deceivers who “falsely say all kinds of evil [πᾶν πονηρὸν] against” the elect. Thus, false accusations, slanders, insults, and personal attacks are all considered as part of the wily, devious, and evil (ponērós) schemes that are often used to persecute Christians.
Mark 7:22 defines ponērós as a cunning deception because it undergirds covetousness, lies, slanders, and pride (cf. 1 Jn 2:16). So Mark adds greed, malice, deceit, envy, slander, and arrogance to the list of meanings associated with the Greek word “ponērós.” As we have seen, in both the LXX & the NT, aside from the standard meanings of πονηρός (ponērós)——such as evil, afflictive, the evil one, or the devil——there are additional connotative meanings which suggest the terms “cunning, crafty, sneaky, sly, wily, devious, insidious, slanderous, and deceitful.” Thus, the koine word ponērós does have the modern-Greek connotative meaning of “cunning,” which has been neglected by modern lexicons!
The Error of Subordinationism
By Biblical Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
Ontological Subordinationism
The theological literature defines Subordinationism as comprising hierarchical rankings amongst the persons of the Trinity, thus signifying an ontological subordination of both the Son and the Spirit to the Father. The word ontological refers to “being.” Although some of the ante-Nicene fathers supported subordinationism, this doctrine was eventually condemned as heretical by the Post-Nicene fathers:
Athanasius opposed subordinationism, and
was highly hostile to hierarchical rankings
of the divine persons. It was also opposed
by Augustine. Subordinationism was
condemned in the 6th century along with
other doctrines taught by Origen.
Epiphanus writing against Origen attacked
his views of subordinationism. — wiki
Calvin also opposed subordinationism:
In his Institutes of the Christian Religion,
book 1, chapter 13 Calvin attacks those in
the Reformation family who while they
confess ‘that there are three [divine]
persons’ speak of the Father as ‘the
essence giver’ as if he were ‘truly and
properly the sole God’. This he says,
‘definitely cast[s] the Son down from his
rank.’ This is because it implies that the
Father is God in a way the Son is not.
Modern scholars are agreed that this was a
sixteenth century form of what today is
called, ‘subordinationism’. Richard Muller
says Calvin recognised that what his
opponents were teaching ‘amounted to a
radical subordination of the second and
third persons, with the result that the Father
alone is truly God.’ Ellis adds that this
teaching also implied tritheism, three
separate Gods. — wiki
The Eastern Orthodox position is yet another form of subordinationism that has asserted the Monarchy of the Father to this day:
According to the Eastern Orthodox view, the
Son is derived from the Father who alone is
without cause or origin. — wiki
The Catholic Church, however, is overtly antithetical to the subordinationism doctrine:
Catholic theologian John Hardon wrote that
subordinationism ‘denies that the second
and third persons are consubstantial with
the Father. Therefore it denies their true
divinity.’ — wiki
In theology proper, unlike ontological subordination, there is also the doctrine of “economic subordination” in which the Son and the Holy Spirit play subordinate roles in their functions, even though they may be ontologically equal to the Father. New Calvinists have been advancing this theory of late:
While contemporary Evangelicals believe
the historically agreed fundamentals of the
Christian faith, including the Trinity, among
the New Calvinist formula, the Trinity is one
God in three equal persons, among whom
there is ‘economic subordination’ (as, for
example, when the Son obeys the Father).
— wiki
According to the Oxford Encyclopedia, the doctrine of Subordinationism makes the Son inferior to the Father, and the Holy Spirit inferior to the Son. It reads thusly:
Subordinationism means to consider Christ,
as Son of God, as inferior to the Father.
This tendency was strong in the 2nd- and
3rd-century theology. It is evident in
theologians like Justin Martyr, Tertullian,
Origen, Novatian, and Irenaeus. Irenaeus,
for example, commenting on Christ's
statement, ‘the Father is greater than I’
(John 14:28), has no difficulty in
considering Christ as inferior to the Father.
… When Origen enlarged the conception of
the Trinity to include the Holy Spirit, he
explained the Son as inferior to the Father
and the Holy Spirit as inferior to the Son.
Subordination is based on statements
which Jesus made, such as (a) that ‘the
Father is greater than I’ (John 14:28); (b)
that, with respect to when the day of
Judgment will be, ‘of that day or hour no
one knows, not even the angels in heaven,
nor the Son, but the Father alone’ (Mark
13:32), and that He spoke of God as
somebody else (Mark 11:18). — wiki
However, Jesus’ statements are made from within the confines of his human condition, and thus they don’t pertain to his eternal status. As the Son of Man, namely, as a finite, limited human being, in comparison with the eternal Father, Jesus is obviously incapable of knowing all things. So Jesus’ statements must not be taken out of context and used to support the idea that he’s ontologically an inferior God. Micah 5.2 would certainly challenge that notion when it reveals that the messiah is actually uncreated: “His times of coming forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity.” Subordinationism ultimately leads to Arianism, the notion that the Son was created by the Father, and is not thus God:
Arius, therefore, held that the Son was
divine by grace and not by nature, and that
He was created by the Father, though in a
creation outside time. In response, the
Nicene Creed, particularly as revised by the
second ecumenical council in
Constantinople I in 381, by affirming the co-
equality of the Three Persons of the Trinity,
condemned subordinationism. — wiki
According to The Westminster Handbook to Patristic Theology, Subordinationism sees “the Son” and “the Spirit of God” as lesser deities, especially as demi-gods, or inferior gods:
Subordinationism. The term is a common
retrospective concept used to denote
theologians of the early church who
affirmed the divinity of the Son or Spirit of
God, but conceived it somehow as a lesser
form of divinity than that of the Father.
— wiki
Subordinationism is reminiscent of Gnosticism in which there’s a supreme God as well as lesser divinities. In Subordinationism, the Son is viewed as an inferior god, or a lesser god. However, as will be shown, Jesus is not a subordinate god in relation to God the Father. Some theologians argue that although the three persons of the Godhead are coequal, coeternal, and consubstantial ontologically, the Son and the Spirit are nevertheless subordinate in terms of economy, that is, in terms of their functions and roles. This notion of ranking or subordination within the trinity is supposedly supported by scripture when it says that the Father “sent” the Son (Jn 6.57), or that the Father and the Son “send” the Spirit (Jn 15.26), or that the spirit will “speak only what he hears” (Jn 16.13).
But this still implies a greater versus a lesser god, which makes the Trinity theologically indefensible! Not to mention that these verses are taken out of context. The temporal operations of the Son and the Spirit are scripturally depicted in anthropomorphic terms, ascribing human characteristics to divine operations and energies so that they can be better understood. As, for example, when scripture says that God changed his mind, or that he repented. And as regards Jesus’ connection to the God of the Hebrew Bible, appropriate New Testament language must be used so as to preclude a theological deviation from the monotheistic God of the Old Testament. Nevertheless, scripture does tell us categorically and unequivocally who Jesus is. Revelation 1.8 tells us that the Son is the Almighty! Who, then, ranks above him? Moreover, Jesus is Yahweh (the Lord) in the New Testament. Proverbs 8.28-30, John 1.3 and Hebrews 1.2 all indicate that Jesus is the creator. John 1.3 declares:
All things came into being through him
[Jesus], and without him not one thing
came into being.
Acts 4.12 reminds us of Jesus’ preeminent position within the Godhead:
there is salvation in no one else; for
there is no other name under heaven that
has been given among mankind by which
we must be saved.
In my view, subordinationism leads to tritheism!
The Eternal Subordination of the Son
The doctrine that the Son is eternally created by God the Father smacks of Arianism, as if his divinity is mediated to him by God the Father, implying that the Son doesn’t legitimately possess divinity in and of himself. It suggests that the Son and the Father were not always God in the same way, and that there was a time when the Son did not exist. Accordingly, only the Father was in the beginning. In other words, the Son is not eternal. This view holds that the Son is God only because Godhood is bestowed on him as a gift from the Father. To phrase it differently, the Son is God by grace and not by nature. Today, among the theologians who hold to Subordinationism are Bruce A. Ware, Wayne A. Grudem, and John W. Kleinig. But this doctrine contradicts John 1.1:
In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and God was the word.
We must always remember that all of Jesus’ words must be understood within the context of the human condition. That is to say, Jesus is speaking of his human nature, as a human being, not as eternal God. He is a creature, a man, a finite being, located in time and space, and in that sense he is obviously in a subordinate relationship to the Father who remains eternal and is everywhere. So when Jesus employs the language of grace——specifying what the Father has “given” him——he is referring to what the eternal Father has done for the mortal Son of Man, namely, to give him authority, exaltation, worship, and glory (cf. Daniel 7.13-14). This apparent inequality between the Son and the Father is, strictly speaking, limited to Jesus’ humanity, a humanity which will then in turn redeem human nature and glorify his elect. It is not referring to Jesus’ ontological relationship with the Father, which is one of equality. And since he is appealing particularly to the monotheistic God of the old testament, which the Jews understood as a singular deity, Jesus is careful to use the language of grace in order to appease the Jews who would otherwise take exception to an incarnate God. But scripture is quite adamant about the fact that Jesus is both man and God! John 1.14 puts it thusly:
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt
among us.
Colossians 2.9 reveals that the Son is fully God, and that the fullness of the godhead (πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος) dwells in him bodily:
in him the whole fullness of the godhead
[θεότητος] dwells bodily.
Hebrews 1.3 proclaims that the Son is of the same essence as the Father:
The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and
the exact imprint of his being.
Titus 2.13 calls him “our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” And in John 1.3 and Hebrews 1.2 Jesus is the creator and the “heir of all things, through whom he [God] also created the worlds.” That is to say, the Son of Man, in his *human nature*——as the mediator and savior of mankind——becomes heir of all things. Not that the Godhood is given to him as a gift or as an inheritance. How can a lesser god or a created being act as the ultimate judge of the universe? John 5.22 reads:
For the Father judgeth no man, but hath
committed all judgment unto the Son.
It doesn’t mean that the Son is given this office as a gift because the Son is God by nature and not by grace! How can God the Father hand over his Sovereignty to God the Son as a gift if Yahweh never yields his glory to another?
I am the LORD [Yahweh]; that is my name! I
will not yield my glory to another.
— Isaiah 42.8
How can an inferior god, a lesser god, or a created god be completely sovereign over the entire universe? In Matthew 28.18, Jesus declares:
All authority in heaven and on earth has
been given to me.
The clincher, the verse that clearly demonstrates the Son’s divine authority is Revelation 1.8. Since we are not waiting for the Father but rather for the Son to arrive, it becomes quite obvious that this is a reference to Jesus Christ:
‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the
Lord God, ‘who is, and who was, and who is
to come, the Almighty.’
In Daniel 7.14, why was the Son of Man “given authority, glory and sovereign power”? Why did “all nations and peoples of every language worship[ed] him”? If he’s a created being, why do the heavenly host prostrate before the Son in heaven? Partly because he is God, but also because of his deeds on earth. Revelation 5.12 exclaims:
Worthy is the Lamb that was slaughtered to
receive power and wealth and wisdom and
might and honor and glory and blessing!
Not that the Son doesn’t have power, or wealth, or wisdom, or honor, or glory, or blessing. But it’s as if additional exaltation is offered to him because of his achievements as a human being (as the Son of Man)! First Timothy 6.15-16 calls Christ the “only Sovereign” God and that “It is he alone who has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light”:
he who is the blessed and only Sovereign
[μόνος δυνάστης], the King of kings and
Lord of lords. It is he alone who has
immortality [ἀθανασίαν] and dwells in
unapproachable light, whom no one has
ever seen or can see.
Hebrews 1.3 reveals that the Son (not the Father) “upholds the universe by the word of his power.” Colossians 1.17 also says: “He [Christ] is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (cf. Philippians 3.21). What is more, if the Son is subordinate to the Father, then the Father is the source of life, not the Son. Yet John 14.6 says the exact opposite, to wit, that the Son is both “the truth” and “existence” itself:
Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the
truth, and the life.’
Jesus also alludes to himself as Yahweh, using the ontological Divine Name “I AM” from Exodus 3.14:
Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly I say to you,
before Abraham was born, I am.’
— John 8.58
In Matthew 28.18, Jesus says that “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Ἐδόθη μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς·). That means that Jesus has *ALL AUTHORITY*; not just some authority or most authority. So, if the Son possesses all authority, how is he subject to a higher authority? Consequently, there’s no one higher than him! We also know this through Special Revelation❗️
Eternal Sonship vs Incarnational Sonship
In his essay “JOHN 1:14, 18 (et al.),” Edward Andrews writes:
Literal translation philosophy versus
interpretive translation philosophy plays a
role here too. I submit that rendering
monogenēs as “only begotten” is the literal
rendering. In translating the Updated
American Standard Version (UASV), our
primary purpose is to give the Bible readers
what God said by way of his human
authors, not what a translator thinks God
meant in its place.—Truth Matters! Our
primary goal is to be accurate and faithful
to the original text. The meaning of a word
is the responsibility of the interpreter (i.e.,
reader), not the translator.
Therefore, a literal reading of monogené̄s is “only begotten” or “only-born.” However, scholars commonly argue whether the meaning of the Greek word μονογενὴς (monogenēs) is “only begotten” or “unique.” I will discuss that in a moment. Moreover, theologians have devised the doctrine of eternal Sonship, and have viewed this process as an eternal begetting, namely, the eternal begetting of the Son. That is to say, the 2nd person of the Trinity has always been the Son of God throughout all eternity. This is primarily based on the Nicene Creed (325 A.D.) which states: "We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.” However, the preposition “from” (e.g. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God) is very problematic. So is the phrase “eternally begotten of the Father.” Both suggest that the the 2nd person is not fully God in his own right but derives his divinity eternally from the Greater God, the Father. So, for example, if the Father were to suddenly cut off the supply lines, for whatever reason, the Son would no longer be God. That’s the implication. Insofar as this language gives priority to the Father as the only true God, it suggests that the Son and Spirit are inferior and that they derive their divinity and existence from the Father. Yet Isaiah 9.6 calls the Messiah “Everlasting Father”!
In his book “Systematic Theology,” Wayne Grudem identifies one particular hermeneutical problem with these types of interpretations, namely, that they try to illustrate the eternal relationships within the Godhead based on scriptural information which only address their relationships in time. Therefore, it is both feasible and conceivable that the Bible uses the terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to describe the manner in which the members of the Trinity relate to humanity in space-time. For instance, the numerous references pertaining to the Father “sending” the Son into the world allude to time. Furthermore, the Father-Son-and-Holy-Spirit formula is an “analogy” to the human family and to human relationships, not an exact representation concerning the relationships of the persons within the Trinity. Moreover, the notion that the Son is “eternally begotten” of the Father is dangerously close to Arianism, which maintains that the Son of God didn’t always exist but was rather begotten by God the Father, thus implying that Jesus was not co-eternal with God the Father.
Those who take exception to the concept of eternal Sonship often espouse what is known as the doctrine of the Incarnational Sonship. While affirming the Son’s deity and eternality, this doctrine holds that he was not always the Son of God. Rather, his Sonship began when he was “begotten.” In other words, the Father-Son-and-Spirit formula only describes the manner in which the members of the Trinity relate to humanity in space-time. This means that the second person of the Trinity became the Son of God at some point in history, namely, at His incarnation. There are several nontrinitarian offshoots of this view, which hold that the second person of the Trinity was adopted as the Son of God at his baptism, his resurrection, or his ascension. This view is known as Adoptionism (also called dynamic monarchianism). Since this is a nontrinitarian formula which asserts that Christ was simply a mortal man who was later adopted as the Son of God at some point in human history, it has absolutely nothing to do with the Incarnational Sonship that I’m describing, which recognizes and affirms Christ’s deity and eternality. Advocates of this position view the Sonship of Christ as a title or a function that he historically assumed “in time,” at his incarnation. They do not view the Sonship of Christ as an essential element of “who he is” within the Trinity. The same is true of the Father. According to this view, the first person of the Trinity became the Father at the time of the incarnation.
MacArthur (who has since changed his position) originally denied that Jesus was “always subservient to God, always less than God, always under God.” He claimed that sonship is simply an “analogy.” In like manner, Ergun Caner describes Sonship as “metaphor.” Caner similarly argues that “sonship began in a point of time, not in eternity.” Other notable Christians who have taken exception to the doctrine of eternal Sonship are Albert Barnes, Walter Martin, Finis J. Dake, and Adam Clarke.
The language of Hebrews 1.5 clearly defines the relationship of the Father to the Son as beginning during Christ’s incarnation. That’s precisely why this verse is often used as proof of the Incarnational Sonship, in which the titles of Father and Son begin to be applied during a specific event that takes place at a particular point in time: “ ‘You are my Son; today I have become your Father.’ Or again, ‘I will be his Father, and he will be my Son.’ “ Thus, there seems to be an apparent subordination in the economy of God only insofar as Christ’s human nature is concerned.
Monogenēs
Scholars often argue whether the meaning of the Greek word μονογενὴς (monogenēs) is “only begotten” or “unique.” Given the view of Incarnational Sonship, in which the titles of Father and Son begin to be applied during Christ’s incarnation, the expression “the only begotten God” seemingly means “the only God who has ever been born on earth!” And in that sense it also means “unique,” or “one of its kind.” Otherwise, if we think of the Son begotten eternally of the Father, it implies that he is not God in and of himself but derives his divinity from the Father. Thus, he is not “true God from true God”!
Although the term monogenēs could mean the “only one of its kind,” the literal meaning is “only begotten” or “only born.” Given that the earliest papyri have μονογενης θεος in John 1.18, for example, monogenēs seemingly means “the only God who has ever been born in time,” or the “only-born God” (i.e. only-begotten). Put differently, no other God has ever been born in history. But the primary meaning is “only begotten,” or, literally, “only-born.” However, its meaning is commonly applied to mean "one of a kind,” or “one and only.” We can see the interplay between the two meanings in the book of Hebrews:
The word is used in Hebrews 11:17-19 to
describe Isaac, the son of Abraham.
However, Isaac was not the only-begotten
son of Abraham, but was the chosen,
having special virtue. Thus Isaac was ‘the
only legitimate child’ of Abraham. That is,
Isaac was the only son of Abraham that
God acknowledged as the legitimate son of
the covenant. It does not mean that Isaac
was not literally ‘begotten’ of Abraham, for
he indeed was, but that he alone was
acknowledged as the son that God had
promised. — wiki
Nevertheless, excerpts from Classical Greek literature, as well as from Josephus, the Nicene creed, Clement of Rome, and the New Testament suggest that the meaning of monogenēs is “only-born”:
Only-born
Herodotus [Histories] 2.79.3 ‘Maneros was
the only-born (monogenes) of their first
king, who died prematurely.’ — wiki
Herodotus [Histories] 7.221.1 ‘Megistias sent
to safety his only-born (o monogenes, as
noun) who was also with the army.’ — wiki
Luke 9:38 ‘only born (o
monogenes)’ {noun}. — wiki
Josephus, Antiquities 2.263 ‘Jephtha’s
daughter, she was also an only-born
(monogenes) and a virgin.’ — wiki
John 3.16 For God so loved the world, that
he gave his only-begotten Son (o
monogenes uios). — wiki
Nicene Creed - ‘And in one Lord Jesus
Christ, the only-begotten Son of God.’
Clement of Rome 25 [First Epistle of
Clement] – ‘the phoenix is the only one
[born] (monogenes) of its kind.” — wiki
Notice the *meaning* in the last quotation. It’s not just the only-born, but “the only one [born] of its kind”: a combination of both interpretations. And that seems to capture the meaning of *monogenes* in the New Testament. The titles of Father and Son seemingly begin when Christ is earth-begotten or earthborn:
Heb. 1:5 ‘For unto which of the angels said
he at any time, ‘Thou art my Son (uios mou
ei su), this day have I begotten thee (ego
semeron gegenneka se)’? And again, I will
be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a
Son?’ (citing Ps.2:7, also cited Acts 13:33,
Heb. 5:5) —wiki
Filioque
In the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Father is seen as Greater than the Son and the Spirit. To offset this imbalance, the Nicene creed was amended by the Roman Catholic Church with the addition of the filioque clause. The original creed from the First Council of Constantinople (381) states that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the Father,” to which the Roman Catholic West added, “and the Son,” as an additional origin point of the Holy Spirit. Maximus the Confessor, who is associated more with the Orthodox East than with the Catholic West, didn’t take issue with the filioque. Similarly, I. Voronov, Paul Evdokimov and S. Bulgakov saw the Filioque as a legitimate theologoumenon (i.e. theological opinion)!
The reason we’re discussing the filioque is because this issue bears on the question of whether Jesus is God by nature or by grace. The Filioque was added to the Creed as an anti-Arian addition by the Third Council of Toledo (589). It is well-known that The Eastern Orthodox Church promotes the “Monarchy of the Father,” which signifies that the Father alone is the only cause (αἰτία) of the Son and the Spirit:
The Eastern Orthodox interpretation is that
the Holy Spirit originates, has his cause for
existence or being (manner of existence)
from the Father alone as ‘One God, One
Father’, Lossky insisted that any notion of a
double procession of the Holy Spirit from
both the Father and the Son was
incompatible with Eastern Orthodox
theology. — wiki
The view of the superiority of the Father actually finds expression in both east and west:
The Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215):
‘The Father is from no one, the Son from the
Father only, and the Holy Spirit equally from
both.’ — wiki
This view leads to Arianism, as can be seen from the seventeenth ecumenical council:
The Council of Florence, session 11 (1442),
in Cantate Domino, on union with the Copts
and Ethiopians: ‘Father, Son and holy Spirit;
one in essence, three in persons;
unbegotten Father, Son begotten from the
Father, holy Spirit proceeding from the
Father and the Son; ... the holy Spirit alone
proceeds at once from the Father and the
Son. ... Whatever the holy Spirit is or has, he
has from the Father together with the Son.’
— wiki
This implies that both the Son and the Holy Spirit are not God by nature but by grace. Thus, they’re not fully God: they’re inferior, lesser gods, created eternally by the Father so to speak. This smacks of Arianism and contradicts scripture which states that “in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Colossians 2.9). Conversely, Eastern Orthodoxy tends to put the Father on a pedestal:
In Eastern Orthodox Christianity theology
starts with the Father hypostasis, not the
essence of God, since the Father is the God
of the Old Testament. The Father is the
origin of all things and this is the basis and
starting point of the Orthodox trinitarian
teaching of one God in Father, one God, of
the essence of the Father (as the uncreated
comes from the Father as this is what the
Father is). — wiki
Conclusion
It doesn’t appear as if there are hierarchical rankings amongst the persons of the Trinity, comprising an ontological subordination of both the Son and the Spirit to the Father. To say that “the Son is derived from the Father who alone is without cause or origin” is nothing short of Arianism. As Catholic theologian John Hardon put it, subordinationism denies that the Son and the Spirit are consubstantial with the Father. Thus, it denies their divinity. This doctrine can be construed as if Christ, the Son of God, were inferior to the Father. It would also invalidate the three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial divine persons of the Trinity. The New Testament also makes it abundantly clear that Jesus is Yahweh (i.e. the Lord) and the almighty (see Revelation 1.8)!
It’s also clear that there’s no eternal Sonship in which Christ is eternally begotten. The appellations of Father and Son relate to the economy of God as it pertains to the Incarnation of Christ (cf. Hebrews 1.5). And *monogenēs* doesn’t seem to mean that the Son is eternally begotten and ontologically subordinate to the Father. Rather, it seems to denote the only God who has ever been born in time, or the “only-born God” (i.e. only-begotten). That is to say, no other God has ever been born in human history. So, as the Son of Man, Christ can be described as both “unique” and as the “only begotten.”
Finally, it should be stressed that Jesus is God by nature, not by grace which suggests Adoptionism. The Filioque was added to the creed as an anti-Arian formula to offset the “Monarchy of the Father,” which signifies that the Father alone is the only cause (αἰτία) or principle of the Son and the Spirit. However, there’s no basis for claiming an ontological inequality within the Trinity. What is more, it’s *a contradiction in terms* to speak of an inferior and a superior God. God is God. And there’s only one God. Therefore, if we don’t want to fall into heresy, we must maintain the concept of the Trinity, which affirms the existence of one God in 3 coequal, coeternal, consubstantial divine persons who share one essence (homoousion)!
A Biblical Greek Translation of Hebrews 9:26 that Changes Everything We Thought We Knew About Jesus
By Eli Kittim 🎓
I love that you practice epistemology, to analyse Christianity, and compare it to various religions, based on etymology, and ancient history, etc. I would say you are like a theological anthropologist of the literature. Some of the amateur historians and anthropologists in America are making the claim that Babylon is in America and that America experienced the mud floods with the ancient history oppressed. Have you ever heard that theory? Your perspective would be so interesting!
I appreciate the complements. Much appreciated! And that’s a good question. Thanks for that question.
Yes, I have heard the theory that the Biblical Babylon might be an eschatological reference to America, and that floods & hurricanes could be a form of God’s judgment. Personally, I don’t believe that tsunamis or hurricanes are caused by God as a form of judgment. God reserves his judgment for “Judgment Day,” otherwise known as “the Day of the Lord.” If you want to understand my view on Babylon more comprehensively, I invite you to peruse the following articles:
——-
1). The Tower of Babel: History or Prophecy❓
https://at.tumblr.com/eli-kittim/the-tower-of-babel-history-or-prophecy/yiojc2oes4qn
——-
2). Babel and Babylon Refer to the Same Place
https://at.tumblr.com/eli-kittim/babel-and-babylon-refer-to-the-same-place/yjyodq8popud
![The Little Book Of Revelation [Amazon]](https://64.media.tumblr.com/de943ac344007867ba4842538a5f289e/d9667d55c981a004-58/s500x750/35c3b0df992c1d6a54d4e6b59cd4edf73956c899.jpg)
⭐️ The Little Book of Revelation [Amazon] ⭐️
(By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim) 📚📖
———————————————
Amazon Books 🎓
⭐️ 🌍 Winner of 2015 Religion & Spirituality Double Decker Books Awards on Goodreads 🪐 ⚡️
———————————————
Eli Kittim - Het kleine boek Openbaring: De eerste komst van Jezus aan het einde der dagen
Eli Kittim - Küçük Vahiy Kitabı: Günlerin Sonunda İsa'nın İlk Gelişi
Eli Kittim - Den Lille Åbenbaringsbog: Jesu første komme ved dages ende
Eli Kittim - Den lilla Uppenbarelseboken: Jesu första ankomst vid dagens slut
Eli Kittim - Den lille Åpenbaringsboken: Jesu første komme ved slutten av dagene
Eli Kittim - Pieni Ilmestyskirja: Jeesuksen ensimmäinen tuleminen päivien lopussa
———————————————
“What is truth?” Pilate asked.
By Psychologist & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
Feigned madness
Recently, I’ve had numerous Biblical debates with various people in many different groups. The topics were all different, but there was a common denominator: all my opponents refused to accept the indisputable and overwhelming evidence that I was presenting. This prompted me to seriously explore and investigate the cause of their reactions. In other words, when a scholar or a scientist provides irrefutable evidence that is not only obvious and clear but also demonstrably factual, then any refusal to accept it should be viewed as a form of mental illness or psychological neurosis. It can also be described as a *delusion*:
a persistent false … belief … that is
maintained despite indisputable evidence to
the contrary.
——- Merriam-Webster dictionary
It’s like giving someone all the facts that the earth is round, but they nevertheless still maintain that the earth is flat. Then there’s nothing further one can say. Anyone who pretends not to understand the evidence is therefore *feigning madness*:
‘Feigned madness’ is a phrase used in
popular culture to describe the assumption
of a mental disorder for the purposes of
evasion, deceit or the diversion of suspicion.
——- Wikipedia
It’s like a mathematician proving that 2+2 = 4. Only an insane person would disagree. Similarly, in one of my debates, I produced multiple lines of indisputable evidence to demonstrate that the pre-tribulational rapture is a false doctrine. Instead of accepting the evidence and thanking me for the proof-texts, my opponent got very irritable and hostile and started to insult me. He even called me a heretic. That’s when I knew I was dealing with a fanatic who probably had some form of mental illness. So, when a scholar or a scientist gathers the available body of facts about a particular topic and clearly demonstrates whether a belief or proposition is true or valid, then that should settle the matter, unless another scholar can disprove him. For example, when a belief or proposition is clearly proven to be false but certain people are unwilling to accept the evidence——to such an extent that they would even use insults to disrespect the researcher——then these people might be labeled fanatics. But what is actually happening psychologically is that these so-called “fanatics” who refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence are employing the defensive mechanism of *denial*:
Denial … is a psychological defense
mechanism postulated by psychoanalyst
Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced
with a fact that is too uncomfortable to
accept and rejects it instead, insisting that
it is not true despite what may be
overwhelming evidence.
——- Wikipedia
It seems that a lot of people are deceived about a lot of things because they are essentially BIASED. That is to say, they’re not open to other views. The way this works is that they typically have an obstinate belief that they wish to maintain no-matter what, and so they are not interested in objective truth. They are only interested in maintaining their beliefs. So if people challenge their beliefs, they think that abandoning their beliefs would eventually lead to chaos. So they cling to their beliefs for dear life, even if these beliefs have been totally debunked. They’re not really interested in finding out whether their beliefs are true or false because that would entail a complete restructuring of their entire belief-system. So, instead of abandoning their current beliefs, which could lead to terrifying thoughts and emotions, they’d rather hold on to these false beliefs as a coping mechanism against a potentially hostile reality:
The theory of denial was first researched
seriously by Anna Freud. She classified
denial as a mechanism of the immature
mind because it conflicts with the ability to
learn from and cope with reality.
——- Wikipedia
Seeking Truth
But when something is proved to be false, shouldn’t we disregard it? If it doesn’t matter whether we prove it or not, then why bother debating at all? Why bother interpreting scripture or translating the Biblical languages? Why bother studying the Bible? If truth no longer matters, then why bother explaining scripture? Who cares? Many people typically say, “I don’t care what scholars say or what they can prove. I believe what I believe and that’s final.” Well, if truth no longer matters, then what’s the point of reading the Bible or following God? God might not exist & the Bible might be false. So why should we even bother reading about Christ if we’re no longer interested in truth?
What I am trying to get across is that “truth” must be the basis of everything we do! We must change our beliefs if they are found to be false. We shouldn’t entertain “beliefs” for their own sake but only because they can be demonstrated to be true! If our “beliefs” or “traditions” line up with truth, then we should accept them. But if they don’t, then we should reject them. You see, beliefs can be false, even deceptive and misleading. For example, many liberal pastors have crept into the church and are disseminating many FALSE BELIEFS as if they were true. That’s why so many people are deceived and confused. Many don’t even know what salvation is because of these false teachings. Bottom line, we should not be searching for “beliefs.” We should be searching for the “truth”! Paradoxically, when we find the truth, we will also find Jesus. And when we find Jesus, we will also find the truth. Why? Because the truth is not a principle; it’s a person:
Jesus said to him, ‘I am … the truth.’
——- John 14.6 (NASB)
So, “seeking” the truth is a noble path. In fact, we must be reborn into the truth. Rebirth is all about a new way of seeing (Jn 3.3), when we get rid of our false beliefs about God and meet him existentially. That’s when we come to realize that many of our beliefs about him are false. God then becomes a reality and teaches us new things about him that we never knew before (Jn 14.26).
What is Truth?
When we say that God’s word is “true,” we don’t mean that every story in the Bible is literally true. It could be a parable, a poem, or an allegory. Rather, we mean that the essence of God’s teachings (behind the narratives) is true. And when we do Biblical exegesis, we should always strive to see what we can prove; that is to say, what is true. Otherwise, there’s no point in trusting scripture or following God. We study scripture to prove it is true. And we follow God because we believe that he is truth itself. In other words, truth should be our guide and our teacher:
you will know the truth, and the truth will set
you free.
——- John 8.32
First kings 17.24 reminds us that “the word of the Lord … is truth.” In the same way, Psalm 25.5 prayerfully says, “Lead me in Your truth.” Psalm 45.4 similarly suggests that God himself fights “For the cause of truth” (cf. Rev. 19.11). Moreover, Psalm 119.160 says to God that “The sum of Your word is truth,” while Isaiah 65.16 calls him Elohim, “the God of truth.”
Interestingly enough, Jeremiah 9.3 compares good and evil to truth and falsehood (cf. Jer. 9.5). That’s why Dan 10.21 calls the Bible “the book of truth”! John 5.33 speaks of testifying to the truth. Notice that John 8.32 claims that the knowledge of the truth is what sets people free. By contrast, the devil “does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him” (Jn 8.44). So the battle between good and evil turns out to be a battle between truth and falsehood. That’s precisely why the Holy Spirit is called “the Spirit of truth” (Jn 14.17). John 17.17 concludes that God’s “word is truth.” Thus, there is something special about truth that allows us to follow Christ. That’s why in his testimony before Pontius Pilate, Christ says:
Everyone who is of the truth listens to My
voice.
——- John 18.37
Therefore, we can rightly conclude that the difference between sinners and saints is the truth! How did people sin in the first place (according to Romans 1.25)? Answer: “they exchanged the truth of God for falsehood.” This means that the lies we believe are equivalent to sins. And if we are corrected but refuse to accept or even acknowledge the said edification, then we are deliberately sinning against God. Surprisingly, in Romans 2.8, truth is pitted against wickedness. That is to say, those who don’t obey the truth obey unrighteousness. In other words, being evil or morally wrong is directly related to a disobedience of the truth. That is why our defense against evil always involves criteria of truth (Eph. 6.14). As a matter of fact, 2 Thess. 2.10 attributes the state of damnation to a form of deception, in that those who are evil “did not accept the love of the truth so as to be saved.” So they will ultimately perish because they loved the lie more than the truth. Unlike Calvinism, which falsely preaches that God predestines people to hell, 1 Tim. 2.4 claims that God “wants all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Therefore, *salvation* comprises a reception of “the knowledge of the truth.”
That’s why 2 Tim 1.14 is an exhortation to guard the truth that has been given to us by the Holy Spirit. Why should we guard the truth? Because if we believe a lie, it could be the difference between life and death; between salvation and damnation; between eternal life and eternal hell. Second Timothy 3.7 describes sinners as those who are “always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” This means that one can have a vast amount of knowledge with regard to secular learning yet “never arrive at a knowledge of the truth.” First John 4.6 separates the open-minded from the close-minded people in terms of whether they possess “the spirit of truth” or “the spirit of error.” In other words, the ability to listen objectively with an open mind is somehow related to the Holy Spirit. That’s why holding on to deceptive doctrines and “paying attention to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons” (1 Tim. 4.1) is equivalent to the wide gate “that leads to destruction” (Mt. 7.13).
We know, for example, that we often deny the obvious truth because our defense mechanisms don’t allow us to hear it. That’s precisely why Jesus often says, “The one who has ears to hear, let him hear.” Only one question remains:
Are you willing to follow the *truth*
regardless of where it might lead?
——-
🎥 Eli of Kittim
Rumble Channel 🎥
🕎 Eli Kittim On Bible Prophecy ✝️
————————————-
🎓📚 Award-Winning Goodreads Author & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 📚🎓
————————————-
🌏🪐🌓🌍🌖🌎🪐
How Should We Translate John 1.1: “the Word was God,” or “God was the Word”?
By (native Greek speaker) Eli Kittim 🎓
John 1.1:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς
τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
John 1.1 is often broken down into 3 phrases:
Phrase 1: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος
Phrase 2: καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν
Phrase 3: καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
From the outset, before they even consider the process of biblical interpretation and exegesis, textual critics and Greek scholars set out to produce a faithful *translation* of the original Greek New Testament. Bear in mind that the processes of translation and interpretation are not the same. We expect the translation committees to translate (not to interpret) the text!
Therefore, a literal and accurate translation of the Greek language should correctly translate the last phrase of Jn 1.1 as “God was the word.” In other words, the third phrase of Jn 1.1 (καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος) should be translated exactly as it was written in the original Greek (for emphasis), not rearranged and reassembled (in the target language) as we would wish it would be. In the original Greek, the text doesn’t actually say that “the Word was God,” as most modern translations maintain:
That’s an interpretation!
Rather, the original Greek New Testament says that “God was the Word”! So, the *interpretative* rearrangement is forcing the critical reader to read it backwards, which neglects the emphasis of the word order in the original Greek. It’s as if we were told to read Hebrew backwards, from left to right. What is more, the third phrase of John 1.1 doesn’t actually say ὁ λόγος ἦν (the word was). It says θεὸς ἦν (God was). If the text wanted to emphasize that “the word was God,” the phrase would have been: καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεὸς. It would have been written as follows:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς
τὸν θεόν, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεὸς.
But that’s not what it says! To try to manipulate what the original Greek New Testament is actually emphasizing——by rearranging or *reinterpreting* it during the translation process——is equivalent to editing and, therefore, corrupting the “inspired” text.
Admittedly, the third phrase of Jn 1.1 is somewhat of a Gestalt configuration in which different *meanings* can arise depending on the angle from which it is viewed. One could make the *interpretative* argument that the original phrase “God was the Word” might be equivalent to or interchangeable with “the Word was God.” In other words, on an *exegetical* level, one could make the case that the phrase “the Word was God” might be the converse of “God was the Word.” I don’t deny that possibility on grammatical grounds. That is certainly worthy of exegetical consideration. But when we’re initially *translating* the text, we shouldn’t be interested in theories of exegesis. Rather, we should be entirely focused on producing a faithful translation, which precedes interpretation and subsequent theological ramifications.
In *interpreting* the third phrase of Jn 1.1, many textual scholars typically reverse the word-order of the original Greek phrase (via a grammatical rule) so that we’re forced to read the words backwards. According to this rule, we can determine the *subject* of a phrase if a noun falls into one of the following categories: a) if it’s a proper name; b) if it’s preceded by an article; or c) if it’s a personal pronoun. However, in contradistinction to this grammatical rule, θεὸς can actually be the subject that precedes the verb ἦν (here, a form of "to be"), while λόγος can be the predicate nominative. On the other hand, in order to identify θεὸς as the predicate nominative and λόγος as the subject, one has to invoke what is known as the “Subset Proposition" rule, or the "Convertible Proposition" rule. In other words, this alteration involves a complex set of esoteric grammatical assumptions and decisions which essentially turn the text upside down.
By contrast, the straightforward way of reading the text seems to be the smoothest and the most natural. Not to mention that the phrase “God was the Word” is actually a faithful translation, whereas the phrase “the Word was God” is merely an *interpretation.* I’m not arguing that the phrase “the Word was God” is a wrong interpretation. I’m arguing that it’s a wrong translation! In the critical edition, we must always let the reader know what the text ACTUALLY says, not our INTERPRETATION of what we think it might mean. That can go in the commentary section. In translating a text——if the word-order of the original Greek doesn’t make any sense——translators are allowed to rearrange the words in order for it to make sense. But this exception to the rule doesn’t apply here because the original Greek makes perfect sense! Therefore, our decision to abandon our fidelity to the lexical details and grammatical structures of the Greek New Testament makes us no better than the scribes who corrupted it.
Moreover, the decision to change the *meaning* of the text (or to *reinterpret* it) is done for obvious theological reasons. Christian translators have a theological axe to grind. In order to validate and uphold the Trinity, they want to maintain the *distinction* between God the Father (the first person of the Trinity) and the Word of God (the second person of the Trinity). Hence why they deliberately *translate* the last part of Jn 1.1 backwards. Because if they were to translate it as the author intended it, namely, that “God was the word,” it might give the wrong impression that there’s no distinction between the Father and the Word. However, the third phrase of Jn 1.1 is not necessarily making a *modalistic* theological claim that there’s no distinction between the Father and the Word. Rather, since the second phrase (καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν) clearly distinguished the two persons of the Trinity, the third phrase establishes their *ontological* unity by affirming that God was not simply separate from the Word, but that God himself was, in fact, the Word per se! After all, the first and second persons of the Trinity share one homoousion (essence): “I and the Father are one” (Jn 10.30)!
At any rate, this *interpretation* has become so wide spread, to such an extent that it has become a dogmatic and systematic standard, not only overriding or supplanting the original *translation* but also prompting modern translations to follow suit. It’s a case of special pleading where an *interpretation* has supplanted a *translation*!
However, there are many credible Bible translations that *translate* the last phrase of Jn 1.1 as “God was the Word”:
Coverdale Bible of 1535
In the begynnynge was the worde, and the
worde was with God, and God was ye
worde.
Smith's Literal Translation
In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and God was the Word.
Literal Emphasis Translation
In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and God was the Word.
Catholic Public Domain Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and God was the Word.
Lamsa Bible
THE Word was in the beginning, and that
very Word was with God, and God was that
Word.
Aramaic New Covenant: In the beginning
the Word having been and the Word having
been unto God and God having been the
Word.
Concordant Literal New Testament: In the
beginning was the word, and the word was
toward God, and God was the word.
Coptic Version of the New Testament: In
(the) beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and God was the Word.
Great Bible (Cranmer 1539): In the
begynnynge was the worde, and the worde
was wyth God: and God was the worde.
New English Bible: When all things began,
the Word already was. The Word dwelt with
God, and what God was, the Word was.
Revised English Bible: In the beginning the
Word already was. The Word was in God’s
presence, and what God was, the Word
was.
Today’s English New Testament: In the
beginning was the Logos. And the Logos
was with God. And God was the Logos.
The Wyclif Translation (by John Wycliffe): In
the bigynnynge was the word and the word
was at god, and god was the word.
Latin Vulgate: in principio erat Verbum et
Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat
Verbum.
Vulgate translation: in the beginning was
the Word and the Word was with God and
God was the Word.
See also:
Was the Word “God” or “a god” in John 1.1?
https://at.tumblr.com/eli-kittim/was-the-word-god-or-a-god-in-john-11/0e69dfesk5oj
Does the Phrase Ἔτι ἅπαξ in Hebrews 12.26 Mean “Once” or “Once More”?
By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
The New Testament Versions
There are various theories about past catastrophic Biblical events. For example, some biblical narratives describe a time when the earth trembled, such as the mighty earth-quake at Mount Sinai when God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, or the cataclysmic Noachian Deluge. Some Biblical scholars even theorize about a so-called “Gap Theory" (between the first and second verses of Genesis) regarding two different creations, or even an earlier creation-and-destruction of the universe prior to the current one.
So when we encounter biblical verses that seem to suggest some type of primordial earthly destruction, scholars often theorize about the probability of such events taking place as the ones mentioned above. Hebrews 12.26 is a case in point. It talks about some form of judgment in which God “will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.” But there seems to be a difference of opinion as to whether or not this event will happen for the very first time. That’s because the key phrase Ἔτι ἅπαξ has been variously translated in two different ways: “once” and “once more.” The former suggests a first time, the latter, a second. Hence, the meaning of the text remains an open question. Hebrews 12.26 (SBLGNT) declares:
οὗ ἡ φωνὴ τὴν γῆν ἐσάλευσεν τότε, νῦν δὲ
ἐπήγγελται λέγων · Ἔτι ἅπαξ ἐγὼ σείσω οὐ
μόνον τὴν γῆν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν οὐρανόν.
Translation (NIV):
At that time his voice shook the earth, but
now he has promised, ‘Once more I will
shake not only the earth but also the
heavens.’
Most of the Bible versions of Hebrews 12.26 (with the exception of a few that I’m aware of) translate Ἔτι ἅπαξ as “once more.” That’s because Ἔτι can mean not only “still,” “yet,” “again,” but it can also relate to *time* and mean “longer” (Mt. 5.13; Lk 16.2; 20.36; Jn 7.33), “further” (Mt. 26.65; Lk 22.71), as well as “moreover” (Acts 2.26).
So, if the correct translation of Heb. 12.26 is “Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens,” then the question arises: is this verse referring to Mt Sinai, the flood, the gap theory, or perhaps to a previous universe that was once-destroyed to make way for the creation of our own?
For example, one particular Bible version speculates that the reference in Heb. 12.26 is to the mighty earth-quake at Mount Sinai. The Amplified Bible reads:
His voice shook the earth [at Mount Sinai]
then, but now He has given a promise,
saying, ‘YET ONCE MORE I WILL SHAKE
NOT ONLY THE EARTH, BUT ALSO THE
[starry] HEAVEN.’
However, on closer inspection, the aforementioned translation is speculative because this “shaking” does not only involve the earth but also the heavens. At Mount Sinai, only the earth trembled (with a mighty earth-quake), not the heavens. Similarly, during the flood, neither the earth nor the heavens were destroyed: only living things (Genesis 6.7). So, the Hebrews 12.26-reference seems to imply a much larger catastrophic destruction of both the earth and the heavens. Therefore, if the verse has been faithfully translated, it can only refer to the so-called “gap theory,” or to a previously-destroyed universe.
On the other hand, the majority of the translations might be completely flawed, and the few Bible versions which suggest that this event will occur only “once” might be correct! Accordingly, the YLT version of Hebrews 12.26 proclaims:
‘Yet once -- I shake not only the earth, but
also the heaven.’
Similarly, the Darby Bible Translation exclaims:
Yet once will I shake not only the earth, but
also the heaven.
We find a similar reading in the Godbey New Testament:
I will still once shake not only the earth, but
also heaven.
Therefore, these latter versions would imply that this impending destruction will occur only once, in the future, in the same way as described, for example, in 2 Peter 3.10!
The Old Testament Versions
In trying to figure out the correct translation, it’s important to go back and look at the sources of the quoted material from the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint. Hebrews 12.26 is actually quoting Haggai 2.6 via the Septuagint. Therefore, let’s go back and look at what that verse actually says both in the Hebrew Bible and in the Greek Septuagint. Haggai 2.6 (NIV) reads:
This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘In a
little while I will once more shake the
heavens and the earth, the sea and the dry
land.’
It’s important to note that most of the modern Bible versions of Haggai 2.6 say “once more,” but some say “once” (see e.g. ASV, Douay-Rheims Bible, Good News Translation, JPS Tanakh 1917, and a few others). The KJB also says “once” at Haggai 2.6:
For thus saith the LORD of hosts; Yet once,
it is a little while, and I will shake the
heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and
the dry land;
Here, however, the KJB is inconsistent. While it says “once” in Haggai 2.6, it says “once more” in the parallel verse of Hebrews 12.26:
Yet once more I shake not the earth only,
but also heaven.
In Haggai 2.6, the Hebrew text (BHS) has אַחַ֖ת (once) ע֥וֹד (yet/again). In other words, the term ע֥וֹד (od) can be translated either as “yet” or “again.” But even the Hebrew Bible versions have conflicting translations. For example, the Sefaria Bible implies that this destructive event will occur only “once.” It reads thusly:
For thus said the LORD of Hosts: In just a
little while longer I will shake the heavens
and the earth, the sea and the dry land.
Similarly, the JPS Tanakh (1985) says:
For thus said the LORD of Hosts: In just a
little while longer I will shake the heavens
and the earth, the sea and the dry land.
The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) also seems to suggest “yet once in a little while”:
כִּ֣י כֹ֤ה אָמַר֙ יְהוָ֣ה צְבָאֹ֔ות עֹ֥וד אַחַ֖ת מְעַ֣ט הִ֑יא וַאֲנִ֗י מַרְעִישׁ֙ אֶת־הַשָּׁמַ֣יִם וְאֶת־הָאָ֔רֶץ וְאֶת־הַיָּ֖ם וְאֶת־הֶחָרָבָֽה׃
By contrast, the Hebrew Bible——edited by translator and scholar, Rabbi A.J. Rosenberg——featured in Chabad.org reads:
For so said the Lord of Hosts: [There will
rise] another one, and I will shake up the
heaven and the earth and the sea and the
dry land [for] a little while.
So, even these Hebrew versions conflict. Most of them imply “once,” while the last one suggests “another.” So there are arguments on both sides. However, the most credible ones seem to suggest “once” for all. That’s probably why the Greek translations (LXX & NT) employ the term hapax (ἅπαξ), which also means “once for all”!
Let’s now explore how the Greek Septuagint (LXX) translates it. The LXX renders Haggai 2.6 thusly:
διότι τάδε λέγει Κύριος παντοκράτωρ· ἔτι
ἅπαξ ἐγὼ σείσω τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν
καὶ τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ τὴν ξηράν·
English translation by L.C.L. Brenton:
For thus saith the Lord Almighty; Yet once I
will shake the heaven, and the earth, and
the sea, and the dry [land].
Thus, the Septuagint agrees with most of the Hebrew Bible versions that Haggai 2.6 is saying “once,” not “once more.”
Interestingly enough, Hebrews 12.26 quotes the Septuagint-phrase ἔτι ἅπαξ ἐγὼ σείσω verbatim (word for word), with a slight variation on the theme concerning “the heavens and the earth” at the end of the sentence. Hebrews 12.26 reads:
Ἔτι ἅπαξ ἐγὼ σείσω οὐ μόνον τὴν γῆν
ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν οὐρανόν.
Notice that both the LXX and the NT texts use the exact same key-phrase ἔτι ἅπαξ. Yet the LXX and most of the Hebrew versions say “once,” while most of the New Testament translations render it as “once more.” So which is it? If both the Septuagint and the New Testament are saying the exact same thing, then why are these texts translated differently? Both cannot be correct. According to the law of non-contradiction, contradictory statements cannot both be true. So, somewhere, somehow, someone got it wrong! The question is, what’s the right answer? What’s the correct translation?
Conclusion
The Septuagint translates the term עוֹד (od) as ἔτι (yet), and renders the phrase ‘ō·wḏ ’a·ḥaṯ as “yet once.” As far as the Hebrew translations are concerned, both the Sefaria Bible and the JPS Tanakh (1985) imply “once.” The BHS also seems to imply “once.” Only the Chabad.org Bible (with Rashi's commentary) seems to suggest “once more.” So, most of the Old Testament Hebrew and Greek texts support the phrase “yet once,” not “once more” or “once again”! All in all, from the point of view of the Old Testament concerning Haggai 2.6, it seems that both the Hebrew and the Greek versions agree on the “yet once” meaning!
Carrying this information over into the New Testament, we come to realize that the key phrase (ἔτι ἅπαξ) in Haggai 2.6 (LXX), which is quoted in Hebrews 12.26, should have the exact same meaning in the New Testament as it does in the Old Testament, namely, “yet once.” Yet, surprisingly, most of the modern NT translations say “once more,” although there are some that do say “once,” as has already been noted. Therefore, the modern translations of the New Testament are actually conflicting with the Old Testament data. Apparently, the range of meanings for the word Ἔτι makes it unclear as to which word should be applied.
So, if we combine our findings, it seems that more attention should be placed on the Hebrew and Greek Old Testament versions from which the quote of Haggai 2.6 is derived. Given that they are the sources of the Hebrews 12.26-phrase, the usages in these versions carry more weight than those of the New Testament translations in steering us in the right linguistic direction. Therefore, despite the fact that most of the modern Bible versions have “once more” for Hebrews 12.26, the few translations that have “yet once” (e.g. the YLT, Darby, etc.) might be closer to the truth!
Bottom line, given the range of meanings for the aforementioned terms, it’s difficult to pinpoint the exact rendering of both the Haggai 2.6 and Hebrews 12.26 phrases, especially since even the Hebrew translations have divergent meanings. Nevertheless, given that most of the Hebrew and Greek Old Testament versions agree on the phrase “yet once,” it seems more likely that this is the authorial intent of Haggai 2.6. And since that happens to be the exact same phrase in Hebrews 12.26, there’s no reason for the meaning to be any different than that which we find in Haggai 2.6 (LXX). Thus, it appears that the meaning of Hebrews 12.26 is faithfully translated in the YLT version which reads:
‘Yet once -- I shake not only the earth, but
also the heaven.’
This exegetical conclusion, of course, would not support the so-called “Gap Theory" or an earlier destruction of the universe prior to the current one. Rather, it would point to one final destruction at the end of the world!
Easy believism
By Eli Kittim 🎓
Before the reward there must be labor.
You plant before you harvest. You sow in
tears before you reap joy. ~Ralph Ransom
Christians typically debate over the nature of the godhead (e.g. modalism vs. the trinity), the best English Bible translation (KJV only vs. Critical edition), the rapture (pre vs post-tribulation), and many other different doctrines that are peripheral to soteriology. However, the topic that we’re about to discuss is a salvation-issue of the utmost importance.
Easy believism holds that only belief in Jesus is necessary for salvation. Nothing else is required in order to be saved. Proponents of this view teach that no commitment to Christian discipleship or spiritual formation is required. In other words, no efforts whatsoever are necessary on the part of the believer in order to be saved. It is certainly very appealing, particularly to those who are lazy and who dislike efforts and commitments. Plus it allows you to indulge your carnal desires to your heart’s content!
There are only two categories in the spiritual life: the “saved” and the “unsaved”; the “saint” and the “sinner.” By that I mean the Christian and the nonChristian. That is to say, the person who has been born-again in a Holy Spirit experience versus the person who has not yet been regenerated. The topic of “easy believism” only concerns those people who have not yet experienced a rebirth. It refers to those people who are interested in salvation and want to know what they have to do to attain it. By contrast, those who have been reborn have received the Holy Spirit and are already saved!
Just because Jesus is said to die for our sins doesn’t mean that we should continue to practice sin, whether it be pedophilia, adultery, murder, or the like. The idea of making an effort to align our behavior with God’s will doesn’t mean that we are saving ourselves or that we reject Christ’s ultimate sacrifice. It is true that only Jesus can regenerate us. It is a gift of God. But those who are not yet regenerated need to purify themselves in order to receive God’s gift of salvation. Just like the farmer ploughs the field, prepares the soil for planting, and then plants the seeds and waits for the harvest, we, too, must prepare the soil of our heart in order to receive the harvest of God’s gift. It takes much time and effort. Not that rebirth itself has anything to do with us, but the preparation towards it definitely does. Once we receive it, God then does all the work inside us through his Holy Spirit!
Scriptural verses should be read in **canonical context,** not in isolation. The notion that we must do certain things (beyond just believing) is quite obvious throughout scripture. For example, Jesus says I know about your “deeds and your labor and perseverance” (Rev. 2.2), but you need to “repent, and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and I will remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent” (Rev. 2.5)! Notice that Jesus doesn’t say “continue to sin because you will be saved as long as you believe in my death, burial, and resurrection.” No! Jesus doesn’t say “sit back, relax, and do nothing because I will take care of all the details.” Rather, he says:
To the one who overcomes, I will grant to
eat from the tree of life, which is in the
Paradise of God (Rev. 2.7).
This is a theme that runs throughout the Bible. We have to struggle against sin so as to overcome. According to the Oxford Languages Dictionary, to overcome means to “defeat (an opponent); prevail.” We do not defeat anyone or anything if we don’t exert any effort at all. In Revelation 3.3, Christ commands the believers to stay alert and vigilant and to repent:
remember what you have received and
heard; and keep it, and repent. Then if you
are not alert, I will come like a thief, and you
will not know at what hour I will come to
you.
Proponents of easy believism claim that *repentance* and *avoidance of sin* are practices based on “works” and are, therefore, not required. Yet 1 John 1.6 declares:
If we say that we have fellowship with Him
and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do
not practice the truth.
Similarly, 1 John 3.4 says:
Everyone who practices sin also practices
lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
In 1 Timothy 6.11-12, Paul addressed the believers and issued a categorical imperative to actively flee from sin. He pronounced a solemn exhortation:
flee from these things, you man of God,
and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith,
love, perseverance, and gentleness. Fight
the good fight of faith; take hold of the
eternal life to which you were called, and for
which you made the good confession in the
presence of many witnesses.
Paul is urging us to actively flee from sin and to practice righteousness. Just like Jesus, Paul is not telling us to do nothing except believe. On the contrary, he’s urging us to fervently fight against evil thoughts, against sinful emotions & desires, and against temptations to disobey God. If no efforts were required, then why would Paul say that we must fight and struggle against sin, against falsehood, and against everything that opposes the knowledge of God (2 Cor. 10.5)? In Ephesians 6.10-14, Paul writes:
Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the
strength of His might. Put on the full armor
of God, so that you will be able to stand firm
against the schemes of the devil. For our
struggle is not against flesh and blood, but
against the rulers, against the powers,
against the world forces of this darkness,
against the spiritual forces of wickedness in
the heavenly places. Therefore, take up the
full armor of God, so that you will be able to
resist on the evil day, and having done
everything, to stand firm. Stand firm
therefore, having belted your waist with
truth, and having put on the breastplate of
righteousness.
In 1 Corinthians 6.18, Paul’s caveat to “Flee sexual immorality” explicitly contradicts the doctrine of easy believism. So does John 8.11 where Jesus says “go, and do not sin again." Same with Ephesians 4.26: “Be angry but do not sin.” Are these verses teaching that only belief is necessary? In Romans 6.13, Paul issues a command: “do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness.” These proof-texts, therefore, expose the horrific errors of easy believism!
Paul never says “it doesn’t matter if you keep sinning as long as you believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Paul never says “don’t worry if you’re having an adulterous relationship with someone’s wife, or if you keep robbing people’s homes, or if you keep molesting little children, as long as you believe in the finished work of Jesus Christ.” That’s like saying that the head of the mafia may have already killed many people——and may kill many more in the foreseeable future——but he’s actually *saved* because he believes that Jesus is the Christ. How crazy is that? In other words, Free Grace theology holds that “carnal Christians” and “unbelieving Christians” who even denounce their faith will, nevertheless, be saved. Obviously, there’s something seriously flawed with the doctrine of easy believism!
This is a perversion of the gospel. In fact, Romans 8.5-8 says that “those who live according to the flesh” are not believers. Salvation is a gift. No one is denying that. But the goal is to take up our cross daily and die to ourselves so as to become more Christ-like (Mt. 16.24). Without preparation and discipleship we are not heading towards Christ. Therefore, easy believism is a false teaching that deceives and misleads people by offering them a fake salvation that does not save! In fact, Zane Hodges and the Grace Evangelical Society have gone so far as to say that it’s not even a requirement (for salvation) to believe that Jesus is God, or that he died for sin, or that he was bodily resurrected at some point in human history!
Easy believism is a perversion of the Bible (see Mt. 7.14; Acts 2.1-4, 15; Rom. 6.3; 8.9; 2 Cor. 5.13; Eph. 4.22-24; Gal. 2.20; Rev. 3.20)! Bottom line, unless you’ve had an *existential experience* of rebirth (Jn 3.3), you’re not saved. If you think salvation is so easy that all you have to do is simply name it and claim it, then you’re only having an imaginary relationship with Jesus. Paul demonstrates that there’s far more to salvation than easy believism. He exclaims:
Work out your salvation with fear and
trembling (Phil. 2.12).
Who are the 144,000 and what is their purpose?
By Eli Kittim 📚
The Elect are Depicted as Jews
Paul gives us an exact definition of what it means to be a "Jew" within the New Testament context: the biblical term "Jew" does not denote a race but rather an inner essence or, more precisely, an indwelling spirit pertaining to God. In Romans 2.28-29 (NASB), Paul declares:
For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly,
nor is circumcision that which is outward in
the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one
inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart.
That is to say, “Jewishness” (in the New Testament) doesn’t necessarily refer to race, ethnicity, ancestry, or religion, but rather to the inward operations “by the Spirit” (Rom. 2.29). Similarly, in 1 Pet. 1.1-2, Peter is addressing those who are regenerated in Christ:
those … who are chosen according to the
foreknowledge of God the Father, by the
sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus
Christ.
Notice that Peter is addressing “neither Jew nor Gentile” (Gal. 3.28) but rather the “elect” in Christ. In fact, in 1 Pet. 2.9, Peter describes Christ’s elect using the exact same language that God employs for the Jews in the Old Testament:
But you are a chosen people, a royal
priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special
possession, that you may declare the
praises of him who called you out of
darkness into his wonderful light.
What is more, in 1 Pet. 2.5, Peter says to the elect that you “are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices that are acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” This indicates that the Old Testament language of “a chosen people”——“God’s special possession,” & “a holy priesthood”——is now being applied to the New Testament saints “who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 1.1-2)!
Therefore, the elect in Christ are often depicted as spiritual Jews. As we will see, the New Testament itself tells us that the 144 thousand (in the Book of Revelation) represent all the *saved* inhabitants of the earth, not just the Jews. Another problem with the theory that the 144 thousand represent literal Jews (from the 12 tribes of Israel) is that the tribes of Dan and Ephraim are not mentioned at all in Revelation 7. Since these two tribes are excluded from the 12 tribes of Israel, it would naturally imply that Samson (from the tribe of Dan) and Joshua (from the tribe of Ephraim) would not be saved, which is obviously absurd!
The Elect are Depicted as the 144 Thousand
As has already been noted, in the New Testament, Christ’s elect are sometimes figuratively called “Jews” (Rom. 2.28), while “the holy city … coming down out of heaven from God” is spiritually called the “new Jerusalem” (Rev. 21.2). Notice that this new earth is said to have 12 gates, which represent 12 angels and 12 tribes. Rev 21.12 explains:
It had a great and high wall, with twelve
gates, and at the gates twelve angels; and
names were written on the gates, which are
the names of the twelve tribes of the sons
of Israel.
More symbols are further added, using sets of 12, to represent 12 foundation stones and 12 apostles. Rev. 21.14 states:
And the wall of the city had twelve
foundation stones, and on them were the
twelve names of the twelve apostles of the
Lamb.
In Rev. 21.17, the implicit multiplication of the 12 tribes by the 12 apostles is expressed via the symbolic sum of “144”:
And he measured its wall, 144 cubits, by
human measurements, which are also
angelic measurements.
In the same way, the 144,000 chosen-ones are said to come from the 12 tribes of Israel. This is obviously figurative or metaphorical language. We know that they represent Christ’s *elect* because the wrath of God is held back until these chosen ones are secured. These symbolic Jews comprise only one group, namely, “the bond-servants of our God,” that is to say, “those who were sealed” in Christ (Rev. 7.4)! As we will see later on, Revelation 7 is not referring to literal Jews per se. And the angels want to seal them before the terrible day of the Lord commences. Revelation 7.1-3 reads:
After this I saw four angels standing at the
four corners of the earth, holding back the
four winds of the earth so that no wind
would blow on the earth, or on the sea, or
on any tree. And I saw another angel
ascending from the rising of the sun,
holding the seal of the living God; and he
called out with a loud voice to the four
angels to whom it was granted to harm the
earth and the sea, saying, ‘Do not harm the
earth, or the sea, or the trees until we have
sealed the bond-servants of our God on
their foreheads.’
Notice the linguistic and conceptual parallels between Rev. 7.1-3 and Matthew 24.31:
And He [Christ] will send forth His angels
with a great trumpet blast, and they will
gather [or seal] together His elect from the
four winds, from one end of the sky to the
other.
In both passages, “the four winds” of the earth are mentioned and the gathering or sealing of the elect are described before the wrath of God is unleashed. Remember that the Great Tribulation in Matthew 24.29 ff. is not God’s wrath but Satan’s wrath (Rev. 12.12). So, all the elect are gathered, sealed, and raptured “after the tribulation of those days” (see Mt. 24.29-41; Rev. 20.4-6)! Put differently, the elect are gathered & “protected” from the divine judgments and from the wrath of God to come. Question: how exactly are they protected? Answer: by way of the rapture! Therefore, Rev 7.4-8 is obviously describing not just the tribulation saints but the entire church as a whole, which represents Christ’s “elect.” Compare Mt. 24.21-22:
For then there will be a great tribulation,
such as has not occurred since the
beginning of the world until now, nor ever
will again. And if those days had not been
cut short, no life would have been saved;
but for the sake of the elect those days will
be cut short.
Why would there be a need for those days to be cut short if the elect are no longer here because they have already been raptured? Therefore, if the days are said to be cut short “for the sake of the elect,” then this passage implies that the bride of Christ will still be here on earth during the great tribulation. Similarly, Rev 7.13-14 explains that the 144,000 are the elect “who come out of the great tribulation”:
Then one of the elders responded, saying to
me, ‘These who are clothed in the white
robes, who are they, and where have they
come from?’ I said to him, ‘My lord, you
know.’ And he said to me, ‘These are the
ones who come out of the great tribulation,
and they have washed their robes and
made them white in the blood of the Lamb.’
In Revelation 7.4, John says “And I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000, sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel.” This number is meant to signify an innumerable multitude by multiplying 12,000 times 12,000 (the number of completion). That is, Revelation is multiplying 12 times itself to give us what we today would call 12 to the second power. So, this “great multitude” represents those who are “sealed” or who are *saved,* to wit, the “elect” who belong to Jesus Christ. In fact, Revelation 7.9 gives us the identity of the 144 thousand by stating that they’re “a great multitude which no one could count,” and that they come from every nation on earth:
I looked, and behold, a great multitude
which no one could count, from every nation
and all the tribes, peoples, and languages,
standing before the throne and before the
Lamb.
Revelation 14.1 mentions no other group except this great multitude——symbolized by the 144K——as the *only* large gathering of people who belong to Christ via the Spirit:
Then I looked, and behold, the Lamb was
standing on Mount Zion, and with Him
144,000 who had His name and the name
of His Father written on their foreheads.
Furthermore, Revelation 14.3-5 describes the 144 thousand as the only “ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These have been purchased [redeemed] from mankind as first fruits to God and to the Lamb”:
And they sang a new song before the
throne and before the four living creatures
and the elders; and no one was able to
learn the song except the 144,000 who had
been purchased from the earth. … These
are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever
He goes. These have been purchased from
mankind as first fruits to God and to the
Lamb. And no lie was found in their mouths;
they are blameless.
If they are said to be the “first fruits to God and to the Lamb,” then there cannot be an earlier group of believers who temporally precede them. In other words, after the Great Tribulation, these are the ones who take part in the resurrection & the rapture! This is clearly explained in Rev. 20.4-6. Given that the “rapture” is contemporaneous with the first resurrection (1 Thess. 4.16-17), and since those who took part in the first resurrection came out of the Great Tribulation, it obviously means that the *rapture* must also take place *after* the Great Tribulation. Thus, these symbolic 144,000 saved believers represent both the living & the resurrected “elect” who will be raptured *after* the Great Tribulation (cf. Mt. 24.29-41)! In other words, the 144K represent the entire church of Christ, which comprises people from every nation on earth. Therefore, their *purpose* is the same as ours, namely, to get *saved* (and not to take the mark of the beast) so that they can escape “the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord” (Mal. 4.5)!
For further details on the rapture, see the following article:
Three Questions On the Rapture: Is it Pre-Trib or Post-Trib? Is it Secret or Not? And is it Imminent?
