Academic Bias On The Web

Academic Bias on the Web

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

I recently submitted a version of the following post in the *Group for New Testament Studies* (on Facebook) but, regrettably, the administrators did not approve it. Yet, given the validity of the Greek exegesis, it certainly deserves serious academic consideration. This is indicative of academic discrimination based on their own personal biases.

——-

2 Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics Should Guide our Investigation

Two principles of Biblical hermeneutics should be considered foundational. Exegetes must interpret the implicit by the explicit and the narrative by the didactic. In practical terms, the *NT epistles* and other more *explicit* and *didactic* portions of Scripture must clarify the implicit meaning and significance of the gospel literature, which, by the way, is not biographical but *theological* in nature, as Bultmann, Crossan, Lüdemann, Licona, Crossley, Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farnell, Dennis MacDonald, Robert Gundry, and Thomas L. Brodie, among others, have clearly demonstrated!

——-

This *Greek exegesis,* translated straight from the text itself, challenges the classical Christian interpretation, which is primarily founded upon historical-fiction narratives. This *Greek exegesis* not only complements the Jewish messianic expectations but it also fits perfectly with the end-time messianic death & resurrection themes alluded to in the Old Testament (see e.g. Isa. 2.19; Dan. 12.1-2)! In short, both the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures seem to say the exact same thing, namely, that the Messiah will appear “once for all at the end of the age” (Heb. 9.26b)!

——-

*The Future Christ* Greek Exegesis

According to the New Testament’s explicit and didactic portions of Scripture, Christ is *born* when time reaches its fullness or completion, expressed in the apocalyptic phrase τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου:

ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου,

ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ,

γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός (Gal. 4.4).

According to the principle of expositional constancy, the chronological time period known as “the fullness of time” (τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου) in Gal. 4.4 is defined in Eph. 1.9-10 as the consummation of the ages (cf. Heb. 9.26b NASB):

γνωρίσας ἡμῖν τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θελήματος

αὐτοῦ, κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν αὐτοῦ ἣν

προέθετο ἐν αὐτῷ εἰς οἰκονομίαν τοῦ

πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν,

ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι τὰ πάντα ἐν τῷ

Χριστῷ, τὰ ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς

γῆς· ἐν αὐτῷ.

The fullness of time (τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν) in Ephesians refers to the *summing up* (ανακεφαλαιώσασθαι) of all things in Christ, things in heaven and things on earth! Thus, according to Gal. 4.4, Christ is born during the consummation of the ages (i.e. in the end-times; cf. Lk 17.30; Heb. 1.2; Rev. 12.5; 19.10d; 22.7, 10, 18, 19)!

The initial appearance of Christ is also rendered as taking place “at the final point of time” in 1 Pet. 1.20 NJB:

προεγνωσμένου μὲν πρὸ καταβολῆς

κόσμου, φανερωθέντος δὲ ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν

χρόνων.

Further textual confirmation comes by way of Heb. 9.26b, which reads:

νυνὶ δὲ ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων εἰς

ἀθέτησιν ἁμαρτίας διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ

πεφανέρωται.

NRSV translation:

“he has appeared once for all at the end of

the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of

himself.”

A historical-grammatical study of the phrase ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων demonstrates that it refers to “the end of the age” (i.e. the end of the world; cf. Mt. 13.39-40, 49; 24.3; 28.20; Dan. 12.4 LXX; see also G.W.H. Lampe [ed.], “A Patristic Greek Lexicon” [Oxford: Oxford U, 1961], p. 1340).

——-

Conclusion

The assumed historicity of Jesus needs to be revisited, given that his only visitation is set to occur at the end of the age! Accordingly, this exegesis argues that the epistles are the primary keys to unlocking the future timeline of Christ’s only visitation. To demonstrate the validity of this argument, we must get back to NT Greek in order to focus on questions of authorial intent. To simply dismiss, ignore, or disregard this exegesis is tantamount to academic dishonesty!

Most people, in fact, will not take the trouble in

finding out the truth, but are much more inclined

to accept the first story they hear.

(Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War)

——-

Response

I received the following Facebook notification a week or so after submitting a version of the aforementioned post in the Group for New Testament studies:

Your pending post was declined from

Group for New Testament Studies by an

admin. See their feedback.

When I clicked on it, the reason given for the rejection of the post was as follows:

Group Rules that were violated

2 Keep it Scholarly:

NT, early Christianity, & discussion of the

field ok. Posts that assume/attempt to

impose a Christian perspective will not be

approved & commenting in this way will

result in a warning & then removal.

So, I wrote back to them . . .

Open letter

——-

I have sent a copy of this letter to both administrators because I didn’t know who was responsible for dismissing my post.

——-

You declined my post, citing a violation of group rules in which one should not impose a Christian perspective. I will get to that in a moment.

——-

As for its scholarship, the exegesis is unquestionably precise & accurate! Incidentally, I’m proficient in New Testament Greek (I’m also a native Greek speaker).

——-

Now, as to your claim, that I supposedly imposed a Christian perspective, it is quite laughable and borders on the absurd. I not only am NOT imposing a “Christian” interpretation, but, as a matter of fact, I’m NOT imposing ANY interpretation whatsoever!

I’m merely TRANSLATING what the text is ACTUALLY SAYING about C H R I S T! I did NOT invent or “impose” the Greek phrase τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου in relation to Christ’s birth: the Greek text *actually* SAYS that (Gal. 4.4)!

I did not personally invent or “impose” an interpretation of the phrase τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν as a timeline referring to the consummation of the ages: the Greek text itself *actually* SAYS that in Eph. 1.10!

——-

Have you ever read about NT linguistics, such as the work of Stanley E. Porter? Have you ever studied any scholarly New Testament lexicons or dictionaries, such as the EDNT, BAGD, ANLEX, TDNT, LSJ? They would all validate and substantiate my translations. As I emphasized earlier, this is a question of translation, not interpretation, and certainly NOT “Christian interpretation,” as you erroneously deduced!

——-

I neither invented nor “imposed” a “Christian interpretation” on 1 Pet. 1.20. It is quite laughable to make such a claim. The text itself is referring to the “appearance” of Christ ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν χρόνων or “at the final point of time,” as the scholarly NJB itself translates it.

Similarly, I neither imposed, invented, nor interpreted the Greek expression ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων in Heb. 9.26b. It is in the Greek text itself, and it is in reference to Christ, as any reputable *textual scholar* would unequivocally concur. In fact, a concordance study demonstrates that the textual reference is to “the end of the world” (KJV), “the culmination of the ages” (NIV), “the consummation of the ages” (NASB), or “the end of the age” (NRSV), as all other scholarly translations indicate (cf. Mt. 13.39-40, 49; 24.3; 28.20; Dan. 12.4 LXX; see also G.W.H. Lampe [ed.], “A Patristic Greek Lexicon” [Oxford: Oxford U, 1961], p. 1340). By the way, Lampe’s Lexicon is considered to be a scholarly book of the highest order.

Once again, this is NOT an “interpretation,” and certainly NOT an imposition of a Christian perspective, but rather——**wait for it**——A _ G R E E K _ T R A N S L A T I O N! Therefore, your decision not to publish the post is completely bogus and misinformed!

Sorry about the capitals, but it needs to be highlighted, given that your commentary is not within scholarly and academic parameters!

——-

I really couldn’t care less what actions you take as a result of this letter. And I certainly lost all respect for your credibility and your group.

——-

I have never seen any academic commentary to equal this one for downright biased and unscrupulous disregard of evidence. It is tantamount to academic dishonesty!

——-

Is Sin the Cause of Mental Illness?

By Author & Psychologist Eli Kittim

——-

Christian Psychotherapy

I should frame the discussion by saying at the outset that my definition of the Christian Method of Psychotherapy is not based on organized religion or on any particular denomination. The Christian psychological approach that I am introducing is not related to any religious doctrines, dogmas, or practices. Rather, it is based on my personal understanding of the teachings of the Bible in conjunction with modern psychology and existential experience! As a trained psychologist, I see an intimate connection between sin and neurosis!

——-

What is sin, anyway?

In Biblical terms, “sin” is an action that transgresses the divine moral law and is thought to be highly reprehensible, bringing about guilt and/or shame upon the individual who commits it through the conscience (i.e. superego).

In humanistic terms, that is precisely what a clinical “neurosis” consists of, namely, conscious or unconscious feelings of guilt and/or shame that are displayed in one’s personality as symbolic symptoms, such as anxieties, phobias, compulsions, and the like. Although the term “neurosis” has been dropped since 1980 by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM III), it is nevertheless prevalent in the clinical psychotherapeutic literature (e.g. it is still used in the ICD-10 Chapter V F40–48).

The point is, there seems to be a clinical connection between neurosis and sin. Some notable psychoanalysts, such as Moshe HaLevi Spero, have published academic works about this connection (see his article “Sin as Neurosis” in the “Journal of Religion and Health” Vol. 17, No. 4 [Oct. 1978], pp. 274-287).

——-

What is the Difference Between Christian and Clinical Psychotherapy?

Whereas modern psychotherapy’s goal is to make you feel less guilty about your neurosis, Biblical Christianity tries to eradicate the source of your guilt through *forgiveness*. These are two radically different approaches. One is largely devoid of any ethical considerations and basically encourages you to continue practicing your sins (as long as you’re not hurting yourself or others), while trying to persuade you not to feel so damn guilty about them. After all, this is the 21st century. People are free to do as they wish. A psychoanalyst once said to a patient——who suddenly revealed a secret perversion during a psychodynamic therapy session——“welcome to the club.”

The other approach acknowledges that something is morally wrong and says, no matter what you do, the guilt and shame will not go away unless you’re *forgiven*. Modern psychotherapy does not offer a “cure,” only a better coping mechanism based on a better understanding of your symptoms. In other words, it offers a bandaid, at best. Biblical Christianity, on the other hand, offers a “cure” based on an *inner transformation* of the mind. It may entail more risks and a far deeper understanding, but it almost always guarantees a personality change. All you have to do is to reinvent yourself. You have to become a new creature: a new creation. One day you’re this person; the next day you’re a completely different person. That’s exactly what happened to Paul in the New Testament. One day he was persecuting Christians. The next he loved and protected them. The Second letter to the Corinthians 5.17 (NIV) reads:

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new

creation has come: The old has gone, the

new is here!

The Christian process of transformation is not unlike the Buddhist or the Hindu. In fact, it is almost identical to them in the sense of self-realization and self-transcendence, the only difference is that at the center of undifferentiated consciousness is the divine Christ. The Johannine Jesus makes it absolutely clear that you cannot even see the kingdom of God unless you are born again (3.3):

Jesus replied, ‘Very truly I tell you, no one

can see the kingdom of God unless they are

born again.’

That’s precisely why the Epistle to the Ephesians 4.22-24 (NRSV) instructs us to put away the “old self” and to put on a new identity, namely, “the new self,” which is made in the image of God:

You were taught to put away your former

way of life, your old self, corrupt and

deluded by its lusts, and to be renewed in

the spirit of your minds, and to clothe

yourselves with the new self, created

according to the likeness of God in true

righteousness and holiness.

So, from this perspective, you don’t need to see a psychiatrist once a week. What you need is a personality change. In other words, you don’t need a slap on the wrist; you need forgiveness!

——-

Christian Psychotherapy Not Only Cures but Also Offers Salvation

Besides this psychotherapeutic advantage that the Bible offers, in which deep satisfaction and contentment can be attained, it also furnishes some insights into unconscious motivation and human behavior. For example, it goes beyond the personal unconscious and informs us about the influences of the so-called “collective unconscious” on our psyche, as the work of Swiss psychiatrist, Carl Jung, has shown.

Of course, the weltanschauung of transcendental philosophy is significant here because, in the Biblical context, transcendence refers to the metaphysical aspects of nature, which are beyond all physical laws. These parapsychological phenomena can be exhibited in various “religious experiences” of the type that William James studied, which are typically manifested in contemplation, prayer, séance, extrasensory perception, clairvoyance, meditation, or paranormal “visions” and existential experiences. In short, there seems to be a link between physical and metaphysical phenomena that are played out in the psychological sphere of the individual and in the realm of the mind.

To this end, the Bible has a lot to say on the topic of how we diagnose and therefore treat certain ailments. For example, should we treat all mental health issues as matters that pertain to sin or should we consult modern psychology? According to the Bible, if anxieties, fears, depressions, and phobias are the roots of mental disturbances, then *love* necessarily cures them. First John 4.18 (NIV) says:

There is no fear in love. But perfect love

drives out fear, because fear has to do with

punishment. The one who fears is not made

perfect in love.

——-

Conclusion

The panacea for all nonbiological mental disorders is *love.* The Beatles were spot-on: “All You Need Is Love.” Second Timothy 1.7 (KJV) reads:

For God hath not given us the spirit of fear;

but of power, and of love, and of a sound

mind.

Thus, from a psychotherapeutic perspective, it is precisely this *love* and *forgiveness* that equips a person to break the chains of neurosis, addiction, and fear by restoring their mind back to health!

(To read this article in Greek, click the following link: https://www.tumblr.com/eli-kittim/652363021202669568/%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B9-%CE%B7-%CE%B1%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%81%CF%84%CE%AF%CE%B1-%CE%B7-%CE%B1%CE%B9%CF%84%CE%AF%CE%B1-%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%82-%CF%88%CF%85%CF%87%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE%CF%82-%CE%B1%CF%83%CE%B8%CE%AD%CE%BD%CE%B5%CE%B9%CE%B1%CF%82

Tumblr

Είναι η Αμαρτία η Αιτία της Ψυχικής Ασθένειας;

άρθρο του ψυχολόγου - συγγραφέα, Ελι Κιτίμ ——- Χριστιανική Ψυχοθεραπεία Θα πρέπει να πλαισιώσω τη συζήτηση λέγοντας εξαρχής ότι ο ορισμ

——-

Ο Χριστός είναι Έλληνας

Από τον συγγραφέα Ελι Κιτίμ

——-

Στην Καινή Διαθήκη υπάρχουν διάφοροι τρόποι με τους οποίους ο Ιησούς απεικονίζεται ως Εθνικός (μη Εβραίος). Μία από αυτές τις απεικονίσεις βρίσκεται στο Ευαγγέλιο του Ματθαίου (4.15-16), το οποίο μας λέει ότι ο Ιησούς δεν προέρχεται από τη Βασιλεία του Ιούδα (από Εβραίους) αλλά από την περιοχή της Γαλιλαίας (από Εθνικούς, βλ. Λουκά 1.26). Εκτός αυτού, στο κείμενο του Ιωάννη 8.48 οι Εβραίοι ονομάζουν τον Ιησού κατηγορηματικά ως «Σαμαρείτη» (δηλ. εθνικό) προκειμένου να αποδείξουν ότι δεν είναι Εβραίος.

Η διαίρεση των ανθρώπων έναντι του Ιησού επειδή δεν προέρχεται από τη Βηθλεέμ των Εβραίων αλλά από τη Γαλιλαία των Εθνών τονίζεται στο Ευαγγέλιο του Ιωάννη (7.41-43):

ἄλλοι ἔλεγον · Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός · οἱ δὲ

ἔλεγον· Μὴ γὰρ ἐκ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ὁ χριστὸς

ἔρχεται; οὐχ ἡ γραφὴ εἶπεν ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ

σπέρματος Δαυὶδ, καὶ ἀπὸ Βηθλέεμ τῆς

κώμης ὅπου ἦν Δαυὶδ, ἔρχεται ὁ χριστός;

σχίσμα οὖν ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ ὄχλῳ ⸃ δι’ αὐτόν.

Ο Ιησούς αψηφά τις εβραϊκές μεσσιανικές προσδοκίες:

ἐραύνησον καὶ ἴδε ὅτι ἐκ τῆς Γαλιλαίας

προφήτης ⸃ οὐκ ἐγείρεται (Κατά Ιωάννην

Ευαγγέλιο 7.52, βλ. Ματθαίος 4.15-16).

——-

Εξάλλου, τα περισσότερα βιβλία της Καινής Διαθήκης γράφτηκαν στην Ελλάδα: Ρωμαίοι, Α΄ και Β' Κορίνθιοι, Γαλάτες, Α΄ και Β΄ Θεσσαλονικείς, Α΄ Τιμόθεος, Τίτος, και το βιβλίο της Αποκάλυψης. Κανένα από τα βιβλία της Καινής Διαθήκης δεν γράφτηκε στην Παλαιστίνη. Και οι περισσότερες επιστολές απευθύνονται σε ελληνικές κοινότητες: Α΄ Κορινθίους, Β΄ Κορινθίους, Φιλιππησίους, Α΄ Θεσσαλονικείς και Β΄ Θεσσαλονικείς!

Είναι επίσης σημαντικό να σημειωθεί ότι όταν οι συγγραφείς της Καινής Διαθήκης παραθέτουν από την Παλαιά Διαθήκη, συχνά παραθέτουν από την ελληνική μετάφραση των εβδομήκοντα και όχι από τα αυθεντικά εβραϊκά γραπτά (ακαδημαϊκή συναίνεση). Αυτό μπορεί να υποδηλώνει ότι οι συγγραφείς της Καινής Διαθήκης δεν ήταν εξοικειωμένοι με την εβραϊκή γλώσσα. Αυτό δείχνει ότι οι συγγραφείς της Καινής Διαθήκης μάλλον δεν ήταν Εβραίοι αλλά Έλληνες, δεδομένου ότι χειρίζονταν άριστα την ελληνική γλώσσα. Και οι μελετητές μας λένε ότι οι συγγραφείς της Καινής Διαθήκης έγραφαν από διαφορετικά μέρη του κόσμου και όχι από την Παλαιστίνη.

——-

Και γιατί οι συγγραφείς της Καινής Διαθήκης δεν ολοκλήρωσαν την αφήγηση του Θεού στα Εβραϊκά; Υπάρχει καλύτερος τρόπος να πείσει κανείς τους Εβραίους ότι ο Ιησούς είναι η μεσσιανική εκπλήρωση της Εβραϊκής Γραφής από το να το γράψει στην εβραϊκή γλώσσα; Αλλά δεν το έκαναν! Ο λόγος είναι ο Ιησούς. Προφανώς δεν είναι Εβραίος αλλά Έλληνας! Έτσι η αφήγηση πρέπει να γραφτεί στα ελληνικά για να αντικατοπτρίζει τον έλληνα πρωταγωνιστή. Γι 'αυτό ακριβώς η Καινή Διαθήκη γράφτηκε στα Ελληνικά, όχι στα Εβραϊκά. Επιπλέον, εάν ο Χριστός ήταν Εβραίος θα έλεγε ότι είμαι τό Άλεφ και τό Ταβ. Αντ 'αυτού, ο Χριστός χρησιμοποιεί ελληνικά γράμματα για να ορίσει το θεϊκό «Εγώ ειμί»:

Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ (Αποκάλυψη

1:8).

Άλλωστε είναι σημαντικό να τονίσουμε ότι το εβραϊκό όνομα του Θεού (Γιαχβέ, που προφέρεται ως Ιεχωβά ή Γιαχβά) είναι επίσης το εβραϊκό όνομα για την Ελλάδα (Γιαβαν, βλ. Ιώσηπος Αρχαιολογία Βιβλ. 1, κεφ. 6). Αυτή η προφορική συμφωνία δεν είναι συμπτωματική. Υπάρχουν περαιτέρω στοιχεία σχετικά με το ελληνικό όνομα του Θεού. Σε μερικά σπάνια χειρόγραφα των εβδομήκοντα το τετραγράμματον μεταφράζεται ως *Ιαω* (γνωστό ως ελληνικό τρίγραμμα). Δηλαδή το θεϊκό όνομα Γιαχβά μετατρέπεται στην Κοινή Ελληνική ως Ιαω (βλ. π.χ. Λευ. 4.27 το χειρόγραφο των εβδομήκοντα [LXX] 4Q120). Αυτό το θραύσμα προέρχεται από τα Χειρόγραφα της Νεκρής Θάλασσας, που βρέθηκαν στο Κουμράν, και χρονολογείται από τον 1ο π.Χ. αιώνα.

Αυτό που έχει πολύ ενδιαφέρον είναι το γεγονός ότι το όνομα Ιαω φαίνεται να αντιπροσωπεύει τους Αρχαίους Έλληνες (γνωστούς ως ΙΑΩΝΕΣ), οι πρώτες λογοτεχνικές εικονογραφήσεις των οποίων βρίσκονται στα έπη του Ομήρου (Ἰάονες) και επίσης στα έργα του Ησιόδου (Ἰάων). Σχεδόν όλοι οι μελετητές της Βίβλου συμφωνούν ότι το εβραϊκό όνομα Γιαβάν αντιπροσωπεύει τους Ιάωνες, δηλαδή τους αρχαίους Έλληνες. Εξάλλου, ανεξάρτητες βεβαιώσεις προέρχονται από τα Πατερικά γραπτά για το Τετραγράμματο. Σύμφωνα με την Καθολική Εγκυκλοπαίδεια (1910) και Μπ. Ντ. Έρντμανς: Ο Διόδωρος ο Σικελός (1ος αιώνας π.Χ.) μεταφράζει το όνομα του Θεού ως Ἰαῶ. Ο Ειρηναίος (π. περ. 202) αναφέρει ότι οι Βαλεντινιανοί χρησιμοποιούν το θεϊκό όνομα Ἰαῶ. Ο Ωριγένης Αλεξανδρείας (π. περ. 254) γράφει Ἰαώ. Ο Θεοδώρητος του Κύρου (393 – περ. 458) γράφει επίσης Ἰαώ. Επομένως, το μυστικό όνομα του Θεού τόσο στην Μετάφραση των Εβδομήκοντα όσο και στην Εβραϊκή Βίβλο φαίνεται να αντιπροσωπεύει την Ελλάδα! Για αυτό και ο Ιωάννης ο Θεολόγος δεν βρίσκεται τυχαία στην Ελλάδα. Είναι εκεί επειδή το κείμενο του έχει να κάνει με την αποκάλυψη του Ιησού και τον λόγο του Θεού:

Ἐγὼ Ἰωάννης . . . ἐγενόμην ἐν τῇ νήσῳ τῇ

καλουμένῃ Πάτμῳ διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ

καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ (Αποκάλυψη 1.9).

——-

Biblical Greek Exegesis: A Critique of Underhanded Methods

By Author Eli Kittim

The reason I’m posting a brief excerpt of my recent exchange with Mr. Marcelo Souza, an apparent priest and member of the *Koine Greek Study Group* on Facebook, is to respond to his libel in order to show that he was guilty of mishandling and misrepresenting my position. In fact, he touted himself as being a grammatical pundit, but in a rather dishonest manner he never actually gave the readers a satisfactory and robust *answer* to the Original Post’s (OP) question, but only pretended to do so using a red herring fallacy.

Here’s how it all began . . .

——-

Koine Greek Study Group *OP*

The OP was posted by Joe Hawley:

Have a question for all of you here. In

Matthew 28:1, the Greek word for "sabbath"

is pluralized, but it is translated singular in

every translation I can find. The one

exception I have found is with an old

interlinear I have around the house. Even

A.T. Robertson's commentary set on the

Greek text failed to say anything about it. I

am stumped. Any ideas? Thank you.

Joe’s basic dilemma is that although the Greek word for “Sabbath” (σαββάτων) is pluralized, nevertheless it’s translated in singular form in almost every translation he can find. So, he’s wondering, why is that so? Excellent question!

The OP reference is to the Greek text of Mt. 28.1:

Ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων, τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν σαββάτων, ἦλθεν Μαριὰμ ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ ἡ ἄλλη Μαρία θεωρῆσαι τὸν τάφον.

Translation (NRSV):

“After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb.”

This, then, is the text under investigation. I will now post the most important comments that fellow discussants made on this thread.

——-

Eric S Weiss (commenter)

ICC on Matthew:

καὶ ἐὰν ἐμπέσῃ τοῦτο τοῖς σάββασιν εἰς βόθυνον. Compare 15:14 (εἰς βόθυνον πεσοῦνται) and Lk 14:5 (εἰς φρέαρ πεσεῖται). The plural, ‘sabbaths’, is to be accounted for by the Aramaic šabbětā˒, which is an emphatic singular.

Joe Hawley (the Original Poster) replied:

Not sure if I follow you. ... Not sure how the Aramaic figures in with this. Thank you for your response.

Marcelo Souza:

Joe Hawley it’s just usage. Remember Sabbath is a Hebrew word that comes into Greek (and other languages) transliterated. When that happens, it often acquires its own usage.

[what does that have to do with Greek syntax?]

Even the LXX already used Σαββάτων for a Sabbath, e.g., Num. 15:32

[Not so. That’s a form of underhanded exegesis. In the Greek LXX, it is plural (σαββάτων). It is only the English LXX translation that renders it Sabbath due to dynamic equivalence translations that will be discussed later. What is more, Souza doesn’t even give us the grammatical rule for the LXX’s usage]

32 Καὶ ἦσαν οἱ υἱοὶ ᾿Ισραὴλ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ καὶ εὗρον ἄνδρα συλλέγοντα ξύλα τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων

Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day.

‎וַיִּהְיוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, בַּמִּדְבָּר; וַיִּמְצְאוּ, אִישׁ מְקֹשֵׁשׁ עֵצִים--בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת.

(B’yom ha shabat)

——-

Let’s pause the conversation for a second for some well-needed commentary. Based on his post, Marcelo Souza seems ignorant of Greek syntax, as he attributes the translation of Sabbath in the singular simply to a Hebrew usage. He completely ignores Greek grammar by appealing to Hebrew to make his case, even posting Num. 15.32 in Hebrew. Good grief! That’s why Souza’s use of the *English* version of Num. 15.32 LXX τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων as the syntactical basis of the singular form in Mt. 28.1 is erroneous. Why? Because unlike Mt. 28.1, Num. 15.32 LXX employs the genitive plural article τῶν (i.e. τῶν σαββάτων), which should be translated as “of the Sabbaths” (plural), whereas Mt.28.1 has the conjunction δὲ σαββάτων instead. So, the LXX-NT comparison is unwarranted, not only because of the *different words* that precede the term “Sabbath” in both texts but also because Souza is not using the original Greek LXX but rather its English translation. That’s arguing in a circle. In other words, instead of comparing the Greek NT against the Greek LXX, he’s comparing the Greek NT against English translations of the Greek LXX. For example, he doesn’t mention the genitive plural article τῶν, which turns σαββάτων into plural, in the Greek LXX but rather the fact that the English translations of the LXX render it in the singular as “Sabbath.” His entire eisegesis is a sham! It’s like mixing apples and oranges. Besides, he never even gave us the grammatical rule why the Septuagint translates τῶν σαββάτων in the plural form or how that is related to the singular form in Mt. 28.1. Instead, he leaves us guessing as to why that is so by pretending to have answered it.

In fact, throughout the entire thread, none of the discussants gave a sufficient grammatical reason why the pluralized Greek word for “sabbath” is nevertheless translated in the singular and not in the plural form in Mt. 28.1. As you will see, I’m the only one who did that. Weiss tried to answer the question by saying that it is due to the Aramaic šabbětā, which is irrelevant because he’s trying to argue Greek syntax from a foreign language, even if it does involve a transliteration. And then Souza followed suit and tried to do the same by way of a dubious attribution to the Hebrew usage (as a transliteration). However, whether the term “Sabbath” was originally a Hebrew word or not is completely irrelevant to the OP’s discussion. It’s the Greek syntax that’s all-important. The Hebraic etymology is irrelevant as to whether “Sabbath” is in singular or plural form in the Greek. So, the notion of using Hebrew etymology to understand and even justify Greek syntax is a fallacy; it’s completely bogus and misinformed!

I suspect this is probably due to the fact that Marcelo Souza is not a native Greek speaker and doesn’t seem to understand the grammatical depths, nuances, and complexities of the Greek language. This was exemplified later in the conversation by his sleight of hand performance in which he maintained that he conclusively answered the OP, when in fact he didn’t. He even pats himself on the back as if having been congratulated by the inquirer. It reminds me of Americans who study NT Greek for a few years at a Seminary and then become haughty and conceited, deluding themselves that they really understand Koine Greek in all its sophistication, when in fact all they have learned is a few basic rules of grammar, at best. They can’t even order a glass of wine in a Greek restaurant. And just as their pretentious western Erasmian pronunciation is fake and invalid, so are most of their grammatical and syntactic evaluations.

——-

I’m the only one who actually posted the correct answer to the OP, arguing from the Greek, not from Aramaic or Hebrew, as Weiss and, especially, Souza erroneously did. And I explicitly mentioned that to Souza. In reference to the Greek text in Mt. 28.1, I wrote:

“In the first-mentioned sabbath, the author [Matthew] does NOT use the genitive plural τῶν, as in τῶν σαββάτων. That’s why all credible translations translate it in the singular form.”

Bingo! That’s the correct answer!

——-

Back to the Conversation . . .

This is how the Debate Began Between Me and Marcelo Souza

After a few discussants posted their commentaries on this particular post in the Koine Greek Study Group, I made a comment that “the term σαββάτων in Mt. 28.1 is Not Plural [i.e. it’s not translated in the plural]; it’s a Declension.” And I interpreted Souza’s under-mentioned reply to mean that σαββάτων (being a genitive plural) BY ITSELF can answer the OP’s question. Thus began our heated exchange. . .

Marcelo Souza:

The word is a genitive plural [he seems to imply that this is the answer to the OP. Otherwise why mention such an obvious fact?].

Eli Kittim:

No it isn’t [meaning, the answer to the OP]. That’s a mistranslation [meaning, you can’t use the genitive plural form ALONE as the basis for translation].

[When I replied “no it isn’t,” it was a shorthand for saying that the genitive plural FORM of the noun σαββάτων BY ITSELF (in and of itself) is NOT the *REASON* why it’s translated in singular rather than in plural form in Mt. 28.1. Rather, it is because it lacks the genitive plural *article* τῶν! In other words, the presence or absence of the preceding article τῶν determines whether σαββάτων should be translated as singular or plural, not on the basis of its genitive plural form alone, or on the Hebraic grounds that Souza suggested earlier. And this is correct. As I explicitly stated later, I obviously did not deny that σαββάτων per se is a genitive plural. How could I? That would be patently ridiculous. That’s where the miscommunication began. And based on his misunderstanding of what I meant, he concocted a whole smearing campaign, slandering me and accusing me of being ignorant of Greek syntax, and its relation to translation, and hurling derogatory and condescending comments and insults].

——-

The exchange continued as follows . . .

Marcelo Souza:

Eli Kittim I think you’re confused as to what grammar is. It’s a genitive plural and that’s not a matter of translation. So you are incorrect . . .

[It is a matter of translation because translation closely follows the grammar & syntax of the original language].

Eli Kittim:

In the first-mentioned sabbath, the author does NOT use the genitive plural τῶν, as in τῶν σαββάτων. That’s why all credible translations translate it in the singular form.

Marcelo Souza:

We even gave an example from the LXX, with the corresponding Hebrew.

So maybe you don't know the difference between syntax and translation [there go the insults], and you don't know what a genitive plural is [more insults . . . ] and you think that if one says it's a genitive plural, it needs to be translated in the plural [talk about presumption].

He went on to say:

So you deny it's a genitive plural because you don't know what that is . . .

Eli Kittim (my response):

Marcelo Souza It’s a miscommunication. You’re completely misrepresenting me with misperceived ideas of what you think I meant or what you assume I know, etc. . . . I NEVER DENIED THAT σαββάτων PER SE IS A GENITIVE PLURAL [emphasis added]. . . . I was referring to the fact that there is no genitive plural article τῶν before or prior to the word, and why the term would not normally be translated in the plural as Sabbaths. Incidentally, your deviation into Hebrew is completely irrelevant in this particular case because Matthew is writing in New Testament Greek, not translating Hebrew into Greek.

Our exchange ended shortly thereafter. . .

——-

Biblical Greek Exegesis: How dynamic equivalence has corrupted the translation of the expression τῶν σαββάτων in the New Testament

The dynamic (thought for thought) method of translation translates the idiomatic expression τῶν σαββάτων in singular form. But that is not a faithful translation. By contrast, literal translations (i.e. formal equivalence) render it as “of the weeks” or “of the Sabbaths.” For example, Mark 16.2 τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων should read “on the first day of the weeks” (cf. A Faithful Version [formal equivalence]) or “in the morning of the first of the sabbaths” (YLT [formal equivalence]).

Notice that in Mark 16.2 the phrase τῶν σαββάτων is preceded by the dative singular adjective μιᾷ (first). The parsing in Mark 16.2 is as follows:

τῇ (on the) Article - dative singular

μιᾷ (first) Adjective - dative singular

τῶν (of the) Article - genitive plural

σαββάτων (weeks) Noun - genitive plural

In other words, the action occurs during one of the Sabbaths or on the first day of the Sabbaths. Why is “Sabbaths” plural and not singular (in translation)? Because it is preceded by the genitive plural article τῶν. Had it been preceded by the genitive singular article τοῦ, then “Sabbath” would have been translated in singular form. That is the raison d'être for the expression’s singular form in the Mt. 28.1 translation. And that is the correct answer to the Original Post! In other words, the translation of “sabbath” in singular form obviously has nothing to do with the genitive plural form of σαββάτων PER SE or with its attribute as a Greek transliteration of Hebrew, as Souza erroneously suggests.

Similarly, in Luke 4.16, the expression ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων should be translated “on the day of the Sabbaths” (Berean Literal Bible [word for word translation]). The parsing of Luke 4.16 is thusly:

ἐν (on) Preposition

τῇ (the) Article - Dative Singular

ἡμέρᾳ (day) Noun - Dative Singular

τῶν (of the) Article - genitive plural

σαββάτων (weeks) Noun - genitive plural

Acts 13.14 τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων is a similar case that corroborates the aforementioned exegesis. Thus, in these cases, the most faithful translation seems to be “on the day of the Sabbaths.” The genitive plural article τῶν cannot be used to refer to a single Sabbath. That would have been the case if it were the genitive singular article τοῦ (i.e. τοῦ σαββάτου)!

(see e.g. the following concordance https://biblehub.com/greek/sabbatou_4521.htm).

——-

How Do We Know What We Know?

By Biblical Researcher Eli Kittim

A posteriori Vs A priori Knowledge

Epistemology is a philosophical branch that questions the conditions required for a belief to constitute knowledge. The possible sources of knowledge that could justify a belief are based on perception, memory, reason, and testimony.

Postmodern epistemology is generally skeptical of “a posteriori” knowledge, which is derived by reasoning from observed phenomena (i.e. empirical knowledge). Because this knowledge gradually changes and evolves over time, its so-called “facts” also change and are not therefore necessarily true. This would imply that scientific knowledge is not necessarily true and is therefore incapable of informing us about reality as it truly is!

The only necessary “truths” appear to be contained in what is known as “a priori” knowledge, which is derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions. Since the time of Immanuel Kant this knowledge has been understood as being acquired independently of any particular experiences. Thus, logical and mathematical propositions fall under this category.

If you think about it, science cannot prove the existence of the external world independently of our perceptions or faculties. Kant was one of the first thinkers to suggest the idea of the philosophical gaze turned inward upon the self rather than focused on the external world per se. Rather than concentrating on observed phenomena, he zoomed in on the observer himself. Since then we have sought to find out what constitutes “necessary truth,” as well as its justification. In short, we have become skeptical of reality and have seriously questioned whether our perceptions of it can be trusted or not.

The Phenomenological Perspective of Experience

Along comes Edmund Husserl (1859 – 1938), a German philosopher, who founded the school of Phenomenology, which studies the structures of experience and consciousness. Consciousness at the most fundamental level is simply the awareness of existence, both internal and external. In other words, phenomenology is primarily concerned with how consciousness perceives and relates to phenomena. A phenomenon is defined as an observable event. This is in contrast to a “noumenon,” which, according to Kant, cannot be directly observed. Thus, Husserl is interested in understanding not the external world as it really is but rather how an individual experiences or perceives it subjectively. Husserl influenced many notable 20th century thinkers, such as Gabriel Marcel, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Jean-Paul Sartre, Martin Heidegger, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Emmanuel Levinas, Jacques Derrida, and many others!

What is more, Husserl acknowledged a type of gnosis that is far greater than any knowledge derived from the empirical world of the senses. He called it “authentic intuition,” denoting its capacity to grasp the essence of being (Manfred Frank. What is Neostructuralism? Trans. Sabine Wilke and Richard Gray. [Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1989], pp. 411-412)! Since “testimony” is acceptable as a source of knowledge in epistemology, the multiple and independent attestations of the born-again experience can be employed as potential sources of knowledge for a justified true belief in the Platonic sense. Søren Kierkegaard, the father of existentialism, would acknowledge its validity, given that the born-again experience (Jn 3.3) cannot be proven empirically but experienced existentially! The great mystics Rumi, Kabir, and John of the Cross would certainly concur with that statement. This is analogous to what Karl Jaspers, the German-Swiss psychiatrist and philosopher, calls a leap of faith, which is a belief in something outside the confines of reason.

From an interdisciplinary perspective, psychological testing can further confirm the existence of radical changes in the personality as a result of such experiences, not unlike those depicted in the Bible. For example, a murderer named Saul was said to be changed into a lover named Paul. Such cases abound in the “conversion-experience” literature. It seems to be a case where a new identity has replaced an older one (cf. Eph. 4.22-24). In the language of psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott, it is the difference between the False self (i.e. pseudo self) and the True self (i.e. authentic self)! Thus, there are many indicators which suggest that the born-again experience is ipso facto a possible source of knowledge (cf. Eph. 2.5).

Why Then Are There Differences Between Various Belief Systems?

The contradictory doctrinal statements of various religious traditions do not invalidate the authenticity of the existential experience precisely because they do not accurately represent the born-again experience itself, but rather the afterthoughts that follow it. Human reason tries to make sense of its experiences, thereby leading to theological diversity. However, at the point of the “mysterium tremendum” itself the experience is ubiquitous. In other words, whether one is reared in a Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist culture is irrelevant because the authentic mystical experience will be the same. The person will primarily experience a new birth, a profound sense of peace, as well as an all - encompassing love. The attempt to categorize it within a specific cultural and spiritual milieu is a secondary process. As Hegel once wrote:

“The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only

with the falling of the dusk.”

In other words, only after the experience is gone does philosophy arrive to try to understand it. In our case, theology arrives too late. It’s the same with the doctrinal variations of the different spiritual traditions!

The Absolute Being of philosophy (i.e. God) is often said to instill revelation upon humankind. There are various theological schools, such as pantheism, deism, theism, and the like, but most historians would agree that the various holy books are testaments of God’s alleged revelations (e.g. the Upanishads, Vedas, Bhagavad Gita, Torah, Quran, New Testament). However, the degree of revelation varies. It is important to note what Paul reveals in 1 Cor. 12.11:

“All these are the work of one and the same

Spirit, and he distributes them to each one,

just as he determines.”

In other words, not all get an equal share of the spiritual pie. Not all receive an equal portion of the truth. Each one gets a small amount of it. Some get more, others less. Thus, some know more, some less. This, then, explains the differences that exist between various belief systems without necessarily refuting their undergirding existential experiences per se! Put differently, they all believe in God, but which God is a question pertaining to different levels and degrees of revelation. So, given that belief systems are disseminated later, after the fact, doctrinal differences are irrelevant in refuting the initial born-again experience as a whole.

Conclusion

The epistemology of existentialism and phenomenology presents “experience” as a potential source of knowledge. Since testimony is considered to be a possible source of knowledge that could justify a belief, the multitudinous number of born-again testimonies down through the ages would present a case for the legitimacy of the existential experience! According to phenomenology, this knowledge may actually surpass that of science given its capacity to grasp the essence of being!

Preterism Debunked

By Eli Kittim

Was 70 CE the Worst Period Ever in the History of the Earth?

In talking about the great ordeal (aka “the great tribulation”), Mt. 24.21 says that there will be the greatest suffering ever in the history of the world before Jesus comes. 70 CE was not, by any stretch of the imagination, the worst period ever in the history of the earth. We have ample evidence of the Black Death (1346-1353), the Flu Pandemic (1918), and the two World Wars that killed over 100 million people, which were far worse than the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. This fact alone severely weakens the Preterist argument of the imminent eschatology of Jesus and the apostles, which is characterised by the notion that the eschaton was supposed to take place in first century Palestine!

Similarly, Dan. 12.1, after discussing the worst period in the history of the earth, goes on to say that the resurrection of the dead will occur during the same time period (Dan. 12.2). Then, the Book of Daniel goes on to talk about “the time of the end” (12.4, 9), which obviously goes far beyond the first century. In point of fact, the Book of Daniel and the Gospel of Matthew offer two conspicuous examples which demonstrate that “the end of the days” (Dan. 12.13), or “the end” of human history (Mt. 24.14), is radically different than what the Preterist interpreters make it out to be, namely, a first century fulfillment. If anything, Scripture’s future end-time prophecies are meant to signal the ultimate dissolution of the universe (2 Pet. 3.10) and the creation of “a new heaven and a new earth” (Rev. 21.1). Events that obviously haven’t happened yet!

Could the Latter Years or The Day of the Lord Refer to the Time of Antiquity?

Biblically, the “eschaton” is set in the context of a future time-period that is intimately connected with “the day of the Lord” (ημέρα κυρίου)! And as regards the idiomatic expression, the Day of the Lord, almost all Bible scholars believe that it is an event that will take place at the end of the world (cf. Isa. 2.12; Ezek. 30.3; Joel 2.31-32; Amos 5.18-20; Zeph. 1.14-18; Acts 2.20). This, too, debunks the notion that the Day of the Lord was anticipated in the first century CE. Two Thessalonians 2.1-4 warns against such Preterist hypotheses by stating that the Day of Christ has not yet come, and that it won’t come until the arrival of the Antichrist at the end of days.

In fact, Preterism’s interpretative weakness can be exposed through many angles. For example, the end-times war known as the Gog-Magog war in Exekiel 38, which most prophecy experts ascribe to the future, is said to commence “in the latter years” (v. 8)! 70 CE certainly does not qualify as the latter years. It is untenable to suggest this hypothesis which does not fit with any of the end-time biblical prophecies and predictions.

Is the Terminal Generation the one that Will Not Pass Away Until All these Things Take Place?

Modern Greek linguistics demonstrate that “temporal values (past, present, future) are not established in Greek by use of the verbal aspects (or tense-forms) alone” (Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament [2nd edn; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999], p. 25). In other words, just because a verb is in the present tense doesn’t mean that the action is happening at present! So, this point demonstrates that the insistence on the present generation-interpretation does not necessarily square well with the authorial intent. For ex, the Johannine Jesus says figuratively that the hour “is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God” (Jn. 5.25), and will come out of their graves. But we have no evidence that the resurrection of the dead happened in Antiquity. In fact, we have evidence that, according to Dan. 12.2, the resurrection of the dead is a future end-time event. Same with Mt. 24.34: “This generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.” What things? Answer: all the future end-time events that are described in Mt. 24. Thus, Jesus is clearly describing the last generation on earth. For instance, the notion that some of Jesus’ followers would not die before they saw him coming in glory (16.27) or in his kingdom (Mt. 16.28) cannot be attributed to a supposed first-century CE context. Since Jesus has yet to come in his glory, it can only be ascribed to an eschatological spectrum of events. Since there is no historical record of these events ever taking place, the context of such passages is ultimately based not on preterism but futurism. In other words, the generation that is alive, at that future time, and sees these signs (as described in Mt. 24.33) is the same generation that will not die and witness the coming of the savior (cf. 1 Cor. 10.11)! In short, the timeline of “this generation” that “will not pass away” (Mt. 24.34) must be interpreted within the context of the prerequisite signs that will take place, not simply on linguistic grounds.

Translation and Exegesis of Biblical Greek Validates the Futurist Eschatology of the New Testament

If you add my particular contribution to the mix——where I discuss the explicit future eschatological verses in the Greek New Testament that refer to the end of the world——it turns out to be the final nail in the Preterist coffin! Phrases like τό πλήρωμα του χρόνου (Gal. 4.4; Eph. 1.10) refer to the final consummation when all things, both in the heavens and upon the earth, will conclude in Christ! Furthermore, the phrase επ´ εσχάτου των ημερων (Heb. 1.2) literally means “in the last days” and is an ipso facto reference to the end of the ages (cf. the alternative expression επ´ εσχάτου των χρόνων; 1 Pet. 1.20). These apocalyptic expressions are built on the term έσχατος (eschatos), which means “last in time.” In fact, the word eschatology is derived from the Greek term “eschaton.”

The Timeline of the Great Tribulation and the Resurrection of the Dead Does Not Square Well with the Apostolic Age

Many Biblical exegetes have traditionally misunderstood the inferred time-period associated with the phrase, “the time is near,” and have consequently assumed that both Jesus and the apostles expected the imminent end to happen in their lifetime. In fact, Bertrand Russell (the famous philosopher) wrote an essay indicating that he is not a Christian because, in his view, Jesus and the apostles were wrong about their imminent eschatology. These events never happened. Albert Schweitzer came to the same conclusion. Thereafter, many subsequent scholars followed suit.

(See the following article, which refutes this notion of imminent eschatology based on the koine Greek of the New Testament).

Tumblr

Is Paul Teaching an Imminent Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15:51?

El Kittim Some commentators have claimed that Paul’s language in 1 Corinthians 15:51 is referencing an imminent eschatology. Our primary

However, good exegesis requires that we evaluate the idiomatic expression “the time is near” (Rev. 1.3; 22.10) within its proper context, and therefore interpret it in light of the revelations that are associated with it. In other words, why is the warning in Rev. 22.10 not applicable to ancient times? Well, there are certain sign-posts that need to be deciphered first. And, in order to understand the particular timeline in question, we need a clear outline of the sequence of eschatological events. For example, the aforementioned apocalyptic locution “the time is near” is not mentioned in a vacuum as if it pertains to all generations, including that of the Apostolic Age, but rather in the context of the specific judgments of the tribulation period (see Rev. chs. 6–16). This specific tribulation period is inextricably connected to the “Beast” of Rev. 13, otherwise known as the “lawless one” (cf. 2 Thess. 2.3–4) or the Antichrist (1 Jn 2.18).

In order to ascertain the overall prophetic message of Revelation, the hermeneutical principle of the canonical context demands that we coalesce the different Biblical texts, as if we’re reading a single Book, rather than employing isolated, out-of-context passages to construct a subjective theology. For proper exegesis, we also need to use “the analogy of scripture,” rather than form opinions based on speculation and conjecture. In other words, we must allow scripture to interpret and define scripture. For instance, 2 Thess. 2.1–7 predicts a sequence of eschatological events in which the “Antichrist” will be revealed at roughly the same time as the “rapture,” the transporting of believers to heaven at the end of days. Incidentally, the rapture is said to occur contemporaneously with the general resurrection of the dead (cf. 1 Thess. 4.15–17). Since the general resurrection of the dead is an event that is associated with the apocalyptic time period known as the great tribulation——aka a period of “great suffering” (θλῖψις μεγάλη; Mt. 24.21; cf. Dan. 8.19; 12.1–2; Rev. 7.14)——2 Thess. 2.1-3 is teaching against the doctrine of imminence by stressing that the rapture and the resurrection cannot take place “unless the rebellion comes first and the lawless one is revealed.” Similarly, Daniel places the timeline of the resurrection in prophetic categories by stating that it will occur at the end of days (12.13)!

Let’s not forget that at the beginning of Matthew 24.3 a question is asked about the chronology of the signs of the times regarding these eschatological events:

“Tell us, when will this be, and what will be

the sign of your coming and of the end of

the age?”

It’s important to note, parenthetically, that the apocalyptic phrase “the end of the age” is actually a reference to the end of the world (see Mt. 13.39–40, 49; 24.3; 28.20). So, whatever eschatology one imposes on the New Testament, it must ultimately line up with the enumerated events discussed therein. By way of illustration, Mt. 24.21 says that the Great Tribulation (Gk. θλῖψις μεγάλη) will begin “when you see the desolating sacrilege standing in the holy place” (Mt. 24.15). This is further discussed in 2 Thess. 2.3–4 (cf. Dan. 9.27). Apparently, this is the same time period when the Great Tribulation will commence. Then, Mt. 24.29–31 goes on to discuss the “gathering” of the Son of Man’s elect (i.e. the rapture) within the time frame of the Great Tribulation (Gk. μετὰ τὴν θλῖψιν τῶν ἡμερῶν ἐκείνων). Therefore, the events of the rapture (1 Thess. 4.16–17) and the resurrection (Rev. 20.4–6) echo Daniel’s 12.1–2 reference regarding the general resurrection of the dead which must occur approximately in the same period of time as the phenomena of the Great Tribulation!

Further Evidence of Futurism from Revelation’s Global Wars & Geological Events

Further evidence that the eschatology of the New Testament is uniformly futurist, and not preterist, comes by way of the prophecy of the last empire on earth (Rev. 17.11), which has yet to come, that will play a major role during the time of the Great Tribulation (cf. Rev. 11.7; 12.3–6, 14; 17.9–13). Not to mention the prophetic references, in the Book of Revelation, to major geological events the scale of which has never before been seen in human history. For example, Rev. 6.14 alludes to how tectonic plates had been shifted to such an extent that “every mountain and island was removed from its place.” Revelation 16.20 adds that “every island fled away, and no mountains were to be found.” Such cataclysmic events have never been recorded before in human history! What is more, the descriptions in Luke 21 and the Book of Revelation pertain to global, not local, events. For example, Lk 21.10-11 talks about “Nation … against nation, and kingdom against kingdom,” and about earthquakes, plagues, and famines “in various places.” Revelation 6.8 tells us that “a fourth of the earth” will be wiped out “with sword, … famine, and plague.” Similarly, Rev. 6.15 mentions “the kings of the earth” and all of mankind seeking shelter “in the rocks of the mountains,” while Rev. 9.18 says that during this period “a third of mankind was killed by … three plagues.” Obviously, these are not local but global events. Incidentally, the phrase “was killed,” in Rev. 9.18, is a translation of the verb ἀπεκτάνθησαν, which is an aorist, indicative, passive, 3rd person plural form from ἀποκτείνω, meaning “to kill.” It is important to note that many verbs expressed in past tense, such as the aorist or the perfect-tense, do not actually tell us the timing of an event. There are, in fact, many perfect-tenses that are used for future prophecies. For example, Revelation 7.4 uses the perfect-tense τῶν ἐσφραγισμένων for those who “were sealed.” But this event obviously hasn’t happened yet. Similarly, Isaiah 53 is filled with past-tenses and yet it is a prophecy that Isaiah is writing about! Thus, a superficial reading of the text can often lead to erroneous interpretations.

Conclusion

Revelation 22.7, 9, 10, 18, and 19 repeats over and over again that this Book represents an exclusively prophetic Biblical text:

“Blessed is the one who keeps the words of

the prophecy of this book.”

This is also mentioned in the introduction (Rev. 1.3). Yet many Biblical expositors of a Preterist persuasion repeatedly violate Revelation’s reminder by interpreting certain events within a historical context, as if these events were expected to occur during the lifetime of the apostles. Not to mention that the Book of Revelation itself was written sometime around 96 CE and thus postdates the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, which is often seen as the target date of the supposed eschaton.

As we have seen, good exegesis of “the time is near” phrase is only possible by way of the overall canonical context. Thus, Preterism involves a “proof-text fallacy” which comprises the idea of stringing together a number of out-of-context passages in order to validate the assumed imminent eschatology of the apostles. In other words, the Preterist conclusion is not compatible with the overall canonical context. This is equivalent to a coherence fallacy, that is to say, the illusion of Biblical coherence. Preterism also misinterprets the original Greek language of the New Testament, which is interested in the “aspect” rather than the “time” of an event.

I have outlined the overall canonical message of the Bible along with its specific prophetic content. So, when we look at all the prophetic predictions and combine them together to get a holistic understanding, we get a bigger picture of what will occur before the end. Therefore, how close we are to these events largely depends on how close we are to these prophetic signposts, temporally speaking. If you want to explore the prophetic markers of Mt. 24 from a historical perspective, see my article, Are We Living in the Last Days?

Eli of Kittim

Are We Living in the Last Days?

By Eli Kittim Mt 24.6-14 (NRSV): And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that you are not alarmed; for this mu

Therefore, Revelation’s caveat that “the time is near” is most certainly not a reference to first-century Christianity (cf. 1 Cor. 10.11; Mt. 24.3)! In light of this study, that interpretation would be completely false. Rather, it means that if the reader understands all the Biblical predictions and the specific end-time sequence of events as parts of an integrated whole, then he or she can properly infer if the time is near simply by discerning whether or not the major prophetic events of the New Testament have taken place on a global scale. A close reading of the apocalyptic genre of the New Testament reveals that it is not alluding to a first century fulfillment but to an end-time expectation!