Was The Charge Against Jesus Insurrection Or Blasphemy?

Was the Charge Against Jesus Insurrection or Blasphemy?

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

Many have written on Jesus the Galilean——often portraying him as someone who “was involved in anti-Roman seditious activity” and “put to death as an insurrectionist” (see e.g. Dr. Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, “[Why] Was Jesus the Galilean Crucified Alone? Solving a False Conundrum,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36.2 [2013] 127-154; & “Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth,” a book by Muslim writer and scholar Reza Aslan).

But these speculative reconstructions have nothing to do with the New Testament literary accounts. These religious scholars should not be allowed to tamper with the internal evidence by altering it to suit their theological objectives. Let me give you an example why that would run counter to the standards of textual criticism. If modern scholars, who are far removed from ancient times, were to be given such artistic license as to change the words of Homer or Virgil, for instance, then it would no longer be Homer or Virgil that we would be reading but rather a modern 21st century forgery or adaptation of their works. Classicists would rightly be outraged! So then, if these interpolations are inexcusable in classical literature (e.g. in ancient Greco-Roman works), why are these religious scholars allowed to rewrite history and change the words of the New Testament accounts by superimposing their own imaginations on the text? Who gave them the licentia poetica (poetic license) to do so? Such books abound in the popular literature whose authors helped shape our modern views of Jesus!

Sadly, it would seem that none of these scholars have carefully consulted the Greek New Testament to see what it says on the matter, including the scriptural *messianic context* in which it says it. For example, Matthew 26.63-66 says categorically and unequivocally that Jesus was accused of blasphemy by the Jewish leaders. Specifically, Jesus purportedly blasphemed by claiming to be the Messiah, the king of the Jews (i.e. the new David cf. Ezekiel 37.24 [NRSV]: “My servant David shall be king over them;” Ezekiel 37.25 “and my servant David shall be their prince forever”). In fact, during Caiaphas’ interrogation, Jesus purportedly responded by identifying himself with the Danielic Son of Man (Υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου), a messianic figure who will one day come in the clouds of heaven (Matthew 26.64). That’s precisely when the high priest cried out (v. 65): “He has blasphemed!” (Ἐβλασφήμησεν). Then at Matthew 26.66, the high priest asked the attending council:

What is your verdict? They answered, ‘He

deserves death.’

The members of the Sanhedrin (vv. 57, 59) answered in unison: “He deserves death” (Ἔνοχος θανάτου ἐστίν)! This is explicitly recorded at Mark 15.26 as well, where the official charge against Jesus was said to be inscribed on his cross:

The inscription of the charge against him

read, ‘The King of the Jews.’

Conclusion

The context of the literary account in Gethsemane, prior to the crucifixion, is one of prayer and supplication. It has absolutely nothing to do with violence or any plans to overthrow the Roman legions. Moreover, the Sanhedrin’s verdict, that was later inscribed on Jesus’ cross, was NOT insurrection but rather blasphemy, namely, that he claimed to be the Messiah: “The King of the Jews” (i.e. Mashiach Ben David cf. Jn 19.7)! In fact, the so-called charge against Jesus of political insurrection is never once mentioned in the New Testament!

So, if we’re going to engage in academic exegesis, we must avoid presuppositions, assumptions, speculations, & conjectures. We must allow expositional constancy or the analogy of scripture, and the original biblical languages, to guide our hermeneutic. In other words, we must not impose our own private interpretations on the text. Rather, we must allow the text ITSELF to give us the authorial intent (meaning)! Thus, even though some liberal scholars are very familiar with the gospel literature, nevertheless they’re constantly inserting or imposing extraneous, extra-biblical material to put a Roman spin on it. This is a clear violation of the standard principles of biblical interpretation!

How Should Christian Scholars Respond to Attacks and Insults?

By Bible Researcher and Author Eli Kittim 🎓

Now these people were more noble-minded

than those in Thessalonica, for they

received the word with great eagerness,

examining the Scriptures daily to see

whether these things were so.

——- Acts 17:11 NASB

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

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

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

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

——-

A Biblical Consensus Is Always Evolving

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Erasmian vs. Modern Pronunciation: Philological & Linguistic Considerations

Researched by Eli Kittim

I’m not a linguist and I will not illustrate phonetic diagrams in philological nomenclature (e.g. IPA, etc.) lest I lose the audience's attention with such complicated jargon. I’m simply trying to understand the literature and summarize it in the best possible way. Since there’s not much interest in Ancient Greek pronunciation on the web, I compiled some material from a handful of links that might be of interest. Most of the paper is actually excerpted from various articles that are mentioned at the end of the paper.

——-

The History of the Reconstructed Pronunciation of Greek

“The study of Greek in the West expanded considerably during the Renaissance, in particular after the fall of Constantinople in 1453, when many Byzantine Greek scholars came to Western Europe. Greek texts were then universally pronounced with the medieval pronunciation that still survives intact.

From about 1486, various scholars (notably Antonio of Lebrixa, Girolamo Aleandro, and Aldus Manutius) judged that the pronunciation was inconsistent with the descriptions that were handed down by ancient grammarians, and they suggested alternative pronunciations. This work culminated in Erasmus's dialogue De recta Latini Graecique sermonis pronuntiatione (1528). The system that he proposed is called the Erasmian pronunciation. The pronunciation described by Erasmus is very similar to that currently regarded by most authorities as the authentic pronunciation of Classical Greek (notably the Attic dialect of the 5th century BC).” [1]

——-

The Reuchlinian Model

“Johann Reuchlin (1455 – 1522) was a German Catholic humanist and a scholar of Greek and Hebrew.” [2]

“Reuchlin, it may be noted, pronounced Greek as his native teachers had taught him to do, i.e., in the modern Greek fashion. This pronunciation, which he defends in De recta Latini Graecique sermonis pronuntiatione (1528), came to be known, in contrast to that used by Desiderius Erasmus, as the Reuchlinian.” [3]

“Among speakers of Modern Greek, from the Byzantine Empire to modern Greece, Cyprus, and the Greek diaspora, Greek texts from every period have always been pronounced by using the contemporaneous local Greek pronunciation. That makes it easy to recognize the many words that have remained the same or similar in written form from one period to another. Among Classical scholars, it is often called the Reuchlinian pronunciation, after the Renaissance scholar Johann Reuchlin, who defended its use in the West in the 16th century.” [4]

“The theology faculties and schools related to or belonging to the Eastern Orthodox Church use the Modern Greek pronunciation to follow the tradition of the Byzantine Empire.” [5]

“The two models of pronunciation became soon known, after their principal proponents, as the ‘Reuchlinian’ and the ‘Erasmian’ system, or, after the characteristic vowel pronunciations, as the ‘iotacist’ (or ‘itacist’) and the ‘etacist’ system, respectively.” [6]

“The resulting debate, as it was conducted during the 19th century, finds its expression in, for instance, the works of Jannaris (1897) and Papadimitrakopoulos (1889) on the anti-Erasmian side, and of Friedrich Blass (1870) on the pro-Erasmian side.” [7]

“The resulting majority view today is that a phonological system roughly along Erasmian lines can still be assumed to have been valid for the period of classical Attic literature, but biblical and other post-classical Koine Greek is likely to have been spoken with a pronunciation that already approached that of Modern Greek in many crucial respects.” [8]

——-

Controversies about Reconstructions

“The Greek language underwent pronunciation changes during the Koine Greek period, from about 300 BC to 300 AD. At the beginning of the period, the pronunciation was almost identical to Classical Greek, while at the end it was closer to Modern Greek.” [9]

“The primary point of contention comes from the diversity of the Greek-speaking world: evidence suggests that phonological changes occurred at different times according to location and/or speaker background. It appears that many phonetic changes associated with the Koine period had already occurred in some varieties of Greek during the Classical period.” [10]

“An opposition between learned language and vulgar language has been claimed for the corpus of Attic inscriptions. Some phonetic changes are attested in vulgar inscriptions since the end of the Classical period; still they are not generalized until the start of the 2nd century AD in learned inscriptions. While orthographic conservatism in learned inscriptions may account for this, contemporary transcriptions from Greek into Latin might support the idea that this is not just orthographic conservatism, but that learned speakers of Greek retained a conservative phonological system into the Roman period. On the other hand, Latin transcriptions, too, may be exhibiting orthographic conservatism.” [11]

“Interpretation is more complex when different dating is found for similar phonetic changes in Egyptian papyri and learned Attic inscriptions. A first explanation would be dialectal differences (influence of foreign phonological systems through non-native speakers); changes would then have happened in Egyptian Greek before they were generalized in Attic. A second explanation would be that learned Attic inscriptions reflect a more learned variety of Greek than Egyptian papyri; learned speech would then have resisted changes that had been generalized in vulgar speech.” [12]

By the 4th century, “The pronunciation suggested here, though far from being universal, is essentially that of Modern Greek except for the continued roundedness of /y/.” [13]

Single Vowel Quality

“Apart from η, simple vowels have better preserved their ancient pronunciation than diphthongs. As noted above, at the start of the Koine Greek period, pseudo-diphthong ει before consonant had a value of /iː/, whereas pseudo-diphthong ου had a value of [uː]; these vowel qualities have remained unchanged through Modern Greek. Diphthong ει before vowel had been generally monophthongized to a value of /i(ː)/ and confused with η, thus sharing later developments of η. The quality of vowels α, ε̆, ι and ο have remained unchanged through Modern Greek, as /a/, /e/, /i/ and /o/. The quality distinction between η and ε may have been lost in Attic in the late 4th century BCE, when pre-consonantic pseudo-diphthong ει started to be confused with ι and pre-vocalic diphthong ει with η. C. 150 AD, Attic inscriptions started confusing η and ι, indicating the appearance of a /iː/ or /i/ (depending on when the loss of vowel length distinction took place) pronunciation that is still in usage in standard Modern Greek.” [14]

Consonants

“The consonant ζ, which had probably a value of /zd/ in Classical Attic (though some scholars have argued in favor of a value of /dz/, and the value probably varied according to dialects – see Zeta (letter) for further discussion), acquired the sound /z/ that it still has in Modern Greek, seemingly with a geminate pronunciation /zz/ at least between vowels. Attic inscriptions suggest that this pronunciation was already common by the end of the 4th century BC.” [15]

——-

A Critique of Erasmus’ Knowledge & Methadology

Erasmus “succeeded in learning Greek by an intensive, day-and-night study of three years.” [16] That’s hardly the time needed to become competent in Greek. What is more, he sometimes confused the Greek with the Latin:

“In a way it is legitimate to say that Erasmus ‘synchronized’ or ‘unified’ the Greek and the Latin traditions of the New Testament by producing an updated translation of both simultaneously. Both being part of canonical tradition, he clearly found it necessary to ensure that both were actually present in the same content. In modern terminology, he made the two traditions ‘compatible.’ This is clearly evidenced by the fact that his Greek text is not just the basis for his Latin translation, but also the other way round: there are numerous instances where he edits the Greek text to reflect his Latin version. For instance, since the last six verses of Revelation were missing from his Greek manuscript, Erasmus translated the Vulgate's text back into Greek. Erasmus also translated the Latin text into Greek wherever he found that the Greek text and the accompanying commentaries were mixed up, or where he simply preferred the Vulgate's reading to the Greek text.” [17]

His 1516 publication became the first published New Testament in Greek:

“Erasmus used several Greek manuscript sources because he did not have access to a single complete manuscript. Most of the manuscripts were, however, late Greek manuscripts of the Byzantine textual family and Erasmus used the oldest manuscript the least because ‘he was afraid of its supposedly erratic text.’ He also ignored much older and better manuscripts that were at his disposal.” [18]

So although the modern critical edition of the New Testament rejected Erasmus’ versions, those same scholars that sat on these editorial committees nevertheless adopted his pronunciation (odd)!

On the other end of the spectrum, Johann Reuchlin was a German Catholic who had no axe to grind. He neither defended the Eastern Orthodox Church nor the Greek heritage per se. So he had no conflict of interests. He didn’t have a dog in this fight, so to speak. His interest was purely intellectual and academic.

——-

German Reconstructions

“The situation in German education may be representative of that in many other European countries. The teaching of Greek is based on a roughly Erasmian model, but in practice, it is heavily skewed towards the phonological system of German or the other host language.

Thus, German-speakers do not use a fricative [θ] for θ but give it the same pronunciation as τ, [t], but φ and χ are realised as the fricatives [f] and [x] ~ [ç]. ζ is usually pronounced as an affricate, but a voiceless one, like German z [ts]. However, σ is often voiced, according like s in German before a vowel, [z]. ευ and ηυ are not distinguished from οι but are both pronounced [ɔʏ], following the German eu, äu. Similarly, ει and αι are often not distinguished, both pronounced [aɪ], like the similar German ei, ai, and ει is sometimes pronounced [ɛɪ].” [19]

“While the deviations are often acknowledged as compromises in teaching, awareness of other German-based idiosyncrasies is less widespread. German-speakers typically try to reproduce vowel-length distinctions in stressed syllables, but they often fail to do so in non-stressed syllables, and they are also prone to use a reduction of e-sounds to [ə].” [20]

French Reconstructions

“Pronunciation of Ancient Greek in French secondary schools is based on Erasmian pronunciation, but it is modified to match the phonetics and even, in the case of αυ and ευ, the orthography of French.” [21]

“Vowel length distinction, geminate consonants and pitch accent are discarded completely, which matches the current phonology of Standard French. The reference Greek-French dictionary, Dictionnaire Grec-Français by A. Bailly et al., does not even bother to indicate vowel length in long syllables.” [22]

“The pseudo-diphthong ει is erroneously pronounced [ɛj] or [ej], regardless of whether the ει derives from a genuine diphthong or a ε̄. The pseudo-diphthong ου has a value of [u], which is historically attested in Ancient Greek.” [23]

“Short-element ι diphthongs αι, οι and υι are pronounced … as [aj], [ɔj], [yj], [and] … some websites recommend the less accurate pronunciation [ɥi] for υι. Short-element υ diphthongs αυ and ευ are pronounced like similar-looking French pseudo-diphthongs au and eu: [o]~[ɔ] and [ø]~[œ], respectively.” [24]

“Also, θ and χ are pronounced [t] and [k]. … Also, γ, before a velar consonant, is generally pronounced [n]. The digraph γμ is pronounced [ɡm], and ζ is pronounced [dz], but both pronunciations are questionable in the light of modern scholarly research.” [25]

Italian Reconstructions

“Italian speakers find it hard to reproduce the pitch-based Ancient Greek accent accurately so the circumflex and acute accents are not distinguished. … β is a voiced bilabial plosive [b], as in Italian bambino or English baby; γ is a voiced velar plosive [ɡ], as in Italian gatto or English got. When γ is before κ γ χ ξ, it is nasalized as [ŋ] … ζ is a voiced alveolar affricate [dz], as in Italian zolla … θ is taught as a voiceless dental fricative, as in English thing [θ], but since Italian does not have that sound, it is often pronounced as a voiceless alveolar affricate [ts], as in Italian zio, or even as τ, a voiceless dental plosive [t]) … χ is taught as a voiceless velar fricative [x], as in German ach, but since Italian does not have that sound, it is often pronounced as κ (voiceless velar plosive [k]).” [26]

Spanish Reconstructions

Due to Castilian Spanish, “phonological features of the language sneak in the Erasmian pronunciation. The following are the most distinctive (and frequent) features of Spanish pronunciation of Ancient Greek: following Spanish phonotactics, the double consonants ζ, ξ, ψ are difficult to differentiate in pronunciation by many students of Ancient Greek, although ξ is usually effectively rendered as [ks]; … both vocalic quantity and vowel openness are ignored altogether: thus, no effort is made to distinguish vocalic pairs such as ε : η and ο : ω; the vowel υ, although taught as [y] (absent in the Spanish phonological system), is mostly pronounced as [i].” [27]

——-

What Do the Experts Say?

Nick Nicolas, PhD in Modern Greek dialectology & linguist at Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, outlines the 3 current pronunciation models of Ancient Greek:

1. Erasmus' reconstruction of Ancient Greek phonology, as modified in practice for teaching Greek in Western schools.

2. The scholarly reconstruction of Ancient Greek phonology.

3. Modern Greek pronunciation applied to Ancient Greek (“Reuchlinian" pronunciation). [28]

Nicolas’ Critique of Erasmian:

It's not quite fully there with the scholarly

reconstruction of Greek; so some of the

phonology and morphology of Ancient

Greek still doesn't make sense.

Particularly with diphthongs, and

aspiration, if your local Erasmian doesn't

do them accurately. [29]

“Extreme variability from country to country, because of the concessions each country's teaching system makes to the local language.

Speak in Erasmian to a Greek, and they'll look at you like a space alien. … But they will genuinely have no idea what you are saying, or what language you are saying it in. … It's quite far from Koine. Koine was still in flux, and some critical changes were underway when the bit of Koine most people care about (New Testament) was spoken. But overall, Koine was much closer to Modern Greek than Homeric.” [30]

——-

Here’s what Daniel Streett, Ph.D & Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Houston Baptist University, says about the pronunciations debate that occurred approximately 10 years ago at the annual Society of Biblical Literature meeting in San Francisco. It was sponsored by the Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics Section & the Applied Linguistics for Biblical Languages Group, which addressed the topic of Greek phonology and pronunciation.

Dr. Daniel Streett says:

“There is a widespread consensus among historical linguists as to how Greek was pronounced at its various stages. If you want a good summary of the consensus, check out A.-F. Christidis’ History of Ancient Greek, which has several articles on the various phonological shifts. Especially relevant is E.B. Petrounias’ contribution on ‘Development in Pronunciation During the Hellenistic Period’ (pp. 599-609).” [31]

Then he critiques the Erasmian Pronunciation that was presented by Daniel Wallace of Dallas Seminary. Dr. Streett writes:

“He was asked to argue for the Erasmian pronunciation, although, as he explained at the outset, he has no firm conviction that Erasmian pronunciation best reflects the way Greek was pronounced in the Hellenistic world.

I found Wallace’s presentation very easy to follow and enjoyable to listen to, but frustrating at the same time. I think he seriously misrepresented the state of our knowledge on Greek phonology in the Hellenistic and Roman imperial eras. He did not deal with any hard evidence from manuscripts or inscriptions (as subsequent presenters Buth and Theophilos did). He merely pointed out a few of the difficulties with assessing such evidence and then (IMO) cavalierly dismissed them.” [32]

Dr. Streett Comments on the Reconstructed Koine:


“Randall Buth of the Biblical Language Center presented third and advocated his reconstruction of 1st century Koine Greek. If you want a summary of his system, take a look at his page on it here: https://www.biblicallanguagecenter.com/koine-greek-pronunciation/

Biblical Language Center

Koine Greek Pronunciation

For a downloadable PDF of this page see  Koine Pronunciation 2012. The PDF is workbook size and fits within both A4 and US Letter paper size

Buth’s presentation contained what Wallace’s lacked: a lot of evidence which demonstrated that however they were pronouncing Greek in the first century, it sure wasn’t Erasmian! Furthermore, he showed that the regional differences objection did not really hold, as the same sounds were ‘confused’ in texts from across the ancient world. So, while the pronunciation might have differed slightly from region to region, the phonemic structure remained stable.

Neo-hellenic or Modern Pronunciation

Michael Theophilos, who teaches at Australian Catholic University, presented last and advocated the modern pronunciation. Theophilos speaks modern Greek but also believes that most (or all?) of the modern phonology was in place by the first century. He made some very helpful methodological points. For example, he argues that we should be looking for phonological clues mainly in the non-literary papyri, which are more likely to contain phonetic spellings. He also offered several examples of iotacism in early papyri to show that there is at least some evidence that οι, η, and υ had iotacized by the 2nd century CE.

By the time you heard Simkin, Buth, and Theophilos, Wallace’s agnosticism seemed thorougly untenable. Theophilos didn’t have a whole lot to say about the practical reasons for using the modern pronunciation. I wish he would have, since it’s helpful for Erasmians to realize there’s an entire country of people who speak Greek and can’t bear to listen to the awful linguistic barbarity known as Erasmian. When Wallace was making the argument that Erasmians are by far in the pedagogical majority, he conveniently left out the millions of Greek students on this little peninsula in the Aegean.” [33]

——-

Conclusion

In the words of Daniel B. Wallace:

“Erasmian pronunciation is often considered cumbersome, unnatural, stilted, and ugly. The implication sometimes is that it must not have been the way Greek ever sounded; it is too harsh on the ears for that.” Not to mention fake and fabricated!

As regards Koine Greek, no one from our generation was there to hear the words being spoken. So no one really knows exactly how it sounded. But just as the closest pronunciation to Middle English is Modern English, so the rightful heir and descendant of Koine Greek pronunciation is obviously Modern Greek. It should be closer to the Koine Greek pronunciation than an invented phonetic system from the Renaissance. Just as Albert Schweitzer realized that most authors had interpreted Jesus in their own image, so Erasmians have interpreted Greek pronunciation in their own image as well. That’s why the Erasmian speakers don’t sound Greek but have the accents of their native countries.

What is more, many of their theories are erroneously based on Egyptian Greek papyri. Suppose that 2,000 years from now linguists try to reconstruct American pronunciation via English literature that was found in Australia. The pronunciations are vastly different. By comparison, what was spoken in Egypt or Palestine was certainly not spoken in Athens.

Besides, there’s much more literature on Erasmian pronunciation and a relative neglect or disinterest to write anything about the Reuchlinian or Modern Greek pronunciation. That’s a western bias that has been in place for centuries.

Let’s not forget that we learned so much about Koine Greek from the discoveries of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, such as the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the like. The addition of approximately 5,800 New Testament mss. that we currently have just in Greek, compared to a handful that Erasmus had at his disposal, shows how much more equipped we are in understanding the intricacies and complexities of Koine Greek than he was in the early 1500s.

Philemon Zachariou——Ph.D Bible scholar, linguist, & native Greek speaker——uses various lines of evidence, including Plato’s writings, to show that ι = ει = η = [i] (kratylos 418c) is similar to Neohellenic Greek. He summarizes the evidence as follows:

“iotacism is not a ‘modern’ development but is traceable all the way to Plato’s day.” He further claims that “the phonemic sounds of mainstream Modern Greek are not ‘modern’ or new but historical; and the Modern Greek way of reading and pronouncing consonants, vowels, and vowel digraphs was established by, or initiated within, the Classical Greek period (500-300 BC).” [34]

He concludes that no pronunciation comes closer to Koine than Modern Greek.

Similarly, David S. Hasselbrook, who studies New Testament Lexicography, says that a number of new words that occur in the New Testament continue to have the same meanings in modern Greek. These words are closer to modern Greek than Classical Greek. Constantine R. Campbell, Associate Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, also says that Modern Greek helps to resolve text-critical issues related to pronunciation, whereas the Erasmian may lead down the wrong path! [35]

——-

Notes

1 Pronunciation of Ancient Greek in teaching (Wiki).

2 Johann Reuchlin (Wikipedia).

3 Ibid.

4 Pronunciation of Ancient Greek in teaching.

5 Ibid.

6 Ancient Greek phonology (Wikipedia).

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid.

9 Koine Greek phonology (Wikipedia).

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid.

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid.

14 Ibid.

15 Ibid.

16 Erasmus (Wikipedia).

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid.

19 Pronunciation of Ancient Greek in teaching.

20 Ibid.

21 Ibid.

22 Ibid.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid.

25 Ibid.

26 Ibid.

27 Ibid.

28 What are the pros and cons of the Erasmian

pronunciation? (Quora).

29 Ibid.

30 Ibid.

31 The Great Greek Pronunciation Debate (SBL)

32 Ibid.

33 Ibid.

34 Philemon Zachariou, PhD - YouTube Video

35 Ibid.

A Comparison Between Erasmian & Modern Pronunciation

Matthew 7 - Erasmian Pronunciation -https://youtu.be/vKrqwhBwur8

Matthew 7 - Modern Greek Pronunciation -https://youtu.be/ktmnpVzxPw4

——-

Selected Bibliography

Allen, William Sidney (1987). Vox Graeca. A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Greek (3rd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. ix–x. ISBN 978-0-521-33555-3. Retrieved 22 June 2019.

Jannaris, A. (1897). An Historical Greek Grammar Chiefly of the Attic Dialect As Written and Spoken From Classical Antiquity Down to the Present Time. London: MacMillan.

Papadimitrakopoulos, Th. (1889). Βάσανος τῶν περὶ τῆς ἑλληνικῆς προφορᾶς Ἐρασμικῶν ἀποδείξεων [Critique of the Erasmian evidence regarding Greek pronunciation]. Athens.

https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/1466927

Academic Dictionaries and Encyclopedias

Ancient Greek phonology

is the study of the phonology, or pronunciation, of Ancient Greek. Because of the passage of time, the original pronunciation of Ancient Gre

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek_phonology

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronunciation_of_Ancient_Greek_in_teaching

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iotacism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus

en.m.wikipedia.org

Erasmus - Wikipedia

Erasmus - Wikipedia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Reuchlin

en.m.wikipedia.org

Johann Reuchlin - Wikipedia

Johann Reuchlin - Wikipedia

https://quora.opoudjis.net/2016/01/24/2016-01-24-what-are-the-pros-and-cons-of-the-erasmian-pronunciation/

https://danielstreett.com/2011/12/01/the-great-greek-pronunciation-debate-sbl-2011-report-pt-3/amp/

καὶ τὰ λοιπά

The Great Greek Pronunciation Debate (SBL 2011 Report, pt. 3)

At this year’s annual Society of Biblical Literature meeting in San Francisco, there was a session sponsored jointly by the Biblical Greek L

https://youtu.be/wYtrVlpnpg4

Divine Providence & Concurrence

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim

——-

The Doctrine of Providence

The classical doctrine of “divine providence” asserts that all events occur according to God’s sovereign will. The Reformed tradition rejects “chance” as having any consequence or playing any part in the natural world. The Latin word provideo, from which is derived the term “providence,” means “foresight.” So, etymologically speaking, the term “providence” means foreknowledge & is related to predestination. In Calvinism, providence highlights the complete sovereignty of God & the radical corruption of man.

However, Arminianism theology doesn’t agree with Calvinism on the issues of election & predestination. Arminianism asserts that God has a limited mode of providence. According to this mode of providence, divine foreknowledge & free will are compatible but theological determinism is not. In this view, predestination is based on foreknowledge, and on conditional election (human faith), not on God’s absolute Sovereignty.

According to Paul’s teaching, God “will repay according to each one's deeds” (Rom. 2.6 NRSV). But how can there be moral culpability in a hard determinism model? Calvinists argue God has predestined everything “according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to his counsel and will” (Ephesians 1.11):

τὰ πάντα ἐνεργοῦντος κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν

τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ (προς Εφεσίους 1.11

SBLGNT).

Yes, everything works according to God’s will. But neither Calvin nor this verse tells us specifically to what degree or to what extent do all things work according to his will. To assume or presuppose that everything is wholly and completely working according to his will creates an inherent logical fallacy that implies either that God’s will is ineffective or that it is flawed. It would be considered ineffectual in bringing about the desired result, specifically when his will is seemingly opposed, or flawed in the sense that there is an unfavorable result as concerns his benevolent divine attributes. In either case, God would not be “God” in terms of sovereignty. In other words, the attribution of pure evil to the divine will would contradict his attributes of omnibenevolence (see Ps. 92.15; Ps. 106.1; 135.3; Isa. 65.16; Nah. 1.7; Mk 10.18; Jn 17.17; Tit. 1.1-2; Jas. 1.13). If we are to attribute the cause of all the horrific acts of evil in this world to the very God who is said to fight & oppose them, we are doing him a disservice. Calvin’s theology does not square well with the New Testament notion “that God is light and in him there is no darkness at all” (1 Jn 1.5)!

Calvinism also entails a theological contradiction because humans could not be held morally responsible for their actions and therefore could not be judged. Besides, if everything worked according to the will of God, then why does Paul say: “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling”? (Phil. 2.12). We wouldn’t need to work out anything. God would do it all. But that’s not what Paul’s teaching implies.

In my view, the doctrine of providence, expressed as the complete sovereignty of God, is as faulty as the pre-trib rapture doctrine. Both are based on wishful thinking and a false sense of security.

——-

The Doctrine of Concurrence

The term “concurrence” refers to the cooperation of God and a human being in a combined attempt to generate an action. In Calvinist theology, this means that human beings do not operate autonomously but that every one of their actions and thoughts is controlled by the sovereign will of God. Calvinists often present Biblical support for this view by quoting passages that might be misconstrued as referring to predestination when they’re actually talking about foreknowledge. For example, in Jos. 11.6, God’s assurance to Joshua of Israel’s victory may be due to foreknowledge rather than predestination. They also interpret many passages in the literal sense of the word, rejecting shades of meaning, nuances, or other levels of interpretation. So, for example, 1 Kings 22:20-23 says that “the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets.” In the narrative, it appears as if God is causing these actions, if read literally. However, the development & continuation of the scene shows that God permits rather than causes these actions to take place. And because he has the final say on the matter, it is written as if he has done it himself. In fact, this shows us, metaphorically, how the process of evil works and how God grants it permission. It’s the same story in Proverbs 21.1, which says that “The king's heart is … in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will.” These interpreters jump to conclusions without knowing if this is due to God’s permission, foreknowledge, or will. In fact, in Calvinism, God is said to cooperate with evil. In his book, “systematic theology,” Louis Berkhof writes:

it is also evident from Scripture that there is

some kind of divine co-operation in that

which is evil. According to II Sam. 16:11

Jehovah bade Shimei to curse David. The

Lord also calls the Assyrian ‘the rod of mine

anger, the staff in whose hand is mine

indignation,’ Isa. 10:5.

He goes on to say:

The work of God always has the priority, for

man is dependent on God in all that he

does. The statement of Scripture, ‘Without

me ye can do nothing,’ applies in every field

of endeavor.

However, what Jesus means by this saying is that without a spiritual rebirth we can do nothing. He’s not necessarily referring to the doctrine of concurrence per se. The doctrine of concurrence in Arminian theology rejects the Calvinist notion of exhaustive determinism. Calvinists have fired back at Arminians that they deny the sovereignty of God. Roger E. Olson, a classical Arminian, says:

If we begin by defining sovereignty

deterministically, the issue is already

settled; in that case, Arminians do not

believe in divine sovereignty. However, who

is to say that sovereignty necessarily

includes absolute control or meticulous

governance to the exclusion of real

contingency and free will?

In other words, there is no hard determinism in Arminianism. In this view, the implication is that God is not the author of sin or evil. He simply permits these to exist for a greater purpose. Arminians believe in God’s sovereignty. But that doesn’t mean that God controls every thought, every behavior, every word, or every choice one makes. The problem with Calvinism is that although they support the concurrence of God in all actions and events, they nevertheless deny that God is the author of evil or the responsible party for all corruption.

In discussing Wayne Grudem’s Calvinist views, Ken Schenck, a New Testament scholar, writes:

The understanding here of God's

‘cooperation’ with human action is subtle

and needs to be understood very carefully.

In Grudem's view, humans feel like they are

acting freely even though God is really

behind the scenes making them do what

they do. We experience our actions as free

actions even though God is really directing

them. This is a position that William James

called ‘soft determinism’ in the late 1800s.

——-

Conclusion

The absolute sovereignty of God presupposes that God is the author of sin. However, the attribution of pure evil to the divine will would scripturally contradict God’s attributes of omnibenevolence (e.g. Ps. 92.15; Ps. 106.1; 135.3; Isa. 65.16; Nah. 1.7; Mk 10.18; Jn 17.17; Tit. 1.1-2; Jas. 1.13). To attribute the cause of all the abominable acts of evil in this world to the very God who is said to fight & oppose them is equivalent to a misunderstanding of the fundamental “truths” of scripture. Calvin’s theology does not square well with the New Testament notion “that God is light and in him there is no darkness at all” (1 Jn 1.5)!

——-

A Response to Brendan Stupik’s John Calvin and The Authorship of Evil

By Bible Researcher & Author Eli Kittim 🎓

Mr. Brendan Stupik is a writer, a Reformed Calvinist, and a musician. As far as I can tell, he has no degrees in higher education, not even a bachelors degree, no published books or articles, and no formal Biblical training in an academic or seminary setting. Yet he excoriated me after reading one of my articles “Does God Create Evil?: Answering the Calvinists” in which I conclude that under Calvinism, God creates evil. He publicly criticized and rebuked me sharply and promised to formally refute my views on his blog, apologeticsrepo.wordpress.com, which he did with his article “John Calvin and The Authorship of Evil: A Critique and Review of Eli Kittim’s Answering the Calvinists.” I heartily disagree with Mr. Stupik on many issues relating to Calvinism, but I will nevertheless try to take his views seriously.

Stupik (no pun intended) has written a scathing review of “Does God Create Evil?: Answering the Calvinists” on his Wordpress Blog. In his essay, he’s trying to portray my thesis as “a weak argument” because he claims that “no textual evidence is cited to support” my interpretation. What is more, he accuses me of “attacking a straw man.” That is, he assumes that I create an imaginary Calvinist that is cut out of whole cloth, and then I proceed “to ‘refute’ this imaginary Calvinist.” He, therefore, concludes that mine is not a “sound refutation of Calvinism.” These attacks are sustained throughout his post, and they sometimes become personal. So, to put this matter to rest, I will present a great deal of evidence, especially from Calvin’s own works.

Stupik begins his criticism by taking aim at my credentials, trying to paint a false picture of me as one who lacks writing skills, who mishandles quotations, and whose competence in literary matters must be doubtful. And yet, for those of you who don’t know me, I’m a Bible Scholar and a graduate of the Koinonia (Bible) Institute as well as the John W. Rawlings School of Divinity. I’m a native Greek speaker, fluent in Koine Greek, and I read the New Testament in the original language. I also hold a masters degree in psychology. I’ve been writing and publishing articles for over 40 years. I have published articles in numerous prestigious journals and magazines, such as the "Journal of Higher Criticism," "The American Journal of Psychoanalysis," the "Aegean Review" (which has published work by Jorge Luis Borges, Lawrence Durrell, Truman Capote, Alice Bloom), and the "International Poetry Review" (a literary translation journal), among others. I’m also an award-winning book author of “The Little Book of Revelation: The First Coming of Jesus at the End of Days.” Not to mention the hundreds of articles that have been posted on my blog in the past decade: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/

eli-kittim.tumblr.com

Eli of Kittim

Eli Kittim is a Biblical Researcher and an Award-Winning Goodreads Author of the...

So, this type of ad hominem attack certainly doesn’t help his cause. He writes:

The ever-so frustrating lack of quotation

marks and citations once again blurs the

lines between Mr Kittim and his source

material’s words.

Stupik continues:

Mr. Eli Kittim abruptly begins his critique …

with a quote from prominent reformed

theologian Dr. R.C Sproul. ‘There is no

maverick molecule if God is sovereign’ he

transcribes, and then, interjecting,

elaborates that ‘if God cannot control the

smallest things we know of in the universe,

such as the subatomic particles known as

“quarks,” then we cannot trust him to keep

His promises.’ At first glance of the article

itself, one may be justifiably met with

confusion. Are these the words of Dr.

Sproul, or of Mr. Kittim? Granted, Dr. Sproul

has previously expounded upon his

‘maverick molecule’ catchphrase in similar

fashion, but there are no quotations, and

there is no citation!

Apparently, Stupik is not familiar with block quotes, which are offset from the main text, indented, double-spaced, and require no quotation marks. Just to give the reader an idea of Stupik’s misrepresentation, here’s the actual page. Notice how R.C. Sproul’s quote is very clearly distinguished from the main text by being indented and double-spaced: “Does God Create Evil?: Answering the Calvinists”: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/656643262452531200/does-god-create-evil-answering-the-calvinists

Eli of Kittim

Does God Create Evil?: Answering the Calvinists

By Award-Winning Author Eli Kittim ——- Calvinism Has Confused God's Foreknowledge With His Sovereignty Dr. R.C. Sproul once said:

As you can see, there’s absolutely no question as to which are Dr. Sproul’s words and which are mine. Moreover, famous quotes by famous authors are in the public domain. They require no citation. This smacks of underhand tactics to taint my reputation from the outset——so as to manipulate the readers——and portray my essay as if it involves nothing but literary incompetence.

Furthermore, his refusal to acknowledge the obvious meaning of Dr. Sproul’s statement shows a lack of familiarity with the theological literature. He writes:

Kittim, continues, ‘Just because God sets

the universe in motion doesn’t mean that

every detail therein is held ipso facto to be

caused by him.’ … Kittim however, …

provides no biblical evidence to the contrary

of omnicausality, fatalism, or determinism.

Additionally, in the aforementioned quote,

Dr. Sproul makes no such claim of

omnicausality, fatalism, or determinism;

he’s simply making a point of God’s

sovereignty– that is to say, his

omniordinance.

All these points are disingenuous and misrepresent both Dr. Sproul and Calvinism. As I will show, there is overwhelming evidence of omnicausality and theological determinism in Calvinism. And anyone familiar with Dr. Sproul——who has read and heard his lectures on this topic—-knows quite well that this is exactly what he means when he says “There is no maverick molecule if God is sovereign.” Stupik also criticizes me for introducing the doctrine of foreknowledge without sufficiently explaining it. But anyone undertaking a critical review of my work on this topic should be thoroughly steeped in this concept and should not require preliminary definitions, especially when Calvin himself rejected it as a theological alternative to his doctrine of sovereignty. Moreover, he quotes me as saying “God could still be sovereign and yet simultaneously permit the existence of evil and free will.” To which he adds: “Again, this is also agreeable in a general sense. … John Calvin held virtually the same position – albeit in a more nuanced way.” No, he didn’t! This is a complete fabrication and an utter misunderstanding of Calvin’s thought, as I will show in due time.

Actually, Stupik himself does the very thing he accuses me of doing when he’s sometimes mingling his quotes with mine, adding irrelevant citations, coupled with a few punctuation errors and typos where we don’t even know exactly which New Testament letter he’s referring to. He mentions Cor 2:7, but is it 1 Corinthians or 2 Corinthians? It’s anyone’s guess. Just like his essay, his citations are sometimes vague and ambiguous, off-topic, and in short supply.

Then he says something that conveys his lack of theological understanding: “The reason why God predestined some for salvation does not matter, and so Kittim’s apparent reason (that God foreknew them) is not a sound refutation of Calvinism.” Of course it matters! If God is held accountable for orchestrating everything according to his sovereign will, then neither the devil nor human beings can be held morally responsible for all their crimes against humanity. Besides, there can be no free will. How can he possibly say that the criteria upon which God predestined a limited few to salvation——and a great deal more to damnation——“does not matter”?

He asks:

If God predestined his elect because He

foreknew them, why must he predestine

them to do anything at all? In other words, if

God foreknew that someone would ‘freely

choose’ him, of what use is predestination?

This is mentioned in the Bible in order to reject the theological notion that God cannot possibly know the future in an exhaustive sense. It lets us know that God can indeed foresee the future as well as those who will accept or reject his invitation to salvation (cf. Isaiah 46.10). The ability to see events in the future not only certifies and authenticates the message and character of God, for the purpose of putting your trust in the Lord, but it also reveals his omniscience through the inscripturated words: “I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God” (Isa. 45.5; 46.9 NIV; cf. Deut. 18.20-22). Thus, through the doctrine of foreknowledge or predestination, the Lord informs us that he is truly God and that he’s able to foresee those who will inherit eternal life and be glorified! It’s Stupek’s view that is actually incomprehensible. Why would scripture tell us that some have been predestined to hell and some to heaven before their birth? How does that justify a just and righteous God?

Then Stupik challenges my interpretation of the parable of the vineyard workers found in Matthew 20:1-16. I write:

The point of the parable is that God is fair.

No one gets cheated. However, in

Calvinism, God is not fair. He does as he

pleases. He creates evil and chooses who

will be saved and who will be lost. … That’s

why Calvinism speaks of limited atonement.

Christ’s atoning death is not for everyone,

but only for a select few.

To which Stupik responds:

As for Kittim’s first point, that God is ‘unfair’

in Calvinism, no explanation is given as to

why this Calvinist God is ‘unfair.’ Is God

unfair because he does what he pleases?

No, because he cannot desire sin. Is God

unfair because he doesn’t save all? No,

because we are not deserving of God’s

mercy and grace, and so his necessary

judgement is merely a form of God’s perfect

righteousness.

Just as he rarely uses citations to support his views, he similarly offers no proof, here, not even a passing reference to show how God’s arbitrary judgments to save some, but not others, can be reconciled with “God’s perfect righteousness.” He further compounds his mistakes by neither acknowledging nor addressing the well-known fact that Calvinist predestination is based on God’s will, not man’s. He brushes that aside by trying to excuse the unjust decrees of the Calvinist god——when he randomly predestines people to hell——as something we actually deserve, even if those decrees were formulated before we were born. How ironic is that?

In fact, he goes so far as to say:

As John Calvin himself wrote, ‘Though their

perdition depends on the predestination of

God, the cause and matter of it is in

themselves.’ Of course, God does not have

to create evil in order for the reprobate to

exist. In our fallen state, we are incapable of

salvation. Although He ordains all that

comes to pass, God has never been the

direct and efficient cause of evil; he is

inversely incapable of doing so.

This is actually a misleading description of Calvinist theology. It will become apparent shortly that it is completely bogus and misinformed! Initially, I wrote that “Calvinists often use Bible verses out-of-context to support the idea that God is partial: that he plays favorites with human beings. They often quote Exodus 33.19b.” Yet, Stupik asked for proof whether this is, in fact, the case. This is a rather silly point which reveals a certain degree of incompetence and immaturity on his part, and it’s also a dead giveaway that Stupik is not quite so literate as he would have us believe. To ask for proof that Calvinists use Exodus 33.19 to support that God is partial is like asking for proof that the pope is Catholic.

Then he tries to shift the focus and explain away Calvin’s view of divine bias through a sort of glorification of favoritism. In other words, he suggests that god’s discrimination isn’t so much about the inequality of injustice and partiality as it is about the glory of election. Yet, the idea that the Calvinist god predestinates the doom of the reprobate is conveniently neither discussed nor even acknowledged by Stupik.

Stupik’s language is often vague, ambiguous, and difficult to understand, forcing us to guess what he means. He first defends god’s bias and partiality, even though it is not a flattering attribute of the Calvinist god who randomly and arbitrarily chooses who will be saved and who will be lost, but later he will contradict himself by defending the Calvinist god as just, ethical, and righteous. In attempting to exegete Romans 8.28-29, he says:

the very semantics of the verse create a

much better case for partiality. If the verse

is a proof of impartiality, why is the verse

about ‘οτι ους (those whom) God foreknew’,

and not simply ‘all’? As it deals with a

specific group – ‘οτι ους,’ there is inherent

partiality present in Rom 8:28-29.

Additionally, … there are plenty of verses

which create a strong case for partiality –

chiefly in the very existence of the

reprobate. Presented in short-form for

brevity, see Matt. 13:49-50, 1 Thess. 1:9,

Matt. 5:22, and 2 Thess. 1:7b-8 for

yourselves. Clearly, if the Calvinist

soteriology is correct, the New Testament

more definitively describes a God of even

bare-minimum partiality – insofar as not all

will be saved..

Incidentally, in Romans 8.29, the reason God speaks about those whom he foreknew (ὅτι οὓς προέγνω) is because he’s only speaking about the elect: those who will inherit eternal salvation. He’s obviously not talking about the unsaved: those who will NOT inherit eternal salvation. So why would we expect him to speak about “all” people in the context of salvation? Romans 8.29 is not talking about God’s partiality in choosing some over against others but rather about the salvation of the elect: “those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son.” It would be an eisegesis to interpret this verse as evidence of partiality. That’s not what it’s talking about. And that’s precisely why the context doesn’t warrant a reference to “all” people. Besides, to say that God foresaw the elect beforehand is not the same as saying that God caused some to be the elect and others to be reprobates. Here Stupik is positing his own private interpretation, which is based on poor research methods.

But notice the 180 degree turn in the opposite direction where Stupik now claims to agree with me and argues that “God ‘does not cause everything to happen as it does,’ because … he is never the efficient cause of evil”:

As clarified earlier, God is not the direct, or

in Aristotelian terms, the efficient cause of

evil. In other words, God is not creating evil.

Kittim asks ‘What ever happened to the

attribute of omnibenevolence, the doctrine

that God is all-good, sans evil (cf. Ps 106.1;

135.3; Nah. 1.7; Mk 10.18)? Isaiah 65.16 calls

him “the God of truth” (cf. Jn 17.17), while

Titus 1.1-2 asserts that God “never lies.” ‘

The answer is simple, Calvinism shares that

very doctrine (Institutes 3:23:2-5).

Stupik continues:

A most common misunderstanding of

Calvinism is that Calvin did not believe in

any form of free will. As stated earlier,

Calvin did in fact believe in a form of human

agency, as he details in Institutes Book 1

Chapter 15 Section 8.

I will prove that this is actually not true. In fact, you cannot look an atheist in the eye and tell them that Christ died for you. You’d be lying because, according to Calvinism, he may not have died for them. So the story goes…

So, there seems to be a theological confusion in Calvinism about what God does and doesn’t do. In my view, predestination is based on foreknowledge, not on the impulsive whims of a capricious deity. To “cause” is one thing; to “foreknow” is quite another.

Predestination

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

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

But if we study both the Old and New Testaments, especially in the original Biblical languages, we will come to realize that predestination doesn’t seem to be based on God’s sovereignty but rather on his “foreknowledge.” This is the *Prescience* view of Predestination, namely, that the decision of salvation and/or condemnation is ultimately based on an individual’s free choice. For example, John MacArthur argues that “the offer is always unlimited or man couldn’t be condemned for rejecting it.”

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

I will destine [or predestine] you to the

sword, and all of you shall bow down to the

slaughter, because, when I called, you did

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

but you did what was evil in my eyes and

chose what I did not delight in.

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

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

For God so loved the world that he gave his

one and only Son, that whoever believes in

him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Notice, it doesn’t say that only a limited few can believe and be saved by Jesus. Rather, it says “whoever believes in him [ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν] shall not perish but have eternal life.” That is, anyone who believes in Jesus will not be condemned but will be saved, and will therefore be reckoned as one of the elect. Verse 17 says: “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” Once again, there’s a clear distinction between the individual and the world as a whole, as well as a contrast between condemning and saving the world, and we are told that the Son was sent to save the entire world. The next verse (v. 18) explains that condemnation itself ultimately lies not with God but with our own personal choices and decisions. “Whoever does not believe stands condemned already” (i.e. is predestined to condemnation):

Whoever believes in him is not condemned,

but whoever does not believe stands

condemned already because they have not

believed in the name of God’s one and only

Son.

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

This is the verdict: Light has come into the

world, but people loved darkness instead of

light because their deeds were evil.

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

Why would God call them if he already knew that they wouldn’t be chosen? Would he be calling them out of spite? What is more, according to the Biblical text, anyone can become a member of God’s family. Just because God already “foreknows” who will accept and who will reject his soteriological invitation doesn’t mean that people are held unaccountable. For Christ doesn’t only take away the sin of the elect, but of the entire world (Jn 1.29 NKJV): “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” First John 2.2 reads:

And He Himself is the propitiation for our

sins, and not for ours only but also for the

whole world.

In a similar fashion, Rev 22.17 (KJ) says: “Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely [δωρεάν].” That doesn’t sound to me like a predestined election in which only a select few will receive the water of life, but rather a proclamation that salvation is “freely” (δωρεάν) offered to anyone who desires it. Moreover, in 2 Pet. 3.9 (ESV), we are told that “The Lord” doesn’t want to condemn anyone at all: “[he’s] not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” Is this biblical reference compatible with Calvin’s views? Definitely not! Calvin suggests that god is the author of sin and the only one who ultimately decides on who will repent and who will perish.

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

This is right and is acceptable in the sight of

God our Savior, who desires everyone to be

saved and to come to the knowledge of the

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

mediator between God and humankind,

Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave

himself a ransom for all [ὑπὲρ πάντων].

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

But there were also false prophets among

the people, even as there will be false

teachers among you, who will secretly bring

in destructive heresies, even denying the

Lord who bought them, and bring on

themselves swift destruction.

Prescience (Foreknowledge)

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

and was declared to be the Son of God in

power according to the Spirit of holiness by

his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ

our Lord.

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

Similarly, Rom. 8.29 (ESV) tells us that those he “foreknew” (προέγνω), the same God προώρισεν (from προορίζω), that is, foreordained, predetermined, or pre-appointed beforehand. And Rom. 8.30 goes on to say that those he προώρισεν (predetermined) were the same that God also called, justified, and glorified. Verse 29 says: “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son.” Notice that God’s *foreknowledge* temporally precedes predestination. If God already predestined some, but not others, before the foundation of the world, then his foreknowledge would be irrelevant. But since it is on this basis that God predestines, it doesn’t sound as if predestination is chosen on the basis of God’s sovereign will.

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

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

Quotations From Calvin’s Works

Excerpted from John Calvin’s “Institutes of the Christian religion,” Book 3, ch 23.

Calvin’s chief argument can be summarized as follows: men are, by nature, wicked, so if god has predestined some to eternal hellfire, why do they complain? They deserve it. He exclaims:

Accordingly, when we are accosted in such

terms as these, Why did God from the first

predestine some to death, when, as they

were not yet in existence, they could not

have merited sentence of death? let us by

way of reply ask in our turn, What do you

imagine that God owes to man, if he is

pleased to estimate him by his own nature?

As we are all vitiated by sin, we cannot but

be hateful to God, and that not from

tyrannical cruelty, but the strictest justice.

But if all whom the Lord predestines to

death are naturally liable to sentence of

death, of what injustice, pray, do they

complain?

He continues his accusatory thought that even though god condemned people to hellfire long before they were born or had done anything to warrant such an outcome, they nevertheless deserve it and should not complain. Calvin callously says:

Should all the sons of Adam come to

dispute and contend with their Creator,

because by his eternal providence they

were before their birth doomed to perpetual

destruction, when God comes to reckon

with them, what will they be able to mutter

against this defense? If all are taken from a

corrupt mass, it is not strange that all are

subject to condemnation. Let them not,

therefore, charge God with injustice, if by

his eternal judgment they are doomed to a

death to which they themselves feel that

whether they will or not they are drawn

spontaneously by their own nature.

But if this decree was foreordained by an absolutely sovereign god even before people were born and prior to having committed any transgressions, why are they held accountable for their sins? It appears to be a contradiction. Curiously enough, John Calvin,

admit[s] that by the will of God all the sons

of Adam fell into that state of wretchedness

in which they are now involved; and this is

just what I said at the first, that we must

always return to the mere pleasure of the

divine will, the cause of which is hidden in

himself.

So he admits that we all sinned “by the will of God” and that god does as he pleases, yet he concludes: who are we to question god’s decisions? But is this a proper explanation of predestination that fully justifies god’s justice, or is it rather an incoherent and unsatisfactory answer? Calvin insensitively asserts:

They again object, Were not men

predestinated by the ordination of God to

that corruption which is now held forth as

the cause of condemnation? If so, when

they perish in their corruptions they do

nothing else than suffer punishment for that

calamity, into which, by the predestination

of God, Adam fell, and dragged all his

posterity headlong with him. Is not he,

therefore, unjust in thus cruelly mocking his

creatures? … For what more seems to be

said here than just that the power of God is

such as cannot be hindered, so that he can

do whatsoever he pleases?

Reprobation, according to Calvin, is based on the notion “that not all people have been chosen but that some have not been chosen or have been passed by in God’s eternal election.” But if no one deserves the merits of salvation, and if no one obeys the will of god except by god’s grace, then how is god’s election justified? Calvin’s response that it’s justified because god is just is not an explanation: it is a tautological redundancy. Calvin’s reply would be: god decided not to save everybody, and who are we to criticize him? Unfortunately, that’s not an adequate or satisfactory answer.

God’s decision to save some people is called election, and his decision not to save other people is called preterition. According to Calvinism, god chooses to bypass sinners by not granting them belief, which is equivalent, in a certain sense, to creating unbelief (by omission) in them. In other words, god chooses to save some, but not others. And it pleases him to do so. So, is the god of Calvinism just?

Is this truly the love of Christ that is freely offered to all? By contrast, according to Scripture, God wishes to save everyone without exception (1 Tim. 2.4; 2 Pet. 3.9; Ezek. 18.23; Mt. 23.37). When Matthew 22.14 says, “For many are called, but few are chosen,” it clearly shows that those that are not chosen are still “called.” It doesn’t mean that god did not choose them for salvation. It means they themselves chose to decline the offer of their own accord. How can one logically argue that god wants all people to be saved but only chooses to save some of them? It is a contradiction in terms. And then to attribute this injustice and inequality to what appears to be an “arrogant” god who does as he pleases is dodging the issue.

However, Calvin rejects prescience on account “that all events take place by his [god’s] sovereign appointment”:

If God merely foresaw human events, and

did not also arrange and dispose of them at

his pleasure, there might be room for

agitating the question, how far his

foreknowledge amounts to necessity; but

since he foresees the things which are to

happen, simply because he has decreed

that they are so to happen, it is vain to

debate about prescience, while it is clear

that all events take place by his sovereign

appointment.

So, Calvin ultimately places all responsibility and accountability on god, who has foreordained all events “by his sovereign appointment.” But if hell was prepared for the devil and his angels (Mt 25.41), and if god is held accountable for orchestrating everything, then the devil cannot be held morally responsible for all his crimes against humanity. Therefore, according to Calvinism, it would logically follow that god is ultimately responsible for evil, which would implicate himself to be ipso facto evil! There’s no way to extricate god from that logical conclusion. And many Calvinists admit that God creates evil. Jim Brown of Truth & Grace Ministries is one of them.

Calvin Says that god Created Evil at his Own Pleasure

In Calvin’s view, god decreed that Adam should sin. In other words, god decrees all sin, which is a sign of his omnipotence and will. How revolting? Calvin writes:

They deny that it is ever said in distinct

terms, God decreed that Adam should

perish by his revolt. As if the same God, who

is declared in Scripture to do whatsoever he

pleases, could have made the noblest of his

creatures without any special purpose.

They say that, in accordance with free-will,

he was to be the architect of his own

fortune, that God had decreed nothing but

to treat him according to his desert. If this

frigid fiction is received, where will be the

omnipotence of God, by which, according to

his secret counsel on which every thing

depends, he rules over all?

Invariably, Calvin places the blame indirectly on god. Calvin holds to an uncompromising hard-determinism position, without the slightest possibility of free will, by claiming that even god’s foreknowledge is “ordained by his decree”:

it is impossible to deny that God foreknew

what the end of man was to be before he

made him, and foreknew, because he had

so ordained by his decree.

If this isn’t an evil doctrine, I don’t know what is. I’m not sure how much more blasphemous or heretical it can get. This is a far more dangerous doctrine than, say, that of the Snake handling Christian cults. Calvin unabashedly declares that god created evil in the world “at his own pleasure.” He further expounds his abominable view by writing:

God not only foresaw the fall of the

first man, and in him the ruin of his

posterity; but also at his own

pleasure arranged it.

Wasn’t Satan the one who supposedly arranged it? Hmm, now I’m not so sure … If god is the author of evil and the author of sin, why would he involve Satan in this script? In fact, Calvin insists that the wicked perish not because of god’s permission but because of his will. He says that “their perdition depends on the predestination of God … The first man fell because the Lord deemed it meet that he should: why he deemed it meet, we know not.” What a dreadful thing to say. It’s as if Calvin was under the inspiration of Satan, teaching “doctrines of demons” (1 Tim. 4.1 NKJV). Calvin continues:

Here they recur to the distinction between

will and permission, the object being to

prove that the wicked perish only by the

permission, but not by the will of God. But

why do we say that he permits, but just

because he wills? Nor, indeed, is there any

probability in the thing itself–viz. that man

brought death upon himself merely by the

permission, and not by the ordination of

God; as if God had not determined what he

wished the condition of the chief of his

creatures to be. I will not hesitate, therefore,

simply to confess with Augustine that the

will of God is necessity, and that every thing

is necessary which he has willed.

Calvin attempts to show that there’s no contradiction in his statement but, instead of providing logical proof, he once again resorts to circular reasoning, namely, that the accountability rests with an authoritarian god who does as he pleases. He goes on to say:

There is nothing inconsistent with this when

we say, that God, according to the good

pleasure of his will, without any regard to

merit, elects those whom he chooses for

sons, while he rejects and reprobates

others.

Instead of admitting that this is his own wicked view of god, which certainly deserves rebuke and severe criticism, he suggests that this is the way god really is. In other words, he indirectly blames god by way of compliments. By insisting on god’s Sovereignty and omnipotence, he sets god up to take the blame for everything. Yet in his evasive and largely indefensible argument, he ends up justifying the seemingly “capricious” acts of god by saying that god is still just:

Wherefore, it is false and most wicked to

charge God with dispensing justice

unequally, because in this predestination he

does not observe the same course towards

all. … he is free from every accusation; just

as it belongs to the creditor to forgive the

debt to one, and exact it of another.

Conclusion

Just because God set the universe in motion doesn’t mean that every detail therein is held ipso facto to be caused by him. God could still be sovereign and yet simultaneously permit the existence of evil and free will. This is not a philosophical contradiction (see Compatibilism aka Soft determinism).

The Calvinist god is not fair. He does as he pleases. He creates evil and chooses who will be saved and who will be lost. He is neither trustworthy nor does he equally offer unconditional love to all! In fact, this view is more in line with the capricious gods of Greek mythology than with the immutable God of the Bible.

Calvin’s deity is surprisingly similar to the god of the Gnostics, who was responsible for all instances of falsehood and evil in the world! This is the dark side of a pagan god who doesn’t seem to act according to the principles of truth and wisdom but according to personal whims. With this god, you could end up in hell in a heartbeat, through no fault of your own. Therefore, Calvin’s god is more like Satan!

This is certainly NOT the loving, trustworthy, and righteous God of the Bible in whom “There is no evil” whatsoever (Ps 92.15 NLT; Jas. 1.13). Calvin’s god is not “the God of truth” (Isa. 65.16; cf. Jn 17.17), who “never lies” (Tit. 1.1-2), and who is all-good, sans evil (cf. Ps 106.1; 135.3; Nah. 1.7; Mk 10.18). Calvin’s theology does not square well with the NT notion “that God is light and in him there is no darkness at all” (1 Jn 1.5 NRSV)!

Thus, Calvin’s argument is not only fallacious, unsound, and unbiblical, but also completely disingenuous. For if “life and death are fixed by an eternal and immutable decree of God,” including the prearrangement of sin “at his own pleasure,” as Calvin asserts, then “to charge God with dispensing justice unequally” is certainly a valid and robust criticism! Calvin harshly accused his critics of promulgating blasphemies, but little did he realize the greater blasphemies and abominations that he himself was uttering! A case in point is that he makes God the author of sin!

Jonathan Edwards (who was of the Reformed tradition), in his treatise on The Freedom of the Will, wrote:

I do not deny that God is the Author

of Sin.

Therefore, in Calvinism, God has become Satan!

——-

God’s Gender in Contextual Theology: Should We Preserve the Biblical Text in Light of New Age Interpretations?

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

I’m all for women’s rights, and I admit that in heaven there is no gender (Gen. 1:26-27; Mk. 12:25). I also know that many members of the LGBTQ+ community have been **reborn** in God. It’s also true that the masculine form of God is sometimes added to the English Bible translations, as Bruce Metzger argues.

However, from a textual perspective, I disagree with the idea that every name of God in the Bible means God/dess in its original language, as some feminist theologians contend. Although conventional Jewish theology doesn’t ascribe the notion of sex to God, it’s clear that the gender of God in the Tanakh is presented with masculine grammatical forms & imagery. For example, in the Hebrew Bible, Elohim is masculine in form. Also, when referring to YHWH, the verb vayomer (“he said”) is definitely masculine; we never find vatomer, the feminine form. In Psalms 89:26, God is explicitly referred to as “Father”:

He shall cry unto me, Thou art my Father,

My God, and the rock of my salvation.

In Isaiah 63:16, God is directly addressed as “our Father":

Thou, O Jehovah, art our Father; our

Redeemer from everlasting is thy name.

The same holds true in the Greek New Testament. For example, Κύριος (Kyrios) is a Nominative Masculine Singular noun which means “Lord.” Θεὸς (Theos) is a Nominative Masculine Singular noun which means God. In Luke 1:68, the definite article ὁ (ho), which refers to the God of Israel (ὁ θεὸς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ), is a Nominative Masculine Singular (he). None of these phrases referring to the Lord (ό Κύριος) or to God (ό Θεός) have feminine forms in the original Koine Greek. Even the incarnated God is said to be male (see Rev. 12:5)!

However, many modern Bible translations furnish us with new additions, paraphrases, and grammatical forms that clearly deviate from the Biblical texts. They do not remain faithful to the original biblical languages in preserving their literal meanings. For example, there are numerous modern Bible translations——such as the NLT, the CEV, and the NRSV——which attempt to reword the original texts by adopting gender-neutral language. This is not simply a benign translation philosophy based on a feminist biblical interpretation, but it can also be seen as a tool for political activism in trying to change gender perceptions and alter the Bible’s authorial intent. This is theologically dangerous because when we tamper with the Bible’s grammatical structures we gradually lose the precise words of the revelations as they were given in their original forms. According to Wayne Grudem, the translator’s job is to translate the original language accurately and precisely rather than to offer opinions regarding gender-related questions.

The doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration——the notion that each word was meaningfully chosen by God——supersedes the cultural milieu by virtue of its inspired revelation. Therefore, the language from which the text is operating must be preserved without additions, subtractions, or alterations (cf. Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18-19). Accordingly, it is incumbent on the Biblical scholars to maintain the integrity of the text.

For example, since the mid-nineteenth century, the New Testament was not only significantly changed by the Westcott and Hort text but it has also been evolving gradually with culturally sensitive translations regarding gender, sexual orientation, racism, inclusive language, and the like. Contextual theology has broadened the scope of the original text by adding a whole host of modern political and socioeconomic contexts (e.g. critical theory, feminist theology, etc.) that lead to many misinterpretations because they’re largely irrelevant to the core message of the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus!