What Does The Phrase Mean In 1 Timothy 2.6?

🔎 What Does the Phrase καιροῖς ἰδίοις Mean in 1 Timothy 2.6? 🔍

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 📚🎓

There is a mysterious phrase in the Greek New Testament which seems to suggest that the evidence for Christ’s death has not yet been demonstrated. If one considers Christ’s historicity and death as a foregone conclusion, then this terse phrase certainly questions this assumption. Let’s go a little deeper and look at some of the details. The Greek text of First Timothy 2.5-6 (SBLGNT) declares:

εἷς γὰρ θεός, εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ

ἀνθρώπων ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, ὁ

δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων, τὸ

μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδίοις ·

The last clause literally means: the martyrdom/testimony [given] in its own times.

We must first understand what the Greek term μᾰρτῠ́ρῐον (martúrion) means. It actually has several meanings:

1. testimony, evidence, proof

2. martyrdom

3. shrine of a martyr

Since 1 Timothy 2.5-6 is explicitly referring to Christ’s death as a ransom (ἀντίλυτρον), it is therefore appropriate to regard the term μαρτύριον (martúrion) in this particular context both as a testimony and as a martyrdom. Let’s look at the translation of 1 Timothy 2.5-6 (KJV):

“For there is one God, and one mediator

between God and men, the man Christ

Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to

be testified in due time.”

There is something deeply perplexing about the last clause. If the testimony took place in Christ’s own time, then why will the evidence or proof be put forth “in due time”?

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the phrase “in due time” means “eventually at an appropriate time,” as in the sentence “I will answer all of your questions in due time.” Therefore, the KJV seems to suggest that the evidence establishing these facts will come at some future time period. The text is referring specifically to Christ’s death as “a ransom for all.” So, the KJV suggests that the evidence for Christ’s death will be demonstrated “in due time.” Bear in mind that this is the same English Bible translation which says elsewhere that Christ will die “ONCE IN THE END OF THE WORLD” (Hebrews 9.26b italics mine)! Let’s look at a cross-reference in 1 Timothy 6.14-15 (the same letter), which has the exact same phrase (καιροῖς ἰδίοις):

τηρῆσαί σε τὴν ἐντολὴν ἄσπιλον

ἀνεπίλημπτον μέχρι τῆς ἐπιφανείας τοῦ

κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἣν καιροῖς

ἰδίοις δείξει ὁ μακάριος καὶ μόνος

δυνάστης, ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων

καὶ κύριος τῶν κυριευόντων.

Translation (NASB):

“keep the commandment without fault or

reproach until the appearing of our Lord

Jesus Christ, which He will bring about at

the proper time—He who is the blessed and

only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord

of lords.”

First Tim. 6.15 has the exact same phrase that we find in 1 Tim. 2.6, namely, καιροῖς ἰδίοις, and in this particular context it is a reference to “the appearing of our Lord Jesus,” which elsewhere is called “the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1.7; 1 Pet. 1.7, 13; Rev. 1.1)! Here, the Greek phrase καιροῖς ἰδίοις means “at the proper time” or, more accurately, “in its own times” (YLT). And it refers to the future revelation of Jesus in his own time.

But if 1 Timothy was written at the end of the first century——and the evidence for Christ’s death had already, presumably, been demonstrated in the New Testament books——why would the author insist that the proof of Christ’s death comes “in its own times”? It doesn’t make any sense. If Jesus died ca. 30 AD, and the writer of 1 Timothy is writing at around 100 AD, 70 years later, then why would the testimony of Jesus’ death be given at the proper time, or in Christ’s own time? The author doesn’t say that the testimony was already given but rather suggests that it will be given in due time. In other words, why isn’t the testimony given right then and there? Or, why isn’t the testimony considered as something that was already given in the past about the occurrence of a previous event?

Readers often read 1 Timothy 2.6 and ignore the last clause, or they skip it as if it doesn’t really mean anything. But it does! In fact, it is the key to understanding the passage. First Timothy 2.5-6 (NASB) reads:

“For there is one God, and one mediator also

between God and mankind, the man Christ

Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for

all, the testimony given at the proper time.”

Notice how the last clause is translated in modern Bible versions. Most versions translate it correctly, without committing the clause to a past reference point, thereby suggesting that the evidence for Christ’s death is given in Christ’s own time (whenever that is…).

The New International Version gets it horribly wrong. The editors are clearly basing their translations on their theological bias. Nowhere does the Greek text say that the testimony “has now been witnessed.” Yet that’s what the NIV says at 1 Tim. 2.6:

“This has now been witnessed to at the

proper time.”

Unfortunately, that is unsubstantiated by the Greek text, which reads:

τὸ μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδίοις ·

However, most of the modern Bible translations actually get it right:

ESV - “which is the testimony given at the

proper time.”

KJV - “to be testified in due time.”

ASV - “the testimony to be borne in its own

times.”

DRB - “a testimony in due times.”

YLT - “the testimony in its own times.”

Conclusion

Hebrews 9.26b (KJV) says that Jesus will die “once in the end of the world.” First Peter 1.20 (NJB) says that Christ is “revealed at the final point of time.” Revelation 12.5 says that the Messiah is born in the end times. Acts 3.19-21 says that the Messiah cannot come “until the period of restoration of all things.” Galatians 4.4 says that Christ is born in “the fullness of the time,” which Eph. 1.9-10 defines as the consummation of the ages! Moreover, the auditory and visual impressions of the transfiguration narrative in 2 Peter 1.16-18 constitute an apocalyptic *prophecy,* which is revealed in verse 19:

“so we have the prophetic word made more

sure, to which you do well to pay attention

as to a lamp shining in a dark place.”

What is more, 1 Timothy 2.6 (written at ca. 100 AD) says that Christ’s death is meant “to be testified in due time.” The author is certainly NOT referring to 70 years prior to the time that he penned this letter (i.e. ca. 30 AD)! Therefore, it's perplexing why this mysterious phrase “to be testified in due time” is inserted in the text, and what is its temporal implication. That’s because it implies that the testimony of Christ’s death seems to be forthcoming rather than being already available!

The Error of Subordinationism

By Biblical Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

Ontological Subordinationism

The theological literature defines Subordinationism as comprising hierarchical rankings amongst the persons of the Trinity, thus signifying an ontological subordination of both the Son and the Spirit to the Father. The word ontological refers to “being.” Although some of the ante-Nicene fathers supported subordinationism, this doctrine was eventually condemned as heretical by the Post-Nicene fathers:

Athanasius opposed subordinationism, and

was highly hostile to hierarchical rankings

of the divine persons. It was also opposed

by Augustine. Subordinationism was

condemned in the 6th century along with

other doctrines taught by Origen.

Epiphanus writing against Origen attacked

his views of subordinationism. — wiki

Calvin also opposed subordinationism:

In his Institutes of the Christian Religion,

book 1, chapter 13 Calvin attacks those in

the Reformation family who while they

confess ‘that there are three [divine]

persons’ speak of the Father as ‘the

essence giver’ as if he were ‘truly and

properly the sole God’. This he says,

‘definitely cast[s] the Son down from his

rank.’ This is because it implies that the

Father is God in a way the Son is not.

Modern scholars are agreed that this was a

sixteenth century form of what today is

called, ‘subordinationism’. Richard Muller

says Calvin recognised that what his

opponents were teaching ‘amounted to a

radical subordination of the second and

third persons, with the result that the Father

alone is truly God.’ Ellis adds that this

teaching also implied tritheism, three

separate Gods. — wiki

The Eastern Orthodox position is yet another form of subordinationism that has asserted the Monarchy of the Father to this day:

According to the Eastern Orthodox view, the

Son is derived from the Father who alone is

without cause or origin. — wiki

The Catholic Church, however, is overtly antithetical to the subordinationism doctrine:

Catholic theologian John Hardon wrote that

subordinationism ‘denies that the second

and third persons are consubstantial with

the Father. Therefore it denies their true

divinity.’ — wiki

In theology proper, unlike ontological subordination, there is also the doctrine of “economic subordination” in which the Son and the Holy Spirit play subordinate roles in their functions, even though they may be ontologically equal to the Father. New Calvinists have been advancing this theory of late:

While contemporary Evangelicals believe

the historically agreed fundamentals of the

Christian faith, including the Trinity, among

the New Calvinist formula, the Trinity is one

God in three equal persons, among whom

there is ‘economic subordination’ (as, for

example, when the Son obeys the Father).

— wiki

According to the Oxford Encyclopedia, the doctrine of Subordinationism makes the Son inferior to the Father, and the Holy Spirit inferior to the Son. It reads thusly:

Subordinationism means to consider Christ,

as Son of God, as inferior to the Father.

This tendency was strong in the 2nd- and

3rd-century theology. It is evident in

theologians like Justin Martyr, Tertullian,

Origen, Novatian, and Irenaeus. Irenaeus,

for example, commenting on Christ's

statement, ‘the Father is greater than I’

(John 14:28), has no difficulty in

considering Christ as inferior to the Father.

… When Origen enlarged the conception of

the Trinity to include the Holy Spirit, he

explained the Son as inferior to the Father

and the Holy Spirit as inferior to the Son.

Subordination is based on statements

which Jesus made, such as (a) that ‘the

Father is greater than I’ (John 14:28); (b)

that, with respect to when the day of

Judgment will be, ‘of that day or hour no

one knows, not even the angels in heaven,

nor the Son, but the Father alone’ (Mark

13:32), and that He spoke of God as

somebody else (Mark 11:18). — wiki

However, Jesus’ statements are made from within the confines of his human condition, and thus they don’t pertain to his eternal status. As the Son of Man, namely, as a finite, limited human being, in comparison with the eternal Father, Jesus is obviously incapable of knowing all things. So Jesus’ statements must not be taken out of context and used to support the idea that he’s ontologically an inferior God. Micah 5.2 would certainly challenge that notion when it reveals that the messiah is actually uncreated: “His times of coming forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity.” Subordinationism ultimately leads to Arianism, the notion that the Son was created by the Father, and is not thus God:

Arius, therefore, held that the Son was

divine by grace and not by nature, and that

He was created by the Father, though in a

creation outside time. In response, the

Nicene Creed, particularly as revised by the

second ecumenical council in

Constantinople I in 381, by affirming the co-

equality of the Three Persons of the Trinity,

condemned subordinationism. — wiki

According to The Westminster Handbook to Patristic Theology, Subordinationism sees “the Son” and “the Spirit of God” as lesser deities, especially as demi-gods, or inferior gods:

Subordinationism. The term is a common

retrospective concept used to denote

theologians of the early church who

affirmed the divinity of the Son or Spirit of

God, but conceived it somehow as a lesser

form of divinity than that of the Father.

— wiki

Subordinationism is reminiscent of Gnosticism in which there’s a supreme God as well as lesser divinities. In Subordinationism, the Son is viewed as an inferior god, or a lesser god. However, as will be shown, Jesus is not a subordinate god in relation to God the Father. Some theologians argue that although the three persons of the Godhead are coequal, coeternal, and consubstantial ontologically, the Son and the Spirit are nevertheless subordinate in terms of economy, that is, in terms of their functions and roles. This notion of ranking or subordination within the trinity is supposedly supported by scripture when it says that the Father “sent” the Son (Jn 6.57), or that the Father and the Son “send” the Spirit (Jn 15.26), or that the spirit will “speak only what he hears” (Jn 16.13).

But this still implies a greater versus a lesser god, which makes the Trinity theologically indefensible! Not to mention that these verses are taken out of context. The temporal operations of the Son and the Spirit are scripturally depicted in anthropomorphic terms, ascribing human characteristics to divine operations and energies so that they can be better understood. As, for example, when scripture says that God changed his mind, or that he repented. And as regards Jesus’ connection to the God of the Hebrew Bible, appropriate New Testament language must be used so as to preclude a theological deviation from the monotheistic God of the Old Testament. Nevertheless, scripture does tell us categorically and unequivocally who Jesus is. Revelation 1.8 tells us that the Son is the Almighty! Who, then, ranks above him? Moreover, Jesus is Yahweh (the Lord) in the New Testament. Proverbs 8.28-30, John 1.3 and Hebrews 1.2 all indicate that Jesus is the creator. John 1.3 declares:

All things came into being through him

[Jesus], and without him not one thing

came into being.

Acts 4.12 reminds us of Jesus’ preeminent position within the Godhead:

there is salvation in no one else; for

there is no other name under heaven that

has been given among mankind by which

we must be saved.

In my view, subordinationism leads to tritheism!

The Eternal Subordination of the Son

The doctrine that the Son is eternally created by God the Father smacks of Arianism, as if his divinity is mediated to him by God the Father, implying that the Son doesn’t legitimately possess divinity in and of himself. It suggests that the Son and the Father were not always God in the same way, and that there was a time when the Son did not exist. Accordingly, only the Father was in the beginning. In other words, the Son is not eternal. This view holds that the Son is God only because Godhood is bestowed on him as a gift from the Father. To phrase it differently, the Son is God by grace and not by nature. Today, among the theologians who hold to Subordinationism are Bruce A. Ware, Wayne A. Grudem, and John W. Kleinig. But this doctrine contradicts John 1.1:

In the beginning was the Word, and the

Word was with God, and God was the word.

We must always remember that all of Jesus’ words must be understood within the context of the human condition. That is to say, Jesus is speaking of his human nature, as a human being, not as eternal God. He is a creature, a man, a finite being, located in time and space, and in that sense he is obviously in a subordinate relationship to the Father who remains eternal and is everywhere. So when Jesus employs the language of grace——specifying what the Father has “given” him——he is referring to what the eternal Father has done for the mortal Son of Man, namely, to give him authority, exaltation, worship, and glory (cf. Daniel 7.13-14). This apparent inequality between the Son and the Father is, strictly speaking, limited to Jesus’ humanity, a humanity which will then in turn redeem human nature and glorify his elect. It is not referring to Jesus’ ontological relationship with the Father, which is one of equality. And since he is appealing particularly to the monotheistic God of the old testament, which the Jews understood as a singular deity, Jesus is careful to use the language of grace in order to appease the Jews who would otherwise take exception to an incarnate God. But scripture is quite adamant about the fact that Jesus is both man and God! John 1.14 puts it thusly:

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt

among us.

Colossians 2.9 reveals that the Son is fully God, and that the fullness of the godhead (πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος) dwells in him bodily:

in him the whole fullness of the godhead

[θεότητος] dwells bodily.

Hebrews 1.3 proclaims that the Son is of the same essence as the Father:

The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and

the exact imprint of his being.

Titus 2.13 calls him “our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” And in John 1.3 and Hebrews 1.2 Jesus is the creator and the “heir of all things, through whom he [God] also created the worlds.” That is to say, the Son of Man, in his *human nature*——as the mediator and savior of mankind——becomes heir of all things. Not that the Godhood is given to him as a gift or as an inheritance. How can a lesser god or a created being act as the ultimate judge of the universe? John 5.22 reads:

For the Father judgeth no man, but hath

committed all judgment unto the Son.

It doesn’t mean that the Son is given this office as a gift because the Son is God by nature and not by grace! How can God the Father hand over his Sovereignty to God the Son as a gift if Yahweh never yields his glory to another?

I am the LORD [Yahweh]; that is my name! I

will not yield my glory to another.

— Isaiah 42.8

How can an inferior god, a lesser god, or a created god be completely sovereign over the entire universe? In Matthew 28.18, Jesus declares:

All authority in heaven and on earth has

been given to me.

The clincher, the verse that clearly demonstrates the Son’s divine authority is Revelation 1.8. Since we are not waiting for the Father but rather for the Son to arrive, it becomes quite obvious that this is a reference to Jesus Christ:

‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the

Lord God, ‘who is, and who was, and who is

to come, the Almighty.’

In Daniel 7.14, why was the Son of Man “given authority, glory and sovereign power”? Why did “all nations and peoples of every language worship[ed] him”? If he’s a created being, why do the heavenly host prostrate before the Son in heaven? Partly because he is God, but also because of his deeds on earth. Revelation 5.12 exclaims:

Worthy is the Lamb that was slaughtered to

receive power and wealth and wisdom and

might and honor and glory and blessing!

Not that the Son doesn’t have power, or wealth, or wisdom, or honor, or glory, or blessing. But it’s as if additional exaltation is offered to him because of his achievements as a human being (as the Son of Man)! First Timothy 6.15-16 calls Christ the “only Sovereign” God and that “It is he alone who has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light”:

he who is the blessed and only Sovereign

[μόνος δυνάστης], the King of kings and

Lord of lords. It is he alone who has

immortality [ἀθανασίαν] and dwells in

unapproachable light, whom no one has

ever seen or can see.

Hebrews 1.3 reveals that the Son (not the Father) “upholds the universe by the word of his power.” Colossians 1.17 also says: “He [Christ] is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (cf. Philippians 3.21). What is more, if the Son is subordinate to the Father, then the Father is the source of life, not the Son. Yet John 14.6 says the exact opposite, to wit, that the Son is both “the truth” and “existence” itself:

Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the

truth, and the life.’

Jesus also alludes to himself as Yahweh, using the ontological Divine Name “I AM” from Exodus 3.14:

Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly I say to you,

before Abraham was born, I am.’

— John 8.58

In Matthew 28.18, Jesus says that “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Ἐδόθη μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς·). That means that Jesus has *ALL AUTHORITY*; not just some authority or most authority. So, if the Son possesses all authority, how is he subject to a higher authority? Consequently, there’s no one higher than him! We also know this through Special Revelation❗️

Eternal Sonship vs Incarnational Sonship

In his essay “JOHN 1:14, 18 (et al.),” Edward Andrews writes:

Literal translation philosophy versus

interpretive translation philosophy plays a

role here too. I submit that rendering

monogenēs as “only begotten” is the literal

rendering. In translating the Updated

American Standard Version (UASV), our

primary purpose is to give the Bible readers

what God said by way of his human

authors, not what a translator thinks God

meant in its place.—Truth Matters! Our

primary goal is to be accurate and faithful

to the original text. The meaning of a word

is the responsibility of the interpreter (i.e.,

reader), not the translator.

Therefore, a literal reading of monogené̄s is “only begotten” or “only-born.” However, scholars commonly argue whether the meaning of the Greek word μονογενὴς (monogenēs) is “only begotten” or “unique.” I will discuss that in a moment. Moreover, theologians have devised the doctrine of eternal Sonship, and have viewed this process as an eternal begetting, namely, the eternal begetting of the Son. That is to say, the 2nd person of the Trinity has always been the Son of God throughout all eternity. This is primarily based on the Nicene Creed (325 A.D.) which states: "We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.” However, the preposition “from” (e.g. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God) is very problematic. So is the phrase “eternally begotten of the Father.” Both suggest that the the 2nd person is not fully God in his own right but derives his divinity eternally from the Greater God, the Father. So, for example, if the Father were to suddenly cut off the supply lines, for whatever reason, the Son would no longer be God. That’s the implication. Insofar as this language gives priority to the Father as the only true God, it suggests that the Son and Spirit are inferior and that they derive their divinity and existence from the Father. Yet Isaiah 9.6 calls the Messiah “Everlasting Father”!

In his book “Systematic Theology,” Wayne Grudem identifies one particular hermeneutical problem with these types of interpretations, namely, that they try to illustrate the eternal relationships within the Godhead based on scriptural information which only address their relationships in time. Therefore, it is both feasible and conceivable that the Bible uses the terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to describe the manner in which the members of the Trinity relate to humanity in space-time. For instance, the numerous references pertaining to the Father “sending” the Son into the world allude to time. Furthermore, the Father-Son-and-Holy-Spirit formula is an “analogy” to the human family and to human relationships, not an exact representation concerning the relationships of the persons within the Trinity. Moreover, the notion that the Son is “eternally begotten” of the Father is dangerously close to Arianism, which maintains that the Son of God didn’t always exist but was rather begotten by God the Father, thus implying that Jesus was not co-eternal with God the Father.

Those who take exception to the concept of eternal Sonship often espouse what is known as the doctrine of the Incarnational Sonship. While affirming the Son’s deity and eternality, this doctrine holds that he was not always the Son of God. Rather, his Sonship began when he was “begotten.” In other words, the Father-Son-and-Spirit formula only describes the manner in which the members of the Trinity relate to humanity in space-time. This means that the second person of the Trinity became the Son of God at some point in history, namely, at His incarnation. There are several nontrinitarian offshoots of this view, which hold that the second person of the Trinity was adopted as the Son of God at his baptism, his resurrection, or his ascension. This view is known as Adoptionism (also called dynamic monarchianism). Since this is a nontrinitarian formula which asserts that Christ was simply a mortal man who was later adopted as the Son of God at some point in human history, it has absolutely nothing to do with the Incarnational Sonship that I’m describing, which recognizes and affirms Christ’s deity and eternality. Advocates of this position view the Sonship of Christ as a title or a function that he historically assumed “in time,” at his incarnation. They do not view the Sonship of Christ as an essential element of “who he is” within the Trinity. The same is true of the Father. According to this view, the first person of the Trinity became the Father at the time of the incarnation.

MacArthur (who has since changed his position) originally denied that Jesus was “always subservient to God, always less than God, always under God.” He claimed that sonship is simply an “analogy.” In like manner, Ergun Caner describes Sonship as “metaphor.” Caner similarly argues that “sonship began in a point of time, not in eternity.” Other notable Christians who have taken exception to the doctrine of eternal Sonship are Albert Barnes, Walter Martin, Finis J. Dake, and Adam Clarke.

The language of Hebrews 1.5 clearly defines the relationship of the Father to the Son as beginning during Christ’s incarnation. That’s precisely why this verse is often used as proof of the Incarnational Sonship, in which the titles of Father and Son begin to be applied during a specific event that takes place at a particular point in time: “ ‘You are my Son; today I have become your Father.’ Or again, ‘I will be his Father, and he will be my Son.’ “ Thus, there seems to be an apparent subordination in the economy of God only insofar as Christ’s human nature is concerned.

Monogenēs

Scholars often argue whether the meaning of the Greek word μονογενὴς (monogenēs) is “only begotten” or “unique.” Given the view of Incarnational Sonship, in which the titles of Father and Son begin to be applied during Christ’s incarnation, the expression “the only begotten God” seemingly means “the only God who has ever been born on earth!” And in that sense it also means “unique,” or “one of its kind.” Otherwise, if we think of the Son begotten eternally of the Father, it implies that he is not God in and of himself but derives his divinity from the Father. Thus, he is not “true God from true God”!

Although the term monogenēs could mean the “only one of its kind,” the literal meaning is “only begotten” or “only born.” Given that the earliest papyri have μονογενης θεος in John 1.18, for example, monogenēs seemingly means “the only God who has ever been born in time,” or the “only-born God” (i.e. only-begotten). Put differently, no other God has ever been born in history. But the primary meaning is “only begotten,” or, literally, “only-born.” However, its meaning is commonly applied to mean "one of a kind,” or “one and only.” We can see the interplay between the two meanings in the book of Hebrews:

The word is used in Hebrews 11:17-19 to

describe Isaac, the son of Abraham.

However, Isaac was not the only-begotten

son of Abraham, but was the chosen,

having special virtue. Thus Isaac was ‘the

only legitimate child’ of Abraham. That is,

Isaac was the only son of Abraham that

God acknowledged as the legitimate son of

the covenant. It does not mean that Isaac

was not literally ‘begotten’ of Abraham, for

he indeed was, but that he alone was

acknowledged as the son that God had

promised. — wiki

Nevertheless, excerpts from Classical Greek literature, as well as from Josephus, the Nicene creed, Clement of Rome, and the New Testament suggest that the meaning of monogenēs is “only-born”:

Only-born

Herodotus [Histories] 2.79.3 ‘Maneros was

the only-born (monogenes) of their first

king, who died prematurely.’ — wiki

Herodotus [Histories] 7.221.1 ‘Megistias sent

to safety his only-born (o monogenes, as

noun) who was also with the army.’ — wiki

Luke 9:38 ‘only born (o

monogenes)’ {noun}. — wiki

Josephus, Antiquities 2.263 ‘Jephtha’s

daughter, she was also an only-born

(monogenes) and a virgin.’ — wiki

John 3.16 For God so loved the world, that

he gave his only-begotten Son (o

monogenes uios). — wiki

Nicene Creed - ‘And in one Lord Jesus

Christ, the only-begotten Son of God.’

Clement of Rome 25 [First Epistle of

Clement] – ‘the phoenix is the only one

[born] (monogenes) of its kind.” — wiki

Notice the *meaning* in the last quotation. It’s not just the only-born, but “the only one [born] of its kind”: a combination of both interpretations. And that seems to capture the meaning of *monogenes* in the New Testament. The titles of Father and Son seemingly begin when Christ is earth-begotten or earthborn:

Heb. 1:5 ‘For unto which of the angels said

he at any time, ‘Thou art my Son (uios mou

ei su), this day have I begotten thee (ego

semeron gegenneka se)’? And again, I will

be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a

Son?’ (citing Ps.2:7, also cited Acts 13:33,

Heb. 5:5) —wiki

Filioque

In the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Father is seen as Greater than the Son and the Spirit. To offset this imbalance, the Nicene creed was amended by the Roman Catholic Church with the addition of the filioque clause. The original creed from the First Council of Constantinople (381) states that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the Father,” to which the Roman Catholic West added, “and the Son,” as an additional origin point of the Holy Spirit. Maximus the Confessor, who is associated more with the Orthodox East than with the Catholic West, didn’t take issue with the filioque. Similarly, I. Voronov, Paul Evdokimov and S. Bulgakov saw the Filioque as a legitimate theologoumenon (i.e. theological opinion)!

The reason we’re discussing the filioque is because this issue bears on the question of whether Jesus is God by nature or by grace. The Filioque was added to the Creed as an anti-Arian addition by the Third Council of Toledo (589). It is well-known that The Eastern Orthodox Church promotes the “Monarchy of the Father,” which signifies that the Father alone is the only cause (αἰτία) of the Son and the Spirit:

The Eastern Orthodox interpretation is that

the Holy Spirit originates, has his cause for

existence or being (manner of existence)

from the Father alone as ‘One God, One

Father’, Lossky insisted that any notion of a

double procession of the Holy Spirit from

both the Father and the Son was

incompatible with Eastern Orthodox

theology. — wiki

The view of the superiority of the Father actually finds expression in both east and west:

The Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215):

‘The Father is from no one, the Son from the

Father only, and the Holy Spirit equally from

both.’ — wiki

This view leads to Arianism, as can be seen from the seventeenth ecumenical council:

The Council of Florence, session 11 (1442),

in Cantate Domino, on union with the Copts

and Ethiopians: ‘Father, Son and holy Spirit;

one in essence, three in persons;

unbegotten Father, Son begotten from the

Father, holy Spirit proceeding from the

Father and the Son; ... the holy Spirit alone

proceeds at once from the Father and the

Son. ... Whatever the holy Spirit is or has, he

has from the Father together with the Son.’

— wiki

This implies that both the Son and the Holy Spirit are not God by nature but by grace. Thus, they’re not fully God: they’re inferior, lesser gods, created eternally by the Father so to speak. This smacks of Arianism and contradicts scripture which states that “in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Colossians 2.9). Conversely, Eastern Orthodoxy tends to put the Father on a pedestal:

In Eastern Orthodox Christianity theology

starts with the Father hypostasis, not the

essence of God, since the Father is the God

of the Old Testament. The Father is the

origin of all things and this is the basis and

starting point of the Orthodox trinitarian

teaching of one God in Father, one God, of

the essence of the Father (as the uncreated

comes from the Father as this is what the

Father is). — wiki

Conclusion

It doesn’t appear as if there are hierarchical rankings amongst the persons of the Trinity, comprising an ontological subordination of both the Son and the Spirit to the Father. To say that “the Son is derived from the Father who alone is without cause or origin” is nothing short of Arianism. As Catholic theologian John Hardon put it, subordinationism denies that the Son and the Spirit are consubstantial with the Father. Thus, it denies their divinity. This doctrine can be construed as if Christ, the Son of God, were inferior to the Father. It would also invalidate the three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial divine persons of the Trinity. The New Testament also makes it abundantly clear that Jesus is Yahweh (i.e. the Lord) and the almighty (see Revelation 1.8)!

It’s also clear that there’s no eternal Sonship in which Christ is eternally begotten. The appellations of Father and Son relate to the economy of God as it pertains to the Incarnation of Christ (cf. Hebrews 1.5). And *monogenēs* doesn’t seem to mean that the Son is eternally begotten and ontologically subordinate to the Father. Rather, it seems to denote the only God who has ever been born in time, or the “only-born God” (i.e. only-begotten). That is to say, no other God has ever been born in human history. So, as the Son of Man, Christ can be described as both “unique” and as the “only begotten.”

Finally, it should be stressed that Jesus is God by nature, not by grace which suggests Adoptionism. The Filioque was added to the creed as an anti-Arian formula to offset the “Monarchy of the Father,” which signifies that the Father alone is the only cause (αἰτία) or principle of the Son and the Spirit. However, there’s no basis for claiming an ontological inequality within the Trinity. What is more, it’s *a contradiction in terms* to speak of an inferior and a superior God. God is God. And there’s only one God. Therefore, if we don’t want to fall into heresy, we must maintain the concept of the Trinity, which affirms the existence of one God in 3 coequal, coeternal, consubstantial divine persons who share one essence (homoousion)!

Eli Kittim - Amazon Author Page

https://www.amazon.com/author/ekittim

amazon.com

Eli of Kittim

Follow Eli of Kittim and explore their bibliography from Amazon.com's Eli of Kittim Author Page.

Speaking in Tongues

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

Speaking in tongues (aka glossolalia) is in fact a biblical spiritual gift. But it refers to speaking a known human language. It is mentioned in several places, including Acts 2.1-11, 1 Corinthians 13, and 14. It is said to be a gift from God. But not every believer receives this gift. Therefore, speaking in tongues is not a necessary manifestation of salvation. Paul says that there are various gifts distributed by one and the same spirit. In 1 Corinthians 12.8-11, Paul says:

To one is given through the Spirit the

utterance of wisdom, and to another the

utterance of knowledge according to the

same Spirit, to another faith by the same

Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one

Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to

another prophecy, to another the

discernment of spirits, to another various

kinds of tongues, to another the

interpretation of tongues. All these are

activated by one and the same Spirit, who

allots to each one individually just as the

Spirit chooses.

However, since everything in the spiritual life can be mimicked, so can this gift. In the spiritual life, there are authentic gifts of grace, but there are also false imitations. Some thinkers maintain that the *division* between authentic and inauthentic epistemic concepts doesn’t really exist. The assumption is that people create a false dichotomy out of whole cloth, which is labeled as the “No true Scotsman” fallacy. In other words, the appeal to purity or truth constitutes an informal fallacy in which one attempts to defend their generalization from a falsifying exception by precluding the said exception inappropriately. But very often the so-called “no true Scotsman fallacy” is not a fallacy at all. That’s because it wrongly presupposes that rhetorical concepts such as “true,” “real,” “authentic,” “genuine,” and “pure” are nonsubstantive platitudes that don’t exist. However, this form of Relativism is completely bogus and misinformed!

Although the “no true Scotsman fallacy” can be applied in some measure to expose fallacious argumentation, to indiscriminately repudiate truth-functional propositional logic is utterly erroneous. That’s because such a duality between the pure and the impure——between the true and the false, between the genuine and the bogus——does in fact exist in real life! This is *not* fallacious reasoning. For example, there are very expensive handbags that sell for millions of dollars. The Mouawad 1001 Nights Diamond Purse is selling at $3.8 million. The Hermes Kelly Rose Gold handbag is selling at $2 Million; the Chanel “Diamond Forever” Handbag at $261,000, and so on. But there are obvious copies and imitations, what we informally call “knockoff” merchandise. There are handbags made to look like these expensive ones that are of poor quality and that try to trick the buyer into thinking that they are authentic. Scammers with fraudulent merchandise abound in these types of businesses. These types of scams are happening everywhere at an alarming rate, whether we’re talking about the diamond industry, the home appliance industry, the technology industry, or the Clothing industry. So you can see that a real dichotomy between authentic and false versions does exist!

This carries over into the spiritual life as well. For instance, we have authentic versus inauthentic “salvation.” There are those who are radically changed and transformed by the spirit during a very painful experience called “the dark night of the soul,” and then there are those who go to a crusade and, without experiencing any suffering whatsoever, simply make a one-minute “pledge of allegiance” to Christ and mistake that for “rebirth” and “regeneration.” In the same way, there are those who receive the gift of tongues, but there are also those who exhibit false charismatic gifts without having received these gifts from God. You can find many of these false teachers in the pentecostal and charismatic movements, people like Benny Hinn, Peter Popoff, and Kenneth Copeland!

There are many YouTubers that have exposed these false spiritual imitations. However, they don’t usually do a good job of explaining the essential differences between the true and the false versions, and so they give off the wrong impression that almost all of them are fake. Some of these critics are “cessationists” who believe that the gifts of the spirit ceased during the apostolic age. But for those of us who have experienced the gifts of the spirit in a powerful way (i.e. “continuationists”), we know that this approach is dead wrong because it limits God in terms of what he can and cannot do. God is much bigger than that. God is neither dead nor inactive!

There’s also a further hermeneutical consideration, namely, how to interpret the biblical text when it refers to people speaking with new tongues. Is it always meant to be taken literally, or can speaking with new tongues be taken metaphorically? In some cases, it may not be a literal interpretation at all. Why? Well, take the concept of rebirth, for example. Rebirth means a new you: a new way of seeing, a new way of talking, a new way of being. A reborn person has a new language, new thoughts, new words. He doesn’t speak the way he used to. He speaks in a new language. Thus, speaking with new tongues can, in some rare instances, be taken metaphorically or symbolically. In Mark 16.17, Jesus says:

And these signs will accompany those who

believe: In my name they will drive out

demons; they will speak in new tongues.

In the final analysis, although speaking with new tongues is mentioned several times in the Bible as a gift of the Holy Spirit, we should, nevertheless, be cautious about people who advertise that they speak in new tongues, especially sensational Bible teachers who often preach on tithing and donations. Most of these claims are false, especially those made by people like pastor Bill Johnson——who heads up Bethel School of Supernatural Ministry——who will supposedly “equip you to walk in the gifts of the Spirit.” Nonetheless, there are authentic gifts of tongues that do in fact exist!

——-

Was the Septuagint Destroyed When the Library of Alexandria Was Burnt Down in 48 BC?

By Author Eli Kittim 🎓

The Argument

Some people (typically Jewish apologists) claim that the Septuagint doesn’t exist because it was destroyed when the Library of Alexandria was burnt down in 48 BC.

This conclusion, however, is both textually misleading & historically erroneous.

First

The Alexandrian Library and its collection were not entirely destroyed. We have evidence that there was only partial damage and that many of its works survived. According to Wiki:

The Library, or part of its collection, was

accidentally burned by Julius Caesar during

his civil war in 48 BC, but it is unclear how

much was actually destroyed and it seems

to have either survived or been rebuilt

shortly thereafter; the geographer Strabo

mentions having visited the Mouseion in

around 20 BC and the prodigious scholarly

output of Didymus Chalcenterus in

Alexandria from this period indicates that

he had access to at least some of the

Library's resources.

Second

The Septuagint had already been written and disseminated among the diaspora since the 3rd century BC, and so many of its extant copies were not housed in the Library of Alexandria per se.

Third

Textual Criticism confirms that the New Testament authors used the Septuagint predominantly and quoted extensively from it. If the Septuagint didn’t exist, where did the New Testament authors copy from? And how do you explain the fact that the New Testament and the Septuagint often have identical wording in their agreements?

Fourth

The Dead Sea Scrolls also demonstrate that the Septuagint was far more accurate than the 10th-century-AD Masoretic text. See, for example, the textual controversy surrounding Deuteronomy 32:8. Both the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint have “sons of God.” The Masoretic text is demonstrably inaccurate because it has “sons of Israel,” a later redaction. Israel didn’t even exist at that time!

Fifth

Emanuel Tov, a leading authority on the Septuagint who has explained the various textual families (or text-types) of the Old Testament, never once mentioned that we lost the Septuagint, or that it was destroyed, or that it was no longer in circulation. On the contrary, he claims that it continued to be in use during the Christian period and that it is much more older than the 10th-century-AD Masoretic text, which the Jews call the “Hebrew Bible.”

Sixth

If the Septuagint was completely destroyed, as some have erroneously suggested, from where were the later revisionists and translators copying from? We have historical evidence that they were, in fact, copying from the Septuagint itself. Wiki writes:

Theodotion … was a Hellenistic Jewish

scholar, … who in c. 150 CE translated the

Hebrew Bible into Greek. … Whether he was

revising the Septuagint, or was working

from Hebrew manuscripts that represented

a parallel tradition that has not survived, is

debated.

So there’s evidence to suggest that the Theodotion version is a possible *revision* of the Septuagint. This demonstrates that the Septuagint existed in the second century AD! Otherwise, where was Theodotion copying from if the Septuagint didn’t exist?

Seventh

The great work of Origen, Hexapla, compiled sometime before 240 AD, is further proof that the Septuagint was still in use in the 3rd century AD! Wikipedia notes the following:

Hexapla … is the term for a critical edition

of the Hebrew Bible in six versions, four of

them translated into Greek, preserved only

in fragments. It was an immense and

complex word-for-word comparison of the

original Hebrew Scriptures with the Greek

Septuagint translation and with other Greek

translations.

Encyclopedia Britannica adds:

In his Hexapla (“Sixfold”), he [Origen]

presented in parallel vertical columns the

Hebrew text, the same in Greek letters, and

the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, the

Septuagint, and Theodotion, in that order.

Eighth

Besides Origen’s Hexapla, we also have extant copies of the Septuagint. According to wiki:

Relatively-complete manuscripts of the

Septuagint postdate the Hexaplar

recension, and include the fourth-century-

CE Codex Vaticanus and the fifth-century

Codex Alexandrinus. These are the oldest-

surviving nearly-complete manuscripts of

the Old Testament in any language; the

oldest extant complete Hebrew texts date

to about 600 years later, from the first half

of the 10th century.

Ninth

There’s also historical and literary evidence that the Greek Septuagint was in wide use during the Christian period and beyond. Wiki says:

Greek scriptures were in wide use during

the Second Temple period, because few

people could read Hebrew at that time. The

text of the Greek Old Testament is quoted

more often than the original Hebrew Bible

text in the Greek New Testament

(particularly the Pauline epistles) by the

Apostolic Fathers, and later by the Greek

Church Fathers.

Tenth

Today, Biblical scholarship has a *critical edition* of the Septuagint. If it was destroyed in 48 BC, where did the critical edition come from? The Göttingen Septuaginta (editio maior) presents *a fully critical text* and should silence the skeptics and critics who try to mislead the public. They deliberately mislead the public by trying to discredit the far more reliable and much older Septuagint in order to get people to accept the much later Hebrew Masoretic text from the Middle Ages!

Spanish translation of Eli Kittim’s article

Traducción al español del artículo de Eli Kittim

——-

EVIDENCIA QUE DANIEL 12.1 SE REFIERE A UNA RESURRECCIÓN DE LOS MUERTOS BASADA EN LA TRADUCCIÓN Y EXÉGESIS DE LOS IDIOMAS BÍBLICOS

Por el autor Eli Kittim

¡Daniel 12.1 está en el contexto de la gran tribulación de los últimos tiempos! Se repite en Mateo 24,21 como el tiempo de la gran prueba: καιρός θλίψεως (cf. Apocalipsis 7,14).

Daniel Teodoción 12.1 LXX:

καὶ ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ ἀναστήσεται Μιχαηλ ὁ ἄρχων ὁ μέγας ὁ ἑστηκὼς ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ λαοῦ σου καὶ ἔσται καιρὸς θλίψεως θλῖψις οἵα οὐ γέγονεν ἀφ’ οὗ γεγένηται ἔθνος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἕως τοῦ καιροῦ ἐκείνου.

Theodotion Daniel 12.1 de la Septuaginta traduce la palabra hebrea עָמַד (amad) como αναστήσεται, que se deriva de la raíz de la palabra ανίστημι y significa “surgirá”.

Traducción:

En ese momento se levantará Miguel, el gran príncipe, el protector de vuestro pueblo. Habrá un tiempo de angustia, como nunca ha ocurrido desde que las naciones comenzaron a existir.

Mi afirmación de que la palabra griega ἀναστήσεται (“restaurará”) se refiere a una resurrección de entre los muertos ha sido cuestionada por los críticos. Mi respuesta es la siguiente.

La primera evidencia es el hecho de que Miguel es mencionado por primera vez como el que “resucitará” (ἀναστήσεται; Daniel Theodotion 12.1 LXX) antes de la resurrección general de los muertos (ἀναστήσονται; griego antiguo Daniel 12.2 LXX). Aquí, hay evidencia lingüística sólida de que la palabra ἀναστήσεται se refiere a una resurrección porque en el versículo inmediatamente siguiente (12.2) ¡la forma plural de exactamente la misma palabra (a saber, ἀναστήσονται) se usa para describir la resurrección general de los muertos! En otras palabras, si exactamente la misma palabra significa resurrección en Daniel 12.2, ¡entonces necesariamente también debe significar resurrección en Daniel 12.1!

La segunda evidencia proviene de la versión griega antigua de Daniel de la Septuaginta que usa la palabra παρελεύσεται para definir la palabra hebrea עָמַד (amad), que se traduce como “surgirá”.

El griego antiguo Daniel 12.1 versión LXX dice:

καὶ κατὰ τὴν ὥραν ἐκείνην παρελεύσεται Μιχαηλ ὁ ἄγγελος ὁ μέγας ὁ ἑστηκὼς ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ λαοῦ σου ἐκείνη ἡ ἡμέρα θλίψεως οἵα οὐκ ἐγενήθη ἀφ’ οὗ ἐγενήθησαν ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης.

La versión griega antigua de Daniel de la Septuaginta demuestra además que Daniel 12.1 está describiendo un tema de muerte y resurrección porque la palabra παρελεύσεται significa "fallecer" (morir), lo que indica el fallecimiento de este príncipe destacado en el momento de la muerte. ¡final! Por lo tanto, prepara el escenario para su resurrección, ya que la forma llamada "Theodotion Daniel" de la LXX llena los vacíos al usar la palabra αναστήσεται, que significa una resurrección corporal, para establecer el período de los últimos días como el tiempo durante el cual esta figura principesca resucitará de entre los muertos!