Author of “The Little Book of Revelation.” Get your copy now!!https://www.xlibris.com/en/bookstore/bookdetails/597424-the-little-book-of-revelation
447 posts
Eli-kittim - Eli Of Kittim - Tumblr Blog
Who or What is the Ark of the Covenant?
Eli Kittim
The Ark of the Covenant was a gold-plated wooden chest that housed the two tablets of the covenant (Heb. 9:4). Jewish folklore holds that the ark of the covenant disappeared sometime around 586 B.C. when the Babylonian empire destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. Throughout the centuries, many writers, novelists, ufologists, and religious authors have invented two kinds of wild and adventurous stories about the ark of the covenant. They either talk about fearless treasure-hunters, archaeologists, and paleographers who went hunting for the Lost Ark of the Covenant, or about ancient alien civilizations that made contact with humans in prehistoric times. This has led some authors to the startling conclusion that the ark of the covenant may have been part of a highly advanced ancient-alien technology. But the Biblical data do not support such outrageous and outlandish conclusions.
From a Biblical standpoint, both the “ark of the covenant” and “Noah’s Ark” are symbols that represent salvation in the death of the Messiah. Isaiah 53:5 reads thusly:
he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that
brought us peace, and with his wounds we
are healed.
We can also call it the covenant of salvation based on the atoning death of Christ (Heb. 9:17). If you pay close attention to the biblical symbols and details, you’ll notice that both Noah’s ark and the ark of the covenant represent some type of casket, which signifies the atoning death of the Messiah (that saves humanity). Christ’s covenant is based on his death. Without Christ’s death there is no salvation. That’s what ultimately redeems humanity from death and hell, and allows for resurrection and glorification to occur. Christ, then, is the ark of the covenant, also represented by Noah’s ark (which saves a few faithful humans who believe in God). The caskets are of different sizes. The smaller casket (the ark of the covenant) could only carry one person (the Messiah), whereas the larger one (Noah’s Ark) can accommodate all of humanity (symbolizing those who are baptized into Christ’s death). According to the Book “After the Flood,” by Bill Cooper, “The Hebrew word for ark, tebah, may be related to the Egyptian word db't, = ‘coffin.’ “ Romans 6:3 declares:
Do you not know that all of us who have
been baptized into Christ Jesus were
baptized into his death?
In other words, it’s not Christ’s incarnation but rather his death that saves humanity. All those who follow him and are baptized into his death are saved!
How is Christ the “ark of the covenant”? Christ is the Word of God (Jn 1:1), the Logos, or the Law of God (the Torah)! That’s why the ark of the covenant doesn’t dwell on earth but in heaven. Rev 11:19 reads:
Then God’s temple in heaven was opened,
and the ark of his covenant was seen within
his temple. There were flashes of lightning,
rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake,
and heavy hail.
Who dwells within God’s throne-room, within God’s temple, and is represented by the ark of the covenant? Answer: Jesus Christ! A similar scenario takes place in Revelation 21:2-3:
And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem,
coming down out of heaven from God,
prepared as a bride adorned for her
husband. And I heard a loud voice from the
throne saying, ‘Behold, the dwelling place of
God is with man. He will dwell with them,
and they will be his people, and God himself
will be with them as their God.’
Notice that the terms “God” and “the dwelling place of God” are used interchangeably. In other words, the metaphors of the dwelling place, the tent of meeting (ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ θεοῦ; i.e. the tabernacle), the temple and its sacrificial system, as well as the ark of the covenant, all represent God and signify the blood of the covenant or the blood of the lamb (1 Pet. 1:19; Rev. 7:14; 12:11)! Christ is not only the mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5), but also the high priest who offers up his own life for the salvation of humanity (Heb. 7:17). According to Acts 4:12, there is “no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved”: not Moses, or Muhammad, or Buddha, or Krishna, or Confucius, or Allah, or Yahweh. According to Philippians 2:10-11:
at the name of Jesus every knee should
bow, in heaven and on earth and under the
earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus
Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the
Father.
Therefore, he who is within the throne-room of God, and “among the people,” is none other than the Second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, who “will dwell with them” forevermore (Rev. 21:3). It’s a throwback to Leviticus, which prophesied the incarnation of God, but which the Jews misunderstood and misinterpreted. Leviticus 26:12:
I will be ever present in your midst: I will be
your God, and you shall be My people.
Compare Revelation 21.3:
He will dwell with them, and they will be his
people, and God himself will be with them
as their God.
The Two Witnesses of Revelation 11
Eli Kittim
The Two Witnesses are Anointed with Power
In Rev. 11:4, the two witnesses on earth are said to be “the two olive trees” of the Lord. This verse is based on the Old Testament:
“These are the two anointed ones who stand
by the Lord of the whole earth.”
— Zechariah 4:14
The term “Messiah” (Gk. Christos) is derived from the Hebrew word mashiach, which means “anointed one.” So, Zechariah 4:14 cannot be talking about anyone else except the Messiah. As I will demonstrate, these two anointed witnesses could be none other than Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. And these two are one! The Holy Spirit is often called the “Spirit of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:19), the “Spirit of Jesus” (Acts 16:7), or “the Spirit of His Son” (Gal. 4:6). We know that the Messiah is the “anointed one” (Dan. 9:26). But the Holy Spirit is “anointed” as well (1 Jn 2:20, 27), and anoints Jesus with power (see Lk 4:18; Acts 10:38). The anointing takes place when Jesus and the Holy Spirit become one (during Jesus’ baptism)! It is Jesus’ rebirth, so to speak, when the Holy Spirit enters him and anoints him with power (Lk 3:22; cf. Acts 2:1-4)!
As for those thinkers who take issue with this view, claiming that the two witnesses are probably Enoch and Elijah who never died, there are three problems with their theory. First, regardless of whether a biblical character died or not, scripture makes it clear that you only live once (Heb. 9:27); there is no reincarnation. A reincarnation of Enoch or Elijah is therefore out of the question. Second, neither Enoch nor Elijah were the anointed Messiah. Third, both of these fictional characters are “types” who represent and foreshadow the Messiah. Notice the specific typology that is presented in Revelation 11 which typifies the two witnesses’ unique relation and connection to Jesus: the two witnesses are said to prophesy in the exact same place where Jesus supposedly lived, and they will die in the exact same city where Jesus allegedly died. I think you can guess the rest of the script: “But after … three … days a breath of life from God entered them, and they stood up on their feet” (Rev. 11:11). Just like Jesus, they’ll be miraculously raised from the dead after 3 days!
Moreover, Rev. 11:6 says that the two witnesses have tremendous authority (ἐξουσίαν) over heaven and earth to do as they please. However, only Jesus has that kind of authority. No one else! Jesus says: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Mt. 28:18):
Ἐδόθη μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ
τῆς γῆς ·
Both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are called Witnesses
What is more, the two witnesses’ assignment is to bear witness to the truth (μαρτυρίαν; Rev. 11:7). The two persons of the Godhead who bear witness (μαρτυρήσει) to the truth on earth are Jesus and the Holy Spirit (see Jn 15:26; 18:37; Rom. 8:16; Heb. 10:15 [Μαρτυρεῖ/bears witness]). Case in point. First John 5:6 mentions the witness of the Spirit——namely, that God comes in the flesh——using the symbols of “water and blood” which represent the divinity and humanity of Jesus, thus indicating that he’s both God and man:
“This man, Jesus the Messiah, is the one
who came by water and blood—not with
water only, but with water and with blood.
The Spirit is the one who verifies this,
because the Spirit is the truth.”
Then, 1 John 5:7-8 goes on to explain that “these three [witnesses] are one”:
“For there are three witnesses
[μαρτυροῦντες] — the Spirit, the water, and
the blood—and these three are one.”
— 1 John 5:7-8
And 1 Jn 5:9 tells us that the content of this prophetic witness (ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ θεοῦ) concerns the coming of the Son of God in human form at some point in human history. The Greek verb ἐλθὼν (came) is not referring to the time of action, but rather to the Christological prophecy which is supposed to take place according to the scriptures (cf. 1 Cor. 15:3-4). So the testimony of the two witnesses of Revelation 11 is about the parousia, or the coming of Jesus to this earth! Interestingly enough, Rev. 1:5 calls Jesus “the faithful witness” (ὁ μάρτυς, ὁ πιστός). This is reiterated in Rev. 3:14 where Jesus is “the faithful and true witness.” Both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are said to be God’s two witnesses, and these two are one! Since no one else except God can do these extraordinary miracles (e.g. fire-breathing, controlling the weather & the sea [cf. Mk 4:39], causing plagues; Rev. 11:5-6), and given that the language of the Greek New Testament is pointing to the authority, anointing, and witness of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, there can be little doubt as to who these two witnesses are.
First Comes Christ; Then Comes the Antichrist
The sequence of end-time events also reveals New Testament parallels and verbal agreements that are consistent with the notion that the Messiah will come first, followed by the antichrist. Notice the same sequence in Rev. 11:7:
“And when they have finished their witness,
the beast that comes up out of the abyss
will make war with them and overcome
them and kill them.”
This is essentially the same sequence that we find in 2 Thess. 2. The restrainer must first be taken out of the way before the lawless one can be revealed (2 Thess. 2:7-8). In other words, the restrainer must be removed before the antichrist can appear on the world stage. This same motif is repeated in Rev. 12:3-4 (italics mine):
“a great red dragon, with seven heads and
ten horns [representing the Antichrist and
the final world empire] … stood before the
woman who was about to give birth, so that
when she bore her child he might devour it.”
The way Rev. 12:5 is described, it’s as if it gives us Jesus’ birth, resurrection, and ascension, minus his death (which is alluded to in verse 4):
“She gave birth to a male child, one who is to
rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her
child was caught up to God and to his
throne.”
So, in Rev. 12, the male child is born first, and then the red dragon kills it. It’s the exact same sequence in Rev. 6. First comes the peaceful white horseman “holding a bow” (representing the covenant; see Gen. 9:13 LXX) and wearing the Stephanos crown, which is typically worn by victors in Christ (Jas. 1:12; 2 Tim. 4:8; 1 Pet. 5:4; Rev. 2:10; 4:4), and then comes the red horse which triggers World War III (Rev. 6:3). We find the exact same sequence in Rev. 11:7. First come the two witnesses, and then comes the beast out of the abyss to kill them. This is the antichrist who must come after Christ. It’s the exact same motif in 2 Thess. 2:7-8 in which the restrainer must be killed before the antichrist can appear.
So, there’s a running theme throughout the New Testament which repeats the same end-time sequence in all these narratives, namely, the idea that Christ comes first, followed by the Antichrist! Thus, Christ’s coming is imminent (it can happen at any time)! But how is all this possible if Christ already died two thousand years ago? It’s possible because the gospels are not historical documents that correspond to real historical events. They’re theological narratives that are largely based on the Old Testament. By contrast, the epistles, which are the more explicit and didactic portions of scripture, say that Christ will die “once for all” (Gk. ἅπαξ hapax) “at the end of the age” (Heb. 9:26b), a phrase which consistently refers to the end of the world (cf. Mt. 13:39-40, 49; 24:3; 28:20). Similarly, just as Heb. 1:2 says that the physical Son speaks to humanity in the “last days,” 1 Pet. 1:20 (NJB) demonstrates the eschatological timing of Christ’s *initial* appearance by saying that he will be “revealed at the final point of time.” In other words, Revelation 6:2, 11:3, 12:5, and 19:11 all refer to the first coming of Jesus at the end of days!
Hi, what is the difference between the Elect and those who have the Seal of God? Or are they the same? Thanks!
They are the same!
Who Wrote the Gospels? Are They Giving us History? Is Luke 1:1-4 a Case Study?
Eli Kittim
I think we need to seriously reevaluate our traditional view of the New Testament. Almost everything we believe about it is wrong. Christianity is not a historical religion, and it doesn’t need to be defended through archaeology or historical apologetics (e.g. listing eyewitnesses, or proving the resurrection), as is often done. Similarly, the gospels are not historical documents that correspond to real historical events. One would be hard put to reconstruct the so-called “historical Jesus” through fictional/theological stories that are largely based on the Old Testament.
For example, if Luke wrote his gospel based on other people’s opinions (Lk 1:1-4), we are in big trouble! Here’s what probably happened. There was no oral Aramaic tradition.
As scholars are now saying, the New Testament was probably written by the Greco-Roman literati (i.e. the educated upper class/intelligentsia). That’s precisely why the New Testament was composed, for the most part, in Greece and Rome. And that also explains why it was written in Greek by highly literate authors who didn’t understand the finer points of Jewish life in first century Palestine.
The New Testament authors must have been members of the Greco-Roman upper crust and very well-known, and that’s probably why they didn’t add their names to the texts. Some of the potential candidates who may have had a hand in writing the New Testament are Philo, Plutarch, and Josephus. And that’s probably why Luke seems to be familiar with Josephus’ works (Steve Mason). At any rate, it was obviously more than one writer, and all the authors, without exception, must have had transcendent experiences of God. There were no interviews and no “memories” involved, as Luke suggests. Every word they put on paper was coming directly from God. The New Testament is basically written in the form of prophetical writing (i.e. the genre called “apocalyptic literature”) because it’s based exclusively on visions and revelations (see Gal. 1:11-12; 1 Pet. 1:10-11)!
But we have completely misunderstood and misinterpreted these books. The problem is not with the New Testament; it’s with us. If you carefully analyze the New Testament, you’ll find that the epistles give us the “real” Jesus (meaning the actual *timing* of the parousia), whereas the gospels only give us a literary, fictional/theological rendering based on Old Testament material (intertextuality). That’s what’s going on!
Here’s the problem with our traditional interpretation of the preface to Luke’s Gospel. If Luke 1:1-4 is taken as prima facie evidence, then we’re no longer reading the word of God, but a case study. It’s as if Luke is saying: I interviewed someone, who knew someone, who knew someone, who knew one of the apostles. In other words, Luke is basing his gospel on the memories (or false memories) of some individuals. Is this the inspired word of God that we must now accept as eyewitness testimony? I think not!
There are many problems with that view.
First, if Luke is giving us reports from interviews, then his gospel would certainly not be considered as the inspired word of God, but rather a case study which contains the questionable memories of second generation Christians, who may or may not know much, or who may not remember things accurately.
Second, the composite work of Luke-Acts is a fictional composition. The Book of Acts, especially, creates a head-on collision with the authentic Pauline corpus, particularly with Galatians. Not to mention that many of the details in the story are seemingly fabricated (e.g. Pharisees working for Sadducees, the Sanhedrin had no jurisdiction in Syria, Paul’s journeys are contradicted, etc.), and even the term “Christian” was not used until the beginning of the 2nd century. That’s why scholars like EP Sanders and Paula Fredriksen view Acts as a work of historical fiction. In fact, Dr. Fredriksen seriously doubts whether the author of Luke-Acts was Paul's companion. According to her, Luke doesn’t seem to know Paul very well. Bottom line, if you want to understand the actual TIMING of the Birth, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus, read the epistles, not the gospels!
How Did God Inspire the Biblical Authors?
A Study in Textual Criticism: Who’s Copying Who in First Timothy 5:18 & Luke 10:7
By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
First Corinthians 9:9 is the first New Testament verse to quote Deuteronomy 25:4. The Septuagint version reads:
Οὐ φιμώσεις βοῦν ἀλοῶντα.
English translation by L.C.L. Brenton:
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treads
out the corn.
Remember that 1 Corinthians was written around 53–54 ce. by Paul.
First Corinthians 9:9 (SBLGNT) reads as follows:
ἐν γὰρ τῷ Μωϋσέως νόμῳ γέγραπται · Οὐ
κημώσεις βοῦν ἀλοῶντα. μὴ τῶν βοῶν
μέλει τῷ θεῷ.
Translation (NASB):
For it is written in the Law of Moses: ‘You
shall not muzzle the ox while it is threshing.’
God is not concerned about oxen, is He?
Then, 1 Cor. 9:10 gives us the “interpretation”:
ἢ δι’ ἡμᾶς πάντως λέγει; δι’ ἡμᾶς γὰρ
ἐγράφη, ὅτι ὀφείλει ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι ⸃ ὁ ἀροτριῶν
ἀροτριᾶν, καὶ ὁ ἀλοῶν ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι τοῦ
μετέχειν.
Translation:
Or is He speaking entirely for our sake? Yes,
it was written for our sake, because the
plowman ought to plow in hope, and the
thresher to thresh in hope of sharing in the
crops.
Interestingly enough, 1 Cor. 9:9 must be copying an alternative version of the Septuagint because it uses the word κημώσεις instead of the Septuagint’s φιμώσεις. Both words mean “to muzzle.”
Then, the unknown author of 1 Timothy——who composed the letter around the end of the first century——seems to be quoting directly from the Greek Septuagint, rather than from 1 Cor. 9:9. First Timothy 5:18 is actually quoting the Greek Septuagint verbatim but switching the word order around:
First Timothy 5:18 says:
λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή · Βοῦν ἀλοῶντα οὐ
φιμώσεις, καί · Ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ
αὐτοῦ.
Translation:
For the Scripture says, ‘YOU SHALL NOT
MUZZLE THE OX WHILE IT IS THRESHING,’
and ‘The laborer is worthy of his wages.’
But notice that the quotation from 1 Tim. 5:18 is backwards:
Βοῦν ἀλοῶντα οὐ φιμώσεις.
Compare Deut. 25:4 (LXX):
Οὐ φιμώσεις βοῦν ἀλοῶντα.
Perhaps 1 Tim. 5:18 is involved in a mop-up job to clean up the verse that 1 Cor. 9:9 kind of changed a little bit.
Anyway, 1 Tim. 5:18 also adds the “interpretation”:
Ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ.
Translation:
The laborer is worthy of his wages.
Luke 10:7 reads:
ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ.
Luke omits the “saying” from Deut. 25:4 and simply states the “interpretation,” which is found in 1 Cor. 9:10. But, surprisingly, Luke seems to be quoting from Exod. 22:15 (LXX):
ἐὰν δὲ μισθωτὸς ᾖ, ἔσται αὐτῷ ἀντὶ τοῦ
μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ.
English translation by L.C.L. Brenton:
but if it be a hired thing, there shall be [a
compensation] to him instead of his hire.
So it’s unclear whether Luke 10:7 is copying 1 Cor. 9:9-10, or an entirely different context from Exod. 22:15 (LXX). Remember that the saying “You shall not muzzle the ox while it is threshing” was first quoted in the NT by 1 Cor. 9:9, which then added the “interpretation” (NASB):
the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing in
the crops.
But the Greek text of Luke seems to be copying from elsewhere when it says: “the laborer is deserving of his wages” (Lk 10:7). Let’s not forget that 1 Corinthians was written by Paul in the 50s, prior to Luke’s gospel, which was written c. 80-85 ce.
Neither 1 Tim. 5:18 nor Lk 10:7 seem to be copying directly from 1 Cor. 9:9-10, even though the “saying” that we are studying (from Deut. 25:4) was first quoted and interpreted in 1 Corinthians back in the 50s. Rather, it appears as if 1 Tim. 5:18 is quoting Luke almost verbatim. The unknown author of 1 Tim. 5:18 simply omits the word γὰρ. Notice the 3 versions side by side (SBLGNT):
First Corinthians 9:10:
καὶ ὁ ἀλοῶν ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι τοῦ μετέχειν.
First Timothy 5:18:
Ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ.
Luke 10:7:
ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ.
To sum up, 1 Cor. 9:9 was the first to quote Deut. 25:4, probably using an alternative Septuagint reading from the pluriform textual tradition. And it appears as if 1 Tim. 5:18 is sanitizing 1 Cor. 9:9-10 by quoting the LXX verbatim, but simply altering the word order. Interestingly enough, 1 Tim. 5:18 uses Luke’s interpretation nearly verbatim, and doesn’t quote Paul from 1 Cor. 9:9-10. If Paul had written 1 Tim., we would have expected him to quote himself (from 1 Cor. 9:9). First Timothy 5:18 may also be sanitizing Luke, who might be copying a wrong verse, thus tying Luke to Paul. The connection between 1 Cor. 9:9-10 & Luke 10:7 only becomes apparent in 1 Tim. 5:18’s editorial work which harmonizes the two! So the copying sequence runs from Deuteronomy to 1 Corinthians to Luke to 1 Timothy. Given that 1 Timothy was written after Luke, it’s fair to assume that it is copying Luke. But this is not Paul. It’s an unknown author. The point of all these verses is that the followers of Christ, who labor for the kingdom, should know that they will be handsomely rewarded for their toil!
The Gospels are Nonhistorical Theological Documents: Only the Epistles Give Us the Real Jesus
By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
The Theological Gospels Versus the Prophetic Epistles
First, the epistles are the more explicit and didactic portions of the New Testament.
Second, they are expositional writings, giving us facts, not theological narratives with plots, subplots, characters, etc. The gospels are more like broadway plays (theatrical productions) whereas the epistles are more like matter-of-fact newspapers.
Third, the epistles are not only devoid of all the legendary elements of the gospels, but they also apparently contradict the gospels with regard to Jesus’ birth, death, and resurrection, by placing them in eschatological categories. For them, Scripture comprises revelations and “prophetic writings” (see Rom. 16.25-26; 2 Pet. 1.19-21; Rev. 22.18-19)! According to the NT Epistles, the Christ will die “once for all” (Gk. ἅπαξ hapax) “at the end of the age” (Heb. 9.26b), a phrase which consistently refers to the end of the world (cf. Mt. 13.39-40, 49; 24.3; 28.20). Similarly, just as Heb. 1.2 says that the physical Son speaks to humanity in the “last days,” 1 Pet. 1.20 (NJB) demonstrates the eschatological timing of Christ’s initial appearance by saying that he will be “revealed at the final point of time.”!
Was There An Oral Tradition?
The oral tradition is hypothetical and presupposed. There is no evidence for it. In fact, the evidence seems to refute it.
There Was No Pre-Pauline Oral Tradition
First, the gospels are written anonymously.
Second, there are no eyewitnesses.
Third, there are no firsthand accounts.
Fourth, how is a supposed Aramaic story suddenly taken over, less than 2 decades after the purported events, by highly articulate Greeks and written about in other countries like Greece and Rome? Do you realize that none of the New Testament books were ever written in Palestine by Jews? None! That doesn’t make any sense and it certainly casts much doubt about the idea of a supposed Aramaic oral tradition.
When, Where, and By Whom Was Each Book of the New Testament Written?
Fifth, you can certainly compare a novel with the gospels. Almost every event in Jesus’ life is borrowed from the Old Testament and reworked as if it’s a new event. This is called intertextuality, meaning a heavy dependence of the New Testament literature on Hebrew Scripture. A few examples from the gospels serve to illustrate these points. It’s well-known among biblical scholars that the Feeding of the 5,000 (aka the miracle of the five loaves and two fish) in Jn 6.5-13 is a literary pattern that can be traced back to the OT tradition of 2 Kings 4.40-44. Besides the parallel thematic motifs, there are also near verbal agreements: "They shall eat and have some left” (2 Kings 4.43). Compare Jn 6.13: “So they gathered ... twelve baskets ... left over by those who had eaten.” The magi are also taken from Ps. 72.11: “May all kings fall down before him.” The phrase “they have pierced my hands and my feet” is from Ps. 22.16; “They put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst” is from Psalm 69.21. The virgin birth comes from a Septuagint translation of Isaiah 7.14. The “Calming the storm” episode is taken from Ps. 107.23-30, and so on & so forth. Is there anything real that actually happened which is not taken from the Jewish Bible? Moreover, everything about the trial of Jesus is at odds with what we know about Jewish Law and Jewish proceedings. It could not have occurred in the middle of the night during Passover, among other things. This is historical fiction. That’s precisely why E.P. Sanders once called the book of Acts (the so-called fifth gospel) historical fiction:
“The majority of New Testament scholars
agree that the Gospels do not contain
eyewitness accounts; but that they present
the theologies of their communities rather
than the testimony of eyewitnesses”. — Wiki
“Many biblical scholars view the discussion
of historicity as secondary, given that
gospels were primarily written as
theological documents rather than historical
accounts”. — Wiki
Scholarship is not necessarily a bad thing for evangelical Christians. It actually helps them to clear up the apparent theological and historical confusion.
8 Theses or Disputations on Modern Christianity’s View of the Bible
What About the Extra-Biblical Sources that Seem to Support the Historicity of Jesus?
First, Jesus is not your everyday, garden-variety Jew, as most apologists depict him when trying to explain why Jesus is never mentioned by any secular contemporary authors.
Mark 1.28
“News about him spread quickly over the
whole region of Galilee”.
Mt. 4.24
“News about him spread all over Syria.”
Matthew 4.25
“Large crowds followed Him from Galilee and
the Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea
and from beyond the Jordan.”
So why is it that in approximately 65 years there is not so much as a single word about him in any extra-biblical book?
Why aren’t the meticulous Roman historians (who wrote just about everything) mentioning Jesus? Why is Plutarch and Philo unaware of Jesus’ existence? You’d think they would have, at least, heard of him. So something doesn’t add up. Not even the local Jewish writers mention Jesus, even in passing.
Second, the so-called extra-biblical sources that briefly mention Jesus have all been tampered with. The first mention of Jesus outside the New Testament was at the close of the first century by Josephus’ Testimonium Flavianum. Scholars know that this account is inauthentic and unacceptable, containing an interpolation. Josephus scholars suspect that Eusebius might be the culprit.
Third, Pliny the Younger, writing from the 2nd century, was in communication with Tacitus so his account cannot be viewed as an independent attestation.
Fourth, the Talmud was written many centuries later and contains no eyewitnesses. It is totally irrelevant.
Fifth, Tacitus’ Annals was in the possession of Christians (Medicis) and was most probably altered by 11th century monks:
“It is the second Medicean manuscript, 11th
century and from the Benedictine abbey at
Monte Cassino, which is the oldest surviving
copy of the passage describing Christians.
Scholars generally agree that these copies
were written at Monte Cassino and the end
of the document refers to Abbas Raynaldus
cu ... [sic] who was most probably one of
the two abbots of that name at the abbey
during that period”. — Wiki
Moreover, Tacitus probably lifted the passage from Luke 3.1 and even got Pontius Pilate’s title wrong. Scholars have found traces of letters being altered in the text, and they have pointed out that Tacitus, an unbeliever, would not have referred to Jesus as the Christ. Besides, these Roman writers were not even eyewitnesses and are too far removed from the purported events to have any bearing on them. If we can’t make heads or tails from the second generation Christians who themselves were not eyewitnesses, how much more information can these Roman writers give us, writing from nearly one century later? So it’s a strawman argument to use these 2nd century writers, who were drawing on earlier materials, as independent attestations for the existence of Jesus.
Sixth, a consensus can also be used as a fallacious argument, namely, as an appeal to authority fallacy. We know of many things that were once held to be true that were later proven to be false. Like the idea that everything revolved around the earth. That was once a consensus. It was false. Similarly, the current consensus concerning Christ may be equally false! If Bible scholars reject the historicity of Noah, Abraham, and Moses, then why do they support the historicity of Jesus? If there were no eyewitnesses and no firsthand accounts, if Paul tells us almost nothing about the life of Jesus, if the Testimonium Flavianum and the Annals of Tacitus are inauthentic, and if Bertrand Russell and world-renowned textual critic Kurt Aland questioned the existence of Jesus (as if he were a phantom), then on what grounds does the scholarly consensus affirm the historicity of Jesus? It seems to be a case of special pleading. A nonhistorical Jesus would obviously put a damper on sales and profits. Jesus sells. Everyone knows that. Perhaps that’s the reason why the consensus is maintained!
But Didn’t the Early Church Fathers’ Writings Attribute Authorship to Jesus’ Disciples?
Let’s cut to the chase. The gospels were written anonymously. There were no firsthand accounts. And there were no eyewitnesses. The names of the authors were added in the 2nd century. Even the second generation Christians who wrote the gospels don’t claim to be eyewitnesses. They claim to know someone who knew someone, who knew someone, who knew someone, and so on. The earliest case of attributing a gospel to a particular person comes from the writings of Papias, whom both modern scholars and Eusebius distrust. Eusebius had a "low esteem of Papias' intellect" (Wikipedia). And scholars generally dismiss Papias’ claim that the original gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew.
As for the purported authorship by the disciples themselves, that is utterly impossible for three main reasons. One, they would have been long dead by the close of the first century. Two, they were illiterate fishermen from the backwoods of Galilee. See Acts 4.13 in which Peter and John are described as uneducated and illiterate (ἀγράμματοι) men. Three, they were unable to write in highly sophisticated and articulate Greek. Not to mention that the authors of the gospels spoke very sophisticated Greek and copied predominantly from the Greek rather than from the Hebrew Old Testament. So, the traditional story that we’ve been told just doesn't hold water. It needs to be revisited.
Am I Inconsistent in Trusting Only Part of the New Testament While Tossing Out the Gospels and Claiming to Be a Follower of Christ?
First, I know what Christ’s teachings are by way of direct revelations from the Holy Spirit, similar to those Paul experienced and wrote about in Galatians 1:11-12 (NASB):
“For I would have you know, brothers and
sisters, that the gospel which was preached
by me is not of human invention. For I
neither received it from man, nor was I
taught it, but I received it through a
revelation of Jesus Christ.”
Second, I’m not trusting only part of the New Testament and tossing out the gospels, while claiming to be a follower of Christ. I actually believe in the entire New Testament. I have a high view of scripture and I believe that every word was given by inspiration of God (including those of the gospels). The Bible has many genres: poetry, parable, metaphor, wisdom, prophecy, apocalyptic, history, theology, etc. If someone doesn’t interpret poetry as history, that doesn’t mean that he’s tossing out the poetic part of scripture and claiming that it’s not inspired. He’s simply saying that this part of scripture is not meant to be historical but rather poetic. Similarly, my view that the gospels are theological doesn’t mean that they are not inspired by God or that they’re false. It simply means that I’m interpreting genres correctly, unlike others who have confused biblical literature with history, and turned prophecy into biography. It appears, then, that the theological purpose of the Gospels is to provide a fitting introduction to the messianic story beforehand so that it can be passed down from generation to generation until the time of its fulfillment. It is as though NT history is written in advance. So the gospels have a certain role to play.
There’s No Such Thing As a Follower of Christ
I keep seeing profiles on Facebook and Twitter where people claim to be “followers of Christ.” What does that even mean? You’re either in-Christ or out-of-Christ. Only someone who is not in Christ is a follower of Christ. People often confuse the terminology. They think that a true Christian is a follower of Christ. False! A true Christian is not following Christ. He is in Christ! Only those who have not yet been reborn are “followers of Christ,” seeking to become united with him. Those who are already reborn from above through the spirit (Jn 3.3; Acts 2.1-4) are already in-Christ. They’re not followers of Christ. And you don’t get to be in-Christ through belief alone (Jas. 2:19), professions of faith, the sinner’s prayer, altar calls, by an intellectual assent to the truths of Christianity, or by following Christ through performance-based behaviors (i.e. observing the commandments, etc.). These are all false conversions. You must first get rid of the false self and put on God as your new identity (the true self). I’m afraid there’s no other way.
How Are We Saved: Is It Simply By Belief Alone, Or Do We Have To Go Out Of Ourselves Ecstatically In Order To Make That Happen?
The Da Vinci Code Versus The Gospels
By Eli Kittim 🎓
Bart Ehrman was once quoted as saying: “If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it.” This is an amusing anecdote that I’d like to use as a springboard for this short essay to try to show that it’s impossible to separate literary characters from the literature in which they are found. For example, when Ehrman says, “If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it,” his comment presupposes that James is a real historical figure. But how can we affirm the historicity of a literary character offhand when the so-called “history” of this character is solely based on, and intimately intertwined with, the literary New Testament structures? And if these literary structures are not historical, what then? The fact that the gospels were written anonymously, and that there were no eyewitnesses and no firsthand accounts, and that the events in Jesus’ life were, for the most part, borrowed from the Old Testament, seems to suggest that they were written in the literary genre known as theological fiction. After all, the gospels read like Broadway plays!
Let me give you an analogy. Dan Brown writes novels. All his novels, just like the gospels, contain some historical places, figures, and events. But the stories, in and of themselves, are completely fictional. So, Ehrman’s strawman argument is tantamount to saying that if we want to examine the historicity of Professor Robert Langdon——who is supposedly a Harvard University professor of history of art and symbology——we’ll have to focus on his relationship with Sophie Neveu, a cryptologist with the French Judicial Police, and the female protagonist of the book. Ehrman’s earlier anecdote would be akin to saying: “if Robert Langdon did not exist, you would think Sophie would know it.”
But we wouldn’t know about Robert Langdon if it wasn’t for The Da Vinci Code. You can’t separate the character Robert Langdon from The Da Vinci Code and present him independently of it because he’s a character within that book. Therefore, his historicity or lack thereof depends entirely on how we view The Da Vinci Code. If The Da Vinci Code turns out to be a novel (which in fact it is), then how can we possibly ask historians to give us their professional opinions about him? It’s like asking historians to give us a historical assessment of bugs bunny? Was he real? So, as you can see, it’s all based on the literary structure of The Da Vinci Code, which turns out to be a novel!
By comparison, the historicity of Jesus depends entirely on how we view the literary structure of the gospel literature. Although modern critical scholars view the gospels as theological documents, they, nevertheless, believe that they contain a historic core or nucleus. They also think that we have evidence of an oral tradition. We do not! There are no eyewitnesses and no firsthand accounts. All we have about the life and times of Jesus are the gospel narratives, which were composed approximately 40 to 70 years after the purported events by anonymous Greek authors who never met Jesus. And they seem to be works of theological fiction. So where is the historical evidence that these events actually happened? We have to believe they happened because the gospel characters tell us so? It’s tantamount to saying that the events in The Da Vinci Code actually happened because Robert Langdon says so. But if the story is theological, so are its characters. Thus, the motto of the story is: don’t get caught up in the characters. The message is much more important! As for those who look to Josephus’ Antiquities for confirmation, unfortunately——due to the obvious interpolations——it cannot be considered authentic. Not to mention that Josephus presumably would have been acquainted with the gospel stories, most of which were disseminated decades earlier.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to downplay the seriousness of the gospel message. I’m simply trying to clarify it. The gospels are inspired, but they were never meant to be taken literally. I’m also a believer and I have a high view of scripture. The message of Christ is real. But when will the Jesus-story play out is not something the gospels can address. Only the epistles give us the real Jesus!
There Was No Pre-Pauline Oral Tradition
By Eli Kittim 🎓
When asked why Paul didn’t give us more details about Jesus’ existence, some scholars often use a common strawman argument that everyone already knew the story and so Paul didn’t have to write anything about it. But after thinking about this explanation for some time, I didn’t find it convincing. A key problem besetting the assumed pre-Pauline tradition is that it is a) based entirely on the gospel literature, which came much later, and b) it hasn’t been verified because there were no eyewitnesses and no firsthand accounts. Plus, the stories that we’re all familiar with (from the gospels) were not written until a few decades after Paul’s writings. So the life of Jesus was not written before, but after, Paul. Given that Paul’s knowledge of the story of Jesus is based entirely on “a revelation,” and that Paul himself admits that he didn’t receive it from man, nor was he taught it (Gal 1:11-12), it’s reasonable to assume that no one else knew the story prior to Paul’s writings, at least from a literary standpoint. After all, Paul was the first to write about it!
There are a lot of presuppositions that are implied by the oral Pre-Pauline-tradition hypothesis that most people aren’t aware of. Many people also presuppose that the gospels are historical, even though that has not been verified either. On the contrary, the fact that they were anonymously written, and that there were no eyewitnesses and no firsthand accounts, and that the events in Jesus’ life were, for the most part, borrowed from the Old Testament, seems to suggest that they were written in the literary genre known as “theological fiction.”
What is more, because the gospel texts are found at the beginning of the New Testament, people often presuppose that the gospels were the first Christian writings, and so they completely misunderstand the New Testament literary chronology. This presupposition leads to many other false assumptions that are very misleading and totally unrelated to the actual chronological development of the New Testament writings.
They have it all backwards❗️
What is more, because of the hypothetical Q source (for which there’s no evidence), even scholars often talk as if the gospels preceded the epistles, and so given that everyone already knew about the story, Paul didn’t have to mention all the details…
But wait just a second… ⛔️
The full-fledged story we usually refer to actually starts around 70 AD with Mark, and ends at the end of the first century with John. But surprise surprise, Paul is writing much much earlier than that. Paul’s letters are the FIRST Christian writings, which are written over two decades earlier (49-50 AD)! Paul’s writings are actually the EARLIEST Christian writings. So, presumably, no one knew the story yet, at least from a literary perspective. It was Paul’s task to tell the reader all about it.
But Paul failed to mention the pertinent information regarding the details of Jesus’ life, even though it is assumed that he was in a position to know this information. If Paul was expected to have all the pertinent information regarding the Jesus-story, and intending to write a complete account of these events, and if the details of the Jesus-story were important enough to deserve to be mentioned, then why didn’t Paul talk about any of them? Astoundingly, Paul didn’t mention any of the legendary elements that we find in the later embellishments of the 70s, 80s, and 90s. In Paul’s letters, there’s no nativity, no virgin birth, no shepherds, no star of Bethlehem, no magi, no census, no Elizabeth, no Zechariah, no John the Baptist, no flight to Egypt, no slaughter of the innocents, nothing about
“Jesus healing anyone,
casting out a demon, doing any other
miracle, arguing with Pharisees or
other leaders, teaching the multitudes, even
speaking a parable, being baptized, being
transfigured, going to Jerusalem, being
arrested, put on trial, found guilty of
blasphemy, appearing before Pontius Pilate
on charges of calling himself the King of the
Jews, being flogged, etc. etc. etc. It’s a very,
very long list of what he doesn’t tell us
about.” —Source credit: Bart D. Ehrman
This doesn’t mean that Paul is writing letters to people who already knew about the story.
It means that such a story didn’t exist. It was added later!
Conclusion
How is a supposed Aramaic story suddenly taken over, less than 2 decades after the purported events, by highly articulate Greeks and written about in other countries, such as Greece and Rome? None of the New Testament books were ever written in Palestine by Jews! That doesn’t make any sense and it certainly casts much doubt about the idea of a supposed Aramaic oral tradition.
In fact, most of the New Testament Books were written in Greece: Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Titus, the Book of Revelation, and possibly others as well! To sum up, most of the New Testament Books were composed in Greece. Most of the epistles were penned in Greece and addressed to Greek communities. The New Testament was written exclusively in Greek, outside of Palestine, by “Greek” authors who copied the Greek Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Bible when quoting from the Old Testament. So where is the Aramaic tradition?
The Antichrist is Russian: Not Assyrian, Muslim, Or Jewish
By Independent Researcher 🎓 Eli Kittim
The Connection Between Daniel’s 4 empires & Russia
Daniel chapters 2 & 7 show 4 super empires, the last of which will last until the end of the world. According to history, we know that the first was Babylon (gold), the second was Medo-Persia (silver), the third was Greece (bronze), and the fourth was Rome (iron), which had 2 legs (representing East & West). Then, Daniel says that the 10 toes represent the final phase of that same empire (i.e. a revived Roman Empire), which the endtimes Christ will smash to pieces. We also know that the 2 legs of the Roman Empire were Rome and Constantinople. Rome (West) was sacked and conquered in the 5th century AD and ceased to be an empire. There was no western Roman Empire in the 6th, 7th, and 8th centuries. According to Voltaire, “The Holy Roman Empire [of the 9th century] was neither Holy nor Roman, nor an Empire.” In fact, according to Wiki, “The exact term ‘Holy Roman Empire’ was not used until the 13th century.” So, the only remaining and legitimate Roman empire was the one at Constantinople, namely, the Eastern Roman Empire, aka Byzantium (East). So far, we are still talking about the 2 iron legs of Daniel’s composite statue. Then, in 1453, the Turks sacked Constantinople, and most of the Byzantine elites fled north to Moscow, where Moscow became the third Rome.
Chuck Missler pointed out that most commentators think that the Antichrist will come from the west (Rome), that is Europe, but they neglect the Eastern leg of the Roman Empire, namely Constantinople. And he was right. The Antichrist comes from the eastern part of the Roman Empire that moved to Moscow! In addition, Ivan the Great adopted the official emblem of the Byzantine Monarchy: the double-headed eagle. He then went on to marry Sophia Paleologue, the niece of the final Byzantine ruler Constantine XI. In the aftermath of the Ottoman Turks’ conquest of the Eastern Roman Empire and in an effort to salvage the last vestiges of Christianity, Ivan designated Moscow as the Third Rome in 1497 A.D. In effect, Moscow became the offspring of the Roman Empire; heirs to the legacy. Russia, then, becomes the link of the little horn (Antichrist) to the Roman Empire (cf. Daniel 7:7-8 f.). Ivan even called himself Tsar, which means “Caesar.” And he inherited all the symbols of Byzantium, including the Greek Orthodox Church. Russia is therefore the continuation of Daniel’s empires, or the revived Roman Empire after the 2 proverbial iron legs collapsed.
Mind you, Daniel only mentions a revived Roman Empire out of which the little horn will come. He doesn’t mention any Muslim or Assyrian nations. He doesn’t mention anything about a Jewish antichrist. For proper exegesis, we have to stick to the text of Daniel, not to what people are currently adding to it. And Daniel only alludes to a revived Roman Empire. So the notion of an Assyrian, Muslim, or Jewish antichrist is foreign to the text and completely bogus and misinformed.
Moreover, we know that the book of Daniel is referring to the endtimes——and that this revived Roman Empire will appear in the last days——because Daniel 12.4 talks explicitly about the endtimes, while Daniel 12.1 mentions the great tribulation which will be the worst event that has ever occurred on planet earth, and one that has not yet happened. We also know that the 10 final leaders will fight Jesus Christ (Rev. 17.14) and that the Antichrist will be annihilated by Christ himself at his coming (see 2 Thess. 2.8). So the little horn of Daniel is definitely a future antichrist!
The 7 empires of Revelation 17
Just to recap, Revelation 17.9-13 says that there will be 7 empires until the end of time. There will also be an 8th, but because it’s part of the seven, it’s not counted as an 8th. So let’s enumerate them. It’s not Assyria or Egypt, as some unskilled interpreters suggest. Daniel doesn’t mention them at all. Historically, the 7 empires are as follows: 1) Babylon, 2) Medo-Persia, 3) Greece, 4) Rome, 5) Constantinople, 6) Moscow, 7) Soviet Union (USSR), 8) Russian Federation, which is part of the 7, and is therefore still part of the 7th empire. And all this takes place in the endtimes because Rev. 17.14 says:
“These will wage war against the Lamb, and
the Lamb will overcome them.”
Remember that John “was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day” (Rev. 1.10), not physically in the body. And he heard and saw visions pertaining to the day of the Lord. So when he says——there “are seven kings; five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while,” (Rev. 17.10)——the one that exists (or the “one [that] is”) during this prophetic time period that John sees is not Rome (which was the 4th empire), but rather the 6th (Moscow)! Why Russia? Because John is “in the Spirit on the Lord’s day” (Rev. 1.10). He is showing us where the Antichrist comes from. He is giving us a prophetic clue. That’s exactly why the 7th empire “has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while.” That would be the USSR, which remained a little while, approximately only 70 years. Here’s the passage in Rev. 17: 9-14:
“Here is the mind which has wisdom. The
seven heads are seven mountains upon
which the woman sits, and they are seven
kings; five have fallen, one is, the other has
not yet come; and when he comes, he must
remain a little while. The beast which was,
and is not, is himself also an eighth and is
one of the seven, and he goes to
destruction. The ten horns which you saw
are ten kings who have not yet received a
kingdom, but they receive authority as kings
with the beast for one hour. These have one
purpose, and they give their power and
authority to the beast. These will wage war
against the Lamb, and the Lamb will
overcome them because He is Lord of lords
and King of kings.”
The 10 toes at the bottom of Daniel’s statue represent the 10 leaders that will emerge out of this revived Roman Empire. And the 7th great superpower that emerged out of Russia was the Soviet Union. After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, 3 more figures emerged, totalling 10 leaders, plus an 11th (Putin), exactly as foretold in Daniel’s prophecy (Dan 7.19-22). The “three of the previous horns [that] were plucked out” (Dan. 7.8) represent the 3 leaders of the Russian Federation which came out of Soviet Russia.
The 10 Kings of Daniel 7.20 & Revelation 17.12
From its inception in 1917 until 1991, the Soviet Union had 8 leaders:
1) Vladimir Lenin
2) Joseph Stalin
3) Georgy Malenkov
4) Nikita Khrushchev
5) Leonid Brezhnev
6) Yuri Andropov
7) Konstantin Chernenko
8) Mikhail Gorbachev
The succeeding Russian Federation has only had 3 leaders since its formation on December 25, 1991 (cf. Daniel 7.8):
9) Boris Yeltsin
10) Dmitry Medvedev
11) Vladimir Putin
There you have it. Putin is the 11th horn (the 11th king) of Daniel 7.20, “to make room for which three [kings] . . . fell out” (emphasizing the last 3 leaders of the new federal republic that arose out of the former USSR)!
Ezekiel 38: The War of Gog & Magog
We have much more evidence that Ezekiel 38 is referring to Russia not only because of historical studies but also because of the language that is used in the Septuagint, not to mention the evidence from Josephus and other historians linking the inhabitants of Magog to the Scythians. The evidence pointing to Russia is overwhelming. For further evidence, see the following article:
What’s more, Ezekiel 38 talks about Russia invading countries in the last days, the so-called Gog/Magog war. That’s why the Septuagint (LXX) of Ezekiel 38.2 has the words Ρώς and Μοσόχ that stand for Ρωσία and Μόσχα in Greek, which are translated as Russia and Moscow respectively! Thus, it’s the Eastern rather than the Western leg of the Roman Empire that is considered to be Daniel’s Revived Roman Empire of Bible Prophecy, which was supplanted by Russia after the fall of Byzantium in 1453. And, as I have shown, Russia is also the final empire of Revelation 17, the one with the aforementioned ten kings!
This is the most accurate exegetical explanation of the 10 horns (which also includes the 11th horn, the Antichrist) and the only one that fits with all the details in the prophecies of Daniel 2 & 7, Ezekiel 38, Luke 21, and Revelation 12 & 17. That’s why the final empire is depicted as a red 7-headed dragon with 10 horns in Revelation 12. It’s the exact same Red Empire of the USSR that has morphed and continues to the present day. See the second seal of revelation, the red horse, which represents the Russian empire that will take peace away from the earth by starting world war 3!
Besides the fact that this position solves the biblical puzzle completely, one can also see that the current events fit perfectly as well. Russia is allied with Turkey, Iran, and many Muslim nations, just as prophesied in Ezekiel 38, and Putin has begun his military invasion of the west and is repeatedly threatening **nuclear war.** in fact, in New York City, ads about what to do in case of a nuclear explosion have begun to be seen on television. You have to be literally asleep not to notice that Putin is the person who has begun to invade countries and threaten **nuclear war,** and that a Russian Antichrist has already been foretold in the Bible! Daniel 8.23 calls the Antichrist “a master of intrigue,” while Daniel 8.25 refers to him as “a master of deception,” obviously implying that he’s trained in secret plans, underhand plots and schemes. In short, a spy! So, you can, in effect, hold the Bible in one hand and a newspaper in the other, and they match!
Not to notice either the Bible prophecies or the current geopolitical situation of the world, and the constant threat of nuclear war, is equal to being completely ignorant and misinformed! Now let’s look at some faulty and erroneous interpretations that are not based on Daniel or Revelation, or on the canonical context. I will not even bother refuting the Seventh-Day Adventist position——that the Antichrist is the Pope and that the Mark of the Beast is Sunday-observance of the Sabbath——since it is too ridiculous for any one to take seriously, and also because it falls of its own accord.
The Assyrian vs. the Russian Antichrist
The Bible never links the Antichrist to a Muslim country. All lines of evidence link him to a revived Roman Empire. In Isaiah 10.5, for example, the text uses the term Asshur (Assyria)——which once invaded the northern kingdom of Israel——as a type, or symbol, of the final Antichrist who will invade Israel in the latter years (see Ezek. 38). The Bible uses a typology to indicate that an Assyrian-like figure will invade the land. Not that he is literally Assyrian. This is demonstrated in the Book of Isaiah, which shows that the title Assyrian does not refer to a person from the land of Assyria. In this particular verse, the so-called Assyrian is actually an Egyptian Pharaoh who is said to have oppressed the Hebrews while they were in Egypt. Isaiah 52.4 reads: “My people went down aforetime into Egypt to sojourn there; and the Assyrian oppressed them without cause.” You can’t just take a literal historical figure in the Bible and claim they are the Antichrist. That is not a credible exegesis. If that were so, then we can equally say that Cyrus was the messiah, and not Jesus Christ. Cyrus is called God’s anointed in Isaiah 45.1. Besides, the name Asshur or Assyrian may be a cryptic *anagram* for Russia, or for the word Russian. The word Asshur can also be used as a semordnilap, a word that has a different meaning when read in reverse (or backwards). For example, Asshur in reverse is Ruhssa (i.e. Russia)! Today, the idea that Syria, Iraq, Iran, or Turkey will become superpowers and take over the world is not taken seriously. They don’t fit the bill. They’re neither Roman, nor do they have the necessary qualifications (11 kings). Yet Revelation 13 says that the Antichrist will conquer, subjugate, and control the entire world. Only a superpower like Russia, allied with many powers, such as China, can achieve these aims. Moreover, the Biblical evidence always points to Russia, as I have already demonstrated! There are many hermeneutical mistakes in the Assyrian interpretation. For example, Daniel never mentions any other kingdom in connection to the little horn besides the Roman Empire (see Daniel 7.23-25). Still others argue that the antichrist comes from the 3rd kingdom (the Hellenistic empire). But the Hellenistic connection in Daniel 8 simply points back to Byzantium because *tiny Thrace* (the symbol of the little horn with its ruler General Lysimachus) later became the seat of the Byzantine Romans, namely, Constantinople. So we’re back to Daniel 7 again. These interpreters confuse the details with the big picture, as well as Daniel’s chronological sequence of succeeding empires. Daniel chapter 8 is simply *zooming in* to give us some specific details. But Daniel chapters 2 & 7 give us *the big picture* and cannot be ignored because they clearly indicate a 4th kingdom that will arise AFTER Greece, out of which the little horn will come (Dan. 7.24)!
And modern day Iran is not Assyria. Both names (Assyria & Persia) are clearly distinguished in the Old Testament as 2 separate and distinct nations. Assyria (not Persia) is the nation that attacked the northern kingdom of Israel in 722 BC (2 Kings 17:3–6), while Iran is called Persia, not Assyria, in Ezek. 38.5! Today, both Syria and Iraq (which were once part of ancient Assyria) are in ruins. Neither one of them is a superpower that can take over the world (Rev 13). Many interpreters are deliberately ignoring the Book of Daniel, which speaks of the little horn coming out of one of the 2 legs of the Roman Empire. Daniel doesn’t imply anything other than the Roman empire. To add extra-Biblical material about “Muslims” (which are not in the text) is not a proper methodology. And these misleading interpreters don’t know history either, how, for instance, after the fall of Constantinople in 1453 AD, Moscow became the Third Rome. Moscow adopted the Byzantine customs, rituals & religion, as well as the doubleheaded eagle as their insignia, & the Russian leaders called themselves czars, which means “Caesar.” In fact, the double-headed eagle, which has Byzantine antecedents, is still in the coat of arms of Russia!
That’s why the Septuagint (LXX) of Ezekiel 38.2 has the words Ρώς and Μοσόχ in Greek that stand for Ρωσία and Μόσχα, which are translated as Russia and Moscow respectively! This is the nation that will invade Israel and conquer it “in the last days” (Ezek. 38.16). So, the interpreters who advance the theory of an Assyrian Antichrist are obviously ignorant of the historical studies that link this great end-times Ezekiel 38 invasion to Russia!
There are many other prophecies that support Ezek. 38, and link Russia to the 7-headed dragon with 10 horns (cf. Rev. 12), just as the sequence of Daniel’s empires leads to a seventh and final empire in Rev. 17. Starting from Babylon in Daniel 2, the USSR was the 7th empire, and there have been 10 leaders since Lenin, with Putin being the 11th, the so-called little horn. Hence why these “ten kings receive authority as kings with the beast for one hour [one century]” (Rev. 17.12)! That’s the last days seven-headed empire with 10 horns. Which other nation can fit the bill? None! Once you have the pieces of the exegetical puzzle together, you can zero in on the Antichrist!
The 10 Horns Are 10 Human Kings (not 10 Spirits)
Then there are some who have proposed that the 10 kings are not Humans but Spirits. However, both Dan. 7.9 & 7.11 do not refer to a spirit but rather to a human being that is represented by a “horn” (in this case, the little horn). In fact, in Daniel 7.24, in the Old Testament, Daniel asks the angel what the 10 horns are. Here’s the angel’s reply:
“As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten
kings shall arise, and another shall arise
after them.”
Notice that they don’t come out of different kingdoms but out of the same kingdom. Moreover, the 10 horns represent 10 actual kings, not 10 spirits. This is multiply attested in the New Testament as well. In Rev 17.12-14, the angel provides an interpretation in which the 10 kings are not only human but they will also go to war against Christ:
“And the ten horns that you saw are ten
kings who have not yet received a kingdom,
but they are to receive authority as kings for
one hour, together with the beast. These
are united in yielding their power and
authority to the beast; they will make war
on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer
them, for he is Lord of lords and King of
kings.”
Moreover, in referring to the figure that we call the Antichrist, Daniel 7.20 describes an actual human being, not a spirit, who will control the earth for 3 and a half years (cf. Rev. 11.2; 13.5). What is more, Daniel 7.25 is rather explicit that it’s a male figure (not a spirit) who will blaspheme God and who will persecute the faithful:
“He shall speak words against the Most
High, shall wear out the holy ones of the
Most High, and shall attempt to change the
sacred seasons and the law; and they shall
be given into his power for a time, two
times, and half a time.”
Further evidence can be found in Revelation 13.18, which tells us that 666 is the number of a human being. It says that 666 is the number of ἀνθρώπου (a human being/ not a spirit, which would have been “pneuma” in Koine Greek if that were the case). And it also refers to him as a male figure (αὐτοῦ), which is a personal/possessive pronoun, genitive masculine 3rd person singular (him/his).
So we’re talking about a man, not a spirit. Second Thessalonians 2.3 calls him the “lawless one” who will be revealed on the world stage, and verse 2.4 goes on to say “that he takes his seat in the temple of God, declaring himself to be God.” These are actual events that will take place by a real ipso facto human being (the so-called “Antichrist”; 1 Jn 2.18).
Conclusion
The 7 heads are seven empires, the last of which is Russia, which, according to Ezekiel 38, will invade Israel with a large coalition. Watch this short video:
This invasion is also prophesied in Zechariah 14 and Luke 21 as well. Astonishingly, the incumbent president of Russia, Vladimir Putin, came to power at the turn of the century, in 1999 [666], which also marks the end of a thousand-year period. This important timeframe coincides with a Biblical prophecy in which the Antichrist will not appear “until the thousand years . . . [have] ended” (Rev. 20.3, 7-8)!
So when you see references to the red 7-headed dragon with 10 horns, for example, in Revelation 12, it is a reference to Russia as the final superpower that will dominate the world and create a New World Order (Rev 13)!
Do We Suffer Because We Have “Free Will”?: Answering Bart Ehrman
By Bible researcher and author Eli Kittim 🎓
In his blog post (entitled “Do We Suffer Because We Have ‘Free Will’?”), Bart Ehrman asked the question whether the Christian response to evil and suffering is sufficient. He asked the question whether or not we suffer because we have so-called “free will.”? He then proceeded to show that in spite of the fact that people can choose to mistreat their fellow man, there are other things, like plagues and natural disasters, that go far beyond human free-will in causing suffering and death, such as droughts, hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, diseases, and so on and so forth. Bart Ehrman, therefore, concluded that there is no satisfactory answer. In response, I have created a systematic theology of evil to try to explain how all these phenomena are possible from a biblical perspective and that, unlike science, the Christian response is the only one which demonstrates that suffering has a meaning and a purpose. So let’s start at the beginning.
The presence of evil is not limited to the brain and to human thought and behavior (i.e. free will), but it permeates all of creation and the natural order. If you study diseases and viruses, you will quickly come to realize that they act as if they were highly intelligent and sophisticated computer programs that are intended to hack and infiltrate a host (e.g. they mimic, hide, and impersonate it) and then, at the right time, they duplicate themselves inside the nucleus (or the headquarters of the host, so to speak) in an attempt to overwhelm and destroy it. It’s as if diseases, say, like cancer, have a mind of their own. This represents evil at the biological, chemical, genetic, or physiological level.
We can also detect this battle of good and evil being played out in the physical world of matter and antimatter. When matter and antimatter come into close contact, they mutually annihilate each other. One could say that evil, death, and destruction exist just as much in the material world as they do in human consciousness. The presence of evil, death, and destruction in the physical world consists of antimatter, which comprises antiprotons, antineutrons, and so on. Therefore, life and death are played out on a cosmic scale between matter and antimatter, as well as between health and well-being, on the one hand, and illness and disease, on the other. In fact, Paul stresses that the whole of creation will one day be reversed from its present state of entropy in which the universe is gradually declining into chaos and disorder (Romans 8:21-22):
the creation itself also will be set free from
its slavery to corruption into the freedom of
the glory of the children of God. For we
know that the whole creation groans and
suffers the pains of childbirth together until
now.
So, when we speak about the problem of evil in our world, it isn’t as simple as reducing it to “free will” and saying that humans choose to act in accordance with either life or death. That’s because this destructive force also permeates the physical world (e.g. natural disasters, plagues, etc.), as well as the metaphysical world. In the Bible, Ephesians 2:2 attributes the origin of all this cosmic death and entropy to an autonomous metaphysical being who is said to be the "prince of the power of the air,” and whom John 12:31 describes as the "ruler of this world.” In 2 Corinthians 4:4, Paul attests to the enormous power that this entity possesses by calling him “the god of this world,” as if he has ontological status and somehow reigns over the entire world and its people. In other words, these computer-like viruses that we call “diseases,” as well as the antimatter that tries to destroy matter, are somehow guided by this malevolent metaphysical intelligence that is invisible to the naked eye. That’s precisely why Revelation 9:11 refers to this supernatural being as a king called “Abaddon”——whose name in Hebrew means “destruction”——who is said to be the chief angel of the abyss!
Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, realized that both life and death exist side by side and reside within human beings. He called these principles eros (life) and thanatos (death). You may call them good and evil, or God and the devil, if you will. The point is, there’s a cosmic battle taking place on many levels of existence (biological, physical, natural, cognitive, and metaphysical) between life and death, between creation and destruction, between being and nonbeing, between matter and antimatter, between good and evil, and ultimately between God and the devil!
This cosmic war comes to a head during the consummation of the ages when the universal battle between the gods will take place. We are told in the Bible that life will ultimately triumph over death, and that light will prevail over darkness. This cosmic battle is summarized in Revelation 12:7-8. That’s why in 1 Corinthians 15:23-28, we are told that, in the end-times, Christ will abolish “all rule and all authority and power” and reign over them. “The last enemy that will be abolished is death.” Thus all physical laws of the universe, including the entities that have been acting autonomously, will finally come under the control of Christ. At that time, “All things are put in subjection” to Christ. That’s precisely why there will be a new universe, namely, a new heavens and a new earth (Rev. 21:1). So, there is much more at stake here than one realizes. It’s true that humanity is at a precipice. But more than that, the future of the entire universe, and of “reality“ itself, is at stake.
Fortunately, Revelation 21:4 informs us that this cosmic battle, which has been causing so much pain and suffering for hundreds of thousands of years, will finally come to an end, and life will ultimately triumph over death. All the cosmic forces of death and destruction will be completely abolished and eliminated. This is, in fact, the ultimate purpose of the universe and of humanity itself. Thus, Revelation gives us something worth looking forward to:
He will wipe away every tear from their
eyes; and there will no longer be any death;
there will no longer be any mourning, or
crying, or pain; the first things have passed
away.
In 1 Corinthians 2:9, Paul reveals this future world as a fantastic vacation spot of utter bliss, contentment, fun, joy, peace, happiness, and satisfaction:
Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have
entered into the heart of man The things
which God has prepared for those who love
Him.
Kittim’s Eschatology:
The Kittim Method
By Eli Kittim 🎓
Kittim’s eschatology is a view in biblical studies that interprets the story of Jesus in exclusively eschatological terms. This unique approach was developed by Eli of Kittim, especially in his 2013 work, The Little Book of Revelation. Kittim doesn’t consider Jesus' life as something that happened in history but rather as something that will occur in the last days as a fulfillment of bible prophecy. It involves a new paradigm shift! Kittim holds to an exclusive futuristic eschatology in which the story of Jesus (his birth, death, and resurrection) takes place once and for all (hapax) in the end-times. Kittim’s eschatology provides a solution to the historical problems associated with the historical Jesus.
Biographizing the Eschaton: The Proleptic Eschatology of the Gospels
Kittim views God's inscripturated revelation of Jesus in the New Testament gospel literature as a proleptic account. That is to say, the New Testament gospels represent the future life of Jesus as if presently existing or accomplished. According to The Free Dictionary, an online encyclopedia, the term “prolepsis” refers to “the anachronistic representation of something as existing before its proper or historical time.”
According to Eli Kittim, the gospels are therefore written before the fact. They are conveyed from a theological angle by way of a proleptic narrative, a means of biographizing the eschaton as if presently accomplished. By contrast, Kittim’s work demonstrates that these events will occur at the end of the age. This argument is primarily founded on the authority of the Greek New Testament Epistles, which affirm the centrality of the future in Christ’s only visitation!
In the epistolary literature, the multiple time-references to Christ being “revealed at the end of the ages” (1 Pet. 1:20; cf. Heb. 9:26b) are clearly set in the future. It appears, then, that the theological (or apocalyptic) purpose of the Gospels is to provide a fitting introduction to the messianic story beforehand so that it can be passed down from generation to generation until the time of its fulfillment. It is as though New Testament history is written in advance. It is therefore thought advisable, according to Kittim, to consider the collection of New Testament writings as strikingly futurist books.
The Epistolary View of Christ
The Epistles seemingly contradict the Gospels regarding the timeline of Christ’s birth, death, and resurrection by placing it in eschatological categories. The Epistolary authors deviate from the Gospel writers in their understanding of the overall importance of eschatology in the chronology of Jesus. For them, Scripture comprises revelations and “prophetic writings” (see Rom. 16:25-26; 2 Pet. 1:19-21; Rev. 22:18-19). Consequently, the Epistolary literature of the New Testament sets Christ’s birth, death, and resurrection in a different light, while apparently contradicting some of the Gospel material. Only the Epistles give us the real Jesus. Thus, in order to have a high view of scripture, one doesn’t have to accept the historicity of the Bible, or of Christianity for that matter!
Kittim’s Eschatology: The Kittim Method
Ephesians 2:4-7 alludes to a redemption established “in faith” prior to the coming of Jesus. This implies that believers in Christ can receive the Holy Spirit retroactively “through faith” (1 Pet. 1:3-5) based on the merits of the prophetic message revealed by God in the New Testament! Similarly, Titus 1:2-3 talks about a salvation which was promised a long time ago “but at the proper time revealed” (cf. Isa. 46:10). This is not unlike Hebrews 1:1-2 which states that Jesus speaks to humankind not in Antiquity but in the “last days” (ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν). First Peter 1:10-11 also suggests an eschatological soteriology, given that the holy spirit “predicted the sufferings of Christ.”
What is more, Second Peter 1:16-19 demonstrates that the so-called “eyewitness accounts” were actually based on visions (i.e. prophetic words) that were then written down as if they had already happened (proleptically). Similarly, Acts 3:19-21, in speaking about “the regeneration,” implies that the Messiah will not be sent to earth “until the time of universal restoration” (cf. Mt. 19:28). Put differently, the legend of Jesus precedes his arrival.
The same anachronistic (or proleptic) interpretation is brought to bear on the issue of the Messiah’s future incarnation in Revelation 12:5. Despite the fact that the reference to Christ’s birth in Revelation 12:5 is clearly set in the future, Christian theology has, nevertheless, always maintained that it already happened. Thus, the notion of a historical Jesus does not square well with the context and content of these prophecies. In fact, according to Luke 17:30, the Son of Man has not yet been revealed (cf. 1 Cor. 1:7; Phil. 1:6; Col. 3:4; 2 Thess. 1:7; 1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 4:1; Titus 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:13; 1 Jn. 2:28). That’s precisely why the New Testament accounts of Jesus are essentially prophetic. For example, according to Revelation 19:10d, “the testimony to Jesus is the spirit of prophecy”!
Christ is born in the Fullness of Time
Interestingly enough, Ephesians 1:9-10 defines “the fullness of time” (τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, which we also find in Galatians 4:4) as the consummation of the ages. Thus, according to Galatians 4:4, Christ will be born in the end-times! That’s why 1 Peter 1:20 (NJB) informs us that although Christ was foreknown through visions and revelations by the agency of the Holy Spirit, nevertheless he will make his one and only appearance “at the final point of time.” What is more, Hebrews 9:26b (KJV) states quite explicitly that Jesus will die for the sins of the world “in the end of the world,” or “at the end of the age” (NRSV). A word study of the phrase ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων demonstrates that it refers to “the end of the world” (cf. Mt. 13:39-40, 49; 24:3; 28:20; Dan. 12:4 LXX; see also G.W.H. Lampe [ed.], A Patristic Greek Lexicon [Oxford: Oxford U, 1961], p. 1340)!
Christ’s Death and Resurrection at the End of the Age
In the Greek New Testament, Romans 5:6 intimates with hardly any ambiguity that Christ “died” (ἀπέθανεν) at some unspecified time of human history by using the phrase κατὰ καιρὸν, which means “at the right time” (cf. 1 Tim. 2:6), or at “the proper time,” and does not necessarily warrant a reference to history. Similarly, Isaiah 2:19 offers us a markedly different interpretation concerning the timing of the LORD’s resurrection, namely, as an event that takes place in the end time. Isaiah does not simply say that “the LORD” rises, only to quickly evanesce, but that he “rises to terrify the earth.” In other words, there’s no two thousand year gap between the LORD’s resurrection and judgment day. What is often overlooked in Isaiah 2:19 when doing exegetical work is the significance of the Hebrew term קוּם (qum), which is rendered in English as “rises,” and is often used in the Bible to mean “resurrection” (see e.g. Job 14:12; Isa. 26:19; Mk 5:41). Astoundingly, the Septuagint (LXX) translates it as ἀναστῇ (i.e. resurrection). The word ἀναστῇ (e.g. Mk 9:9; Lk. 16:31) is a derivative of ἀνίστημι, which is the root word of ἀνάστασις and means to “raise up” or to “raise from the dead.”
There is biblical support for this conclusion in Daniel 12:1-2. For instance, the end-time death and resurrection of “the great prince” in Daniel 12:1 (παρελεύσεται Dan OG 12:1 LXX; ἀναστήσεται Dan Th 12:1 LXX) occur just prior to the general resurrection of the dead (Dan. 12:2). Similarly, “Christ the first fruits” is said to be the first to rise from the dead during the future general resurrection of the dead in 1 Corinthians 15:23. This is confirmed in Zephaniah 1:7 in which the Lord’s sacrificial-death takes place during “the day of the Lord”!
Conclusion
Exegetes must interpret the implicit by the explicit and the narrative by the didactic. In practical terms, the New Testament Epistles and other more explicit and didactic portions of Scripture must clarify the implicit meaning and significance of the Gospel literature. Accordingly, this paper argues that the Epistles are the primary keys to unlocking the future timeline of Christ’s only visitation. Kittim’s method is therefore revolutionizing the field of historical Jesus Studies.
——-
Is Christ asking us to hate ourselves?
By Clinical Psychologist & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
What is the goal of rebirth?
As a clinical psychologist, I will take a minute to explain the basic differences between our “true self” (that lies buried underneath all the cultural conditioning that we have undergone) and the “persona” or the mask that we wear to perform different tasks throughout our busy day. Carl Jung stressed that if there is no conscious assimilation of unconscious contents, then we will inevitably fail to integrate our lives and achieve wholeness. That’s because those who repress their feelings of guilt and shame, and lock them up inside a dark room within their unconscious, are essentially splitting off their personality into two compartments: the conscious and the unconscious mind. Jung warns that if people don’t get in touch with their unconscious life, but only identify with their persona, they’re bound to suffer psychological turmoil. In biblical terms, some people are so detached from themselves that they’re not even aware that they’re sinners (1 Jn 1:10).
From a scriptural perspective, we’re all sinners, with a propensity for evil. The ego that has been created throughout an individual’s history is part of what the Bible calls the “carnal”(sarkikos) or “fleshly” self (1 Cor. 3.1-3). This is the unregenerate self that is always self-seeking, self-serving, and self-absorbed. And it has all the evil inclinations that the Bible speaks of. This is not the “true self” which is created in the image of God (imago dei). This is the “false self” in the image of Adam, the first sinner. That’s precisely why we need a savior to liberate us from this “false self” system so that we can, once again, become like the pre-fall Adam. The only way to achieve this goal is through a conscious assimilation of unconscious contents, and then, in the process of reliving our past traumas and fears, we will be cured (Phil. 2:12). During this cathartic and therapeutic process, we ask Christ to forgive us and to take our load off our shoulders.
If you do that, an awesome miracle will occur and your whole life will change in an instant: “your grief will turn to joy” (Jn 16:30)! And you will experience moments of intense love: “a good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over” (Luke 6:38). You will also experience your “true self,” as if Christ himself had become your new identity (Gal. 2:20). And you will, for the first time, love yourself! You will also love others and fall madly in love with Christ. Your gratitude will become your prayer of thanksgiving. So, that’s the born-again experience in a nutshell!
Loving yourself doesn’t go against Christ’s teaching
Having laid the groundwork for understanding the two different types of self, I want to now explain which behaviors, thoughts, and emotions are healthy and appropriate to Christians, and which ones are unhealthy, inappropriate, and unchristian. The attitude of genuinely caring for oneself, accepting oneself (despite one’s shortcomings), and trusting oneself is essential not only for healthy psychological functioning but also for the Christian life. It is conducive to caring for others, accepting others, and trusting others. By contrast, hating oneself is obviously an abnormal state of affairs where one dislikes himself, sabotages himself, hurts himself, and, in some cases, even kills himself. As an illustration, the mass shootings in the US are cases in which the hate one has for one’s self is now extended to others. Bottom line, hating yourself is not a healthy attitude under any circumstances. It can also lead to various disorders (e.g. eating disorders and depression). This self-hate is often unconscious so that we don’t even realize that we dislike ourselves. Because it’s repressed in the unconscious, it’s often projected onto others, and we end up hating people without even knowing why. After all, if we don’t love ourselves at all, and we don’t even know what love is, how can we possibly attempt to love others, let alone God? How can we possibly love others if we hate ourselves? That’s precisely why self-hatred is not healthy at all, and should never be encouraged, whether in our psychological world or in our spiritual world. In fact, loving yourself (in the right way) is actually the goal of Christianity! Christianity is in the business of making lovers, not haters. A pianist practices his piano everyday. A guitarist practices his guitar everyday. A Christian ought to practice *love* everyday. Love is our goal and our most precious treasure in life. If we have love, we don’t need anything else.
1 John 4:8 writes:
He who does not love does not know God;
for God is love.
If it’s ok for God to love us, then why is it wrong for us to love ourselves? When God instructs us not to “love the world or the things in the world” (1 Jn 2:15), that’s a warning against loving our instinctual nature, that is, our desires, lusts, and passions, what Freud called the “id.” But loving the “carnal self” and loving the “genuine self” are two completely different things. We all need to be loved, to be cared for, to feel protected, and to feel worthy, rather than unworthy, unlovable, and unimportant. That’s precisely what God does during the regeneration process. He showers us with love and makes us feel special, worthy, important, and treats us like kings and queens. If you haven’t felt like that, you haven’t been reborn. Love is our currency, our lifeblood! 1 John 3:14 declares:
He who does not love abides in death.
1 John 4:16 summarizes Christian Theology thusly:
God is love, and he who abides in love
abides in God, and God abides in him.
Even the Old Testament urges us to “love the sojourner” (Deut. 10:19) and to “love the LORD your God” (Deut. 11:1). Romans 13:10 sums up love as the fulfillment of the law:
Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore
love is the fulfilling of the law.
Love is the greatest commandment (Matt. 22:36-40)! That’s precisely why “knowledge puffs up, but love builds up” (1 Cor. 8:1). Therefore, there’s a big difference between “selfish love” and “genuine love” (2 Cor. 6:6; 8:8). God only looks at our heart because that’s where love comes from. Galatians 5:14 commands people to “love your neighbor as yourself." But how can you love your neighbor if you hate yourself? Paul doesn’t say “hate your neighbor as yourself.” Rather, he explains that love is the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22):
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace,
patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness.
Thus, Paul urges us to cultivate love, to prune and water it daily so that it might grow. In Phil. 1:9, he writes:
it is my prayer that your love may abound
more and more, with knowledge and all
discernment.
Later, in Phil. 2:2, he exhorts his followers to stir up the gift that is in them:
complete my joy by being of the same mind,
having the same love.
In 1 Tim. 1:5, Paul reminds us that our mission is to awaken love from the bottom of our hearts:
the aim of our charge is love that
issues from a pure heart and a good
conscience and sincere faith.
Is Christ asking us to hate ourselves?
Many people misunderstand the Bible. When Christ uses hyperbole and says “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, … such a person cannot be my disciple” (Lk 14:26), he doesn’t mean that we should hate our parents. He means that we should love them less than Christ (which is the 1st commandment)! The same goes for the “self.” We must love ourselves less than Christ. And we must also seek to transform and transcend our “carnal self” that is selfish, greedy, lustful, angry, envious, etc. Jesus is not saying that it’s good to hate the inner you, or to hate who you truly are. In fact, loving yourself (i.e. forgiving yourself and accepting yourself) is a prerequisite condition for loving others. How can you possibly love others if you hate yourself? Luke 9:23 is teaching us how to prepare the soil of our heart for the harvest of love. Just as when we avoid consuming unhealthy foods, we should also avoid certain unhealthy or toxic behavioral patterns. Jesus is not teaching you to hate yourself or to be suicidal. He is not saying that loving yourself is a heresy. On the contrary, Jesus teaches that we should stop feeding the “false self” who loves the things of the world, namely, lust, money, sex, power, competition, greed, envy, etc. And although it may sound counterintuitive, we actually gain control over our addictions through genuine self-love (2 Tim. 1:7):
God did not give us a spirit of timidity but a
spirit of power and love and self-control.
In Luke 14:25-27, Jesus is not preaching hate. He’s not saying “Hate your neighbors as yourself.” Or “Hate your family and yourself.” No. It’s not a hate-speech. The point he is trying to make is that we must make Christ our first priority. He must take first place in our life. In other words, he must be our greatest love, and we must love him more than our family and friends, and even more than life itself. So what he’s actually saying is that he who loves me less than family and friends cannot be my disciple because he loves others more than me (idols). That’s the point. Jesus is not preaching hate.
In John 12:25, Jesus is saying the exact same thing. He who loves his self more than Christ will eventually lose it. Conversely, he who loves his life less than Christ will find it (i.e. he will find his “true self” and life-eternal). Jesus doesn’t imply that you should hate yourself, your family and children. Jesus is not psychotic.
In 2 Timothy 3:1-5, Paul uses the term φίλαυτος (philautos), which means “selfish” or “self-loving” (i.e. narcissistic), and then lists all the traits associated with this selfish love (vv. 2-4):
lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful,
arrogant, slanderers, disobedient to
parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving,
irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without
self-control, brutal, haters of good,
treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of
pleasure, rather than lovers of God.
Notice that all these characteristics refer to some character flaw that is based on selfish desires or pleasures. This is not the same as loving your “true-self” humbly and genuinely. Loving who you really are in Christ is actually necessary for spiritual growth. It is the purpose of our very existence and the goal of all our struggles. To be transformed into Christ means being transformed into love. In fact, during rebirth, a great love starts to flow within us, and we begin to love ourselves as we really are. We also fall madly in love with Jesus. So no one should be preaching hate. Christianity is all about love.
“Lovers of self” refers to those people for whom everything revolves around them, thereby showing a callous disregard for others. By contrast, loving yourself in a genuine, pure, and humble way, accepting and forgiving yourself for past mistakes, is actually a very healthy and godly endeavor. Loving who you really are is not the same as being selfish, nor does it mean that you love yourself more than God.
James 3:13-16 talks of jealousy and selfish ambition, not of forgiving and accepting *yourself* in Christ’s love. For example, James 3:14-15 uses the word ἐριθεία (eritheia), which means seeking rivalries, disputes, having ambition, etc. It could be construed as a form of self-seeking but it is not, strictly speaking, talking about the self. It is this type of quarreling that is demonic, not a genuine love for yourself. In other words, whenever these feuds arise, there is anarchy and evil. James 3:14-15 writes:
if you have bitter jealousy and selfish
ambition in your heart, do not be arrogant
and so lie against the truth. This wisdom is
not that which comes down from above, but
is earthly, natural, demonic.
Conversely, loving yourself in a genuine way is not demonic, but actually the goal of Christianity!
Conclusion
Love is our goal, our aim, and our modus operandi! Instead of practicing the commandments, which are just rigid behavioral patterns, we should be cultivating love in our hearts. Paul writes in 1 Cor. 13:1-5:
If I speak in the tongues of men and of
angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong
or a clanging cymbal. And if I have
prophetic powers, and understand all
mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have
all faith, so as to remove mountains, but
have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all
I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned,
but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is
patient and kind; love is not jealous or
boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love
does not insist on its own way; it is not
irritable or resentful.
Elsewhere, he says (1 Cor. 13:13):
So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but
the greatest of these is love.
1 Cor. 14:1 doesn’t say “make hate your aim.” Rather, it says “Make love your aim.” In Col. 3:14, Paul equates our new identity with love, and urges us to fully immerse ourselves in it:
And above all these put on love, which
binds everything together in perfect
harmony.
We are to seek love in every situation, at every moment! Loving ourselves is the prerequisite for loving others. Love is our goal, not our enemy. The goal is to love ourselves in Christ. Meaning that when we receive Christ’s new identity, we begin to love ourselves for the very first time, and we also stop hating ourselves for the very first time. Christ’s love is genuine and pure. It’s part of the fruit of the spirit. This love we must pursue. This is who we are in the image of God. For how can we possibly love others if we hate ourselves?
The Exact Month and Year of Jesus’ Birth Are Revealed in the Bible
By Bible Researcher & Goodreads Author Eli Kittim 🎓
Matthew 1.17 tells us the year of Jesus’ birth
Astoundingly, the gospel of Matthew imparts a cryptic clue concerning the birth of Jesus that hardly anyone knows about. Specifically, the ancestry of Jesus, as recorded in the gospel of Matthew, is actually a mathematical riddle whose solution reveals the precise year of his birth! The key to solving this puzzle can be found in Chapter 1 and Verse 17. Notice that there is a constant repetition of 14 generations throughout the foregoing lineage. We also know from Scripture that a generation is equal to 70 years (Ps. 90.10). Matthew 1.17 reads as follows:
there were fourteen generations in all from
Abraham to David, fourteen from David to
the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the
exile to the Messiah.
One final clue: the calculation does not begin from the time of Abraham but from the time of David who alone represents the Messiah! Do the math.
So, let’s work out the calculation. Matthew tells us that there were 14 generations from David to Babylon. Each generation is equal to 70 years. Thus, 14 x 70 = 980 years from David to Babylon. And there were 14 generations from the exile to the Messiah. Therefore, 14 x 70 = 980 years. So, from David to the exile are 980 years, and from the exile to the Messiah are another 980 years. Hence 980 (+) 980 = 1960, the year of the Messiah’s birth! Mind you, this is not a historical but rather an esoteric rendering, which contains a cryptic clue concerning the year of Jesus’ birth!
Luke 1.26 tells us the month of Jesus’ birth
The Bible is very clear and very simple when it comes to imparting cryptic and esoteric clues. We don’t need to use overly technical, heavy-handed, and convoluted mathematical equations. For instance, in an attempt to figure out the month of Jesus’ birth, some scholars begin by applying the months pertaining to the 24 courses of the Levitical priests that rotate to minister in the Tabernacle (based on John the Baptist’s father in Luke 1.5, “Zechariah, of the division of Abijah”), and then, after figuring out the date of Elizabeth’s conception, they add 6 months to determine the timing of Mary’s conception (Luke 1.26, 36), and so on and so forth. But this calculation is far too complex and very confusing. By contrast, Luke’s gospel makes it very, very simple and very clear. Luke 1.26-27 reads thusly:
Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel
was sent from God to a city in Galilee
named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a
man whose name was Joseph, of the
descendants of David; and the virgin’s
name was Mary.
In Luke 1.26, the angel was sent “in the sixth month.” That’s the clue. That’s the key! Simple and to the point. The sixth month (in the Jewish religious calendar) is called Elul. In the Gregorian calendar it falls on the month of August. Thus, that’s the month that the Messiah is born!
Conclusion
In chapter 1 verse 17, Matthews’ genealogy is theological, not historical. That’s because “historically” it doesn’t make any sense. For example, we know that the Babylonian exile took place sometime around 586 BCE. If David lived approximately 980 years earlier, that would put David’s timeline at around 1566 BCE, which is historically inaccurate. David lived around 1,000 BCE. Similarly, 980 years after the Babylonian exile would put Jesus’ birth at around 394 CE (the fourth century), making him a contemporary of Jerome. So Matthew’s genealogy is obviously crypto-theological, not historical. It is meant to impart a mathematical riddle whose solution reveals the precise year of the Messiah’s birth!
But you may object and say, wait a minute. I thought Jesus was born in 4 BCE and died sometime around 30 CE, right? Well, not exactly. The gospels are theological, not historical, documents. Scholars know that the early extra-biblical references to Jesus by people like Josephus and Tacitus were tampered with (interpolations). What is more, there are no eyewitnesses and no first-hand accounts of Jesus. There are also many literary discrepancies in the New Testament. For example, the earliest New Testament writings (the Pauline letters) don’t contain the embellishments and legends we find in the later writings (the gospels). Not to mention the historical discrepancies as to whether Jesus was supposedly born in 4 BCE (Matthew) or 6 CE (Luke).
But, more importantly, the New Testament epistles themselves tell us that Jesus will actually be born during the consummation of the ages, or “in the fullness of time” (Gal. 4.4; Eph. 1.9-10), and that he will be “revealed [for the very first time] at the final point of time” (1 Pet. 1.20 NJB). Moreover, Hebrews 1.2 tells us that Jesus will speak to humankind in the “last days,” while Rev. 12.5 confirms that Jesus will be born in the end-times as a contemporary of the last empire on earth (the so-called “7-headed dragon with 10 horns”), during a time period just prior to *the great tribulation* that lasts 3 and a half years (see Rev. 12.5-6, 13-14). Similarly, Isaiah 2.19 says that the Lord rises (or resurrects) “to terrify the earth.” In other words, there’s no 2,000 year gap between Jesus’ resurrection and judgment day! Rather, they’re contemporaneous events. And Daniel 12.1-2 prophesies (in the Greek Septuagint) about a princely figure who will die and resurrect in the last days, just prior to the *general resurrection* of the dead.
So, there are many, many references to the Messiah’s one-and-only visitation in the end-times (e.g. Job 19.25; Zeph. 1.8—9, 15—18; Zech. 12.9—10; Lk. 17.30; Acts 2.17—21; 1 Cor. 1.7; Phil. 1.6; Col. 3.4; 1 Thess. 1.10; 2 Thess. 1.7; 2.1—3; 1 Tim. 6.14; 2 Tim. 4.1; Titus 2.13; 1 Pet. 1.13; 5.1; 1 Jn. 2.28; Rev. 19.10d)! But probably the most important and explicit reference to Jesus’ *atonement* and *death* at the end of days comes from Hebrews 9.26b (KJV), which says categorically and unequivocally that the timeline of this event is in the end-times:
once in the end of the world hath he [Jesus]
appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice
[or death] of himself.
So, according to Hebrews 9.26b, Jesus’ death takes place “in the end of the world,” not 2,000 years ago! Therefore, the one-and-only visitation of Jesus in the end-times is well-supported and multiply attested!
——-
For further scholarly details (from the original Greek) on the future incarnation of Christ, watch the following (short) video: ⬇️
A Biblical Greek Translation of Hebrews 9:26 that Changes Everything We Thought We Knew About Jesus
——-
I just spent some time giving you the backstory concerning the Jesus prophecy. Now that you understand the biblical timeline and context of Jesus’ one-and-only coming, let’s get back to what we were talking about earlier. So, in conclusion, Matthew 1.17 reveals the year of the Messiah’s birth (1960)! Similarly, Luke 1.26 reveals the month that the Messiah is born (in August)! Thus, Jesus the Messiah has already been born and will soon appear on the world stage. That’s precisely why the countdown to Armageddon began after the restoration of Israel in 1948. The rebirth of Israel in 1948 (Ezek. 38.8) marks a turning point in apocalyptic expectations in that modern Israel becomes the preeminent sign as regards the end of days (cf. Mt. 24.32-34; Acts 1.6). So the idea that the Messiah would be born 12 years after the rebirth of modern Israel coincides with the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel. Accordingly, the so-called *restoration* of “Jerusalem, until Messiah the Prince” (Dan. 9.25), in the 70 weeks of Daniel, also began during this same time period! In other words, the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel also prophesies of a coming messiah after the restoration of Israel. If you do the work of modern critical scholarship, it all fits like a glove. So, are we living in the last days? You better believe it!
——-
For further details on the 70 weeks of Daniel, see the following article: ⬇️
The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9: A Critique of Questionable Interpretations
——-
The Genesis 6 Oracle: The Birth of the Gods
By Independent Scholar and Goodreads Author Eli Kittim 🎓📚
The Sons of God Are Not Extraterrestrials: They Are Supernatural Spirits
Erich von Däniken is one of the first figures to popularize the idea that extraterrestrials visited Earth a long time ago and influenced human civilization. And, since then, many authors have picked up this idea and continued to expand on it, using mythologies from around the world, including the Bible. For example, Tim Alberino, Graham Hancock, and many other such writers——who also promote theories on alternative history and ancient civilizations——believe that there was an advanced alien civilization on earth, with very advanced technology, that was wiped out by a comet impact c. 12,900 to 11,700 years ago (aka “the younger dryas impact”).
However, it is important to note that mainstream science refutes the ancient alien-civilization theory. Books on these topics are generally in the realm of science-fiction, pseudoarchaeology, pseudohistory, and pseudoscience. These writings have not undergone rigorous scholarly peer review and have not been published in any credible academic or Biblical journals.
As regards the Scriptures, ancient astronaut theorists typically try to link alien civilizations and extraterrestrials to the Genesis 6 account, when “the sons of God” (called the “watchers” in the apocryphal book of Enoch) had supposed “sexual relations” with human women, whose offspring were said to be giants, the so-called “Nephilim” (cf. Jude 1.6). But this is reading too much into the Biblical story. The Bible is neither a sci‑fi novel, nor a historical treatise. It is a book about an invisible spiritual or metaphysical reality that interacts with our own.
What is more, the Bible has many different literary genres, such as prophecy, poetry, wisdom, parable, apocalyptic, narrative, and history. It is obviously inappropriate to interpret poetry or parable in the same way that we would interpret history because that would ultimately lead to logical absurdities. Alas, the history of Biblical interpretation is riddled with exegetes who have erroneously tried to force **metaphors** into a **literal interpretation,** which of course cannot be done without creating ridiculous effects that you only encounter in sci-fi films. This view creates logical absurdities, such as talking animals, trees of immortality that are guarded by aliens with lightsabers, fruits literally producing evil after consumption, people turning into pillars of salt, mythological beasts with multiple heads that are populating our planet, and the like. Not only does this eisegesis defy the actual interpretation that is given by scripture itself, but it also leads to complete and utter nonsense.
Bible Translations Versus The Hebrew Text
Now if we turn our attention to the original Hebrew text, nothing in the Genesis 6 narrative suggests an advanced alien civilization of extraterrestrials, nor can one adduce that the Genesis 6 narrative should be taken literally as a historical account. Unfortunately, some English Bible versions have mistranslated certain words by inserting their own *theological interpretations* that are not found in the original Hebrew text. For example, The New American Bible renders Genesis 6.4 as follows:
the sons of God had intercourse with the
daughters of human beings.
The NET Bible similarly says:
the sons of God were having sexual
relations with the daughters of humankind.
The New Living Translation also adds words and images that are not found in the original text:
the sons of God had intercourse with
women.
These are not only unfaithful translations of the original Hebrew text, but they are also bad interpretations that suggest interbreeding between spirits and mortals. Biologically, people can interbreed with one another, but people cannot interbreed with animals or spirits. This, then, shows a fundamental hermeneutical error in trying to understand Genesis 6 in purely physical, biological, or historical terms. According to Wikipedia:
Sons of God (Hebrew: בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים,
romanized: Bənē hāʾĔlōhīm, literally: "sons
of the Elohim") is a phrase used in the
Tanakh or Old Testament and in Christian
Apocrypha. The phrase is also used in
Kabbalah where bene elohim are part of
different Jewish angelic hierarchies.
So, the sons of god (οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ LXX) are spirits (see Ps. 82), while the daughters of men are human beings. The Genesis 6.2 account of the sons of god——who supposedly marry the daughters of men——is an allusion to a “spiritual marriage,” not a physical one, as when a *spiritual rebirth* in God (Jn 3.5-7) is like being married to God. That’s why the believers in Christ are said to be the bride of Christ (see 2 Cor 11.2)! Similarly, Genesis 6.2 is alluding to “supernatural beings“ (the so-called “fallen ones”) who entered women and united themselves to them in spirit, thus giving them a sort of Faustian *spiritual rebirth.* In Genesis 6.4, Young’s Literal Translation reads thusly:
The fallen ones were in the earth in those
days, and even afterwards when sons of
God come in unto daughters of men, and
they have borne to them -- they are the
heroes, who, from of old, are the men of
name.
It is, essentially, a *theological* (not a historical) account that tries to explain the origins of evil and how wickedness multiplied on earth (Gen. 6.5):
The LORD saw that the wickedness of man
was great in the earth, and that every
intention of the thoughts of his heart was
only evil continually.
The Hebrew word וַיִּקְח֤וּ (way·yiq·ḥū) means “they took” (Gen. 6.2). That is to say, the sons of God took נָשִׁ֔ים (nā·šîm) “wives” or “women” (Gen 6.2) in the *spiritual* sense of inhabiting or possessing them. The language of Genesis 6 suggests that they entered them. In Gen. 6.4, the Hebrew term יָבֹ֜אוּ (yā·ḇō·’ū) means “to come in,” or “go in.” But it is not explicitly referring to sexual intercourse, as most people mistakenly assume. Moreover, the Hebrew text in Gen. 6.4 doesn’t actually say that the earthly women bore human children to the sons of God. The text uses the term וְיָלְד֖וּ (wə·yā·lə·ḏū), which means “bore” or “brought forth, but it doesn’t say “children” per se. Readers often assume that the “mighty men … of old” were the “human children” that the mortal women supposedly bore.
But we must be very careful, here, because that’s not exactly what the text is saying. Notice that the *union* between the sons of god and the mortal women is initially spiritual, not biological. This spiritual union ultimately brought forth הַגִּבֹּרִ֛ים (hag·gib·bō·rîm) “the mighty” אֲשֶׁ֥ר (’ă·šer) “who” [were] מֵעוֹלָ֖ם (mê·‘ō·w·lām) “from ancient times” or “from eternity.” These were אַנְשֵׁ֥י (’an·šê) “men” הַשֵּֽׁם׃ (haš·šêm) of “the NAME” of God (Gen. 6.4). So, this spiritual union between spirits and mortals eventually *brought forth* embodied ancient spirits. These are obviously wicked spirits that deliberately possess human women for the purpose of giving birth to hybrids, such as the “Nephilim” or the so-called “giants.”
But, as I will demonstrate, we should not view these types of accounts as referring to a race of multiple giants but rather to the arrival of the gods, the superpowerful “giants that were from of old, the Heroes of fame” (Gen. 6.4). Therefore, even though this spiritual union will eventually give birth to an evil offspring in human history, the text is nevertheless trying to show the backstory to this event, namely, that what gave rise to it is a spiritual union, not a physical one!
The Births of Two Giants: The Virgin Birth and the Birth of the Antichrist
In fact, Genesis 6 sounds like a *reversal* of the virgin birth theme in which the Spirit of God impregnates a daughter of men, who then gives birth to a *giant,* a spirit from everlasting, namely, to God himself! So, while the gospels *prophesy* about the union of God’s Spirit with a mortal woman, bringing forth an everlasting spirit of God into the world of time and space, Genesis 6 seems to be *prophesying* about the same type of union, but this time between a dark spirit and a woman, bringing forth another ancient spirit, a man of renown, known as the Antichrist, whom the New Testament calls “the son of perdition,” “who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship” (2 Thess. 2.4), and “whose coming is after the working of Satan” (2 Thess. 2.9)!
Here’s an excerpt from chapter 10 (p. 225) of my book, “The Little Book of Revelation”:
The Bible affirms that ‘there were giants on
the earth in those days’! (Gen. 6:4, ‘New
King James’). These figures, which are
beyond human description, represent the
gods that have come down upon the earth
in the form of ‘Christ’ and ‘antichrist,’ to
whom scripture devotes a brief but
noteworthy depiction: ‘the mighty men who
were of old, men of renown’ (Gen 6:4).
Interestingly enough, in the apocryphal ancient text known as the Gospel of Peter, Jesus is said to be resurrected as a *Giant*! This is also alluded to in Rev 1.7:
Behold, He [Christ] is coming with the
clouds, and every eye will see Him.
From an eschatological perspective, the *giant Jesus* coming out of the tomb, in the Gospel of Peter (vv. 38-40), seems to be a *prophecy* which indicates that he will take the form of a *giant* at the end of days! A 6-foot man in the sky obviously cannot be seen by anyone, whereas a *giant* Jesus can be observed from many miles away, thus lending credence to the apocalyptic description in Rev. 1.7. Of all the end-time depictions of Christ, this is probably the most accurate portrayal because it seems to parallel many Biblical passages. For instance, it seems to fit with the *giant* Pauline Christ who will ultimately destroy the Antichrist “with the breath of his mouth” (2 Thess. 2.8). It’s also congruent with another Old Testament verse in which the Lord appears as a *colossal figure* who flies “Like birds” in order to “protect and deliver” Jerusalem (Isa. 31.5). Elsewhere, only a great figure of *immense proportion* can annihilate a giant dragon called Leviathan (Isa. 27.1 cf. Job 41.1; Ps 74.14). That’s precisely why we are told that “There were giants in the earth in those days” (Gen. 6.4). Which days? All the *prophecies* seem to converge on the end of days.
The exodus account is no different. If we compare the series of judgments that Moses inflicted upon “Egypt” to the final judgments in the Book of Revelation, we’ll notice that both descriptions appear to exhibit identical events taking place (see e.g. Ex. 10.1–20 [cf. Rev. 9.3]; Ex. 9.13–35 [cf. Rev. 16.21]; Ex. 9.1-7 [cf. Rev 6.8]; Ex. 7.14–24 [cf. Rev. 8.8; 16.3-4]; Ex. 7.25–8.15 [cf. Rev. 16.13]; Ex. 9.8–12 [cf. Rev. 16.2]; Ex. 10.21–29 [cf. Rev. 16.10])!
Why does Lk 17.30 compare Noah’s flood to the coming of Christ during the day of the Lord? Probably because these earlier Biblical narratives were trying to convey the same apocalyptic messages that we find in the New Testament. Moreover, the *giant* resurrected Jesus in the Gospel of Peter is the only version that seems to accurately portray the image of a towering figure on a white horse who “judges and makes war” (Rev. 19.11), and who can actually be seen from the earth (Rev. 1.7). By comparison, an average human being cannot possibly be seen “coming with the clouds of heaven” (cf. Dan. 7.13-14).
Similarly, the Antichrist also seems to be depicted as a *giant* who is incarnated on earth at the end of days! Case in point. In Revelation 9, the king of the locusts is likened to “a star that had fallen from heaven” to earth in the last days and who turns out to be a powerful figure that holds “the key to the … bottomless pit.” Later on in the chapter, he’s identified as the king of the locusts, “the angel of the bottomless pit” whose “name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek … Apollyon,” meaning “destroyer” (i.e. Antichrist)!
Similar to Genesis 6, there are many prophecies in the New Testament that allude to the future incarnation of Antichrist on earth. For example, the author of Luke 10.18 writes:
I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.
This same event——when the sons of god will come down to earth——is *prophesied* to take place at *the end of days* in Revelation 12.9:
And the great dragon was thrown down, the
serpent of old who is called the devil and
Satan, who deceives the whole world; he
was thrown down to the earth, and his
angels were thrown down with him.
Revelation 12.9 is a remarkably similar account of *the sons of god* that we find in Genesis 6! What is more, the future Antichrist will eventually be resurrected from the dead (see Rev 13.3, 14). And it appears that he, too, will be resurrected as a *giant,* causing people to marvel. Rev. 13.3-4 says:
I saw one of his heads as if it had been
fatally wounded, and his fatal wound was
healed. And the whole earth was amazed
and followed after the beast; they
worshiped the dragon because he gave his
authority to the beast; and they worshiped
the beast, saying, ‘Who is like the beast,
and who is able to wage war with him?’
Thus, Genesis 6, which talks about the giants, doesn’t appear to be historical, but rather prophetic! On the whole, the Bible is pointing to the messianic age——and specifically to the births of Christ and Antichrist——at the time of the end, just prior to the great and terrible day of the lord. Accordingly, Matthew 24.37 tells us that the days of Noah were *types* of the coming apocalypse:
For the coming of the Son of Man will be
just like the days of Noah.
It is also worth noting that Daniel 9.26 referred to the coming destruction as an eschatological flood:
And its end will come with a flood.
In stark contrast to what the authors on ancient civilizations are saying, the pivotal episode in human history concerning the final battle between the forces of light and the forces of darkness is in the future, not in the past. That’s precisely why the Great War between Christ and Antichrist will take place at the end of time! In the context of the end-times, Revelation 12.7 reads:
And there was war in heaven, Michael and
his angels waging war with the dragon. The
dragon and his angels waged war.
Conclusion
Authors on ancient civilizations typically talk about faraway planets, spaceships, and extraterrestrials. They usually don’t provide any credible references, aside from their literary fantasies and wild imaginations, and hence their claims appear to be unfounded. In addition, without any training whatsoever on biblical languages, textual criticism, or exegesis, they nevertheless offer outrageous interpretations based on a superficial reading of the Bible. Unbeknownst to them, many of the Old Testament stories are actually *types* that point to the *anti-types* (or fulfillments) in prophetic literature. Contrary to fundamentalists who read scripture literally, as if Noah’s flood literally happened, a close interpretation of the Bible reveals that the so-called “antediluvian” narrative of Genesis 6 is actually an apocalyptic oracle about the coming destruction during the day of the Lord in the end-times (2 Pet. 3.10)! We also know this because mainstream interdisciplinary science categorically rejects the notion of a global flood in earth’s history. According to Wikipedia:
Proponents of flood geology hold to a literal
reading of Genesis 6–9 and view its
passages as historically accurate; they use
the Bible’s internal chronology to place the
Genesis flood and the story of Noah’s Ark
within the last five thousand years.
Scientific analysis has refuted the key
tenets of flood geology. Flood geology
contradicts the scientific consensus in
geology, stratigraphy, geophysics, physics,
paleontology, biology, anthropology, and
archaeology. Modern geology, its sub-
disciplines and other scientific disciplines
utilize the scientific method. In contrast,
flood geology does not adhere to the
scientific method, making it a
pseudoscience.
——-
⭐️ The Little Book of Revelation (Amazon) ⭐️
By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim 🎓
🇬🇷 🇺🇸 📚
Christian Universalism Debunked
By Eli Kittim
Introduction
Universal reconciliation (also called “apocatastasis”) is the belief that, in the end, everyone will be saved. Advocates of this position assert that the concept of an eternal hell was never part of Judaism or early Christianity. Although this is certainly a very appealing view, there are many problems with it. For one thing, it is, in effect, a denial of free will, as if God will somehow coerce us into union with him. For another, morality has been thrown to the wind, as if there is no punishment for lawlessness. This doctrine essentially urges us to do what we please because, in the end, we will literally get away with murder! It reminds me of Aleister Crowley’s occultic expression, “Do what thou wilt.” The motto is, eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we’re saved. Thus, whether or not you murder, torture, molest, or harass innocent human beings is unimportant and irrelevant. You’re going to heaven. So carry on. There’s no need to stop. This position reminds me of free grace theology which essentially says the same thing: don’t stop sinning because you’re already saved. Therefore, both views are unscriptural and unacceptable!
The New Testament does not support universalism, and in fact mentions the reality of hell many times. The belief in hell is also contained in the Nicene creed and in the writings of the apostolic fathers. In fact, universalism was officially condemned as a heresy in the second Council of Constantinople (553 AD), when Origen’s teaching of apokatastasis was formally anathematized. Universalism is, therefore, not only a heresy but a denial of scripture. Nevertheless, since the apostolic age, there have been quite a few people who have affirmed the doctrine of universalism. The latest proponent is religious studies scholar David Bentley Hart with his 2019 book, That All Shall Be Saved: Heaven, Hell, and Universal Salvation.
Universalists come in many different flavors. Although some reject the existence of hell completely, others see it as a sort of purgatory prior to entering heaven. Universalists typically argue that the concept of eternal hell is based on a mistranslation of the Greek term αιών (aion). However, the word αἰώνιος means “ever-lasting,” or “eternal” (see Liddell and Scott. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon). Moreover, the idiomatic phrase «εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων» does mean “forever,” as seen in the following examples:
Gal 1.5 - ᾧ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν
αἰώνων ἀμήν.
Phil 4.20 - τῷ δὲ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ ἡμῶν ἡ
δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν
αἰώνων· ἀμήν.
1 Tim 1.17 - τῷ δὲ βασιλεῖ τῶν αἰώνων
ἀφθάρτῳ ἀοράτῳ μόνῳ θεῷ
τιμὴ καὶ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας
τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν.
Rev 1.6 - καὶ ἐποίησεν ἡμᾶς βασιλείαν
ἱερεῖς τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς
τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν.
Rev 1.18 - καὶ ὁ ζῶν καὶ ἐγενόμην νεκρὸς
καὶ ἰδοὺ ζῶν εἰμι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας
τῶν αἰώνων καὶ ἔχω τὰς κλεῖς
τοῦ θανάτου καὶ τοῦ ᾅδου.
The No-Hell Argument
Universalists claim that there’s no hell, and especially no “eternal hell.” Let’s see if their claims can be substantiated. How do the universalists explain the fallen angels who are locked away? Where are they imprisoned? (2 Pet 2.4). Doesn’t sound like the land of the dead (Sheol)! Plus, the Greek words that are used in these particular contexts suggest “eternity,” not annihilation or apocatastasis. For example, Jude 1.6-7 (NRSV) reads:
And the angels who did not keep their own
position but deserted their proper dwelling,
he has kept in eternal [ἀϊδίοις] chains
[δεσμοῖς] in deepest darkness for the
judgment of the great day. Likewise, Sodom
and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities,
which, in the same manner as they,
indulged in sexual immorality and pursued
unnatural lust, serve as an example by
undergoing [ὑπέχουσαι] a punishment
[δίκην] of eternal [αἰωνίου] fire [πυρὸς].
By the way, «αἰωνίου δίκην» means “eternal judgment.” So the question is, if all the damned are eventually saved (universalism), or if they simply die in the land of the dead (annihilationism), then why did God *prepare* (ἡτοιμασμένον) the eternal fire (τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον) for the devil & his angels? (Mt 25.41, 46 [eternal punishment; κόλασιν αἰώνιον]; cf. Mk 9.48; 2 Pet 2.4; Jude 1.13; Rev 14.11; 20.10)! The Greek phrase «κόλασιν αἰώνιον» actually means “eternal punishment.” Daniel 12.2, in the Septuagint (LXX), also mentions an “everlasting life” for the righteous, as well as an “everlasting shame” for the wicked:
καὶ πολλοὶ τῶν καθευδόντων ἐν γῆς χώματι
ἐξεγερθήσονται, οὗτοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον καὶ
οὗτοι εἰς ὀνειδισμὸν καὶ εἰς αἰσχύνην
αἰώνιον.
English translation by L.C.L. Brenton:
And many of them that sleep in the dust of
the earth shall awake, some to everlasting
life, and some to reproach and everlasting
shame.
The Greek phrases «ζωὴν αἰώνιον» and «αἰσχύνην αἰώνιον» mean “everlasting life” and “everlasting shame,” respectively. Look up the phrase «εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων» (Gal. 1.5; Phil. 4.20; 1 Tim. 1.17; 2 Tim. 4.18; Heb. 13.21; 1 Pet. 4.11; Rev. 1.6; 1.18; 4.9-10; 5.13; 7.12; 10.6; 11.15; 15.7; 19.3; 20.10; 22.5)! The phrase «εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων» means “for ever and ever.” Moreover, if the damned die once for all, then why is the word “eternal” used to frequently describe their punishment? Is it simply that our *memory* of them will be “eternal”? That’s not exactly what the Bible says. So, is the Bible (or God) lying to us or trying to confuse us?
Annihilationism: How Bart Ehrman Gets Things Wrong In His Book, Heaven and Hell
Although some believers in universal reconciliation (aka “apocatastasis”) might accept the notion of hell in some short-term temporal sense, they do not accept it either as a place of endless torment or as a place of ultimate “annihilation” for the wicked after the last judgment. And although this subsection is on the topic of annihilationism, I’m discussing it simply because it has a great deal to say about the term αἰώνιον (everlasting), which the universalists mistranslate!
In his “Fresh Air Interview” with Terry Gross, world-renowned biblical scholar Bart Ehrman falsely “states that eternal rewards and punishments aren’t found in the Old Testament.” This statement directly contradicts the teachings of the Old Testament. Much to Bart Ehrman’s dismay, there is a clear reference to a resurrection from the dead in the Old Testament in which there are definite rewards and punishments that await both the righteous and the wicked. In fact, these rewards and punishments are said to be “everlasting.” The following constitutes a further treatment of Daniel 12.2 (NRSV), which reads:
Many of those who sleep in the dust of the
earth shall awake, some to everlasting life
and some to shame and everlasting
contempt.
The so-called “Theodotion Daniel” form of the Septuagint (LXX) confirms that the rewards and punishments in the aftermath of the resurrection are indeed *continuous* by using the Greek word αἰώνιον, which means “everlasting.” Daniel Th 12.2 proclaims:
καὶ πολλοὶ τῶν καθευδόντων ἐν γῆς χώματι
ἐξεγερθήσονται, οὗτοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον καὶ
οὗτοι εἰς ὀνειδισμὸν καὶ εἰς αἰσχύνην
αἰώνιον.
The Hebrew text (BHS) of Daniel 12.2 reads:
וְרַבִּ֕ים מִיְּשֵׁנֵ֥י אַדְמַת־עָפָ֖ר יָקִ֑יצוּ אֵ֚לֶּה לְחַיֵּ֣י עֹולָ֔ם
וְאֵ֥לֶּה לַחֲרָפֹ֖ות לְדִרְאֹ֥ון עֹולָֽם׃ ס
The key Hebrew words are עוֹלָ֔ם ‘ō·w·lām (everlasting) and לְדִרְא֥וֹן lə·ḏir·’ō·wn (contempt). In short, the dead are not annihilated, nor do they sleep forever, as Ehrman mistakenly assumes, but are rather *resurrected* to exist either in an “everlasting life” of Blessedness or in “everlasting contempt.” What is more, Daniel 12 is found in the Masoretic and Qumran texts and is not, therefore, a later edition.
As for Ehrman’s other false statement “that eternal rewards and punishments aren’t found . . . in the teachings of Jesus,” he should go back and restudy the Koine Greek of the earliest New Testament gospel, namely, the gospel of Mark! The English translation of Mark 9.47-48 reads as follows:
And if your eye causes you to stumble, tear
it out; it is better for you to enter the
kingdom of God with one eye than to have
two eyes and to be thrown into hell, where
their worm never dies, and the fire is never
quenched.
Two things are indisputably mentioned by Jesus that are both unequivocal and categorical: the *punishment* is •everlasting• in that neither human beings nor the fires of hell (γέενναν) are put out or extinguished. In short, human beings never die and the fires of hell never end. And this pericope is considered to be part of the sayings of Jesus! Thus, in accordance with Daniel 12.2, Jesus definitely confirms the duration, rather than the extinction, of the afterlife! In fact, the Greek term πῦρ (“fire” of hell) in Mark 9.48 is the exact same term used to designate “the lake of fire” (Gk. λίμνην τοῦ πυρὸς) in Revelation 20.10! The Greek text (NA28) of Mark 9.48 is illuminating in this regard. It reads:
ὅπου ὁ σκώληξ αὐτῶν οὐ τελευτᾷ καὶ τὸ
πῦρ οὐ σβέννυται.
The Greek term σκώληξ (skóléx) means “worm,” “symbolizing perhaps the loathsomeness of the penalty” (Thayer’s Greek Lexicon) or it maybe used figuratively as a general term of contempt for a living being. Moreover, the Greek phrase οὐ τελευτᾷ means that their “organism” (or “worm”) never ceases to exist; it does not come to an end. Equally, the Greek phrase οὐ σβέννυται means that the fires (Gk. πῦρ) of punishment are not put out: they are not extinguished or quenched! It’s also important to note that Mark 9.48 is not an interpolation because it’s preserved in Isaiah 66.24. It’s part of the Old Testament tradition.
In other words, Jesus clearly teaches in Mark 9.47-48 that there are eternal punishments precisely because people do not cease to exist after death, nor are the fires of hell put out (cf. Mt. 25.46). And Daniel 12.2, among other places in the Old Testament (cf. e.g., Isa. 66.24), supports the New Testament teaching of the abiding presence of rewards and punishments for both the righteous and the wicked in the afterlife! Further supportive evidence comes from Rev. 20.10, which contradicts annihilationism by explicitly stating that the damned “will be tormented day and night forever and ever” (Gk. βασανισθήσονται ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων)! Besides, if annihilationism is true, why, then, will the damned be resurrected? To die again? (Jn 5.29). It doesn’t make any sense! It is, therefore, deeply misleading and particularly dangerous to assume that the Bible does not speak of an afterlife or that there are no ultimate consequences for our actions here on earth!
Universalists Misinterpret Scripture
Universalists are putting a spin on practically every scriptural verse they mention, adding a speculative (private) interpretation that is not in the text, while ignoring other parts of scripture that say the exact opposite. It’s a sort of *confirmation bias* in which they add interpretations to the text that are not explicitly stated. For the sake of convenience, I’ll simply mention a few verses that they often use to twist scripture in order to make it say what it doesn’t actually say.
For example, Rev 5.13 is talking about the new creation——that is, everyone who has been reborn in Christ——when it says that all will sing praises to God. But it doesn’t mean that the most violent and wicked demons that ever lived (such as Satan) will hold candles and sing praises to God. Or, take 1 John 4.14. Yes, Christ is the Savior of the world, meaning that his atonement covers all human beings, provided that they’re freely willing to come to him. But that doesn’t mean that the will of the people can be forced into salvation. Similarly, 1 Timothy 2.4-6 says that God wants all men to be saved. But this verse is simply informing us of God’s disposition, not that all men will definitely be saved. Along the same lines, Philippians 2.9-11 says that every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord. But this could be referring to the new creation following the judgment, after the former things have passed away. Besides, during the judgment, the unsaved will certainly recognize that Jesus is Lord, even if they despise him. It’s a similar situation to the demons who acknowledge God’s existence in James 2.19. Moreover, the narratives in Ezekiel and Isaiah, which claim that all nations will come to worship God, are true. But they are symbolic of those particular nations that will be saved. They don’t imply that each and every person that ever lived will be saved, or that there is no judgement:
Psalm 1.5 - Therefore the wicked will not stand
in the judgment nor sinners in the
congregation of the righteous.
Psalm 7.6 - Rise up, O Lord, in your anger; lift yourself up against the fury of
my enemies; awake, O my God;
you have appointed a judgment.
Jn 5.24 - Very truly, I tell you, anyone who
hears my word and believes him
who sent me has eternal life and
does not come under judgment but
has passed from death to life.
Jn 5.29 - and [they] will come out: those
who have done good to the
resurrection of life, and those who
have done evil to the resurrection
of condemnation.
Rom 2.3 - Do you imagine, whoever you are,
that when you judge those who do
such things and yet do them
yourself, you will escape the
judgment of God?
1 Pet 4.17 - For the time has come for
judgment to begin with the
household of God; if it begins with
us, what will be the end for those
who do not obey the gospel of
God?
2 Pet 2.4 - God did not spare the angels when
they sinned but cast them into hell
and committed them to chains of
deepest darkness to be kept until
the judgment;
What is more, Ephesians 1.11 doesn’t say that God will bring all people under Christ, as some universalists have argued. Rather, it says that those who have been saved have been predestined to obtain an inheritance according to God’s will, and that all things work according to his will. Besides, in 1 Corinthians 15.22-28, Christ is said to eliminate all his enemies, and after that he will recreate a new universe in which God will be all in all (in the new creation, that is!). It means that God will be in all the righteous people that remain, not in all the wicked to whom he says “I never knew you; depart from me” (Mt. 7.23 ESV)! Moreover, if “the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it” (Mt. 7.14 NRSV), does that sound like universalism? And if “no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit” (Jn 3.5), how, then, can people who are not born of the Spirit be saved? And if all will be saved, then why are we commanded to preach the gospel? Why do we need to be reborn then? Why even believe in Jesus? Thus, universalism has clearly embraced aberrant teachings based on mistranslations and misinterpretations!
The Universalists Claim that Eternal Hell Does Not Exist Because God is Love
But God is also Justice. Everyone will be punished accordingly. Everyone will be judged. No one will get off scot-free. Everyone will get what they deserve. You don’t have to look very far to see the coming judgment, such as Jesus waging war on the Antichrist (2 Thess. 2.8), or waging a just war in Rev. 19.11, or the wrath of Christ that leaves corpses lying dead by the thousands (Rev. 19.18), or “the great winepress of the wrath of God”:
Rev 14.19-20
So the angel swung his sickle over the earth
and gathered the vintage of the earth, and
he threw it into the great winepress of the
wrath of God. And the winepress was
trodden outside the city, and blood flowed
from the winepress, as high as a horse’s
bridle, for a distance of about one thousand
six hundred stadia.
Rom 12.19
Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave
room for the wrath of God, for it is written,
‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says the
Lord.’
Deut 32.35
for the day of vengeance and recompense,
for the time when their foot shall slip?
Because the day of their calamity is at
hand; their doom comes swiftly.
Isa 13.6
Wail, for the day of the Lord is near;
it will come like destruction from the
Almighty!
Isa 13.9
See, the day of the Lord is coming,
cruel, with wrath and fierce anger, to make the earth a desolation
and to destroy its sinners from it.
Jer 46.10
That day is the day of the Lord God of
hosts, a day of retribution,
to gain vindication from his foes. The sword shall devour and be sated
and drink its fill of their blood.
Does that sound like universal salvation? So even though God is good, he is also just.
Conclusion
There are two views on opposite sides of the spectrum. One claims that all the wicked will be destroyed, while the other asserts that they will be saved. Both are wrong! As we have seen, both annihilationism and universal reconciliation (apocatastasis) are not consistent with the teaching of Scripture. The Bible tells us that the wicked will continue to exist in “shame and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12.2). Their everlasting abode is described as an eternal place “where their worm never dies and the fire is never quenched” (Mark 9.48)! John 3.36 (NIV) says categorically and unequivocally: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.”
Who are the 144,000 and what is their purpose?
By Eli Kittim 📚
The Elect are Depicted as Jews
Paul gives us an exact definition of what it means to be a "Jew" within the New Testament context: the biblical term "Jew" does not denote a race but rather an inner essence or, more precisely, an indwelling spirit pertaining to God. In Romans 2.28-29 (NASB), Paul declares:
For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly,
nor is circumcision that which is outward in
the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one
inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart.
That is to say, “Jewishness” (in the New Testament) doesn’t necessarily refer to race, ethnicity, ancestry, or religion, but rather to the inward operations “by the Spirit” (Rom. 2.29). Similarly, in 1 Pet. 1.1-2, Peter is addressing those who are regenerated in Christ:
those … who are chosen according to the
foreknowledge of God the Father, by the
sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus
Christ.
Notice that Peter is addressing “neither Jew nor Gentile” (Gal. 3.28) but rather the “elect” in Christ. In fact, in 1 Pet. 2.9, Peter describes Christ’s elect using the exact same language that God employs for the Jews in the Old Testament:
But you are a chosen people, a royal
priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special
possession, that you may declare the
praises of him who called you out of
darkness into his wonderful light.
What is more, in 1 Pet. 2.5, Peter says to the elect that you “are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices that are acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” This indicates that the Old Testament language of “a chosen people”——“God’s special possession,” & “a holy priesthood”——is now being applied to the New Testament saints “who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 1.1-2)!
Therefore, the elect in Christ are often depicted as spiritual Jews. As we will see, the New Testament itself tells us that the 144 thousand (in the Book of Revelation) represent all the *saved* inhabitants of the earth, not just the Jews. Another problem with the theory that the 144 thousand represent literal Jews (from the 12 tribes of Israel) is that the tribes of Dan and Ephraim are not mentioned at all in Revelation 7. Since these two tribes are excluded from the 12 tribes of Israel, it would naturally imply that Samson (from the tribe of Dan) and Joshua (from the tribe of Ephraim) would not be saved, which is obviously absurd!
The Elect are Depicted as the 144 Thousand
As has already been noted, in the New Testament, Christ’s elect are sometimes figuratively called “Jews” (Rom. 2.28), while “the holy city … coming down out of heaven from God” is spiritually called the “new Jerusalem” (Rev. 21.2). Notice that this new earth is said to have 12 gates, which represent 12 angels and 12 tribes. Rev 21.12 explains:
It had a great and high wall, with twelve
gates, and at the gates twelve angels; and
names were written on the gates, which are
the names of the twelve tribes of the sons
of Israel.
More symbols are further added, using sets of 12, to represent 12 foundation stones and 12 apostles. Rev. 21.14 states:
And the wall of the city had twelve
foundation stones, and on them were the
twelve names of the twelve apostles of the
Lamb.
In Rev. 21.17, the implicit multiplication of the 12 tribes by the 12 apostles is expressed via the symbolic sum of “144”:
And he measured its wall, 144 cubits, by
human measurements, which are also
angelic measurements.
In the same way, the 144,000 chosen-ones are said to come from the 12 tribes of Israel. This is obviously figurative or metaphorical language. We know that they represent Christ’s *elect* because the wrath of God is held back until these chosen ones are secured. These symbolic Jews comprise only one group, namely, “the bond-servants of our God,” that is to say, “those who were sealed” in Christ (Rev. 7.4)! As we will see later on, Revelation 7 is not referring to literal Jews per se. And the angels want to seal them before the terrible day of the Lord commences. Revelation 7.1-3 reads:
After this I saw four angels standing at the
four corners of the earth, holding back the
four winds of the earth so that no wind
would blow on the earth, or on the sea, or
on any tree. And I saw another angel
ascending from the rising of the sun,
holding the seal of the living God; and he
called out with a loud voice to the four
angels to whom it was granted to harm the
earth and the sea, saying, ‘Do not harm the
earth, or the sea, or the trees until we have
sealed the bond-servants of our God on
their foreheads.’
Notice the linguistic and conceptual parallels between Rev. 7.1-3 and Matthew 24.31:
And He [Christ] will send forth His angels
with a great trumpet blast, and they will
gather [or seal] together His elect from the
four winds, from one end of the sky to the
other.
In both passages, “the four winds” of the earth are mentioned and the gathering or sealing of the elect are described before the wrath of God is unleashed. Remember that the Great Tribulation in Matthew 24.29 ff. is not God’s wrath but Satan’s wrath (Rev. 12.12). So, all the elect are gathered, sealed, and raptured “after the tribulation of those days” (see Mt. 24.29-41; Rev. 20.4-6)! Put differently, the elect are gathered & “protected” from the divine judgments and from the wrath of God to come. Question: how exactly are they protected? Answer: by way of the rapture! Therefore, Rev 7.4-8 is obviously describing not just the tribulation saints but the entire church as a whole, which represents Christ’s “elect.” Compare Mt. 24.21-22:
For then there will be a great tribulation,
such as has not occurred since the
beginning of the world until now, nor ever
will again. And if those days had not been
cut short, no life would have been saved;
but for the sake of the elect those days will
be cut short.
Why would there be a need for those days to be cut short if the elect are no longer here because they have already been raptured? Therefore, if the days are said to be cut short “for the sake of the elect,” then this passage implies that the bride of Christ will still be here on earth during the great tribulation. Similarly, Rev 7.13-14 explains that the 144,000 are the elect “who come out of the great tribulation”:
Then one of the elders responded, saying to
me, ‘These who are clothed in the white
robes, who are they, and where have they
come from?’ I said to him, ‘My lord, you
know.’ And he said to me, ‘These are the
ones who come out of the great tribulation,
and they have washed their robes and
made them white in the blood of the Lamb.’
In Revelation 7.4, John says “And I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000, sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel.” This number is meant to signify an innumerable multitude by multiplying 12,000 times 12,000 (the number of completion). That is, Revelation is multiplying 12 times itself to give us what we today would call 12 to the second power. So, this “great multitude” represents those who are “sealed” or who are *saved,* to wit, the “elect” who belong to Jesus Christ. In fact, Revelation 7.9 gives us the identity of the 144 thousand by stating that they’re “a great multitude which no one could count,” and that they come from every nation on earth:
I looked, and behold, a great multitude
which no one could count, from every nation
and all the tribes, peoples, and languages,
standing before the throne and before the
Lamb.
Revelation 14.1 mentions no other group except this great multitude——symbolized by the 144K——as the *only* large gathering of people who belong to Christ via the Spirit:
Then I looked, and behold, the Lamb was
standing on Mount Zion, and with Him
144,000 who had His name and the name
of His Father written on their foreheads.
Furthermore, Revelation 14.3-5 describes the 144 thousand as the only “ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These have been purchased [redeemed] from mankind as first fruits to God and to the Lamb”:
And they sang a new song before the
throne and before the four living creatures
and the elders; and no one was able to
learn the song except the 144,000 who had
been purchased from the earth. … These
are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever
He goes. These have been purchased from
mankind as first fruits to God and to the
Lamb. And no lie was found in their mouths;
they are blameless.
If they are said to be the “first fruits to God and to the Lamb,” then there cannot be an earlier group of believers who temporally precede them. In other words, after the Great Tribulation, these are the ones who take part in the resurrection & the rapture! This is clearly explained in Rev. 20.4-6. Given that the “rapture” is contemporaneous with the first resurrection (1 Thess. 4.16-17), and since those who took part in the first resurrection came out of the Great Tribulation, it obviously means that the *rapture* must also take place *after* the Great Tribulation. Thus, these symbolic 144,000 saved believers represent both the living & the resurrected “elect” who will be raptured *after* the Great Tribulation (cf. Mt. 24.29-41)! In other words, the 144K represent the entire church of Christ, which comprises people from every nation on earth. Therefore, their *purpose* is the same as ours, namely, to get *saved* (and not to take the mark of the beast) so that they can escape “the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord” (Mal. 4.5)!
For further details on the rapture, see the following article:
Three Questions On the Rapture: Is it Pre-Trib or Post-Trib? Is it Secret or Not? And is it Imminent?
Easy believism
By Eli Kittim 🎓
Before the reward there must be labor.
You plant before you harvest. You sow in
tears before you reap joy. ~Ralph Ransom
Christians typically debate over the nature of the godhead (e.g. modalism vs. the trinity), the best English Bible translation (KJV only vs. Critical edition), the rapture (pre vs post-tribulation), and many other different doctrines that are peripheral to soteriology. However, the topic that we’re about to discuss is a salvation-issue of the utmost importance.
Easy believism holds that only belief in Jesus is necessary for salvation. Nothing else is required in order to be saved. Proponents of this view teach that no commitment to Christian discipleship or spiritual formation is required. In other words, no efforts whatsoever are necessary on the part of the believer in order to be saved. It is certainly very appealing, particularly to those who are lazy and who dislike efforts and commitments. Plus it allows you to indulge your carnal desires to your heart’s content!
There are only two categories in the spiritual life: the “saved” and the “unsaved”; the “saint” and the “sinner.” By that I mean the Christian and the nonChristian. That is to say, the person who has been born-again in a Holy Spirit experience versus the person who has not yet been regenerated. The topic of “easy believism” only concerns those people who have not yet experienced a rebirth. It refers to those people who are interested in salvation and want to know what they have to do to attain it. By contrast, those who have been reborn have received the Holy Spirit and are already saved!
Just because Jesus is said to die for our sins doesn’t mean that we should continue to practice sin, whether it be pedophilia, adultery, murder, or the like. The idea of making an effort to align our behavior with God’s will doesn’t mean that we are saving ourselves or that we reject Christ’s ultimate sacrifice. It is true that only Jesus can regenerate us. It is a gift of God. But those who are not yet regenerated need to purify themselves in order to receive God’s gift of salvation. Just like the farmer ploughs the field, prepares the soil for planting, and then plants the seeds and waits for the harvest, we, too, must prepare the soil of our heart in order to receive the harvest of God’s gift. It takes much time and effort. Not that rebirth itself has anything to do with us, but the preparation towards it definitely does. Once we receive it, God then does all the work inside us through his Holy Spirit!
Scriptural verses should be read in **canonical context,** not in isolation. The notion that we must do certain things (beyond just believing) is quite obvious throughout scripture. For example, Jesus says I know about your “deeds and your labor and perseverance” (Rev. 2.2), but you need to “repent, and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and I will remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent” (Rev. 2.5)! Notice that Jesus doesn’t say “continue to sin because you will be saved as long as you believe in my death, burial, and resurrection.” No! Jesus doesn’t say “sit back, relax, and do nothing because I will take care of all the details.” Rather, he says:
To the one who overcomes, I will grant to
eat from the tree of life, which is in the
Paradise of God (Rev. 2.7).
This is a theme that runs throughout the Bible. We have to struggle against sin so as to overcome. According to the Oxford Languages Dictionary, to overcome means to “defeat (an opponent); prevail.” We do not defeat anyone or anything if we don’t exert any effort at all. In Revelation 3.3, Christ commands the believers to stay alert and vigilant and to repent:
remember what you have received and
heard; and keep it, and repent. Then if you
are not alert, I will come like a thief, and you
will not know at what hour I will come to
you.
Proponents of easy believism claim that *repentance* and *avoidance of sin* are practices based on “works” and are, therefore, not required. Yet 1 John 1.6 declares:
If we say that we have fellowship with Him
and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do
not practice the truth.
Similarly, 1 John 3.4 says:
Everyone who practices sin also practices
lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
In 1 Timothy 6.11-12, Paul addressed the believers and issued a categorical imperative to actively flee from sin. He pronounced a solemn exhortation:
flee from these things, you man of God,
and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith,
love, perseverance, and gentleness. Fight
the good fight of faith; take hold of the
eternal life to which you were called, and for
which you made the good confession in the
presence of many witnesses.
Paul is urging us to actively flee from sin and to practice righteousness. Just like Jesus, Paul is not telling us to do nothing except believe. On the contrary, he’s urging us to fervently fight against evil thoughts, against sinful emotions & desires, and against temptations to disobey God. If no efforts were required, then why would Paul say that we must fight and struggle against sin, against falsehood, and against everything that opposes the knowledge of God (2 Cor. 10.5)? In Ephesians 6.10-14, Paul writes:
Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the
strength of His might. Put on the full armor
of God, so that you will be able to stand firm
against the schemes of the devil. For our
struggle is not against flesh and blood, but
against the rulers, against the powers,
against the world forces of this darkness,
against the spiritual forces of wickedness in
the heavenly places. Therefore, take up the
full armor of God, so that you will be able to
resist on the evil day, and having done
everything, to stand firm. Stand firm
therefore, having belted your waist with
truth, and having put on the breastplate of
righteousness.
In 1 Corinthians 6.18, Paul’s caveat to “Flee sexual immorality” explicitly contradicts the doctrine of easy believism. So does John 8.11 where Jesus says “go, and do not sin again." Same with Ephesians 4.26: “Be angry but do not sin.” Are these verses teaching that only belief is necessary? In Romans 6.13, Paul issues a command: “do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness.” These proof-texts, therefore, expose the horrific errors of easy believism!
Paul never says “it doesn’t matter if you keep sinning as long as you believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Paul never says “don’t worry if you’re having an adulterous relationship with someone’s wife, or if you keep robbing people’s homes, or if you keep molesting little children, as long as you believe in the finished work of Jesus Christ.” That’s like saying that the head of the mafia may have already killed many people——and may kill many more in the foreseeable future——but he’s actually *saved* because he believes that Jesus is the Christ. How crazy is that? In other words, Free Grace theology holds that “carnal Christians” and “unbelieving Christians” who even denounce their faith will, nevertheless, be saved. Obviously, there’s something seriously flawed with the doctrine of easy believism!
This is a perversion of the gospel. In fact, Romans 8.5-8 says that “those who live according to the flesh” are not believers. Salvation is a gift. No one is denying that. But the goal is to take up our cross daily and die to ourselves so as to become more Christ-like (Mt. 16.24). Without preparation and discipleship we are not heading towards Christ. Therefore, easy believism is a false teaching that deceives and misleads people by offering them a fake salvation that does not save! In fact, Zane Hodges and the Grace Evangelical Society have gone so far as to say that it’s not even a requirement (for salvation) to believe that Jesus is God, or that he died for sin, or that he was bodily resurrected at some point in human history!
Easy believism is a perversion of the Bible (see Mt. 7.14; Acts 2.1-4, 15; Rom. 6.3; 8.9; 2 Cor. 5.13; Eph. 4.22-24; Gal. 2.20; Rev. 3.20)! Bottom line, unless you’ve had an *existential experience* of rebirth (Jn 3.3), you’re not saved. If you think salvation is so easy that all you have to do is simply name it and claim it, then you’re only having an imaginary relationship with Jesus. Paul demonstrates that there’s far more to salvation than easy believism. He exclaims:
Work out your salvation with fear and
trembling (Phil. 2.12).
Does the Phrase Ἔτι ἅπαξ in Hebrews 12.26 Mean “Once” or “Once More”?
By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
The New Testament Versions
There are various theories about past catastrophic Biblical events. For example, some biblical narratives describe a time when the earth trembled, such as the mighty earth-quake at Mount Sinai when God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, or the cataclysmic Noachian Deluge. Some Biblical scholars even theorize about a so-called “Gap Theory" (between the first and second verses of Genesis) regarding two different creations, or even an earlier creation-and-destruction of the universe prior to the current one.
So when we encounter biblical verses that seem to suggest some type of primordial earthly destruction, scholars often theorize about the probability of such events taking place as the ones mentioned above. Hebrews 12.26 is a case in point. It talks about some form of judgment in which God “will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.” But there seems to be a difference of opinion as to whether or not this event will happen for the very first time. That’s because the key phrase Ἔτι ἅπαξ has been variously translated in two different ways: “once” and “once more.” The former suggests a first time, the latter, a second. Hence, the meaning of the text remains an open question. Hebrews 12.26 (SBLGNT) declares:
οὗ ἡ φωνὴ τὴν γῆν ἐσάλευσεν τότε, νῦν δὲ
ἐπήγγελται λέγων · Ἔτι ἅπαξ ἐγὼ σείσω οὐ
μόνον τὴν γῆν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν οὐρανόν.
Translation (NIV):
At that time his voice shook the earth, but
now he has promised, ‘Once more I will
shake not only the earth but also the
heavens.’
Most of the Bible versions of Hebrews 12.26 (with the exception of a few that I’m aware of) translate Ἔτι ἅπαξ as “once more.” That’s because Ἔτι can mean not only “still,” “yet,” “again,” but it can also relate to *time* and mean “longer” (Mt. 5.13; Lk 16.2; 20.36; Jn 7.33), “further” (Mt. 26.65; Lk 22.71), as well as “moreover” (Acts 2.26).
So, if the correct translation of Heb. 12.26 is “Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens,” then the question arises: is this verse referring to Mt Sinai, the flood, the gap theory, or perhaps to a previous universe that was once-destroyed to make way for the creation of our own?
For example, one particular Bible version speculates that the reference in Heb. 12.26 is to the mighty earth-quake at Mount Sinai. The Amplified Bible reads:
His voice shook the earth [at Mount Sinai]
then, but now He has given a promise,
saying, ‘YET ONCE MORE I WILL SHAKE
NOT ONLY THE EARTH, BUT ALSO THE
[starry] HEAVEN.’
However, on closer inspection, the aforementioned translation is speculative because this “shaking” does not only involve the earth but also the heavens. At Mount Sinai, only the earth trembled (with a mighty earth-quake), not the heavens. Similarly, during the flood, neither the earth nor the heavens were destroyed: only living things (Genesis 6.7). So, the Hebrews 12.26-reference seems to imply a much larger catastrophic destruction of both the earth and the heavens. Therefore, if the verse has been faithfully translated, it can only refer to the so-called “gap theory,” or to a previously-destroyed universe.
On the other hand, the majority of the translations might be completely flawed, and the few Bible versions which suggest that this event will occur only “once” might be correct! Accordingly, the YLT version of Hebrews 12.26 proclaims:
‘Yet once -- I shake not only the earth, but
also the heaven.’
Similarly, the Darby Bible Translation exclaims:
Yet once will I shake not only the earth, but
also the heaven.
We find a similar reading in the Godbey New Testament:
I will still once shake not only the earth, but
also heaven.
Therefore, these latter versions would imply that this impending destruction will occur only once, in the future, in the same way as described, for example, in 2 Peter 3.10!
The Old Testament Versions
In trying to figure out the correct translation, it’s important to go back and look at the sources of the quoted material from the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint. Hebrews 12.26 is actually quoting Haggai 2.6 via the Septuagint. Therefore, let’s go back and look at what that verse actually says both in the Hebrew Bible and in the Greek Septuagint. Haggai 2.6 (NIV) reads:
This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘In a
little while I will once more shake the
heavens and the earth, the sea and the dry
land.’
It’s important to note that most of the modern Bible versions of Haggai 2.6 say “once more,” but some say “once” (see e.g. ASV, Douay-Rheims Bible, Good News Translation, JPS Tanakh 1917, and a few others). The KJB also says “once” at Haggai 2.6:
For thus saith the LORD of hosts; Yet once,
it is a little while, and I will shake the
heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and
the dry land;
Here, however, the KJB is inconsistent. While it says “once” in Haggai 2.6, it says “once more” in the parallel verse of Hebrews 12.26:
Yet once more I shake not the earth only,
but also heaven.
In Haggai 2.6, the Hebrew text (BHS) has אַחַ֖ת (once) ע֥וֹד (yet/again). In other words, the term ע֥וֹד (od) can be translated either as “yet” or “again.” But even the Hebrew Bible versions have conflicting translations. For example, the Sefaria Bible implies that this destructive event will occur only “once.” It reads thusly:
For thus said the LORD of Hosts: In just a
little while longer I will shake the heavens
and the earth, the sea and the dry land.
Similarly, the JPS Tanakh (1985) says:
For thus said the LORD of Hosts: In just a
little while longer I will shake the heavens
and the earth, the sea and the dry land.
The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) also seems to suggest “yet once in a little while”:
כִּ֣י כֹ֤ה אָמַר֙ יְהוָ֣ה צְבָאֹ֔ות עֹ֥וד אַחַ֖ת מְעַ֣ט הִ֑יא וַאֲנִ֗י מַרְעִישׁ֙ אֶת־הַשָּׁמַ֣יִם וְאֶת־הָאָ֔רֶץ וְאֶת־הַיָּ֖ם וְאֶת־הֶחָרָבָֽה׃
By contrast, the Hebrew Bible——edited by translator and scholar, Rabbi A.J. Rosenberg——featured in Chabad.org reads:
For so said the Lord of Hosts: [There will
rise] another one, and I will shake up the
heaven and the earth and the sea and the
dry land [for] a little while.
So, even these Hebrew versions conflict. Most of them imply “once,” while the last one suggests “another.” So there are arguments on both sides. However, the most credible ones seem to suggest “once” for all. That’s probably why the Greek translations (LXX & NT) employ the term hapax (ἅπαξ), which also means “once for all”!
Let’s now explore how the Greek Septuagint (LXX) translates it. The LXX renders Haggai 2.6 thusly:
διότι τάδε λέγει Κύριος παντοκράτωρ· ἔτι
ἅπαξ ἐγὼ σείσω τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν
καὶ τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ τὴν ξηράν·
English translation by L.C.L. Brenton:
For thus saith the Lord Almighty; Yet once I
will shake the heaven, and the earth, and
the sea, and the dry [land].
Thus, the Septuagint agrees with most of the Hebrew Bible versions that Haggai 2.6 is saying “once,” not “once more.”
Interestingly enough, Hebrews 12.26 quotes the Septuagint-phrase ἔτι ἅπαξ ἐγὼ σείσω verbatim (word for word), with a slight variation on the theme concerning “the heavens and the earth” at the end of the sentence. Hebrews 12.26 reads:
Ἔτι ἅπαξ ἐγὼ σείσω οὐ μόνον τὴν γῆν
ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν οὐρανόν.
Notice that both the LXX and the NT texts use the exact same key-phrase ἔτι ἅπαξ. Yet the LXX and most of the Hebrew versions say “once,” while most of the New Testament translations render it as “once more.” So which is it? If both the Septuagint and the New Testament are saying the exact same thing, then why are these texts translated differently? Both cannot be correct. According to the law of non-contradiction, contradictory statements cannot both be true. So, somewhere, somehow, someone got it wrong! The question is, what’s the right answer? What’s the correct translation?
Conclusion
The Septuagint translates the term עוֹד (od) as ἔτι (yet), and renders the phrase ‘ō·wḏ ’a·ḥaṯ as “yet once.” As far as the Hebrew translations are concerned, both the Sefaria Bible and the JPS Tanakh (1985) imply “once.” The BHS also seems to imply “once.” Only the Chabad.org Bible (with Rashi's commentary) seems to suggest “once more.” So, most of the Old Testament Hebrew and Greek texts support the phrase “yet once,” not “once more” or “once again”! All in all, from the point of view of the Old Testament concerning Haggai 2.6, it seems that both the Hebrew and the Greek versions agree on the “yet once” meaning!
Carrying this information over into the New Testament, we come to realize that the key phrase (ἔτι ἅπαξ) in Haggai 2.6 (LXX), which is quoted in Hebrews 12.26, should have the exact same meaning in the New Testament as it does in the Old Testament, namely, “yet once.” Yet, surprisingly, most of the modern NT translations say “once more,” although there are some that do say “once,” as has already been noted. Therefore, the modern translations of the New Testament are actually conflicting with the Old Testament data. Apparently, the range of meanings for the word Ἔτι makes it unclear as to which word should be applied.
So, if we combine our findings, it seems that more attention should be placed on the Hebrew and Greek Old Testament versions from which the quote of Haggai 2.6 is derived. Given that they are the sources of the Hebrews 12.26-phrase, the usages in these versions carry more weight than those of the New Testament translations in steering us in the right linguistic direction. Therefore, despite the fact that most of the modern Bible versions have “once more” for Hebrews 12.26, the few translations that have “yet once” (e.g. the YLT, Darby, etc.) might be closer to the truth!
Bottom line, given the range of meanings for the aforementioned terms, it’s difficult to pinpoint the exact rendering of both the Haggai 2.6 and Hebrews 12.26 phrases, especially since even the Hebrew translations have divergent meanings. Nevertheless, given that most of the Hebrew and Greek Old Testament versions agree on the phrase “yet once,” it seems more likely that this is the authorial intent of Haggai 2.6. And since that happens to be the exact same phrase in Hebrews 12.26, there’s no reason for the meaning to be any different than that which we find in Haggai 2.6 (LXX). Thus, it appears that the meaning of Hebrews 12.26 is faithfully translated in the YLT version which reads:
‘Yet once -- I shake not only the earth, but
also the heaven.’
This exegetical conclusion, of course, would not support the so-called “Gap Theory" or an earlier destruction of the universe prior to the current one. Rather, it would point to one final destruction at the end of the world!
How Should We Translate John 1.1: “the Word was God,” or “God was the Word”?
By (native Greek speaker) Eli Kittim 🎓
John 1.1:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς
τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
John 1.1 is often broken down into 3 phrases:
Phrase 1: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος
Phrase 2: καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν
Phrase 3: καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
From the outset, before they even consider the process of biblical interpretation and exegesis, textual critics and Greek scholars set out to produce a faithful *translation* of the original Greek New Testament. Bear in mind that the processes of translation and interpretation are not the same. We expect the translation committees to translate (not to interpret) the text!
Therefore, a literal and accurate translation of the Greek language should correctly translate the last phrase of Jn 1.1 as “God was the word.” In other words, the third phrase of Jn 1.1 (καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος) should be translated exactly as it was written in the original Greek (for emphasis), not rearranged and reassembled (in the target language) as we would wish it would be. In the original Greek, the text doesn’t actually say that “the Word was God,” as most modern translations maintain:
That’s an interpretation!
Rather, the original Greek New Testament says that “God was the Word”! So, the *interpretative* rearrangement is forcing the critical reader to read it backwards, which neglects the emphasis of the word order in the original Greek. It’s as if we were told to read Hebrew backwards, from left to right. What is more, the third phrase of John 1.1 doesn’t actually say ὁ λόγος ἦν (the word was). It says θεὸς ἦν (God was). If the text wanted to emphasize that “the word was God,” the phrase would have been: καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεὸς. It would have been written as follows:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς
τὸν θεόν, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεὸς.
But that’s not what it says! To try to manipulate what the original Greek New Testament is actually emphasizing——by rearranging or *reinterpreting* it during the translation process——is equivalent to editing and, therefore, corrupting the “inspired” text.
Admittedly, the third phrase of Jn 1.1 is somewhat of a Gestalt configuration in which different *meanings* can arise depending on the angle from which it is viewed. One could make the *interpretative* argument that the original phrase “God was the Word” might be equivalent to or interchangeable with “the Word was God.” In other words, on an *exegetical* level, one could make the case that the phrase “the Word was God” might be the converse of “God was the Word.” I don’t deny that possibility on grammatical grounds. That is certainly worthy of exegetical consideration. But when we’re initially *translating* the text, we shouldn’t be interested in theories of exegesis. Rather, we should be entirely focused on producing a faithful translation, which precedes interpretation and subsequent theological ramifications.
In *interpreting* the third phrase of Jn 1.1, many textual scholars typically reverse the word-order of the original Greek phrase (via a grammatical rule) so that we’re forced to read the words backwards. According to this rule, we can determine the *subject* of a phrase if a noun falls into one of the following categories: a) if it’s a proper name; b) if it’s preceded by an article; or c) if it’s a personal pronoun. However, in contradistinction to this grammatical rule, θεὸς can actually be the subject that precedes the verb ἦν (here, a form of "to be"), while λόγος can be the predicate nominative. On the other hand, in order to identify θεὸς as the predicate nominative and λόγος as the subject, one has to invoke what is known as the “Subset Proposition" rule, or the "Convertible Proposition" rule. In other words, this alteration involves a complex set of esoteric grammatical assumptions and decisions which essentially turn the text upside down.
By contrast, the straightforward way of reading the text seems to be the smoothest and the most natural. Not to mention that the phrase “God was the Word” is actually a faithful translation, whereas the phrase “the Word was God” is merely an *interpretation.* I’m not arguing that the phrase “the Word was God” is a wrong interpretation. I’m arguing that it’s a wrong translation! In the critical edition, we must always let the reader know what the text ACTUALLY says, not our INTERPRETATION of what we think it might mean. That can go in the commentary section. In translating a text——if the word-order of the original Greek doesn’t make any sense——translators are allowed to rearrange the words in order for it to make sense. But this exception to the rule doesn’t apply here because the original Greek makes perfect sense! Therefore, our decision to abandon our fidelity to the lexical details and grammatical structures of the Greek New Testament makes us no better than the scribes who corrupted it.
Moreover, the decision to change the *meaning* of the text (or to *reinterpret* it) is done for obvious theological reasons. Christian translators have a theological axe to grind. In order to validate and uphold the Trinity, they want to maintain the *distinction* between God the Father (the first person of the Trinity) and the Word of God (the second person of the Trinity). Hence why they deliberately *translate* the last part of Jn 1.1 backwards. Because if they were to translate it as the author intended it, namely, that “God was the word,” it might give the wrong impression that there’s no distinction between the Father and the Word. However, the third phrase of Jn 1.1 is not necessarily making a *modalistic* theological claim that there’s no distinction between the Father and the Word. Rather, since the second phrase (καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν) clearly distinguished the two persons of the Trinity, the third phrase establishes their *ontological* unity by affirming that God was not simply separate from the Word, but that God himself was, in fact, the Word per se! After all, the first and second persons of the Trinity share one homoousion (essence): “I and the Father are one” (Jn 10.30)!
At any rate, this *interpretation* has become so wide spread, to such an extent that it has become a dogmatic and systematic standard, not only overriding or supplanting the original *translation* but also prompting modern translations to follow suit. It’s a case of special pleading where an *interpretation* has supplanted a *translation*!
However, there are many credible Bible translations that *translate* the last phrase of Jn 1.1 as “God was the Word”:
Coverdale Bible of 1535
In the begynnynge was the worde, and the
worde was with God, and God was ye
worde.
Smith's Literal Translation
In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and God was the Word.
Literal Emphasis Translation
In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and God was the Word.
Catholic Public Domain Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and God was the Word.
Lamsa Bible
THE Word was in the beginning, and that
very Word was with God, and God was that
Word.
Aramaic New Covenant: In the beginning
the Word having been and the Word having
been unto God and God having been the
Word.
Concordant Literal New Testament: In the
beginning was the word, and the word was
toward God, and God was the word.
Coptic Version of the New Testament: In
(the) beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and God was the Word.
Great Bible (Cranmer 1539): In the
begynnynge was the worde, and the worde
was wyth God: and God was the worde.
New English Bible: When all things began,
the Word already was. The Word dwelt with
God, and what God was, the Word was.
Revised English Bible: In the beginning the
Word already was. The Word was in God’s
presence, and what God was, the Word
was.
Today’s English New Testament: In the
beginning was the Logos. And the Logos
was with God. And God was the Logos.
The Wyclif Translation (by John Wycliffe): In
the bigynnynge was the word and the word
was at god, and god was the word.
Latin Vulgate: in principio erat Verbum et
Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat
Verbum.
Vulgate translation: in the beginning was
the Word and the Word was with God and
God was the Word.
See also:
Was the Word “God” or “a god” in John 1.1?
https://at.tumblr.com/eli-kittim/was-the-word-god-or-a-god-in-john-11/0e69dfesk5oj
🎥 Eli of Kittim
Rumble Channel 🎥
🕎 Eli Kittim On Bible Prophecy ✝️
————————————-
🎓📚 Award-Winning Goodreads Author & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 📚🎓
————————————-
🌏🪐🌓🌍🌖🌎🪐
“What is truth?” Pilate asked.
By Psychologist & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
Feigned madness
Recently, I’ve had numerous Biblical debates with various people in many different groups. The topics were all different, but there was a common denominator: all my opponents refused to accept the indisputable and overwhelming evidence that I was presenting. This prompted me to seriously explore and investigate the cause of their reactions. In other words, when a scholar or a scientist provides irrefutable evidence that is not only obvious and clear but also demonstrably factual, then any refusal to accept it should be viewed as a form of mental illness or psychological neurosis. It can also be described as a *delusion*:
a persistent false … belief … that is
maintained despite indisputable evidence to
the contrary.
——- Merriam-Webster dictionary
It’s like giving someone all the facts that the earth is round, but they nevertheless still maintain that the earth is flat. Then there’s nothing further one can say. Anyone who pretends not to understand the evidence is therefore *feigning madness*:
‘Feigned madness’ is a phrase used in
popular culture to describe the assumption
of a mental disorder for the purposes of
evasion, deceit or the diversion of suspicion.
——- Wikipedia
It’s like a mathematician proving that 2+2 = 4. Only an insane person would disagree. Similarly, in one of my debates, I produced multiple lines of indisputable evidence to demonstrate that the pre-tribulational rapture is a false doctrine. Instead of accepting the evidence and thanking me for the proof-texts, my opponent got very irritable and hostile and started to insult me. He even called me a heretic. That’s when I knew I was dealing with a fanatic who probably had some form of mental illness. So, when a scholar or a scientist gathers the available body of facts about a particular topic and clearly demonstrates whether a belief or proposition is true or valid, then that should settle the matter, unless another scholar can disprove him. For example, when a belief or proposition is clearly proven to be false but certain people are unwilling to accept the evidence——to such an extent that they would even use insults to disrespect the researcher——then these people might be labeled fanatics. But what is actually happening psychologically is that these so-called “fanatics” who refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence are employing the defensive mechanism of *denial*:
Denial … is a psychological defense
mechanism postulated by psychoanalyst
Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced
with a fact that is too uncomfortable to
accept and rejects it instead, insisting that
it is not true despite what may be
overwhelming evidence.
——- Wikipedia
It seems that a lot of people are deceived about a lot of things because they are essentially BIASED. That is to say, they’re not open to other views. The way this works is that they typically have an obstinate belief that they wish to maintain no-matter what, and so they are not interested in objective truth. They are only interested in maintaining their beliefs. So if people challenge their beliefs, they think that abandoning their beliefs would eventually lead to chaos. So they cling to their beliefs for dear life, even if these beliefs have been totally debunked. They’re not really interested in finding out whether their beliefs are true or false because that would entail a complete restructuring of their entire belief-system. So, instead of abandoning their current beliefs, which could lead to terrifying thoughts and emotions, they’d rather hold on to these false beliefs as a coping mechanism against a potentially hostile reality:
The theory of denial was first researched
seriously by Anna Freud. She classified
denial as a mechanism of the immature
mind because it conflicts with the ability to
learn from and cope with reality.
——- Wikipedia
Seeking Truth
But when something is proved to be false, shouldn’t we disregard it? If it doesn’t matter whether we prove it or not, then why bother debating at all? Why bother interpreting scripture or translating the Biblical languages? Why bother studying the Bible? If truth no longer matters, then why bother explaining scripture? Who cares? Many people typically say, “I don’t care what scholars say or what they can prove. I believe what I believe and that’s final.” Well, if truth no longer matters, then what’s the point of reading the Bible or following God? God might not exist & the Bible might be false. So why should we even bother reading about Christ if we’re no longer interested in truth?
What I am trying to get across is that “truth” must be the basis of everything we do! We must change our beliefs if they are found to be false. We shouldn’t entertain “beliefs” for their own sake but only because they can be demonstrated to be true! If our “beliefs” or “traditions” line up with truth, then we should accept them. But if they don’t, then we should reject them. You see, beliefs can be false, even deceptive and misleading. For example, many liberal pastors have crept into the church and are disseminating many FALSE BELIEFS as if they were true. That’s why so many people are deceived and confused. Many don’t even know what salvation is because of these false teachings. Bottom line, we should not be searching for “beliefs.” We should be searching for the “truth”! Paradoxically, when we find the truth, we will also find Jesus. And when we find Jesus, we will also find the truth. Why? Because the truth is not a principle; it’s a person:
Jesus said to him, ‘I am … the truth.’
——- John 14.6 (NASB)
So, “seeking” the truth is a noble path. In fact, we must be reborn into the truth. Rebirth is all about a new way of seeing (Jn 3.3), when we get rid of our false beliefs about God and meet him existentially. That’s when we come to realize that many of our beliefs about him are false. God then becomes a reality and teaches us new things about him that we never knew before (Jn 14.26).
What is Truth?
When we say that God’s word is “true,” we don’t mean that every story in the Bible is literally true. It could be a parable, a poem, or an allegory. Rather, we mean that the essence of God’s teachings (behind the narratives) is true. And when we do Biblical exegesis, we should always strive to see what we can prove; that is to say, what is true. Otherwise, there’s no point in trusting scripture or following God. We study scripture to prove it is true. And we follow God because we believe that he is truth itself. In other words, truth should be our guide and our teacher:
you will know the truth, and the truth will set
you free.
——- John 8.32
First kings 17.24 reminds us that “the word of the Lord … is truth.” In the same way, Psalm 25.5 prayerfully says, “Lead me in Your truth.” Psalm 45.4 similarly suggests that God himself fights “For the cause of truth” (cf. Rev. 19.11). Moreover, Psalm 119.160 says to God that “The sum of Your word is truth,” while Isaiah 65.16 calls him Elohim, “the God of truth.”
Interestingly enough, Jeremiah 9.3 compares good and evil to truth and falsehood (cf. Jer. 9.5). That’s why Dan 10.21 calls the Bible “the book of truth”! John 5.33 speaks of testifying to the truth. Notice that John 8.32 claims that the knowledge of the truth is what sets people free. By contrast, the devil “does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him” (Jn 8.44). So the battle between good and evil turns out to be a battle between truth and falsehood. That’s precisely why the Holy Spirit is called “the Spirit of truth” (Jn 14.17). John 17.17 concludes that God’s “word is truth.” Thus, there is something special about truth that allows us to follow Christ. That’s why in his testimony before Pontius Pilate, Christ says:
Everyone who is of the truth listens to My
voice.
——- John 18.37
Therefore, we can rightly conclude that the difference between sinners and saints is the truth! How did people sin in the first place (according to Romans 1.25)? Answer: “they exchanged the truth of God for falsehood.” This means that the lies we believe are equivalent to sins. And if we are corrected but refuse to accept or even acknowledge the said edification, then we are deliberately sinning against God. Surprisingly, in Romans 2.8, truth is pitted against wickedness. That is to say, those who don’t obey the truth obey unrighteousness. In other words, being evil or morally wrong is directly related to a disobedience of the truth. That is why our defense against evil always involves criteria of truth (Eph. 6.14). As a matter of fact, 2 Thess. 2.10 attributes the state of damnation to a form of deception, in that those who are evil “did not accept the love of the truth so as to be saved.” So they will ultimately perish because they loved the lie more than the truth. Unlike Calvinism, which falsely preaches that God predestines people to hell, 1 Tim. 2.4 claims that God “wants all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Therefore, *salvation* comprises a reception of “the knowledge of the truth.”
That’s why 2 Tim 1.14 is an exhortation to guard the truth that has been given to us by the Holy Spirit. Why should we guard the truth? Because if we believe a lie, it could be the difference between life and death; between salvation and damnation; between eternal life and eternal hell. Second Timothy 3.7 describes sinners as those who are “always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” This means that one can have a vast amount of knowledge with regard to secular learning yet “never arrive at a knowledge of the truth.” First John 4.6 separates the open-minded from the close-minded people in terms of whether they possess “the spirit of truth” or “the spirit of error.” In other words, the ability to listen objectively with an open mind is somehow related to the Holy Spirit. That’s why holding on to deceptive doctrines and “paying attention to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons” (1 Tim. 4.1) is equivalent to the wide gate “that leads to destruction” (Mt. 7.13).
We know, for example, that we often deny the obvious truth because our defense mechanisms don’t allow us to hear it. That’s precisely why Jesus often says, “The one who has ears to hear, let him hear.” Only one question remains:
Are you willing to follow the *truth*
regardless of where it might lead?
——-
![The Little Book Of Revelation [Amazon]](https://64.media.tumblr.com/de943ac344007867ba4842538a5f289e/d9667d55c981a004-58/s500x750/35c3b0df992c1d6a54d4e6b59cd4edf73956c899.jpg)
⭐️ The Little Book of Revelation [Amazon] ⭐️
(By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim) 📚📖
———————————————
Amazon Books 🎓
⭐️ 🌍 Winner of 2015 Religion & Spirituality Double Decker Books Awards on Goodreads 🪐 ⚡️
———————————————
Eli Kittim - Het kleine boek Openbaring: De eerste komst van Jezus aan het einde der dagen
Eli Kittim - Küçük Vahiy Kitabı: Günlerin Sonunda İsa'nın İlk Gelişi
Eli Kittim - Den Lille Åbenbaringsbog: Jesu første komme ved dages ende
Eli Kittim - Den lilla Uppenbarelseboken: Jesu första ankomst vid dagens slut
Eli Kittim - Den lille Åpenbaringsboken: Jesu første komme ved slutten av dagene
Eli Kittim - Pieni Ilmestyskirja: Jeesuksen ensimmäinen tuleminen päivien lopussa
———————————————