Biblestudy - Tumblr Posts

Was Jesus Born Again?

By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim

Jesus’ Baptism in the Holy Spirit

In discussing Jesus’ baptism in the Holy Spirit, I’m not referring to John the Baptist’s water baptism. Rather, I’m referring to a Spirit baptism or a conversion experience where Jesus had a personal encounter with the power of God. Many Christian denominations emphasize that without such a “born-again” experience no one can enter the kingdom of God (Jn 3.5). From the outset, scripture emphasizes the need for a baptism of the Spirit (Mt. 3.11 NRSV):

‘He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and

fire.’

In Mk. 16.16-17, it’s not merely by faith alone but by spirit “baptism” that salvation is accomplished! Given that the born-again Christians “will speak with new tongues,” it’s clear that the text isn’t referring to a symbolic immersion in water but rather to a baptism of the Holy Spirit! And although Baptism is defined as a rite of admission into Christianity——by immersing in water——this ritual is *symbolic* of being cleansed from sin (1 Jn 1.7) by the death of the self. First Peter 3.21 (NIV) reads:

and this water symbolizes baptism that now

saves you also—not the removal of dirt from

the body but the pledge of a clear

conscience toward God.

In Rom. 6.3-4, Paul talks of a baptism Into Jesus’ death! It’s a believer’s participation in the death of Christ to allow them to “walk in newness of life.” It’s part of the same regeneration process which comprises the death of the old self & the rebirth of the new one (Eph. 4.22-24). The best example of Spirit baptism is in Acts 2.1-4! Colossians 2.12 (NIV) similarly says:

having been buried with him in baptism, in

which you were also raised with him through

your faith in the working of God.

Keep in mind that, in the gospel story, Jesus didn’t start his ministry prior to his regeneration. Nor was Jesus revealed prior to his rebirth. Mt. 3.16-17 (NRSV) suggests that Jesus’ regeneration began with John’s baptism and was followed thereafter by his encounter with the devil in the wilderness:

And when Jesus had been baptized, just as

he came up from the water, suddenly the

heavens were opened to him and he saw

the Spirit of God descending like a dove and

alighting on him. And a voice from heaven

said, ‘This is my Son, the Beloved, with

whom I am well pleased.’

This is a symbolic account of his rebirth. Notice that it was Jesus *alone* who saw (εἶδεν), presumably for the first time, the Spirit of God (cf. Jn. 3.3) who would later indwell him. If Jesus already had the Holy Spirit, there would have been no need for a temptation in the desert. Jesus already had the fullness of the Deity within him in bodily form (Col. 2.9) but, being innocent, he still had to receive the Holy Spirit in order to energize it and be transformed. The next verse says (Mt. 4.1 NRSV):

Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the

wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

This is a continuation of the earlier baptism motif in the previous chapter. If “ ‘John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance’ “ (Acts 19.4 NIV), as “Paul said,” then Jesus would have had to necessarily confront his sin nature at some point. For those who object to the notion that Jesus had a sin nature, how could he have been “like His brothers in every way” (Heb. 2.17), fully human, if he were unable to be tempted? Not to mention that it would also render the temptation pericope ipso facto meaningless because how could the devil tempt someone who is unable to be tempted by sin? That’s why scripture says that “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us” (2 Cor. 5.21 NIV)!

So, as part of his rebirth experience, Jesus had to confront the devil. That’s why the text emphasizes that he didn’t do it on his own. Rather, “he was led up [ἀνήχθη] by the Spirit.” Jesus then confronts the devil head on. He is persistently tempted in order that he may prove his loyalty to God. He faces various temptations and is put to the test. He experiences what the German Protestant theologian Rudolf Otto (1869–1937) calls the “mysterium tremendum”:

A great or profound mystery, especially the

mystery of God or of existence; the

overwhelming awe felt by a person

contemplating such a mystery (Oxford

English Dictionary).

The text shows that, by the end of his temptation experience, Jesus had been reborn in God by following the same principle as the one found in James 4.7 (NRSV):

Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist

the devil, and he will flee from you.

Jesus does precisely that. Notice that the spirit of God and the angels did not minister to him prior to his rejection of Satan (Mt. 4.10-11 NIV):

Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan!

For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God,

and serve him only.’ “Then the devil left him,

and angels came and attended him.

This is a clear demonstration that even Jesus himself had to be reborn in order to both see & enter the kingdom of God (Jn. 3.3, 5). Given that he’s fully human (Heb. 2.17), he’s not exempt from the regeneration process, which is the necessary means by which a human being can become united with God.

This concept creates an obvious oxymoron. For example, if Christ was purportedly born-again, does this mean that Jesus got saved? Or that Jesus became a Christian? This is the kind of paradox that such an experience can suggest. In a certain sense, the answer is yes. Think about it. Being fully human, even Christ has to undergo a dangerous temptation in order to encounter God. But if that’s the case, then it means that there was a time when Jesus didn’t know God; a time when he didn’t have a personal and intimate relationship with him. Lk. 2.52 (NRSV) says:

Jesus increased in wisdom and in years,

and in divine and human favor.

If “Jesus increased in wisdom,” then this means that there was a time when he didn’t have much wisdom. The above verse also suggests that the divine favor towards him increased as Jesus got older. All these passages clearly show that Jesus grew up as a normal human being who underwent all of the spiritual experiences for regeneration and rebirth that we all encounter. He was not exempt from any of them, including that of regeneration & rebirth!

Conclusion

Scripture, then, shows that in being fully human, Jesus had to go through everything that we also face, including suffering, pain, depression, rejection, and so forth. Yet there are some pastors who teach that Jesus didn’t have a sin nature, never sinned, could not be tempted, was not reborn, and the like. Remember Isa. 53.3 (NLT)?:

He was despised and rejected— a

man of sorrows, acquainted with deepest

grief.

Yet in response to a Christian talk-show host, a famous preacher who heads a megachurch in Redding, California argued that Christ “wasn’t born again the way we’re born again.” Specifically, the Christian talk-show host posed the following question: So, “he [Christ] wasn’t born again the way we’re born again”? To which Christian minister and evangelist, Bill Johnson, replied: “No, goodness no, no. I have to be born again; he’s already God, so, absolutely not.” So much for pastoral care!

Was the Word “God” or “a god” in John 1.1?

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

John 1.1 (SBLGNT):

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς

τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

John 1.1, which is a throwback to Genesis 1.1, aims to define the primordial relationship of “the Word” (i.e. Christ) to God. But certain skeptics have challenged the idea that the fullness of the godhead was in Christ (Col. 2.9), who is said to be “the Word” (i.e. ὁ λόγος). Specifically, Jehovah's Witnesses have raised the argument of “a god” in John 1.1, implying that Christ is a lesser and inferior god that was created. Let’s explore that assertion. John 1.1 is traditionally broken up into three phrases that are separated by commas:

1st phrase: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος,

2nd phrase: καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς

τὸν θεόν,

3rd phrase: καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

First, to suppose that John is talking about many gods, or more than one god, is a theological speculation and a grammatical imposition that is going beyond what is written in the text or what we know about the theology of the Gospel of John.

Second, John *did* mention the definite article τόν in the second phrase, and so he is not obligated to repeat it in the third phrase, as that would be redundant and tautological.

Third, another reason why the third phrase of John 1.1 doesn’t require the definite article (before the term θεός) is because it was already *used* in the second phrase, and therefore it necessarily *carries over.* For example, if I were to write, “I have a pretty good temper, and a very amiable disposition,” I would not be required to repeat the first part of the phrase. In other words, I wouldn’t be required grammatically to write “I have a pretty good temper, and [I have] a very amiable disposition.” The “I have” is *carried over* and doesn’t need to be repeated. It would be considered redundant. Similarly, in addressing τόν Θεόν with a definite article in the second phrase, John doesn’t have to repeat τόν Θεόν in the third phrase, since it is *carried over.* Here’s another example. I could write “God is one being, not two beings.” But that’s redundant. Now, if I were to rewrite the same sentence correctly and say “God is one being, not two,” would anyone argue that the term “two” may not necessarily refer to the concept of being because the word “being” is not mentioned? That’s the same kind of argument that skeptics are raising here in John 1.1.

Since John has already established (as a monotheist) that he’s talking about one (and-only-one) particular God (namely, τόν Θεόν) in the second phrase, then this syntactical construction must necessarily *carry over* into the third phrase. In other words, the term Θεός in the third phrase grammatically refers back to “the God” (τόν Θεόν) mentioned in the second phrase. Therefore, when John writes——… τὸν θεόν (second phrase), καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (third phrase)——the “God” of the third phrase is a direct reference to “the God” of the second phrase. It’s obviously the same “God” in both phrases, not a different one. And given that God is one being, not two, which other god could John be possibly referring to?

In Greek, the third phrase in John 1.1 is actually read in two different ways, not only as “the Word was God,” but also as “God was the Word.” In the third phrase, there’s no ontological distinction between God and the Word——after all, they share one being: “I and the Father are one” (Jn 10.30)——because John already made the distinction (of persons) in the second phrase.

Thus, the “a god” argument of the Jehovah’s Witnesses——which is raised in “The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT)——is totally bogus and unwarranted both grammatically and theologically!

Does Katechó mean “Restrainer” in 2 Thess. 2:6-7? And Does the Phrase ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται mean “until he be taken out of the way”?

By Goodreads Author and Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

What Does Κατέχω (katechó) Mean?

This paper is a Biblical bombshell because it demonstrates that scholars have traditionally misunderstood and misinterpreted 2 Thess. 2:6-7. So let’s begin by analyzing the Greek text. The Greek term κατέχω (katechó)——which is the basis of the two variant terms used in 2 Thess. 2:6-7—-is derived from the word ἔχω (echó), which means “have,” “hold,” “possess,” or “keep”:

G2192 ἔχω (echó)

https://biblehub.com/greek/2192.htm

It would be advantageous to examine the uses and applications of the term katechó in both the New Testament (NT) and the Septuagint (LXX). Although the term κατέχω (katechó) is somewhat nuanced with certain subtle qualities, depending on the context, it essentially has the same meaning: hold, have, possess, keep, or retain. With the exception of one idiomatic instance——in which it could mean “make for,” or “go toward”——it’s usually rendered in the NT as per the aforementioned meanings:

Keep - (Luke 4:42).

Possessing - (2 Cor. 6:10).

Hold - (Luke 8:15; Rom. 7:6; 1 Cor. 11:2; 15:2;

1 Thess. 5:21; Hebrews 3:6; 3:14; 10:23).

Made for [go toward] - (Acts 27:40).

Κατέχω (katechó) in the LXX

In Gen. 24:56 of the LXX, κατέχετε (katechete) means “keep/hold.” It’s rendered as “don’t *keep* me/don’t *hold* me” (μὴ κατέχετέ με):

ὁ δὲ εἶπε πρὸς αὐτούς· μὴ κατέχετέ με, καὶ

Κύριος εὐώδωσε τὴν ὁδόν μου ἐν ἐμοί·

ἐκπέμψατέ με, ἵνα ἀπέλθω πρὸς τὸν

κύριόν μου.

Another variation of the word κατέχων (katechōn) is found in Isa. 40:22 LXX:

ὁ κατέχων τὸν γῦρον τῆς γῆς καὶ οἱ

ἐνοικοῦντες ἐν αὐτῇ ὡς ἀκρίδες ὁ στήσας

ὡς καμάραν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ διατείνας ὡς

σκηνὴν κατοικεῗν.

Here, κατέχων (katechōn) means “has/possesses.” The sentence is roughly translated as “He who *has* or *possesses* [knowledge] of the circle of the earth.”

The same holds true in Song 3:8 (LXX) in which κατέχοντες (katechontes) is rendered as “hold”:

πάντες κατέχοντες ῥομφαίαν, δεδιδαγμένοι

πόλεμον, ἀνὴρ ρομφαία αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ μηρὸν

αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ θάμβους ἐν νυξί.

English translation by L.C.L. Brenton:

They all hold a sword, being expert in war:

every man [has] his sword upon his thigh

because of fear by night.

Thus, just as in the NT, the term κατέχω (katechó) has the exact same meanings in the LXX, namely, “have,” hold,” “keep,” and “possess.” Although this study is certainly not exhaustive, it furnishes pretty solid evidence nonetheless!

So how can the term “restraining” possibly be related to the idea of “having” or “holding” something? The only way we can use the term κατέχω (katechó) in the erstwhile meaning is through an expansion of meaning or augmentation in which additional words are used in the context to indicate that there’s a particular set of circumstances that keeps something from happening, as, for example, in 2 Thess. 2:6. However, κατέχω (katechó), in and of itself, does not mean “restrain.”

Bill Mounce’s translations are, therefore, not faithful to the original Greek text. According to Mounce, in Rom. 1:18, κατέχω means “to hinder, restrain.” In fact, most standard Bible versions translate κατεχόντων as “suppressing.” But this is an incorrect translation. In Rom. 1:18, the term katechontōn simply means they “have” the truth, and then Paul uses a few additional verses (1:18-20 NIV) to show how God has made known to them the very fact of his existence:

For since the creation of the world God’s

invisible qualities—his eternal power and

divine nature—have been clearly seen,

being understood from what has been

made, so that people are without excuse.

What is more, Mounce insists that κατέχειν, in Phlm. 13, means “to hinder, restrain.” But that’s also an erroneous translation. How could it possibly mean “restrain” or “hinder” when Paul is saying that he would have liked to “keep” Onesimus by his side for consolation?

I would have liked to keep him with me, so

that on your behalf he could minister to me

in my chains for the gospel.

— Berean Study Bible

What Does Γένηται (genētai) Mean?

In 2 Thess. 2:5, the author (presumably Paul) says to the Thessalonians, don’t you remember? I’ve already explained all these things to you. In vv. 6-7 (SBLGNT), he goes on to say:

καὶ νῦν τὸ κατέχον οἴδατε, εἰς τὸ

ἀποκαλυφθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ καιρῷ

· τὸ γὰρ μυστήριον ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται τῆς

ἀνομίας · μόνον ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι ἕως ἐκ

μέσου γένηται.

Paul is essentially saying: you guys already know that which keeps him (Antichrist) from being revealed in his own time (because I already told you; v. 5). For the mystery of iniquity has already begun, except that there’s a keeper for the time being [who holds it back] until he’s born in the midst of them!

The key verb γένηται (genētai) is a third-person singular aorist middle subjunctive of γίγνομαι (gígnomai). And γίγνομαι primarily means to “be born,” to “come into being,” or to “become.” An alternative form is γίνομαι (gínomai) – Ionic, Koine (see γίγνομαι in Liddell & Scott [1940] A Greek–English Lexicon, Oxford: Clarendon Press).

As you can see, the verb γένηται (genētai) has nothing to do with being taken out of the way. Rather, in this particular context, it means being “born”! So, 2 Thess. 2:7 means until someone is “born,” *not* until someone is taken out of the way. Incidentally, this verse is not talking about childbirth but about a *spiritual birth,* or “rebirth,” that initiates endtime events.

So, I concur that the person indicated in 2 Thess. 2:7 is not the Antichrist, and that he acts, to a certain extent, as a “restrainer.” The text is therefore indicating that he must be “born” first before the Antichrist can be revealed. Interestingly enough, we have the exact same scenario in Revelation chapter 6 in which the 2nd seal (the Antichrist) cannot be revealed until the appearance of the 1st seal (the White horseman). Thus, in 2 Thess. 2:7, the “restrainer” is equivalent to the first horseman of the Apocalypse!

The verse that introduces the idea of a “restrainer” is 2 Thess. 2:6 (GNT):

Yet there is something that keeps this from

happening now, and you know what it is. At

the proper time, then, the Wicked One will

appear.

In 2 Thess. 2:6, the neuter definite article τὸ is used to signify “that [which] keeps” (i.e. τὸ κατέχον) this event from happening. But in 2 Thess. 2:7, ὁ κατέχων (katechōn)——pres act ptcp nom sg masc (holding)——turns out to be a “person” who must be “born” before the Antichrist can appear on the world stage. Therefore, the traditional translation——“until he be taken out of the way” (KJV)——is incorrect. The closest translation of 2 Thess. 2:7 that I could find comes from a Bible called “A Faithful Version”:

For the mystery of lawlessness is already

working; only there is one Who is restraining

at the present time until it arises out of the

midst.

But even this translation contains errors. The definite article ὁ (sg masc) refers to a man (a person), whereas this translation has the neuter “it.” And the word “arises” is also slightly off since the word γένηται essentially means “born.”

Jesus is the Keeper (Restrainer)

In the Old Testament (OT), God is mentioned several times as being the “keeper” (the κατέχον/katechon) of his people and of his kingdom. For example, in Psalm 121:5, the Hebrew text says that Yahweh [is] שֹׁמְרֶ֑ךָ (šō·mə·re·ḵā), meaning your “keeper.” Psalm 121:5 (KJV) declares:

The LORD is thy keeper: the LORD is thy

shade upon thy right hand.

Similarly, Isaiah 27:3 uses the word that comes from נָצַר (natsar), meaning “keep.” Isaiah 27:3 (RSV) reads:

I, the LORD, am its keeper; every moment I

water it. Lest any one harm it, I guard it

night and day.

In the NT, Jesus claims to be the preeminent “keeper” of the flock. In John 10:14, Jesus says, “I am the good shepherd [ποιμὴν].” The Greek term ποιμὴν (poimén) means the “keeper” of the flock. In the OT, Abel is a good shepherd——aka “a keeper of sheep”——who is also slain, just like Jesus. Gen. 4:2 (KJV) says:

Abel was a keeper of sheep.

So, if Jesus is the “keeper” (the κατέχον/katechon), and if the Antichrist cannot be revealed until Christ is “born,” then the idea of 2 Thess. 2:6-7 is similar to that of Rev 6:2-4, to wit, first comes the Christ, then comes the Antichrist. That’s precisely what Paul is trying to tell us in the 2 Thess. 2:6-7 pericope, namely, that there’s a “keeper” who must be “born” before the Antichrist can be revealed!

To further explore the parallels between 2

Thess. 2:6-7 and Revelation 6:2-4, see my

article:

WHO IS THE FIRST HORSEMAN OF THE APOCALYPSE?

https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/168159235542/who-is-the-first-horseman-of-the-apocalypse

——-

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

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?

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!

Eli Kittim X (Twitter)

For Bible Prophecy, Follow Eli Kittim on X (formerly known as Twitter):

X (formerly Twitter)

Eli Kittim (@Eli_of_Kittim) on X

Bible Researcher | MA @NSSRNews | Grad @kinstitute | John W Rawlings School of Divinity | Journal of Higher Criticism | Goodreads Author | F

Daniel’s 70 Weeks Decoded

Eli Kittim

Daniel 9:24–26:

“Seventy weeks are determined for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy Place. So you are to know and understand that from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem, until Messiah the Prince, there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. … Then after the sixty-two weeks, the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.”

A common misconception is to assume that the starting point of this prophecy began after the Hebrews returned from the Babylonian exile in the 500s B.C.E. However, Daniel’s prophecy actually refers to the end of all visions and revelations, an end-time period that will in effect “seal up vision and prophecy” (Dan. 9:24). The fact that John of Patmos continued to furnish us with additional visions and revelations proves that the first century C.E. cannot possibly be the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy. John MacArthur, in describing Dan. 9:24, was once quoted as saying: “It’s got to be a final thing cause everything is a final. … Boy, that’s final stuff, isn’t it? The end, the finish, the seal, seal it up, close it up, that’s the way it is!” If it is “final stuff,” then the prophecy cannot possibly be referring to the time of Antiquity but rather to the time of the end! Notice that fulfillment of this prophecy requires the end of all transgression and sin, and the beginning of everlasting righteousness, which is reminiscent of the end-times in Rev 10:7 when “the mystery of God will be fulfilled.”

Isaac Newton—in his Observations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel (published 1733)—notes that we should not combine the seven and sixty two weeks as if they were one number. If the authorial intent was to impress upon us the notion that the numbers seven and sixty-two must be combined, using the same measurements, the author would have simply written sixty nine weeks. The fact that two sets of numbers are given in the text suggests that they are distinct. What is more—in stark contrast to the mainstream view—Newton also mentions in the aforesaid book that Daniel’s seventy weeks prophecy should not be confined to the time of Antiquity, but must be applicable to Christ’s eschatological coming. Just as in Rev 12:3-4 and verse 9 in which Satan’s final empire is contemporaneous with Christ—(i.e. “a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns … stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, so that he might devour her child as soon as it was born”)—so in Dan. 9:26 the two princes of Daniel’s prophecy are juxtaposed to suggest that they are contemporaries:

“After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.”

According to the text, there does not appear to be a two-thousand-year gap separating these two figures or events. Moreover, the Old Greek Daniel form of the Septuagint (LXX) says in Daniel 9:27, ἕως καιροῦ συντελείας, (i.e. “until the time of the end”; cf. Dan. 12:4 LXX), indicating that the context of this verse is clearly eschatological. The traditional Christian interpretation, however, breaks up the prophecy into two parts: one part fulfilled during the time of Antiquity, the other referring to the last week of the great tribulation. However, there is no indication of a long time-gap between these weeks.

Similar to Daniel’s 70 Weeks prophecy, Christ’s prophecy (in Matt. 24:34) is also about a future seventy-year generation. Jesus indicates that it will take one generation “until all these things take place” (Matt. 24:34; cf. 1 Thess. 4:15). But one generation from when? Answer: from the timing of the birth of the Messiah! Astoundingly, Matthew’s gospel imparts a clue pertaining to the future birth of the Messiah that hardly anyone knows about. Specifically, the ancestry of Christ, as recorded in Matthew’s gospel, 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). One final clue: the calculation does not begin from the time of Abraham but from the time of David who alone represents the Messiah! 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 apocalyptic rendering, which contains a clue concerning the year of Jesus’ birth. Therefore, in Matt. 24:34, the birth of the Messiah becomes the preeminent sign as regards the end of days.

Returning to Dan. 9:24-26, the starting point of the 70 weeks prophecy is therefore the birth of the heavenly Jerusalem, namely, the Messiah, which occurred in 1960 (cf. Isa. 9:6). It also forecasts the atoning sacrifice of a forthcoming Messiah, an event which, according to the Danielic text, has not yet occurred. Furthermore, Dan. 9:26 informs us that the Messiah will be “cut off,” which in Biblical parlance means slain (cf. Ps. 37:9; Prov. 2:22; Isa. 53:8). In working out these calculations, one comes to realize the approximate date signifying the epoch of the forthcoming Messiah. So, if we apply Jesus’ prophecy (i.e. “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place”; Matt. 24:34) to Jeremiah’s seventy-year time frame (Dan. 9:1-3; cf. Ps. 90:10), we get one generation of approximately seventy years after the birth of the Messiah (1960), which would bring us to 2030 C.E., when all will be fulfilled!

In the Bible, a prophetic year is often equal to a prophetic month. This interpretation is based on the mention of 3 and a half years (e.g. “time, times, and half a time") in some verses, and 42 months in other verses in Daniel and Revelation. In other words, the Bible sometimes uses months and years interchangeably (cf. Dan. 7:25; 12:7; Rev 11.2; 12.6, 14; 13.5). Moreover, the use of the sabbatical (seventh) month to count “weeks” as a cyclical series of sevens would be in line with the Hebrew calendar. Accordingly, the seven weeks in Dan. 9:25 seemingly represent seven weeks of months (seven times seven months), which equal to forty nine months or approximately four years, while the sixty two weeks apparently represent sixty two solar years. Taken together, they amount to approximately sixty six years on a 365-day Gregorian calendar. But on a Hebrew lunar calendar, which is a 360-day calendar, the seven weeks and sixty two weeks seem to represent roughly 65 years. Therefore, from a Biblical standpoint, the year of the Messiah is 2025! It equals to sixty-five years after the birth of the Messiah (cf. Gen. 5:21), which is signified by God’s command to send his son into the world in the fullness of time (τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου), or in the last days (see Dan. 9:25; Gal. 4:4; Eph. 1:9-10; Heb. 1:2; 1 Pet. 1:20; Rev 12:5). Based on other factors as well, such as the month of the Messiah’s birth, which I have written about elsewhere, it seems as though the Messiah will appear in the summer of 2025. Compare the parable of the fig tree in Matt. 24:32-34:

“Now learn the parable from the fig tree: as soon as its branch has become tender and sprouts its leaves, you know that summer is near; so you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.”

Apparently, the year 2025 also seems to coincide with the start of the great tribulation (Dan. 12:1; Matt. 24:21), after which the Messiah will be slain. Daniel says: “then after the sixty-two weeks, the Messiah will be cut off.” That’s his death! That’s Jesus’ sacrifice “to make atonement for iniquity,” mentioned in Dan. 9:24 (cf. Heb. 9:26b). So, after 2025, the Messiah will be killed (cf. Isa. 53:3-5; Zeph. 1:7; Heb. 9:26b; Rev 12:4). And by 2030, the 70 Weeks prophecy will be fulfilled, which includes the rapture and the resurrection of the dead (Dan. 12:1-2; 1 Cor. 15:22-26; 1 Thess. 4:16-17; Heb. 9:28).

How can “weeks” be interpreted as years rather than heptads or seven-year periods? The first reason is that Gabriel himself imparts a cryptic clue which, in effect, equates the “seventy weeks” of Daniel (Dan. 9:2) with the “seventy-year” oracle revealed to Jeremiah (Jer. 29:10). The second reason why weeks can be interpreted as years has to do with the meaning of the Hebrew term for “weeks” (Heb. שָׁבֻעִ֨ים šā·ḇu·‘îm) in Dan. 9:24. This term comes from the Hebrew term “shabua,” which typically means a period of seven (days, years), heptad, week, etc. But it can also refer to a Feast of weeks (Shavuot), otherwise known as Pentecost (cf. Exod. 34:22; Num. 28:26; Deut. 16:10, 16; 2 Chr 8:13). Interestingly enough, a Shavuot occurs once per year. So, using this definition of one “week” or one Shavuot per year would give us “62 weeks” or 62 Shavuots in 62 years.

To sum up, in contrast to the historical starting points of Daniel’s 70-weeks prophecy that have been traditionally proposed, I have presented an alternative futurist-eschatological model, and one that is actually more faithful to the text’s grammar, canonical context, and authorial intent. Here’s a case in point. By way of allusion, Dan. 12:1 is almost certainly employing the messianic terminology of “an anointed prince” (Dan. 9:25; cf. 10:21; Isa. 9:6) to signify the Messiah’s death and resurrection at the time of the end. In the following verse (12:2), Daniel goes on to describe the general resurrection of the dead that will occur during the same time period. This time period is elsewhere referred to as καιροῦ συντελείας (Dan. 12:4 LXX), which is translated as “the end of time” in Daniel 9:27 LXX (cf. Dan. 12:9, 13 LXX). Despite the fact that we don’t know the precise date, nevertheless Daniel’s 70-Weeks prophecy strongly suggests that the messiah is right around the corner: “right at the door” (Matt. 24:33)! In fact, according to Matt. 24:34, the last generation that sees the end-times signs will also see all things fulfilled.

So how did I arrive at this conclusion? Answer: “by the revelation of Jesus Christ” (cf. Gal. 1:11-12). The reason why the calculation works is because I already knew the answer. I knew the year. So I started with the known outcome and then worked backwards to figure out how the Danielic equation fits. And it does! Here’s what I found out. The 7 weeks and 62 weeks are separated to show they have different values. The 7 weeks represent months, whereas the 62 weeks represent years. Israel (1948) doesn’t fit as the starting point of Daniel’s 70 Weeks prophecy. Nor does Jerusalem (1967). Rather, its starting point is the birth of the messiah (the heavenly Jerusalem)! And, as noted earlier, the year of the Messiah’s coming is 2025 (cf. Acts 2:1).


When is the end of the age?

Eli Kittim

When is the end of the age? Not where, not how, but when? The New King James Version calls this specific time period “the end of the age,” while the King James Version refers to it as “the end of the world.” Biblical scholars often ask whether the end of the age is a reference to the end of the Jewish age, which came to an end with the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D., or whether it’s an allusion to the end of human history. Given that the signs of the times coincide with this particular age, we must examine whether this is literal language, referring to first century Palestine, or figurative, pertaining to the end-times.

Since “the end of the age” is a characteristic theme of the New Testament (NT), let’s look at how Jesus explains it in the parable of the tares in Matthew 13:37-43 (NKJV emphasis added):

“He answered and said to them: ‘He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one. The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels. Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!’ “

In this parable, the constituent elements of the end of the age are highlighted, namely, the end-times, judgment day, the wicked cast into the lake of fire, and the end of human history. The key phrase that is translated as “the end of the age” comes from the Greek expression συντελείᾳ τοῦ ⸀αἰῶνος. In a similar vein, let’s see how Jesus explains the eschatological dimension of the parable of the dragnet in Matthew 13:47-50 (italics mine):

“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a dragnet that was cast into the sea and gathered some of every kind, which, when it was full, they drew to shore; and they sat down and gathered the good into vessels, but threw the bad away. So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come forth, separate the wicked from among the just, and cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”

Once again, in this parable, the end of the age (συντελείᾳ τοῦ ⸀αἰῶνος) is described as taking place at the last judgment, when the righteous will be separated from the wicked, while simultaneously placing emphasis on the end of the world, when “there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”

Similarly, in Matthew 24:3, the disciples ask Jesus to tell them two things, namely, when will the coming of Christ and the end of the age take place. In comparison to Matthew 24:3, the book of Acts tells us that the apostles asked Jesus if he will restore the kingdom of Israel at the end of the age (Acts 1:6). This question was asked just prior to his ascension and departure. Historically speaking, Israel was restored in the 20th century, which is one of the signs that ties in closely with Jesus’ coming and the end of the age. Jesus responds in v. 7 by saying, “it is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority.” And v. 9 informs us that Jesus’ response is part of his farewell speech. In like manner, the last recorded words of Jesus in Matthew’s gospel (28:18-20 emphasis added) are as follows:

“All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age [συντελείας τοῦ ⸀αἰῶνος].”

If Jesus promised to be with the disciples until “the end of the age,” and if that age is a reference to first century Palestine, does this mean that Jesus is no longer with those who have long since outlived their first century counterparts? Taken as a whole, this would also essentially imply that the resurrection of the dead, the rapture, the great tribulation, the lake of fire, judgment day, and the coming of Jesus were events that all took place in Antiquity. Is that a legitimate theologoumenon that captures the eschatology of the NT?

We find an analogous concept in the Septuagint of Daniel 12:1-4 (L.C.L. Brenton translation). Daniel mentions the resurrection of the dead and the great tribulation, but in v. 4 he is commanded to “close the words, and seal the book to the time of the end; until many are taught, and knowledge is increased.” Curiously enough, “the time of the end” in Daniel is the exact same phrase that Jesus uses for “the end of the age” in the NT, namely, καιροῦ συντελείας.

As for the biblical contents, given that the exact same language is employed in all of the parallel passages, it is clear that the end of the age is a future time period that explicitly refers to judgment day, the lake of fire, the harvest, and the consummation of the ages. Obviously, it has nothing to do with the time of Antiquity. Not to mention that the parousia is said to coincide with the end of the current world, when everything will dissolve in a great conflagration (2 Pet. 3:10)!

Another mom reminder #DontMakeMeCountToThree #GingerPlowman #mom2mom #biblestudy #Highlands #love

Few mom reminders I need every day! #DontMakeMeCountToThree #GingerPlowman #mom2mom #biblestudy #Highlands #love

#girl #girls #girlpower #woman #womanpower #womanempowerment #women #womenempowerment #proverb #proverbs31woman #proverbs31 #bible #bibleverse #bibleverses #biblestudy #christ #christian #christianity #god #godisgood #godfirst https://www.instagram.com/p/B-aCT9jpmUG/?igshid=b25jui1rl91g

#god #godisgood #godisgoodallthetime #christ #christian #christianity #scripture #scriptureoftheday #scriptures #scripturestudy #testament #oldtestament #newtestament #bible #bibleverse #biblejournaling #biblestudy #bibleverses #isaiah #isaiah4113 #religion #religious #fear #fearless #fearnot #anxiety #anxietyrelief #anxietyawareness #anxietysupport #anxietyproblems https://www.instagram.com/p/B_VQnIJJtUb/?igshid=jzmwhbyur2mq

#bible #bibleverse #biblestudy #bibleverses #christ #christian #christianity #god #godisgood #jesus #jesuschrist #jesuslovesyou #jesussaves #holy #holyspirit #holybible #witch #witchesofinstagram #witchcraft #witchyvibes #witchythings #christianwitch #christianwitchcraft #christianwitches #christianwitchesofinstagram #christianwitchery #magic #magical #magick #protestant https://www.instagram.com/p/CBYMMlzpISi/?igshid=1s04u1eq7h0p2

#bible #bibleverse #biblestudy #bibleverses #proverbs #christ #christian #christianity #god #godisgood #jesus #jesuschrist #jesuslovesyou #jesussaves #holy #holyspirit #holybible #holytrinity #newtestament #pray #prayer #prayfortheworld #prayers #prayerchangesthings #witch #witchesofinstagram #witchcraft #witchyvibes #witchythings #christianwitch https://www.instagram.com/p/CCLuSaZJdFC/?igshid=gfn34eulyqvh

Who is a God like You, who pardons sins and forgives the transgressions of Your people? You do not stay angry forever but delight in showing mercy. (Micah 7:18-19)

Sometimes we believe we've failed God so badly that He'll never forgive us. But the Bible says, "Jesus Christ came into the world to take away our sins. We deserve to die for our sins -- but He died in our place. Every sin we ever committed was placed on Him, and He took the judgment we deserve.

God doesn't want anyone to sin, but He knows we will. The Bible also says, "He delights in showing us mercy." We sometimes wonder if God can really forgive us, you see, God will always forgive us when we sincerely repent and ask for His forgiveness. Today, confess your sins to Jesus, turn away from them, He will surely cleanse you from all unrighteousness, and embrace you, because you are His child.

Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. - Matthew 25:41

There is a purpose in PAIN and BROKENNESS

1 Peter 5:10

And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, strengthen, and establish you.

The painful experience will remain painful until you realize the purpose of God behind it.

Jeremiah 29:11,

“For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.”

God’s Word is full of wisdom and encouragement that guide Christians through life. Memorizing Scripture can be a powerful weapon against temptation, despair, and worldliness. However, without context, learning verses in isolation can lead to misunderstanding and misapplying the virtues and lessons that God wants His people to possess and understand.

This is a message of hope and a promise of a good future that is easy to cling to and repeat. But knowing the full context of the verse is quite interesting, and reveals the enormous scope of God’s will for mankind. Let's dig into what it really means when God tells us he has plans for us.

Praise you Lord God🙌🙏