#biblicalexegesis

[eli-kittim]

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?

[eli-kittim]

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” (in the second phrase), “καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος” (in the 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!

[eli-kittim]

How Should Christian Scholars Respond to Attacks and Insults?

By Bible Researcher and Author Eli Kittim 🎓

Now these people were more noble-minded

than those in Thessalonica, for they

received the word with great eagerness,

examining the Scriptures daily to see

whether these things were so.

——- Acts 17:11 NASB

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

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

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

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

——-

A Biblical Consensus Is Always Evolving

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[eli-kittim]

How Old Was Abraham When He Left Haran?

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

The Apparent Contradiction

There’s a seeming contradiction in the Bible concerning Abraham’s age when he left Haran. The apparent contradiction is as follows. If Terah died when he was 205 years old, but fathered Abram when he was 70, then Abram must have been 135 years old when his father Terah died (as Gen. 11.26, 32 suggest), not 75, as Gen. 12.4 indicates. For the story to work without any discrepancies, Terah would literally have to be 130 years old when he fathered Abram. But it seemed as if he were only 70 years old. Hence the apparent contradiction. Below are the relevant citations that appear to contradict each other.

—-

Genesis 12.4 (ESV):

So Abram went, as the LORD had told him,

and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-

five years old when he departed from

Haran.

Acts 7.2:

And Stephen said: ‘Brothers and fathers,

hear me. The God of glory appeared to our

father Abraham when he was in

Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran.’

Acts 7.4:

Then he went out from the land of the

Chaldeans and lived in Haran. And after his

father died, God removed him from there

into this land in which you are now living.

Genesis 11.26:

When Terah had lived 70 years, he fathered

Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

Genesis 11.32:

The days of Terah were 205 years, and

Terah died in Haran.

—————

Apologetic Exegesis

The key passage is Gen. 11.26. The Hebrew text doesn’t explicitly say that *when* Terah was 70 years old he begat Abram. Rather, it puts it thusly (Gen. 11.26 KJV):

And Terah lived seventy years, and begat

Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

Nowhere is it explicitly mentioned that Terah had all 3 children when he was 70 years old. Nor is there any direct evidence that these children were triplets, or that they were born on the exact same date, month, or year. The verse in Gen. 11.26 merely indicates that after Terah reached a certain age——namely, 70 years old——he began to father children. But exactly when these children were actually born is unknown. The only thing that’s clear from Gen. 11.26 is that they were born after Terah had reached a certain age.

It’s quite possible, for example, that some of his children could have been born when Terah was 130 years old. Nothing in the text would contradict the timing of such a birth. As long as Terah fathered at least one child after he was 70, the rest could have been born anytime between Terah’s 70th and 205th birthday.

The order in which the names of Terah’s sons are listed may not reflect the precise chronological order in which the children were actually born. The text is simply indicating their order of importance. Given that Abram is a key figure in the Old Testament and the common patriarch of the Abrahamic religions, he’s obviously mentioned first:

there is yet a question whether Abram was

born first as listed, or perhaps he is listed

first because he was the wisest similar to

Shem, Ham, and Jafeth where Shem was

not the oldest, but was the wisest. … the

Talmud leaves the above question open.

(Wikipedia)

—————

Conclusion

Actually, Abram could have been 75 years old when he left Haran, as the text indicates (Gen. 12.4). And maybe he did leave Haran “after his father died” (Acts 7.4) at the age of 205 (Gen. 11.32). There is no contradiction with regard to the dates. The assumed contradiction is actually based on fallacious reasoning and speculation. It’s based on an eisegesis, that is, a misinterpretation of the text. Readers often assume that the text is telling us that Abram was born *when* Terah was 70 years old. But that’s a conjecture. The text doesn’t say that at all. All the text says is that once Terah reached a certain age, he began fathering sons. But exactly when each and every son was born is unknown.

—

[eli-kittim]

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!

[eli-kittim]

Who Is Eli Kittim & What Does He Believe?

By Award-Winning Author Eli Kittim 🎓

Why Do I Write Under the Pseudonym of Eli of Kittim?

For the record, “Eli of Kittim” is my pen name, not my real name. I chose this name because it points directly to Jesus Christ himself. The name “Eli of Kittim” is a cryptic reference to Jesus, and it really means, “The God of Greece.” The idea that the Messiah’s name is Eli is mentioned in many passages of the Old and New Testaments. For instance, Matthew 27.46 defines the name “Eli” as God. It reads: “Eli, Eli ... that is, My God, my God.” Similarly, Daniel 12.1 refers to “the great [messianic] prince” named, “Michael” (Mika-el). Michael means “Who is like God?” But if you break-up the word, the prefix “Mika” means “who is like,” while “el,” the suffix, refers to God himself. The same holds in Matthew 1.23 where the author informs us that Jesus’ name is “Emmanuel," which means, "God is with us." Once again, the prefix is based on the root (im) עִם, which means “with,” while the root-suffix (el) אֵל means “God” (cf. Isaiah 7.14). This is probably why God says in Malachi 4.5 (DRB), “Behold I will send you Elias the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.” So, the common denominator in all these Biblical verses is that the Messiah is called Eli.

Moreover, Kittim is a repeated Old Testament Biblical name that represents the island of Cyprus, which was inhabited by Greeks since ancient times, and thus represents the Greeks. In Genesis 10.4 we are told that the Kittim are among the sons of Javan (Yavan), meaning Greece (see Josephus “Antiquities” I, 6). Even the War Scroll, found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, foretells the end-time battle that will take place between Belial and the King of the Kittim. This is all in my book, chapter 9. So, accordingly, Eli of Kittim roughly means, “The God of Greece.” That’s the name’s cryptic significance. And since the name Eli of Kittim represents the main argument of my book, I use it as my pen name!

Bio

I’ve been involved in the study of serious Bible scholarship for over 30 years. I’m what you might call a Bible maven! I hold an MA degree in psychology from the New School for Social Research in New York City, and I’m also a graduate of the John W. Rawlings School of Divinity and of the Koinonia (Bible) Institute. I’ve also studied Biblical criticism at both Queens College and The New School (Eugene Lang). I’m fluent in Koine Greek, and I’m also a native Greek speaker. I also read Biblical Hebrew. I read the New Testament in the original language. Currently, I’m a Bible researcher, published writer, and an award-winning Goodreads book-author. My book is called “The Little Book of Revelation: The First Coming of Jesus at the End of Days.” I advise all my readers to also read my blog because it furnishes additional information that usually answers most of their FAQs. I highly recommend that you read at least a few *related-articles* which flesh out certain ideas that are sometimes sparely developed in the book. It acts as a companion study-guide to “The Little Book of Revelation.” See Tumblr: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/

Eli of Kittim

Eli Kittim is a Biblical Researcher and an Award-Winning Author of the Christian-Nonfiction Book,...

I have also contributed academic articles to numerous journals and magazines, such as “Rapture Ready,” the “Journal of Higher Criticism,” “The American Journal of Psychoanalysis,” and the “Aegean Review” (which has published works by Jorge Luis Borges, Lawrence Durrell, Truman Capote, Alice Bloom), among others.

Rethinking Christianity: An Einsteinian Revolution of Theology

Just like Paul’s doctrine——which “is not of human origin; for … [he] did not receive it from a human source, … but … [he] received it through a revelation” (Gal. 1.11-12)——my doctrine was received in the exact same way! Mine is an Einsteinian revolution of theology. No one will do theology the same. I made 2 electrifying discoveries that turn historical Christianity on its head:

A) What if the crucifixion of Christ is a

future event?

B) What if Christ is Greek?

Both of these concepts were communicated to me via special revelation! Hermeneutically speaking, they involve an absolutely groundbreaking paradigm shift! Mine is the only view that appropriately combines the end-time messianic expectations of the Jews with Christian scripture! And most of the Biblical data, both academic and otherwise, actually supports my conclusion. The fact that it’s new doesn’t mean it’s not true. After all, it was always there in the Bible. No one ever noticed it. This new hermeneutic is worthy of serious consideration. No one has ever said that before. This can only be revealed by the spirit!

Arthur Schopenhauer once wrote:

All truth goes through three stages:

At first it is ridiculed.

In the second, it is violently rejected

In the third, it is accepted as self-evident.

I would suggest that readers do their due diligence by investigating my extensive writings in order to examine what my view is all about and on what grounds it is established.

Kittim’s Systematic Theology

I have written about my systematic theology (aka Kittimism) many times before, but only vis-à-vis my evidence (i.e. in trying to prove it). But I’ve never tried to clarify its foundations. In systematic theology, a theologian seeks to establish a coherent theoretical framework that connects all the diverse doctrines within a tradition, such as Bibliology, Soteriology, Eschatology, and the like. However, one of the major problems involved in such a study is the theological bias of the researcher who might “force” the data to fit the theory in an attempt to maintain coherence and consistency.

So, where does my systematic theology come from? I’m neither Protestant, nor Catholic, nor Eastern Orthodox (though I used to be Greek-Orthodox). I don’t belong to any particular church or denomination. Nor am I trying to create one. I’m rather selective, but I don’t identify with the various denominations of whose views I sometimes embrace. The reason is that——although I may agree with certain theological positions, nevertheless——I do not necessarily agree with their overall systems.

Unlike most other systematic theologies that are based on probabilities and guesswork, the starting point of my system is based on “special revelation”! This revelation, or rather these revelations (for I’ve had a number of them through the years) do not add any new content to the canon of scripture, but they do clarify it, especially in terms of chronology or the timing and sequence of certain prophetic events. So they don’t add anything new to the Biblical canon per se. The only thing they do change is *our interpretation* of the text. Incidentally, this revelation has been multiply-attested and unanimously confirmed by innumerable people. Due to time constraints, I can’t go into all the details. Suffice it to say that a great multitude of people have received the exact same revelation! Essentially, this is my spiritual navigation system. But I never force it on the text. I always approach the text with impartiality in order to “test the spirits,” as it were. The last thing I want to do is to engage in confirmation bias.

And my views fit all the evidence. For example, I agree with Biblical scholarship that most of the Old Testament is not historical. I fully agree that many of the Patriarchs did not exist. I concur that the same holds true for the New Testament, but not to the same degree. What is more, I’m in full agreement that the gospels are anonymously written, and that they’re nonhistorical accounts that contain many legendary elements. I further concur that the gospel writers were not eyewitnesses. I also agree with many credible Bible scholars who question the historicity of Jesus, such as Robert M. Price and Kurt Aland. I admit that some of the New Testament texts involve historical fiction. And I don’t believe that in order to have a high view of scripture one has to necessarily accept the historicity of the Bible, or of Christianity for that matter. Rudolf Bultmann was right: the Bible sometimes mythologizes the word of God!

The High Quality of My Work

I work mainly with the original Greek and Hebrew texts, not with translations. The truth is, I demand of my work nothing less than the highest possible quality so that it is able to withstand the rigors of modern scholarship! To that end, a solution to a particular problem must be multiply-attested and unanimously confirmed by all parts of Scripture, thus eliminating the possibility of error in establishing its legitimacy. I’m very comprehensive in my work and I use a very similar quasi-scientific method when interpreting the text. In order to avoid the possibility of misinterpretation during the exegetical process, I observe exactly *what* the text says, exactly *how* it says it, without entertaining any speculations, preconceptions, or presuppositions, and without any theological agendas. This eliminates any personal predispositions toward the text while preserving the hermeneutical integrity of the method.

And then I translate it into English with the assistance of scholarly dictionaries and lexicons. After that, I cross-reference information to check for parallels and/or verbal agreements. Thus, the translation of the original biblical languages becomes the starting point of my exegesis. This type of approach is unheard of. Almost everyone comes to the text with certain theological preconceptions. I’ve been heavily influenced by my academic and scientific backgrounds in this respect, and that’s why I’m very demanding and always strive to achieve the highest possible quality of work! I take a lot of pride in my work! And it is only after this laborious process has been completed that I finally check it against my original “blueprints”——namely, my revelations——to see if they match. It’s an airtight case because it’s not guided by speculation and conjecture, as most theologies seem to be.

The best explanation of my views comes from the following work. This is the pdf of my article——published in the Journal of Higher Criticism, volume 13, number 3 (Fall 2018)——entitled, “The Birth, Death, and Resurrection of Christ According to the Greek New Testament Epistles”:

https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:6b2a560b-9940-4690-ad29-caf086dbdcd6

Adobe Acrobat

[eli-kittim]

Does God Create Evil?: Answering the Calvinists

By Award-Winning Author Eli Kittim

——-

Calvinism Has Confused God's Foreknowledge With His Sovereignty

Dr. R.C. Sproul once said:

There is no maverick molecule if God is

sovereign.

That is to say, if God cannot control the smallest things we know of in the universe, such as the subatomic particles known as “quarks,” then we cannot trust him to keep His promises. But just because God set the universe in motion doesn’t mean that every detail therein is held ipso facto to be caused by him. God could still be sovereign and yet simultaneously permit the existence of evil and free will. This is not a contradiction (see Compatibilism aka Soft determinism). It seems that Calvinism has confused God’s foreknowledge with his sovereignty.

Calvinists often use Bible verses out-of-context to support the idea that God is partial: that he plays favorites with human beings. They often quote Exodus 33.19b (ESV):

I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious,

and will show mercy on whom I will show

mercy.

But the only thing that this verse is saying is that God’s grace is beyond human understanding, not that God is partial and biased (cf. Rom. 11.33-34). By contrast, the parable of the vineyard workers (Mt 20.1–16) promotes equality between many different classes of people. One interpretation of this parable would be that late converts to Christianity earn equal rewards along with early converts, and there need be no jealousy among the latter. This can be understood on many different levels. For example, one could view the early laborers as Jews who may resent the Gentile newcomers for being treated as equals by God. Some seem to get more rewards, others less, depending on many factors unbeknownst to us. But the point of the parable is that God is fair. No one gets cheated. However, in Calvinism, God is not fair. He does as he pleases. He creates evil and chooses who will be saved and who will be lost. This view is more in line with the capricious gods of Greek mythology than with the immutable God of the Bible.

That’s why Calvinism speaks of limited atonement. Christ’s atoning death is not for everyone, but only for a select few. You cannot look an atheist in the eye and tell them that Christ died for you. You’d be lying because, according to Calvinism, he may not have died for them. So the story goes...

But that’s a gross misinterpretation. Romans 8.29-30 doesn’t say that at all. It’s NOT saying that God used his powers indiscriminately to influence Individuals in some cases, but not in others. Nor does it follow that God played favorites and decided at the outset that some will be saved, and others not (tough luck, as it were). Not at all. All it says is that God can *foresee* the future!

God doesn’t CAUSE everything to happen as it does, but he does SEE what will happen. So, insofar as God was able to “see” who would eventually submit to his will (and who would not), one could say that God “foreknew” him. In Romans 8.29, the Greek term προέγνω comes from the word προγινώσκω (proginóskó), which means “to know beforehand” or to “foreknow.” It doesn’t imply determinism, the notion that all events in history, including those of human action, are predetermined by extraneous causes, and that people have no say in the matter, and are therefore not responsible for their actions. It simply means to know beforehand. That’s all. Case in point, Isaiah, Daniel, and John the Revelator saw the future; but they didn’t cause it.

God would never have predestined some people to be eternally lost and some to be eternally saved. That would not be just. Similarly, Romans 8.29-30 is only referring to those individuals whom God “foreknew” (προέγνω) that would meet the conditions of his covenant, those are the same he predestined (προώρισεν), called (ἐκάλεσεν), justified (ἐδικαίωσεν), and glorified (ἐδόξασεν)! Otherwise, how could God have possibly predestined those who he foresaw that would NOT meet the conditions of his covenant?

The Greek term προώρισεν (proōrisen; predestined) is derived from the word προορίζω (proorizó), which means “to predetermine” or “foreordain.” In other words, those whom God could *foresee* in the future as being faithful, those same individuals he pre-approved to be conformed to the image of his son. So, by “predestination” God simply means that he’s “declaring the end from the beginning” (Isa. 46.9-10 NASB). It’s not as if God was the direct cause of their decision or free choice. He simply foresaw those who had already chosen to be conformed to the image of his son of their own accord. Notice that in Rom. 8.29 (Berean Literal Bible), the text says that BECAUSE God foreknew them, he predestined them. This means that the *foresight* came first. Since God could see the outcome, he “foreknew” who would be lost and who would be saved:

because those whom He foreknew, He also

predestined to be conformed to the image

of His Son.

——-

Does John Piper represent Biblical Christianity?

Theologian and pastor John Piper cites Acts 4.27-28 (ESV) to prove his point that God determines everything that happens:

for truly in this city there were gathered

together against your holy servant Jesus,

whom you anointed, both Herod and

Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and

the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your

hand and your plan had predestined to take

place.

Piper says, when you understand the complete sovereignty of God, that is to say, how he is behind everything, that he is implicated in every aspect of existence, you’ll go crazy. Why? This occurs, I suspect, because the person you thought was your best friend turns out to be your worst enemy. How can you trust him? Piper says,

He [God] governed the most wicked thing

that ever happened in the world, the

crucifixion of my savior.

Piper says that there is no randomness in the universe, and that God is behind the Tsunamis and everything else that occurs on our planet. That would imply that God is behind the earthquakes, the hurricanes, the train wrecks, the airplane crashes, the massacres, the terrorist attacks, the racist attacks, the rapes, the violent riots, the Holocaust, the Third Reich, the Manson murders, the serial killings, cannibalism, the world wars, the abortions, the beheadings, the heinous crimes, the shootings, beatings, & stabbings of the elderly, and the filicides and genocides of history. God’s behind it all. And if you contemplate this idea, it will drive you mad, says John Piper. So, in order to stay sane, he suggests that we focus on the Cross. We have to believe that God nevertheless loves us and that he was behind the murder of Jesus for our salvation. This will keep us safe from harm; from going mad, that is. Really?

In other words, God’s dictatorist regime or tyrannical authority works much like the Mafia, a secret organization or crime syndicate which controls everything from the street corner thugs to the highest levels of government. God is like a mafia boss who puts out a contract to “whack” somebody but, instead of killing him himself and taking the blame, he orders an underboss (Satan) to do his dirty work. In other words, he hires accomplices to kill people on his behalf because he’s such a coward that he doesn’t want to take the responsibility and do it himself, or to be seen as evil, yet he’s the real cause of everything, good and evil. A literal or fundamentalist interpretation of the Old Testament will no doubt lead to that conclusion (cf. Isa. 45.7). This is also the god of the Gnostics, the inferior creator-god (or demiurge) that was revealed through Hebrew scripture, who was responsible for all instances of falsehood and evil in the world!

But is this a sincere, honorable, and reliable person whom you could trust? Or is this a vile, dishonest, and despicable person who pretends to be something he is not? Does this god deserve our worship? Is he not a liar? Is this a truly loving, Holy God, or is he rather a cruel, deceitful, and merciless beast that hides behind a veneer of righteousness, much like the mafia bosses and the corrupt heads of state?

Then, after depicting a gruesome picture of a cold blooded killer-God who would order a hit on women and innocent children (cf. 1 Sam. 15.3), Piper cites Isa. 53.10:

Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him

[christ] with pain.

He concludes:

Therefore the worst sin that was ever

committed was ordained by God.

Piper exclaims, “The answer is yes, he controls everything, and he does it for his glory and our good.” This is the God of Calvinism, fashioned from the pit of hell itself, which depicts God’s rule as a deep state or a totalitarian government, “A celestial North Korea,” in the words of the critic Christopher Hitchens.

What ever happened to the attribute of omnibenevolence, the doctrine that God is all-good, sans evil (cf. Ps 106.1; 135.3; Nah. 1.7; Mk 10.18)? Isaiah 65.16 calls him “the God of truth” (cf. Jn 17.17), while Titus 1.1-2 asserts that God “never lies.” Psalm 92.15 (NIV) declares:

The LORD is upright; he is my Rock, and

there is no wickedness in him.

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

At a deeper, philosophical level we’re talking about the problem of evil: who’s responsible for all the suffering and evil in the world? Piper would say, God is. Blame it on God. I would say that this teaching not only contradicts the Bible but also the attributes of God. If hell was prepared for the devil and his angels (Mt 25.41), and if God is held accountable for orchestrating everything, then the devil cannot be held morally responsible for all his crimes against humanity. Besides, doesn’t scripture say that Christ “went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil”? (Acts 10.38 ESV). Yet, according to Calvinism, God not only creates evil but is himself ipso facto evil! Thus, neither John Piper nor Calvinism represent Biblical Christianity! Rather, this is an aberration, a contradiction, a false doctrine. 1 Timothy 4.1 (CEV) warns:

God's Spirit clearly says that in the last

days many people will turn from their faith.

They will be fooled by evil spirits and by

teachings that come from demons.

In the following video, a question was posed to Calvinist pastor John Piper:

Has God predetermined every detail in the

universe, including sin?

To which Piper replied:

YES!

Therefore, in Calvinism,

God has become Satan!

[eli-kittim]

The Priority of the Epistles

Eli Kittim

Principles of Interpretation

Using R.C. Sproul’s hermeneutical guidelines from his book, Knowing Scripture, I will argue that there is a chronological discrepancy in the New Testament (NT) in which the timeline of Jesus’ life in the gospels is not the same as the one mentioned in the epistles. Specifically, the epistles seemingly contradict the gospels regarding the timeline of Christ’s birth, death, and resurrection by placing it in eschatological categories. So I will argue that, based on principles of interpretation, priority must be given to the epistles. According to R.C. Sproul, exegetes must interpret the implicit by the explicit and the narrative by the didactic. In practical terms, the NT epistles and other more explicit and didactic portions of Scripture must clarify the implicit meaning and significance of the gospel literature. Accordingly, I will argue that the epistles are the primary keys to unlocking the future timeline of Christ’s only visitation. According to R.C. Sproul’s hermeneutical guidelines, the gospels must be interpreted by the epistles.

“The Historical Narrative Must be

Interpreted by the Didactic”

— R.C. Sproul

Case in point. The epistles——which are the clearest teachings of the NT——apparently 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)! For example, according to the NT epistles, Jesus 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 Hebrews 1:2 says that the physical Son speaks to humanity in the “last days,” 1 Pet. 1:20 (NJB) clearly sets forth the eschatological timing of Christ’s initial appearance “at the final point of time.” Given that the epistles are the more didactic portions of Scripture, and that the gospel narratives are not considered historical by many scholars, it would therefore seem hermeneutically legitimate to interpret the narrative by the didactic!

The Explicit & the Implicit

“The implicit is to be interpreted in light of

the explicit. Not the other way around”

— R.C. Sproul

But we have it completely backwards. For centuries, we’ve tried to interpret the explicit (epistles) in light of the implicit (gospels). And yet, it’s the didactic portions of Scripture that teach with clear and explicit statements. For example, in terms of Jesus’ appearance and death, Hebrews 9:26 (KJV) says directly and clearly, “once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” This is an explicit statement that not only shows the time of his coming (ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων) but also the purpose of his appearance, namely, to sacrifice himself in order to put away sin (εἰς ἀθέτησιν ἁμαρτίας διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ). In both the Greek and English versions, the statement is very clear. Jesus’ death takes place at the consummation of the ages. We find a parallel passage in 1 Peter 1:20 (ASV):

“[Jesus] was foreknown indeed before

the foundation of the world, but was

manifested at the end of the times.”

These are straightforward, clear, and explicit teachings. To subordinate these explicit epistolary teachings of Scripture and to argue on the basis of implications drawn from the more obscure gospel narratives is a misuse of the Scripture. If we insist on the canonical context of the Bible, namely, that each book in the Old Testament (OT) & the NT is related to all the other books and is inspired by the Holy Spirit, then we have to be careful not to set these two divisions——namely, the gospels and the epistles——in opposition. The problem arises when we deduce certain things from the gospels, which then bring us into direct conflict with something that the Scripture teaches in the epistles very clearly and very plainly.

“Our implications must always be measured

by and made subordinate to what the

Scriptures explicitly teach” — R.C. Sproul

The Totality of Scripture

“Every particular passage of Scripture must

be measured and interpreted against the

whole of Scripture” — R.C. Sproul

Let’s look at the gospel narratives and the didactic literature of the epistles and compare them. The didactic literature clearly demonstrates that the NT is an Apocalypse, whereas the gospels claim to be historical eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. The first problem is that Bible scholars don’t consider the gospels as historical accounts, but rather view them as theological documents. The second problem is that the epistles seemingly contradict the gospels with regard to the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ by placing them in eschatological categories.

Now, let’s take the principle that “every particular passage of Scripture must be measured and interpreted against the whole of Scripture” and apply it to the Messianic timeline. And let’s ask the question: according to Scripture, does the Messiah come to earth during the time of antiquity or in the end times? In fact, most of the evidence with regard to the Messianic timeline in both the OT & NT is consistent with the epistles rather than with the gospels. For example, Zephaniah 1:7-8 declares that the Lord’s sacrifice will occur during “the day of the Lord” (not in antiquity; cf. Zeph. 1:14-18). Isaiah 2:19 says that people will hide in the caves of rocks when “the Lord … arises to terrify the earth.” In other words, the Lord’s resurrection is not separate from but contemporaneous with judgement day (cf. Rev. 6:15-17)! Similarly, Daniel 12:1 puts the resurrection of the anointed prince just prior to the great tribulation. This can be proved with detailed exegesis from the Greek text. For instance, the Septuagint (LXX) in Daniel 12:1 says παρελεύσεται, which means to “pass away,” while the Theodotion (Daniel 12:1) has ἀναστήσεται, meaning a bodily resurrection in the end-times. In the following verse (Daniel 12:2), the plural form of the exact same word (ἀναστήσονται) is used to describe the general resurrection of the dead! In other words, if the exact same word means resurrection in Daniel 12:2, then it must also necessarily mean resurrection in Daniel 12:1! Acts 3:20-21 similarly says that Christ will not be sent to earth until the consummation of the ages. Even Luke 17:30 claims that the Son of man has not yet been revealed! In fact, 1 Corinthians 15:22-24 tells us explicitly that Christ will be resurrected in the end-times (an idea also entertained by James Dunn):

“For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all

will be made alive. But each in his own

order: Christ the first fruits, after that those

who are Christ’s at His coming, then comes

the end.”

What is more, Revelation 12:5 makes it clear that the messiah is born in the end times as a contemporary of the last world empire, which is depicted as a seven-headed dragon with ten horns (cf. Rev. 17:9-14). In fact, chapter 12 & verse 5 describes the birth of the messiah, & the immediate next verse talks about the great tribulation. Likewise, Galatians 4:4 says that Jesus will be born during the consummation of the ages, expressed by the apocalyptic phrase τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, which is defined in Ephesians 1:10 as the end of the world! Let’s not forget that the book of Galatians is not based on historical accounts but rather on God’s foreknowledge that Paul received through special revelation (Galatians 1:11-12)! And Hebrews 9:26 (KJV) says EXPLICITLY——categorically and unequivocally——that Jesus will die for the sins of mankind “once in the end of the world” (ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων)! Rev 19:10 also informs us that the TESTIMONY to Jesus is prophetic (not historical). Read Acts 10:40-41 where we are told that Jesus’ resurrection was based on visions because it was only visible “to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God.” First Peter 1:10-11 also says that the NT prophets “predicted the sufferings of the Messiah” in advance (cf. Isa 46:10)! Thus, the totality of Scripture supports the primacy of the epistles.