Discover Top Posts Tagged with #colossians2v9

The Fullness of Time

By Bible Researcher and Author Eli Kittim 🎓

What does the Bible mean when it says that God sent his son in “the fullness of time”? Many scholars and pastors automatically take for granted that this phrase refers to the birth and first coming of Jesus 2,000 years ago. In other words, instead of doing rigorous linguistic research to find out exactly what this phrase actually means, many experts simply rely on their *theological assumptions* and speculations in hopes that they can carry them through. But there’s no linguistic or biblical support for their conclusion.

In order to bolster their point of view that “the fulness of time” simply means the “appropriate” time or the “fulfillment” of time, they often cite Mark 1.15, which uses the term πεπλήρωται. But, as we shall see, this term is different from its cognate (πλήρωμα) in Galatians 4.4, from where we get the phrase “the fullness of time.” So, let’s compare both texts. Mk 1.15 (SBLGNT) reads:

καὶ λέγων ὅτι Πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς καὶ

ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ·

My translation:

And saying that the time has been fulfilled

and the kingdom of God has drawn near.

In the aforementioned verse, the verb πεπλήρωται (peplērōtai) is in the perfect indicative form and it’s translated as “has been fulfilled.” But this so-called *fulfillment* of time (Πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς) in Mk 1.15 is not grammatically equivalent to the *completion* of time (τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου) in Gal 4.4! Not to mention that Mark 1.15 doesn’t even tell us which particular time-period or age has been fulfilled.

What is more, according to verbal aspect theory, we cannot establish the objective “time of an action” (or the Aktionsart) simply by looking at the “aspect” (or the semantics of a tense-form), which is the author’s subjective portrayal of an action. Moreover, if we apply “the criteria of authenticity”——the various methods of ascertaining the historical plausibility and probability of an event——to the gospel genre, it will probably turn out that the narratives are purely theological and literary constructs rather than historical or biographical accounts.

Two principles of Biblical hermeneutics should also be considered foundational. 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, this paper argues that the Epistles are the primary keys to unlocking the future timeline of Christ’s only visitation.

Accordingly, the epistle to the Galatians chapter 4 and verse 4 gives us the exact period of time when Jesus’ incarnation will take place, namely, when time reaches its "fullness" or "completion." Galatians 4.4 gives us a specific point in time that is indicated by the nominative noun πλήρωμα, which is translated as “fullness.” This means that Christ's incarnation will transpire when time reaches its “fullness” or “completion.” Ephesians 1.10 further demonstrates that “the fullness of the times” will occur at the final consummation, when all things will conclude in Christ, “things in the heavens and things on the earth.” Therefore, “the fullness of time” coincides with “the completion of time” and with “the end of the age.”

By contrast, Mk 1.15 only tells us that an indefinite time-period has been fulfilled, without ever objectively specifying “when” or “what” has been fulfilled, irrespective of the theological genre. In other words, how do we even know that this timeframe was actually fulfilled? Because from a literary standpoint, given the subsequent rhetorical development and embellishment of the gospel literature, it’s quite difficult to deconstruct the authors’ literary assumptions, or to separate history from theology, or the “historical Jesus” from the “literary Jesus.”

The Greek text of Mark 1.15 reads πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς (the time has been fulfilled). The verb πεπλήρωται (peplērōtai) is the perfect passive indicative of πληρόω and it means to “make full,” “fulfill,” or “accomplish.” It’s used 4 other times in the New Testament to mean that “the time has come” or “the time has been fulfilled” (Πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς). Interestingly enough, the term πεπλήρωται (peplērōtai) is derived from the root word πληρόω (pléroó), which means “to make full” or “to complete.” And pléroó in turn comes from the term πλήρης (plérés), which means “full” or “complete.” It actually means “completely filled up.” Think of the hour hand of a clock which turns 360 degrees in 12 hours. At 9 o’clock it has turned 270 degrees, or 3/4 of a circle. It’s not yet full or complete. It’s only when the hour hand of a clock has come full circle that it is plérés or “full.” Or think of a cup that is half full. It will become πλήρης or “completely full” when it’s filled to the brim. This same idea is conveyed in the New Testament. See, e.g., Mt 14.20: “twelve full [πλήρεις] baskets”; Lk 4.1: “Jesus full [πλήρης] of the Holy Spirit”; Acts 19.28: “they were full [πλήρεις] of wrath.” That’s why Colossians 2.9 tells us that in Christ dwells not simply a part of the deity but rather the “fullness” (πλήρωμα) of the deity bodily:

ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς

θεότητος σωματικῶς.

Similarly, the Greek text of Galatians 4.4 reads: τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου (the fullness of time). The term πλήρωμα (plḗrōma) also comes from πληρόω (pléroó) and means “fullness,” “completion,” “summing up,” or “total” (see Liddell & Scott [1940] “A Greek–English Lexicon,” Oxford: Clarendon Press). Thus, when the term πλήρωμα (plḗrōma) is used in the New Testament (in 18 occurrences), it usually means “fullness” or “completion” (as in Gal 4.4: τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου [the fulness of time]; cf. e.g. Mk 6.43; 8.20; Jn 1.16; Rom 11.25; 15.29; 1 Cor 10.26, 28; Gal 4.4; Eph 1.10, 23; 3.19; 4.13; Col 1.19; 2.9)!

In fact, none of the Bible versions of Gal 4.4 (that I’m aware of) translate πλήρωμα as a *fulfillment* of prophecy that has already taken place. On the contrary, all of them, without exception, render πλήρωμα as the *completion* of historical time in one form or another! Most Bible versions say “when the fullness of time came.” For example, the Aramaic Bible in Plain English says “But when the end of time arrived.” The Christian Standard & the Holman Christian Standard Bibles are far more explicit in saying “When the time came to completion.” Not one version translates τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου (in Gal 4.4) as fulfilled prophecy. None!

Furthermore, if we read the New Testament in canonical context, using the analogy of scripture, we’ll come to realize that Ephesians 1.10 actually interprets and expounds Galatians 4.4! Ephesians 1.10 clearly defines God’s “plan of the fullness of the times” (οἰκονομίαν τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν) as the “summing up” or “completion” (ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι) of all things in Christ (τὰ πάντα ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ), “things in the heavens” (τὰ ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς), “and things on the earth” (καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς · ἐν αὐτῷ). Thus, in both Galatians 4.4 and Ephesians 1.10, *the fullness of time* clearly denotes *the completion of time,* when all things will conclude in Christ. For this reason, the alternative expressions τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου/τῶν καιρῶν act as signifiers for “the end of the age.” Yet remarkably, according to Gal. 4.4, this is also the time of Christ’s incarnation! Consequently, the Epistolary literature of the NT sets Christ’s birth in a different light, while apparently contradicting some of the Gospel material.

According to the Collins English Dictionary:

If you say that something will happen in the

fullness of time, you mean that it will

eventually happen after a long time or after

a long series of events.

And, as an example, it quotes a written excerpt:

…a mystery that will be revealed in the

fullness of time.

The conclusion drawn from this brief study of “the fullness of time” matches the results obtained from other areas of research. For instance, it squares well with an eschatological Jesus who makes his initial appearance “at the final point of time” (1 Pet 1.20 NJB). It also fits well with the messianic male-child who is said to be born in the end-times (Rev 12.5), and who is expected to *sacrifice* himself and *die* “in the end of the world” (Heb 9.26 KJV). Accordingly, Christ will subsequently resurrect at the time of the end (Dan 12.1 LXX) and abolish “all rule and all authority and power” (1 Cor 15.22-24)! And there’s no two-thousand-year gap between Christ’s *resurrection* and *judgment-day* because “He arises to terrify the earth” (Isa 2.19)!

For further details, please consult the following articles:

——-

1. THE LORD RESURRECTS TO TERRIFY THE EARTH

THE LORD RESURRECTS TO TERRIFY THE EARTH By Eli Kittim Ἡ μετάφρασις τῶν Ἑβδομήκοντα (Septuagint): εἰσενέγκαντες εἰς τὰ σπήλαια καὶ εἰς

——-

2. PROOF THAT DANIEL 12.1 IS REFERRING TO A RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD BASED ON TRANSLATION AND EXEGESIS OF THE BIBLICAL LANGUAGES

By Author Eli Kittim Dan. 12.1 is in the context of the great tribulation of the end times! It’s repeated in Mt. 24.21 as the time of the g

——-

3. WHY DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT REFER TO CHRIST’S FUTURE COMING AS A “REVELATION”?

By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim It’s important to note the language that’s often used with regard to the future coming of Christ, namely, a

——-

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!