Greek New Testament - Tumblr Posts
"Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate ['psifisato' in Greek, meaning 'to vote into office'] the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six."
--(Rev. 13:18)
Immediately I saw a white horse appear, and its rider was holding a bow ['toxon' in Greek--the Greek words 'ouranio toxon' & 'iris' mean 'bow' or 'rainbow,' meaning the 'covenant']; he was given a victor's crown and he went away, to go from victory to victory."
--Revelation 6:2, New Jerusalem Bible
It is not a coincidence that the New Testament was written in Greek instead of Hebrew. Jesus did not say 'I am the Aleph and the Tav,' but rather 'I am the Alpha and the Omega, ... the beginning and the end' of the Greek alphabet. Indisputably, Jesus explicitly identifies himself with the language of the Greeks.
Eli of Kittim
νυνϊ δε απαξ επι ϲυντελεια των αιωνων ειϲ αθετηϲιν τηϲ αμαρτιαϲ δια τηϲ θυϲιαϲ αυτου πεφανερωται.“ (Hebrews 9:26, Codex Sinaiticus, Greek NT). Translation: "Once in the conclusion of the ages [in Greek the word αιωνων/‘ages’ means 'centuries’] has he been made manifest, to put away sin through the sacrifice of himself.” (Hebrews 9:26, Codex Sinaiticus). According to this verse, did Jesus come in the time of antiquity, or is he manifested to die for the sins of mankind in the conclusion of all the centuries? Either the Gospels are right and this verse is wrong, or this verse is right and the Gospels are wrong. Both can’t be right. You’d have to tear this page out of the Bible to believe in the current view. Or is the Bible contradicting itself? No, the Bible is without contradiction. Both are right. But how? Because the Gospels are only narrative renderings of a messianic prophecy that is given to us in the form of a theological story that we can all understand and then pass it down through the corridors of time to our posterity. Whereas the Epistles are direct messages, not stories, which are meant to expatiate on the teachings of Christ. That’s why there’s no mention of the magi, the nativity scene, the virgin birth, or Bethlehem in the Epistles. So which of the two categories (the Gospels or the Epistles) provide the most accurate time of Christ’s incarnation? You decide.
Eli of Kittim
Excerpts from "Jesus Was Not a Jew" by Marilyn R. Allen
Christianity is NOT based upon Judaism even slightly, and never has been: this is merely another Jewish canard to be swallowed by the gullible. They are diametrically opposed in their principles. "THE MAN OF GALILEE" (whom they hounded, tortured, and finally achieved his crucifixion—would they have crucified their own?) taught and preached against their hidebound, cruel, enslaving Traditions. HE opposed them at every turn, and said that the "Sabbath was made for man: not man for the Sabbath," as the Jewish Pharisees had it. HE said they "compassed land and sea to make one convert, and having made him, he was twofold more the child of hell than they." HE told the Jews they were "whited sepulchres" which is the best description of their two-faced hypocrisy that I know of. His Disciples were Galileans ... of the Roman province of Galilee, (Galilee was not a Jewish province: Judea was).
Always where the Light is, there is the shadow also. In this connection, I would like to recommend to Evangelist Billy Graham, and other uninformed Christian ministers, that they read the booklet, The Prophet of Galilee (A Portrait of the Christ) by Mr. John Henry Monk, Editor of Grass Roots. In his brochure, The Prophet of Galilee, Mr. Monk calls attention to the fact that "All the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not," (St. Mark 7:3): but Jesus did not wash his hands oft, and "when it came to ceremonial washing, not at all." Mr. Monk then quotes the following sayings of Jesus to prove that HE was not of their faith and race. Jesus was speaking to Jews:
"Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness" (John 6:49) "Moses gave you circumcision" (John 7:22) "Is it not written in your law?" (John 10:14) "It is also written in your law" (John 8:17) "Written in their law" (John 13:25).
Why did His disciples say unto him, "Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee?" (John 11:18). Why did He say to Pilate: "if my sovereignty were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered unto the JEWS?" (John 18:36). And there are other passages which, by their wording, prove that He did not consider Himself one of them.
Christ Was Not a Jew
There is an excellent little book, Christ Was Not a Jew, by Dr. Jacob Eton Connor, A.B., Ph. D. The work was subtitled, "An Epistle to the Gentiles." Quoting St. Matthew 21:11—And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee. See also St. Matthew 4:15-18. Now to revert to Dr. Connor, "The TRUTH demanding recognition is that Christ, as the Son of Man, was a Galilean, and the Galileans were not Jews ... Josephus, the Jewish historian, describes the Galileans as a people wholly unlike the Jews in temperament and ideals—so different indeed that they could not have been of the same race. There was a taboo against inter-marriage between them as recorded in the Jewish Talmud. In a word, Christ as the Son of Man was a Galilean, and the Galileans were not Jews. This is the verdict of history. (Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, Vol. I. p. 206, 'There is, accordingly, as we see, not the slightest foundation for the supposition that Christ's parents were of Jewish descent.'). See also L. A. Waddell, L.L.D., C.B., E.E.I., The Makers of Civilization, 1929 .... "It is begging the question for anyone to assert that Christ was of the Jewish race. The contrast of His character with that of the Jewish background establishes a presumption that differentiates Him utterly, even if only the human aspect is considered ... and we learn from Josephus ... that the Galileans were a different kind of people from those of Judaea—a fact attested by the Jews themselves." To quote from Grass Roots, Oct., 1954, by Mr. John Henry Monk:
"To ignore race," (says C. G. Campbell, in his book on Race and Religion, from which Mr. Monk quotes) "is to disregard the most important influence upon the outcome of human history; for it largely, "Generally speaking, a country takes its name from a racial group which has long inhabited and dominated it .... The temptation is strong to discover in the name Galilee the word-root found in such names as Kelt, Gaul, Galicia, and Galatia, and thus to identify the Galileans as of an early Keltic origin." (Note by Mr. Monk: The proper spelling of the name is Kelt, not 'Celt,' for the Greek alphabet has no C. Thus the Gauls descended from the queen-mother, and the Kelts from her beloved son-king. The Gauls-Kelts were Greeks, for they recorded all their important papers in Greek ....)
Continuing to quote Mr. Campbell:
"... the Israelites (meaning Jews) always referred contemptuously to the Galileans as Gentiles ... the Galileans were uncircumcised ... their religion differed essentially from orthodox Judaism." "... the Romans made a distinction between the Galileans and the Israelites (Jews) by not placing Galilee under the same provincial government as Judea. The Romans placed it under Syria or gave it a government of its own." ... "Galilee presented a background for the rise of Christianity that was Hellenistic rather than Judaic .... The Israelites (Jews) habitually spoke of them as Gentiles, classing them with the goyim of the non-Israelitic (Jewish) world .... Nor is there any indication that orthodox Jews lived in Galilee in any numbers until after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in '70, when Judeans fled into Galilee ... that orthodox Judaism was the prevalent religion among the preponderantly Gentile population of Galilee, is patently absurd .... These Galatians ... were among the earliest of racial groups to embrace the Galilean religion of Jesus .... Although it has been widely assumed, as a matter of course, that Jesus was a Jew, the only support for this assumption is its long reiteration .... The Galileans were always called Gentiles, or aliens, by the Jews, and there is no actual evidence ... that Jesus was other than a Galilean..." (End of quotes from Race and Religion.)
And now to quote Dr. Hermann Guthe, Professor of Theology Emeritus, University of Leipzig, Germany, VII: 36 p. 678, Funk and Wagnall's New Standard Bible Dictionary, 3rd Edition, 1936:
"From II Chronicles 30:10 it may be inferred that about 100 B.C. a number of families felt themselves to be in relationship to Jerusalem. But their position among the heathen was not secure. Consequently, about 163 B.C., Simon the Maccabee was ordered to remove them with their property to Judea."—Note that Dr. Guthe says these families in Galilee "felt" themselves to be related to Judea.
And to quote from I Maccabees 5:14-24: "... Behold there came other messengers from Galilee with their clothes rent, who reported on this wise, and said, they of Ptolemais, and of Tyrus and Sidon, and all Galilee OF THE GENTILES are assembled together to consume us ... "Now unto Simon were given 5,000 men to go into Galilee! ..." Then went Simon into Galilee, where he fought many battles with the heathen (this is the consignation which Jews apply to Christians), so that the heathen were discomfited by him. And he pursued them unto the gate of Ptolemais; and there were slain of the heathen about 3,000 men, whose spoils he took. And those that were in Galilee ... with their wives and their children, and all that they had, took he away with him, and brought them into Judea with great joy."—And thus it was that the last person feeling himself to be related to the Judeans was expatriated from Galilee 165 years Before Christ. The book of I Maccabees is considered to be Holy Writ by the Jews, and all others generally recognize it to be historical. The writer's new Webster's Collegial Dictionary (1949), based on Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, gives the following definition of Galilean: "A native or inhabitant of Galilee. Hence, a Christian;—after the epithet, 'The Galilean' applied to Jesus."
A Monstrous Perversion of Truth
Continuing with quotes from Dr. Connor's Christ Was Not a Jew: "Sure it is a monstrous perversion of the truth—this claim that Christ was a Jew—that is now being used by Jews ... to the incredible damage of Christ's mission to all the world. Says a recent authority, 'Whoever makes the assertion that Christ was a Jew is either ignorant or insincere: ignorant when he confuses race and religion: insincere when he knows the history of Galilee, and partly conceals, partly distorts the very entangled facts in favor of his religious prejudices, or it may be, to curry favor with the Jews. The probability that Christ was no Jew, that He had not a drop of genuinely Jewish blood in His veins, is so great that it is almost equivalent to a certainty.' (From W. D. Morrison's The Jews under Roman Rule, p. 85. 'Among no people of antiquity did race antipathy exercise so potent an influence as among the Jews of Judaea .... Among them, national inclusiveness had become one of the most vital elements of religion.') "Christ's mentality contrasts so vividly with a static-mindedness, a backward-looking type of mind, that this distinction alone divides Him from the Jewish race. It is utterly irrational to assume that He could have been evolved from a race with a hide-bound concept of morality, of ethics, of deity and humanity and their relations to each other ... His mentality was alive and unbounded .... "He went into the synagogues everywhere, as He had a right to do, because these were the 'town halls' of the public. It was thus that He went into the synagogue of His own home town, Nazareth, and when He had announced Himself in the chosen text, 'The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,' they were ready to murder Him .... "Everybody knew Him and His followers as Galileans ... even the servant who detected Peter's Galilean speech .... Christ said, 'I ever taught in the synagogue and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort' (thus naming the Jews objectively). And since HE did not include Himself among them, but throughout the whole farce of his trial He regarded Himself and was regarded by others as a Galilean, and not a Jew, what excuse has anyone for calling Him a Jew? Absolutely none ... Christ lived and died a Galilean Gentile or non-Jew, so far as He was the Son of Man. "It has been said by Ernest Renan (in his Life of Christ), that this makes Him all the more akin to the whole world—the Galileans being a mixed people but non-Jewish, and therefore He was not the scion of any one race or dynasty. He had the Galilean's independent spirit in His disposition, and not once did He show a servile attitude toward His persecutors ... no, not even to the High Priest .... Neither Christ nor any other Galilean, as Josephus describes them, would have apologized for having his face slapped .... How idle it is to think that Christianity, a world religion, could have sprung from the 'chosen people' bigotry! "But this compromise between Christianity and Judaism—for such it was [as the Disciples first taught it, after Christ's death]—could not endure, for the two were unrelated and irreconcilable. The one was broadly Gentile, the other strictly racial and intolerant.
Judaism would not have it so. Having brought about the public assassination of the Head of the new faith they had no idea of permitting His followers to preach His doctrines .... So the first Christian martyrs fell, and thus the blood persecutions began .... Finally, there was a general conference in Jerusalem of the apostles, elders and leaders of the Christians ... and the apostolic position with respect to the independence of Christianity from all Relationship with Judaism and established ... Jerusalem could never have conquered humanity: 'it is the north (Galilee) alone which has made Christianity.' (From Ernest Renan's Life of Christ p. 123) .... The Jews, on the other hand, were unrelenting in their efforts to totally exterminate the Christians." Dr. Connor then quoted excerpts from the three historians, Gibbon, Renan and Lanciani, based on the testimony of Tacitus, Seutonius and Pliny the younger, all of which have been verified, as to the Jewish incitement against the early Christians. Finally, Dr. Connor says: "It is sometimes thoughtlessly said that Christianity is an Oriental religion .... It ignores the fact that Christianity lost little time in escaping the confines of its origin, chiefly through the instrumentality of the Greeks, and thereafter attaining its full growth and its mission as a world religion only in the Occident. The sun rises in the East, but that does not make the sun Oriental: and like the sun, Christianity mounted toward the zenith of its power as it moved westward. No strictly Oriental religions have ever made much headway in the West, and owing to differences in the mentality it is safe to infer that they never will. The fact that Christianity has done so is consistent with its Occidental character—that is to say, its comprehensiveness, its breadth of human interest as opposed to the petty, provincial narrowness and bigotry, the concentrated selfishness of Judaism. Christianity is fundamentally non-Jewish: its earthly origin was among a Gentile people, the Galileans, and the principal means of freeing it from its hostile background was another Gentile people, the Greeks. The Apostolic Council held in Jerusalem to settle the matter, about the year 49 A.D., officially declared the complete independence of Christianity from Judaism."
THERE SHALL COME THE ROOT OF JESSE, AND HE WHO ARISES ['anistamenos,' means resurrects] TO RULE OVER THE GENTILES, IN HIM SHALL THE GENTILES HOPE.
Rom. 15:12
The Greek New Testament substantiates that the death of Christ occurs "In the End of the World."
By Author Eli Kittim
According to the original Greek New Testament (Hebrews 9:26b), Christ will be manifested once and for all "in the end of the world" to die for the sins of the world. It reads:
νυνϊ δε απαξ επι ϲυντελεια των αιωνων ειϲ αθετηϲιν τηϲ αμαρτιαϲ δια τηϲ θυϲιαϲ αυτου πεφανερωται.
Translation (King James Version):
"Once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" (Hebrews 9:26).
Biblical scholars translate the Greek phrase "ϲυντελεια των αιωνων" to mean "in the end of the world." A similar phrase, "ϲυντελειαϲ του αιωvos,” can be found in the Gospel of Matthew chapter 28 and verse 20:
διδαϲκοντεϲ αυτουϲ τηριν παντα οϲα ενετιλαμην ϋμιν και ϊδου εγω ειμι μεθ υμων παϲαϲ ταϲ ημεραϲ εωϲ τηϲ ϲυντελειαϲ του αιωvos.
Translation (American Standard Version):
"teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world."
Therefore, it is unquestionable that the Greek phrase "ϲυντελειαϲ του αιωvos" (Matthew 28:20) means "in the end of the world." And if that's the case, and it is, then the reference to Jesus being manifested once "επι ϲυντελεια των αιωνων" to die for the sins of the world (Hebrews 9:26) would certainly mean that his death occurs "Once in the end of the world," and not 2,000 years ago as is currently assumed!
Jesus Revealed: In the Fulness of Time, In the End Times, or in Due Time
By Goodreads Author Eli of Kittim
Sadly, we have confused biblical literature with history, and turned prophecy into biography. In the end, the New Testament (NT) gospels appear to be non-historical stories—borrowed to a large extent from the Old Testament (OT)—giving us the Messianic prophecy through an apocalyptic narrative, whereas the NT epistles (or letters) and the book of Revelation, which are NOT stories, reveal the real Jesus and tell a different story. And although I'm not Jewish, I do agree with the Jews on one point. In fact, I'm the first author, as far as I know, who legitimately fuses the messianic expectations of the Jews with Christian scripture! In my view, both the OT and NT say the SAME THING: the Messiah comes "once in the end of the world" (NT, Hebrews 9:26)!
Messiah Revealed: In the End Times
According to the NT itself, Jesus will come once, for the first time, in the "last days" (Hebrews 1:1-2), or "at the consummation of the ages" (Hebrews 9:26). The King James Version says that Christ will die as the atonement for sin "ONCE IN THE END OF THE WORLD" (Hebrews 9:26)! Without putting a spin on it, we must conclude that the church has CHANGED what the Bible ACTUALLY says, and has therefore handed us the wrong information about the precise timing of the messiah's momentous coming to earth. I present multiple lines of evidence to buttress my argument. As for my conviction that Jesus did not come the first time, this comes primarily from the New Testament epistles (Hebrews 1:1-2, 9:26; Galatians 4:4; Ephesians 1:10; 2 Thess. 2:7; 1 Corinthians 15:8, 19, 22-26, 54-55) and the book of Revelation (Rev. 6:2; 12:1-5, 19:10-11, 22:7), as well as from the Old Testament where the Messiah is depicted as dying (Zephaniah 1:7; Zechariah 12:8-10) and being resurrected (Isaiah 2:19; Daniel 12:1-2) on the Day of the Lord, or in the last days:
"Once IN THE END OF THE WORLD hath he [Jesus] appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice [death] of himself" (King James, Hebrews 9:26, emphasis added).
The original Greek New Testament says:
“νυνϊ δε απαξ επι ϲυντελεια των αιωνων ειϲ αθετηϲιν τηϲ αμαρτιαϲ δια τηϲ θυϲιαϲ αυτου πεφανερωται.” (Hebrews 9:26, Codex Sinaiticus, Greek NT).
Translation: “Once in the conclusion of the ages [in Greek the word αιωνων/’ages’ also means ‘centuries’] has he [Christ] been made manifest, to put away sin through the sacrifice of himself.” (Hebrews 9:26, Codex Sinaiticus).
Here, the phrase sinteleia ton aionon does NOT imply dispensations, speculative covenants or anything else. The word "aionon" refers specifically to chronological time, and it means "ages" or centuries, whereas the term synteleia means "conclusion," "consummation," or "end." Put together, it simply means at the "end" or at the conclusion of all the ages. That’s why the King James Version translates it as, “In the end of the world.” In other words Christ appears ONCE AND FOR ALL (hapax), not twice, to atone for sin by sacrificing himself “in the end of the world.” If you try to manipulate the verse by claiming that the end of the world was 2000 years ago, that would be nothing short of insanity! A similar phrase, ϲυντελειαϲ του αιωvos, can be found in the Gospel of Matthew chapter 28 and verse 20:
"διδαϲκοντεϲ αυτουϲ τηριν παντα οϲα ενετιλαμην ϋμιν και ϊδου εγω ειμι μεθ υμων παϲαϲ ταϲ ημεραϲ εωϲ τηϲ ϲυντελειαϲ του αιωvos.”
Translation: American Standard Version “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.”
Therefore, it is unquestionable that the Greek phrase ϲυντελειαϲ του αιωvos (Matthew 28:20) means “in the end of the world.” And if that’s the case, and it is, then the reference to Jesus being manifested once επι ϲυντελεια των αιωνων to die for the sins of the world (Hebrews 9:26) would certainly mean that his death occurs “Once in the end of the world” and not 2,000 years ago as is currently assumed! The overall meaning of Hebrews 9:26 is that Christ will die for the sins of the world at the final point of time! Read what the text ACTUALLY says: The New American Standard says "at the consummation of the ages." The Jerusalem Bible renders it "at the end of the last age," whereas the King James version translates it "in the end of the world." It's abundantly clear what it means. I've already presented numerous verses that support this view. Here's another:
"God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these LAST DAYS has spoken to us in his Son" (Hebrews 1:1-2, emphasis added).
Once again, in Greek, the "last days" are written as ep escaton ton imeron, where ep escaton means in the last, or in the final, or in the end, and where the term "imeron" refers to chronological days... The meaning is quite clear and resonates among all these verses: Jesus is manifested once and for all (απαξ) in the end of the world to die and save mankind! This is reiterated in 1 Peter 1:5, Apokalufthinai en kairo escato, which means “is revealed in the last days.” The Greek word escato means “last” and it is the same term from where we get the word eschatology. You can speculate all you want on what it means and come up with your own erroneous version of the Bible. I choose to believe EXACTLY what the Bible says WITHOUT INTERPRETING IT, changing it, or manipulating it, which would be equivalent to falsifying it!
Christ Revealed: In the Fulness of Time
Do you know what the fulness of the time means? Read Ephesians 1:10 where "the fullness of the time" means the END OF THE WORLD, confirming Hebrews 9:26 and Hebrews 1:1-2. Ephesians 1:10 reads:
"With a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth."
WITH A VIEW TO AN ADMINISTRATION SUITABLE TO THE FULLNESS OF THE TIMES: eis oikonomian tou pleromatos ton kairon where the term kairoi refer to the passing of chronological “times” or “seasons,” and where the word fullness means "completion." So the Bible ITSELF defines the idiomatic phrase, the fullness of the time as “the summing up [or “conclusion”] of all things… things in the heavens and …on the earth.” In other words, we need not speculate because Ephesians 1:10 clearly defines “the fullness of the times” as an idiom that refers to the END OF THE WORLD.
Now read Galatians 4:4--which uses the same CONSISTENT idiom--to find out exactly when Christ is incarnated:
“But when THE FULNESS OF THE TIME came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman…” (Galatians 4:4, emphasis added).
Thus, Christ is incarnated during the fulness of the time, or, as Ephesians 1:10 illustrates, at the end of time—“To be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ" (Ephesians 1:10, NIV)! The Greek text does not allow any room for confusion since to pliroma tou chronou (the fulness of the time) clearly indicates a distinctive chronological time period. In Greek, the term "Chronos" means chronological time. And pliroma means "completion." Thus, it means that at the completion of time, or when time has reached its “fulness,” Christ will be incarnated! No wonder there is a prophecy of Christ’s birth in the prophetic book of Revelation chapter 12:1-5!
Knowing this, we cannot manipulate or violate scripture in any way. We must allow scripture to define its own terms because these same terms are repeated consistently throughout the Bible! Therefore, Scripture's own definition of the fullness of the time is actually the end of the world, when all things will be summed up in Christ!!! Similarly, Acts 3:19-21 says,
“Repent ye therefore … and he [God] shall send Jesus Christ, which BEFORE was preached unto you: whom the heaven must receive [or cannot receive] until the times of restitution of all things [meaning, until the end of the world], which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.” — Acts 3:19-21, King James, emphasis added
Here's what it means: The preaching of Jesus precedes his arrival! Moreover, Peter says that Christ “Was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was manifested at the end of times for your sake.” (1 Peter 1:20). In Greek, it reads: “Fanerothentos de ep escaton ton chronon,” Ep Escaton means "during the last" and "chronon" implies chronological years, which literally means that Jesus is manifested during the last years, or at the final point of time. It fits perfectly with what Peter has been saying all along, such as “apokalufthinai en kairo escato" (1 Peter 1:5), which means “revealed in the end times.”
Jesus Revealed: In Due Time
Now, concerning the under mentioned verse, don’t let the past tenses fool you. Remember that past tenses—such as “Christ died for our sins”—do not necessarily refer to past history. Just read Isaiah 53 and you’ll see why. It is filled with past tenses—“He was despised and rejected by mankind,” “But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities,” (53:3-5) etc.—and yet Isaiah is not recounting a past event but writing about a future PROPHECY! Similarly, Paul states: “For when we were yet without strength, IN DUE TIME Christ died for the ungodly.” (Romans 5:6, emphasis added) In Greek, it reads:
Eti gar christos onton imon asthenon kata kairon iper asevon apethanen. Textus Receptus
KATA KAIRON means "at the right time" or “in due time” or season. (Strong, G2540). Now, why would Paul use this phrase KATA KAIRON (meaning, that Christ died at the right time or when the time is ripe) to refer to a past event? It doesn't make any sense at all unless he is in line with what Peter (1 Peter 1:5, 20) and Hebrews (1:1-2, 9:26) say about Christ being revealed and DYING during the end times.
Here's a scholarly rendering of the phrase "IN DUE TIME" (KATA KAIRON):
“In 1 Clement 24:2 [Apocrypha] we read: IDOMEN AGAPHTOI THN KATA KAIRON GINOMENHN ANASTASIN, "We should consider, beloved, the resurrection that happens KATA KAIRON." "...the resurrection that Happens … "at the right time" or "at the right season" --Bart D. Ehrman (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill).
That is, "The resurrection that comes when time is ripe for it" --Carl W. Conrad (Department of Classics/Washington University).
In other words, this phrase--"IN DUE TIME Christ died for the ungodly” (Romans 5:6)--implies that Christ dies for the ungodly "when the time is ripe for it," or as other passages suggest, during the fulness of the time (Gal. 4:4; cf. Eph. 1:10), at the end of times (1 Peter 1:20); “revealed in the end times" (1 Peter 1:5), in the last days (Heb. 1:2), or "IN THE END OF THE WORLD." (Hebrews 9:26). It's as if God is screaming at deaf ears...
In the New Testament epistles, we find yet another epiphany:
“You greatly rejoice … that the proof of your faith … may be found … at the revelation of Jesus Christ; and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice. … As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful search and inquiry, seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He [the Holy Spirit] PREDICTED the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow” (1 Peter 1:6-11, emphasis added).
1 Peter 1:7 exhorts us to have faith so that we are ready “at the revelation of Jesus Christ,” which apokalifthinai en kairo eshato or is “revealed in the last days” (1 Peter 1:5). Moreover, observe that “the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow” are PROPHECIES or PREDICTIONS (1 Peter 1:10-11), NOT historical events!!! Notice also that the disciples “preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven” (1 Peter 1:12)—not by historical reports! This passage tells you unequivocally that the revelation of Jesus—including his sufferings and glory—are for an appointed time in the future: "For it is the Spirit of prophecy who bears testimony to Jesus" (Rev. 19:10), NOT history! Here's an excerpt from my book (The Little Book of Revelation) that offers further clues:
"Paul, the author of numerous NT letters, explains how Jesus “appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the twelve,” and finally “to more than five hundred brethren [believers] at one time” (1 Cor. 15:5-6). But then he says: “and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me also” (1 Cor. 15:8). In other words, Paul is stating that Christ “was seen by me also, as by one born out of DUE TIME” (1 Cor. 15:8, NKJ, emphasis added). Similar to other eyewitnesses whom he cites earlier, Paul did not behold Christ in the flesh (Gal. 1:15-16), but in a vision (Acts 9:3-7) that delivered him prematurely, so to speak, before the appointed time of salvation."
As for the so-called witnesses, may I remind you that the Holy Spirit who teaches men is also called a Witness or "The Witness” (1 John 5:8-12)! Moreover, we are told:
"But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come [future events]." (John 16:13)
Conclusion: the Jesus account is not historical, but prophetic! But this does not mean that the gospels are manufactured. It simply means that they are rehashed OT stories that foreshadow the Messianic prophecy. And they are inspired by God! It’s as if history is written in advance before it happens:
“Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done” (Isaiah 46:10).
The Lord’s Resurrection in the Last Days In Isaiah and Daniel
By author Eli of Kittim 🎓
According to Isaiah’s biblical account concerning “the last days” (Isa. 2:2) of mankind, “the LORD” will resurrect just prior to Judgment Day. Isaiah says the following:
“Men will go into caves of the rocks, and into holes of the ground before the terror of the LORD, and before the splendor of His majesty, when He ARISES to make the earth tremble” (Isa. 2:19, NASV, emphasis added).
This eschatological passage is echoed in Rev. 6:15-17. Interestingly enough, the Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, translates the Hebrew word “קוּם qum” with the word “αναστη,” which is derived from the Greek word ανάστασις (anástasis) and means resurrection:
Eισενεγκαντες εις τα σπηλαια και εις τας σχισμας των πετρων και εις τας τρωγλας της γης απο προσωπου του φοβου κυριου και απο της δοξης της ισχυος αυτου οταν αναστη θραυσαι την γην. ——-Isaiah 2:19, Septuagint LXX
New American Standard Translation:
“Men will go into caves of the rocks, and into holes of the ground before the terror of the LORD, and before the splendor of His majesty, when He arises [or resurrects: ‘αναστη’] to make the earth tremble.”
Scholars render the Hebrew word “קוּם qum” as resurrection. The word in Hebrew, qum (קוּם i.e., cumi in Mark 5:41), and in Greek (LXX) — anastas — means “resurrection.” The word anastas is derived from the term ἀνίστημι and is the root word of ἀνάστασις: https://biblehub.com/greek/386.htm
Similarly, in the New Testament we find the same Greek word, meaning resurrection, attached to an end-time prophecy:
“THERE SHALL COME THE ROOT OF JESSE, AND HE WHO ARISES [‘anistamenos,’ means resurrects in Greek] TO RULE OVER THE GENTILES, IN HIM SHALL THE GENTILES HOPE.” ——-Rom. 15:12
So what is the purpose of this brief study? We’re trying to show that according to Isaiah’s depiction, “the LORD … arises to make the earth tremble” (Isa. 2:19) “in the last days” (בְּאַחֲרִ֣ית bə·’a·ḥă·rîṯ הַיָּמִ֗ים hay·yā·mîm Isa. 2:2), just prior to Judgment. A resurrection that had occurred two millennia ago would in fact contradict what we just read. Yet the New Testament itself doesn’t contradict this at all, but rather confirms it:
“Once in the end of the world hath he [Jesus] appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. … After this the judgment” (Heb. 9:26-27 KJV).
So, as you can see, the Church’s teaching contradicts both the Old and New Testaments by telling us that this event already happened.
In Chapter 12 and verse 1, Daniel prophesies the death and resurrection of a great prince named Michael—meaning מִֽיכָאֵ֜ל “who is like God”—at the end of days. He writes:
"At that time Michael shall stand up, The great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people; And there shall be a time of trouble, Such as never was since there was a nation, Even to that time. And at that time your people shall be delivered, Every one who is found written in the book. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt” (Dan. 12:1-2, NKJV).
The Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, translates the Hebrew word “עָמַד amad” (“stand up”/arise) with the Greek word παρελευσεται, meaning to pass away:
ἡ γῆ παρελεύσεται NAS: and earth will pass away, KJV: and earth shall pass away, INT: the earth will pass away (Mt 24:35 Strong’s Concordance) https://biblehub.com/greek/pareleusetai_3928.htm
The Theodotion Daniel 12:1 of the Septuagint translates the Hebrew word עָמַד (amad) as αναστήσεται, which is derived from the root word ανίστημι and means “shall arise.” The word ἀναστήσεται is the root word of ἀνάστασις and means to “raise up” or to “raise from the dead.” Accordingly, notice how the term ἀναστήσεται in its singular and plural form conveys the meaning of resurrection. In the Theodotion Dan. 12:1, we have the singular form ἀναστήσεται (“shall arise"). Similarly, ἀναστήσονται (the plural form in the Old Greek Dan. 12:2) represents an explicit reference to the general resurrection from the dead, thereby establishing its meaning. And since both of these resurrection events (namely, Michael's resurrection followed by the general resurrection of the dead) are set for "the time of the end" (Dan. 12:4), the implication is that they are eschatological in nature!
So Daniel is telling us that at the time of the end, when there will be great turmoil and distress upon the earth, Michael, the great prince—after passing away (παρελεύσεται)—will arise from the dead (αναστήσεται) in order to energize the general resurrection of the dead (ἀναστήσονται)! What does all this mean? Daniel 12:1-2 reaffirms the last-days-resurrection theme found in Isaiah 2:19 and Hebrews 9:26-28. Therefore, Christ’s resurrection could not have happened two thousand years ago, as most people believe:
“[These] men … have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place” (2 Tim. 2:18; cf. 1 Cor. 15:53-55).
Eli of Kittim's unique interpretation of the New Testament account of Jesus as prophetic rather than historical!
The Greek New Testament Prophesies the Birth, Death, and Resurrection of Christ in the Last Days
By Author Eli Kittim
Theological Narrative versus Expository Writing in the New Testament
In order to procure accurate information from our interpretative methods, we must first differentiate between “theological narrative” and “expository writing” in the New Testament, which represent two distinct genres.
In narrative writing, the author’s main purpose is to tell a story using characters and dialogue. In the New Testament, the gospels employ this literary technique in an attempt to portray Jesus as the Messianic fulfillment of the Jewish prophecies. That is to say, the gospel “story” now becomes the fulfillment of the earlier Messianic promises of Jewish scripture. That is why the genealogy of Christ is inserted in the gospel texts: to ensure that this connection is established. But in order to do so, the gospel writers actually borrow a great deal from Hebrew scripture and tell a story, using characters and dialogue, which is wrapped in theological language. That’s why we do not encounter these “theological” themes in any of the epistles. For instance, the epistolary authors never once mention the nativity of Jesus, the virgin birth, the flight into Egypt, the star of Bethlehem, the magi, or even the city of Bethlehem as Jesus’ birth place. Therefore, we must come to realize that the gospels are “theological narratives,” not necessarily historical accounts, especially since we now know that the gospel authors were not eyewitnesses of these events, given that they composed their texts sometime around 70-100 CE. And like any good story, they are filled with drama, conflict, and intrigue. The gospel narratives are “characteristic” of situations and events that take place at some unspecified time, as reflected in the idea that Jesus died to redeem us. The timeline of the gospel events is thus in a transhistorical context, or within the context of the entire human history, not just past history.
On the other hand, the epistles (or “letters” of the New Testament) use “expository writing.” Expository writing’s main purpose is to explain. It is a subject-oriented writing style, in which authors focus on a given topic or subject without narrative embellishment or story-telling. The epistolary authors, for example, furnish the reader with relevant spiritual facts and principles but do not include dialogue or characters. So then, if we are to understand the mystery of Christ’s revelation, we must first differentiate between “theological narrative” and “expository writing” in the New Testament. Why? Because the authors of the epistles seemingly contradict the gospels since they allude to Christ’s revelation as occurring “once at the consummation of the ages” (Heb.9:26), or in the “last days” (Heb. 1:1-2), so that the correct timing of Christ’s coming suddenly becomes an open question! But if we realize that there is a clear line of demarcation between “theological narrative” (gospels) and “expository writing” (epistles), the hermeneutical problem ceases to exist and the text resolves itself into a meaningful and “inspired” manuscript.
The second thing that we must do is to challenge the kind of historical interpretation that affords little attention to the issue of translation. The New Testament was originally written in Greek (scholarly consensus). In order to engage in deep biblical exegesis, we must first understand what the original New Testament epistles (“expository writing”) have to say about the timing of Christ’s incarnation. So, let’s dive headfirst into the discussion to uncover the facts and clear the air. I will present the Greek text so that you can go over it and form your own conclusions.
The Greek Text: In the Fullness of Time Jesus is Born
In the Greek text, Romans 5:6 makes it quite clear that Christ died (ἀπέθανεν) at some unspecified time of human history by using the phrase κατὰ καιρὸν, which means “according to the right time,” or at the appropriate time, and does not necessarily refer to past history. http://biblehub.com/interlinear/romans/5-6.htm
Similarly, Galatians 4:4 tells us that when the “right time” or, more specifically, “the fullness of the time” had come, Christ was incarnated, “having been born of a woman” (γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός). In Greek, “the fullness of the time” is τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου. The term πλήρωμα means fulness or completion while the term χρόνου refers to chronological time. It literally means when time reached its fullness or completion. http://biblehub.com/interlinear/galatians/4-4.htm
The consistency of biblical terms allows scripture to define itself. Rather than imposing our own speculations on the text (eisegesis), we should allow the Bible to interpret its own terms (exegesis) so that our interpretations and conclusions are accurate and in line with it.
Accordingly, Ephesians 1:10 defines the idiomatic phrase “the fullness of the times” (τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν, which we encountered in Galatians 4:4) as the summing up (ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι) of all things in Christ (τὰ πάντα ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ), the things in the heavens (τὰ ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς) and the things upon the earth (καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς). In short, the designation “the fullness of the time” refers to the period of time when all things, both in the heavens and upon the earth, will conclude in Christ. In other words, τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου refers to the completion of time, which is another way of saying “the end of the world.” Yet, surprisingly, according to Galatians 4:4, this is also the time of Christ’s incarnation! http://biblehub.com/interlinear/ephesians/1-10.htm
Using the “expository writing” of the epistles rather than the “theological narrative” of the gospels as our basis for procuring accurate information from our interpretative methods, we find overwhelming evidence pertaining to the incarnation of Christ at the end of days. But there is more.
Christ’s Resurrection in the Last Days
The Septuagint, an early Greek translation of Hebrew Scripture, was heavily relied upon by the New Testament authors when quoting from the “Old Testament” (which in Hebrew is called “Tanakh”). That’s why it’s important to study the Septuagint. For instance, one of Isaiah’s prophecies says that “In the last days the mountain [Messiah] of God will appear and will be exalted above the hills [human powers], and all gentile nations will flow to it” (2:2). The Septuagint translates it as follows:
Εν ταις εσχαταις ημεραις εμφανες το ορος κυριου και ο οικος του θεου επ’ ακρων των ορεων και υψωθησεται υπερανω των βουνων και ηξουσιν επ’ αυτο παντα τα εθνη (Isaiah 2:2).
Once again, notice the allusion to the Messiah becoming apparent (εμφανες) in the last days (Εν ταις εσχαταις ημεραις). The word εσχαταις means last (from where we get the term “eschatology”), while the term ημεραις refers to chronological days (⬇️ see Isaiah 2.2 LXX ⬇️):
But something far more interesting is mentioned by Isaiah in chapter 2. If we drop down to Isaiah 2:19, we get a picture of the great tribulation or the great ordeal of the end times:
“Men will go into caves of the rocks, and into holes of the ground before the terror of the LORD, and before the splendor of His majesty, when He arises to make the earth tremble.”
Here’s the translation from the Septuagint:
Εισενεγκαντες εις τα σπηλαια και εις τας σχισμας των πετρων και εις τας τρωγλας της γης απο προσωπου του φοβου κυριου και απο της δοξης της ισχυος αυτου οταν αναστη θραυσαι την γην.
(⬇️ see Isaiah 2.19 LXX ⬇️):
The game changer in this verse is the Hebrew term “qum,” which is rendered in English as “arises.” Interestingly enough, the Septuagint translates it as αναστη (from the Greek ανάσταση, which in this context means resurrection). Compare the Greek terms *ἀναστῇ* (Isa. 2.19 LXX), *ἀναστήσεται* (Th Dan. 12.1 LXX), and *ἀναστήσονται* (Dan. 12.2 LXX), all of which refer to an eschatological *resurrection* from the dead! This gives us a completely different interpretation concerning the timing of the Lord’s (Messiah’s) resurrection, namely, as taking place in the end times. What’s more, Isaiah doesn’t just say that the Lord arises and then quietly goes away, but that he “arises to make the earth tremble”:
“Men will go into caves of the rocks, and into holes of the ground before the terror of the LORD, and before the splendor of His majesty, when He arises [from the dead] to make the earth tremble.”
There is support for this conclusion in Romans 15:12, a verse which is basically quoting from Isaiah. It reads:
“And again Isaiah says, ‘There shall come the root of Jesse, and he who arises to rule over the Gentiles, in him shall the Gentiles hope.”
The key phrase, here, is “he who arises to rule over the Gentiles.” Firstly, notice that he (Christ) who arises does so with the express purpose of imposing his will upon the Gentiles. That is to say, he arises and does not wait for a two-thousand-year interim to transpire; rather, he arises to rule as king over the nations. And since we know that Isaiah is referring to the last days, as mentioned earlier, it is appropriate to note how the Greek New Testament interprets Isaiah’s prophecy. Secondly, the original Greek New Testament uses the word ἀνιστάμενος (similar to the αναστη of the Septuagint) to define what Isaiah means by the word “arises.” The term ἀνιστάμενος is derived from the Greek ανάσταση, which means resurrection:
Καὶ πάλιν, Ἠσαΐας λέγει, Ἔσται ἡ ῥίζα τοῦ Ἰεσσαί, καὶ ὁ ἀνιστάμενος ἄρχειν ἐθνῶν. http://biblehub.com/interlinear/romans/15-12.htm
Thus, it’s perfectly clear that Isaiah’s use of the term “arises”—translated by both the Septuagint and Paul as “resurrection”—refers to the Messiah’s resurrection at the end of days.
Moreover, 1 Corinthians 15:23 tells of the sequence of resurrection events in the last days without any mention of a more-than-two-thousand-year gap between them; that is, between the resurrection of Christ and that of the rest of the dead. We know this because immediately following the resurrection sequence, the text concludes:
“Then comes the end, when He [Christ] delivers up the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power” (1 Corinthians 15:24).
But what do the previous verses say about the sequence of resurrection events just before the end comes? 1 Corinthians 15:20 says—in a timeless context—that “Christ is raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.” Here’s the verse in Greek:
Νυνὶ δὲ Χριστὸς ἐγήγερται ἐκ νεκρῶν, ἀπαρχὴ τῶν κεκοιμημένων. http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/15-20.htm
But now the text becomes very specific in explaining the sequence of resurrection events that take place just prior to Christ’s kingly rule over “all authority and power” at the end of days. 1 Corinthians 15:23 tells us that the first-fruit [to be raised from the dead] is Christ; next, those who belong to Christ are resurrected, in his presence; “then comes the end” (1 Corinthians 15:24):
Ἀπαρχὴ Χριστός, ἔπειτα οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ (1 Corinthians 15:23). http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/15-23.htm
Jesus Dies for the Remission of Sins at the End of Days
As odd as this may sound, the letter to the Hebrews states:
“God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son” (Hebrews 1:1-2).
In the original Greek text, it is very clear that God speaks to mankind in the last days through his son, Jesus:
Ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων, ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν Υἱῷ (Hebrews 1:2) http://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/1-2.htm
The phrase Ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν literally means in the last days, or during the last age when time will reach its fullness or completion. The phrase ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν Υἱῷ means that God spoke to us by or in his Son. In the context of prophecy, the tense ἐλάλησεν (spoke) should be understood in a timeless context, or within the context of the entire human history, not just past history, and especially so because these words are said to be spoken in the last days.
But there is a verse that stands out among the others as the one that unequivocally and categorically points to Christ’s sacrifice and death in the end of the world. The first part of Hebrews 9:26 attempts to explain that Christ does not die over and over again, nor offer himself as a sacrifice repeatedly. The second part of the verse instills the epiphany, namely, that Christ is offered once and for all, “to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself,” and that this event takes place not at the beginning of the ages, but rather at the “consummation of the ages” (NASV), or “in the end of the world” (KJV):
Νυνὶ δὲ ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων, εἰς ἀθέτησιν τῆς ἁμαρτίας, διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ πεφανέρωται (Hebrews 9:26). http://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/9-26.htm
Translation:
“Now, however, once and for all [ἅπαξ] in the end [or completion] of the ages, [Jesus] is revealed [πεφανέρωται] to put away sin, by the sacrifice of himself.”
There is a key phrase within this sentence that undoubtedly places the timeline of this event “in the end of the world,” as opposed to any other time period, because it comprises the words ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων. The term ἐπὶ means “in,” while the word συντελείᾳ refers to “completion” or “end.” The final word of the phrase is αἰώνων, which refers to chronological time and means “ages” or centuries in the modern sense. Simply put, the phrase ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων means at the end or at the completion of all the ages. This is another way of saying at the final point of time, in the last days, in the end times, or “in the end of the world.” The exact same phrase (sinteleias tou aionos) is used in Matthew 24:3 to refer to “the end of the age" (or the end of the world), when Jesus is asked, “What will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” http://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/24-3.htm So, what does Hebrews 9:26 imply? That Jesus is revealed once and for all at the completion of all the ages to die for our sins!
1 Peter 1:5 says, “For [the] salvation is ready to be revealed in the last time.” The Greek text reads:
Εἰς σωτηρίαν ἑτοίμην ἀποκαλυφθῆναι ἐν καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ (1 Peter 1:5) http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_peter/1-5.htm
Once more, we read of Christ’s salvation as being revealed (ἀποκαλυφθῆναι) “in the last time” (ἐν καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ), otherwise known as the end-time (or the last days).
1 Peter 1:20 drives home the same biblical notion that Jesus is revealed for the first time in human history in the end times. First, it makes a point of contrast between the foreknowledge of Christ before the foundation of the world and his actual manifestation or revelation in the end times:
Προεγνωσμένου μὲν πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, φανερωθέντος δὲ ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν χρόνων (1 Peter 1:20). http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_peter/1-20.htm
The term φανερωθέντος means “is manifested,” or “made manifest,” or “shall appear.” http://biblehub.com/greek/phanero_thentos_5319.htm
The phrase ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν χρόνων is a reference to the last days or end times because it literally means “in the last times.” Also, note that the word “times” (χρόνων) is referring to chronological times, ages, or years in the modern sense. http://biblehub.com/greek/chrono_n_5550.htm
However, the most profound statement of all is found in Revelation 19:10. There, we are told in no uncertain terms that the witnesses of Christ, indeed the entire New Testament testimony pertaining to the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus is based on “prophecy” given by the “pneuma” or spirit of God. And then we begin to comprehend how the authors of the New Testament witnessed Jesus. In retrospect, the New Testament authors are bearing witness to Jesus Christ in the exact same manner as Paul. Everyone would agree that Paul never saw Jesus in the flesh. Yet, due to his personal revelations, Paul knew more about Jesus than anyone else! Revelation 19:10 says:
Ἡ γὰρ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ ἐστιν τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς προφητείας.
English translation:
“Indeed, the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” http://biblehub.com/interlinear/revelation/19-10.htm
In other words, the biblical testimony of Jesus is a matter of prophecy, not history!
What did Moses Mean when he Said that God will Raise Up a Prophet Like Me? Was he Referring to Muhammad or to Someone Else?
By Author Eli Kittim 🎓
Deuteronomy 18.15 foretold the coming of a notable prophet after the manner of Moses whose words would command everyone’s attention. Here, we must use the principle of "double-fulfillment" in the interpretation of Bible prophecy. The first fulfillment of the prophecy refers to Joshua, who was to succeed Moses as leader. However, the second fulfillment of the prophecy refers to the prophetic line that would follow, ultimately culminating in Jesus Christ, the Messiah (see Acts 3.20-21), as this Torahic prophecy was then carried forward into the New Testament and recorded in the Book of Acts:
“Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you from your own people a prophet like me. You must listen to whatever he tells you. And it will be that everyone who does not listen to that prophet will be utterly rooted out from the people’” (3.22—23; cf. 7.37).
The Greek text is as follows:
Μωϋσῆς μὲν εἶπεν ὅτι
προφήτην ὑμῖν ἀναστήσει κύριος ὁ θεὸς
ὑμῶν ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ὑμῶν ὡς ἐμέ· αὐτοῦ ἀκούσεσθε κατὰ πάντα ὅσα ἂν
λαλήσῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς.
ἔσται δὲ πᾶσα ψυχὴ ἥτις ἐὰν μὴ ἀκούσῃ τοῦ προφήτου ἐκείνου
ἐξολεθρευθήσεται ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ.
The key word, here, is ἀναστήσει (“raise up”). The Greek word ἀναστήσει is derived from the verb ἀνίστημι, which means to “raise up” or to “raise from the dead” (see G. W. H. Lampe [ed.], A Patristic Greek Lexicon [Oxford: Oxford University, 1961], pp. 145—46). The term ἀναστήσει—just like its cognates ἀναστήσεται and ἀναστήσονται—seemingly refers to a resurrection from the dead (see e.g. Mk 9.31; Lk. 18.33; Jn 11.23—24; 1 Thess. 4.16).
In Deuteronomy 18.15, the Hebrew term is קוּמ֖ (qum). The word qum means to “stand up” or to “raise up,” but all too often it means to “rise from the dead” (e.g. Isa. 26.19; Mk 5.39—42). Since the Septuagint (LXX) translates it as ἀναστήσει, it is reasonable to assume that Luke, the author of Acts, is drawing his inspiration from the LXX.
Notice also that Acts 10.41 uses a cognate of the word ἀναστήσει (Acts 3.22), namely, ἀναστῆναι to refer to a resurrection from the dead (cf. Acts 17.3; Mk 9.10; Lk. 24.46; Jn 20.9). Interestingly enough, the New Testament uses yet another resurrection theme (ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστῇ) and a cognate of the word ἀναστήσει in reference to the teachings of Moses: “‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead’” (Lk. 16.31). What is more, the phrase “raise up” (Acts 3.22) in connection with Moses’ reference to a future great prophet is also used in Acts 5.30 to denote Jesus’ resurrection: “‘The God of our ancestors raised up Jesus, whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree.’”
Conclusion
Based on translation and exegesis of Greek and Hebrew, Moses’ prophecy that “God will raise up [ἀναστήσει; qum] … a prophet like me” gives us a criterion by which its fulfillment may be judged. In other words, by this sign everyone will know that the notable prophet has indeed come. And what is this sign? It is simply this: the great prophet like unto Moses will be raised from the dead! In using this criterion of resurrection, we’ll be able to identify whether he is a true or false prophet.
Accordingly, Muhammad cannot lay claim to Moses’ prophecy, given that he has not been brought back from the grave. There can only be one person who fits the bill of the great prophet predicted by Moses in Deuteronomy 18.15 (Acts 3.19–23): Jesus Christ!
After all, Jesus Christ himself says that Moses “wrote about Me” (John 5.46)!
Did You Know that the Name Yahweh Is Never Once Mentioned in the New Testament?
By Author Eli Kittim
Jesus never once translated the Old Testament (OT) name of God as Yahweh, nor did the rest of the New Testament (NT) writers. They always translated it as "Lord" (Gk. kurios). This has profound theological implications. It means that Jesus is the "LORD" to whom our worship should be exclusively directed! And that represents the essential revelation of the NT, namely, that Jesus Christ is Lord!
Accordingly, those who still claim that God's name is "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" (a Latinization of the Hebrew YHWH) are in error. That's the whole point of the NT, namely, the revelation of God in Jesus Christ! After all, salvation in Christianity is based on invoking the name of Jesus, not Yahweh. In John 14.6, Jesus declares:
I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Acts 4.12 says categorically and unequivocally:
Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.
We should of course accept the OT as an inspired book, and, yes, Jesus is considered to be Yahweh, the Great I Am of the OT, according to the NT writers. But the NT represents a new revelation about God and his name.
For example, in the NT, Jesus is never called by a Hebrew name, such as yeshua hamashiach. Rather, he is known by his Greek name: Iésous Christos. Keep in mind that the original NT was not written in Hebrew but in Greek!
In contrast to modern preachers----who often use the words Yahweh and Yeshua to refer to God and to Jesus in order to give the NT a Hebrew flavor----the NT writers wrote exclusively in Greek and always referred to God as Lord, and to Jesus as Iésous. These Biblical facts speak volumes about the unique message of the Greek NT and the Greek name of the Lord Jesus! Therefore, we must put a stop to all this nonsense about the Hebraization of Greek names in the NT!
Jesus Never Existed According to Christian Eschatology: He’ll be Revealed in the End-Times
By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim
Bart Ehrman, who believes in “an authentic nucleus,” argues that we don’t have anything whatsoever (not even a passing reference) by any contemporaneous works that mention Jesus of Nazareth. No such records exist to authenticate his historicity. So, why would anyone assume that he existed? If this assumption is based on the earliest New Testament writings, namely, the epistles, let me remind you that they come decades after the purported events and do not contain the later theology of the gospels: there are no magi, no Star of Bethlehem, no slaughter of the innocents, no flight to Egypt, no virgin birth, no infancy narratives, no genealogies, etc. On the contrary, the Epistle to the Hebrews (ca. CE 63) explicitly states that Christ will appear once and for all (άπαξ) “in the end of the world” (9.26b KJV) to sacrifice himself as an atonement for the sins of the world. First Peter 1.20 similarly demonstrates that this is his first visitation because it says that even though he was foreknown from the foundation of the world, he “was REVEALED at the final point of time” (NJB emphasis added)! I’d like to ask why modern scholarship does not accept this EXPLICIT eschatological chronology (as found in Hebrews 9.26b and 1 Peter 1.20) regarding the initial coming and atonement of Christ?
—————
That’s precisely why Paul says that he’s born “at the wrong time” (1 Cor. 15.8 CSB) or beforehand insofar as the temporal order of the event pertaining to Christ is concerned. That’s odd. If Christ came first, followed by Paul, then we would expect Paul to come after Christ, not before. Yet Paul suggests that he’s born before the time. The word used in the Greek text is εκτρώματι, derived from the noun έκτρωμα, which is defined as an abortion and generally interpreted as an untimely birth. In other words, Paul indicates that his birth is BEFORE the right time, not after——just as an abortion occurs before the time of birth, not after. Yet, according to our historical presuppositions, Paul didn’t come before, but AFTER, Christ. By drawing an analogy between miscarriage and the epoch in which he lived, Paul is trying to impress on us the notion that he is born at the wrong time. This would strongly suggest that Jesus was not a historical figure who preceded Paul.
—————
If we want to further understand the precise temporal and linguistic context indicated by the New Testament text, we have to be extremely careful when interpreting phrases like “Christ died,” which appear to be references to past history. For example, a close reading is definitely required for Rom. 5.6 because the Greek text implies that Christ died at some unspecified time of human history (e.g. in a transhistorical context) by using the phrase κατά καιρόν, which means “at the right time” or at “the proper time,” and does not necessarily warrant a reference to history. It’s like saying that Christ died at some point in human history, without specifying when. In Rom. 5.6, the verb ἀπέθανεν (died) is an aorist indicative active, 3rd person singular. It means “to be dying,” “be about to die,” etc. In koine Greek, the aorist tense portrays the action in summary fashion without reference to the way it actually unfolds in time, and without any specific qualification. That’s why in 1 Tim. 2.6 the author says that the testimony will come in due time or at the proper time (the future is indicated). We often take for granted the phrase “Christ died for our sins.” We suppose that a literal-historical interpretation is appropriate and valid. But is that the correct exegetical approach? For ex, Paul says:
“For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures” (1 Cor. 15.3 NRSV).
A close reading of this verse indicates that Paul is not referring to history proper but to written documents (i.e. “Apocalyptic literature”). He claims that he handed on what he himself received, to wit, prophetic writings (γραφάς) about Christ’s death, resurrection, and so on. Therefore, at least in 1 Cor. 15.3, the phrase “Christ died” seems to be in a transhistorical context precisely because Christ’s death was already known in advance and written in the prophetic writings which Paul received, as opposed to the common view that presupposes a literal death occurring in history. The typical objection that it is written in past tense changes absolutely nothing. Isaiah 53 is also written in past tense even though the account is decidedly prophetic! Similarly, Acts 2.23 reads:
“this man, handed over to you according to the definite PLAN and FOREKNOWLEDGE of God, you crucified and killed” (NRSV emphasis added).
Question: how was this man crucified and killed? Answer: “according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God.” In other words, this man was killed not according to history per se but according to the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God. A “foreknowledge” is by definition a knowledge of something before it happens or exists. So, if he was killed prior to the actual event itself, he was not killed at all. We have simply confused prophetic literature with history.
—————
Most of the evidence is really against the historicity of Jesus, including that derived from the messianic expectations of the Jews who, according to their scriptures, believe that the Messiah will appear for the first time at the end of the world! So, what’s the main reason scholars believe in an authentic nucleus? Answer: Josephus! Yet we don’t really know what the Testimonium Flavianum would have looked like prior to the interpolations. And there’s another problem regarding intertextuality: namely, literary dependence. The New Testament writings were circulating long before Josephus’ Book (Antiquities of the Jews; ca. CE 94) was published. Josephus would have been presumably familiar with the New Testament texts and might have reiterated some of the material therein. Given that he thought of himself as a historian, he must’ve felt obliged to report these purported events. But that wouldn’t constitute factual history, and the same could be said about his references to Jesus and John the Baptist. Moreover, he was not an eyewitness and his so-called “testimony” is far too removed from the purported events to have any bearing. If we can’t learn much of anything about the so-called historical Jesus through the earlier unknown evangelists who never met him or heard him speak, how could a later writer, from the close of the first century, possibly demonstrate his historicity beyond dispute? He cannot! What is truly strange is that scholars typically reject the historicity of many biblical patriarchs——including Noah, Abraham, and Moses——but surprisingly support Jesus’ historicity probably because a non-historical Christ would put them out of business! It would mean that they have spent their entire lives studying someone who never existed!
—————
Islam’s Denial of Jesus’ Crucifixion 2000y ago might be closer to the truth:
“It Was Made to Appear Like that to Them” (Q4:157).
—————
The Evolution of a Gentile Messiah in the Bible
By Biblical Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
——-
Jesus rejects the notion that he’s a descendant of David, and of the Jews, in Matthew 22:41-46.
——-
That’s precisely why the gospel writers are especially careful to dissociate him from the southern kingdom of Judah and from the Jews by locating his place of origin in the north, in the land of the Gentiles, a place outside of, and external to, the Jewish Kingdom. Btw, strictly speaking, the word “Jew “ means a person from the kingdom of Judah (Ιουδαίος).
——-
The Figurative Text (Excerpted from Kittim’s book, The Little Book of Revelation, Chapter 5):
In contrast to the “New Perspective on Paul,” which tries to Hebraize the Greek New Testament by giving Paul a Hebrew flavor, Paul himself is adamant that “Jewishness” in the Bible has nothing to do with race or descendancy. Paul gives us an exact definition of what it means to be a “Jew” within the NT context:
“For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart—it is spiritual and not literal. Such a person receives praise not from others but from God” (Rom. 2.28-29).
According to Paul’s stunning definition, the biblical term “Jew” does not denote a race or an apparent physical birthright (as the “New Perspective on Paul” would have us believe), but rather an inner essence or, more precisely, an indwelling spirit pertaining to God. This descriptive terminology certainly illustrates a radical new way of approaching, reading, and interpreting the Bible. William Barclay, a world-renowned New Testament scholar, rightly emphasizes that Paul’s message must have infuriated the Jews:
“To a Jew a passage like this must have come as a shattering experience. He was certain that God regarded him with special favour, simply and solely because of his national descent from Abraham and because he bore the badge of circumcision in his flesh. But Paul introduces an idea to which he will return again and again. JEWISHNESS, he insists, IS NOT A MATTER OF RACE AT ALL; IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CIRCUMCISION. It is a matter of conduct. If that is so, many a so-called Jew who is a pure descendant of Abraham and who bears the mark of circumcision in his body, is no Jew at all; and equally many a GENTILE who never heard of Abraham and who would never dream of being circumcised, IS A JEW IN THE REAL SENSE OF THE TERM. To a Jew this would sound the wildest heresy and leave him angry and aghast.”
(The Letter to the Romans. The Daily Study Bible Series. Rev. ed. [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975], p. 47, emphasis added).
——-
It’s not at all coincidental that in the plot of the gospels Jesus becomes the figurative “son of Joseph,” who is himself reminiscent of the great hero that once lived and reigned in Egypt (the land of the Gentiles)!
——-
Another Biblical clue concerning a Gentile Messiah (besides Moses the “Egyptian”) is the unique reference to Cyrus, who is explicitly called in the Book of Isaiah God’s “anointed” (i.e. messiah; Isa. 45.1). Cyrus is not a Jew! That’s precisely why God says in Isaiah 46.11 that he will bring from a far country the Messiah who will execute his counsel (cf. Matt. 28.18; 1 Cor. 15.24-25). Not only is the Messiah not Jewish, but the elect themselves are not defined as biological Jews. As Romans 9.8 reminds us, “it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.”
——-
And why do you suppose Jesus is compared “to the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 6.20)? What’s the point of the mimesis? Precisely because Melchizedek “does not belong to their [Jewish] ancestry” (Heb. 7.6), and when compared to Jesus, it follows that Jesus himself “does not belong to their ancestry” either! What is the New Testament trying to tell us? Just like Melchizedek, Christ is not a Jew!
——-
That’s why the gospels keep telling us over and over again that the Jews expect a Jewish messiah to arrive from the line of David but are terribly disappointed in seeing a Gentile messiah appearing from Galilee. And, as a consequence, they want to kill him! And, in the end, they do!
——-
Division of People over Jesus in John's Gospel Because He Does Not Come from Bethlehem of the Jews but from Galilee of the Gentiles:
“Others were saying, “Surely the Christ is not going to come from Galilee, is He? Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the descendants of David [Jews], and from Bethlehem, the village where David was?” So a division occurred in the crowd because of Him” (John 7.41-43).
——-
Jesus Christ (Gk. Ἰησοῦς Χριστός; 1 Cor. 3.11) Defies Jewish Messianic Expectations
John 7.52:
“Search, and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee” (cf. Mt. 4.15-16).
——-
Furthermore, it’s the Greek New Testament that introduces Jesus the Messiah, NOT the Hebrew Bible!
——-
And the Greek-New-Testament was not written by Jews but by Greeks! The New Testament was typically written in articulate, refined Greek, not in Hebrew! And it seems that they weren’t fluent In Hebrew because when these NT authors quote from the OT, they predominantly quote from the Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, and not from the original Hebrew scriptures per se. This indicates that the NT authors were not familiar with the Hebrew language. In other words, they were NOT Jews. And most of the NT letters are addressed to Greek communities rather than Jewish ones. This Greek-element——running not only through the “thematic structure” but also via the writing, composition, production, place-of-authorship (which is said to be outside of Palestine), distribution, and dissemination of the text (largely to Gentile communities)——speaks volumes about the NT’s theological purpose, authorial intention, and cultural milieu!
——-
Conclusion
Unfortunately, we have failed to notice that the narrative of a •Gentile-messiah• is a major theme that runs across the entire Bible! And, in my opinion, the gospels certainly take advantage of this literary motif by showing through various rhetorical devices that Christ is not a Jew!
——-
Eli of Kittim Amazon Author Page
Eli of Kittim Amazon Author Page
This is my Amazon Fan Page. The title of my non-fiction book clarifies what the book is about, namely, The First Coming of Jesus at the End of Days. The book is based on biblical scholarship and its argument is that——according to the New Testament epistles——the first coming of Jesus will take place at the end of the world (see e.g. Hebrews 9:26b; 1 Peter 1:20)! This can be corroborated throughout the Bible. I have done extensive follow-up research using the original Greek New Testament to demonstrate the legitimacy of my claim!