Author of “The Little Book of Revelation.” Get your copy now!!https://www.xlibris.com/en/bookstore/bookdetails/597424-the-little-book-of-revelation
447 posts
Goodreads Contest Winner! #award_winning_book
Goodreads Contest Winner! #award_winning_book
——-
*The Little Book of Revelation* was a winner in a Double Decker Books contest on Goodreads, a few years back. As a result, Double Decker Books and five other blogs promoted this book for several weeks. They included a book description, an author bio, editorial reviews, and buying links.
——-
Here are some of the links:
——-
InkSpell Reviews - https://inkspellreviews.wordpress.com/2015/02/04/the-little-book-of-revelation-the-first-coming-of-jesus-at-the-end-of-days/
——-
Spilling Words - https://spillingwordskck.wordpress.com/2015/02/04/the-little-book-of-revelation-the-first-coming-of-jesus-at-the-end-of-days/
——-
More Posts from Eli-kittim
Three Questions On the Rapture: Is it Pre-Trib or Post-Trib? Is it Secret or Not? And is it Imminent?
By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim
——-
Is the Rapture Visible or Invisible?
Although there are a few early references to the “rapture” in certain Christian works——such as the late 6th century “Apocalypse of Pseudo-Ephraem”——the putative “secret rapture” and the “futurist eschatological view” of prophecy were largely developed by Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) and Jesuit theologian Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) during the Counter-Reformation, and were later co-opted by the 19th century Bible teacher, John Nelson Darby. In modern times, author Hal Lindsey popularized this view in his best-selling 1970 book, “The Late, Great Planet Earth.”
Given that 1 Cor. 15.51-52 (NRSV) says that “we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye,” this New Testament (NT) passage is adduced by Bible prophecy scholars to explain that “the body of Christ” (i.e. “the church”) will suddenly vanish and disappear. Recently, both Dr. Ed Hindson and pastor Mark Hitchcock also used 1 Cor. 15.51-52 to support a secret and instant rapture in which the faithful “in Christ" will evanesce. In fact, in their book “Can we still believe in the Rapture?” they aver that even Jesus will not be visibly seen except *only* by the faithful. Despite the fact that these authors have a penchant for rigorous scholarship, since they tout themselves as Bible prophecy pundits, they have nevertheless prescinded numerous contradictory passages. Rev. 1.7 is a case in point: “He [Jesus] is coming with the clouds; every eye will see him.” Similarly, Mt. 24.30 says: “they will see ‘the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven' with power and great glory.” In fact, the coming of the Son of Man is likened to lightning, which “comes from the east and flashes as far as the west” (Mt. 24.27). Therefore, there will clearly be a visible and physical manifestation of Jesus’ coming in the sky! After which “he will send out his angels . . . and they will gather his elect” (Mt. 24.31).
Another reason why the rapture is reputed to be a *secret* is because 2 Pet. 3.10 says that “the day of the Lord will come like a thief.” However, notice that “the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire.” This verse evinces that “a loud noise” will be heard and that the physical properties of the earth will be destroyed in a great conflagration. Thus, the key components of this experience unambiguously comprise audible, visible, and physical phenomena.
A further reason for the supposed “secret rapture” has to do with the postmortem changes in the human body that are said to make it imperishable and immortal (1 Cor. 15.53). But just because “the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed” (1 Cor. 15.52), doesn’t mean that the *rapture* is inaudible or invisible. Even if Paul is talking about an eminently spiritualized body doesn’t mean that it cannot be seen. For instance, Jesus is depicted as being both visible and physical after his purported resurrection. By way of illustration, the disciples allegedly “ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead” (Acts 10.41), and he was also said to be physically touched by Thomas (Jn 20.27).
What is more, all the Biblical evidence contradicts the notion that the rapture will be visible only to a select few. For example, similar to Jesus’ loud, audible shout during the rapture in 1 Thess. 4.16, Jer. 25.30 also prophesies that “The Lord will roar from on high . . . and shout” when he appears. This is a running theme throughout the Bible. It’s reminiscent of Psalm 50.3: “Our God comes and does not keep silence.” Thus, the most viable interpretation of these verses must of necessity render the grounds for the “secret rapture” untenable!
——-
Is the Rapture Imminent?
Before we discuss the *timing* of the rapture, it is important to consider whether or not it is imminent. John A. Sproule, a pretribulationist author, once said that "imminence" is defined as the belief that "Christ can return for His Church ‘at any moment’ and that no predicted event will intervene before that return.” However, this is a moot point since 2 Thess. 2.1-3 teaches against the doctrine of imminence and stresses that the rapture cannot take place “unless the rebellion comes first and the lawless one is revealed.” Second Thessalonians 2.1 is using rapture language (Gk. ἐπισυναγωγῆς ἐπ αὐτόν; “gathered together to him”). Matthew 24.31 uses the exact same word (ἐπισυνάγω) in reference to the rapture! Moreover, there’s a further condition that has to be met before the rapture can take place, and before the “lawless one” (i.e. the Antichrist) can be revealed, namely, someone needs to be removed from the earth.
A common misinterpretation is that this must either be a reference to the *Holy Spirit* or to the *church*, which will be taken out of the way before the Antichrist can be revealed. But if it is the Holy Spirit or the church it would directly contradict the Book of Revelation (7.13-14), which foresees a great spiritual revival during the time of the Great Tribulation (GT). For instance, John the Revelator sees “a great multitude that” came “out of the great ordeal [GT]” (Rev. 7.9, 14). This multitude represents the “church” of Christ, which is obviously present, not absent, during the GT. And without the Holy Spirit no one can be saved (Rom. 8.9b). Therefore, the so-called “restrainer” of 2 Thess. 2.6-7 can neither be the Holy Spirit nor the church. This mysterious figure can only be explained by my unique eschatological view. Since I hold that the first horseman of the Apocalypse is Christ (the white horseman), it is he and he alone who is the restrainer, and after he is slain the Antichrist will be revealed (see my article: https://www.google.com/amp/s/eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/168159235542/who-is-the-first-horseman-of-the-apocalypse/amp).
Another reason why the “restrainer” cannot be the “church” is because if 2 Thess. 2.1-3 says that the *rapture-of-the-church* cannot occur “unless . . . the lawless one is revealed” first, the text would be contradicting itself later by saying the exact opposite, namely, that the lawless one cannot be revealed unless the *church* (2 Thess. 2.6-7) is removed first. Furthermore, in koine Greek, the church is never referred to as a man, using the nominative masculine singular form of the definite article (Gk. ὁ “ho” 2 Thess. 2.7). It cannot be the Holy Spirit either because if it were to be removed from the earth no one would be saved, thereby contradicting Rev. 7.9-14, among other passages.
So, the only legitimate candidate for the “restrainer” position, in 2 Thess 2, is Christ, who will be taken out of the way (slain; cf. Heb. 9.26b) and then the Antichrist will be revealed! Hence, according to Scripture, the *rapture* cannot possibly be imminent precisely because three significant events must first occur: the rebellion, the removal of the restrainer, and the revelation of the lawless one!
——-
Common Misconceptions
Now we are ready to tackle the actual *timing* of the “rapture” with respect to the GT. But before we do, let us first consider why people hold to a Pre-Tribulation (Pre-Trib) as opposed to a Post-Tribulation (Post-Trib) rapture position.
Before we get started, I need to stress that the second category, the so-called “Mid-Tribulation” (MId-Trib) rapture view, does not really exist. It’s a misnomer. The GT only lasts for 3 and a half years, or 42 months, or 1,260 days, or a time, and times, and half a time (cf. Rev. 11.2; 12.6, 14; 13.5). Thus, there can only be two possible timelines: a Pre-Trib or a Post-Trib timetable. The 7 years (“one week”) alluded to in Dan. 9.27 do not refer to the duration of the GT. Only the phrase “for half of the week” represents the GT. A Mid-Trib position would only be feasible if the rapture occurred in the middle of a supposed 7-year GT period. But since the GT lasts only for 3 and a half years, there can be no such thing as a Mid-Trib view! The “prewrath” position is also problematic because if the Day of the Lord begins during the last half of the GT period, then the Antichrist will not actually reign for 3 and a half years (Dan. 12.7; Rev. 11.2; 12.6; 13.5), thereby contradicting scripture. Not to mention that the GT represents Satan’s wrath (Dan. 7.25; Rev. 12.12; 13.5), not God’s wrath (aka “The Day of the Lord”: Joel 2.31; Acts 2.20), which will follow the 3-and-a-half-year GT period and will last for some time.
Another common misconception is to assume that the phrase “elect” in the NT is exclusively referring to the Jews, not to the church-in-Christ that is made up of all peoples. However, in Mt. 24.31, 40-41 the clause “they will gather his elect” is a direct reference to the church-in-Christ. In fact, in the NT, the term “elect” never refers to the Jews. For example, Rom. 11.7 shows the dichotomy between the elect and the Jews. Moreover, the letter (Col. 3.12) addressed to Christians at the church of Colossae, Asia Minor, uses the term “elect” (KJV/ERV/ASV) to refer to those “chosen” in Christ. Another clear differentiation between “the elect” and the Jews is found in Rom. 11.7. And Rom. 8.32-34 reinforces the doctrine that “God's elect” are those for whom Christ died to justify! The prophetic caveat in Mt. 24.24 (NRSV) makes it absolutely clear that the term “elect” is a sole reference to the body of Christ:
For false messiahs and false prophets will
appear and produce great signs and
omens, to lead astray, if possible, even the
elect.
Finally, let me say a few words about those who deny the rapture. Just because it is a relatively late teaching in the history of the church doesn’t make it false. Due to a renewed interest in the Bible during the enlightenment period, the disciplines of Biblical Criticism, Textual Criticism, and Biblical Eschatology were greatly enhanced. As a result, we know more about the Bible today than we ever did. Furthermore, just as there are clear indications of a future resurrection of the dead in both the Old and New Testaments (e.g. Dan. 12.1-2; 1 Cor. 15.22-23, 51-55), there are also clear indications of a future rapture immediately after the resurrection of the dead. First Thessalonians 4.16-17 reads:
For the Lord himself, with a cry of
command, with the archangel's call and
with the sound of God's trumpet, will
descend from heaven, and the dead in
Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive,
who are left, will be caught up in the clouds
together with them to meet the Lord in the
air; and so we will be with the Lord forever.
Accordingly, the rapture will occur immediately after the resurrection of the dead, when the body of Christ will be transformed from mortality into immortality, unable to die again (cf. 1 Cor. 15.51-55)!
——-
What is the Supposed Evidence for a Pre-Trib Rapture?
Now that we addressed some of the most common misconceptions about the rapture, we can get down to business. Pre-Trib scholars usually point to 1 Thess. 5.9, which says: “For God has destined us not for wrath [ὀργὴν] but for obtaining salvation,” and they interpret this verse to mean that the church will not experience “the wrath of God” (cf. Rev. 16.1). And they’ll usually say something to the effect that “God wouldn’t beat up his bride before marrying her.” They feel that the church *deserves* special privileges and therefore God is *obligated*, according to his word, to guarantee its safe passage from the coming disaster.
However, the GT is NOT God’s wrath; it’s Satan’s wrath! Accordingly, Rev. 12.12 reads:
But woe to the earth and the sea, for the
devil has come down to you with great
wrath, because he knows that his time is
short!
What is more, there never was a time when the church was immune from crisis and persecution. Quite the contrary. Throughout its history, the church has always experienced various forms of persecution. According to the martyrdom accounts, a glance into the life of Paul, or that of the apostles, will quickly prove this point. Scripture doesn’t say that God promises an escape from the tribulation. Quite the opposite. It says: “Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God” (Acts 14.22 NASB). So it isn’t as if there are a precious few who are deemed worthy to escape. This theology of entitlement is certainly unscriptural and, therefore, unwarranted and without merit.
Another popular verse that’s often cited as evidence for a pre-trib rapture is Rev. 3.10 (KJV):
Because thou hast kept the word of my
patience, I also will keep thee from the hour
of temptation, which shall come upon all the
world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.
However, the preposition ἐκ (which is usually translated as “from” or “from out of”) has several other meanings, such as “of,” “through,” “by,” and so the verse could equally imply that God promises “to watch over” or “to guard” (Gk. ἐτήρησας) the believers *through* the hour of temptation (πειρασμός) that is coming upon the whole world: (see https://biblehub.com/greek/1537.htm). Therefore, according to this verse, it’s not entirely clear whether the faithful are removed from the earth or whether they go *through* “the hour of temptation” with God’s protection. It’s not even clear whether the verse is referring to the GT because that event is typically described as θλῖψις μεγάλη (Mt. 24.21) or ἡμέρα θλίψεως (Dan. 12.1 LXX), not as πειρασμός (Rev. 3.10).
——-
The Case for a Post-Trib Rapture
So, where is the evidence for a Post-Trib rapture, and is it conclusive? We’ve already discussed 2 Thess. 2.1-7 and concluded that this text predicts a sequence of eschatological events in which the “Antichrist” will be revealed PRIOR to the timing of the rapture. As we said earlier, 2 Thess. 2.1-3 is teaching against the doctrine of imminence and stresses that the rapture cannot take place “unless the rebellion comes first and the lawless one is revealed.” We also said that 2 Thess. 2.1 is employing rapture-language (Gk. ἐπισυναγωγῆς ἐπ αὐτόν; “gathered together to him”). And there’s a further stipulation that has to be met before the rapture can occur, and before the “lawless one” can be revealed, to wit, someone must be removed from the earth. Since the Antichrist will obviously be revealed at the beginning of the GT period (cf. Mt. 24.15-21; 2 Thess. 2.3-4) there can’t possibly be a pretrib rapture!
Similar to 2 Thess. 2.3-4 ff., Mt. 24.21 says that the GT (Gk. θλῖψις μεγάλη) will begin “when you see the desolating sacrilege standing in the holy place” (Mt. 24.15). Apparently, this is the time period when the GT commences. Then, Mt. 24.29-31 goes on to say that the “gathering” of the Son of Man’s elect (i.e. ‘the rapture’) occurs AFTER the GT (Gk. *μετὰ* τὴν θλῖψιν τῶν ἡμερῶν ἐκείνων):
Immediately after the suffering of those
days the sun will be darkened, and the
moon will not give its light; the stars will fall
from heaven, and the powers of heaven will
be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man
will appear in heaven, and then all the
tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will
see ‘the Son of Man coming on the clouds
of heaven’ with power and great glory. And
he will send out his angels with a loud
trumpet call, and they will gather his elect
from the four winds, from one end of
heaven to the other.
Make no mistake. Matthew 24.40-41 reinforces the previous thematic material——to ensure that it’s understood as a reference to the *rapture*——by adding additional details:
Then two will be in the field; one will be
taken and one will be left. Two women will
be grinding meal together; one will be taken
and one will be left.
The original Greek text of Matthew 24.31 uses the exact same rapture-language (ἐπισυνάξουσιν “gather together”) which 2 Thessalonians 2.1 uses (ἐπισυναγωγῆς “gathered together to him”). In Matthew 24.31, the phrase “gather together” (his elect) is a translation of the Greek term ἐπισυνάξουσιν, which comes from ἐπισυνάγω (“to gather together,” “to collect,” “to assemble”). Matthew 24.31 makes it abundantly clear that Jesus will *gather together* “His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.” Once again, according to the 24th chapter and the 29th verse of the Matthean text, the *rapture* will transpire “immediately AFTER the suffering [i.e. GT] of those days” (emphasis added). Thus, the Post-Trib interpretation of Mt. 24 is incontestable! But there’s more.
The clincher, the passage that settles the matter conclusively is Rev. 20.4-6. This passage tells us that those who were killed during the GT took part in the first resurrection. However, given that the rapture is contemporaneous with the first resurrection (1 Thess. 4.16-17), and since those who took part in the first resurrection came out of the GT, it means that the rapture must also take place *after* the GT! Rev. 20.4-6 reads:
Then I saw thrones, and those seated on
them were given authority to judge. I also
saw the souls of those who had been
beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and
for the word of God. They had not
worshiped the beast or its image and had
not received its mark on their foreheads or
their hands. They came to life and reigned
with Christ a thousand years. (The rest of
the dead did not come to life until the
thousand years were ended.) This is the
first resurrection. Blessed and holy are
those who share in the first resurrection.
Hence, if this is the first resurrection that takes place AFTER the GT, then there can’t possibly be an earlier one, as the Pre-Trib doctrine assumes. Remember that we are not speculating here. We are using an important hermeneutical principle of exegesis, called, “the analogy of Scripture.” It means that Scripture should interpret Scripture. Therefore, our exegesis is not only sound but is also within the larger *canonical context* or theology of Scripture. That is to say, we’re not employing an isolated, out-of-context verse but rather a running theme that covers many books of the Bible. The chronological parallels of all these timelines regarding the rapture directly contradict the Pre-Trib theory. And although, admittedly, it would be far more comforting to adhere to the Pre-Trib rapture doctrine, it would be equally deceptive and fallacious since it does not agree with, and is unauthorized by, Scripture.
——-
Further Evidence of a Post-Trib Rapture: The Last Trumpet
But there is further evidence of a Post-Trib rapture based on certain parallel phrases and verbal agreements. There’s a common trumpet-motif that runs across the following passages. Notice, for example, 1 Thess. 4.16, which says that Christ will appear for the rapture “with the sound of God's trumpet.” We find the exact same theme in Mt. 24.31 in which the Son of Man “will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds.” Similarly, 1 Cor. 15.51-52 explicitly states that the resurrection of the dead will take place “at the last trumpet.” So, when is the last trumpet? According to Rev. 11.15, the last (or 7th) trumpet is blown during the time period when the Lord’s Messiah begins to reign over the entire world, so it is obviously a period that takes place AFTER the GT:
Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet,
and there were loud voices in heaven,
saying, ‘The kingdom of the world has
become the kingdom of our Lord and of his
Messiah, and he will reign forever and ever.’
Therefore, the last trumpet is yet another clue of the chronological timetable of the rapture in that it follows, rather than precedes, the GT.
——-
Is the Church Mentioned After Rev. 4.1?
There are those who teach that the rapture of the church is implied in Rev. 4.1, and they further assert that since the church is not mentioned after that in the rest of the Book, and given that the tribulation *is* subsequently mentioned, this would strongly suggest a Pre-Trib rapture. However, given that Rev. 4.1 is specifically referring to John and no one else, it’s not entirely clear whether or not the rapture is implied. Moreover, there’s something amiss about the Pre-Trib interpretation because the church is actually mentioned numerous times after Rev. 4.1. The church is mentioned in Rev. 5.8-10 by way of the 24 elders, which seemingly represent a remnant of the redeemed tribulation saints who meet in council before the throne of God in preparation for the coming judgment of the world! Mention is also made of the Jewish remnant of 144,000 saints in Rev. 7.4. There’s also the “great multitude that no one could count” (Rev. 7.9), which are actually tribulation saints “who have come out of the great ordeal” (Rev. 7.14). The 2 witnesses of Rev. 11 also represent the church, as does the woman of Rev. 12. Not to mention that the “Beast” persecutes the church in Rev. 13, while the Bride of Christ (the church) is referenced once again in Rev. 19.7, even though the rapture presumably hasn’t happened yet. As you can see, the “church” is mentioned many times. These findings would render the Pre-Trib conclusion untenable!
——-
Conclusion
Why would Jesus instruct the church in Mt. 24.23-27 ff. on how to conduct itself during the GT if it had already left the earth? It wouldn’t make any sense. So, no matter how you look at it, it’s abundantly clear from the many proof-texts that we’ve encountered that the *rapture* at the end (or towards the end [Mt. 24.22]) of the GT period represents the soundest position! As far as I’m concerned, the Pre-Trib position has been thoroughly debunked! It is completely bogus and misinformed.
It’s important to know the sequence of eschatological events so that the community of faith can be better equipped and prepared for the GT! And although it is not a salvation issue, Scripture warns that during the GT “false messiahs and false prophets will appear and produce great signs and omens, to lead astray, if possible, even the elect” (Mt. 24.24). If that’s the case, then this means that the *elect* are here on earth during the time of the GT:
Keep awake therefore, for you do not know
on what day your Lord is coming (Mt.
24.42).
The point is to be ready! Because once the rapture takes place the doors of heaven will be shut. There will be no more opportunities for salvation!
The Heresy of Modalistic Monarchianism is Alive and Well
By Author Eli Kittim
——-
What is Modalistic Monarchianism?
Modalistic Monarchianism (aka *Oneness Theology* or Modalism) is a late 2nd and 3rd century theological doctrine that maintains the deity of Christ while emphasising the *oneness* of God. In contrast to Trinitarianism, which depicts the Godhead as three distinct persons coexisting in one being, modalistic monarchianism defines God as a single person. This theological position is related to “patripassianism” and “Sabellianism,” which hold similar views. It has been considered a doctrinal heresy since the early period of the Christian Church.
The term “Modalistic Monarchianism” means that God is not three but *one* person who operates under various “manifestations” or “modes,” such as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. According to this theological position, the complete Godhead dwells in Jesus insofar as his incarnation is concerned. This view therefore ascribes the actions of the *Father* and the *Son* to various *modes*, such as the differences that exist between God’s “transcendence” (which is completely independent of the material universe, beyond being and nonbeing) and God’s incarnation or immanence (i.e. his manifestation in the physical world). Accordingly, the Holy Spirit is not viewed as a distinct entity but rather as a mode of operation of the spirit of God.
It seems as if the Modalistic Monarchians were trying to reconcile the trinitarian concept of the New Testament (NT) with the monotheistic Shema creed in the Torah, which states that “God, the LORD is one" (Deut. 6.4). Modalistic Monarchians accept the inspiration of the Old Testament and therefore believe that Jesus is the manifestation of Yahweh on earth. But they do not worship the Father or the Holy Spirit; only Jesus Christ.
Three modern adherents of this view are Oneness Pentecostalism (aka Jesus Only movement or Apostolic, Jesus' Name Pentecostalism), the World Mission Society Church of God (the relatively new South Korean religious movement), and T. D. Jakes, the bishop of The Potter's House Church (a non-denominational American megachurch).
——-
Is Jesus really God the Father and God the Holy Spirit?
Given that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are considered to be titles of the one God, not depictions of distinct persons, *Oneness Pentecostals*, for example, maintain that they fulfil Christ’s commandment in Mt. 28.19 to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by doing so *only* in the name of Jesus. In their defence, they cite Acts 4.12 in which Jesus is the *only* name given in the NT “by which we must be saved.” Acts 4.11-12 reads:
This Jesus is ‘the stone that was rejected by
you, the builders; it has become the
cornerstone. There is salvation in no one
else, for there is no other name under
heaven given among mortals by which we
must be saved.’
However, just because “there is no other name . . . by which we must be saved” does not mean that the Father and the Holy Spirit do not exist! That directly contradicts the grammatical “point of view” of the first person, second person, and third person *personal pronouns* in the NT text.
For example, Jesus is NOT the name of the Father or of the Holy Spirit. On the contrary, Jesus repeatedly refers to the Holy Spirit not in the first person but in the *3rd person*. He calls the Holy Spirit ἐκεῖνος——meaning “He” (Jn. 16.13-14)——as another person that is totally DISTINCT from himself. Jesus says:
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he
will guide you into all the truth” (John
16.13).
Obviously Jesus is not talking about himself but about a separate entity that is called the “Holy Spirit.”
Jesus also repeatedly speaks of the Father in the *3rd person* as a separate and distinct person from himself. Jesus says:
For I did not speak on my own, but the
Father who sent me commanded me to say
all that I have spoken (John 12.49).
Obviously Jesus is NOT the Father, otherwise this modalistic theology would have us believe that Jesus sent himself, commands himself, prays to himself, and talks to himself, while baldly lying to his disciples about an imaginary father (whom he calls “Abba” [Mark 14.36]) who doesn’t really exist. According to this view, Jesus is psychotic or worse. In other words, Jesus is either a lunatic or a liar. So, Modalistic Monarchianism directly contradicts and distorts the NT authors' original language and intended meanings. Therefore, Oneness Theology is completely bogus and misinformed!
1 Jn. 2.22 condemns modalism as an aberration:
This is the antichrist, the one who denies
the Father and the Son.
God is Called by a Gentile Name
By Award-Winning Author Eli Kittim
——-
This paper is partially excerpted from a section by the same name in chapter 6 of my book, “The Little Book of Revelation.” In hindsight, we all know that the Biblical God is said to enlighten the world through progressive revelations (e.g. from the Old Testament [OT] to the New Testament [NT]). This fundamentally implies that the *meaning* of the name of God (YHWH) was originally incomprehensible until the arrival of the NT.
——-
The Greek NT: A Clue to the Meaning of the Divine Name
——-
Why was the NT written in Greek? Why are there more epistles written to Greek communities than any other? Why are most NT books written in Greece? Why do the NT authors quote predominantly from the Greek OT? Why doesn’t Jesus *reveal* the divine “I AM” as the aleph and the Tav in the language of the Hebrews?
Is it because the name of God has something to do with the Greek NT? Surprisingly, the answer is yes!
——-
YHWH: I AM THAT I AM
——-
God did not fully reveal himself to Moses (Exod. 3.14) except as “I Am that I Am.” The full revelation came later with Jesus. This expression is conventionally rendered as “Yahweh,” which is construed as “Lord.” But since there’s nothing akin to the letter “w” in the Hebrew alphabet, the variant “Yahveh”——pronounced as yah-va——may be furnished instead. Among the orthodox sects of the Judaic tradition, the religious adherents are strictly forbidden from vocalizing or even pronouncing the divine name. Even the Tetragrammaton “YHVH” is not allowed to be uttered. Hebrew was originally a consonantal language. Vowels and cantillation marks were added to the Bible by the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries ce. Therefore, to call God Yahweh is a rough approximation. We don’t really know the actual name or what it signifies. But through Biblical and linguistic studies we can propose a scholarly theory.
——-
The Divine “I AM” Is Revealed in the NT as “ALPHA & OMEGA”
——-
Since the Divine “name” (i.e. the divine “I AM”) was ultimately revealed in the NT through the first and last letters of the Greek writing system (“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end” Rev. 22.13), then it must therefore be known by a Gentile name. The Alpha and the Omega constitute “the beginning and the end” of the Greek alphabet. In other words, the Demiurge (Heb. 1.2) explicitly identifies himself with the language of the Greeks. No wonder why the NT was written in Greek and not in Hebrew. That’s precisely why we are told “how God First concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for his name” (Acts 15.14):
“And with this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, . . . ‘THE GENTILES WHO ARE CALLED BY MY NAME’ “ (Acts 15.15-17).
What a groundbreaking statement that is! This quote affords crystal clear evidence that the Deity’s name is not derived from Hebraic but rather Gentile sources. The Tanach (Hebrew Bible) states an identical motif:
“All the Gentiles. . . are called by My name” (Amos 9.12).
God explicitly identifies himself with the language of the Greeks: “ ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God” (Rev. 1.8), and immediately thereafter this *Greek-theme* carries forward into the next verse in which John the Revelator is on *Greek* soil, “on the island called Patmos BECAUSE of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus” (Rev. 1.9 emphasis added). Hence why the NT is written in *Greek,* to reflect the Greek Jesus (Ιησούς). By the way, God is never called Yahweh in the NT: he’s called Lord (kurios). Similarly, Jesus is never called Yehoshua or Yeshua, as the Christian Hebrew Roots movement would have us believe!
——-
The Semantic Implications of Yahva: Phonetic and Grammatical Considerations
——-
If my theory is correct, we must find indications of a Greek linguistic element within the original name of God (i.e. “Yahva”) as it was previously disclosed to Moses. Indeed we do! In the Hebrew language, the term “Yavan” represents the Greeks (Josephus “Antiquities” I, 6). So, it’s not difficult to see how the phonetic and grammatical mystery of God’s name——Yahveh, pronounced as Yah-va——can clearly be solved by attributing its derivation to the Hebrew term “Ya-van,” which refers to the Greeks. Upon further inspection, the Hebrew names for both God and Greece (Yahva/Yavan) are virtually indistinguishable from one another, both grammatically and phonetically! Hence why it may have been kept as a secret and untranslatable under the consonantal name of God (“YV”), which, with the addition of vowels, not only points to “YaVan,” the Hebrew name for Greece, but also anticipates the arrival of the Greek NT!
There’s further evidence for a connection between the Greek & Hebrew names of God. In a few rare Septuagint manuscripts, the Tetragrammaton is actually translated as “IAO” (aka Greek Trigrammaton). That is to say, the divine name Yahva is rendered into Koine Greek as Ιαω (see e.g. Lev. 4.27 of Septuagint [LXX] manuscript 4Q120). This fragment is derived from the Dead Sea Scrolls, found at Qumran, and dated to the 1st century bce. Interestingly enough, the name IAO seemingly represents the Ancient Greeks (aka IAONIANS), the earliest literary records of whom are found in Homer (Gk. Ἰάονες; iāones) and also in the work of Hesiod (Gk. Ἰάων; iāōn). Nearly all Bible scholars concur that the Hebrew name Yavan represents the Iaonians; that is, Yavan is Ion (Ionia i.e. “Greece”). Further independent attestations come from the Patristic writings on the Tetragrammaton. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (1910) & B.D. Eerdmans: Diodorus Siculus (1st century BCE) refers to the name of God by writing Ἰαῶ (Iao); Irenaeus (d. c. 202) reports that the Valentinians use Ἰαῶ (Iao); Origen of Alexandria (d. c. 254) employs Ἰαώ (Iao). Theodoret of Cyrus (393 – c. 458) writes Ἰαώ (Iao); he also reports that the Samaritans say Ἰαβέ or Ἰαβαί (both pronounced at that time */ja'vε/). Hence the secret name of God in both the Septuagint & the Hebrew Bible seemingly represents Greece!
——-
Conclusion: The NT Ascribes the Name of God to Greek Sources
——-
The final revelation of the name of God is made known in the NT (Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ), and it clearly points to Greek sources. In hindsight, we can trace this Greek name back to the Divine “I am” in Exodus 3.14, as I have shown.
——-
What Does Galatians 4.4 Mean When it Says that Jesus is “Born Under The Law”?
By Author Eli Kittim
Kittim’s Futurist Eschatology
As you may know, my unique view is that Jesus has not yet come to earth and that he’ll make his first appearance “once in the end of the world” (Heb. 9.26b KJV) or in the “last days” (Heb. 1.2) or “at the final point of time" (1 Pet. 1.20 NJB)! So, before attempting to expound on what being “born under the law” means, let me briefly explain how Gal. 4.4 closely ties into my unique futurist view. I will briefly refer to my interpretation of Gal. 4.4 so that you can understand the basis of my hermeneutic, but will not delve into it at length.
Interpreting the Implicit by the
Explicit
We won’t be able to mine the depths of Scripture if we don’t allow the Bible to tell us what something means. We are accustomed to imposing our own presuppositions on the text (called “eisegesis”). That’s why the best interpretation is no interpretation at all! For example, since there is a verbal agreement between Gal. 4.4 and Eph. 1.9-10 with respect to the phrase, “the fullness of time,” we should allow the more explicit passage in Ephesians to interpret and define the more implicit one in Galatians. Ephesians 1.9-10 (NASB) reads thusly:
“He [God] made known to us the mystery of
His will, according to His kind intention
which He purposed in Him 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.”
In this case, the key word that gives us the meaning of “the fullness of time” in Ephesians 1.10 is the Greek term ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι (“summing up”). It means “completion,” “end,” “summary” (see Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, [Oxford: Oxford University, 1961], p. 106)! The didactic or exegetical principle is as follows: if this *time-period* or *timeline* in Ephesians refers to the final consummation and the conclusion of all things or the *summing-up* (ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι) of all things in Christ, both in the heavens and on the earth, then the same exact phrase in Galatians 4.4, given that it refers to the same temporal context, must have an identical meaning. And, if that’s the case, then the phrase should refer to the consummation of the ages, not to 2,000 years ago! Therefore, we have erred linguistically by attributing this eschatological expression to the time of antiquity! We have thereby misinterpreted the Greek text.
Is the Law Still Applicable in
Modern Times?
Now that we understand Galatians 4.4 as a reference to future eschatology, the question arises: how can Gal. 4.4 be a reference to modern times? In other words, how is the “law” still applicable in our day and age? More specifically, how do we interpret Gal. 4.4 when it says that God’s Son is “born under the law”? It’s a very good question. And it was asked by a member of the Eli of Kittim Bible Exegesis Group on Facebook.
Here’s the answer. The first thing to realize is that Galatians 4.4 is in fact referring to the Mosaic Law and depicts Christ’s birth as if it takes place under the law (ὑπὸ νόμον). The use of this often repeated term (νόμον) in the Bible ensures us that Gal. 4.4 is not referring to the natural law. It’s also important to understand that the Mosaic Law, including the 10 commandments, was not only intended for the Jews, it was meant to be the standard of morality for the entire human race. And we would be judged by it accordingly until the arrival of grace in Christ Jesus. So why are we told that Jesus is “born under the law”? The next verse tells us why:
“in order to redeem those who were under
the law, so that we might receive adoption
as children (v. 5).”
Has the Law Been Abolished or
Not?
Now, the Greek term νόμον is exclusively referring to the Moral Law (not the ceremonial or civic law). So, the Law was given to instruct us as to what is good and evil. However, according to the New Testament, only the *death* of Jesus can *abolish* the Law. [1] Nothing else. Therefore, if Jesus has not yet died, the law remains in effect. And if in fact Jesus has not yet died, then he will be born under the law in the fullness of time. Paul tells us that the “law of commandments contained in ordinances” was “abolished” (Gk. katargeo, which means “discarded” or “nullified”) by the *death* of Jesus (Eph. 2.14-15). However, the past tense “was” may be an English mistranslation because the temporal value of this verse hangs on the Greek verb καταργήσας, which does not necessarily refer to past history. But even with regard to translations that presuppose the past-tense “was” as the correct translation of καταργήσας (perhaps due to the past-tense ποιήσας [having made] from the previous verse [v. 14]), nevertheless the *time-of-the-action* still seems to be in a transhistorical context. I’ve mentioned numerous times that Stanley E. Porter, a top Hellenistic Greek linguist, assures us that “temporal values (past, present, future) are not established in Greek by use of the verbal aspects (or tense-forms) alone” (see Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament [2nd edn; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999], p. 25)! In other words, past tenses do not necessarily imply past events. Isaiah 53 is a perfect example. Despite all of the past tenses, it is obviously a prophecy that Isaiah is writing about, at least from a Christian hermeneutical standpoint! So, returning to our main topic, according to Paul, only the death of Jesus can truly abolish the Law!
Paul’s Christ is Not Yet
Remember that in other places Paul suggests that the evidence for Jesus’ ransom is still future:
“Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be
testified in due time” (1 Tim. 2.6).
In 1 Cor. 15.8 (NRSV) Paul declares that Christ appeared to him “as to one untimely born,” that is, as if Paul were born before the time of Christ. And in Romans 5.6 the grammatical structure of the sentence appears in a transhistorical context and doesn’t necessarily warrant a reference to history. Paul employs the word ἔτι which implies not yet. So when Paul says that Christ “died” (απέθανεν), his death is in this transhistorical context! This is further confirmed by Paul’s use of the phrase κατά καιρόν, which means “at the right time” (cf. 1 Tim. 2.6), or at “the appropriate time,” in the sense that Christ died at some unspecified time of human history:
Ἔτι γὰρ ⸃ Χριστὸς ὄντων ἡμῶν ἀσθενῶν ἔτι
κατά καιρὸν ὑπὲρ ἀσεβῶν ἀπέθανεν (Rom.
5.6)!
Translation (NASB):
“For while we were still helpless, at the right
time Christ died for the ungodly.”
Similarly, Luke 17.30 also suggests that the Son of Man has not yet been revealed!
Only Jesus’ Death Can Abolish the
Law
Technically speaking, even the New Covenant (New Testament) is not ratified until the *death* of Jesus:
“This cup is the new covenant in my blood,
which is poured out for you” (Luke 22.20).
Hebrews 9.16-17 suggests that without the death of the testator the will (i.e., “testament”) is not yet in effect.
Hebrews 8:13 reads:
“When He said, ‘A new
covenant,’ He has made the
first obsolete. But whatever is
becoming obsolete and
growing old is ready to
disappear.”
We’re also told that the condemnation of the Law (the charges brought forth against us) would be nullified or cancelled as a legal code by Christ’s *death* (cf. Col. 2.13-14).
Galatians 3:23 reads:
“But before faith came, we were kept in
custody under the law, being shut up to
the faith which was later to be revealed.”
Galatians 3:24 explains:
“Therefore the Law has become our tutor
to lead us to Christ, that we may be
justified by faith.”
Thus, Galatians 3:25 declares:
“But now that faith has come, we are no
longer under a tutor [Law].”
Conclusion
It’s absolutely clear from the New Testament that without the *death* of Christ the Law is still in effect, as well as the charges levelled against humanity by its moral code. In other words, if Christ hasn’t died, then those who are reborn in Christ are retroactively *saved-by-faith-in-the-promises-of-God* but are not fully and literally saved yet. That’s why the Holy Spirit is given to regenerated human beings as a deposit, not as a full payment or reward:
“[He] set his seal of ownership on us, and
put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit,
guaranteeing what is to come (2 Cor. 1.22
NIV).”
Nevertheless Paul seemingly says that he believes that Christ is able to protect what he has “entrusted to Him until that day” when he fulfills it and presumably *dies* for him:
“For this reason I also suffer these things,
but I am not ashamed; for I know whom I
have believed and I am convinced that He
is able to guard what I have entrusted to
Him until that day” (2 Tim. 1.12 NASB).
And when is that day? It is the day of Christ’s sacrifice and atoning death that transpires in “the fullness of time” (Gal 4.4; Eph. 1.9-10)! This eschatological motif is present throughout the New Testament: from Rev. 12.5 to Rev. 19.10 to Rev. 22.7 to 1 Jn 2.28, we constantly find the theme that Christ will appear “once at the consummation of the ages” to *die* for sin (Heb. 9.26b NASB), which is also confirmed in Eph. 1.10 and Gal. 4.4!
Therefore, if Jesus hasn’t died yet, we are all still under the Law. And thus if he appears “once for all at the end of the age” (Heb. 9.26b NRSV), then he, too, is “born under the law.”
Footnotes
[1] In using the term “abolish” I
don’t mean the eradication of
the moral standard completely.
Rather, I mean to abolish the
law as a soteriological means;
as a way to salvation, as well as
a means of condemnation.
Was Mythicism or Historicism More Dominant In the Early History and Development of the Christian Church?
By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim
——-
Preface
There are certain things in the Bible that we all take for granted today, such as the historicity of Jesus, his execution by Pontius Pilate, and the like. We think that these “facts” were written in stone and have been known since Christianity’s inception. How can anyone seriously challenge them?
——-
Christian Origins
But early Christianity was not monolithic. It was diverse. There were many different sects that held very different views both about Jesus and the interpretation of the New Testament. Orthodoxy eventually won the day but that doesn’t mean that they necessarily represented the sect that held the hermeneutically-correct and valid Bible interpretations or that they had the correct view about Jesus. Far from it. There were, in fact, diametrically opposed views that ranged from one extreme to another, from a completely human Jesus to a phantom or a ghost that never really existed. But, as we will see, there is a middle ground where mythicism and historicism meet.
——-
Gnosticism
The New Testament is a literary creation. So it’s difficult to probe its historical antecedents. What were some of the opposing views to “Orthodoxy”? One of the most vocal of these Christian sects was centred in Alexandria, Egypt: the Gnostics. They were the first advocates of the “you-don’t-need-religion, you-need-a-relationship-with-Jesus” pitch. Although there were many splinter groups, they all emphasised a personal “gnosis” (knowledge) and acquaintance with spiritual realities rather than a preoccupation with dry religious discourses and traditions. They originated in the first century C.E. and flourished until the second century, during which the Patristic Fathers denounced them as heretics. But were they? According to Bart Ehrman and Elaine Pagels, they were the genuine Christians of that early period whom the Orthodox Church tried to suppress!
——-
To be sure, their theology was influenced by Greek thought, but the focal point of their doctrine and practice was not based on rhetoric or dogma but rather on personal existential experience. And based on their own inimitable style, one can infer that they had better insights into the divine than their orthodox counterparts who did little more than debate the issues.
——-
Docetism
Then there were the Docetists, who held the “heterodox” (i.e. “at variance with orthodoxy”) doctrine that what appeared to be a historical Jesus was nothing more than an apparition or a phantom, and that his phenomenological bodily existence was not real. This is actually more in line with Scripture, which repeatedly talks of visions and apparitions in one form or another (cf. Lk 24.23–24; Gal. 1.11-12). These are the first mythicists who believed that Jesus never existed! There’s a great deal of Biblical evidence that supports this view. This early Christian view called “Docetism” (derived from the Greek term “Dokesis,” meaning “to seem”)——which held that Christ did not really exist in human form, an idea that was later picked up by Islam——attracted some of the greatest Biblical thinkers of Antiquity:
“According to Photius [a 9th century Byzantine Patriarch], Clement of Alexandria held at least a quasi-docetic belief regarding the nature of Christ, namely that the Word/Logos did not became flesh, but only ‘appeared to be in flesh,’ an interpretation which directly denied the reality of the incarnation” (Ashwin-Siejkowski, Piotr. “Clement of Alexandria on Trial: The Evidence of ‘Heresy’ from Photius’ Bibliotheca.” [Leiden: Brill, 2010], p. 95).
As would be expected, Docetism was eventually rejected as a heretical doctrine at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. But this verdict was issued in the 4th century. And there is a very good reason why mythicism had thitherto been on the upswing. In fact, despite this setback, the hermeneutical doctrine that gave rise to Docetism continued to hold sway over most of the church until the Reformation.
——-
The Monophysite Christian church
According to tradition, the Coptic Church of Egypt was founded by Mark the evangelist in the first century CE. Due to a Christological dispute, this “Monophysite” Christian church was condemned as heretical by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE. Instead of accepting the doctrine that Christ was fully human and fully divine, the Coptic church asserted that Christ had only one nature, and that nature was divine. In other words, just like the Docetists they denied the incarnation and therefore they can be technically defined as mythicists! A similar monophysite explanation of how the divine and human relate within the person of Jesus is Eutychianism. Eutychians were often classified as Phantasiasts by their opponents because they reduced Jesus’ incarnation to a phantasm or an illusion of some kind. Their Christology was along the lines of Docetism in that they, too, denied the full reality of Jesus’ humanity. Thus, we find that there were quite a number of sects that denied the historicity of Jesus during the early period of the church. Things started to change with the onset of the first ecumenical councils!
——-
The Alexandrian School
The early Christian church held to an allegorical (theological) Interpretation of the Bible, not a historical one. Philo’s essential approach to Biblical interpretation influenced the Christian School of hermeneutics, which also developed in the city of Alexandria, Egypt. One of its principal leaders was the Great Bible scholar, Clement of Alexandria (150-215 CE), who while acknowledging that the Bible contained various levels of meaning also realized that the non-literal (i.e. the allegorical/mystical) interpretations contained the ideal spiritual insights. Alexandrian hermeneutics were so popular that they eventually became the dominant force in Biblical interpretation up until the time of the Protestant Reformation. So, the allegorical/theological Biblical interpretation that gave rise to such views as Docetism was the mainstay of early Biblical scholarship. This method was obviously more inclined towards the spiritual, the metaphorical, and the metaphysical, dare I say the Gnostic!
——-
The School of Antioch
Sometime towards the end of the 3rd century CE, the School of Antioch was founded. It was the first Seminary, so to speak, founded in Syria that overemphasized the literal interpretation of the Bible and the humanity of Christ. This so-called “exegetical school” interpreted Scripture primarily according to its historical and grammatical sense. In an attempt to offset the earlier excesses of Biblical interpretation that could lead to various questionable doctrines, such as those of Docetism, the Antioch school became increasingly dogmatic and heavily involved in overemphasizing the literal interpretation of the Bible and the full humanity of Jesus. This led to the so-called “Nestorian Heresy,” namely that Jesus possessed two hypostases, one human and one divine! As a result of the condemnation of Nestorius (386 – 450 CE) at the First Council of Ephesus in 431, the Antioch school’s influence declined considerably and never really recovered. Many followers abandoned the school and it eventually moved to another location further East in Persia. Even though the Antiochian school’s tenets had lost traction, they were eventually taken up again by Martin Luther and John Calvin, who restored them to their former glory.
——-
Conclusion
So, the earlier Alexandrian School of allegorical interpretation at least allowed the possibility of mythicism to be considered as a viable option, whereas the later Antiochian school of literal interpretation——which influenced not only “the dogma of Christ” in the early ecumenical councils, but also modern Bible scholarship——eventually became the dominant school of hermeneutics that held to a rigid form of literalism and overemphasized the historicity of Jesus. In other words, the early church was not as adamant about the historicity of Jesus as the later Church! Thus, up until the end of the third century (the Ante-Nicene Era), and just prior to the onset of the first ecumenical council, the allegorical/metaphorical Jesus dominated the Biblical landscape. It was not until much later that the literal, historical interpretation of Jesus became the prevalent view that it is today!
——-