#biblical languages

[id: thumbnail for a youtube vid labeled “Bible Tools Tour 1: Looking Up the Hebrew & Greek when you don’t know Hebrew & Greek!” Part of a Bible passage in both Hebrew and English with grammar notations is visible, with an image of me, a white nonbinary person with short brown hair, smiles at the viewer from the lower right corner.  / end id]

Hey y’all, i’m starting a video series where i show how YOU (yes, you!) can use free online resources to explore a Bible passage’s original language even if you don’t know it yourself! My goal is to make biblical exegesis as accessible to as many people as possible.

Most importantly, I offer examples of why it matters -- how knowing what's in the Hebrew or Greek, and what choices the makers of any given translated version made, can influence your interpretation of a passage

Feedback is super appreciated because it’s hard to gauge what’s like, common knowledge versus what needs deeper explanation when you’re personally very knowledgeable about a subject, ya know? So tell me if the video makes sense! If it’s helpful or if you’re totally lost! What questions ya have! what more you wanna see! and so on!

(Even if you don’t have time to watch the whole video, just watching a portion or two of it could be useful to you and feedback you have on those parts would help me!)

More details about what this video holds can be found under the readmore, or in the YouTube video description.

Is 1 John 5:20 Indicating a Past Event?

By Bible Researcher and Author Eli Kittim 🇬🇷 🇺🇸

Inaccurate Bible Translations

It appears that most English translations of 1 John 5:20 say that the Son of God “has come” or “is come” when referring to Jesus Christ. Specifically, they say “that the Son of God has come” (see e.g. NIV, NLT, ESV, BSB, NKJV, NASB, CSB, HCSB, GNT, ISV, LSV, NAB, NET Bible, NRSV, NHEB, WNT, WEB). The rest of the Bible versions use the variant “is come,” which is an archaic form of English. This construction employs the term “come” as an unaccusative intransitive verb. Essentially, to say “that the Son of God is come” (e.g. BLB, KJV, ASV, DRB, YLT) not only implies the state of “having come” but also of “now being here” as well. The meaning of this construction is that “the Son of God” didn't simply come but that he is here right now! As you will see, the “is come” construction is actually closer to the original Greek text than “has come.” The worst Bible version is the AMP which makes explicit and ambitious statements that the Greek text does not make, while also adding foreign elements that are not found in the original. It’s the least faithful English translation. It reads:

And we [have seen and] know [by personal

experience] that the Son of God has

[actually] come [to this world].

Grammatical Parsing & Concordance Studies

In 1 John 5:20, the key word in this sentence is the Greek verb ἥκει (hēkei), which is a present indicative active, 3rd person singular (Strong's 2240: meaning, “to be present”). The term ἥκει is derived from the verb ἥκω, which can mean “to come,” “I am present,” “to be present,” or “will come” (see https://biblehub.com/greek/2240.htm).

As a present active indicative verb, ἥκει describes a linear (ongoing) action, as opposed to a punctiliar (complete) action. Thus, ἥκει as a primary tense expresses the present & future times, whereas secondary or historical tenses (aorist, imperfect, pluperfect) express past time. So, present active indicative verbs show that the action happens in the present time. Therefore, the verb ἥκει, in 1 John 5:20, should be understood in the sense of an “ongoing present” action (in a transhistorical sense), otherwise the translation is not entirely accurate but rather misleading for the reader. Moreover, the fact that ἥκει describes an ongoing action in the *present tense* indicates that it should not be read as referring to an event that transpired in the past, during the writing of this letter, but rather to all generations of readers, that is to say, in the temporal context that they find themselves in. In other words, the term ἥκει in 1 John 5:20 should be equally read in the *present tense* whether a person is living in the Middle Ages or in the 21st century. It should not be understood as a completed event that took place in the past.

In cross-reference studies, e.g. in Luke 15:27, notice that ἥκει is translated as “is here” (now)! See the Christian Standard Bible & Holman Christian Standard Bible translations:

Your brother is here, he told him, and your

father has slaughtered the fattened calf

because he has him back safe and sound.

And in John 2:4 ἥκει is rendered as referring to the future: “My hour has not yet come” (οὔπω ἥκει ἡ ὥρα μου).

English Standard Version:

And Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, what does

this have to do with me? My hour has not

yet come.’

Conclusion

As you can see, the translation “has come”——which gives the false impression of an event that happened and was completed in the past——is obviously misleading and not faithful to the original Greek text!

The more I research the Bible, the more evidence I find of corruptions and mistranslations. Similar to the way in which almost all translations of Acts 1:11 wrongly render the Greek term ἐλεύσεται as “come back,” most translations of ἥκει in 1 John 5:20 wrongly render it as “has come.” That’s why I parsed it for you. So that we can analyze the sentence into its various components and thereby define their syntactic roles.

Another key word in 1 John 5:20 is δέδωκεν (dedōken), which is a verb, perfect indicative active, 3rd person singular. It comes from δίδωμι, which means “give.” So, all in all, when you consider the intricate workings of this sentence you will have a better appreciation of the fact that the present active indicative verb ἥκει describes a linear (ongoing) action, as opposed to a punctiliar (complete) action. Here, then, is my rendition of 1 John 5:20 (SBLGNT):

οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ἥκει, καὶ

δέδωκεν ἡμῖν διάνοιαν ἵνα γινώσκωμεν τὸν

ἀληθινόν· καὶ ἐσμὲν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ, ἐν τῷ

υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ. οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ

ἀληθινὸς θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος.

Eli Kittim translation (Formal equivalence):

We know, then, that the son of God comes

and gives to us intelligence so that we

might know the true——and we are in the

true, [if we are] in his son——Jesus Christ.

This is the true God and life eternal.

This is the PDF of my article——published in the Journal of Higher Criticism, volume 13, number 3 (Fall 2018)——entitled, The Birth, Death, and Resurrection of Christ According to the Greek New Testament Epistles.

What does the Johannine Jesus mean in John 14.3 when he says, “if I go . . . I will come back”?

By Writer Eli Kittim

——-

SBLGNT:

καὶ ἐὰν πορευθῶ καὶ ἑτοιμάσω τόπον ὑμῖν, πάλιν ἔρχομαι καὶ παραλήμψομαι ὑμᾶς πρὸς ἐμαυτόν, ἵνα ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγὼ καὶ ὑμεῖς ἦτε (Jn. 14.3).

Translation:

“If I go away and prepare a place for you, I will come back and receive you to Myself, so that where I am you may be also” (HCSB).

——-

Definitions

In John 14.3, one of the meanings of the Greek word πορεύομαι (I go) is “die.” It can also mean “travel,” “journey,” or “go.” It comes from the root word “poros,” which means “passageway.” Thus, the connotation is “to depart.”

——-

Is Jesus a General Contractor Or Does He Mean Something Else?

So the question arises: is Jesus going to Heaven to begin preparation and arrangements for the biggest building projects in Heaven’s history? Is that what he really means? Is he going away in order to supervise large developments that will serve as living quarters for humans who will one day be transported there? Is that what he means? And then he will “come back” thousands of years later when the projects have been completed, for it takes a long time to build such ambitious developments? Is that the proper biblical interpretation of what he means when he says, “I go away and prepare a place for you”?

——-

Old Testament Parallels

First, let’s start with a basic question: how does Jesus “prepare a place” for us? Is it by using lawn mowers, cement, bricks, architectural plans, tractors, and the like? Or is it through other means? Obviously, since Jesus’ teachings are spiritually-based, it would seem pointless to look toward materialistic explanations. Therefore, we must look for parallels and verbal agreements elsewhere in the Bible in order to find out exactly what he means. For example, in Isaiah 14.21, to “Prepare a place” means to prepare a slaughtering place מַטְבֵּ֖חַ (matbeach) in order “to slaughter his children for the sins of their ancestors” (cf. Mt. 23.35 NIV). Therefore, in preparing a place, a slaughter house is indicated. Similarly, within the passion narrative, when the Johannine Jesus uttered these words, we knew exactly where he was going; namely, to his death! According to Christian theology, the atonement, namely, the “cross” or the •slaughterhouse•, prepares a place for us through the forgiveness of sins, so that we might become the sons and daughters of God through the blood of Jesus. So, it turns out that Jesus is not going to Heaven; he’s going to his death!

——-

Jesus Will “Come Back” Not from Heaven But from Death

Second, as already mentioned, in the Greek, the word for “go” (πορευθῶ), in the phrase “if I go,” can mean “to go,” to “journey,” to “die,” or to “depart.” Thus, when the Johannine Jesus says “If I go away and prepare a place for you, I will come back,” is he referring to a second coming that will occur possibly thousands of years later, or does he mean something else? Something, perhaps, related to why he is going away in the first place? Based on the aforementioned exegesis, it seemingly means that he “will come back” from the dead (cf. Heb. 9.26-28). Accordingly, it turns out that in John 14.1-3 Jesus is not talking about going to Heaven and then returning in a second coming thousands of years later. Rather, he’s referring to his sacrificial death, which prepares the way to Heaven for all humanity, after which he soon returns from the dead for the rapture (to “receive you to Myself”) and for our ultimate ascension into Heaven. So, whereas the classic interpretation proposed bizarre and remote gaps in chronology between Jesus’ death and resurrection, as well as His appearance in the sky out of nowhere centuries later, the current interpretation is robust precisely because it follows the biblical jargon closely and understands it to be a natural contemporaneous sequence of events within one single lifetime.

——-

New Testament Parallels

Third, John 14.3 can certainly mean “I go to my death” precisely because a similar phrase (“I’m ready to go” away)——using the exact same Greek word πορεύομαι——is used elsewhere in the New Testament to mean that the person is going “to [his] death”:

SBLGNT

ἕτοιμός εἰμι καὶ εἰς θάνατον πορεύεσθαι (Luke 22:33).

Translation:

“I'm ready to go . . . to death!" (HCSB).

Thus, the translation and exegesis of the Biblical languages from both the Old and New Testaments confirms that Jesus is seemingly predicting his death in John 14.3. Jesus is basically saying, “I prepare a place for you” by dying for you!

——-

Jesus is Not Preparing a House; He’s Preparing an Atonement

Fourth, contextually speaking, even Jn 14.2 (the previous verse) demonstrates that Jesus rejects the notion that his message is about living accommodations. Indeed, he stresses that Heaven already has all the accommodations it needs. If it didn’t, he would have told us. In other words, that’s NOT what he meant, and so he switches gears, so to speak, and ends the verse by saying, “I go to prepare a place for you” (πορεύομαι ἑτοιμάσαι τόπον ὑμῖν):

“In My Father's house are many dwelling places; if not, I would have told you. I am going away to prepare a place for you” (HCSB).

The question is, where does he go? Answer: to his death. He must die first. That’s the clue. That’s where he goes because “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Heb. 9.22 HCSB). And we already know from the gospel narratives precisely where he intends to go, and how the story ends!

——-

Jesus Will “Come Back” For the Resurrection and the Rapture

Fifth, then in v. 3 he says, “If I go . . . I will come back and receive you to Myself, so that where I am you may be also.” That sounds like “rapture” language (cf. 1 Thess. 4.16-17), which resembles the resurrection theme in Heb. 9.28 that closely follows the death motif in Heb. 9.26b. John 14.3 employs the term παραλήμψομαι, which comes from the verb παραλαμβάνω and means “I take”——cf. “taken” [as in the rapture] at Gen. 5.24 & Mt. 24.40-41—-or “I receive.” So, the “come back” motif could certainly imply a •resurrection from the dead.• It is not out of the question precisely because it’s not a “parousia” that the text is referring to but rather a “come back” πάλιν ἔρχομαι (cf. ἐκ δευτέρου “for a second time” rather than παρουσία in Heb. 9.28). Therefore, just as in Luke 22.33 in which the going away (πορεύομαι) is a going forth to one’s death, so the “come back” theme in Jn 14.3 can certainly imply from the grave, from death, that is, to receive us in the “rapture.”

——-

Conclusion: The Events of John 14.3 Obviously Suggest A Futurist Eschatological Model

The logical conclusion of this brief study leads to the final question, namely, if Jesus’ death and resurrection are closely followed by the “rapture,” then how could this contemporaneous sequence of events take place in first century Palestine? It could not! Thus, if the Jesus-saying, “if I go away . . . I will come back” means that Jesus will *come-back-from-the-dead* for the •rapture,• then obviously John 14.3 can only be interpreted through a future eschatological model that would account for the contemporaneity of these events! That’s precisely why Jesus says, “In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me” (Jn 16.16).

The New Testament Epistolary literature certainly supports such a model through numerous references (cf. 1 Jn 2.28; Rev. 12.5; 19.10d NRSV). Due to time constraints, I will confine myself to two examples:

1) “Once in the end of the world hath he [Jesus] appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice [death] of himself” (Heb. 9.26b KJV emphasis added).

2) “He was marked out before the world was made, and was revealed at the final point of time” (1 Pet. 1.20 NJB emphasis added).

The Christian Dilemma: Did Jesus Live in Antiquity or in the Last Days?

Eli of Kittim

If the New Testament is inspired, we would expect its language to be consistent and non-conflicting. So, if the New Testament uses language concerning the end-times which is only consistent with the last days of human history, then why would we confuse this language with the time of classical antiquity, with first-century Palestine, or the end of Second Temple Judaism? The New Testament would have been inconsistent and utterly confusing if it were using the exact same language to mean two completely different and contradictory things at the same time and in the same place. For starters, it would contradict the law of noncontradiction which states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. Yet that’s exactly what mainstream New Testament interpretation maintains, namely, that the “last days” refer to both the past and the future. That interpretation appears to be completely bogus and profoundly misinformed, relying on false assumptions rather than precise linguistic evidence.

Therefore, we have to distinguish between the New Testament language that refers to classical antiquity versus that which refers to the end of days. For example, when we find idiomatic language in the New Testament——such as “the consummation of the ages,” “the culmination of the ages,” “the end of the ages,” “the fullness of time,” or the “last days”——which is consistently referring to the end of the world, to the lake of fire, to the harvest, to the separation of the righteous from the wicked, to judgment day, and to the end of days, we can’t possibly use this exact same language to refer to first-century Palestine or to the end of the Jewish age in 70 CE. This would clearly be a contradiction in terms and totally absurd! It would be mixing apples and oranges. That’s because it would represent an anachronism, that is to say, a chronological inconsistency in which these phrases are placed outside their proper time-period.

Thus, the question arises, why would the New Testament literature present this linguistic dichotomy not only to represent the end-times but also the time of classical antiquity? How can two mutually exclusive time-periods be mentioned in the same breath, using the exact same terms? That is not what’s happening. The New Testament actually uses a different language to refer to the last days, and a completely different set of expressions when referencing the time of classical antiquity or the end of the Old Testament. So what are these different literary expressions, and what do they mean?

Well, to begin with, we have two different literary genres or literary forms in the New Testament that are set under the general heading of form criticism, which is a method of classifying biblical passages according to literary patterns. One genre is represented by the gospels, which were written towards the close of the first century, and which are trying to tell a story using literary characters, dialogues, drama, intrigue, rhetorical and theological devices, and various other literary techniques, set in the form of a theatrical play.

On the other hand, we have a different stylistic form, namely, the “letters” or epistles, some of which were the earliest writings of the New Testament, which are more matter-of-fact, expository writings, that are basically trying to teach us spiritual principles, and which are not interested in using literary characters, dialogues, or rhetorical devices in the literary style of the gospels. So, we have two completely different genres, namely, the gospels and the epistles. One focuses on story-telling, the other on explanations and facts. One can be considered a theological genre, the other an expository genre.

The question is, are the gospels and the epistles telling the same story about the same time, the same place, and the same events that happen in the life of Jesus, or are they essentially talking about two fundamentally different time-periods? And if they are indeed talking about two different and distinct time-periods, then why would they use the exact same linguistic terms to refer to both of them? For example, when the epistles talk about the time-period of Jesus’ first appearance and subsequent death, they claim that he appears in the “last days,” or “at the final point of time,” and that he dies “once in the end of the world,” “at the consummation of the ages,” or at the conclusion of human history, that is to say, “at the end of the ages”! These idiomatic expressions can be found in places like Hebrews 9:26, First Peter 1:20, Hebrews 1:1-2, and so on. There is also the recurrent motif that Jesus is born in the end-times, which is presented in Revelation 12:5 as well as in Galatians 4:4 (“the fullness of time”; cf. Ephesians 1:9-10)! So, the question is, if Jesus lived in the middle of the first century, then why would the epistles place the timing of his life and death in end-time categories? That wouldn’t make any sense, would it? Nor would it be consistent with the language that is used to refer to the last days!

The basis of Christian theology is centered around the gospels, which suggest that Jesus is a historical figure from the first century CE, despite the fact that there is nary a mention of Jesus by contemporary authors, comprising biblical scholars, historians, and biographers, such as Philo of Alexandria or Plutarch. Nevertheless, the gospels give us the story of Jesus in relation to historical figures, places, and events, such as the time of his birth during the reign of Caesar Augustus (27 BCE – 14 CE), his whereabouts in early childhood, such as the flight to Egypt (a narrative that mirrors the story of Moses), and the time of his public ministry and crucifixion during the governorship of Pontius Pilate who served as the Roman prefect (governor) of Judaea from approximately 26 to 37 CE.

So we are trapped in two historical time-periods, not knowing which genre is giving us the actual timing, and which one is giving us a theological or non-historical rendering. The confusion is as follows. Are the gospels giving us the actual time of Jesus’ historicity, or are the epistles giving us the actual timing of Jesus’s birth, life, death, and resurrection? That’s the fundamental question, and that’s what I call, the Christian dilemma! The only way it can be answered is by looking at what the language of the New Testament actually says. The epistles clearly use a distinct language that is associated specifically with the end-times when referencing Jesus’ birth, life, and death. Why would two different genres of the New Testament present the time-period of Jesus’ life in two completely different ways, each using a different language? This is why many interpreters confuse the different terms that the New Testament uses as if they are all talking about the same time-period.

Some people don’t see this linguistic dichotomy at all and therefore confuse the language of the end-times, assuming that it refers to both classical antiquity and the end of days, but a close grammatical study of the New Testament shows that it clearly doesn’t. In fact, the language that is used concerning the end of days does not in any way, shape, or form apply to the time of classical antiquity or to first-century Palestine. We have to get it through our heads that two completely different time-periods are mentioned, each with its own distinct terminology and context. We have to be clear about that, otherwise we will be confused about what we’re reading and end up misattributing historical events, timelines, and time periods, to the point that the overall picture will become increasingly chaotic and confusing. That’s when biblical exegesis is needed the most.

So, if the timeline of Jesus‘ life is referring to the end of days, then there’s no question that this cannot be applied to first-century Palestine. Under no circumstances can we say that the New Testament language is referring to both time-periods. If the New Testament language is simultaneously referring to both the time of classical antiquity and the end of human history, that would represent an anachronism that would devolve into complete and utter nonsense. It’s like saying that antiquity and the end-times are one and the same.

New Testament interpretation has therefore created a Christian dilemma and an apparent contradiction because there are two different genres at work. One is a theological genre; the other a prophetic genre. If we don’t get this point right, we are left in a Christian dilemma because anytime we claim that the gospels are giving us history, critics could rightly argue that the language of the New Testament epistles seems to contradict the time-period of Jesus‘ life by placing it in eschatological categories. So, that’s the Christian dilemma. And it’s simply this: Did Jesus live and die in classical antiquity or in the last days? The narratives of the gospels seemingly present the former assumption, while the language of the epistles clearly suggests the latter view.

For more on this topic, see the following essays:

The Time of the End: End of the Old Testament or End of the World?

When is the end of the age?

the entirety of the bible was written in a form of middle greco-aramaic, and then translated into classical hebrew and/ or koine greek, then translated again into various other languages. middle greco-aramaic is a common ancestor language to both hebrew and greek.