Three Questions On The Rapture: Is It Pre-Trib Or Post-Trib? Is It Secret Or Not? And Is It Imminent?

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).

Eli of Kittim

WHO IS THE FIRST HORSEMAN OF THE APOCALYPSE?

By Eli of Kittim THERE ARE NO COUNTERFEIT SIGNS IN THE BIBLE There are no counterfeit signs found anywhere in the Bible. So why should

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 Seven Churches of Revelation: History or Prophecy?

By Published Author Eli Kittim

Preachers whose sermons are on the 7 churches of Revelation assume that the context is of historical significance and therefore usually focus on the moral implications, but they completely miss the most important prophetic elements of the text, such as the background setting (i.e. the place where the narrative takes place), the significant players that are mentioned, the temporal sequence of events, as well as the apocalyptic symbolism that weaves everything together into a unity.

Unlike the typical “a-church-after-God’s-heart” homily that you’ve often heard regarding the 7 so-called historical churches in Revelation, I would like to draw your attention instead to the unique setting of the Book, to its arrangement of scenery: its mise-en-scène, if you will! Viewing the first chapters of Revelation from this angle will allow us to gain a new perspective on the Seven Churches of Asia and free our hermeneutic from the typical proleptic and anachronistic interpretations that have been irresponsibly applied to the text time and time again.

From beginning to end, Revelation claims to be an exclusively prophetic Book (cf. Rev. 1.1, 3, 19; 22.7, 10, 18, 19)! If we treat it as a Book on history, however, we will inevitably distort its futurist message, which undeniably comprises apocalyptic visions, and ultimately contradict its authorial intention. Yet that is precisely how the first 3 chapters of Revelation have been traditionally read, that is, as contemporaneous events and happenings during the time of John in the first century CE. But perhaps we are not reading them correctly. I’m suggesting a mode of interpretation that is consistent with the rest of the Book, namely, that the first three chapters of Revelation have a prophetic role to play whose sole purpose is to provide an outline of how the end-times begin!

Bearing this in mind, let us now see how the Apocalypse of John is actually presented to the reader. The Book opens with a declaration to promulgate “the words of the prophecy” (Rev. 1.3 NRSV):

“Blessed is the one who reads aloud the

words of the prophecy, and blessed are

those who hear and who keep what is

written in it; for the time is near.”

And so from the very outset this Book claims to contain a prophecy. It does not seem to be interested in conveying history. Next, we are told that John, who is the recipient of this future revelation, is also, by way of the Spirit, an *eschatological* partaker in the coming tribulation or persecution of Christianity in Asia Minor (i.e. Modern-day Turkey), and that he is figuratively situated on the Greek island of Patmos “because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.” Given that John claims to be “in the spirit on the Lord’s day [i.e. on the day of the Lord]” (Rev. 1.9-11), his mise-en-scène (i.e. the arrangement or setting of scenery) seems to have prophetic rather than historical value:

“I, John, your brother who share with you in

Jesus the persecution and the kingdom and

the patient endurance, was on the island

called Patmos because of the word of God

and the testimony of Jesus. I was in the

spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind

me a loud voice like a trumpet saying,

‘Write in a book what you see and send it to

the seven churches, to Ephesus, to Smyrna,

to Pergamum, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to

Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.’ “

Thus, John is basically instructed to write 7 letters to the Christian Churches that are facing persecution in Turkey! If we temporarily suspend Eusebius’ “Church History” in which John is portrayed as an exile——the accuracy of which has often been called into question——we can begin to view the *eschatological* scenery that the Book of Revelation is actually depicting. If in fact the Book of Revelation is an overlay of the end-time events described also in Mt. 24, then it must naturally start with “the beginning of the birth pangs” (Mt. 24.8) that lead up to the “great suffering” (Mt. 24.21), otherwise known as the Great Tribulation. And indeed it does! Moreover, we find Turkey also playing a prominent role in Ezekiel 38, the famous chapter on end-times prophecy!

The Ezekiel 38 War

Ezekiel 38 names a confederacy of nations that will invade many countries, including Israel, in the last days. Although there have been debates among scholars as to the precise location of some of these ancient regions, most of them have been identified with a certain degree of confidence. Of the several regions mentioned by Ezekiel, who is putting pen to parchment in the 6th century BCE, the majority of them were located in what we today would call Turkey. For example, Beth-Togarmah and Gomer are viewed as ancient regions in Asia Minor [Turkey].

Although there are admittedly conflicting reports with scholars being divided on the issue of the origins of Meshech and Tubal (as to whether they represent Russia or Turkey), the following list shows some of the historical research supporting a Turkish connection:

1. The Oxford Bible Atlas says of Meshech and Tubal that they’re “regions in Asia Minor [Turkey].”

2. The IVP Bible Background Commentary lists Meshech, Tubal, and Togarmah as “sections or peoples in Asia Minor” [Turkey].

3. The New Bible Dictionary places both Meshech and Tubal in Turkey.

4. Ralph Alexander, Old Testament scholar, in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary says, “Meshech and Tubal refer to areas in eastern Turkey, southwest of Russia and northwest of Iran.”

5. Edwin Yamauchi, scholar and historian places both Meshech and Tubal in modern day Turkey.

6. Mark Hitchcock, pastor, author and well-known prophecy teacher, places Meshech and Tubal in modern day Turkey.

7. Tim Lahaye and Ed Hindson, in their Encyclopedia of Popular Bible Prophecies, also place both Meshech and Tubal in Turkey.

8. Ron Rhodes, author and teacher in his book, Northern Storm Rising, also places Meshech and Tubal in Turkey.

9. Chuck Missler in his article, Meshech-Tubal Tensions with Syria also places Meshech and Tubal in modern day Turkey.

*Source Credit: Dalton Thomas

Therefore, of the eight regions mentioned in Ezek. 38.1-6, at least four of them are identified as parts of modern-day Turkey. And since this invasion is set to begin “in the latter years” (Ezek. 38.8), it demonstrates that Turkey will figure prominently in this campaign!

The other thing to notice, here, is that almost all the nations mentioned in Ezek. 38 were once part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. For instance, Cush comprised the area of modern-day Ethiopia or Sudan, just south of Egypt, Put was where modern Libya and Algeria (N. Africa) are located, while Tubal, Gomer, Togarmah, and Meshech were apparently in Asia Minor. And parts of Persia were also under Ottoman rule during the Ottoman-Persian wars. All in all, Ezek. 38 sounds like it’s describing a resurgence of the Ottoman Empire, consisting of an Islamic coalition of nations! Similarly, in Revelation 12.1, the woman who gives birth to the messiah at the end of days is said to have “the moon under her feet.” That is the symbol of Islam. Therefore, if a revived Ottoman Empire is indicated in the Gog-Magog War, which leads up to the battle of Armageddon, then this means that Turkey must also be either explicitly or implicitly mentioned in the Book of Revelation! Hence the Turkish persecution of the 7 churches in the Book of Revelation!

The Prophecies of Paisios of Mount Athos

A number of extra-biblical prophecies have been attributed to Elder Paisios (1924–1994), a highly respected Greek Eastern-Orthodox ascetic from Mount Athos. They include the prediction that a future geopolitical war between Greece and Turkey will spill over and draw Russia into the conflict against Turkey, which will be the latter’s ultimate demise. Similarly, there’s a prophecy attributed to the 18th century Rabbi Elijah of Vilna, aka the Vilna Gaon, in which he purportedly said that Messiah will come right after “the Russians have reached the city of Constantinople [Istanbul].” In fact, Elder Paisios said that the trigger point of Greek-Turkish hostilities will be reached when Greece extends its territorial waters from 6 to 12 nautical miles. Recently, Greece and Turkey are at variance with each other over the demarcation of sea borders and the right to explore hydrocarbon resources in the Mediterranean. There have been both air and naval incidents, tensions and hostilities have flared up and are steadily increasing since August of 2020. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the incumbent President of Turkey, in violation of international law continues to employ intimidation tactics and war-narratives in an effort to reinforce his expansionist plans. It’s no secret that he wants to rebuild the Ottoman Empire and restore its former glory. He also aspires to become the Caliph, the supreme ruler of the Muslim world! However, France has come to Greece’s aid with naval support in a countermeasure to push Erdoğan back. This situation is a disaster waiting to happen. In fact, Devlet Bahçeli, the Head of the Turkish National Movement Party, recently declared that war with Greece is “just a matter of time.” More to the point, Greece recently extended its territorial waters from 6 to 12 nautical miles in the Ionian Sea, sending a message to Turkey that it will soon do the same in the Aegean! According to Elder Paisios, this will be the trigger point of the conflict. At present, the situation in Turkey is very tense as Erdoğan has *persecuted* and shut down *Christian churches* while reverting Hagia Sophia to a mosque. That’s equivalent to the Israelis turning the Al-Aqsa Mosque into a Jewish Synagogue. It’s deplorable and provocative! It has caught the attention of the international community that has unanimously condemned this action. At any rate, this current standoff might explode into a full-blown war. According to some experts, this armed conflict over oil and gas reserves seems unavoidable! And that’s precisely where the Book of Revelation begins.

The Book of Revelation Opens with the Greek Islands, on the one hand, and the Persecuted Churches in Turkey, on the other!

In Revelation 17.9-10, John mentions the Empire that exists *contemporaneously* with the prophetic events of Revelation as they are temporally unfolding:

“This calls for a mind that has wisdom: the

seven heads are seven mountains on which

the woman is seated; also, they are seven

kings, of whom five have fallen, one is living,

and the other has not yet come; and when

he comes, he must remain only a little while.”

As regards the 8 empires of Revelation 17, John says that “five have fallen.” According to Dan. 2, that would be Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, and Byzantium. The One that “Is Living” at present is the Sixth One, which presumably persecutes the Christian Churches of Anatolia in the opening chapters of Revelation, namely, the Ottoman Empire of the Turks, which defeated the Byzantines in 1453. Incidentally, we know that John is not referring to the 1st century CE because the empire that “is living” at that time is the 4th (Rome), according to Daniel 2.40-42; 7.7. By contrast, Rev. 17.10 is referring to the prophesied 6th Empire as the “one [that] is still reigning” (WNT)! It could also be said that the Ottoman Empire actually triggered the End-Times (cf. Mt. 24.6-9) at the outset of the 20th century through the unprecedented Christian Persecutions & Genocides of Anatolia (Greek/Armenian), just prior to WWI and WWII, the brunt of which lasted for approximately 7 years, thus symbolizing the Tribulation of the 7 Christian Churches of Asia Minor that usher in the end of days in the Book of Revelation. So, in John’s own words, the empire that “is living” *now* (contemporaneously with the 7 churches) is the 6th empire: the Ottoman Empire. Why would John mention that in chapter 17 and verse 10? It’s obviously not Rome, as most people think. Rome was the 4th empire. It’s probably because the end-times will commence with a conflict pertaining to Asia Minor (Turkey). Think about it. Revelation is inundated with future predictions. Why would it spend its first 3 chapters on past or current events if it is said to be “The revelation of Jesus Christ” that contains information of “what must soon take place” (Rev. 1.1)?

Moreover, John tells us categorically and unequivocally that he was on the island of Patmos “in the spirit” (Rev. 1.10), NOT in the flesh! It appears, then, that John is on Patmos figuratively, not literally, in order to pronounce the testimony, which “is the spirit of prophecy” (Rev. 19.10d). What is more, John doesn’t tell us that he’s in exile. That is an extra-biblical interpretation. It’s a speculation that is not found in the text. This tradition, which says that John was banished to Patmos by the Roman authorities, is not credible because, although banishment was a common form of punishment by Rome for various offenses, nevertheless Tertullian’s account (in The Prescription of Heretics) is flavored with myth and legend given that he claims that John was banished after being plunged into boiling oil in Rome and suffering nothing from it. This obviously fits in the category of urban legends. Nor does the author of Revelation say that he is on the island of Patmos physically. Rather, he says that he is there “in the spirit” in order to give us the scenery, so to speak, the prophetic background of how the tribulation begins “on the Lord’s day” (Rev. 1.10) or on the day of the Lord!

Conclusion

Revelation 1.3 explicitly states that this is an exclusively prophetic Book which is not concerned with past history. The prophetic implications are further reinforced by its author, John, who claims to be “in the spirit on the Lord’s day [i.e. on the day of the Lord]” (Rev. 1.9-11). Thus, the mise-en-scène (i.e. the arrangement or setting of scenery) is itself part of the apocalyptic vision, which implicates Turkey in end-time events related to the Great Tribulation! Turkey is also implicated in the Ezekiel 38 War, which sets the stage for Armageddon, the final great battle between good and evil!

Furthermore, the prophecies of Paisios of Mount Athos center around an end-times conflict in the Mediterranean between Greece and Turkey, Biblically represented by Patmos and Asia Minor respectively, “where Satan's throne is” said to be located (Rev. 2.13). Moreover, what lends considerable support to my exegesis is the fact that John connects the timeline of the 7 churches account not with the Roman Empire (the 4th) but rather with the Ottoman Empire (the 6th), which is said to be currently reigning in Rev. 17.10. For example, we know that John is not referring to the 1st century CE because the empire that “is living” at that time is the 4th [Rome]. By contrast, Rev. 17.10 is explicitly referring to the so-called current empire that “is living” and reigning at that time, after “five have [already] fallen.” That would be the prophesied 6th empire, namely, the Ottoman Empire, the continuation of which is modern Turkey! Also, chapters 2 and 3 employ tribulation language, or the language of crisis. Given that chapters 2 and 3 reference the tribulation (θλῖψιν 2:9), and since authority and rule (2:26-27) and white garments (3:4-5) are promised therein to those who overcome, it is more than likely that these represent the tribulation saints (cf. Luke 22:30). Evidence for this comes by way of a parallel passage in Rev. 7:13-14 concerning those coming out of the Great Tribulation who “have washed their robes and made them white.” Therefore, these seemingly represent the overcomers of Revelation 2 and 3! In short, the first 3 chapters of Revelation are part of prophecy, NOT history, featuring Turkey as the epicenter of end-time events! In fact, our traditional proleptic and anachronistic interpretations——in which we have erroneously *added* a “historical” component to the first 3 chapters of Revelation, while *taking* “away from the words of the book of this prophecy”——are strongly condemned by the author himself (Rev. 22.18-19):

“I warn everyone who hears the words of the

prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to

them, God will add to that person the

plagues described in this book; if anyone

takes away from the words of the book of

this prophecy, God will take away that

person’s share in the tree of life and in the

holy city, which are described in this book.”

A Critical Review of the So-Called “Bible-Wheel” method of Biblical Interpretation

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

Like the Zohar in the Kabbalah, the “Bible-Wheel” approach is a kind of Hebraic “Gematria” or “Isopsephy” that corresponds to the letters of the Hebrew alphabet but does not take into consideration several important Biblical factors. For instance, it doesn’t consider the fact that the New Testament uses a different alphabet (i.e. Greek), nor does it seriously consider the historical-grammatical context of the New Testament books. The Bible Wheel’s premise is that “the Hebrew alphabet is established in the alphabetically structured passages of the Old Testament, most notably Psalm 119 that praises God's Word from Aleph to Tav, from beginning to end.” This “is a circular presentation of the Bible . . . by rolling up the traditional list of the sixty-six books like a scroll on a spindle wheel of twenty-two spokes.” Here’s how it works:

“The structure consists of a circular matrix of sixty-six Cells on a Wheel of twenty-two Spokes. The sixty-six Cells form three wheels within the Wheel called Cycles. Each Cycle spans a continuous sequence of twenty-two books as follows: With the completion of the Bible Wheel, we now have a fully unified view of the whole Bible as a symmetrical, mathematically structured two-dimensional object. The increase from the traditional one-dimensional list of books to the two-dimensional Bible Wheel immediately reveals a host of unanticipated correlations between the three books on each spoke with each other and the corresponding Hebrew Letter” (according to biblewheel.com).

This is more of an “intuitive” rather than a scholarly approach to the Bible that is devoid of historical, grammatical, hermeneutical, and contextual considerations. For example, the premise that the entire Biblical structure of the 66 canonical books is grounded exclusively in the Hebrew alphabet “from Aleph to Tav, from beginning to end” is debunked by Christ’s self-disclosure and promulgation of the Divine Name explicitly through the Greek alphabet:

ἐγὼ τὸ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ, ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος, ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ τέλος (SBLGNT).

Translation:

“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End” (Rev. 22.13 NRSV).

There is absolutely no correlation, here, to the Aleph and Tav or to the Hebrew alphabet. On the contrary, Christ reveals the divine name in the language of the Greeks by declaring “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.” The alpha and omega are the first and last letters of the Greek writing system, that is to say, the beginning and the end of the Greek alphabet!

What is more, the Bible wheel practice is based not on scholarly criteria (i.e. detailed exegesis/authorial intent) but rather on apparent coincidences (e.g. mathematical, alphabetic, Hebraic, etc.), sometimes explained through a matrix that we might call “synchronicity”:

//Synchronicity is a concept, first introduced by analytical psychologist Carl Jung, which holds that events are "meaningful coincidences" if they occur with no causal relationship yet seem to be meaningfully related. During his career, Jung furnished several different definitions of the term, defining synchronicity as an "acausal connecting (togetherness) principle;" "meaningful coincidence;" "acausal parallelism;” and as a "meaningful coincidence of two or more events where something other than the probability of chance is involved.// (Wiki).

Therefore, although it may have some symbolic preliminary merits, the Bible wheel practice is obviously not a credible or scholarly approach to Biblical investigation.

The notion that the 66 Books of the Bible can be put on an apparent wheel where each book directly coincides with some other book based on certain numerical, alphabetical, and Hebraic correlations seems to be an outlandish explanation! This practice, including its pictorial representation, is somewhat reminiscent of the medieval divination practices of occultism, such as Kabbalah, Cartomancy (i.e. Tarot card reading) and Numerology:

“Numerology is any belief in the divine or mystical relationship between a number and one or more coinciding events. It is also the study of the numerical value of the letters in words, names, and ideas. It is often associated with the paranormal, alongside astrology and similar divinatory arts” (Wiki).

——-

The idea behind the Bible-Wheel approach is that Biblical history repeats itself: that time is cyclical. What is the axiom of this interpretive method? As It Was, So Shall It Be… It, therefore, presupposes that there are thematic parallels (and secret codes) between the earlier books of the Bible and the later ones. Similar methods have been proposed by authors Perry Stone and Jonathan Cahn. Thus, with the exception of some trivial and peripheral similarities, I don’t see any major thematic affinities, say, between Jeremiah 17 and Revelation 2, as per the Bible-wheel interpretation.

——-

Let’s Look at Rev. 2

——-

The Church of Ephesus has a lot going for it. It endures with patience, does not tolerate evil, exposes falsehood, and bears much for the sake of Christ (Rev. 2.2-3). No such praise is ever mentioned in Jer. 17 in relation to to the Jews. Furthermore, despite some set backs, God promises certain divine rewards in Rev. 2 that are not mentioned in Jer. 17, namely, offering the faithful the crown of life (Rev. 2.10) as well as eternal life: “Whoever conquers will not be harmed by the second death” (Rev. 2.11), etc.

——-

Similarly, the Church of Pergamum, despite its shortcomings, is holding fast. Even though it’s located within Satan’s domain, so to speak, it’s holding on to Christ and has not denied the faith (Rev. 2.13).

Here, as before, Christ offers the divine manna and a mystic precious stone to the over-comers (Rev. 2.17). Nothing of the kind is ever referenced in Jer. 17.

——-

Also, the Church in Thyatira is not doing too bad either. Christ is aware of its works—such as “love, faith, service, and patient endurance” (Rev. 2.19). And although some have incorporated certain false teachings, there are others within the church that are blameless and whom Christ does not rebuke at all (Rev. 2.24)! He simply urges them to hold on til he comes (Rev. 2.25). Christ maintains that anyone who endures to the end will be granted “authority over the nations” (v. 26) and will also receive “the morning star” (v.28).

——-

Now Let’s Look at Jer. 17

——-

By contrast, Jeremiah 17 is casting an aspersion on the kingdom of Judah. Its proemium is as follows:

“The sin of Judah is written with an iron pen; with a diamond point it is engraved on the tablet of their hearts, and on the horns of their altars” (Jer. 17.1 NRSV).

Next, there are a number of caveats that culminate in God’s vow to eternally disinherit the Jews from his promises:

“By your own act you shall lose the heritage that I gave you, and I will make you serve your enemies in a land that you do not know, for in my anger a fire is kindled that shall burn forever” (v. 4). Then God recites a summary of the Blessings and Curses of the covenant (vv. 5-9). Finally, Jeremiah exalts the Lord and offers up his own defense that he is upright, and so on. Here, the text instructs the people of Judah to keep certain commandments, such as “the sabbath day” (v. 24), something that does not occur in Rev. 2. The chapter ends with Blessings and Curses in the form of rewards and punishments (vv. 26-27).

Incidentally, the theme of God who “searches minds and hearts,” in Rev. 2.23, is a common trope that can be found in various places in the Bible and is not exclusive to Jeremiah 17.10 (e.g., 1 Ch. 28.9; 29.17; Ps. 7.9; Prov. 17.3; Ecc. 3.18; Jer. 11.20; Rom. 8.27), as proponents of this view suggest.

——-

Conclusion

Unlike Rev. 2, nowhere is there any mention of eternal life or of surviving a second death in Jer. 17. Moreover, no one is offered any rewards of authority over nations, or any glory, for that matter, such as that implied by the so-called “morning star.” In fact, there’s no one blameless in Jer. 17, nor does any praise come from God concerning anyone whatsoever. Even the prophet himself has to plead for mercy and proclaim his own self-righteousness. Besides, there are so many other differences.

Jeremiah is written in *Hebrew* and heavily redacted probably by the scribe Baruch and later generations of Deuteronomists, while Revelation is written exclusively in *Greek* most likely by a single author. The former is probably from the 6th century BCE, while the latter dates from ca. 95 CE. One is written to a Jewish nation, the kingdom of Judah, just prior to the Babylonian deportation, while the other is written to the predominantly Gentile Churches in Asia Minor. One is written in Palestine, the other in Greece! So where are the parallels?

——-

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.

How Can Good Exegesis Make Bad Theology?

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

The Canonical Context

This principle suggests that we should read the Books of the Bible not as distinct, individual compositions but rather as parts of a larger *canonical context*, that is, as part of the “canon” of Scripture. In other words, instead of evaluating each book separately in terms of its particular historical, literary, and editorial development, this principle focuses instead on its final canonical format that was legitimized by the various communities of faith. The idea is that since the redacted version or “final cut,” as it were, is considered “authoritative” by the different communities of faith, then this format should hold precedence over all previous versions or drafts.

Moreover, this concept holds that despite the fact that the Biblical Books were written by a number of different authors, at different times, in different places, using different languages, nevertheless the “canonical context” emphasizes the need to read these Books in dialogue with one another, as if they are part of a larger whole. So, the hermeneutical focus is not on the historical but rather on the canonical context. The hermeneutical guidelines of the canon therefore suggest that we might gain a better understanding of the larger message of Scripture by reading these Books as if they were interrelated with all the others, rather than as separate, diverse, and distinct sources. The premise is that the use of this type of context leads to sound Biblical theology.

——-

Theology

Theology is primarily concerned with the synthesis of the diverse voices within Scripture in order to grasp the overarching message of the complete Biblical revelation. It deals with Biblical epistemology and belief, either through systematic analysis and development of passages (systematic theology) or through the running themes of the entire Bible (Biblical theology). It addresses eternity and the transcendent, metaphysical or supernatural world. And it balances individual Scriptural interpretations by placing them within a larger theoretical framework. The premise is that there is a broader theological context in which each and every detailed exegesis coalesces to form a coherent whole! It’s as if the Bible is a single Book that contains a complete and wide-ranging revelation! It is under the auspices of theology, then, that the canonical context comes into play.

——-

Exegesis

The critical interpretation of Scriptural texts is known as “exegesis.” Its task is to use various methods of interpretation so as to arrive at a definitive explanation of Scripture! Exegesis provides the temporal, linguistic, grammatical, and syntactic context, analysis, and meaning of a text. It furnishes us with a critical understanding of the authorial intent, but only in relation to the specific and limited context of the particular text in question. It is the task of theology to further assess it in terms of its relation and compatibility to the overall Biblical revelation! One of the things that exegesis tries to establish is the composition’s historical setting or context, also known as “historical criticism.” This approach inquires about the author and his audience, the occasion and dating of the composition, the unique terms and concepts therein, the meaning of the overall message, and, last but not least, the *style* in which the message is written, otherwise known as the “genre.” While the author’s other writings on the topic are pivotal to understanding what he means, nothing is more important than the *genre* or the form in which his writing is presented.

——-

The Analogy of Scripture

One of the most important hermeneutical principles of exegesis is called “the analogy of Scripture” (Lat. ‘analogia Scripturae’). In short, it means that Scripture should interpret Scripture. This principle requires that the implicit must be explained by the explicit. In other words, the exegesis of unclear or ambiguous parts of Scripture must be explained by clear and didactic ones that address the exact same topic. That means that one Biblical Book could very well explain another. For example, the New Testament (NT) Book of Ephesians 1.9-10 seems to demystify Galatians 4.4. This principle is based on the “revealed” inspiration (Gk. θεόπνευστος) of Scripture:

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful

for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and

for training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3.16

NRSV).

As for those scholars who refuse to take the NT’s alleged “pseudepigrapha” seriously because of their *apparent* false attribution, let me remind them that the most renowned textual scholars of the 20th century, Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, acknowledged that even alleged “forged” works could still be “inspired!” It’s important to realize that just because these works may be written by unknown authors who may have attempted to gain a readership by tacking on the name of famous Biblical characters doesn’t mean that the subject-matter is equally false. The addition of amanuenses (secretaries) further complicates the issue.

So, returning to our subject, the analogy of Scripture allows the Bible to define its own terms, symbols, and phrases. It is via the analogy of Scripture, which defines the many and varied parts, that the broader canonical context is established, namely, the principle that the various Biblical Books form a coherent whole from which a larger theological system can emerge.

And, of course, interdisciplinary studies——such as archaeology, anthropology, psychology, sociology, epistemology, and philosophy——contribute to both systematic and Biblical theology by presenting their particular findings, concepts, and theoretical ideas.

——-

Testing the Legitimacy of these Principles

In explaining how these principles work in tandem, I’d like to put my personal and unique theology to the test. I have raised the following question: “What if the crucifixion of Christ is a future event?” The immediate reaction of Christian apologetics or heresiology would be to revert to “dogmatic theology” (i.e., the dogmas or articles of faith) and the scholarly consensus, which state that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Really? Let’s consider some historical facts. There are no eyewitnesses! And there are no first-hand accounts! Although the following references were once thought to be multiple attestations or proofs of Jesus’ existence, nevertheless both the Tacitus and Josephus accounts are now considered to be either complete or partial forgeries, and therefore do not shed any light on Jesus’ historicity. One of the staunch proponents of the historical Jesus position is the textual scholar Bart Ehrman, who, surprisingly, said this on his blog:

. . . Paul says almost *NOTHING* about the

events of Jesus’ lifetime. That seems weird

to people, but just read all of his letters.,

Paul never mentions Jesus healing anyone,

casting out a demon, doing any other

miracle, arguing with Pharisees or other

leaders, teaching the multitudes, even

speaking a parable, being baptized, being

transfigured, going to Jerusalem, being

arrested, put on trial, found guilty of

blasphemy, appearing before Pontius Pilate

on charges of calling himself the King of the

Jews, being flogged, etc. etc. etc. It’s a

very, very long list of what he doesn’t tell us

about.

Therefore, there appears to be a literary discrepancy regarding the historicity of Jesus in the canonical context between the gospels and the epistles. And, as I will show in due time, there are many, many passages in the epistles that seem to contradict dogmatic theology’s belief in the historiographical nature of the gospels. So, if they want to have a sound theology, exegetes should give equal attention to the epistles. Why?

First, the epistles precede the gospels by several decades. In fact, they comprise the earliest recorded writings of the NT that circulated among the Christian churches (cf. Col. 4.16).

Second, unlike the gospels——which are essentially *theological* narratives that are largely borrowed from the Old Testament (OT)——the epistles are *expositional* writings that offer real, didactic and practical solutions and discuss spiritual principles and applications within an actual, historical, or eschatological context.

Third, according to Biblical scholarship, the gospels are not historiographical accounts or biographies, even though historical places and figures are sometimes mentioned. That is to say, the gospels are not giving us history proper. For example, the feeding of the 5,000 is a narrative that is borrowed from 2 Kings 4.40-44. The parallels and verbal agreements are virtually identical. And this is a typical example of the rest of the narratives. For instance, when Jesus speaks of the damned and says that “their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched” (Mark 9.48), few people know that this saying is actually derived from Isaiah 66.24. In other words, the gospels demonstrate a literary dependence on the OT that is called, “intertextuality.”

Fourth, the gospels are like watching a Broadway play. They are full of plots, subplots, theatrical devices (e.g. Aristotelian rhetoric; Homeric parallels), literary embellishments, dialogues, characters, and the like. Conversely, the epistles have none of these elements. They are straightforward and matter of fact. That’s why Biblical interpreters are expected to interpret the implicit by the explicit and the narrative by the didactic. In practical terms, the NT epistles——which are the more explicit and didactic portions of Scripture——must clarify the implicit meaning of the gospel literature. As you will see, the epistles are the primary keys to unlocking the actual timeline of Christ’s *one-and-only* visitation!

Fifth, whereas the gospels’ literary genre is mainly •theological•——that is to say, “pseudo-historical”——the genre of the epistolary literature of the NT is chiefly •expositional.• So, the question arises, which of the two genres is giving us the real deal: is it the “theological narrative” or the “expository writing”?

In order to answer this question, we first need to consider some of the differences in both genres. For example, although equally “inspired,” the gospels include certain narratives that are unanimously rejected as “unhistorical” by both Biblical scholars and historians alike. Stories like the slaughter of the innocents, the Magi, the Star of Bethlehem, and so on, are not considered to be historical. By contrast, the epistles never once mention the aforesaid stories, nor is there any mention of the Nativity, the virgin birth, the flight to Egypt, and the like. Why? Because the Epistles are NOT “theological.” They’re expository writings whose intention is to give us the “facts” as they really are!

Bottom line, the epistles give us a far more accurate picture of Jesus’ *visitation* than the gospels.

In conclusion, it appears that the gospels conceal Jesus far more effectively than they reveal him.

——-

Proof-text and Coherence Fallacies

The “proof-text fallacy” comprises the idea of putting together a number of out-of-context passages in order to validate a particular theological point that’s often disparagingly called “a private interpretation.” But, for argument’s sake, let’s turn these principles on their head. Classical Christianity typically determines heresy by assessing the latter’s overall view. If it doesn’t fit within the existing theological schema it is said to be heretical. Thus, dogmatic theology sets the theological standard against which all other theories are measured. They would argue that good exegesis doesn’t necessarily guarantee good theology, and can lead to a “coherence fallacy.” In other words, even if the exegesis of a string of proof-texts is accurate, the conclusion may not be compatible with the overall existing theology. This would be equivalent to a coherence fallacy, that is to say, the illusion of Biblical coherence.

By the same token, I can argue that traditional, historical-Jesus exegesis of certain proof-texts might be accurate but it may not fit the theology of an eschatological Christ, as we find in the epistles (e.g., Heb. 9.26b; 1 Pet. 1.20; Rev. 12.5). That would equally constitute a coherence fallacy. So, these guidelines tend to discourage independent proof-texting apart from a systematic coherency of Scripture. But what if the supposed canonical context is wrong? What if the underlying theological assumption is off? What then? So, the $64,000 question is, who can accurately determine the big picture? And who gets to decide?

For example, I think that we have confused Biblical literature with history, and turned prophecy into biography. In my view, the theological purpose of the gospels is to provide a fitting introduction to the messianic story *beforehand* so that it can be passed down from generation to generation until the time of its fulfillment. It is as though NT history is *written in advance* (cf. מַגִּ֤יד מֵֽרֵאשִׁית֙ אַחֲרִ֔ית [declaring the end from the beginning], Isa. 46.9-10; προεπηγγείλατο [promised beforehand], Rom. 1.2; προγνώσει [foreknowledge], Acts 2.22-23; προκεχειροτονημένοις [to appoint beforehand], Acts 10.40-41; ερχόμενα [things to come], Jn 16.13)!

So, if we exchange the theology of the gospels for that of the epistles we’ll find a completely different theology altogether, one in which the coherence of Scripture revolves around the *end-times*! For example, in 2 Pet. 1.16–21, all the explanations in vv. 16-18 are referring to the future. That’s why verse 19 concludes: “So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed” (cf. 1 Pet. 1.10-11; 1 Jn 2.28).

In response, Dogmatic Theology would probably say that such a conclusion is at odds with the canonical context and that it seems to be based on autonomous proof-texting that is obviously out of touch with the broader theological teaching of Scripture. Really? So the so-called “teaching” of Scripture that Jesus died in Antiquity is a nonnegotiable, foregone conclusion? What if the basis upon which this gospel teaching rests is itself a proof-text fallacy that is out of touch with the teaching of the *epistles*? For example, there are numerous passages in the epistles that place the timeline of Jesus’ life (i.e., his birth, death, and resurrection) in *eschatological* categories (e.g., 2 Thess. 2.1-3; Heb. 1.1-2; 9.26b; 1 Pet. 1.10-11, 20; Rev. 12.5; 19.10d; 22.7). The epistolary authors deviate from the gospel writers in their understanding of the overall importance of •eschatology• in the chronology of Jesus. For them, Scripture comprises revelations and “prophetic writings” (see Rom. 16.25-26; 2 Pet. 1.19-21; Rev. 22.18-19). Therefore, according to the *epistolary literature*, Jesus is not a historical but rather an “eschatological” figure! Given that the NT epistles are part of the Biblical *canon,* their overall message holds equal value with that of the NT gospels, since they, too, are an integral part of the canonical context! To that extent, even the gospels concede that the Son of Man has not yet been revealed (see Lk. 17.30; cf. 1 Cor. 1.7; 1 Pet. 1.7)!

What is more, if the canonical context demands that we coalesce the different Biblical texts as if we’re reading a single Book, then the overall “prophetic” message of Revelation must certainly play an important role therein. The Book of Revelation places not only the timeline (12.5) but also the testimony to Jesus (19.10b) in “prophetic” categories:

I warn everyone who hears the words of the

prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to

them, God will add to that person the

plagues described in this book; if anyone

takes away from the words of the book of

this prophecy, God will take away that

person’s share in the tree of life and in the

holy city, which are described in this book

(Rev. 22.18-19 NRSV).

Incidentally, the Book of Revelation is considered to be an epistle. Thus, it represents, confirms, and validates the overarching *prophetic theme* or eschatological “theology” of the epistolary literature. That is not to say that the •theology• of the epistles stands alone and apart from that of the OT canon. Far from it! Even the *theology* of the OT confirms the earthy, end-time Messiah of the epistles (cf. Job 19.25; Isa. 2.19; Dan. 12.1-2; Zeph. 1.7-9, 15-18; Zech. 12.9-10)! As a matter of fact, mine is the *only* view that appropriately combines the end-time messianic expectations of the Jews with Christian Scripture!

Does this sound like a proof-text or coherence fallacy? If it does, it’s because you’re evaluating it from the theology of the gospels. If, on the other hand, you assess it using the theology of the epistles, it will seem to be in-context or in-sync with it. So, the theological focus and coherency of Scripture will change depending on which angle you view it from.

——-

Visions of the Resurrection

There are quite a few scholars that view the so-called resurrection of Christ not as a historical phenomenon but rather as a visionary experience. And this seems to be the theological message of the NT as well (cf. 2 Tim. 2.17-18; 2 Thess. 2.1-3). For example, Lk. 24.23 explicitly states that the women “had indeed seen a vision.” Lk. 24.31 reads: “he [Jesus] vanished from their sight.” And Lk. 24.37 admits they “thought that they were seeing a ghost.” Here are some of the statements that scholars have made about the resurrection, which do not necessarily disqualify them as believers:

The resurrection itself is not an event of

past history. All that historical criticism can

establish is that the first disciples came to

believe the resurrection (Rudolph

Bultmann, ‘The New Testament and

Mythology,’ in Kerygma and Myth: A

Theological Debate, ed. Hans Werner

Bartsch, trans. Reginald H. Fuller [London:

S.P.C.K, 1953-62], 38, 42).

When the evangelists spoke about the

resurrection of Jesus, they told stories

about apparitions or visions (John Dominic

Crossan, ‘A Long Way from Tipperary: A

Memoir’ [San Francisco:

HarperSanFransisco, 2000], 164-165).

At the heart of the Christian religion lies a

vision described in Greek by Paul as

ophehe—-“he was seen.” And Paul himself,

who claims to have witnessed an

appearance asserted repeatedly “I have

seen the Lord.” So Paul is the main source

of the thesis that a vision is the origin of the

belief in resurrection ... (Gerd Lüdemann,

‘The Resurrection of Jesus: History,

Experience, Theology.’ Translated by John

Bowden. [London: SCM, 1994], 97,

100).

It is undisputable that some of the followers

of Jesus came to think that he had been

raised from the dead, and that something

had to have happened to make them think

so. Our earliest records are consistent on

this point, and I think they provide us with

the historically reliable information in one

key aspect: the disciples’ belief in the

resurrection was based on visionary

experiences. I should stress it was visions,

and nothing else, that led to the first

disciples to believe in the resurrection (Bart

D. Ehrman, ‘How Jesus Became God: The

Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from

Galilee’ [New York: Harper One, 2014],

183-184).

Ehrman sides with the *visionary language* that Luke, Bultmann, Crossan, and Lüdemann use. In the words of NT textual critic Kurt Aland:

It almost then appears as if Jesus were a

mere PHANTOM . . .

——-

Exegetical Application

I deliberately stay away from theology when I exegete Scripture precisely because it will taint the evidence with presuppositions, assumptions, and speculations that are not in the text. Thus, instead of focusing on the authorial intent hermeneutic, it will inevitably superimpose out-of-context meanings and create an eisegesis. All this, of course, is courtesy of confirmation bias.

So, I think one of the reasons why we’ve done so poorly in understanding, for example, the story of Jesus is because we have mixed-up exegesis with theology. When theology drives the exegesis, then the exegesis becomes blind and erroneous.

My method of exegesis is very simple. I see EXACTLY what the text *says,* EXACTLY *how* it says it. I don’t add or subtract anything, and I don’t speculate, guess, or theorize based on existing philosophies or theologies. The minute we go outside *the analogy of scripture,* that’s when we start to speculate. And that’s how we err. In short, let the Scriptures tell you what it means. Thus, the best interpretation is no interpretation at all!

——-

Conclusion

To find the truth, we must consider all the evidence objectively. Evangelicals, for instance, would be biased if they didn’t consider the academic standpoint even if, at times, it seems to be guided by liberal theology. In this way, they will be in a better position to consider objectively all the possibilities and probabilities regarding the correct interpretation of Scripture. That’s because the truth usually touches all points of view . . .

One of the exegetical stumbling blocks is our inability to view the gospels as “inspired metaphors.” Given their literary dependence on the OT, it appears as if the gospels themselves are “inspired parables.”

So, if the epistolary literature, which is both expositional and explicit, seems to contradict these so-called “theological parables,” then it becomes quite obvious that the “theology” of the gospels fails to meet scholarly and academic parameters. And, therefore, the epistolary literature must be given more serious attention and consideration!

Our exegetical shortcomings often stem from forced or anachronistic interpretations that are based on *theological speculation* and conjecture rather than on detailed exegesis. Even the Biblical translations themselves are not immune to the interpretative process, whether they be of dynamic or formal equivalence.

That’s why I have developed an exegetical system and have demonstrated the effectiveness of its approach to the study of the Biblical Christ. Accordingly, I argue that the epistles are the primary *keys* to unlocking the future timeline of Christ’s ***ONLY*** visitation! Hence, I leave you with one final rhetorical question:

What if the crucifixion of Christ is a future

event?

Is the Old Testament Inspired?: The Case Against Marcion

By Award-Winning Author Eli Kittim

——-

Is the Old Testament Uninspired Because it Doesn’t Mention Jesus?

Marcion of Sinope (ca. 85 – 160 CE) preached that Jesus’ teachings, especially those on love, were completely at odds with the Old Testament (OT) revelations regarding the God of the Jews, whom he saw as legalistic and punitive, with no connection at all to the essential message of the New Testament (NT). One key Marcionite objection to the authority of the Jewish Bible is that the name of Jesus is never once mentioned there. However, the exclusivity of Jesus in the NT does not preclude the inspiration of the Hebrew Bible. The notion that the father cannot be known apart from Jesus has absolutely nothing to do with the question of the OT’s canonicity. For example, Acts 4.12 says:

Salvation is found in no one else, for there is

no other name under heaven given to

mankind by which we must be saved.

The fact that the name of Jesus is not found in the OT has no bearing on whether this collection of ancient Hebrew writings is inspired or not. After all, the name of Jesus (Ιησοῦς) is found in the Septuagint’s Book of Joshua, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible: https://www.academic-bible.com/en/online-bibles/septuagint-lxx/read-the-bible-text/bibel/text/lesen/?tx_buhbibelmodul_bibletext%5Bscripture%5D=Joshua+4

At any rate, these are two fundamentally different questions. The former has to do with Christology (i.e. the study of Christ), whereas the latter has to do with Biblical theology (i.e. the study of the Bible)!

The former has to to do with “Theology proper,” that is to say, with the exclusivity of Jesus as the unique preexistent Word of God (the Logos) through whom “All things came into being” (John 1.1-4), or as the “only begotten Son” (1 John 4.9) who prior to his incarnation “was in the form of God” (Phil. 2.6). Marcionites will therefore argue that Christ is the *only one* who is capable of revealing the Father, given that “He is the image of the invisible God” (Col 1.15) “through whom he [the Father] also created the worlds” (Heb. 1.1-2). For example, John 14.6 reads:

Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth

and the life. No one comes to the Father

except through me.’

But this declaration is not a proof-text demonstrating that the OT is not authoritative simply because it doesn’t mention Jesus’ divinity. That has to do with progressive revelation, the idea that revelation is given a little at a time.

Holding to a high Christology has little to do with whether or not the Hebrew Bible is inspired. That’s an entirely different issue involving Biblical theology, Pneumatology, and the like. So, the fact that Jesus is not mentioned by name in the Hebrew Bible is not a sufficient reason to dismiss this collection of Books as uninspired.

——-

Is the OT Uncanonical?

If the OT is not authoritative, as some Marcionites have argued, then why would the NT writers quote extensively from an “uninspired” book? And what would be the purpose of the standard *Biblical canon* if the NT authors extensively quoted from so-called “uninspired” books? In other words, if the OT is not authoritative, it would *contradict* the “canon of scripture” principle in which only Biblically-inspired books are accepted into the canon. Not to mention that the OT is widely viewed as authoritative by the NT precisely because it is included as a source of prophetic predictions in many different places, notably in Matthew 24, and especially in the Book of Revelation!

As a matter of fact, the NT authors insist that the OT is inspired! For example, at the time of the composition of the second letter to Timothy, there was no NT Scripture as yet. So, when the Biblical writers referred to Scripture, with the exception of two instances——namely, 2 Pet. 3.16, wherein Paul’s letters are referred to as “Scripture,” and 1 Tim. 5.18, in which Luke’s gospel is referred to as “Scripture”——they always meant the Hebrew Bible. The proof that they considered the Hebrew Bible to be *inspired* is in Second Timothy 3.16, which reads:

All scripture is inspired [πᾶσα γραφὴ

Θεόπνευστος] by God and is useful for

teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for

training in righteousness.

——-

Does Intertextuality Prove that the OT is Inspired?

All the books of the NT are constantly borrowing and quoting extensively from the OT, a “Book” without which the NT would be lacking a foundation. If we were to remove all those OT quotations, the NT would be insupportable, not to mention incomprehensible!

So, whoever thinks that the OT is uncanonical and uninspired is clearly not familiar with the heavy literary dependence of the NT on the OT (i.e. a process known as “intertextuality”). If you were to open up a critical edition of the NT, you’d be astounded by how much of the OT is actually quoted in the NT. Prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, and Daniel abound all over the place. The Book of Revelation, in particular, is mostly based on a reorganization of OT prophetic material from Zechariah, Joel, Amos, Daniel, and many others. A brief look at a *Chain-Reference-Bible* would quickly illustrate this fact: https://archive.org/details/ThompsonChainReferenceBible/page/n47/mode/2up

Internet Archive

Thompson Chain Reference Bible : Frank Charles Thompson : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Thompson Chain Reference Bible SCANNED IMAGE INVERTED

So, the proposal to remove this material——-suggested by Marcion of Sinope and, to a lesser extent, by some modern day preachers and closet Marcionites, such as Andy Stanley——is rather absurd as the NT would be without any foundation or justification concerning messianic, eschatological, or prophetic terminology. For example, various questions would inevitably arise: Where did the NT get the idea of the day of the Lord? Or the idea of the resurrection of the dead? Or that of the great tribulation? Or the concept of the Antichrist? Or the notion of the Messiah? All these concepts are deeply rooted in the Hebrew Bible!

If the OT is not authoritative, then the verbal agreements between the OT and the NT would equally disqualify those same statements as inauthentic NT references. For example, Paul quotes Isaiah verbatim. Many of the Jesus sayings are from the OT. If, say, a Marcionite were to claim that the OT is not inspired, then he would have to concede that some of Paul’s and Jesus’ sayings are equally uninspired, since they are derived from the OT. In other words, unbeknownst to the Marcionites, in rejecting the OT, they would also be rejecting the NT as well!

For example, most of the Matthew-24 prophetic material is based on the OT: from the abomination of desolation (Mt. 24.15; cf. Dan. 9.27) to the time when “the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light” (Mt.24.29; cf. Joel 3:15). If these OT prophecies were not inspired or authoritative, then they would certainly not have been used in the NT prophetic literature!

The explicit approval of OT passages as authoritative by the NT writers, and especially by Paul and Jesus——as well as the explicit message that “All scripture is inspired by God” (2 Tim. 3.16), which obviously includes the OT, given that It has been heavily employed in the NT——argues for the inspiration of the OT!

——-

As for Marcionism, it really involves a syncretism of Christianity and Gnosticism, with all the extra-biblical distortions that this fusion entails, such as the assumed existence of two deities (a lesser and a higher one), and the evil inherent in the material world. These are two diametrically opposed belief-systems between the monotheism of the NT and the polytheism of the Gnostics!

——-

Conclusion

Thus, Marcion, who was an anti-Semite, not only rejected Yahweh as a lesser, evil god, but he went on to dismiss the entire OT as if it were completely uninspired. He felt that it lacked the extravagant love story of the NT, which was ultimately derived from the Supreme God and father of Jesus Christ. He thought that these two testaments pertained to two fundamentally different gods. And so he urged Christians to steer clear of the OT because he considered it to be the product of an inferior deity. However, this is not the view of the NT authors, nor is it part of mainstream NT theology, soteriology, ecclesiology, or eschatology.

What is more, Marcion obviously did not critically assess both testaments to fully explore the extent to which *intertextuality* was involved within these manuscripts (i.e. the literary dependence of one testament on the other) and how inextricably linked they really were! Therefore, a rejection of the entire OT is simultaneously a rejection of many portions of the NT, including many of Jesus’ sayings. Such a separation would render the NT completely useless both theologically and Christologically, if not also eschatologically. Marcion’s claims would therefore undermine Christianity’s overall integrity, and this is probably why Marcion was denounced as a heretic and was excommunicated by the church of Rome ca. 144 CE.

To be fair, Marcion had the right idea, but the wrong approach. It’s true that there’s a radical shift in the NT from an active obedience to the 10-commandments to a passive acceptance of God’s Grace; from an external circumcision of the flesh to an internal circumcision of the heart (and the consequent indwelling of the Holy Spirit). Contrary to the Aleph and Tav in the Hebrew Scriptures, we are suddenly introduced to the NT revelation of God in Jesus Christ as the Alpha and Omega (using the first and last letters of the Greek rather than the Hebrew alphabet). After all, the NT is written exclusively in Greek, by Greeks, and written predominantly to Greek communities within the Roman empire. Paul himself maintains that we are “justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law” (e.g. Gal. 2.16). So, there is very little here that is Jewish!

But although the NT is a uniquely Greek “Book,” in which the name of Yahweh is never once mentioned, nevertheless the Hebrew Bible is still its foundation, without which the former would lose not only its historical lineage and theological context but also its reliability, validity, and, ultimately, its credibility!

‎