The Quran: Revelation Or Forgery?

The Quran: Revelation or Forgery?

By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim

——-

Did Muhammad Exist?

Before we embark on a brief criticism of the Quran, it’s important to note that there is “very little biographical information” (Wiki) concerning the historicity of its founder, Muhammad:

Attempts to distinguish between the

historical elements and the unhistorical

elements of many of the reports of

Muhammad have not been very successful

(Wiki).

(see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad#Views_of_secular_historians).

en.m.wikipedia.org

Historicity of Muhammad - Wikipedia

Historicity of Muhammad - Wikipedia

Of course, this opens up the possibility of whether or not the unknown author of the Quran invented the Muhammad tradition to bolster his credibility. In order to determine the answer to this question, it is crucial to consider the evidence of *intertextuality* in the Quran, that is to say, the literary dependence of the Quran on earlier texts and sources.

——-

How historically reliable is the Quran?

Firstly, with regard to source criticism——that is, the sources that the Quran’s message is derived from——there are some very serious issues involved. For example, there are well-known parallelisms between the Quran and the extra-biblical, non-inspired book of Talmud (e.g. Surah 5:32; cf. Sanhedrin 37a) as well as borrowing from Christian apocryphal works that were written hundreds of years after the purported events and which claim to be legitimate Christian gospels but are not. Case in point, The Infancy Gospel of Thomas:

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is thought to

be Gnostic in origin. . . . Early Christians

regarded the Infancy Gospel of Thomas as

inauthentic and heretical. Hippolytus

identified it as a fake and a heresy in his

Refutation of All Heresies, and his

contemporary Origen referred to it in a

similar way in a homily written in the early

third century. Eusebius rejected it as a

heretical ‘fiction’ in the third book of his

fourth-century Church History, and Pope

Gelasius I included it in his list of heretical

books in the fifth century. While non-

canonical in Christianity, the Infancy Gospel

of Thomas contains many miracles and

stories of Jesus referenced in the Qur'an,

such as Jesus giving life to clay birds (Wiki).

So, the Quran clearly employs Jewish and Christian apocryphal works that were never accepted as canonical or as “inspired” either by Jews or Christians. Thus, at least some of the sources of the Quran are highly dubious.

Secondly, in 632 CE, following Muhammad’s death, the Battle of Yamama ensued where a great number of those who had supposedly retained the Quran in their memory (hafiz) actually died. How then can Muslims claim the preservation of the Quran through memory and oral transmission?

Thirdly, the New Testament is the best attested book from the ancient world as well as the most scrutinized book in history, and one which has a critical edition. By contrast, the Quran has not been critically scrutinized rigorously in the same manner, nor does it have a critical edition, nor is the manuscript evidence made available to scholars for serious study. There’s a secrecy surrounding it that seems to prevent scholarly investigations. For example, because it lacks a critical edition, there are no footnotes in the Quran to notify the reader about manuscript evidence or textual discrepancies or omissions, such that “(some verses eaten by a goat; Ibn Majah, Book of Nikah, p.39) or that (Umar records the missing verses; Bukhari 8.82.816 & 817).

Fourthly, Orientalists have often questioned the historical authenticity of the Quran by charging Uthman ibn Affan (the 3rd Caliph of Islam) of consigning variant copies of the Quran to the flames during his reign.

Fifthly, the controlled transmission of the Quran makes it impossible to know what was the original. Hence its textual integrity is seriously compromised. By contrast, in the case of the New Testament, for example, since no one person controlled all the manuscripts, it would be impossible to uniformly corrupt all the documents. In the case of the Quran, however, the text was in fact controlled by one person, the khalifa, as attested by Uthman's authority to recall and uniformly revise all the manuscripts. Therefore, it would have been extremely easy for the Quran to have been uniformly corrupted in a textually undetectable manner. For example, the “Sanaa manuscript,” which contains earlier developments of the Quran, demonstrates textual variances that diverge from the Uthman copy.

In conclusion, the Quran doesn’t allow us to come any closer to the original text than the Uthmanic Revised Standard Version 20 years removed from Muhammad. Any errors which found their way into the URSV would be permanent and uncorrectable. And, unfortunately, historical accounts from early Islam tell us that such errors existed!

——-

The Quran is Based on Dubious Sources

Besides the numerous and traceable Judeo-Christian apocryphal works that the author used within the Quran itself, he also got a lot of his ideas from a group that was an offshoot of the Ebionites called the “Sabians,” variously known as Mandaeans or Elcesaites. The Sabians followed Hermeticism and adored John the Baptizer:

Occasionally,

Mandaeans are called

‘Christians of Saint

John’ . . . the ‘Sabians’

are described several

times in the Quran as

People of the Book,

alongside Jews and

Christians (Wiki).

According to Origen and Eusebius, the Sabians used an extra-biblical book that they claimed was given by an Angel (maybe another idea adopted by Muhammad?) to deny portions of Scripture as well as the writings of Paul! So, this idea of challenging Christianity and claiming to have received a new revelation from an angel is quite common in ancient times. It is not unique to Islam. Others had made similar claims. Thus, without completely rejecting the possibility of *revelation* in at least some portions of the Quran, the majority of its theological narratives are largely based on dubious and questionable sources, derived from spurious texts that were under the radar of heresiologists across the ancient world!

——-

Two Apocryphal Works Employed by the Quran to Deny the Crucifixion of Jesus

//Second Treatise of the Great Seth is an apocryphal Gnostic writing discovered in the Codex VII of the Nag Hammadi codices and dates to around the third century. The author is unknown, and the Seth referenced in the title appears nowhere in the text. Instead Seth is thought to reference the third son of Adam and Eve to whom gnosis was first revealed, according to some gnostics. The author appears to belong to a group of gnostics who maintain that Jesus Christ was not crucified on the cross. Instead the text says that Simon of Cyrene was mistaken for Jesus and crucified in his place. Jesus is described as standing by and "laughing at their ignorance”// (Wiki).

//The Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter is a text found amongst the Nag Hammadi library, and part of the New Testament apocrypha. Like the vast majority of texts in the Nag Hammadi collection, it is heavily gnostic. It was probably written around 100-200 AD. Since the only known copy is written in Coptic, it is also known as the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter.

The text takes gnostic interpretations of the crucifixion to the extreme, picturing Jesus as laughing and warning against people who cleave to the name of a dead man, thinking they shall become pure. Like some of the rarer Gnostic writings, this one also doubts the established Crucifixion story which places Jesus on the cross. Instead, according to this text, there was a substitute:

He whom you saw on the

tree, glad and laughing,

this is the living Jesus.

But this one into whose

hands and feet they

drive the nails is his

fleshly part, which is the

substitute being put to

shame, the one who

came into being in his

likeness. But look at him

and me// (Wiki).

This is attested in the Quran:

That they said (in boast), ‘We killed Christ

Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of

Allah’—but they killed him not, nor crucified

him, but so it was made to appear to them,

and those who differ therein are full of

doubts, with no [certain] knowledge, but

only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they

killed him not—nay, Allah raised him up unto

Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power,

Wise (Sura 4:157-158, Yusuf Ali).

——-

A Possible Forgery: Is Muhammad Copying Augustine?

Muhammad (570 – 632 CE) seems to have modelled his conversion on Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430 CE), who was without a doubt the greatest theologian and philosopher of his day! Case in point, in 386 CE, Augustine converted to Christianity from the pagan Machanean religion. Similarly, in 610 CE, Muhammad converted to Islam from the “Jahiliyya" religion, which worshipped Allah as the creator god as well as the Kaaba in Mecca. About 224 years earlier St. Augustine had heard a voice that told him to “take up and read,” a line which became very famous and reverberated through the centuries:

As Augustine later told it, his conversion

was prompted by hearing a child's voice

say ‘take up and read’ (Latin: tolle, lege).

Resorting to the Sortes Sanctorum, he

opened a book of St. Paul's writings (codex

apostoli, 8.12.29) at random and read

Romans 13: 13–14: Not in rioting and

drunkenness, not in chambering and

wantonness, not in strife and envying, but

put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no

provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts

thereof (Wiki).

By comparison, Muhammad appears to have used a similar line to claim that he, too, heard an Angel’s voice repeatedly say to him: “Read.” Given that Muhammad was presumably familiar with Judaism and Christianity (and especially with the foremost leading authority of his day, the African Augustine of Hippo), it seems very likely that he modelled his conversion on the latter. And, if true, that would certainly constitute a forgery!

——-

Are Allah’s Oaths Self-contradictory in the Quran?

The aforementioned textual criticisms are further compounded when we realize that the Quran contains further theological discrepancies. For example, there are numerous verses in the Quran where Allah is swearing by created things that are less-than-God, thus committing “shirk” (i.e. the sin of ascribing divine status to any other beings beside Allah). Here’s a case in point. In sura 81:15, Allah says: “But nay! I swear by the stars.” Another example is sura 91 verse 1: “I swear by the sun and its brilliance.” When God supposedly swears by something which is less than himself the truth value of his assertion is obviously weakened. By definition, an oath is meant to buttress an argument, not to decrease the weight thereof. Therefore, the truth value of an oath is equivalent to, and connected with, the truth value of the one who declares it. As such, Allah’s oaths (swearing by created things) directly contradict his so-called divine status. By contrast, the God of the Bible swears by Himself, since there is nothing greater to swear under (cf. Gen. 22.16; Isa. 45.23; Heb. 6.13). By definition, an oath is a solemn attestation of the truth of one's words. In this case, how can Allah’s oaths be trustworthy if they appeal to something that is less than himself? Answer: they cannot! It appears, then, that the aforementioned oaths in the Quran are reflecting a human rather than a divine author.

——-

Is Muhammad the Prophesied False Prophet of Revelation?

During the Early Middle

Ages, Christendom

largely viewed Islam as a

Christological heresy

and Muhammad as a

false prophet (Wiki).

In short, following the Arab conquest of the Middle East and due to the *military expansion* of Islam into Europe and Central Asia since the 700’s (toppling one country after another), Muhammad was increasingly seen as a possible candidate for the office of the *false-prophet-of-Revelation* (cf. Rev. 16.13; 19.20; 20.10): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Christian_views_on_Muhammad

en.m.wikipedia.org

Medieval Christian views on Muhammad - Wikipedia

Medieval Christian views on Muhammad - Wikipedia

——-

Conclusion

Muslims claim that the Quran is neither corrupted nor influenced by Judeo-Christian sources, and yet upon further scrutiny the book clearly incorporates passages from both the Jewish Talmud and from various Christian apocryphal works. Plagiarism abounds, and so does forgery. Therefore, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to maintain that it’s a “revelation” when at least some of the sources of the Quran are highly dubious!

Moreover, Islam has nothing new to offer by way of revelation. Its doctrine could simply be classified as a modified theological redundancy of the Judeo-Christian tradition and the Biblical heritage that preceded it. The main difference between Islam and Christianity is this. Unlike the Quran’s singular witness and source——given that it was only revealed to *one* man (Muhammad)——the revelations of the New Testament were imparted to many different people, thereby authenticating its message by multiple attestations and witnesses!

——-

What is “Eyewitness Testimony” in the New Testament and Who Are the “Eyewitnesses”?

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

It’s important to note that the gospels are later embellishments, not firsthand accounts, and their historicity and authorship are disputed. Thus, the purported author of John’s Gospel, who by the way is writing in refined Greek, couldn’t have been the alleged Aramaic disciple of Jesus not only because he wouldn’t be able to write in sophisticated Greek but also because he wouldn’t have been alive around 100 CE.

——-

So, what exactly does *Eyewitness testimony* mean in the New Testament (NT)?

——-

In the NT, the term “eyewitness” doesn’t necessarily mean witnessing physical-bodily phenomena. For example, Paul claims to be an •eyewitness• of Christ (1 Cor. 15:8), yet by his own self-confession his entire knowledge of Christ is based solely on revelations (Gal. 1.11-12; Acts 9.3-5). Scholars are in agreement that Paul never saw Jesus in the flesh.

——-

By comparison, it is explicitly stated in Luke’s gospel that the group of women at the tomb saw a “vision” (24.23–24), similar to that of the “witnesses” who were said to be “chosen beforehand” (προκεχειροτονημένοις) in Acts 10.40–41 (NASB). “Beforehand” means “in advance.” It implies a •foreknowledge• that is spiritually discerned prior to the experience of an event. In short: it represents a prophecy! But there is more.

——-

For example, in 2 Peter 1.16-19 the apostles are said to be “eyewitnesses” not of physical phenomena but rather of “the prophetic message.” Astoundingly, they’re eyewitnesses of visual and auditory messages (voices & visions) that were heard, literally, as voices, but were nevertheless part of a so-called “prophecy” or prediction:

“For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been •eyewitnesses• of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory, saying, ‘This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.’ We ourselves •heard this voice• come from heaven, while we were with him on the holy mountain. So we have the •prophetic message• more fully confirmed” (emphasis added).

——-

Similarly, First Peter 1.10-11 suggests an •eschatological• soteriology (cf. Heb. 1.1-2; 9.26b; 1 Pet. 1.20), that is to say, “the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow” were actually “PREDICTED” in advance:

“Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he •predicted• the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow” (NIV emphasis added).

(If you want to further explore the exegetical details of the aforementioned quote, click on the following link):

https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/184378109027/by-eli-kittim-concerning-this-salvation-the

Eli of Kittim

First Peter 1.10-11 Suggests An Eschatological Soteriology

By Eli Kittim "Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the grea

——-

So, when John’s Gospel introduces itself as the composition of a so-called •eyewitness• to the events of Jesus’ lifetime (“who saw” something; Jn 19.35), it may be talking about •history-written-in-advance•, similar to the Book of Revelation (cf. 4.1-2), which is explicitly referred to as a Book of *prophecy* (1.3; 22.7, 10, 18-19), a book that is also believed by Christian tradition to have been penned by the same apostle, “who saw” the end of days!

Hence both 2 Peter and the Book of Revelation are two very clear examples where “Eyewitness testimony” is explicitly related to *prophecy,* that is to say, *history written in advance*! Put differently, the gospel narratives are seemingly set in a transhistorical context. Transhistoricity, in other words, is the flip side of the notion that NT meanings are restricted to their historical context.

——-

Therefore, the so-called “eyewitnesses testimonies” are actually referring to •visions• pertaining to *prophetic* events. That’s why the account or “testimony” to Jesus is NOT historical but *prophetic*:

“For the testimony [to] Jesus is the spirit of prophecy”

—(Rev. 19.10d “The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: NRSV” [4th rev. edn; New York: Oxford University, 2010], p. 2176, n.e.).

If Jesus is a historical figure, who supposedly existed prior to the composition of the Book of Revelation, shouldn’t his “testimony” be the Spirit of history? And yet, by contrast, his “testimony” is explicitly referred to as “the spirit of prophecy.” Something to think about.

——-

The argument that Jesus has not yet come is based on both the internal and external evidence

——-

The *external evidence* demonstrates that there are no firsthand accounts (the gospel writers are not eyewitnesses). There are also no independent secular accounts of Jesus until the close of the first century CE. Josephus’ “Testimonium Flavianum,” toward the turn of the century, is considered as unacceptable evidence by most scholars due to extensive interpolations. Even Tacitus’ later account represents an obvious interpolation. So, despite Jesus’ so-called extraordinary feats, no one is writing anything about him outside of the NT for approximately 65y. Not a single word is written about Jesus, there’s not even a passive reference to him, even though we have a lot of documents from that period dealing with just about every aspect of life, political and otherwise.

——-

The *internal evidence* is equally strong. Besides the *end-time* •messianic death-and-resurrection• themes that are clearly addressed in the Old Testament (e.g., Isa. 2.2, 19; Dan. 12.1-2; Zeph. 1.7, 14-18; and Zech. 12.10), there are many such motifs also found in the NT!

——-

The evidence from the NT is sometimes rather explicit and quite compelling. For example, Hebrews 1.2 clearly states that God speaks to humanity through his Son in the “last days” (ἐπ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν). Notice that the *last days* represent an eschatological time-period that is obviously distinguished from “Long ago,” in other words, it is differentiated from the time of Antiquity in verse 1. But, even more explicit is the verse from Heb. 9.26b:

“once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (KJV).

https://biblehub.com/hebrews/9-26.htm

Proper Biblical Exegesis demands that we understand NT Greek. The Greek phrase reads as follows:

ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων εἰς ἀθέτησιν ἁμαρτίας διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ πεφανέρωται (Heb. 9.26b SBLGNT).

The term ἅπαξ (hapax) means “once for all.” The Greek phrase ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων (i.e., “at the end of the age”) is a reference to “the end of the world” (KJV) or “the consummation of the ages” (NASB cf. Dan. 12.4 LXX). Whenever this Greek phrase appears in the NT it is invariably referring to “the end of the world” (cf. Mt. 13.39-40, 49; 24.3; 28.20, etc.).

There are also parallel verses and verbal agreements in which the overall linguistic meaning of this phrase is confirmed by the Patristic Fathers of that period: τόν . . . υιόν . . . ερχόμενον ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ του αἰωνος κρίναι ζώντας καί νεκρούς (G.W.H. Lampe [ed.], “A Patristic Greek Lexicon” [Oxford: Oxford University, 1961], p. 1340).

——-

Therefore, the eschatological phrase συντελείας του αιωνος (which is usually translated as “the end of the age”) can ONLY refer to the END OF THE WORLD! And Hebrews 9.26b tells us unequivocally and categorically that this is ALSO the TIME when Christ DIES for the SINS (εἰς ἀθέτησιν ἁμαρτίας) of the world. The meaning is quite obvious. But that’s not all. There are many, many other NT passages that CONFIRM this view.

——-

First Peter 1.20 is a case in point:

“He was marked out before the world was made, and was revealed at the final point of time” (NJB).

It is quite explicit. Once again, “the final point of time” (επ´ έσχάτου των χρόνων) refers to the culmination or consummation of the ages. And this is the time period when Christ will be initially “revealed,” according to 1 Peter 1.20 (cf. Lk 17.30; 1 Cor. 1.7; 1 Jn 2.28). Then there are other passages that I can’t get into right now due to time restrictions, such as Rev. 12.5, where Christ is born in the end-times as a contemporary of the final world-empire which is depicted as a red dragon with 7 heads and 10 horns. Rev. 6.2 equally shows that the first horseman that will appear in the end times is Christ! To understand why the white horse of Rev. 6.2 represents Christ, please look at the following link from my blog:

https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/168159235542/who-is-the-first-horseman-of-the-apocalypse

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

——-

I could cite many more examples, but I think you get the idea . . .

——-

Incidentally, the notion that Jesus will appear “once and for all” (hapax; Heb. 9.26b) in the end-times does not change anything whatsoever soteriologically speaking. In other words, it’s not a salvation issue because, according to the NT, we are saved IN FAITH as we “eagerly await a Savior” (Phil. 3.20 NIV) “for a salvation that is ready to be revealed at the end of time (1 Pet. 1.5 GW).

——-

Conclusion

This unique Biblical exegesis doesn’t change our Soteriology. But it does change our Theology. So, for example, those who think that Jesus already died will be shocked to see him coming not from the sky but from the earth. And “his own” (i.e. the Christians; cf. Jn 1.11) will eventually reject him as the so-called “Antichrist.” Christian Bible-Prophecy experts have already paved the way for rejecting the Christ through faulty and preconceived interpretations of Revelation 6.2. Even though this is clearly Christ, as I’ve demonstrated in the aforesaid essay, nevertheless the mainstream view holds that the first horseman who rides a white horse is the Antichrist . . .

So, unless you understand what’s going on, you will be very confused during the unfolding of these events in the End time!

——-

The Evolution of a Gentile Messiah in the Bible

By Biblical Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

——-

Jesus rejects the notion that he’s a descendant of David, and of the Jews, in Matthew 22:41-46.

——-

That’s precisely why the gospel writers are especially careful to dissociate him from the southern kingdom of Judah and from the Jews by locating his place of origin in the north, in the land of the Gentiles, a place outside of, and external to, the Jewish Kingdom. Btw, strictly speaking, the word “Jew “ means a person from the kingdom of Judah (Ιουδαίος).

——-

The Figurative Text (Excerpted from Kittim’s book, The Little Book of Revelation, Chapter 5):

In contrast to the “New Perspective on Paul,” which tries to Hebraize the Greek New Testament by giving Paul a Hebrew flavor, Paul himself is adamant that “Jewishness” in the Bible has nothing to do with race or descendancy. Paul gives us an exact definition of what it means to be a “Jew” within the NT context:

“For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart—it is spiritual and not literal. Such a person receives praise not from others but from God” (Rom. 2.28-29).

According to Paul’s stunning definition, the biblical term “Jew” does not denote a race or an apparent physical birthright (as the “New Perspective on Paul” would have us believe), but rather an inner essence or, more precisely, an indwelling spirit pertaining to God. This descriptive terminology certainly illustrates a radical new way of approaching, reading, and interpreting the Bible. William Barclay, a world-renowned New Testament scholar, rightly emphasizes that Paul’s message must have infuriated the Jews:

“To a Jew a passage like this must have come as a shattering experience. He was certain that God regarded him with special favour, simply and solely because of his national descent from Abraham and because he bore the badge of circumcision in his flesh. But Paul introduces an idea to which he will return again and again. JEWISHNESS, he insists, IS NOT A MATTER OF RACE AT ALL; IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CIRCUMCISION. It is a matter of conduct. If that is so, many a so-called Jew who is a pure descendant of Abraham and who bears the mark of circumcision in his body, is no Jew at all; and equally many a GENTILE who never heard of Abraham and who would never dream of being circumcised, IS A JEW IN THE REAL SENSE OF THE TERM. To a Jew this would sound the wildest heresy and leave him angry and aghast.”

(The Letter to the Romans. The Daily Study Bible Series. Rev. ed. [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975], p. 47, emphasis added).

——-

It’s not at all coincidental that in the plot of the gospels Jesus becomes the figurative “son of Joseph,” who is himself reminiscent of the great hero that once lived and reigned in Egypt (the land of the Gentiles)!

——-

Another Biblical clue concerning a Gentile Messiah (besides Moses the “Egyptian”) is the unique reference to Cyrus, who is explicitly called in the Book of Isaiah God’s “anointed” (i.e. messiah; Isa. 45.1). Cyrus is not a Jew! That’s precisely why God says in Isaiah 46.11 that he will bring from a far country the Messiah who will execute his counsel (cf. Matt. 28.18; 1 Cor. 15.24-25). Not only is the Messiah not Jewish, but the elect themselves are not defined as biological Jews. As Romans 9.8 reminds us, “it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.”

——-

And why do you suppose Jesus is compared “to the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 6.20)? What’s the point of the mimesis? Precisely because Melchizedek “does not belong to their [Jewish] ancestry” (Heb. 7.6), and when compared to Jesus, it follows that Jesus himself “does not belong to their ancestry” either! What is the New Testament trying to tell us? Just like Melchizedek, Christ is not a Jew!

——-

That’s why the gospels keep telling us over and over again that the Jews expect a Jewish messiah to arrive from the line of David but are terribly disappointed in seeing a Gentile messiah appearing from Galilee. And, as a consequence, they want to kill him! And, in the end, they do!

——-

Division of People over Jesus in John's Gospel Because He Does Not Come from Bethlehem of the Jews but from Galilee of the Gentiles:

“Others were saying, “Surely the Christ is not going to come from Galilee, is He? Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the descendants of David [Jews], and from Bethlehem, the village where David was?” So a division occurred in the crowd because of Him” (John 7.41-43).

——-

Jesus Christ (Gk. Ἰησοῦς Χριστός; 1 Cor. 3.11) Defies Jewish Messianic Expectations

John 7.52:

“Search, and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee” (cf. Mt. 4.15-16).

——-

Furthermore, it’s the Greek New Testament that introduces Jesus the Messiah, NOT the Hebrew Bible!

——-

And the Greek-New-Testament was not written by Jews but by Greeks! The New Testament was typically written in articulate, refined Greek, not in Hebrew! And it seems that they weren’t fluent In Hebrew because when these NT authors quote from the OT, they predominantly quote from the Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, and not from the original Hebrew scriptures per se. This indicates that the NT authors were not familiar with the Hebrew language. In other words, they were NOT Jews. And most of the NT letters are addressed to Greek communities rather than Jewish ones. This Greek-element——running not only through the “thematic structure” but also via the writing, composition, production, place-of-authorship (which is said to be outside of Palestine), distribution, and dissemination of the text (largely to Gentile communities)——speaks volumes about the NT’s theological purpose, authorial intention, and cultural milieu!

——-

Conclusion

Unfortunately, we have failed to notice that the narrative of a •Gentile-messiah• is a major theme that runs across the entire Bible! And, in my opinion, the gospels certainly take advantage of this literary motif by showing through various rhetorical devices that Christ is not a Jew!

——-

Is the Trinity a Biblical Teaching?

By Author Eli Kittim

“While the developed doctrine of the Trinity

is not explicit in the books that constitute

the New Testament, the New Testament

possesses a ‘triadic’ understanding of God

and contains a number of Trinitarian

formulas, including Matthew 28:19, 2

Corinthians 13:14, 1 Corinthians 12:4-5,

Ephesians 4:4-6, 1 Peter 1:2 and Revelation

1:4-5” (Trinity, Wiki).

The Deity of God the Father

To begin with, there are numerous New Testament verses which reveal God as “Father” (e.g., John 6:27, Titus 1:4). This fundamental concept of the Father as the creator and source of all living beings is of course famously attested in the Hebrew Scriptures with terms such as Yahweh and Elohim!

The Deity of Jesus Christ

We also have multiple texts which refer to the deity of Jesus Christ, depicting him as the so-called Son of God, such as in Jn 1:1 (“the word was God”), Col. 2:9 (“in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily”), Jn 8:58 (“before Abraham was, I am”), Heb. 1:3 (“The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact imprint of his being”), Tit. 2:13 (“our great God and Savior Jesus Christ”), as well as the explicit worship Christ willingly received from his followers (Luke 24:52; John 20:28) and the accusations of blasphemy leveled against him for equating himself with God (Mark 2:7).

The Deity of the Holy Spirit

The personhood of the Holy Spirit is multiply-attested in the New Testament. There are many verses which hint at the deity of the Holy Spirit, calling Him, for example, a “person” (ἐκεῖνος, meaning “He” Jn. 16:13-14; ὁ Παράκλητος, which depicts “a person”; & ἐκεῖνος, meaning “he” Jn. 15:26). The Holy Spirit is also called the “eternal Spirit” (Heb. 9:14), a term that is often used interchangeably with the concept of God (1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19; Acts 5:3-4; Rom. 8:9; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21). For example, the Holy Spirit is called “Lord” in 2 Corinthians 3:17:

“Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the

Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.”

Moreover, the Holy Spirit is said to have insight into “the depths of God” (1 Corinthians 2:10-11). He also possesses knowledge (Romans 8:27). The Spirit is also said to have a personal will (1 Corinthians 12:11). He is capable of convicting the world of sin (John 16:8), and performs signs and miracles (Acts 8:39). He also guides (John 16:13) and intercedes between people (Romans 8:26). He utters commands and is also obeyed (Acts 10:19-20; 16:6). The Spirit talks (Revelation 2:7; 14:13; 22:17). He warns and prophesies of things to come (John 16:13; Acts 20:23). And the New Testament certainly depicts Him as a member of the Trinity (John 16:14; Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14).

The Plurality in the Godhead

What is more, the plurality in the Godhead is well attested not only in the New Testament but also in the Old Testament (Gen. 1:1-3, 26; Psalm 2:7; and Dan. 7:13-14)! Furthermore, there are many New Testament passages that either mention or allude to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as if they are distinct persons with different functions, yet equated in rank and status as a unit (Matt. 28:19; Gal. 4:6; 1 Cor.12:4-6; 1 Peter 1:1-2; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 2:18; 3:14-17; 4:4-6; 5:18-20; 6:18). After all, Mt. 28:18-20 reads:

“And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All

authority in heaven and on earth has been

given to me. Go therefore and make

disciples of all nations, baptizing them in

the name of the Father and of the Son and

of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to

obey everything that I have commanded

you. And remember, I am with you always,

to the end of the age.’ “

In Greek, 1 John 5:7 reads as follows:

ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ

οὐρανῷ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ λόγος καὶ τὸ ἅγιον

πνεῦμα καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν.

(Stephens 1550 “Textus Receptus” aka

Received Text).

KJV Translation:

“For there are three that bear record in

heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy

Ghost: and these three are one.”

There has been much debate over 1 John 5:7 as to its authenticity (aka the “Johannine Comma”). Modern Bible versions that were formulated by mostly secular scholars in the 19th century, who largely denied the deity of Christ, used variant manuscripts (e.g., “Alexandrian texts”) to argue that 1 John 5:7 is an interpolation. However, scholars who have a high view of Scripture argue that the “Majority text” was more widely used by the early church and that this verse is in fact authentic and original.

The Trinity in the Hebrew Bible

A multiplicity of divine persons exists in the Hebrew Bible, as we find in Prov. 30:3-4, Gen. 35:1-7, as well as in Gen. 31:10-13 where the Angel of God is identified as God, no less!

Note the multi-personal God also in Eccles. 12:1 (YLT):

“Remember also thy Creators in days of thy

youth.”

While critics of the Triune God use Deut. 6:4 (The Shema) as a declaration of monotheism, this verse may also refer to a plurality of divine persons within the singular Godhead. The verse essentially reads:

Yahweh Elohenu Yahweh is one.

It Mentions God 3 times and then declares that he [is] one (echad). Besides mentioning God 3 times, the verse also uses the plural form ĕ·lō·hê·nū to suggest numerically more than one person. It’s tantamount to saying, Israel, pay attention to my declaration about God: one plus one plus one equals one (or 3 in 1)! Or, Yahweh, Elohenu, Yahweh = One (monotheism)! Elohenu is a noun, masculine plural construct, first person common plural. But what exactly does Deut. 6:4 mean when it says that God is one (echad)? Answer:

“Echad is the Hebrew word for one, but more

precisely it means a single entity but made

up of more than one part. There is another

Hebrew word from the same root – Yachid

which means single. The meaning of Echad

(more than one part) is a confirmation of

the Hebrew word Elohim which is translated

as God. Elohim is a plural word – more than

one . . .”

https://news.kehila.org/the-meaning-of-the-word-echad-one/

Kehila News Israel

The meaning of the word Echad – One

David writes, "The key for both Jews and Christians to learn the correct concept of our God is the word echad. Echad is the Hebrew word for

Moreover, Yahweh is not called qadosh (singular for ‘holy’) but qə·ḏō·šîm (plural) in Joshua 24:19 as well as in Prov. 9:10:

“The commencement of wisdom is the fear

of Jehovah, And a knowledge of the Holy

Ones is understanding.”

As for the distinction of the third person of the Trinity, namely, the Holy Spirit, besides 2 Sam. 23:2-3, read Isaiah 63:10-11:

“But they rebelled and grieved his holy spirit;

therefore he became their enemy; he

himself fought against them. Then they

remembered the days of old, of Moses his

servant. Where is the one who brought

them up out of the sea with the shepherds

of his flock? Where is the one who put

within them his Holy Spirit?”

Thus, the above-mentioned verses in the Hebrew Scriptures clearly support the theological concept of a plurality of persons within the singular Godhead, otherwise known as the Trinity.

The Plurality of Persons Within the Godhead Was Part of Judaism During the Time of Jesus

See my article: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/611381184411336704/the-two-powers-of-the-godhead-were-part-of-judaism

Eli of Kittim

The Two Powers of the Godhead Were Part of Judaism During the Time of Jesus

The Two Powers of the Godhead Were Part of Judaism During the Time of Jesus ——- Metatron and Jesus The early Jewish concept of “Metatron”

Jesus’ Death: Sacrifice or Suicide?

By Writer Eli Kittim

——-

John 15.13:

“Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”

But how does one do that voluntarily?

Philosophically speaking, unless God’s Sovereignty somehow orchestrates the events leading up to the death of Jesus, how else could Christ offer his life voluntarily?

——-

Thus, are we talking about a Messianic Sacrifice or a Suicide in the New Testament? There have been numerous academic studies that have addressed this question. The Canonical Epistles exclaim:

“And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma” (Eph. 5.2).

——-

So, the question arises: how exactly has Christ “given himself for us, [as] an offering and a sacrifice to God”?

Bear in mind that the term “sacrifice” has the meaning of a voluntary offering of a life. However, if other people planned and performed the execution of Jesus, then how is his atonement deemed a voluntary sacrifice?

——-

It seems to me that the only possible explanation for a voluntary sacrifice is Suicide: the laying down of one’s own life! In the New Testament gospels, Jesus himself implies that no one else actually kills him but rather that he offers (“takes”) his life voluntarily. Speaking about his life, he declares:

“No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord” (Jn 10.18)!

It can be paraphrased as follows: “no one takes my life from me; I take my own life.” Otherwise stated, if others had planned on killing Jesus through coercion, then that type of sacrifice would have occurred in an involuntary manner. Not to mention that others would have taken his life from him. Furthermore, the fact that Jesus foreknew it doesn’t necessarily make it voluntary, nor can it be described as an event that transpired according to his wishes. The fact that he was forced to drink the cup against his wishes demonstrates that even the foreknowledge of this event didn’t make his sacrifice voluntary! So what is it that allows him to lay down his life of his own accord?

——-

Remember the “Temptation of Christ,” which comprised three temptations? One is to gain the whole world and its kingdoms. The second is to satisfy his deepest wishes and desires. But in the third temptation (Lk 4.9-12) Satan tempts Jesus to commit suicide!

——-

If we consider the “typological” relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament, we can see, for example, that Samson may be seen as a “type” of Christ in being a sort of savior and superhuman figure (e.g. the “Annunciation” in Lk 1:26–38 is seemingly modelled on the announcement of Samson’s birth in Judg. 13). The last act of Samson comprises his noble death, one that is positively characterized by martyrdom and Suicide in the Old Testament! The biblical narrator seems to commend Samson’s suicide by emphasizing that God strengthened Samson to carry out this massacre: “So those he killed at his death were more than those he had killed during his life” (Judg. 16.30)! This is a reference to the massacre in which Samson, in an act of revenge, pushed the two “pillars on which the house rested” (Judg. 16.29) on top of the Philistines and cried out: “Let me die with the Philistines” (v. 30). If Samson is a “type” of Christ, then we would expect something analogous taking place in the death of Christ, the “antitype”!

——-

Another “type” of “Messianic sacrifice” in the Old Testament occurs in Genesis 22, namely, the sacrifice of Isaac! If it had been carried out, it would have been tantamount to “shedding one’s own blood.” It would be akin to the act of killing one's self; aka suicide! In fact, Abraham is commended for attempting this act (Gen. 22.16-17), and then God mysteriously equates Abraham’s act with a “type” of global redemption:

“and by your offspring shall all the nations of the earth gain blessing for themselves, because you have obeyed my voice” (Gen. 22.18).

Let’s not forget that the redemptive sacrifice of Issac is a “type” and a foreshadowing of Christ’s Atonement, that is to say, Christ’s voluntary sacrifice!

——-

The same motif of “shedding one’s own blood” is prevalent in the Old Testament, as, for example, in the killing of Abel by Cain (Genesis 4:1–16). And similar to other messianic stand-ins who have committed murder, such as Moses and David, Cain is also a Messianic-type figure on which God grants divine protection through a special “mark” (Gen. 4.15).

——-

So, these acts of “shedding one’s own blood”——as in the case of Cain killing his brother Abel and especially that of Abraham and Isaac in which Abraham is celebrated as a person of great faith in sacrificing his only son (Heb. 11.17-19)——seem to foreshadow the atoning death and voluntary sacrifice of the Messiah!

——-

Here’s another controversial example that seems to fit the bill. It begins in the Book of Zechariah the prophet:

“Strike the shepherd, that the sheep may be scattered; I will turn my hand against the little ones” (Zech. 13.7).

But who is “the shepherd” in this verse referring to? Jesus claims that it is a reference to himself:

“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” (Jn 10.11).

Let’s now take a look at the controversial verse in Mt. 26.31, which is based on Zech. 13.7:

“Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.”

First, why would his followers be offended? Death, on behalf of one’s principles, at the hands of the state has always been viewed as a heroic and noble sacrifice since the death of Socrates! So, one wonders what the cause of the offense might be?

Second, whom does "I” refer to in Mt. 26.31? We already know that Jesus is the “shepherd” in question. So then, who “will smite the shepherd”? Some say God the father; others say, Jesus! If, in fact, this first person singular pronoun refers to Jesus, then according to one noted minister, Frederick K. C. Price, “That means he’s gonna kill himself” (i.e. commit suicide). In other words, the exegesis suggests that Jesus will smite himself!

——-

Given that there are no unnecessary words in the New Testament, and that they’re all there for a reason, the undercurrent of John’s gospel raises an important question: is Jesus going to kill himself?

“Then the Jews said, ‘Is he going to kill himself? Is that what he means by saying, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come'?" (Jn 8.22).

The Original Greek text reads:

ἔλεγον οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι · Μήτι ἀποκτενεῖ ἑαυτὸν ὅτι λέγει · Ὅπου ἐγὼ ὑπάγω ὑμεῖς οὐ δύνασθε ἐλθεῖν;

That’s a non sequitur. From a literary standpoint, the Jewish conclusion of a possible suicide does not logically follow the apparent context. How can suicide be inferred from Jesus’ statement: “Where I am going, you cannot come”? It cannot! Therefore, we have to assume that something else is going on in the text and that John is trying to give us a heads-up that a suicide might lay in store for him!

Certainly, the Greek phrase “ἀποκτενεῖ ἑαυτὸν” means “to kill himself” (i.e. to commit suicide)!

——-

Conclusion

The fact that Jesus lays down his own life (Jn 15.13) as a voluntary offering and sacrifice, and given that no one else takes his life from him but that he himself lays it down of his own accord” (Jn 10.18), seems to indicate that his death is a result of his own volition rather than that of the traditional set of circumstances that we’re familiar with.

What is more, there are quite a number of references to suicidal or quasi-suicidal deaths in the Old Testament that are then carried forward into the New Testament where, for example, Jesus himself is actually tempted by Satan to commit suicide (Lk 4.9)!

And then we read in John’s penetrating and revealing gospel that the Jews were indeed wondering whether or not Jesus was “going to kill himself?” (8.22)! So, over and above the New Testament’s theological import, we might rightfully ask ourselves: is Jesus’ Death a Sacrifice or a Suicide?

——-

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.