Is Human Sacrifice Forbidden In The Hebrew Bible?

Is Human Sacrifice Forbidden in the Hebrew Bible?

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

Child Sacrifice Versus Messianic Sacrifice

Child sacrifice to other gods (e.g. offering “offspring to Molech” Lev. 20.2; cf. Deut. 12.31; 18.10) is certainly forbidden in the Torah. But the *Messianic sacrifice* or “Sin offering” (Lev. 4; 17.11; Heb. 9.14, 22) is not a Child sacrifice to other gods. On the contrary, the sacrifice of the Anointed One is PRAISED in the Tanakh (e.g. Isa. 53.3-10; Zech. 12.10; Dan. 9.26). The two types of sacrifices are not equivalent.

In reference to the suffering servant, Isaiah says, “upon him was the punishment that made us whole, and by his bruises we are healed” (53.5). Isaiah’s atonement language culminates in an explicit proposition: “you [God] make his life an offering for sin” (53.10). If human sacrifice is always——under all circumstances——forbidden in the Torah, then Isaiah’s God is a completely different God, alien to the Torah, because Isaiah unequivocally and categorically states that Yahweh himself makes the righteous servant’s *human sacrifice* “an offering for sin.”

The Binding of Isaac is a similar biblical narrative in which Yahweh commands Abraham to offer his son Isaac as a human sacrifice (Gen. 22.2). But just prior to the sacrifice that Abraham was about to engage in, he said to his son, “God himself will provide the lamb for a burnt offering, my son” (Gen. 22.8). So, God will provide His own Lamb. Who, then, could “the Lamb of God” be? (cf. Jn. 1.29; 1.36; Rev. 5.6; 6.9; 7.17; 12.11; 14.4, 10; 15.3; 19.9; 21.23; 22.1, 3)!

——-

Only a Blood Sacrifice Can Atone for Human Sin

The sacred *human-sacrifice* by a God-man as a *once-for-all-atonement* for man’s sin (Heb. 9.26) is not to be confused with the profane and repetitive ritual of Child sacrifice to false gods. In Deut. 18.10, Child sacrifice is abhorrent and forbidden due to its association with foreign gods, idolatry, sorcery, and divination, which are detestable to God (cf. 2 Kings 21.6). However, in a sacred context, God doesn’t necessarily rule out human sacrifice as an atonement for sin:

For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I

have given it to you for making atonement

for your lives on the altar; for, as life, it is the

blood that makes atonement (Lev. 17.11).

So, it’s clear that only a blood sacrifice can atone for man’s sins (Heb. 9.22). Nothing else!

Thus, Christ’s *Leviticus-17.11-sacrifice* on the cross——offering himself for the sins of the people——does not violate the prohibition against the detestable Child sacrifices to other gods. The former represents a sacred atonement; the latter, idolatry. Moreover, one finite human being cannot possibly atone for every sin that has ever been committed throughout human history. Hence the necessity for God Himself to atone for the sins of humankind. This Substitutionary atonement is hinted at when the Deity tells Abraham not to kill his own son because God himself will provide for that. This is part of the reason why God has to become a Man and live among us (Jn 1.14). God already foretold his incarnation in the Torah, which, unfortunately, was misinterpreted by the Jews. Regardless, God clearly said: “I will walk among you” (Lev. 26:12; cf. Isa. 9.6; Mic. 5.2; Dan. 7.13-14)! The only possible way he can actually walk among us is in human form. The other reason for God’s incarnation is to transform human existence and the physical world through his glorious resurrection (Dan. 12.1-2; cf. Phil. 3.21; 1 Thess. 4.15-17; 1 Cor. 15.42-58). But, in order to be resurrected, he would have to die first. No other sacrifice would suffice!

——-

Do People Die for their Own Sins or Can Another Person Die in their Stead?

The well-known Jer. 31.30 reference——that “all shall die for their own sins”——is alluding to mere mortals who obviously cannot die for one another. But a “divine” sacrifice, by a God-man, on their behalf, to whom the animal sacrifices were presumably pointing, is not precluded by the text. If no one else can die for human sins, except the person who committed them, then why the need for animal sacrifices in the first place, which became our substitutes in atoning for man's sins?

And what does Isa. 53.5 mean when it says that the suffering servant . . .

was wounded for our transgressions; he

was crushed for our iniquities; upon him

was the chastisement that brought us

peace, and with his stripes we are healed?

If no one else can pay for another’s sins, then *how* is it possible that he was wounded (mə·ḥō·lāl מְחֹלָ֣ל) for our iniquities and our sins? And how can we possibly be *healed* by his punishment? Obviously, Isaiah’s account cannot be disputed on theological grounds since his explicit statement that the suffering servant “was bruised for our sins” is regarded as canonical. Isaiah, then, makes a declaration that seems akin to an article of religious faith: “The punishment [or penalty] of our peace was upon him” (53.5). In other words, he was paying our debt so that we can be forgiven and live in peace, without shame or guilt. And Yahweh has laid on him all of our sins (Isa. 53.6).

He was (נִגְזַר֙) cut off (מֵאֶ֣רֶץ) from the land (חַיִּ֔ים) of the living (מִפֶּ֥שַׁע) for the transgressions (עַמִּ֖י) of my people (Isa. 53.8). This means that he literally DIED **FOR** the SINS of Yahweh’s people at some point in human history! It’s repeated once again in Isa. 53.12, namely, that he bore the sins of many, and for the transgressors (וְלַפֹּשְׁעִ֖ים) he made intercession (יַפְגִּֽיעַ׃). Isaiah 53.11 explicitly declares that He shall justify (יַצְדִּ֥יק) many (לָֽרַבִּ֑ים) for their sins (וַעֲוֺנֹתָ֖ם).

It has all the makings of a credal formulation. For a better understanding, it is advisable that we read the Old Testament in Hebrew, not in English!

——-

Did Paul Reinvent the Torah?

Most Jews think that the Torah is about Works, not Grace, and that Paul reinvented this new Christian-theology of Grace and superimposed it on the Torah. But Paul did not invent anything. He is not reinterpreting the Torah. He is giving us the correct interpretation that was always there. It was the Jews that misinterpreted their scriptures. We therefore need to show how grace was always available, even from the time of the Pentateuch (the Torah). The importance of this study is to show that man cannot save himself by works but only by the Grace of God (Rom. 11.6), based on the merits of the *messianic sacrifice* (or Sin Offering) that we’ve been discussing at some length (Heb. 9.14; 1 Pet. 2.24)!

One could reasonably argue that grace was always available “by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2.23 NASB) and was even explicitly mentioned in the writings of the law and the prophets. Deut. 30.6 (NRSV) is a case in point. The undermentioned verse from the Torah doesn’t appeal to works but to grace:

circumcise your heart and the heart of your

descendants, so that you will love the Lord

your God with all your heart and with all

your soul, in order that you may live.

Ezekiel 36:26 is very similar. Here, once again, the OT is not referring to Works but to Grace. The text reads:

I will give you a new heart and put a new

spirit in you; I will remove from you your

heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.

Jeremiah 31.33 (cf. 24.7; 32.39-40) is along similar lines:

I will put my law within them, and I will write

it on their hearts.

In a comparable manner, Ezek. 18.31 (cf. 11.19) says:

Cast away from you all the transgressions

that you have committed against me, and

get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit!

Why will you die, O house of Israel?

As you can see, even the Torah referred to a circumcision of the heart, not of the flesh. The Mosaic Law, according to the prophets, was to be written supernaturally in people’s hearts through the Holy Spirit of regeneration, not through self-striving and personal works (cf. Eph. 2.8-9).

——-

The Revelation of the Suffering Servant’s Atonement for Sin

The Book of Isaiah (53.1) begins with a prophetic declaration:

‎וּזְר֥וֹעַ יְהוָ֖ה עַל־ מִ֥י נִגְלָֽתָה׃

Translation:

and the arm of Yahweh to whom has been

revealed.

In other words, this is a *revelation* from Yahweh which is given to the prophet! In this philological exegesis, it is indisputable that Isaiah is prophesying about a messianic figure (see my article, “Isaiah 53: Why God’s Suffering Servant is Not Israel”: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/634210448637624320/isaiah-53-why-gods-suffering-servant-is-not).

Eli of Kittim

Isaiah 53: Why God’s Suffering Servant is Not Israel

By Eli Kittim ——- The Bible sometimes uses metaphorical language that often involves multiple layers of meaning. Here’s a case in point. I

Therefore, Isaiah declares what has been revealed to him by Yahweh. In reference to the suffering servant, he says,

upon him was the punishment that made us

whole, and by his bruises we are healed

(53.5 NRSV).

As if speaking to Yahweh, he would later state: “you make his life an offering for sin” (53.10). Read Isaiah 53.3-10 carefully. The context is about a human sacrifice for sin, which all the animal sacrifices (including that of Isaac) were presumably pointing to. They were types foreshadowing the antitype, that is, the ultimate *sin offering* (cf. Lev. 4; Eph. 1.7; Heb. 9.22; 1 Pet. 1.19)! According to Heb. 10.3-4, the animal sacrifices fell short of atoning for man's sins:

But those sacrifices are an annual reminder

of sins, because it is impossible for the

blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Speaking on this problem, Isaiah prophesied of a servant who would die on behalf of the people, offering his life to atone for their sins!

——-

Are there Two Messiahs or One Messiah in the Hebrew Bible?

Within Judaism itself there was always the idea of dual messiahs, which is the notion that there are either two messiahs or *one messiah* assuming the role of two. Later Judaism certainly talks of two messiahs — the sons of Joseph and David, one of whom (Messiah ben Joseph) will certainly die! According to mainstream Judaism, there are two Messiahs: one is a high priest, the other is an anointed king of the Davidic line. This is what Zech. 4.14 (cf. Rev. 11.4) is referring to when it says:

These are the two anointed ones who stand

by the Lord of the whole earth.

However, in the New Testament, these 2 Messiahs are morphed into one priestly/kingly figure: Jesus the Son of God (cf. Heb. 4.14 and Mt. 2.1–2) who “is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 Jn 2.2).

——-

The Human Sacrifice of the Anointed is Praised in the Hebrew Bible

We find the exact same theme in Isa. 53.3-10 as we do in Zechariah 12.10 (NIV), which reads:

And I will pour out on the house of David

and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of

grace and supplication. They will look on

me, the one they have pierced, and they will

mourn for him as one mourns for an only

child, and grieve bitterly for him as one

grieves for a firstborn son.

That’s because they will come to realize that it was an important figure that was pierced, namely the foretold messiah! This is atonement language. Even Daniel 9.26 (ISV), in the context of the 70-weeks prophecy, employs the atonement language of salvation to describe the Messianic Sacrifice:

Then after the 62 weeks, the anointed one

will be cut down (but not for himself).

In other words, this messianic figure dies for others (not for himself)! What about Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac in the Torah? Why is that story told? According to Rane Willerslev, a Danish academic anthropologist, “ ‘to sacrifice’ translates in religious terms as ‘to make sacred’ “ (God on trial: Human sacrifice, trickery and faith. Hau: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, vol. 3, no. 1 [2013], p. 140). Thus, in order to make men holy, a sacrifice must be offered. This sacrifice to make them sacred must be of the highest order, and reminiscent of the “lamb without … blemish” (1 Pet. 1.19; cf. Lev. 4.32), the so-called sin offering sacrifice according to the specifications of the Mosaic Law! In other words, only a pure, holy, and infinitely divine sacrifice is acceptable to God. Man cannot atone for his sins through the blood of animals. That’s the point! That’s why the temple was destroyed. Because the petty sacrifices of animals were no longer needed (Hos. 6.6). Nor can man atone for his own sins. Only God can atone for man. The gravity of the sacrifice implies that it takes something more than human endeavour to offer oneself in place of all sinners so as to bear the curse of human sin (Gal. 3.13). Hence why the human sacrifice of the Anointed is praised and exalted in the Hebrew Bible. And if that is so, how much more should it be praised and exalted in the Christian Bible? Moses prophesied of the messiah in the Torah: “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen” (Deut. 18:15-19). And Jesus attests to the truth of this statement by claiming that Moses wrote about him (John 5:46). See my article “What did Moses Mean when he Said that God will Raise Up a Prophet Like Me?” https://www.tumblr.com/eli-kittim/171117128142/what-did-moses-mean-when-he-said-that-god-will

As far as Jewish objections to Christ’s divinity are concerned, see my article “The Two Powers of the Godhead Were Part of Judaism During the Time of Jesus”: 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”

——-

Preterism Debunked

By Eli Kittim

Was 70 CE the Worst Period Ever in the History of the Earth?

In talking about the great ordeal (aka “the great tribulation”), Mt. 24.21 says that there will be the greatest suffering ever in the history of the world before Jesus comes. 70 CE was not, by any stretch of the imagination, the worst period ever in the history of the earth. We have ample evidence of the Black Death (1346-1353), the Flu Pandemic (1918), and the two World Wars that killed over 100 million people, which were far worse than the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. This fact alone severely weakens the Preterist argument of the imminent eschatology of Jesus and the apostles, which is characterised by the notion that the eschaton was supposed to take place in first century Palestine!

Similarly, Dan. 12.1, after discussing the worst period in the history of the earth, goes on to say that the resurrection of the dead will occur during the same time period (Dan. 12.2). Then, the Book of Daniel goes on to talk about “the time of the end” (12.4, 9), which obviously goes far beyond the first century. In point of fact, the Book of Daniel and the Gospel of Matthew offer two conspicuous examples which demonstrate that “the end of the days” (Dan. 12.13), or “the end” of human history (Mt. 24.14), is radically different than what the Preterist interpreters make it out to be, namely, a first century fulfillment. If anything, Scripture’s future end-time prophecies are meant to signal the ultimate dissolution of the universe (2 Pet. 3.10) and the creation of “a new heaven and a new earth” (Rev. 21.1). Events that obviously haven’t happened yet!

Could the Latter Years or The Day of the Lord Refer to the Time of Antiquity?

Biblically, the “eschaton” is set in the context of a future time-period that is intimately connected with “the day of the Lord” (ημέρα κυρίου)! And as regards the idiomatic expression, the Day of the Lord, almost all Bible scholars believe that it is an event that will take place at the end of the world (cf. Isa. 2.12; Ezek. 30.3; Joel 2.31-32; Amos 5.18-20; Zeph. 1.14-18; Acts 2.20). This, too, debunks the notion that the Day of the Lord was anticipated in the first century CE. Two Thessalonians 2.1-4 warns against such Preterist hypotheses by stating that the Day of Christ has not yet come, and that it won’t come until the arrival of the Antichrist at the end of days.

In fact, Preterism’s interpretative weakness can be exposed through many angles. For example, the end-times war known as the Gog-Magog war in Exekiel 38, which most prophecy experts ascribe to the future, is said to commence “in the latter years” (v. 8)! 70 CE certainly does not qualify as the latter years. It is untenable to suggest this hypothesis which does not fit with any of the end-time biblical prophecies and predictions.

Is the Terminal Generation the one that Will Not Pass Away Until All these Things Take Place?

Modern Greek linguistics demonstrate that “temporal values (past, present, future) are not established in Greek by use of the verbal aspects (or tense-forms) alone” (Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament [2nd edn; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999], p. 25). In other words, just because a verb is in the present tense doesn’t mean that the action is happening at present! So, this point demonstrates that the insistence on the present generation-interpretation does not necessarily square well with the authorial intent. For ex, the Johannine Jesus says figuratively that the hour “is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God” (Jn. 5.25), and will come out of their graves. But we have no evidence that the resurrection of the dead happened in Antiquity. In fact, we have evidence that, according to Dan. 12.2, the resurrection of the dead is a future end-time event. Same with Mt. 24.34: “This generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.” What things? Answer: all the future end-time events that are described in Mt. 24. Thus, Jesus is clearly describing the last generation on earth. For instance, the notion that some of Jesus’ followers would not die before they saw him coming in glory (16.27) or in his kingdom (Mt. 16.28) cannot be attributed to a supposed first-century CE context. Since Jesus has yet to come in his glory, it can only be ascribed to an eschatological spectrum of events. Since there is no historical record of these events ever taking place, the context of such passages is ultimately based not on preterism but futurism. In other words, the generation that is alive, at that future time, and sees these signs (as described in Mt. 24.33) is the same generation that will not die and witness the coming of the savior (cf. 1 Cor. 10.11)! In short, the timeline of “this generation” that “will not pass away” (Mt. 24.34) must be interpreted within the context of the prerequisite signs that will take place, not simply on linguistic grounds.

Translation and Exegesis of Biblical Greek Validates the Futurist Eschatology of the New Testament

If you add my particular contribution to the mix——where I discuss the explicit future eschatological verses in the Greek New Testament that refer to the end of the world——it turns out to be the final nail in the Preterist coffin! Phrases like τό πλήρωμα του χρόνου (Gal. 4.4; Eph. 1.10) refer to the final consummation when all things, both in the heavens and upon the earth, will conclude in Christ! Furthermore, the phrase επ´ εσχάτου των ημερων (Heb. 1.2) literally means “in the last days” and is an ipso facto reference to the end of the ages (cf. the alternative expression επ´ εσχάτου των χρόνων; 1 Pet. 1.20). These apocalyptic expressions are built on the term έσχατος (eschatos), which means “last in time.” In fact, the word eschatology is derived from the Greek term “eschaton.”

The Timeline of the Great Tribulation and the Resurrection of the Dead Does Not Square Well with the Apostolic Age

Many Biblical exegetes have traditionally misunderstood the inferred time-period associated with the phrase, “the time is near,” and have consequently assumed that both Jesus and the apostles expected the imminent end to happen in their lifetime. In fact, Bertrand Russell (the famous philosopher) wrote an essay indicating that he is not a Christian because, in his view, Jesus and the apostles were wrong about their imminent eschatology. These events never happened. Albert Schweitzer came to the same conclusion. Thereafter, many subsequent scholars followed suit.

(See the following article, which refutes this notion of imminent eschatology based on the koine Greek of the New Testament).

Tumblr

Is Paul Teaching an Imminent Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15:51?

El Kittim Some commentators have claimed that Paul’s language in 1 Corinthians 15:51 is referencing an imminent eschatology. Our primary

However, good exegesis requires that we evaluate the idiomatic expression “the time is near” (Rev. 1.3; 22.10) within its proper context, and therefore interpret it in light of the revelations that are associated with it. In other words, why is the warning in Rev. 22.10 not applicable to ancient times? Well, there are certain sign-posts that need to be deciphered first. And, in order to understand the particular timeline in question, we need a clear outline of the sequence of eschatological events. For example, the aforementioned apocalyptic locution “the time is near” is not mentioned in a vacuum as if it pertains to all generations, including that of the Apostolic Age, but rather in the context of the specific judgments of the tribulation period (see Rev. chs. 6–16). This specific tribulation period is inextricably connected to the “Beast” of Rev. 13, otherwise known as the “lawless one” (cf. 2 Thess. 2.3–4) or the Antichrist (1 Jn 2.18).

In order to ascertain the overall prophetic message of Revelation, the hermeneutical principle of the canonical context demands that we coalesce the different Biblical texts, as if we’re reading a single Book, rather than employing isolated, out-of-context passages to construct a subjective theology. For proper exegesis, we also need to use “the analogy of scripture,” rather than form opinions based on speculation and conjecture. In other words, we must allow scripture to interpret and define scripture. For instance, 2 Thess. 2.1–7 predicts a sequence of eschatological events in which the “Antichrist” will be revealed at roughly the same time as the “rapture,” the transporting of believers to heaven at the end of days. Incidentally, the rapture is said to occur contemporaneously with the general resurrection of the dead (cf. 1 Thess. 4.15–17). Since the general resurrection of the dead is an event that is associated with the apocalyptic time period known as the great tribulation——aka a period of “great suffering” (θλῖψις μεγάλη; Mt. 24.21; cf. Dan. 8.19; 12.1–2; Rev. 7.14)——2 Thess. 2.1-3 is teaching against the doctrine of imminence by stressing that the rapture and the resurrection cannot take place “unless the rebellion comes first and the lawless one is revealed.” Similarly, Daniel places the timeline of the resurrection in prophetic categories by stating that it will occur at the end of days (12.13)!

Let’s not forget that at the beginning of Matthew 24.3 a question is asked about the chronology of the signs of the times regarding these eschatological events:

“Tell us, when will this be, and what will be

the sign of your coming and of the end of

the age?”

It’s important to note, parenthetically, that the apocalyptic phrase “the end of the age” is actually a reference to the end of the world (see Mt. 13.39–40, 49; 24.3; 28.20). So, whatever eschatology one imposes on the New Testament, it must ultimately line up with the enumerated events discussed therein. By way of illustration, Mt. 24.21 says that the Great Tribulation (Gk. θλῖψις μεγάλη) will begin “when you see the desolating sacrilege standing in the holy place” (Mt. 24.15). This is further discussed in 2 Thess. 2.3–4 (cf. Dan. 9.27). Apparently, this is the same time period when the Great Tribulation will commence. Then, Mt. 24.29–31 goes on to discuss the “gathering” of the Son of Man’s elect (i.e. the rapture) within the time frame of the Great Tribulation (Gk. μετὰ τὴν θλῖψιν τῶν ἡμερῶν ἐκείνων). Therefore, the events of the rapture (1 Thess. 4.16–17) and the resurrection (Rev. 20.4–6) echo Daniel’s 12.1–2 reference regarding the general resurrection of the dead which must occur approximately in the same period of time as the phenomena of the Great Tribulation!

Further Evidence of Futurism from Revelation’s Global Wars & Geological Events

Further evidence that the eschatology of the New Testament is uniformly futurist, and not preterist, comes by way of the prophecy of the last empire on earth (Rev. 17.11), which has yet to come, that will play a major role during the time of the Great Tribulation (cf. Rev. 11.7; 12.3–6, 14; 17.9–13). Not to mention the prophetic references, in the Book of Revelation, to major geological events the scale of which has never before been seen in human history. For example, Rev. 6.14 alludes to how tectonic plates had been shifted to such an extent that “every mountain and island was removed from its place.” Revelation 16.20 adds that “every island fled away, and no mountains were to be found.” Such cataclysmic events have never been recorded before in human history! What is more, the descriptions in Luke 21 and the Book of Revelation pertain to global, not local, events. For example, Lk 21.10-11 talks about “Nation … against nation, and kingdom against kingdom,” and about earthquakes, plagues, and famines “in various places.” Revelation 6.8 tells us that “a fourth of the earth” will be wiped out “with sword, … famine, and plague.” Similarly, Rev. 6.15 mentions “the kings of the earth” and all of mankind seeking shelter “in the rocks of the mountains,” while Rev. 9.18 says that during this period “a third of mankind was killed by … three plagues.” Obviously, these are not local but global events. Incidentally, the phrase “was killed,” in Rev. 9.18, is a translation of the verb ἀπεκτάνθησαν, which is an aorist, indicative, passive, 3rd person plural form from ἀποκτείνω, meaning “to kill.” It is important to note that many verbs expressed in past tense, such as the aorist or the perfect-tense, do not actually tell us the timing of an event. There are, in fact, many perfect-tenses that are used for future prophecies. For example, Revelation 7.4 uses the perfect-tense τῶν ἐσφραγισμένων for those who “were sealed.” But this event obviously hasn’t happened yet. Similarly, Isaiah 53 is filled with past-tenses and yet it is a prophecy that Isaiah is writing about! Thus, a superficial reading of the text can often lead to erroneous interpretations.

Conclusion

Revelation 22.7, 9, 10, 18, and 19 repeats over and over again that this Book represents an exclusively prophetic Biblical text:

“Blessed is the one who keeps the words of

the prophecy of this book.”

This is also mentioned in the introduction (Rev. 1.3). Yet many Biblical expositors of a Preterist persuasion repeatedly violate Revelation’s reminder by interpreting certain events within a historical context, as if these events were expected to occur during the lifetime of the apostles. Not to mention that the Book of Revelation itself was written sometime around 96 CE and thus postdates the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, which is often seen as the target date of the supposed eschaton.

As we have seen, good exegesis of “the time is near” phrase is only possible by way of the overall canonical context. Thus, Preterism involves a “proof-text fallacy” which comprises the idea of stringing together a number of out-of-context passages in order to validate the assumed imminent eschatology of the apostles. In other words, the Preterist conclusion is not compatible with the overall canonical context. This is equivalent to a coherence fallacy, that is to say, the illusion of Biblical coherence. Preterism also misinterprets the original Greek language of the New Testament, which is interested in the “aspect” rather than the “time” of an event.

I have outlined the overall canonical message of the Bible along with its specific prophetic content. So, when we look at all the prophetic predictions and combine them together to get a holistic understanding, we get a bigger picture of what will occur before the end. Therefore, how close we are to these events largely depends on how close we are to these prophetic signposts, temporally speaking. If you want to explore the prophetic markers of Mt. 24 from a historical perspective, see my article, Are We Living in the Last Days?

Eli of Kittim

Are We Living in the Last Days?

By Eli Kittim Mt 24.6-14 (NRSV): And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that you are not alarmed; for this mu

Therefore, Revelation’s caveat that “the time is near” is most certainly not a reference to first-century Christianity (cf. 1 Cor. 10.11; Mt. 24.3)! In light of this study, that interpretation would be completely false. Rather, it means that if the reader understands all the Biblical predictions and the specific end-time sequence of events as parts of an integrated whole, then he or she can properly infer if the time is near simply by discerning whether or not the major prophetic events of the New Testament have taken place on a global scale. A close reading of the apocalyptic genre of the New Testament reveals that it is not alluding to a first century fulfillment but to an end-time expectation!

Ο Χριστός είναι Έλληνας

Από τον συγγραφέα Ελι Κιτίμ

——-

Στην Καινή Διαθήκη υπάρχουν διάφοροι τρόποι με τους οποίους ο Ιησούς απεικονίζεται ως Εθνικός (μη Εβραίος). Μία από αυτές τις απεικονίσεις βρίσκεται στο Ευαγγέλιο του Ματθαίου (4.15-16), το οποίο μας λέει ότι ο Ιησούς δεν προέρχεται από τη Βασιλεία του Ιούδα (από Εβραίους) αλλά από την περιοχή της Γαλιλαίας (από Εθνικούς, βλ. Λουκά 1.26). Εκτός αυτού, στο κείμενο του Ιωάννη 8.48 οι Εβραίοι ονομάζουν τον Ιησού κατηγορηματικά ως «Σαμαρείτη» (δηλ. εθνικό) προκειμένου να αποδείξουν ότι δεν είναι Εβραίος.

Η διαίρεση των ανθρώπων έναντι του Ιησού επειδή δεν προέρχεται από τη Βηθλεέμ των Εβραίων αλλά από τη Γαλιλαία των Εθνών τονίζεται στο Ευαγγέλιο του Ιωάννη (7.41-43):

ἄλλοι ἔλεγον · Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός · οἱ δὲ

ἔλεγον· Μὴ γὰρ ἐκ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ὁ χριστὸς

ἔρχεται; οὐχ ἡ γραφὴ εἶπεν ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ

σπέρματος Δαυὶδ, καὶ ἀπὸ Βηθλέεμ τῆς

κώμης ὅπου ἦν Δαυὶδ, ἔρχεται ὁ χριστός;

σχίσμα οὖν ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ ὄχλῳ ⸃ δι’ αὐτόν.

Ο Ιησούς αψηφά τις εβραϊκές μεσσιανικές προσδοκίες:

ἐραύνησον καὶ ἴδε ὅτι ἐκ τῆς Γαλιλαίας

προφήτης ⸃ οὐκ ἐγείρεται (Κατά Ιωάννην

Ευαγγέλιο 7.52, βλ. Ματθαίος 4.15-16).

——-

Εξάλλου, τα περισσότερα βιβλία της Καινής Διαθήκης γράφτηκαν στην Ελλάδα: Ρωμαίοι, Α΄ και Β' Κορίνθιοι, Γαλάτες, Α΄ και Β΄ Θεσσαλονικείς, Α΄ Τιμόθεος, Τίτος, και το βιβλίο της Αποκάλυψης. Κανένα από τα βιβλία της Καινής Διαθήκης δεν γράφτηκε στην Παλαιστίνη. Και οι περισσότερες επιστολές απευθύνονται σε ελληνικές κοινότητες: Α΄ Κορινθίους, Β΄ Κορινθίους, Φιλιππησίους, Α΄ Θεσσαλονικείς και Β΄ Θεσσαλονικείς!

Είναι επίσης σημαντικό να σημειωθεί ότι όταν οι συγγραφείς της Καινής Διαθήκης παραθέτουν από την Παλαιά Διαθήκη, συχνά παραθέτουν από την ελληνική μετάφραση των εβδομήκοντα και όχι από τα αυθεντικά εβραϊκά γραπτά (ακαδημαϊκή συναίνεση). Αυτό μπορεί να υποδηλώνει ότι οι συγγραφείς της Καινής Διαθήκης δεν ήταν εξοικειωμένοι με την εβραϊκή γλώσσα. Αυτό δείχνει ότι οι συγγραφείς της Καινής Διαθήκης μάλλον δεν ήταν Εβραίοι αλλά Έλληνες, δεδομένου ότι χειρίζονταν άριστα την ελληνική γλώσσα. Και οι μελετητές μας λένε ότι οι συγγραφείς της Καινής Διαθήκης έγραφαν από διαφορετικά μέρη του κόσμου και όχι από την Παλαιστίνη.

——-

Και γιατί οι συγγραφείς της Καινής Διαθήκης δεν ολοκλήρωσαν την αφήγηση του Θεού στα Εβραϊκά; Υπάρχει καλύτερος τρόπος να πείσει κανείς τους Εβραίους ότι ο Ιησούς είναι η μεσσιανική εκπλήρωση της Εβραϊκής Γραφής από το να το γράψει στην εβραϊκή γλώσσα; Αλλά δεν το έκαναν! Ο λόγος είναι ο Ιησούς. Προφανώς δεν είναι Εβραίος αλλά Έλληνας! Έτσι η αφήγηση πρέπει να γραφτεί στα ελληνικά για να αντικατοπτρίζει τον έλληνα πρωταγωνιστή. Γι 'αυτό ακριβώς η Καινή Διαθήκη γράφτηκε στα Ελληνικά, όχι στα Εβραϊκά. Επιπλέον, εάν ο Χριστός ήταν Εβραίος θα έλεγε ότι είμαι τό Άλεφ και τό Ταβ. Αντ 'αυτού, ο Χριστός χρησιμοποιεί ελληνικά γράμματα για να ορίσει το θεϊκό «Εγώ ειμί»:

Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ (Αποκάλυψη

1:8).

Άλλωστε είναι σημαντικό να τονίσουμε ότι το εβραϊκό όνομα του Θεού (Γιαχβέ, που προφέρεται ως Ιεχωβά ή Γιαχβά) είναι επίσης το εβραϊκό όνομα για την Ελλάδα (Γιαβαν, βλ. Ιώσηπος Αρχαιολογία Βιβλ. 1, κεφ. 6). Αυτή η προφορική συμφωνία δεν είναι συμπτωματική. Υπάρχουν περαιτέρω στοιχεία σχετικά με το ελληνικό όνομα του Θεού. Σε μερικά σπάνια χειρόγραφα των εβδομήκοντα το τετραγράμματον μεταφράζεται ως *Ιαω* (γνωστό ως ελληνικό τρίγραμμα). Δηλαδή το θεϊκό όνομα Γιαχβά μετατρέπεται στην Κοινή Ελληνική ως Ιαω (βλ. π.χ. Λευ. 4.27 το χειρόγραφο των εβδομήκοντα [LXX] 4Q120). Αυτό το θραύσμα προέρχεται από τα Χειρόγραφα της Νεκρής Θάλασσας, που βρέθηκαν στο Κουμράν, και χρονολογείται από τον 1ο π.Χ. αιώνα.

Αυτό που έχει πολύ ενδιαφέρον είναι το γεγονός ότι το όνομα Ιαω φαίνεται να αντιπροσωπεύει τους Αρχαίους Έλληνες (γνωστούς ως ΙΑΩΝΕΣ), οι πρώτες λογοτεχνικές εικονογραφήσεις των οποίων βρίσκονται στα έπη του Ομήρου (Ἰάονες) και επίσης στα έργα του Ησιόδου (Ἰάων). Σχεδόν όλοι οι μελετητές της Βίβλου συμφωνούν ότι το εβραϊκό όνομα Γιαβάν αντιπροσωπεύει τους Ιάωνες, δηλαδή τους αρχαίους Έλληνες. Εξάλλου, ανεξάρτητες βεβαιώσεις προέρχονται από τα Πατερικά γραπτά για το Τετραγράμματο. Σύμφωνα με την Καθολική Εγκυκλοπαίδεια (1910) και Μπ. Ντ. Έρντμανς: Ο Διόδωρος ο Σικελός (1ος αιώνας π.Χ.) μεταφράζει το όνομα του Θεού ως Ἰαῶ. Ο Ειρηναίος (π. περ. 202) αναφέρει ότι οι Βαλεντινιανοί χρησιμοποιούν το θεϊκό όνομα Ἰαῶ. Ο Ωριγένης Αλεξανδρείας (π. περ. 254) γράφει Ἰαώ. Ο Θεοδώρητος του Κύρου (393 – περ. 458) γράφει επίσης Ἰαώ. Επομένως, το μυστικό όνομα του Θεού τόσο στην Μετάφραση των Εβδομήκοντα όσο και στην Εβραϊκή Βίβλο φαίνεται να αντιπροσωπεύει την Ελλάδα! Για αυτό και ο Ιωάννης ο Θεολόγος δεν βρίσκεται τυχαία στην Ελλάδα. Είναι εκεί επειδή το κείμενο του έχει να κάνει με την αποκάλυψη του Ιησού και τον λόγο του Θεού:

Ἐγὼ Ἰωάννης . . . ἐγενόμην ἐν τῇ νήσῳ τῇ

καλουμένῃ Πάτμῳ διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ

καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ (Αποκάλυψη 1.9).

——-

What if the Crucifixion of Christ is a Future Event?

By Author Eli Kittim

Biblical Exegesis, the Canonical Context, and the Analogy of Scripture

Biblical studies must involve “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20.27) or the entire Biblical canon, in which all books must be examined equally as parts of a larger *canonical context,* not simply on an individual basis or as isolated parts. Moreover, in order to avoid confirmation bias, we must employ the hermeneutical principle known as “the analogy of Scripture” (Lat. ‘analogia Scripturae’). Thus, the inability of an expositor to remain completely objective is offset by the process in which Scripture interprets Scripture without outside interference or intervention.

Dogmatic theology: Proof-text and Coherence Fallacies

What is Classical Christianity’s foundational faith statement? The Protestant commentariat speaks highly of the Reformation, a movement that gradually freed itself from fiercely defended church traditions and council decrees through its fervent adherence to sola scriptura. But, unfortunately, the reformation didn’t go far enough. Sadly, reformed theology is, in many ways, a reprise of a long standing interpretation of Scripture which is based on ecclesiastical theology and authority. For example, the Nicene Creed——which was adopted during the First Council of Constantinople in 381 CE——reads:

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ . . . who for

us men, and for our salvation, came down

from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy

Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made

man, he was crucified for us under Pontius

Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and

the third day he rose again, according to

the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven,

and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;

from thence he shall come again, with glory,

to judge the quick and the dead.

Protestants have unquestionably accepted this church dogma. But a second coming begs the question as it is nowhere mentioned in the New Testament (NT). And there is no epistolary proof that Jesus was born of a virgin, nor is there any proof regarding the dogma of the Immaculate Conception that expounds on the implications of the virgin birth, which was only recently adopted by the Roman Catholic Church via an apostolic constitution in 1854!

And what of all the Scriptures that contradict the Nicene dogma, which erroneously asserts of a messianic sacrifice in Antiquity? What about Zeph. 1.7-9, 15-18 that clearly equates the Lord’s sacrifice with the “day of the Lord”? Are we to assume that the day of the Lord already happened in Antiquity? And what about the piercing of the Messiah “on that [apocalyptic] day”? (Zech. 12.9-10)! Can we seriously ignore the end-of-the-world timeline in Mt. 13.39-40, 49? Or in Mt. 24.3? Or in Mt. 28.20? Yet the exact same apocalyptic phrase that is used in all these verses is ALSO used in **Hebrews 9.26b**, which explicitly refers to a messianic sacrifice that will transpire “once for all” (hapax) “at the end of the age,” a period that is synonymous with the day of the Lord and with judgment day! And why ignore Scripture which says explicitly that Christ speaks to humanity in the “last days”? (Heb. 1.2). Why should we deliberately ignore the future incarnation of Christ in Rev. 12.5? Or the fact that the testimony to Jesus is prophetic? (Rev. 19.10d). Or the first coming of Jesus in 1 Pet. 1.20? Or the Son of Man that has not yet been revealed in Lk 17.30? Or the initial visitation of the messiah during “the time of universal restoration”? (Acts 3.19-21). Or Christ’s future resurrection in 1 Cor. 15.23-24? Or the admonition against the historical resurrection theology in 2 Tim. 2.18? Or the fact that Jesus’ one and only coming is associated with judgment day in John 9.39? (cf. Lk 12.49).

The Apocalyptic Aspect of the Gospels

If this is indeed the canonical context, then it cannot be overridden by Catholic dogmas against which the reformers fought so hard to free themselves from. Catholic dogmatic theology once set the theological standard against which all other theories were measured, whereby it inevitably lead to multiple coherence fallacies down through the ages. In other words, the church’s misreading of the gospel literature as historical is obviously not compatible with the overall existing theology of Scripture! In short, what was originally Apocalyptic Christianity was turned into Historical Christianity by Church dogma!

This plays such a crucial role that many Christian adherents today feel that if the historical component is discredited, then Christianity can no longer be viable or credible. Noted author John Ankerberg has said something to that effect, and so have many others, including philosopher/apologist William Lane Craig, who tries desperately to prove the historical aspects of the Christian faith. And yet Christianity is and always has been an *Apocalyptic Religion* that is based on a revelation or unveiling of the end times! Due to its prophetic and apocalyptic foundation, the NT text remains credible and viable even if its literary elements prove to be unhistorical. Ultimately, the Bible is a book on faith, not on history or science. As Kierkegaard would argue, the Christian tenets cannot be proved empirically or historically; they can only be experienced existentially! Christianity is not a belief of the mind but of the heart!

The Apocalyptic Aspect of the Epistles

If we shift theological gears and focus on the epistles, the earliest NT writings, 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, the eyewitness testimony of Jesus’ transfiguration in vv. 16-18 is not historical but rather a vision of the future. That’s why verse 19 concludes: “So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed.” The same goes for the apocalyptic passage in 1 Pet. 1.10-11, which suggests an eschatological soteriology.

According to the principle of expositional constancy, if we compare the chronological time period or the timeline known as “the fullness of time” (τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου) in Gal. 4.4 to that of Eph. 1.9-10, we will come to realize that Christ’s birth, as recorded in the former, is in reference to the eschaton, not to a purported time period in Antiquity. The end-times incarnation of Christ in Gal. 4.4 is multiply and independently attested in Rev. 12.5, whose timeline is contemporaneous with the Great Tribulation and the apocalyptic events of the end-times!

Therefore, the church’s dogma that Jesus died in Antiquity appears to be 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).

Furthermore, 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 a significant exegetical role. Accordingly, the Book of Revelation places not only the timeline (12.5) but also the testimony to Jesus (19.10d) in “prophetic” categories.

The *apocalyptic theology* of the NT epistles is multiply attested in the Old Testament canon, which confirms the earthy, *end-time Messiah* of the epistolary literature (cf. Job 19.25; Isa. 2.19; Dan. 12.1-2; Zeph. 1.7-9, 15-18; Zech. 12.9-10)!

What About the Numerous NT References to the Revelation of Jesus: Are they Not References to a Second Coming?

A revelation by default means “a first-time” occurrence. In other words, it’s an event that is happening for the very first time. By definition, a “revelation” is never disclosed twice. If we examine the NT verses, which mention the future revelation of Christ, we will find that they are not referring to a second coming, a coming back, or a return, as is commonly thought, but rather to an initial appearance (see e.g. 1 Cor. 1.7; 16.22; 1 Thess. 2.19; 4.15; 2 Thess. 1.10; 2.1; Heb. 10.37; Jas. 5.7; 1 Pet. 1.7; 2 Pet. 1.16; 3.4; 1 Jn 2.28; Rev. 2.16; 22.20).

See my article: Why does the New Testament Refer to Christ’s Future Coming as a “Revelation”?

https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/187927555567/why-does-the-new-testament-refer-to-christs

Eli of Kittim

WHY DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT REFER TO CHRIST’S FUTURE COMING AS A “REVELATION”?

By Eli Kittim It’s important to note the language that’s often used with regard to the future coming of Christ, namely, as the “revelation

Another objection to the second coming of Christ goes something like this. If God wants to accomplish something, he’ll get it done on the first attempt. Why the need for a second attempt? It would imply that Christ’s mission on earth was a total failure and that nothing so clearly indicates his unsuccessful earthly mission to restore God’s kingdom as his much anticipated return to set things right. In other words, the second coming implies that Jesus couldn’t get it done the first time. He has to come back to finish the job.

Visions of the Resurrection

Most credible scholars view the so-called resurrection of Christ not as a historical phenomenon but rather as a visionary experience. And this seems to be the *apocalyptic* 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. British NT scholar, James Dunn also thought that Jesus was not resurrected in Antiquity but that Jesus probably meant he would be resurrected at the last judgment! Even NT textual critic Kurt Aland went so far as to question whether or not Jesus was a real person. In his book, “A History of Christianity” (Vol. 1, p. 106, emphasis added), he writes:

the real question arises . . . was there really

a Jesus? Can Jesus really have lived if the

writings of his closest companions are filled

with so little of his reality . . . so little in them

of the reality of the historical Jesus . . . .

When we observe this——assuming that the

writings about which we are speaking really

come from their alleged authors——it

almost then appears as if Jesus were a

mere PHANTOM . . .

Conclusion

This is not the proposal of a Mythicist, but of an *Ahistoricist.* In sharp contrast to mythicism, which attributes the Jesus-story solely to mythological causes, my *ahistoricism* ascribes it to future eschatology! Paradoxically, you can have a high view of Scripture, and even hold to a high Christology, and yet still reject the historicity of Jesus. In other words, you can completely repudiate historical Christianity without necessarily denying the Christian faith, the divinity of Jesus, eschatological salvation, or the authority of Scripture. In fact, this view seems to be more in line with the canonical context of the Bible than the classical one! This brief inquiry into the apocalyptic aspect of the NT has therefore provided a starting point and direction for subsequent studies.

Christianity preserved the apocalyptic tradition of Judaism and reevaluated it in light of its own messianic revelations. The NT refined this type of literature as it became the vehicle of its own prophetic and apocalyptic expressions. Apocalypticism, then, not historiography, is the essence of the NT, which is based on a foreknowledge of future events that is written in advance! It is therefore thought advisable to consider the collection of NT writings as strikingly futurist books.

Η Γέννηση, ο θάνατος, και η Ανάσταση του Χριστού στο Τέλος του Κόσμου

Από τον συγγραφέα Ελι Κιτίμ

Θάνατος καί Ανάσταση στο Τέλος του Κόσμου, στην Παλαιά Διαθήκη

Απόδειξη ότι Δανιήλ 12.1 Αναφέρεται σε Ανάσταση από Θάνατο με βάση την Μετάφραση και Εκτέλεση των Βιβλικών γλωσσών.

Το κείμενο του Δανιηλ 12.1 βρίσκεται στο πλαίσιο της μεγάλης δοκιμασίας των τελικών χρόνων! Επαναλαμβάνεται στο Ευαγγέλιο του Ματθαίου 24.21 ως η εποχή της μεγάλης δοκιμασίας— καιρός θλίψεως (βλ. Αποκ. 7.14).

Δανιήλ (Θεοδοτίων) 12.1,

καὶ ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ ἀναστήσεται Μιχαηλ ὁ ἄρχων ὁ μέγας ὁ ἑστηκὼς ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ λαοῦ σου καὶ ἔσται καιρὸς θλίψεως θλῖψις οἵα οὐ γέγονεν ἀφ’ οὗ γεγένηται ἔθνος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἕως τοῦ καιροῦ ἐκείνου.

Το Δανιήλ (Θεοδοτίων) 12.1 μεταφράζει την εβραϊκή λέξη עָמַד (amad) ως αναστήσεται, η οποία προέρχεται από τη ρίζα λέξη ανίστημι και σημαίνει *ανάσταση.*

Μετάφραση,

Εκείνη την εποχή, ο Μιχαήλ, ο μεγάλος πρίγκιπας, ο προστάτης του λαού σας, θα αναστηθεί. Θα υπάρξει μια περίοδος αγωνίας, όπως δεν έχει συμβεί ποτέ από την πρώτη ύπαρξη των εθνών.

Ο ισχυρισμός μου ότι η ελληνική λέξη ἀναστήσεται αναφέρεται σε ανάσταση από τους νεκρούς έχει αμφισβητηθεί από τους κριτικούς. Η απάντησή μου έχει ως εξής.

Το πρώτο αποδεικτικό στοιχείο είναι το γεγονός ότι ο Μιχαήλ αναφέρεται για πρώτη φορά ως αυτός που «ἀναστήσεται» (Δαν. Θεοδ. 12.1) πριν από τη γενική ανάσταση των νεκρών (ἀναστήσονται, Δαν. Θεοδ. 12.2). Εδώ, υπάρχουν ισχυρές γλωσσικές ενδείξεις ότι η λέξη *ἀναστήσεται* αναφέρεται σε ανάσταση, διότι στον αμέσως επόμενο στίχο (12.2) η πληθυντική μορφή της ίδιας λέξης (δηλ. ἀναστήσονται) χρησιμοποιείται για να περιγράψει τη γενική ανάσταση των νεκρών! Με άλλα λόγια, εάν η ίδια ακριβώς λέξη (ἀναστήσονται) σημαίνει ανάσταση στο Δανιήλ 12.2, τότε πρέπει επίσης η λέξη ἀναστήσεται να σημαίνει απαραίτητα ανάσταση και στο Δανιήλ 12.1! Είναι σημαντικό να σημειωθεί ότι το απόσπασμα του Δανιήλ 12.1 χρησιμοποιεί την εβραϊκή μεσσιανική ορολογία ενός χρισμένου πρίγκιπα (βλ. Δαν. 9.25 και ἄρχων ὑμῶν Δαν. 10.21 Ο', πρβλ. Ησα 9.6 Ο' μεγάλης βουλῆς ἄγγελός) για να σηματοδοτήσει την ανάσταση του Μεσσία στο τέλος του κόσμου.

Το δεύτερο αποδεικτικό στοιχείο προέρχεται από την παλαιά διαθήκη κατά τους εβδομήκοντα που χρησιμοποιεί τη λέξη παρελεύσεται για να ορίσει την εβραϊκή λέξη עָמַד (amad), η οποία μεταφράζεται ως *θα πεθάνει.*

Η παλαιά διαθήκη κατά τους εβδομήκοντα (Δανιήλ 12.1) είναι ως εξής,

καὶ κατὰ τὴν ὥραν ἐκείνην παρελεύσεται Μιχαηλ ὁ ἄγγελος ὁ μέγας ὁ ἑστηκὼς ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ λαοῦ σου ἐκείνη ἡ ἡμέρα θλίψεως οἵα οὐκ ἐγενήθη ἀφ’ οὗ ἐγενήθησαν ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης.

Η παλαιά διαθήκη κατά τους εβδομήκοντα καταδεικνύει περαιτέρω ότι το Δανιήλ 12.1 κείμενο περιγράφει ένα θέμα θανάτου και ανάστασης επειδή η λέξη παρελεύσεται σημαίνει *θα πεθάνει,* υποδεικνύοντας έτσι τον θάνατο αυτού του εμφανιζόμενου πρίγκιπα στο τέλος του κόσμου! Επομένως, θέτει τη σκηνή για την ανάστασή του, καθώς η λεγόμενη μορφή «Θεοδοτίων Δανιήλ» συμπληρώνει τα κενά χρησιμοποιώντας τη λέξη αναστήσεται, που σημαίνει σωματική ανάσταση, για να καθιερώσει την περίοδο της εσχάτης ημέρας ως την ώρα κατά την οποία αυτός ο πρίγκιπας θα αναστηθεί από τους νεκρούς!

Συγκρίνετε το κείμενο του Ησαΐα στην Μετάφραση των Εβδομήκοντα περί της Αναστάσεως του Κυρίου (δηλ. ὅταν ἀναστῇ θραῦσαι τὴν γῆν) ἐν ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις (Ησαΐας 2.2):

εἰσενέγκαντες εἰς τὰ σπήλαια καὶ εἰς τὰς

σχισμὰς τῶν πετρῶν καὶ εἰς τὰς τρώγλας

τῆς γῆς ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ φόβου Κυρίου

καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς δόξης τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ, ὅταν

ἀναστῇ θραῦσαι τὴν γῆν (Ησαΐας 2.19).

Η Γέννηση και ο θάνατος του Ιησού στο Τέλος του Κόσμου, στην Καινή Διαθήκη

Δύο Αρχές της Βιβλικής Ερμηνευτικής πρέπει να καθοδηγήσουν την έρευνά μας

Δύο αρχές της βιβλικής ερμηνευτικής πρέπει να θεωρηθούν θεμελιώδεις. Οι εξηγητές πρέπει να ερμηνεύουν το σιωπηρό από το ρητό και το αφηγηματικό από το διδακτικό. Στην πράξη, οι επιστολές της καινής διαθήκης και άλλες ρητές και διδακτικές μερίδες της Γραφής πρέπει να αποσαφηνίσουν την έμμεση σημασία των ευαγγελίων, η οποία δεν είναι βιογραφική αλλά *θεολογική* στη φύση, όπως οι Mπούλτμαν, Κροσάν, Λούντεμαν, Μάικ Λικόνα, Τζέιμς Κρόσλει, Ρόμπερτ Λ Τόμας, Φ Νταβίντ Φαρνελ, Ντένις Μακντόναλντ, Ρόμπερτ Γκάντρι, και Τόμας Λ Μπρόντι, μεταξύ άλλων, έχουν δείξει ξεκάθαρα!

Η ελληνική ερμηνεία, που μεταφράζεται κατευθείαν από το ίδιο το κείμενο, αμφισβητεί την κλασική χριστιανική ερμηνεία, η οποία βασίζεται κυρίως σε ιστορικές μυθοπλασίες. Η «ελληνική ερμηνεία» όχι μόνο συμπληρώνει τις εβραϊκές μεσσιανικές προσδοκίες, αλλά ταιριάζει απόλυτα με τα θέματα του μεσσιανικού θανάτου και της ανάστασης στο τέλος του κόσμου που αναφέρονται στην Παλαιά Διαθήκη (βλ. Π.χ. Ησαΐας 2.19, Δαν. 12.1-2)! Εν ολίγοις, τόσο η εβραϊκή όσο και η χριστιανική Γραφή φαίνεται να λένε το ίδιο ακριβώς πράγμα, δηλαδή, ότι ο Μεσσίας θα εμφανιστεί για πρώτη φορά στο τέλος του κόσμου (βλ. Εβρ. 9.26β)!

Ο μελλοντικός Χριστός

Ελληνική Εξήγηση

Σύμφωνα με τα ρητά και διδακτικά τμήματα της Γραφής της Καινής Διαθήκης, ο Χριστός *γεννιέται* όταν ο χρόνος θα φτάσει στην πληρότητα ή την ολοκλήρωσή του, που εκφράζεται στην αποκαλυπτική φράση τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου:

ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου,

ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ,

γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός (Γαλ. 4.4).

Σύμφωνα με την αναλογία γραφής, η χρονολογική περίοδος γνωστή ως *η πληρότητα του χρόνου* (τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου) στην Επιστολή προς Γαλάτες 4.4 ορίζεται στην προς Εφεσίους Επιστολή 1.9-10 ως η ολοκλήρωση των εποχών (πρβλ. Εβρ. 9.26β):

γνωρίσας ἡμῖν τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θελήματος

αὐτοῦ, κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν αὐτοῦ ἣν

προέθετο ἐν αὐτῷ εἰς οἰκονομίαν τοῦ

πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν,

ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι τὰ πάντα ἐν τῷ

Χριστῷ, τὰ ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς

γῆς· ἐν αὐτῷ.

Η πληρότητα του χρόνου (τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν) στην προς Εφεσίους Επιστολή αναφέρεται στην ολοκλήρωση (ανακεφαλαιώσασθαι) όλων των πραγμάτων εις τον Χριστόν, των πραγμάτων στον ουρανό, και των πραγμάτων στη γη! Έτσι, σύμφωνα με την Επιστολή προς Γαλάτες 4.4 ο Χριστός γεννιέται κατά την ολοκλήρωση των αιώνων (δηλ. στο τελευταίο χρονικό διάστημα, πρβλ. Λουκ. 17.30, Εβρ. 1.2, Αποκ. 12.5, 19.10δ, 22.7, 10, 18, 19)!

Η πρώτη εμφάνιση του Χριστού αποδίδεται «στο τελευταίο χρονικό σημείο» στην Α΄ Επιστολή Πέτρου 1,20 (Νέα Βίβλος της Ιερουσαλήμ),

προεγνωσμένου μὲν πρὸ καταβολῆς

κόσμου, φανερωθέντος δὲ ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν

χρόνων.

Περαιτέρω επιβεβαίωση κειμένου έρχεται μέσω της επιστολής προς Εβραίους 9.26β, το οποίο έχει ως εξής:

νυνὶ δὲ ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων εἰς

ἀθέτησιν ἁμαρτίας διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ

πεφανέρωται.

Μετάφραση,

Έχει εμφανιστεί μια φορά για πάντα στο τέλος του κόσμου για την εξάλειψη της αμαρτίας με τη θυσία του [δηλ. τον θάνατο του].

Η ιστορική-γραμματική μελέτη της φράσης επί συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων καταδεικνύει ότι αναφέρεται στο «τέλος της εποχής» (δηλ. στο τέλος του κόσμου, πρβλ. Ματθαίος 13.39-40, 49, 24.3, 28.20, Δανιήλ 12.4 Ο', δείτε επίσης Τζ.Γ.Χ. Λάμπ, «Ένα Πατερικό Ελληνικό Λεξικό» [Οξφόρδη: πανεπιστήμιο Οξφόρδης, 1961], σελ. 1340).

Συμπέρασμα

Η υποτιθέμενη ιστορικότητα του Ιησού πρέπει να επανεξεταστεί, δεδομένου ότι η μόνη παρουσία του πρόκειται να πραγματοποιηθεί στο τέλος του κόσμου! Κατά συνέπεια, αυτή η ερμηνεία υποστηρίζει ότι οι επιστολές είναι τα κύρια κλειδιά για το ξεκλείδωμα του μελλοντικού χρονοδιαγράμματος της μοναδικής επίσκεψης του Χριστού. Για να αποδείξουμε την εγκυρότητα αυτού του επιχειρήματος, πρέπει να επιστρέψουμε στην Ελληνιστική Κοινή της καινής διαθήκης προκειμένου να επικεντρωθούμε σε ζητήματα συγγραφικής πρόθεσης. Αν απορρίψουμε η αγνοήσουμε αυτή την υπόθεση ισοδυναμεί με ακαδημαϊκή ανεντιμότητα!

The Fallacies of Millennialism

By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim

This article is partly excerpted from chapter 10 of my book, “The Little Book of Revelation.” Therein, I explain that there are not 2 resurrections but only one! Daniel 12.2 explicitly mentions that both the saved & the damned will be resurrected TOGETHER in one general resurrection. By contrast, the second death in Revelation 20.14 is incorporeal, NOT physical. It’s the lake of fire; a spiritual death. So, only 1 physical resurrection is indicated in the Bible; not 2! Notice what the passage of Rev. 20.4 (KJV) actually says:

“And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them,

and judgment was given unto them: and I

saw the souls of them that were beheaded

for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of

God, and which had not worshipped the

beast, neither his image, neither had

received his mark upon their foreheads, or

in their hands; and they lived and reigned

with Christ a thousand years.”

Notice that the verse doesn’t tell us if and when they were resurrected. Only that they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years; (not “for” a thousand years).

Then, the following verse (Rev. 20.5) goes on to say:

“But the rest of the dead lived not again until

the thousand years were finished. This is

the first resurrection.”

But that’s the only resurrection! Biblically speaking, there is no other physical resurrection. And if it’s explicitly mentioned as the first resurrection, then it means that there couldn’t have been an earlier one. We erroneously assume that the previous verse (v. 4) mentions an earlier resurrection. Not so! Revelation 20.4 and 20.5 appear to be two different versions of the SAME resurrection!

It seems to me that Revelation 20 verses 4 and 5 are talking about the *same resurrection* but in light of varying reward scenarios. The implication is that the believers of verse 4 (probably the tribulation saints or the recently deceased) lived and reigned after the thousand years (καὶ ἔζησαν καὶ ἐβασίλευσαν μετὰ . . . τὰ χίλια ἔτη)! Similarly, in verse 5, the rest of the dead (presumably the believers who had been dead for many centuries) were not raised from the dead until the thousand years were finished, which is the first resurrection:

οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔζησαν ἄχρι τὰ

τελεσθῇ χίλια ἔτη. αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ

πρώτη.

In other words, it appears that the faithful throngs (both the recent dead and those who had been dead for a long time) took part in the first resurrection after the thousand years had passed. But the details of their rewards——namely, that they lived & reigned, and that they were resurrected——are differentiated for a more comprehensive elaboration!

5 Questions Need to be Asked

A) According to the text, when does the 1st resurrection take place? Answer: when the thousand years were finished (Rev. 20.5)!

B) Can there be 2 resurrections? Answer: No. There can’t be 2 physical resurrections. According to the Bible, there is only one (Dan. 12.2)!

C) Which physical resurrection is explicitly mentioned in Rev. 20? Answer: The one in verse 5, which is said to occur at the end of the millennium or at the end of the thousand years. Verse 4 does not explicitly mention a resurrection. It simply says: καὶ ἔζησαν (and lived). It doesn’t say that they came back to life or that they were resurrected, as some modern Bible versions do. Nor does the original Greek text have any parentheses, as you find in the NRSV. It reads:

καὶ ἔζησαν καὶ

ἐβασίλευσαν μετὰ τοῦ

χριστοῦ χίλια ἔτη

(Rev. 20.4 SBLGNT).

The textus receptus has it as follows:

καὶ ἔζησαν καὶ

ἐβασίλευσαν μετὰ τοῦ

χριστοῦ τὰ [the] χίλια

ἔτη;

The Greek New Testament doesn’t say “for” a thousand years. And the Greek word μετά can be translated as either “with” or “after” Christ. In other words, this could also be translated or paraphrased as follows: [after] the thousands years were completed, they lived and reigned forever. In other words, the original Greek text doesn’t say “for” one thousand years.

D) which resurrection is referred to as the 1st resurrection? Answer: the one in verse 5 that occurs when the thousand years are finished. The one in verse 4 is neither mentioned as a resurrection nor as being the first.

E) So then, how could the same people who would not be resurrected “until the thousand years were completed” (Rev. 20.5) simultaneously live and reign with Christ for a millennium? (Rev. 20.4). Answer: They cannot be both dead and alive at the same time! The only explanation is that the people who are said to reign with Christ are the same people who took part in “the first resurrection” (Rev. 20.5), but they’re described differently in the earlier verse (v. 4) in order to furnish the reader with further details about this particular time-period. It’s similar to the different descriptions in Revelation chs. 19 & 20 about the beast who is thrown into the lake of fire in Rev. 19 but who nevertheless continues to be active in Rev. 20! There are not two Beasts or Antichrists; only one. The same satanic beast who is captured in Rev. 20.2-3 is the exact same figure who was captured and thrown into the lake of fire in Rev. 19.20, but in the following chapter (ch. 20) he is described in more detail as the text provides further descriptions of his release and whereabouts prior to being cast into the lake of fire (see Rev. 20.7-10).

Conclusion

There is also a judgment (κρίμα) mentioned in Rev. 20.4. But are there really 2 judgments? No. Only one! Thus, the millennium implies 2 additional comings of Christ, 2 appearances by Satan, 2 Great Wars, 2 Great tribulations, 2 resurrections, 2 apocalypses, 2 Armageddons, 2 judgments, 2 Great Ends, and so on and so forth. This binary eschatology is biblically unfounded because there is only one of each!

It demonstrates that this brief passage must be taken symbolically, not literally. So, the passage really indicates that when the thousand years are completed the believers will be raised from the dead and begin to reign with Christ. This is also the chronological time period when the Antichrist is released for a short time. This is probably a reference to the Great Tribulation which 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). This is also the time when the apocalyptic events will commence!

It took 21 symbolic days for God’s word to arrive on earth (Dan. 10.13–14). There are also 21 Judgments in the Book of Revelation. And since “one day is like a thousand years” (2 Pet. 3.8), the implication seems to be that the apocalyptic events are set to take place in the 21st century. It is a symbol of our century! Thus, the millennium seems to be referring to the end of the 20th century (i.e. 2,000 CE) and the beginning of the 21st!

By the way, the Bible never mentions the alleged “thousand-year reign of Christ on earth.” Only 2 verses mention those who “reigned with Christ a thousand years.” These are not to be taken literally but rather as *signs* that reveal the timing of Christ’s coming and of the apocalyptic events! In other words, when the thousand years are completed, Satan will be loosed for a little while (a reference to the 3 and a half year Great Tribulation). Then, the first resurrection will occur and the believers will henceforth reign with Christ!

What is the ultimate signpost that indicates when these events will commence? These apocalyptic events will begin when the thousand years are completed!

So, the thousand years act as the defining moment, the temporal mark, the chronological signal, the millennial warning that the end is near. It is not a coincidence that the 70 weeks of Daniel, the Mayan Calendar, Malachy’s Prophecy of the Popes, the recent Blood moon prophecy, and all the other biblical & extra-biblical doomsday prophecies began to hold sway after the thousand years were completed in 2,000 CE. Moreover, the Bible clearly prophesies the arrival of the Antichrist (Dan. 9.26-27). And I believe that he has already made his appearance on the world stage, namely, on the eve of the 2,000 year mark, that is to say, on December 31, 1999, precisely at the end of the thousand years, as prophesied in Rev. 20.7. For further details, see my article: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/623534877070016512/nostradamus-and-the-bible-seemingly-predict-the

Eli of Kittim

Nostradamus and the Bible Seemingly Predict the Coming of Putin

Chuck Missler reviews the historical roots of the modern day Russians and the peoples to which Ezekiel referred when he prophesied about tha

The reference to the chiliasm, then, serves as a caveat that Satan will be loosed when the thousand years are over. In my view, that’s what the millennium actually means! Thus, I don’t believe in a literal millennial kingdom because it contradicts the Bible. It implies, 2 comings of Christ, 2 apocalypses, 2 Great Wars, and so on. That’s probably why the doctrine of millennialism was condemned at the Second Ecumenical Council in 381 CE. In addition, the endtime war that Satan is said to unleash at the end of the millennium (Rev. 20.8) is the exact same war mentioned in Ezekiel 38: Gog & Magog. Also, 1 Thess. 4.17 says that after the rapture “we will be with the Lord forever,” not just for 1,000 years. And the Book of Daniel is clear that both the Saved and the Damned will be resurrected simultaneously, not successively (12.2).

Therefore, the millennium represents the sign of the times when the thousand years are completed. It signifies the beginning of the apocalypse, that is to say, the period of the Antichrist, who will gather the kings of the earth for Armageddon. It also represents the time of the Great Tribulation, the rapture, and the resurrection of the dead, when the faithful will be glorified and reign with Christ not simply for a thousand years, but forever (cf. Dan. 7.18; 12.2; 1 Thess. 4.17)!

Although there are some similarities between my view and that of Amillennialism, I don’t consider myself an Amillennialist because I don’t share their core views on realized millennialism, perfect/imperfect amillenarism, or that “Christ’s reign during the millennium is spiritual in nature.” We have completely different views on a number of topics! Similarly, my view is in agreement with that of postmillennialism in regard to a literal thousand years, after which Christ will come. However, I disagree both with the quality as well as with the timing of the millennium as explained by postmillennialism. I don’t view the millennium as a literal thousand-year-Kingdom of peace nor as an interim period (or parenthesis) that will transpire in the far distant future. Rather, I see it as a period that already started in the year 1,000 CE (with the crusades) and culminated in the year 2,000. That’s when the Antichrist came to power (in the year 1999 = 666) in Russia (see my articles on that subject), at the end of the thousand years, and Satan was released from prison (Rev 20.7), so to speak, and was allowed to gather the kings of the earth for Armageddon! And since I have a number of disagreements with postmillennialism, I don’t consider myself a postmillennialist either.