What Is Original Sin?

What Is Original Sin?

By Psychologist & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim

Most of us think that we are good people. We haven’t harmed anyone. We’re not that bad. So, what kind of sins do we have to confess? In fact, sometimes we can’t even think of any. Yet 1 John 1.8-10 (KJV) reads:

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive

ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we

confess our sins, he is faithful and just to

forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from

all unrighteousness. If we say that we have

not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word

is not in us.

——-

Original Sin

Original sin is the Christian doctrine that human beings inherit a sin nature at birth, with some Protestant theologians even arguing for total depravity, namely, that we’re in such a state of rebellion against God that we’re not even able to follow him, by ourselves, without his effectual grace. Other Christian theologians, such as Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215 AD), totally dismissed the thought of original sin by giving it a more allegorical interpretation.

Unlike Christianity, both Judaism and Islam hold a more positive view of human nature. They assert that human beings have an equal capacity for both good and evil, and that they don’t inherit another person’s sin at birth. They also claim that although humans might be culturally conditioned to sin by decadent societies, nevertheless they’re not born that way. To back that up, the Jews often quote the Torah (Deut. 24.16), which states:

The fathers shall not be put to death for the

children, neither shall the children be put to

death for the fathers: every man shall be

put to death for his own sin.

To drive the point home, they usually cite Ezekiel 18.20:

The son shall not bear the iniquity of the

father, neither shall the father bear the

iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the

righteous shall be upon him, and the

wickedness of the wicked shall be upon

him.

But these passages are only referring to actual sins, namely, to behavioral sins that each individual is personally responsible for. These verses, however, are not addressing *collective sin* that resides in human nature.

——-

The Collective Unconscious

Carl Jung (1875 - 1961), the famous Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, defined the concept we now know as the “collective unconscious.” This phrase refers to the deepest layer of the unconscious mind which, according to Jung, is genetically inherited and is therefore not part of individual history or personal experience. In other words, it’s not part of the personal unconscious.

Jung held that each person retains these innate unconscious impressions of humanity as a collective knowledge of our species. They’re in our genes, so to speak. But, here, also lurk all the dark, animal instincts of man, as well as the archetypes. One such archetype is called the “shadow,” an unconscious aspect of the personality that the conscious self doesn’t recognize or identify with. It represents a large portion of the *dark side* that is completely foreign and unknown to the ego. These collectively-inherited unconscious archetypes are universally present in every human being.

Over the years, many artistic works, like Star Wars, have addressed themselves to the dark side of human nature, from Pink Floyd's album Dark Side of the Moon, to horror movies like American Psycho and Hannibal Lecter, to the constant violence that no current Action film seems to be without. Life imitating art would be when we witness the exact same things happening in real life while turning on the 6 o’clock news. We customarily disassociate ourselves from this aspect of human nature. We can never imagine that this state of mind resides within all of us. We always point fingers at someone else. In our eyes, we are saints. We’re like the Pharisee in Luke 18.11:

The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with

himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as

other men are, extortioners, unjust,

adulterers, or even as this publican.

But, according to Jesus, we are all a bunch of hypocrites. In Matthew 15.18-19, Jesus implies that the dark side is hidden in the unconscious. It’s not simply a conscious thought, a spoken word, or an action that is the cause of one’s sinful behavior but rather a deep state of being (aka “the heart”) out of which proceeds all manner of evil:

But those things which proceed out of the

mouth come forth from the heart; and they

defile the man. For out of the heart proceed

evil thoughts, murders, adulteries,

fornications, thefts, false witness,

blasphemies.

That’s why Jeremiah 17.9 declares:

The heart is deceitful above all things, and

desperately wicked: who can know it?

No wonder Paul says that the unregenerate are still carnal (Rom. 8.8):

they that are in the flesh cannot

please God.

As theologian Timothy Keller asserts:

The church is not a museum for pristine

saints, but a hospital ward for broken

sinners.

If one fails to understand Jung’s concept of the “collective unconscious,” or the dark side of human nature, one will ultimately misunderstand the Biblical doctrine of original sin.

——-

Why Does Jesus Have to Die for Humanity?

Jesus doesn’t have to suffer greatly and die on a tree simply on account of sins that were committed in the past, or to justify repentant sinners because of their current or future sins. No! Jesus dies to redeem *human nature* from original sin. He dies for humanity’s collective sin (past, present, and future). And he also redeems humanity, in himself, by dying to sin. In other words, Jesus dies to the sinful state of being, if you will, in order to free human nature from the bondage of death and decay. Not only does Jesus justify sinners by dying to sin, but because he is God, he also transforms human nature itself. In the resurrection, Christ’s human nature that rises from the grave is no longer sin-tainted, but glorious!

Otherwise, if everyone sinned voluntarily, and human beings were not tainted by original sin, then there wouldn’t be any reason for God’s Son to die for mankind. In that case, sin would be an individual or personal responsibility, not a collective one. And humanity would not need a savior because there would be neither a collective cause nor a cure for crime, violence, and murder. These people would simply be classified as criminal offenders who, unlike others, consciously “chose” to behave that way.

However, that’s not what Paul says in Romans 5.18–19:

Therefore as by the offence of one [Adam]

judgment came upon all men to

condemnation; even so by the

righteousness of one [Christ] the free gift

came upon all men unto justification of life.

For as by one man's disobedience many

were made sinners, so by the obedience of

one shall many be made righteous.

In fact, Paul declares in 1 Corinthians 15.21-22:

For since by man came death, by man

came also the resurrection of the dead. For

as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all

be made alive.

Conclusion

Because the concept of the unconscious had not yet been discovered in Antiquity or the Dark Ages, the existence of the collective unconscious was not known, let alone addressed by either Judaism or Islam. Their criticism of original sin is quite unsophisticated and is presented exclusively from the point of view of the conscious mind. They neither comprehend the totality of the personality nor do they consider unconscious motivation. Therefore, to deny or ignore the overwhelming influence of the dark side of man (aka sin nature) is equivalent to a naïveté: a lack of experience, sophistication, and wisdom! This lack of skillful treatment is either due to innocence or deep repression.

That’s precisely why many people don’t know what sin is. And, consequently, they keep sinning. They can’t even understand why Jesus has to die for them. They often ask, what’s the big fuss about “original sin”? Read Jonathan Edwards’ sermon, “The heart of man is exceedingly deceitful.”

What do you think is the meaning behind Robert Louis Stevenson’s book, “The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde”? It presents the duality within man. This work is emphasizing the dark side of human nature that is hidden underneath our socially-acceptable “Dr. Jekyll” persona. But in the unconscious lurks another personality, Mr. Hyde, who represents evil that’s waiting in the wings. The depth of human cruelty is also represented in “Heart of darkness,” by Joseph Conrad. It’s the same idea in Bram Stoker's “Dracula.” All these classic works of art act like mirrors in trying to show us blind spots that we don’t usually see in ourselves and end up projecting onto others. And this darkness that proceeds from man’s collective unconscious is what Christian theologians have coined “original sin.” Louis Berkhof, in his “Systematic Theology,” pt. 2, ch. 4, writes:

actual sin in the life of man is generally

admitted. This does not mean, however,

that people have always had an equally

profound consciousness of sin. We hear a

great deal nowadays about the ‘loss of the

sense of sin.’

Therefore, the psychological and spiritual goal is to give up one's naivete and to expand one's consciousness so as to embrace and integrate all aspects of one’s personality and human nature. That’s what psychoanalysts mean when they say, “making the unconscious conscious.” It is here that rebirth in Christ becomes possible. That’s why wisdom teachers typically say that we need to see existence as it really is. What you need to do, in the words of the Dalai Lama (which represent the title of his book), is to figure out “How to see yourself as you really are.” It is then, and only then, when you will finally realize that sin is not simply an isolated behavior, but rather a state of being——deeply rooted in the “carnal mind” (cf. Rom. 6.6)——that needs to be transformed by the Holy Spirit. And that *existential experience* in and of itself constitutes not only a prelude to “rebirth,” but also the hope of salvation in Jesus Christ!

——-

For more info on this topic, see my essay, “BIBLICAL SIN: NOT AS BEHAVIOR BUT AS ULTIMATE TRANSGRESSION”: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/184880965717/i-think-the-greek-phrase-%CF%87%CF%89%CF%81%E1%BD%B6%CF%82-%E1%BC%81%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%81%CF%84%CE%AF%CE%B1%CF%82-ie

Eli of Kittim

BIBLICAL SIN: NOT AS BEHAVIOR BUT AS ULTIMATE TRANSGRESSION

I think the Greek phrase χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας (i.e. “without sin”) in reference to Jesus in Hebrews 4.15 has been greatly misunderstood. If in thi

How Old Was Abraham When He Left Haran?

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

The Apparent Contradiction

There’s a seeming contradiction in the Bible concerning Abraham’s age when he left Haran. The apparent contradiction is as follows. If Terah died when he was 205 years old, but fathered Abram when he was 70, then Abram must have been 135 years old when his father Terah died (as Gen. 11.26, 32 suggest), not 75, as Gen. 12.4 indicates. For the story to work without any discrepancies, Terah would literally have to be 130 years old when he fathered Abram. But it seemed as if he were only 70 years old. Hence the apparent contradiction. Below are the relevant citations that appear to contradict each other.

—-

Genesis 12.4 (ESV):

So Abram went, as the LORD had told him,

and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-

five years old when he departed from

Haran.

Acts 7.2:

And Stephen said: ‘Brothers and fathers,

hear me. The God of glory appeared to our

father Abraham when he was in

Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran.’

Acts 7.4:

Then he went out from the land of the

Chaldeans and lived in Haran. And after his

father died, God removed him from there

into this land in which you are now living.

Genesis 11.26:

When Terah had lived 70 years, he fathered

Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

Genesis 11.32:

The days of Terah were 205 years, and

Terah died in Haran.

—————

Apologetic Exegesis

The key passage is Gen. 11.26. The Hebrew text doesn’t explicitly say that *when* Terah was 70 years old he begat Abram. Rather, it puts it thusly (Gen. 11.26 KJV):

And Terah lived seventy years, and begat

Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

Nowhere is it explicitly mentioned that Terah had all 3 children when he was 70 years old. Nor is there any direct evidence that these children were triplets, or that they were born on the exact same date, month, or year. The verse in Gen. 11.26 merely indicates that after Terah reached a certain age——namely, 70 years old——he began to father children. But exactly when these children were actually born is unknown. The only thing that’s clear from Gen. 11.26 is that they were born after Terah had reached a certain age.

It’s quite possible, for example, that some of his children could have been born when Terah was 130 years old. Nothing in the text would contradict the timing of such a birth. As long as Terah fathered at least one child after he was 70, the rest could have been born anytime between Terah’s 70th and 205th birthday.

The order in which the names of Terah’s sons are listed may not reflect the precise chronological order in which the children were actually born. The text is simply indicating their order of importance. Given that Abram is a key figure in the Old Testament and the common patriarch of the Abrahamic religions, he’s obviously mentioned first:

there is yet a question whether Abram was

born first as listed, or perhaps he is listed

first because he was the wisest similar to

Shem, Ham, and Jafeth where Shem was

not the oldest, but was the wisest. … the

Talmud leaves the above question open.

(Wikipedia)

—————

Conclusion

Actually, Abram could have been 75 years old when he left Haran, as the text indicates (Gen. 12.4). And maybe he did leave Haran “after his father died” (Acts 7.4) at the age of 205 (Gen. 11.32). There is no contradiction with regard to the dates. The assumed contradiction is actually based on fallacious reasoning and speculation. It’s based on an eisegesis, that is, a misinterpretation of the text. Readers often assume that the text is telling us that Abram was born *when* Terah was 70 years old. But that’s a conjecture. The text doesn’t say that at all. All the text says is that once Terah reached a certain age, he began fathering sons. But exactly when each and every son was born is unknown.

—

The Baptism of the Holy Spirit

🔎 By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

In discussing the baptism of the Holy Spirit, I’m not referring to the Christian doctrine which holds that salvation is related to the act of water baptism. Rather, I’m referring to a Spirit baptism or a “conversion experience” where an individual has a personal encounter with the power of God (cf. John 3.3) in the Wesleyan sense. Many denominations——especially fundamentalist, evangelical, and pentecostal Christians——emphasize that without such a “born-again” experience no one can be saved.

From the outset, scripture emphasizes the need for a baptism of the Spirit. In Matthew 3:11 (NKJV), John the Baptist says:

I indeed baptize you with water unto

repentance, but He who is coming after me

is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not

worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the

Holy Spirit and fire.

In Mark 16.16-17, it’s not merely by faith alone, but by spirit “baptism” that salvation is accomplished! Given that the born-again Christians “will speak with new tongues,” it’s clear that the text is not referring to an immersion in water but rather to a baptism of the Holy Spirit:

He who believes and is baptized will be

saved; but he who does not believe will be

condemned. And these signs will follow

those who believe: In My name they will

cast out demons; they will speak with new

tongues.

According to some of the Church Fathers, such as Cyril of Jerusalem and St. John Chrysostom, baptism was considered to symbolically represent a form of rebirth——“of water and the Spirit” (John 3.5). Although Baptism is defined as a sacrament or a rite of admission into Christianity——typically by immersing in water——this ritual is symbolic of being cleansed from sin (1 John 1.7), and it also represents the death of the old self and the beginning of a new life! Similarly, 1 Peter 3.20-21 says that the salvation by water is not a baptism of the flesh that cleanses our filth but symbolic of a good conscience.

In Romans 6.3-4, Paul talks of a baptism Into Jesus’ death! It’s a believer’s participation in the death of Christ to allow them to “walk in newness of life”:

do you not know that as many of us as

were baptized into Christ Jesus were

baptized into His death? Therefore we were

buried with Him through baptism into death,

that just as Christ was raised from the dead

by the glory of the Father, even so we also

should walk in newness of life.

Similarly, in reference to his crucifixion and death, Jesus says in Luke 12.50 (cf. Mark 10.38–39):

I have a baptism to be baptized with,

and how distressed I am till it is

accomplished!

In this context, the term “baptism” obviously doesn’t refer to water but to death, which will be eventually followed by resurrection and rebirth. It is, in fact, part of the same regeneration process which comprises the death of the old self and the rebirth of the new self (Ephesians 4.22-24). The best example of the baptism of the Spirit, as a requirement for spiritual growth, is in Acts 2.1-4:

When the Day of Pentecost had fully come,

they were all with one accord in one place.

And suddenly there came a sound from

heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it

filled the whole house where they were

sitting. Then there appeared to them

divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat

upon each of them. And they were all filled

with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with

other tongues, as the Spirit gave them

utterance.

—

Has Anyone Ever Seen Jesus?

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

—

Jesus Christ, Whom No Human Being Has Ever Seen

Writing at the end of the first century AD, 1 Timothy 6.14-16 (SBLGNT) surprisingly says that Jesus Christ “WILL BE REVEALED” in due time:

τηρῆσαί σε τὴν ἐντολὴν ἄσπιλον

ἀνεπίλημπτον μέχρι τῆς ἐπιφανείας τοῦ

κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἣν καιροῖς

ἰδίοις δείξει ὁ μακάριος καὶ μόνος

δυνάστης, ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων

καὶ κύριος τῶν κυριευόντων, ὁ μόνος ἔχων

ἀθανασίαν, φῶς οἰκῶν ἀπρόσιτον, ὃν εἶδεν

οὐδεὶς ἀνθρώπων.

Translation (NJB):

do all that you have been told, with no faults

or failures, until the appearing of our Lord

Jesus Christ, who at the due time will be

revealed by God, the blessed and only Ruler

of all, the King of kings and the Lord of

lords, who alone is immortal, whose home is

in inaccessible light, whom no human being

has seen.

According to Bible scholars, the First Epistle to Timothy was written by an unknown author in Macedonia, Greece at the end of the first century AD. But according to the gospels, the chronology of Jesus’ ministry (which is typically dated to around 27-36 AD) supposedly took place at least 64 years earlier. Yet these two accounts appear to contradict each other. If either one of them is true, the other must be false. However, in my view, both of them are true. We’re just comparing different genres (Theological versus Didactic literature).

About whom is the passage written? The aforementioned passage is clearly talking about the so-called “king of kings and lord of lords,” a title that is uniquely associated with Jesus Christ. In fact, it mentions him by name and says that he will be revealed in due time. That means that he was never previously revealed! It further exhorts believers to do good “until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ … whom no human being has seen.”

First Timothy 6.14-16 therefore confirms Heb. 9.26b, 1 Peter 1.20, and Rev. 12.5, among other verses, that Christ’s initial revelation takes place in the end-times!

—

The Son of Man Comes at Some Point in Human History

2 John 1.7 (SBLGNT) reads:

πολλοὶ πλάνοι ἐξῆλθον εἰς τὸν κόσμον,

οἱ μὴ ὁμολογοῦντες Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν

ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί · οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ πλάνος

καὶ ὁ ἀντίχριστος.

Translation (YLT):

many leading astray did enter into

the world, who are not confessing Jesus

Christ coming in flesh; this one is he who is

leading astray, and the antichrist.

Yet in deference to Biblical usage, I’m not denying John’s proclamation of “Jesus Christ coming in [the] flesh” (2 John 1.7) but rather qualifying it in terms of its chronological relevance. In other words, I deny the *timing* of this event, not the event itself! Put differently, I certainly don’t deny the notion of Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh at some point in human history. I’m simply asking, “WHEN,” according to Scripture.

—

Know Thyself

By Author Eli Kittim

“Through the study of books one seeks God;

by meditation one finds him.”

(Padre Pio)

According to the Greek writer and geographer, Pausanias, the ancient Greek aphorism “Know Thyself” (γνῶθι σεαυτόν) was a maxim inscribed on the Temple of Apollo at Delphi. Throughout the centuries, people have studied the physical and metaphysical world through science and philosophy. But how can a person study himself or herself? By turning inward! In the Phaedo, one of Plato’s famous dialogues, Socrates explains that the senses are incapable of informing us about the true nature of reality, and thus are not to be trusted. One needs to look beyond the senses in order to find meaning and clarity. Socrates says to Simmias:

“Did you ever reach them [truths] with any

bodily sense? – and I speak not of these

alone, but of absolute greatness, and

health, and strength, and, in short, of the

reality or true nature of everything. Is the

truth of them ever perceived through the

bodily organs? Or rather, is not the nearest

approach to the knowledge of their several

natures made by him who so orders his

intellectual vision as to have the most exact

conception of the essence of each thing he

considers?”

Later in the Phaedo, Socrates begins to expound on what we today would call “silent meditation.” Remember, this is not India. This is 5th to 4th century BCE Greece! Gautama Buddha happens to be Plato’s contemporary. Socrates begins to describe the practice of meditation as follows:

“He who has got rid, as far as he can, of

eyes and ears and, so to speak, of the

whole body, these being in his opinion

distracting elements when they associate

with the soul hinder her from acquiring truth

and knowledge – who, if not he, is likely to

attain to the knowledge of true being?”

Over 500 years later, the Neoplatonist philosopher Plotinus would also base his entire philosophy on meditative silence. So, given that Socrates (Plato’s teacher, who coined the phrase “Know Thyself”) lived in the 5th century BCE, it is difficult to say if this contemplative practice originated in the East or the West. Let’s not forget that Plato is deeply indebted to an older mystical philosopher named Pythagoras (6th century BCE), who was probably one of the first great and well-known mystics in the west!

Plotinus follows Socrates’ advice regarding the path to self-knowledge and the philosophy of Being. He insists that the soul must discard all form, image, and thought. It is through concentration, away from the sense world, that we reach the “One” (i.e. God). And the self discovers this when it is annihilated. In other words, a person loses his/her identity during the supreme mystical union with the “One.” it’s as if the person has been “ ‘seized’ by an elemental force and swept into liberation by mystical frenzy” (Thomas Merton). Plotinus says:

“shut your eyes . . . and wake

another way of seeing, which everyone has

but few use.”

The “awakening” in the presence of the “good” is a result that is accomplished by removing multiplicity through the process of negation (which later became known as apophatic theology). That is to say, there is a detachment from the many to the One. The disciple must proceed by way of negation. Rather than positing what the One is, the practitioner gets rid of all knowledge and begins by contemplating what the One is not. This practice has been alternatively called “silence” or “stillness.” It is a way of putting away all otherness and reaching an ineffable union with the One (or God). In the mysticism of Plotinus, the student must not chase after the good but wait quietly til it appears.

Unfortunately, since the time of the Renaissance and the Age of Reason, the contemplative aspect of the Platonic tradition is no longer discussed in modern academia. Plato is often taught as a cold, rational thinker whose insights are solely derived from discursive thought. However, Plotinus thought that he was simply clarifying Plato’s teachings. According to Wikipedia:

“Plotinus was not claiming to innovate with

the Enneads [his book], but to clarify

aspects of the works of Plato that he

considered misrepresented or

misunderstood. Plotinus

does not claim to be an innovator, but

rather a communicator of a tradition.

Plotinus referred to tradition as a way to

interpret Plato's intentions. Because the

teachings of Plato were for members of the

academy rather than the general public, it

was easy for outsiders to misunderstand

Plato's meaning.”

Plotinus lived in Alexandria, Egypt in the 3rd century CE. Over 150 years earlier, another Platonic philosopher, Philo of Alexandria, had done the same:

“Philo of Alexandria had written on some

form of ‘spiritual exercises’ involving

attention (prosoche) and concentration and

by the 3rd century Plotinus had developed

meditative techniques.”

(Wikipedia)

According to Plotinus, the One is not simply an intellectual concept but rather something that can actually be experienced; an existential experience where one goes far beyond all multiplicity. The individual eventually reaches a state of tabula rasa, a blank state where everything is deleted, so to speak, while the person merges with the One. The self is dissolved, completely absorbed into the One. But in order to reach this stage, “the Proficient’s will is set always and only inward” (Enneads I.4.11). This process eventually leads to ecstasy:

“The essentially devotional nature of

Plotinus' philosophy may be further

illustrated by his concept of attaining

ecstatic union with the One (henosis).

Porphyry relates that Plotinus attained such

a union four times during the years he knew

him. This may be related to enlightenment,

liberation, and other concepts of mystical

union common to many Eastern and

Western traditions.”

(Wiki)

In Greek, Henosis is the term for mystical "union.” In Platonism, and particularly in Neoplatonism, the aim of henosis is union with the ground of being or absolute reality: the source or the One (τὸ Ἕν):

“Henosis for Plotinus was defined in his

works as a reversing of the ontological

process of consciousness via meditation

. . . toward no thought . . . and no

division (dyad) within the individual (being).

Plotinus words his teachings to reconcile

not only Plato with Aristotle but also various

World religions that he had personal

contact with during his various travels.”

(Wiki)

Plotinus, and his successor Proclus, influenced many great philosophers and theologians, such as Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Husserl, Heidegger, Barth, Bultmann, and others. Plotinus’ meditation is not unlike that described in Ps. 62.5, which reads: “For God alone my soul waits in silence.” According to Wikipedia, “Plotinus' final words were: ‘Try to raise the divine in yourselves to the divine in the all.’ “ Meditation, therefore, is the method by which we not only grasp the essence of true Being, in the Platonic sense, but also how we find the sure way of salvation, in the Biblical sense:

“Be still, and know that I am God!”

(Psalm 46.10)

If the Bible Warns Against Future False Christs, then How Is the End-Times Earthly Messiah Not a Deception?

By Author Eli Kittim 🔎

—

False Christs & False Prophets

The New Testament warns that the end of days will be characterized by great deception. Matthew 24 tells us that many false christs will appear, saying “I am the Christ” (v. 5), and will deceive many. And many false prophets will also appear (v. 11). If they tell you “here is the Christ,” don’t believe them, for many false Christs & false prophets will perform great signs so as to deceive even the elect (vv. 23-24). In the text, Christ says (Mt 24.25-26 NRSV):

Take note, I have told you beforehand. So, if

they say to you, ‘Look! He is in the

wilderness,' do not go out. If they say, ‘Look!

He is in the inner rooms,' do not believe it.

But one may raise the question, “if the Bible warns against future false Christs, then how is the end-times earthly messiah not a deception?”

I will try to answer this question using an excerpt from my book, “The Little Book of Revelation,” chapter 11, the section entitled “THE CORPSE: A MISSING LINK IN BIBLICAL EXEGESIS,” pp. 237-238:

// However, we must challenge the reader to go further. Because if you do not understand the specific timeline of these end-time events, the biblical script will become very confusing. For example, Matthew 24:23 reads, “if anyone says to you, ‘Behold, here is the Christ,’ or ‘There He is,’ do not believe him.” Some argue that this verse exhorts us to distrust any earthly Messiah that might appear in the last days. But this is simply not true. For one thing, Christ himself appears for the first time in the last days! (Heb. 1:2, 9:26; Gal. 4:4; Eph. 1:9-10; Acts 3:20-21; Rev. 12:5). Not to mention that the Jews themselves are still awaiting the Messiah. Furthermore, Matthew’s gospel sets up the context of this exhortation in its proper chronological order. For instance, notice that Matthew first introduces Daniel’s prophecy of “the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION . . . standing in the holy place” (Matt. 24:15) as the backdrop for this exhortation. This event is set to take place when the antichrist will take “his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God” (2 Thess. 2:4).

Next, we are warned that when this event transpires, we should “flee to the mountains; . . . for then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall” (Matt. 24:16-21). But we must remember that Christ will most certainly die before the antichrist could reveal himself to the world (Matt. 24:28). Paul writes, “He [Christ] who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. And then that lawless one will be revealed” (2 Thess. 2:7-8). That Christ’s arrival precedes that of the antichrist is further demonstrated in John’s gospel, Jesus says, “I will not speak much more with you, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has nothing in Me” (14:30, cf. Dan. 9:26). Hence, “the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION” serves as the context in which the previous exhortation was made. So during this particular time period, we are rightly urged to distrust any physical being that claims to be the Messiah.\\

—

The Day of Christ

Here’s another excerpt from “The Little Book of Revelation,” ch. 3, the section entitled “FIRST COMES CHRIST; THEN COMES THE ANTICHRIST,” p. 101:

// Christ, then, must be the first horseman of “Revelation,” whose “robe” (body) was “dipped in blood” (Rev. 19:11-13, cf. Rev. 6:2). This episode marks the first of several incidents that lead up to the cosmic apocalypse. We already know that the anticipated child born during the end-times is clearly the Messiah (Rev. 12:1-5). And more than that, we are now in a better position to understand the preceding events leading up to his foretold ascension: being “caught up” into heaven (Rev. 12:5). These include his incarnation, death and resurrection, when he “will arise” from the dead (Dan. 12:1) “to make the earth tremble” (Isa. 2:19). We are also told that the antichrist “will be revealed” during the interim in which Christ will be “taken out of the way” (2 Thess. 2:7-8). Hence, it was very much the scriptural intention to instill insight in its advocates so that they might firmly distrust those who claim “that the day of the Lord has come” (2 Thess. 2:2).\\

—