1 Peter 1:20 - Tumblr Posts
Christ Says, “I Am Coming like a Thief”: In Other Words, like a Criminal
By Author Eli Kittim
The first point I’d like to make is that “there is no one who understands” Scripture (Rom. 3:11). Deuteronomy 21 declares that “someone guilty of a capital offense is put to death and their body is exposed on a pole” (v. 22), and further states that “anyone who is hung on a pole is under God’s curse” (v. 23). And yet, Galatians 3:13 maintains that “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.’” Moreover, Christ explicitly identifies himself with the snake mentioned in the Book of Numbers when he says, “Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up” (Jn. 3:14). Remember that the snake gave life, but only to those who beheld it: “So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they lived” (Num. 21:9). In other words, Christ is portrayed as a criminal (i.e., a snake, which represents a sinner) who is under God’s curse.
In his commentary on the Letter to the Galatians, Martin Luther wrote:
“All the prophets of old said that Christ should be the greatest transgressor, murderer, adulterer, thief, blasphemer that ever was or ever could be on earth. When he took the sins of the whole world upon himself, Christ was no longer an innocent person. . . . In short, Christ was charged with the sins of all men, that he should pay for them with his own blood. The curse struck him. The Law found him among sinners. He was not only in the company of sinners. He had gone so far as to invest himself with the flesh and blood of sinners. So the Law judged and hanged him for a sinner.”
This means that all the sins that have ever been committed throughout human history are put on the back of Jesus. Pastor Matt Richard writes,
“And then to top it off God judged Jesus to be GUILTY for the whole package. . . . The weight of that, the horror, the dread and the enormity of it all is incomprehensible. It caused Jesus to cry out to his Father, ‘My God.... Why have you forsaken me?’ . . . . As repulsive as it may sound to us, only in this truth—that Jesus became SIN—is our hope and our salvation found.”
Second Corinthians 5:21 provides the basis for this interpretation. It reads, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us.” However, when we look at the Greek text (Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th ed.), it reads: τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν (2 Cor. 5:21). The word ἐποίησεν is based on the verb ποιέω (poieó), which means to “make,” to “produce” (G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, p. 1107) or to “do.” It does not mean “to be,” as in the alternative translation: “God made him . . . to be sin for us” (cf. Jn 4:46 where ἐποίησεν means “made” water into wine). Thus, the correct reading of 2 Cor. 5:21 is as follows: “in our behalf He did make sin” (Young's Literal Translation). The Good News Translation—which reads, “God made him share our sin”—is far closer to the YLT and the original Greek text than the NIV, NASB or the KJV. Nevertheless, even the mainstream rendering of ἐποίησεν (i.e., “to be sin”) implies that Christ became “sin,” so to speak, by taking upon him our fallen, sinful nature: “He became like a human being and appeared in human likeness” (Phil. 2:7). How else could he be “fully human in every way” (Heb. 2:17), share our humanity (Heb. 2:14) and be tempted if he doesn’t have a sin nature? (cf. the Infancy Gospel of Thomas). You cannot tempt someone who, by definition, is incapable of being tempted: “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are” (Heb. 4:15). In this regard, 2 Peter 3:15—16 poignantly notes that “Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures.”
Sin is evil. If Christ became sin, or made sin, then Christ became evil in some sense via the incarnation because he took on our nature and became a sinner. Kenneth Copeland rightly asks: “Why did Moses raise a serpent instead of a lamb?” John Chrysostom, an important Early Church Father, writes: “God allowed His Son to suffer as if a condemned sinner . . .” (Homily on 1 Cor. 11:5). That is why Christ is punished; because “the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa. 53:6). And, according to the gospel narratives, Jesus is arrested, tried, condemned to death, and later executed as a criminal (i.e. an enemy of the state)!
But the real question is, did this happen in Antiquity or is God “declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done”? (Isa. 46:10). Revelation 12:5 suggests that Christ’s incarnation is a future event that takes place in the end-times. First Peter 1:20 similarly says, “God chose him as your ransom long before the world began, but he has now revealed him to you in these last days” (cf. Heb. 1:1—2). What’s more, Hebrews 9:26 explicitly states: “Once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” The NIV says that his death takes place “at the culmination of the ages,” while the NASB puts it, “at the consummation of the ages.” The NRSV associates Christ’s sacrifice with the end-times by rendering it “at the end of the age.” The Greek text is as follows: ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων εἰς ἀθέτησιν [τῆς] ἁμαρτίας διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ πεφανέρωται. Lampe defines the word συντελείᾳ as ‘consummation’ (i.e. the ultimate end), particularly in reference to Heb. 9:26 συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων and Mt.13:39 συντελείᾳ τοῦ αἰῶνος. Appropriately, the NJB equates Christ’s initial appearance on earth with the last days. It reads: “He was marked out before the world was made, and was revealed at the final point of time” (1 Pet. 1:20).
Let us now try to understand the meaning of the phrase, “I am coming like a thief!” (Rev. 16:15). In Matthew 24:43, a thief is depicted as one who breaks into a house to steal another person's property. He is commonly known as a burglar and is considered to be a criminal. Here is “Martin Luther’s Commentary on Galatians 3:13: Christ, The Greatest Of Sinners?”
(Galatians 3:13. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written: Cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree)
“It was appropriate for Him to become a thief and, as Isaiah says (53:12), to be 'numbered among the thieves.'" Similarly, C. H. Spurgeon’s sermon, “Christ Made Sin”—which was on 2 Corinthians 5:21: “For He has made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us”—echoes the words of Martin Luther. He exclaims:
“He bound His only begotten Son to the pillar and scourged and bruised Him! Sooner than sin should go unpunished, He put that sin upon Christ and punished Him—oh, how tremendously and with what terrific strokes! . . . And upon His Son He laid a tremendous, incomprehensible weight, till the griefs of the dying Redeemer utterly surpassed all our imagination or comprehension!”
In summary, Christ is “numbered among the thieves” (Isa. 53.12) and has “become a curse for us—for it is written: Cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree” (Gal. 3:13). He becomes the snake of Num. 21:9 (cf. Jn. 3:14), signifying a criminal (i.e., a sinner) who is under God’s curse. And according to the gospel narratives, he is in fact convicted of a crime: he’s arrested, tried, and condemned to death. If this story is played out in the end-times (cf. Heb. 9:26; 1 Pet. 1:20; Rev. 12:5), and if the word ἐποίησεν (2 Cor. 5:21) means that Christ "did make sin" rather than "be sin," then the exegesis of Rev. 16:15—“I come like a thief”—suggests a literal interpretation, namely, that we should expect Christ to come like a criminal; that is to say, like a thief!
Historical Jesus Vs Eschatological Jesus: On the Question of the Historicity of Jesus
What does the Johannine Jesus mean in John 14.3 when he says, “if I go . . . I will come back”?
By Writer Eli Kittim
——-
SBLGNT:
καὶ ἐὰν πορευθῶ καὶ ἑτοιμάσω τόπον ὑμῖν, πάλιν ἔρχομαι καὶ παραλήμψομαι ὑμᾶς πρὸς ἐμαυτόν, ἵνα ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγὼ καὶ ὑμεῖς ἦτε (Jn. 14.3).
Translation:
“If I go away and prepare a place for you, I will come back and receive you to Myself, so that where I am you may be also” (HCSB).
——-
Definitions
In John 14.3, one of the meanings of the Greek word πορεύομαι (I go) is “die.” It can also mean “travel,” “journey,” or “go.” It comes from the root word “poros,” which means “passageway.” Thus, the connotation is “to depart.”
——-
Is Jesus a General Contractor Or Does He Mean Something Else?
So the question arises: is Jesus going to Heaven to begin preparation and arrangements for the biggest building projects in Heaven’s history? Is that what he really means? Is he going away in order to supervise large developments that will serve as living quarters for humans who will one day be transported there? Is that what he means? And then he will “come back” thousands of years later when the projects have been completed, for it takes a long time to build such ambitious developments? Is that the proper biblical interpretation of what he means when he says, “I go away and prepare a place for you”?
——-
Old Testament Parallels
First, let’s start with a basic question: how does Jesus “prepare a place” for us? Is it by using lawn mowers, cement, bricks, architectural plans, tractors, and the like? Or is it through other means? Obviously, since Jesus’ teachings are spiritually-based, it would seem pointless to look toward materialistic explanations. Therefore, we must look for parallels and verbal agreements elsewhere in the Bible in order to find out exactly what he means. For example, in Isaiah 14.21, to “Prepare a place” means to prepare a slaughtering place מַטְבֵּ֖חַ (matbeach) in order “to slaughter his children for the sins of their ancestors” (cf. Mt. 23.35 NIV). Therefore, in preparing a place, a slaughter house is indicated. Similarly, within the passion narrative, when the Johannine Jesus uttered these words, we knew exactly where he was going; namely, to his death! According to Christian theology, the atonement, namely, the “cross” or the •slaughterhouse•, prepares a place for us through the forgiveness of sins, so that we might become the sons and daughters of God through the blood of Jesus. So, it turns out that Jesus is not going to Heaven; he’s going to his death!
——-
Jesus Will “Come Back” Not from Heaven But from Death
Second, as already mentioned, in the Greek, the word for “go” (πορευθῶ), in the phrase “if I go,” can mean “to go,” to “journey,” to “die,” or to “depart.” Thus, when the Johannine Jesus says “If I go away and prepare a place for you, I will come back,” is he referring to a second coming that will occur possibly thousands of years later, or does he mean something else? Something, perhaps, related to why he is going away in the first place? Based on the aforementioned exegesis, it seemingly means that he “will come back” from the dead (cf. Heb. 9.26-28). Accordingly, it turns out that in John 14.1-3 Jesus is not talking about going to Heaven and then returning in a second coming thousands of years later. Rather, he’s referring to his sacrificial death, which prepares the way to Heaven for all humanity, after which he soon returns from the dead for the rapture (to “receive you to Myself”) and for our ultimate ascension into Heaven. So, whereas the classic interpretation proposed bizarre and remote gaps in chronology between Jesus’ death and resurrection, as well as His appearance in the sky out of nowhere centuries later, the current interpretation is robust precisely because it follows the biblical jargon closely and understands it to be a natural contemporaneous sequence of events within one single lifetime.
——-
New Testament Parallels
Third, John 14.3 can certainly mean “I go to my death” precisely because a similar phrase (“I’m ready to go” away)——using the exact same Greek word πορεύομαι——is used elsewhere in the New Testament to mean that the person is going “to [his] death”:
SBLGNT
ἕτοιμός εἰμι καὶ εἰς θάνατον πορεύεσθαι (Luke 22:33).
Translation:
“I'm ready to go . . . to death!" (HCSB).
Thus, the translation and exegesis of the Biblical languages from both the Old and New Testaments confirms that Jesus is seemingly predicting his death in John 14.3. Jesus is basically saying, “I prepare a place for you” by dying for you!
——-
Jesus is Not Preparing a House; He’s Preparing an Atonement
Fourth, contextually speaking, even Jn 14.2 (the previous verse) demonstrates that Jesus rejects the notion that his message is about living accommodations. Indeed, he stresses that Heaven already has all the accommodations it needs. If it didn’t, he would have told us. In other words, that’s NOT what he meant, and so he switches gears, so to speak, and ends the verse by saying, “I go to prepare a place for you” (πορεύομαι ἑτοιμάσαι τόπον ὑμῖν):
“In My Father's house are many dwelling places; if not, I would have told you. I am going away to prepare a place for you” (HCSB).
The question is, where does he go? Answer: to his death. He must die first. That’s the clue. That’s where he goes because “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Heb. 9.22 HCSB). And we already know from the gospel narratives precisely where he intends to go, and how the story ends!
——-
Jesus Will “Come Back” For the Resurrection and the Rapture
Fifth, then in v. 3 he says, “If I go . . . I will come back and receive you to Myself, so that where I am you may be also.” That sounds like “rapture” language (cf. 1 Thess. 4.16-17), which resembles the resurrection theme in Heb. 9.28 that closely follows the death motif in Heb. 9.26b. John 14.3 employs the term παραλήμψομαι, which comes from the verb παραλαμβάνω and means “I take”——cf. “taken” [as in the rapture] at Gen. 5.24 & Mt. 24.40-41—-or “I receive.” So, the “come back” motif could certainly imply a •resurrection from the dead.• It is not out of the question precisely because it’s not a “parousia” that the text is referring to but rather a “come back” πάλιν ἔρχομαι (cf. ἐκ δευτέρου “for a second time” rather than παρουσία in Heb. 9.28). Therefore, just as in Luke 22.33 in which the going away (πορεύομαι) is a going forth to one’s death, so the “come back” theme in Jn 14.3 can certainly imply from the grave, from death, that is, to receive us in the “rapture.”
——-
Conclusion: The Events of John 14.3 Obviously Suggest A Futurist Eschatological Model
The logical conclusion of this brief study leads to the final question, namely, if Jesus’ death and resurrection are closely followed by the “rapture,” then how could this contemporaneous sequence of events take place in first century Palestine? It could not! Thus, if the Jesus-saying, “if I go away . . . I will come back” means that Jesus will *come-back-from-the-dead* for the •rapture,• then obviously John 14.3 can only be interpreted through a future eschatological model that would account for the contemporaneity of these events! That’s precisely why Jesus says, “In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me” (Jn 16.16).
The New Testament Epistolary literature certainly supports such a model through numerous references (cf. 1 Jn 2.28; Rev. 12.5; 19.10d NRSV). Due to time constraints, I will confine myself to two examples:
1) “Once in the end of the world hath he [Jesus] appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice [death] of himself” (Heb. 9.26b KJV emphasis added).
2) “He was marked out before the world was made, and was revealed at the final point of time” (1 Pet. 1.20 NJB emphasis added).
——-
What is “Eyewitness Testimony” in the New Testament and Who Are the “Eyewitnesses”?
By Author Eli Kittim
——-
It’s important to note that the gospels are later embellishments, not firsthand accounts, and their historicity and authorship are disputed. Thus, the purported author of John’s Gospel, who by the way is writing in refined Greek, couldn’t have been the alleged Aramaic disciple of Jesus not only because he wouldn’t be able to write in sophisticated Greek but also because he wouldn’t have been alive around 100 CE.
——-
So, what exactly does *Eyewitness testimony* mean in the New Testament (NT)?
——-
In the NT, the term “eyewitness” doesn’t necessarily mean witnessing physical-bodily phenomena. For example, Paul claims to be an •eyewitness• of Christ (1 Cor. 15:8), yet by his own self-confession his entire knowledge of Christ is based solely on revelations (Gal. 1.11-12; Acts 9.3-5). Scholars are in agreement that Paul never saw Jesus in the flesh.
——-
By comparison, it is explicitly stated in Luke’s gospel that the group of women at the tomb saw a “vision” (24.23–24), similar to that of the “witnesses” who were said to be “chosen beforehand” (προκεχειροτονημένοις) in Acts 10.40–41 (NASB). “Beforehand” means “in advance.” It implies a •foreknowledge• that is spiritually discerned prior to the experience of an event. In short: it represents a prophecy! But there is more.
——-
For example, in 2 Peter 1.16-19 the apostles are said to be “eyewitnesses” not of physical phenomena but rather of “the prophetic message.” Astoundingly, they’re eyewitnesses of visual and auditory messages (voices & visions) that were heard, literally, as voices, but were nevertheless part of a so-called “prophecy” or prediction:
“For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been •eyewitnesses• of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory, saying, ‘This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.’ We ourselves •heard this voice• come from heaven, while we were with him on the holy mountain. So we have the •prophetic message• more fully confirmed” (emphasis added).
——-
Similarly, First Peter 1.10-11 suggests an •eschatological• soteriology (cf. Heb. 1.1-2; 9.26b; 1 Pet. 1.20), that is to say, “the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow” were actually “PREDICTED” in advance:
“Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he •predicted• the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow” (NIV emphasis added).
(If you want to further explore the exegetical details of the aforementioned quote, click on the following link):
https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/184378109027/by-eli-kittim-concerning-this-salvation-the
——-
So, when John’s Gospel introduces itself as the composition of a so-called •eyewitness• to the events of Jesus’ lifetime (“who saw” something; Jn 19.35), it may be talking about •history-written-in-advance•, similar to the Book of Revelation (cf. 4.1-2), which is explicitly referred to as a Book of *prophecy* (1.3; 22.7, 10, 18-19), a book that is also believed by Christian tradition to have been penned by the same apostle, “who saw” the end of days!
Hence both 2 Peter and the Book of Revelation are two very clear examples where “Eyewitness testimony” is explicitly related to *prophecy,* that is to say, *history written in advance*! Put differently, the gospel narratives are seemingly set in a transhistorical context. Transhistoricity, in other words, is the flip side of the notion that NT meanings are restricted to their historical context.
——-
Therefore, the so-called “eyewitnesses testimonies” are actually referring to •visions• pertaining to *prophetic* events. That’s why the account or “testimony” to Jesus is NOT historical but *prophetic*:
“For the testimony [to] Jesus is the spirit of prophecy”
—(Rev. 19.10d “The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: NRSV” [4th rev. edn; New York: Oxford University, 2010], p. 2176, n.e.).
If Jesus is a historical figure, who supposedly existed prior to the composition of the Book of Revelation, shouldn’t his “testimony” be the Spirit of history? And yet, by contrast, his “testimony” is explicitly referred to as “the spirit of prophecy.” Something to think about.
——-
The argument that Jesus has not yet come is based on both the internal and external evidence
——-
The *external evidence* demonstrates that there are no firsthand accounts (the gospel writers are not eyewitnesses). There are also no independent secular accounts of Jesus until the close of the first century CE. Josephus’ “Testimonium Flavianum,” toward the turn of the century, is considered as unacceptable evidence by most scholars due to extensive interpolations. Even Tacitus’ later account represents an obvious interpolation. So, despite Jesus’ so-called extraordinary feats, no one is writing anything about him outside of the NT for approximately 65y. Not a single word is written about Jesus, there’s not even a passive reference to him, even though we have a lot of documents from that period dealing with just about every aspect of life, political and otherwise.
——-
The *internal evidence* is equally strong. Besides the *end-time* •messianic death-and-resurrection• themes that are clearly addressed in the Old Testament (e.g., Isa. 2.2, 19; Dan. 12.1-2; Zeph. 1.7, 14-18; and Zech. 12.10), there are many such motifs also found in the NT!
——-
The evidence from the NT is sometimes rather explicit and quite compelling. For example, Hebrews 1.2 clearly states that God speaks to humanity through his Son in the “last days” (ἐπ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν). Notice that the *last days* represent an eschatological time-period that is obviously distinguished from “Long ago,” in other words, it is differentiated from the time of Antiquity in verse 1. But, even more explicit is the verse from Heb. 9.26b:
“once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (KJV).
https://biblehub.com/hebrews/9-26.htm
Proper Biblical Exegesis demands that we understand NT Greek. The Greek phrase reads as follows:
ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων εἰς ἀθέτησιν ἁμαρτίας διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ πεφανέρωται (Heb. 9.26b SBLGNT).
The term ἅπαξ (hapax) means “once for all.” The Greek phrase ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων (i.e., “at the end of the age”) is a reference to “the end of the world” (KJV) or “the consummation of the ages” (NASB cf. Dan. 12.4 LXX). Whenever this Greek phrase appears in the NT it is invariably referring to “the end of the world” (cf. Mt. 13.39-40, 49; 24.3; 28.20, etc.).
There are also parallel verses and verbal agreements in which the overall linguistic meaning of this phrase is confirmed by the Patristic Fathers of that period: τόν . . . υιόν . . . ερχόμενον ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ του αἰωνος κρίναι ζώντας καί νεκρούς (G.W.H. Lampe [ed.], “A Patristic Greek Lexicon” [Oxford: Oxford University, 1961], p. 1340).
——-
Therefore, the eschatological phrase συντελείας του αιωνος (which is usually translated as “the end of the age”) can ONLY refer to the END OF THE WORLD! And Hebrews 9.26b tells us unequivocally and categorically that this is ALSO the TIME when Christ DIES for the SINS (εἰς ἀθέτησιν ἁμαρτίας) of the world. The meaning is quite obvious. But that’s not all. There are many, many other NT passages that CONFIRM this view.
——-
First Peter 1.20 is a case in point:
“He was marked out before the world was made, and was revealed at the final point of time” (NJB).
It is quite explicit. Once again, “the final point of time” (επ´ έσχάτου των χρόνων) refers to the culmination or consummation of the ages. And this is the time period when Christ will be initially “revealed,” according to 1 Peter 1.20 (cf. Lk 17.30; 1 Cor. 1.7; 1 Jn 2.28). Then there are other passages that I can’t get into right now due to time restrictions, such as Rev. 12.5, where Christ is born in the end-times as a contemporary of the final world-empire which is depicted as a red dragon with 7 heads and 10 horns. Rev. 6.2 equally shows that the first horseman that will appear in the end times is Christ! To understand why the white horse of Rev. 6.2 represents Christ, please look at the following link from my blog:
https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/168159235542/who-is-the-first-horseman-of-the-apocalypse
——-
I could cite many more examples, but I think you get the idea . . .
——-
Incidentally, the notion that Jesus will appear “once and for all” (hapax; Heb. 9.26b) in the end-times does not change anything whatsoever soteriologically speaking. In other words, it’s not a salvation issue because, according to the NT, we are saved IN FAITH as we “eagerly await a Savior” (Phil. 3.20 NIV) “for a salvation that is ready to be revealed at the end of time (1 Pet. 1.5 GW).
——-
Conclusion
This unique Biblical exegesis doesn’t change our Soteriology. But it does change our Theology. So, for example, those who think that Jesus already died will be shocked to see him coming not from the sky but from the earth. And “his own” (i.e. the Christians; cf. Jn 1.11) will eventually reject him as the so-called “Antichrist.” Christian Bible-Prophecy experts have already paved the way for rejecting the Christ through faulty and preconceived interpretations of Revelation 6.2. Even though this is clearly Christ, as I’ve demonstrated in the aforesaid essay, nevertheless the mainstream view holds that the first horseman who rides a white horse is the Antichrist . . .
So, unless you understand what’s going on, you will be very confused during the unfolding of these events in the End time!
——-
The Quran’s Alternative Christianity
By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim
——-
Christianity’s Influence on the Quran
Although polytheism was the dominant form of religion in pre-Islamic Arabia, the Quran was diametrically opposed to this view and superseded it with its own brand of monotheism. The unknown author(s) of the Quran was obviously influenced by the Gnostic religion of the Mandaeans, who are sometimes called "Christians of Saint John," and by that of the Sabians or Manichaeans, who revered certain prophets, such as Zoroaster and Jesus. Despite these strong surrounding influences, however, the author(s) of the Quran seems to gravitate towards the Judeo-Christian Bible, paying special attention to the Jesus story and accepting even some of its more miraculous or fantastic elements, such as the virgin birth and the 2nd coming. That’s a clue that Christianity made a greater impact on the author(s) of the Quran than, say, Mithraism, Zoroastrianism, or Mazdakism! If, on the other hand, the author(s) of the Quran had used Judaism as a prototype of his new religion, then, in principle, he would never have accepted the Christian claims. Besides, Islam doesn’t show strict adherence to circumcision or the Law. And even though Moses and Abraham are mentioned more times than Jesus in the Quran, it’s rather obvious that Christianity had made a deeper impact on the author(s) than any other religion! And just as Christianity accepted the Hebrew Bible, so did the Quran.
——-
A Christian Revolt
Do you really know what the Quran is? Answer: the product of a late *Gnostic Christian revolt* against Byzantine Orthodoxy. No wonder its adherents hated Constantinople so vigorously that they finally sacked it in 1453 ce. What I am proposing is that the *Gnostic-Christian Sects* that were marginalized by Byzantine Orthodoxy from the fourth century onwards didn’t go away quietly but seemingly conspired against the Church during the early part of the dark ages! The result of those efforts eventuated in the Book we now call the Quran. The syncretistic-gnostic elements present in the Quran suggest that it was in fact an amalgamation of heresies that characterized many different Gnostic Christian sects.
——-
The Apocryphal Reformation
After the 4th-Century Church solidified itself theologically and otherwise within the Roman Empire and began to accept certain “canonical” texts while excluding others, those communities that held to the *rejected* gnostic and so-called “apocryphal” works eventually united to form their own Bible. The result was the Quran, which was mostly based on a variety of Jewish and Christian apocryphal and Gnostic texts!
Over time, Islam gradually lost it’s connection to Christianity (much like Christianity did when it broke away from Judaism) and became an independent religion in its own right. It may have been more Christ-centered at the beginning. But in order to distinguish itself from its rival Christian counterparts it would have had to significantly deemphasize its central Christian tenets. So, the first communities that gave rise to the Quran most probably comprised Gnostic Christians. Thus, the author of the Quran may have been seeking to take revenge on his Orthodox superiors, much like what a disgruntled Christian priest would do at a local church. Martin Luther immediately comes to mind and, with him, the Protestant Reformation!
——-
The Beginning of Islam as a Christian Minority Religion
No wonder the Quran reveres the Christian dogmas of the virgin birth and the second coming of Jesus, while putting less emphasis on the historical Jesus, his atonement, and his divinity! And the Islamic traditions begin to make more sense from this perspective, as, for example, when the Nestorian monk Bahira in Bosra foretold to the adolescent Muhammad his future prophetic career. And just as Orthodoxy condemned the Gnostic Christian texts as *heretical* and *uninspired*, Islam must have fired back at them alleging that the so-called “canonical Christian texts” themselves were *corrupt*. It seems, then, that Islam itself came out of these early Gnostic-Nestorian Christian roots! In other words, even though it now openly competes with Christianity for converts, originally, Islam must have been a Christian minority religion on the fringes of the Eastern Roman Empire that was well-aware of all the debates that were raging all around them.
——-
The New Testament Epistles Concur with the Apocryphal Texts that Undergird the Quran
As an offshoot of Christian Gnosticism, with an emphasis on personal existential experience rather than reason or doctrine, the Quran was, perhaps, closer to the truth than the pontifical, dogmatic Christianity of the Roman Empire. Gnosis, after all, was all about knowing rather than believing. And just because the Gnostic Christian texts were rejected by the church does not necessarily mean that they were wholly uninspired. For example, the Second Treatise of the Great Seth and the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter, as attested in the Quran (Sura 4:157-158), doubt the established Crucifixion story and, by implication, perhaps even Jesus’ historicity. In other words, the Quran picked up Docetic thoughts and Gnostic ideas and asserted that all the acts and sufferings of Jesus’ life, including the crucifixion, were mere appearances. This is a noteworthy observation because, unlike the theological gospels, the New Testament epistles also suggest that Christ did not die in antiquity. Rather, they claim that he will be revealed “at the final point of time” (1 Pet. 1.20 NJB) and will die “once in the end of the world” (Heb. 9.26b). This idea of an earthly, eschatological messiah is also echoed in the pseudepigraphical Jewish-Christian texts, The Ascension of Isaiah and the Testament of Solomon. But it had been subsequently suppressed by Orthodox Christianity, which confused theology with history, and turned prophecy into biography. So, in this sense, Islam was correct in maintaining that the New Testament had been corrupted: not the text itself, but rather it’s interpretation.
However, as time passed, and as Islam separated itself more and more from Christianity, it, too, began to lose touch with the central tenet of Christ’s divinity, while its adherents took too many liberties with the original doctrines and became less and less “Christian”! To the extent that Islam gravitated away from Christ as the focal point of its doctrines, it, too, became corrupt, so much so that the deity of Christ was completely ignored or denied. Eventually, the religion’s deity became more identified with the monotheistic God of the Jews than with that of the Christians. That was the beginning of something new: the birth of a new religion!
——-
Family Feud Among the Abrahamic Religions
To sum up, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all part of the family of Abraham. Hence why they are called Abrahamic religions. Christianity, which grew out of Judaism, in turn, gave birth to Islam! But in the end, it’s like a dysfunctional family where the grandfather, father, and son can’t get along with each other.
——-
Eli Kittim Reddit
