Canonical Context - Tumblr Posts
How Can Good Exegesis Make Bad Theology?
By Author Eli Kittim
——-
The Canonical Context
This principle suggests that we should read the Books of the Bible not as distinct, individual compositions but rather as parts of a larger *canonical context*, that is, as part of the “canon” of Scripture. In other words, instead of evaluating each book separately in terms of its particular historical, literary, and editorial development, this principle focuses instead on its final canonical format that was legitimized by the various communities of faith. The idea is that since the redacted version or “final cut,” as it were, is considered “authoritative” by the different communities of faith, then this format should hold precedence over all previous versions or drafts.
Moreover, this concept holds that despite the fact that the Biblical Books were written by a number of different authors, at different times, in different places, using different languages, nevertheless the “canonical context” emphasizes the need to read these Books in dialogue with one another, as if they are part of a larger whole. So, the hermeneutical focus is not on the historical but rather on the canonical context. The hermeneutical guidelines of the canon therefore suggest that we might gain a better understanding of the larger message of Scripture by reading these Books as if they were interrelated with all the others, rather than as separate, diverse, and distinct sources. The premise is that the use of this type of context leads to sound Biblical theology.
——-
Theology
Theology is primarily concerned with the synthesis of the diverse voices within Scripture in order to grasp the overarching message of the complete Biblical revelation. It deals with Biblical epistemology and belief, either through systematic analysis and development of passages (systematic theology) or through the running themes of the entire Bible (Biblical theology). It addresses eternity and the transcendent, metaphysical or supernatural world. And it balances individual Scriptural interpretations by placing them within a larger theoretical framework. The premise is that there is a broader theological context in which each and every detailed exegesis coalesces to form a coherent whole! It’s as if the Bible is a single Book that contains a complete and wide-ranging revelation! It is under the auspices of theology, then, that the canonical context comes into play.
——-
Exegesis
The critical interpretation of Scriptural texts is known as “exegesis.” Its task is to use various methods of interpretation so as to arrive at a definitive explanation of Scripture! Exegesis provides the temporal, linguistic, grammatical, and syntactic context, analysis, and meaning of a text. It furnishes us with a critical understanding of the authorial intent, but only in relation to the specific and limited context of the particular text in question. It is the task of theology to further assess it in terms of its relation and compatibility to the overall Biblical revelation! One of the things that exegesis tries to establish is the composition’s historical setting or context, also known as “historical criticism.” This approach inquires about the author and his audience, the occasion and dating of the composition, the unique terms and concepts therein, the meaning of the overall message, and, last but not least, the *style* in which the message is written, otherwise known as the “genre.” While the author’s other writings on the topic are pivotal to understanding what he means, nothing is more important than the *genre* or the form in which his writing is presented.
——-
The Analogy of Scripture
One of the most important hermeneutical principles of exegesis is called “the analogy of Scripture” (Lat. ‘analogia Scripturae’). In short, it means that Scripture should interpret Scripture. This principle requires that the implicit must be explained by the explicit. In other words, the exegesis of unclear or ambiguous parts of Scripture must be explained by clear and didactic ones that address the exact same topic. That means that one Biblical Book could very well explain another. For example, the New Testament (NT) Book of Ephesians 1.9-10 seems to demystify Galatians 4.4. This principle is based on the “revealed” inspiration (Gk. θεόπνευστος) of Scripture:
All scripture is inspired by God and is useful
for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and
for training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3.16
NRSV).
As for those scholars who refuse to take the NT’s alleged “pseudepigrapha” seriously because of their *apparent* false attribution, let me remind them that the most renowned textual scholars of the 20th century, Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, acknowledged that even alleged “forged” works could still be “inspired!” It’s important to realize that just because these works may be written by unknown authors who may have attempted to gain a readership by tacking on the name of famous Biblical characters doesn’t mean that the subject-matter is equally false. The addition of amanuenses (secretaries) further complicates the issue.
So, returning to our subject, the analogy of Scripture allows the Bible to define its own terms, symbols, and phrases. It is via the analogy of Scripture, which defines the many and varied parts, that the broader canonical context is established, namely, the principle that the various Biblical Books form a coherent whole from which a larger theological system can emerge.
And, of course, interdisciplinary studies——such as archaeology, anthropology, psychology, sociology, epistemology, and philosophy——contribute to both systematic and Biblical theology by presenting their particular findings, concepts, and theoretical ideas.
——-
Testing the Legitimacy of these Principles
In explaining how these principles work in tandem, I’d like to put my personal and unique theology to the test. I have raised the following question: “What if the crucifixion of Christ is a future event?” The immediate reaction of Christian apologetics or heresiology would be to revert to “dogmatic theology” (i.e., the dogmas or articles of faith) and the scholarly consensus, which state that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Really? Let’s consider some historical facts. There are no eyewitnesses! And there are no first-hand accounts! Although the following references were once thought to be multiple attestations or proofs of Jesus’ existence, nevertheless both the Tacitus and Josephus accounts are now considered to be either complete or partial forgeries, and therefore do not shed any light on Jesus’ historicity. One of the staunch proponents of the historical Jesus position is the textual scholar Bart Ehrman, who, surprisingly, said this on his blog:
. . . Paul says almost *NOTHING* about the
events of Jesus’ lifetime. That seems weird
to people, but just read all of his letters.,
Paul never mentions Jesus healing anyone,
casting out a demon, doing any other
miracle, arguing with Pharisees or other
leaders, teaching the multitudes, even
speaking a parable, being baptized, being
transfigured, going to Jerusalem, being
arrested, put on trial, found guilty of
blasphemy, appearing before Pontius Pilate
on charges of calling himself the King of the
Jews, being flogged, etc. etc. etc. It’s a
very, very long list of what he doesn’t tell us
about.
Therefore, there appears to be a literary discrepancy regarding the historicity of Jesus in the canonical context between the gospels and the epistles. And, as I will show in due time, there are many, many passages in the epistles that seem to contradict dogmatic theology’s belief in the historiographical nature of the gospels. So, if they want to have a sound theology, exegetes should give equal attention to the epistles. Why?
First, the epistles precede the gospels by several decades. In fact, they comprise the earliest recorded writings of the NT that circulated among the Christian churches (cf. Col. 4.16).
Second, unlike the gospels——which are essentially *theological* narratives that are largely borrowed from the Old Testament (OT)——the epistles are *expositional* writings that offer real, didactic and practical solutions and discuss spiritual principles and applications within an actual, historical, or eschatological context.
Third, according to Biblical scholarship, the gospels are not historiographical accounts or biographies, even though historical places and figures are sometimes mentioned. That is to say, the gospels are not giving us history proper. For example, the feeding of the 5,000 is a narrative that is borrowed from 2 Kings 4.40-44. The parallels and verbal agreements are virtually identical. And this is a typical example of the rest of the narratives. For instance, when Jesus speaks of the damned and says that “their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched” (Mark 9.48), few people know that this saying is actually derived from Isaiah 66.24. In other words, the gospels demonstrate a literary dependence on the OT that is called, “intertextuality.”
Fourth, the gospels are like watching a Broadway play. They are full of plots, subplots, theatrical devices (e.g. Aristotelian rhetoric; Homeric parallels), literary embellishments, dialogues, characters, and the like. Conversely, the epistles have none of these elements. They are straightforward and matter of fact. That’s why Biblical interpreters are expected to interpret the implicit by the explicit and the narrative by the didactic. In practical terms, the NT epistles——which are the more explicit and didactic portions of Scripture——must clarify the implicit meaning of the gospel literature. As you will see, the epistles are the primary keys to unlocking the actual timeline of Christ’s *one-and-only* visitation!
Fifth, whereas the gospels’ literary genre is mainly •theological•——that is to say, “pseudo-historical”——the genre of the epistolary literature of the NT is chiefly •expositional.• So, the question arises, which of the two genres is giving us the real deal: is it the “theological narrative” or the “expository writing”?
In order to answer this question, we first need to consider some of the differences in both genres. For example, although equally “inspired,” the gospels include certain narratives that are unanimously rejected as “unhistorical” by both Biblical scholars and historians alike. Stories like the slaughter of the innocents, the Magi, the Star of Bethlehem, and so on, are not considered to be historical. By contrast, the epistles never once mention the aforesaid stories, nor is there any mention of the Nativity, the virgin birth, the flight to Egypt, and the like. Why? Because the Epistles are NOT “theological.” They’re expository writings whose intention is to give us the “facts” as they really are!
Bottom line, the epistles give us a far more accurate picture of Jesus’ *visitation* than the gospels.
In conclusion, it appears that the gospels conceal Jesus far more effectively than they reveal him.
——-
Proof-text and Coherence Fallacies
The “proof-text fallacy” comprises the idea of putting together a number of out-of-context passages in order to validate a particular theological point that’s often disparagingly called “a private interpretation.” But, for argument’s sake, let’s turn these principles on their head. Classical Christianity typically determines heresy by assessing the latter’s overall view. If it doesn’t fit within the existing theological schema it is said to be heretical. Thus, dogmatic theology sets the theological standard against which all other theories are measured. They would argue that good exegesis doesn’t necessarily guarantee good theology, and can lead to a “coherence fallacy.” In other words, even if the exegesis of a string of proof-texts is accurate, the conclusion may not be compatible with the overall existing theology. This would be equivalent to a coherence fallacy, that is to say, the illusion of Biblical coherence.
By the same token, I can argue that traditional, historical-Jesus exegesis of certain proof-texts might be accurate but it may not fit the theology of an eschatological Christ, as we find in the epistles (e.g., Heb. 9.26b; 1 Pet. 1.20; Rev. 12.5). That would equally constitute a coherence fallacy. So, these guidelines tend to discourage independent proof-texting apart from a systematic coherency of Scripture. But what if the supposed canonical context is wrong? What if the underlying theological assumption is off? What then? So, the $64,000 question is, who can accurately determine the big picture? And who gets to decide?
For example, I think that we have confused Biblical literature with history, and turned prophecy into biography. In my view, the theological purpose of the gospels is to provide a fitting introduction to the messianic story *beforehand* so that it can be passed down from generation to generation until the time of its fulfillment. It is as though NT history is *written in advance* (cf. מַגִּ֤יד מֵֽרֵאשִׁית֙ אַחֲרִ֔ית [declaring the end from the beginning], Isa. 46.9-10; προεπηγγείλατο [promised beforehand], Rom. 1.2; προγνώσει [foreknowledge], Acts 2.22-23; προκεχειροτονημένοις [to appoint beforehand], Acts 10.40-41; ερχόμενα [things to come], Jn 16.13)!
So, if we exchange the theology of the gospels for that of the epistles we’ll find a completely different theology altogether, one in which the coherence of Scripture revolves around the *end-times*! For example, in 2 Pet. 1.16–21, all the explanations in vv. 16-18 are referring to the future. That’s why verse 19 concludes: “So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed” (cf. 1 Pet. 1.10-11; 1 Jn 2.28).
In response, Dogmatic Theology would probably say that such a conclusion is at odds with the canonical context and that it seems to be based on autonomous proof-texting that is obviously out of touch with the broader theological teaching of Scripture. Really? So the so-called “teaching” of Scripture that Jesus died in Antiquity is a nonnegotiable, foregone conclusion? What if the basis upon which this gospel teaching rests is itself a proof-text fallacy that is out of touch with the teaching of the *epistles*? For example, there are numerous passages in the epistles that place the timeline of Jesus’ life (i.e., his birth, death, and resurrection) in *eschatological* categories (e.g., 2 Thess. 2.1-3; Heb. 1.1-2; 9.26b; 1 Pet. 1.10-11, 20; Rev. 12.5; 19.10d; 22.7). The epistolary authors deviate from the gospel writers in their understanding of the overall importance of •eschatology• in the chronology of Jesus. For them, Scripture comprises revelations and “prophetic writings” (see Rom. 16.25-26; 2 Pet. 1.19-21; Rev. 22.18-19). Therefore, according to the *epistolary literature*, Jesus is not a historical but rather an “eschatological” figure! Given that the NT epistles are part of the Biblical *canon,* their overall message holds equal value with that of the NT gospels, since they, too, are an integral part of the canonical context! To that extent, even the gospels concede that the Son of Man has not yet been revealed (see Lk. 17.30; cf. 1 Cor. 1.7; 1 Pet. 1.7)!
What is more, if the canonical context demands that we coalesce the different Biblical texts as if we’re reading a single Book, then the overall “prophetic” message of Revelation must certainly play an important role therein. The Book of Revelation places not only the timeline (12.5) but also the testimony to Jesus (19.10b) in “prophetic” categories:
I warn everyone who hears the words of the
prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to
them, God will add to that person the
plagues described in this book; if anyone
takes away from the words of the book of
this prophecy, God will take away that
person’s share in the tree of life and in the
holy city, which are described in this book
(Rev. 22.18-19 NRSV).
Incidentally, the Book of Revelation is considered to be an epistle. Thus, it represents, confirms, and validates the overarching *prophetic theme* or eschatological “theology” of the epistolary literature. That is not to say that the •theology• of the epistles stands alone and apart from that of the OT canon. Far from it! Even the *theology* of the OT confirms the earthy, end-time Messiah of the epistles (cf. Job 19.25; Isa. 2.19; Dan. 12.1-2; Zeph. 1.7-9, 15-18; Zech. 12.9-10)! As a matter of fact, mine is the *only* view that appropriately combines the end-time messianic expectations of the Jews with Christian Scripture!
Does this sound like a proof-text or coherence fallacy? If it does, it’s because you’re evaluating it from the theology of the gospels. If, on the other hand, you assess it using the theology of the epistles, it will seem to be in-context or in-sync with it. So, the theological focus and coherency of Scripture will change depending on which angle you view it from.
——-
Visions of the Resurrection
There are quite a few scholars that view the so-called resurrection of Christ not as a historical phenomenon but rather as a visionary experience. And this seems to be the theological message of the NT as well (cf. 2 Tim. 2.17-18; 2 Thess. 2.1-3). For example, Lk. 24.23 explicitly states that the women “had indeed seen a vision.” Lk. 24.31 reads: “he [Jesus] vanished from their sight.” And Lk. 24.37 admits they “thought that they were seeing a ghost.” Here are some of the statements that scholars have made about the resurrection, which do not necessarily disqualify them as believers:
The resurrection itself is not an event of
past history. All that historical criticism can
establish is that the first disciples came to
believe the resurrection (Rudolph
Bultmann, ‘The New Testament and
Mythology,’ in Kerygma and Myth: A
Theological Debate, ed. Hans Werner
Bartsch, trans. Reginald H. Fuller [London:
S.P.C.K, 1953-62], 38, 42).
When the evangelists spoke about the
resurrection of Jesus, they told stories
about apparitions or visions (John Dominic
Crossan, ‘A Long Way from Tipperary: A
Memoir’ [San Francisco:
HarperSanFransisco, 2000], 164-165).
At the heart of the Christian religion lies a
vision described in Greek by Paul as
ophehe—-“he was seen.” And Paul himself,
who claims to have witnessed an
appearance asserted repeatedly “I have
seen the Lord.” So Paul is the main source
of the thesis that a vision is the origin of the
belief in resurrection ... (Gerd Lüdemann,
‘The Resurrection of Jesus: History,
Experience, Theology.’ Translated by John
Bowden. [London: SCM, 1994], 97,
100).
It is undisputable that some of the followers
of Jesus came to think that he had been
raised from the dead, and that something
had to have happened to make them think
so. Our earliest records are consistent on
this point, and I think they provide us with
the historically reliable information in one
key aspect: the disciples’ belief in the
resurrection was based on visionary
experiences. I should stress it was visions,
and nothing else, that led to the first
disciples to believe in the resurrection (Bart
D. Ehrman, ‘How Jesus Became God: The
Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from
Galilee’ [New York: Harper One, 2014],
183-184).
Ehrman sides with the *visionary language* that Luke, Bultmann, Crossan, and Lüdemann use. In the words of NT textual critic Kurt Aland:
It almost then appears as if Jesus were a
mere PHANTOM . . .
——-
Exegetical Application
I deliberately stay away from theology when I exegete Scripture precisely because it will taint the evidence with presuppositions, assumptions, and speculations that are not in the text. Thus, instead of focusing on the authorial intent hermeneutic, it will inevitably superimpose out-of-context meanings and create an eisegesis. All this, of course, is courtesy of confirmation bias.
So, I think one of the reasons why we’ve done so poorly in understanding, for example, the story of Jesus is because we have mixed-up exegesis with theology. When theology drives the exegesis, then the exegesis becomes blind and erroneous.
My method of exegesis is very simple. I see EXACTLY what the text *says,* EXACTLY *how* it says it. I don’t add or subtract anything, and I don’t speculate, guess, or theorize based on existing philosophies or theologies. The minute we go outside *the analogy of scripture,* that’s when we start to speculate. And that’s how we err. In short, let the Scriptures tell you what it means. Thus, the best interpretation is no interpretation at all!
——-
Conclusion
To find the truth, we must consider all the evidence objectively. Evangelicals, for instance, would be biased if they didn’t consider the academic standpoint even if, at times, it seems to be guided by liberal theology. In this way, they will be in a better position to consider objectively all the possibilities and probabilities regarding the correct interpretation of Scripture. That’s because the truth usually touches all points of view . . .
One of the exegetical stumbling blocks is our inability to view the gospels as “inspired metaphors.” Given their literary dependence on the OT, it appears as if the gospels themselves are “inspired parables.”
So, if the epistolary literature, which is both expositional and explicit, seems to contradict these so-called “theological parables,” then it becomes quite obvious that the “theology” of the gospels fails to meet scholarly and academic parameters. And, therefore, the epistolary literature must be given more serious attention and consideration!
Our exegetical shortcomings often stem from forced or anachronistic interpretations that are based on *theological speculation* and conjecture rather than on detailed exegesis. Even the Biblical translations themselves are not immune to the interpretative process, whether they be of dynamic or formal equivalence.
That’s why I have developed an exegetical system and have demonstrated the effectiveness of its approach to the study of the Biblical Christ. Accordingly, I argue that the epistles are the primary *keys* to unlocking the future timeline of Christ’s ***ONLY*** visitation! Hence, I leave you with one final rhetorical question:
What if the crucifixion of Christ is a future
event?
Three Questions On the Rapture: Is it Pre-Trib or Post-Trib? Is it Secret or Not? And is it Imminent?
By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim
——-
Is the Rapture Visible or Invisible?
Although there are a few early references to the “rapture” in certain Christian works——such as the late 6th century “Apocalypse of Pseudo-Ephraem”——the putative “secret rapture” and the “futurist eschatological view” of prophecy were largely developed by Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) and Jesuit theologian Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) during the Counter-Reformation, and were later co-opted by the 19th century Bible teacher, John Nelson Darby. In modern times, author Hal Lindsey popularized this view in his best-selling 1970 book, “The Late, Great Planet Earth.”
Given that 1 Cor. 15.51-52 (NRSV) says that “we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye,” this New Testament (NT) passage is adduced by Bible prophecy scholars to explain that “the body of Christ” (i.e. “the church”) will suddenly vanish and disappear. Recently, both Dr. Ed Hindson and pastor Mark Hitchcock also used 1 Cor. 15.51-52 to support a secret and instant rapture in which the faithful “in Christ" will evanesce. In fact, in their book “Can we still believe in the Rapture?” they aver that even Jesus will not be visibly seen except *only* by the faithful. Despite the fact that these authors have a penchant for rigorous scholarship, since they tout themselves as Bible prophecy pundits, they have nevertheless prescinded numerous contradictory passages. Rev. 1.7 is a case in point: “He [Jesus] is coming with the clouds; every eye will see him.” Similarly, Mt. 24.30 says: “they will see ‘the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven' with power and great glory.” In fact, the coming of the Son of Man is likened to lightning, which “comes from the east and flashes as far as the west” (Mt. 24.27). Therefore, there will clearly be a visible and physical manifestation of Jesus’ coming in the sky! After which “he will send out his angels . . . and they will gather his elect” (Mt. 24.31).
Another reason why the rapture is reputed to be a *secret* is because 2 Pet. 3.10 says that “the day of the Lord will come like a thief.” However, notice that “the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire.” This verse evinces that “a loud noise” will be heard and that the physical properties of the earth will be destroyed in a great conflagration. Thus, the key components of this experience unambiguously comprise audible, visible, and physical phenomena.
A further reason for the supposed “secret rapture” has to do with the postmortem changes in the human body that are said to make it imperishable and immortal (1 Cor. 15.53). But just because “the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed” (1 Cor. 15.52), doesn’t mean that the *rapture* is inaudible or invisible. Even if Paul is talking about an eminently spiritualized body doesn’t mean that it cannot be seen. For instance, Jesus is depicted as being both visible and physical after his purported resurrection. By way of illustration, the disciples allegedly “ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead” (Acts 10.41), and he was also said to be physically touched by Thomas (Jn 20.27).
What is more, all the Biblical evidence contradicts the notion that the rapture will be visible only to a select few. For example, similar to Jesus’ loud, audible shout during the rapture in 1 Thess. 4.16, Jer. 25.30 also prophesies that “The Lord will roar from on high . . . and shout” when he appears. This is a running theme throughout the Bible. It’s reminiscent of Psalm 50.3: “Our God comes and does not keep silence.” Thus, the most viable interpretation of these verses must of necessity render the grounds for the “secret rapture” untenable!
——-
Is the Rapture Imminent?
Before we discuss the *timing* of the rapture, it is important to consider whether or not it is imminent. John A. Sproule, a pretribulationist author, once said that "imminence" is defined as the belief that "Christ can return for His Church ‘at any moment’ and that no predicted event will intervene before that return.” However, this is a moot point since 2 Thess. 2.1-3 teaches against the doctrine of imminence and stresses that the rapture cannot take place “unless the rebellion comes first and the lawless one is revealed.” Second Thessalonians 2.1 is using rapture language (Gk. ἐπισυναγωγῆς ἐπ αὐτόν; “gathered together to him”). Matthew 24.31 uses the exact same word (ἐπισυνάγω) in reference to the rapture! Moreover, there’s a further condition that has to be met before the rapture can take place, and before the “lawless one” (i.e. the Antichrist) can be revealed, namely, someone needs to be removed from the earth.
A common misinterpretation is that this must either be a reference to the *Holy Spirit* or to the *church*, which will be taken out of the way before the Antichrist can be revealed. But if it is the Holy Spirit or the church it would directly contradict the Book of Revelation (7.13-14), which foresees a great spiritual revival during the time of the Great Tribulation (GT). For instance, John the Revelator sees “a great multitude that” came “out of the great ordeal [GT]” (Rev. 7.9, 14). This multitude represents the “church” of Christ, which is obviously present, not absent, during the GT. And without the Holy Spirit no one can be saved (Rom. 8.9b). Therefore, the so-called “restrainer” of 2 Thess. 2.6-7 can neither be the Holy Spirit nor the church. This mysterious figure can only be explained by my unique eschatological view. Since I hold that the first horseman of the Apocalypse is Christ (the white horseman), it is he and he alone who is the restrainer, and after he is slain the Antichrist will be revealed (see my article: https://www.google.com/amp/s/eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/168159235542/who-is-the-first-horseman-of-the-apocalypse/amp).
Another reason why the “restrainer” cannot be the “church” is because if 2 Thess. 2.1-3 says that the *rapture-of-the-church* cannot occur “unless . . . the lawless one is revealed” first, the text would be contradicting itself later by saying the exact opposite, namely, that the lawless one cannot be revealed unless the *church* (2 Thess. 2.6-7) is removed first. Furthermore, in koine Greek, the church is never referred to as a man, using the nominative masculine singular form of the definite article (Gk. ὁ “ho” 2 Thess. 2.7). It cannot be the Holy Spirit either because if it were to be removed from the earth no one would be saved, thereby contradicting Rev. 7.9-14, among other passages.
So, the only legitimate candidate for the “restrainer” position, in 2 Thess 2, is Christ, who will be taken out of the way (slain; cf. Heb. 9.26b) and then the Antichrist will be revealed! Hence, according to Scripture, the *rapture* cannot possibly be imminent precisely because three significant events must first occur: the rebellion, the removal of the restrainer, and the revelation of the lawless one!
——-
Common Misconceptions
Now we are ready to tackle the actual *timing* of the “rapture” with respect to the GT. But before we do, let us first consider why people hold to a Pre-Tribulation (Pre-Trib) as opposed to a Post-Tribulation (Post-Trib) rapture position.
Before we get started, I need to stress that the second category, the so-called “Mid-Tribulation” (MId-Trib) rapture view, does not really exist. It’s a misnomer. The GT only lasts for 3 and a half years, or 42 months, or 1,260 days, or a time, and times, and half a time (cf. Rev. 11.2; 12.6, 14; 13.5). Thus, there can only be two possible timelines: a Pre-Trib or a Post-Trib timetable. The 7 years (“one week”) alluded to in Dan. 9.27 do not refer to the duration of the GT. Only the phrase “for half of the week” represents the GT. A Mid-Trib position would only be feasible if the rapture occurred in the middle of a supposed 7-year GT period. But since the GT lasts only for 3 and a half years, there can be no such thing as a Mid-Trib view! The “prewrath” position is also problematic because if the Day of the Lord begins during the last half of the GT period, then the Antichrist will not actually reign for 3 and a half years (Dan. 12.7; Rev. 11.2; 12.6; 13.5), thereby contradicting scripture. Not to mention that the GT represents Satan’s wrath (Dan. 7.25; Rev. 12.12; 13.5), not God’s wrath (aka “The Day of the Lord”: Joel 2.31; Acts 2.20), which will follow the 3-and-a-half-year GT period and will last for some time.
Another common misconception is to assume that the phrase “elect” in the NT is exclusively referring to the Jews, not to the church-in-Christ that is made up of all peoples. However, in Mt. 24.31, 40-41 the clause “they will gather his elect” is a direct reference to the church-in-Christ. In fact, in the NT, the term “elect” never refers to the Jews. For example, Rom. 11.7 shows the dichotomy between the elect and the Jews. Moreover, the letter (Col. 3.12) addressed to Christians at the church of Colossae, Asia Minor, uses the term “elect” (KJV/ERV/ASV) to refer to those “chosen” in Christ. Another clear differentiation between “the elect” and the Jews is found in Rom. 11.7. And Rom. 8.32-34 reinforces the doctrine that “God's elect” are those for whom Christ died to justify! The prophetic caveat in Mt. 24.24 (NRSV) makes it absolutely clear that the term “elect” is a sole reference to the body of Christ:
For false messiahs and false prophets will
appear and produce great signs and
omens, to lead astray, if possible, even the
elect.
Finally, let me say a few words about those who deny the rapture. Just because it is a relatively late teaching in the history of the church doesn’t make it false. Due to a renewed interest in the Bible during the enlightenment period, the disciplines of Biblical Criticism, Textual Criticism, and Biblical Eschatology were greatly enhanced. As a result, we know more about the Bible today than we ever did. Furthermore, just as there are clear indications of a future resurrection of the dead in both the Old and New Testaments (e.g. Dan. 12.1-2; 1 Cor. 15.22-23, 51-55), there are also clear indications of a future rapture immediately after the resurrection of the dead. First Thessalonians 4.16-17 reads:
For the Lord himself, with a cry of
command, with the archangel's call and
with the sound of God's trumpet, will
descend from heaven, and the dead in
Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive,
who are left, will be caught up in the clouds
together with them to meet the Lord in the
air; and so we will be with the Lord forever.
Accordingly, the rapture will occur immediately after the resurrection of the dead, when the body of Christ will be transformed from mortality into immortality, unable to die again (cf. 1 Cor. 15.51-55)!
——-
What is the Supposed Evidence for a Pre-Trib Rapture?
Now that we addressed some of the most common misconceptions about the rapture, we can get down to business. Pre-Trib scholars usually point to 1 Thess. 5.9, which says: “For God has destined us not for wrath [ὀργὴν] but for obtaining salvation,” and they interpret this verse to mean that the church will not experience “the wrath of God” (cf. Rev. 16.1). And they’ll usually say something to the effect that “God wouldn’t beat up his bride before marrying her.” They feel that the church *deserves* special privileges and therefore God is *obligated*, according to his word, to guarantee its safe passage from the coming disaster.
However, the GT is NOT God’s wrath; it’s Satan’s wrath! Accordingly, Rev. 12.12 reads:
But woe to the earth and the sea, for the
devil has come down to you with great
wrath, because he knows that his time is
short!
What is more, there never was a time when the church was immune from crisis and persecution. Quite the contrary. Throughout its history, the church has always experienced various forms of persecution. According to the martyrdom accounts, a glance into the life of Paul, or that of the apostles, will quickly prove this point. Scripture doesn’t say that God promises an escape from the tribulation. Quite the opposite. It says: “Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God” (Acts 14.22 NASB). So it isn’t as if there are a precious few who are deemed worthy to escape. This theology of entitlement is certainly unscriptural and, therefore, unwarranted and without merit.
Another popular verse that’s often cited as evidence for a pre-trib rapture is Rev. 3.10 (KJV):
Because thou hast kept the word of my
patience, I also will keep thee from the hour
of temptation, which shall come upon all the
world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.
However, the preposition ἐκ (which is usually translated as “from” or “from out of”) has several other meanings, such as “of,” “through,” “by,” and so the verse could equally imply that God promises “to watch over” or “to guard” (Gk. ἐτήρησας) the believers *through* the hour of temptation (πειρασμός) that is coming upon the whole world: (see https://biblehub.com/greek/1537.htm). Therefore, according to this verse, it’s not entirely clear whether the faithful are removed from the earth or whether they go *through* “the hour of temptation” with God’s protection. It’s not even clear whether the verse is referring to the GT because that event is typically described as θλῖψις μεγάλη (Mt. 24.21) or ἡμέρα θλίψεως (Dan. 12.1 LXX), not as πειρασμός (Rev. 3.10).
——-
The Case for a Post-Trib Rapture
So, where is the evidence for a Post-Trib rapture, and is it conclusive? We’ve already discussed 2 Thess. 2.1-7 and concluded that this text predicts a sequence of eschatological events in which the “Antichrist” will be revealed PRIOR to the timing of the rapture. As we said earlier, 2 Thess. 2.1-3 is teaching against the doctrine of imminence and stresses that the rapture cannot take place “unless the rebellion comes first and the lawless one is revealed.” We also said that 2 Thess. 2.1 is employing rapture-language (Gk. ἐπισυναγωγῆς ἐπ αὐτόν; “gathered together to him”). And there’s a further stipulation that has to be met before the rapture can occur, and before the “lawless one” can be revealed, to wit, someone must be removed from the earth. Since the Antichrist will obviously be revealed at the beginning of the GT period (cf. Mt. 24.15-21; 2 Thess. 2.3-4) there can’t possibly be a pretrib rapture!
Similar to 2 Thess. 2.3-4 ff., Mt. 24.21 says that the GT (Gk. θλῖψις μεγάλη) will begin “when you see the desolating sacrilege standing in the holy place” (Mt. 24.15). Apparently, this is the time period when the GT commences. Then, Mt. 24.29-31 goes on to say that the “gathering” of the Son of Man’s elect (i.e. ‘the rapture’) occurs AFTER the GT (Gk. *μετὰ* τὴν θλῖψιν τῶν ἡμερῶν ἐκείνων):
Immediately after the suffering of those
days the sun will be darkened, and the
moon will not give its light; the stars will fall
from heaven, and the powers of heaven will
be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man
will appear in heaven, and then all the
tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will
see ‘the Son of Man coming on the clouds
of heaven’ with power and great glory. And
he will send out his angels with a loud
trumpet call, and they will gather his elect
from the four winds, from one end of
heaven to the other.
Make no mistake. Matthew 24.40-41 reinforces the previous thematic material——to ensure that it’s understood as a reference to the *rapture*——by adding additional details:
Then two will be in the field; one will be
taken and one will be left. Two women will
be grinding meal together; one will be taken
and one will be left.
The original Greek text of Matthew 24.31 uses the exact same rapture-language (ἐπισυνάξουσιν “gather together”) which 2 Thessalonians 2.1 uses (ἐπισυναγωγῆς “gathered together to him”). In Matthew 24.31, the phrase “gather together” (his elect) is a translation of the Greek term ἐπισυνάξουσιν, which comes from ἐπισυνάγω (“to gather together,” “to collect,” “to assemble”). Matthew 24.31 makes it abundantly clear that Jesus will *gather together* “His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.” Once again, according to the 24th chapter and the 29th verse of the Matthean text, the *rapture* will transpire “immediately AFTER the suffering [i.e. GT] of those days” (emphasis added). Thus, the Post-Trib interpretation of Mt. 24 is incontestable! But there’s more.
The clincher, the passage that settles the matter conclusively is Rev. 20.4-6. This passage tells us that those who were killed during the GT took part in the first resurrection. However, given that the rapture is contemporaneous with the first resurrection (1 Thess. 4.16-17), and since those who took part in the first resurrection came out of the GT, it means that the rapture must also take place *after* the GT! Rev. 20.4-6 reads:
Then I saw thrones, and those seated on
them were given authority to judge. I also
saw the souls of those who had been
beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and
for the word of God. They had not
worshiped the beast or its image and had
not received its mark on their foreheads or
their hands. They came to life and reigned
with Christ a thousand years. (The rest of
the dead did not come to life until the
thousand years were ended.) This is the
first resurrection. Blessed and holy are
those who share in the first resurrection.
Hence, if this is the first resurrection that takes place AFTER the GT, then there can’t possibly be an earlier one, as the Pre-Trib doctrine assumes. Remember that we are not speculating here. We are using an important hermeneutical principle of exegesis, called, “the analogy of Scripture.” It means that Scripture should interpret Scripture. Therefore, our exegesis is not only sound but is also within the larger *canonical context* or theology of Scripture. That is to say, we’re not employing an isolated, out-of-context verse but rather a running theme that covers many books of the Bible. The chronological parallels of all these timelines regarding the rapture directly contradict the Pre-Trib theory. And although, admittedly, it would be far more comforting to adhere to the Pre-Trib rapture doctrine, it would be equally deceptive and fallacious since it does not agree with, and is unauthorized by, Scripture.
——-
Further Evidence of a Post-Trib Rapture: The Last Trumpet
But there is further evidence of a Post-Trib rapture based on certain parallel phrases and verbal agreements. There’s a common trumpet-motif that runs across the following passages. Notice, for example, 1 Thess. 4.16, which says that Christ will appear for the rapture “with the sound of God's trumpet.” We find the exact same theme in Mt. 24.31 in which the Son of Man “will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds.” Similarly, 1 Cor. 15.51-52 explicitly states that the resurrection of the dead will take place “at the last trumpet.” So, when is the last trumpet? According to Rev. 11.15, the last (or 7th) trumpet is blown during the time period when the Lord’s Messiah begins to reign over the entire world, so it is obviously a period that takes place AFTER the GT:
Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet,
and there were loud voices in heaven,
saying, ‘The kingdom of the world has
become the kingdom of our Lord and of his
Messiah, and he will reign forever and ever.’
Therefore, the last trumpet is yet another clue of the chronological timetable of the rapture in that it follows, rather than precedes, the GT.
——-
Is the Church Mentioned After Rev. 4.1?
There are those who teach that the rapture of the church is implied in Rev. 4.1, and they further assert that since the church is not mentioned after that in the rest of the Book, and given that the tribulation *is* subsequently mentioned, this would strongly suggest a Pre-Trib rapture. However, given that Rev. 4.1 is specifically referring to John and no one else, it’s not entirely clear whether or not the rapture is implied. Moreover, there’s something amiss about the Pre-Trib interpretation because the church is actually mentioned numerous times after Rev. 4.1. The church is mentioned in Rev. 5.8-10 by way of the 24 elders, which seemingly represent a remnant of the redeemed tribulation saints who meet in council before the throne of God in preparation for the coming judgment of the world! Mention is also made of the Jewish remnant of 144,000 saints in Rev. 7.4. There’s also the “great multitude that no one could count” (Rev. 7.9), which are actually tribulation saints “who have come out of the great ordeal” (Rev. 7.14). The 2 witnesses of Rev. 11 also represent the church, as does the woman of Rev. 12. Not to mention that the “Beast” persecutes the church in Rev. 13, while the Bride of Christ (the church) is referenced once again in Rev. 19.7, even though the rapture presumably hasn’t happened yet. As you can see, the “church” is mentioned many times. These findings would render the Pre-Trib conclusion untenable!
——-
Conclusion
Why would Jesus instruct the church in Mt. 24.23-27 ff. on how to conduct itself during the GT if it had already left the earth? It wouldn’t make any sense. So, no matter how you look at it, it’s abundantly clear from the many proof-texts that we’ve encountered that the *rapture* at the end (or towards the end [Mt. 24.22]) of the GT period represents the soundest position! As far as I’m concerned, the Pre-Trib position has been thoroughly debunked! It is completely bogus and misinformed.
It’s important to know the sequence of eschatological events so that the community of faith can be better equipped and prepared for the GT! And although it is not a salvation issue, Scripture warns that during the GT “false messiahs and false prophets will appear and produce great signs and omens, to lead astray, if possible, even the elect” (Mt. 24.24). If that’s the case, then this means that the *elect* are here on earth during the time of the GT:
Keep awake therefore, for you do not know
on what day your Lord is coming (Mt.
24.42).
The point is to be ready! Because once the rapture takes place the doors of heaven will be shut. There will be no more opportunities for salvation!
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
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.
Academic Bias on the Web
By Author Eli Kittim
——-
I recently submitted a version of the following post in the *Group for New Testament Studies* (on Facebook) but, regrettably, the administrators did not approve it. Yet, given the validity of the Greek exegesis, it certainly deserves serious academic consideration. This is indicative of academic discrimination based on their own personal biases.
——-
2 Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics Should Guide our Investigation
Two principles of Biblical hermeneutics should be considered foundational. Exegetes must interpret the implicit by the explicit and the narrative by the didactic. In practical terms, the *NT epistles* and other more *explicit* and *didactic* portions of Scripture must clarify the implicit meaning and significance of the gospel literature, which, by the way, is not biographical but *theological* in nature, as Bultmann, Crossan, Lüdemann, Licona, Crossley, Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farnell, Dennis MacDonald, Robert Gundry, and Thomas L. Brodie, among others, have clearly demonstrated!
——-
This *Greek exegesis,* translated straight from the text itself, challenges the classical Christian interpretation, which is primarily founded upon historical-fiction narratives. This *Greek exegesis* not only complements the Jewish messianic expectations but it also fits perfectly with the end-time messianic death & resurrection themes alluded to in the Old Testament (see e.g. Isa. 2.19; Dan. 12.1-2)! In short, both the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures seem to say the exact same thing, namely, that the Messiah will appear “once for all at the end of the age” (Heb. 9.26b)!
——-
*The Future Christ* Greek Exegesis
According to the New Testament’s explicit and didactic portions of Scripture, Christ is *born* when time reaches its fullness or completion, expressed in the apocalyptic phrase τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου:
ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου,
ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ,
γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός (Gal. 4.4).
According to the principle of expositional constancy, the chronological time period known as “the fullness of time” (τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου) in Gal. 4.4 is defined in Eph. 1.9-10 as the consummation of the ages (cf. Heb. 9.26b NASB):
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.
The fullness of time (τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν) in Ephesians refers to the *summing up* (ανακεφαλαιώσασθαι) of all things in Christ, things in heaven and things on earth! Thus, according to Gal. 4.4, Christ is born during the consummation of the ages (i.e. in the end-times; cf. Lk 17.30; Heb. 1.2; Rev. 12.5; 19.10d; 22.7, 10, 18, 19)!
The initial appearance of Christ is also rendered as taking place “at the final point of time” in 1 Pet. 1.20 NJB:
προεγνωσμένου μὲν πρὸ καταβολῆς
κόσμου, φανερωθέντος δὲ ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν
χρόνων.
Further textual confirmation comes by way of Heb. 9.26b, which reads:
νυνὶ δὲ ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων εἰς
ἀθέτησιν ἁμαρτίας διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ
πεφανέρωται.
NRSV translation:
“he has appeared once for all at the end of
the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of
himself.”
A historical-grammatical study of the phrase ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων demonstrates that it refers to “the end of the age” (i.e. the end of the world; cf. Mt. 13.39-40, 49; 24.3; 28.20; Dan. 12.4 LXX; see also G.W.H. Lampe [ed.], “A Patristic Greek Lexicon” [Oxford: Oxford U, 1961], p. 1340).
——-
Conclusion
The assumed historicity of Jesus needs to be revisited, given that his only visitation is set to occur at the end of the age! Accordingly, this exegesis argues that the epistles are the primary keys to unlocking the future timeline of Christ’s only visitation. To demonstrate the validity of this argument, we must get back to NT Greek in order to focus on questions of authorial intent. To simply dismiss, ignore, or disregard this exegesis is tantamount to academic dishonesty!
Most people, in fact, will not take the trouble in
finding out the truth, but are much more inclined
to accept the first story they hear.
(Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War)
——-
Response
I received the following Facebook notification a week or so after submitting a version of the aforementioned post in the Group for New Testament studies:
Your pending post was declined from
Group for New Testament Studies by an
admin. See their feedback.
When I clicked on it, the reason given for the rejection of the post was as follows:
Group Rules that were violated
2 Keep it Scholarly:
NT, early Christianity, & discussion of the
field ok. Posts that assume/attempt to
impose a Christian perspective will not be
approved & commenting in this way will
result in a warning & then removal.
So, I wrote back to them . . .
Open letter
——-
I have sent a copy of this letter to both administrators because I didn’t know who was responsible for dismissing my post.
——-
You declined my post, citing a violation of group rules in which one should not impose a Christian perspective. I will get to that in a moment.
——-
As for its scholarship, the exegesis is unquestionably precise & accurate! Incidentally, I’m proficient in New Testament Greek (I’m also a native Greek speaker).
——-
Now, as to your claim, that I supposedly imposed a Christian perspective, it is quite laughable and borders on the absurd. I not only am NOT imposing a “Christian” interpretation, but, as a matter of fact, I’m NOT imposing ANY interpretation whatsoever!
I’m merely TRANSLATING what the text is ACTUALLY SAYING about C H R I S T! I did NOT invent or “impose” the Greek phrase τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου in relation to Christ’s birth: the Greek text *actually* SAYS that (Gal. 4.4)!
I did not personally invent or “impose” an interpretation of the phrase τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν as a timeline referring to the consummation of the ages: the Greek text itself *actually* SAYS that in Eph. 1.10!
——-
Have you ever read about NT linguistics, such as the work of Stanley E. Porter? Have you ever studied any scholarly New Testament lexicons or dictionaries, such as the EDNT, BAGD, ANLEX, TDNT, LSJ? They would all validate and substantiate my translations. As I emphasized earlier, this is a question of translation, not interpretation, and certainly NOT “Christian interpretation,” as you erroneously deduced!
——-
I neither invented nor “imposed” a “Christian interpretation” on 1 Pet. 1.20. It is quite laughable to make such a claim. The text itself is referring to the “appearance” of Christ ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν χρόνων or “at the final point of time,” as the scholarly NJB itself translates it.
Similarly, I neither imposed, invented, nor interpreted the Greek expression ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων in Heb. 9.26b. It is in the Greek text itself, and it is in reference to Christ, as any reputable *textual scholar* would unequivocally concur. In fact, a concordance study demonstrates that the textual reference is to “the end of the world” (KJV), “the culmination of the ages” (NIV), “the consummation of the ages” (NASB), or “the end of the age” (NRSV), as all other scholarly translations indicate (cf. Mt. 13.39-40, 49; 24.3; 28.20; Dan. 12.4 LXX; see also G.W.H. Lampe [ed.], “A Patristic Greek Lexicon” [Oxford: Oxford U, 1961], p. 1340). By the way, Lampe’s Lexicon is considered to be a scholarly book of the highest order.
Once again, this is NOT an “interpretation,” and certainly NOT an imposition of a Christian perspective, but rather——**wait for it**——A _ G R E E K _ T R A N S L A T I O N! Therefore, your decision not to publish the post is completely bogus and misinformed!
Sorry about the capitals, but it needs to be highlighted, given that your commentary is not within scholarly and academic parameters!
——-
I really couldn’t care less what actions you take as a result of this letter. And I certainly lost all respect for your credibility and your group.
——-
I have never seen any academic commentary to equal this one for downright biased and unscrupulous disregard of evidence. It is tantamount to academic dishonesty!
——-
Easy believism
By Eli Kittim 🎓
Before the reward there must be labor.
You plant before you harvest. You sow in
tears before you reap joy. ~Ralph Ransom
Christians typically debate over the nature of the godhead (e.g. modalism vs. the trinity), the best English Bible translation (KJV only vs. Critical edition), the rapture (pre vs post-tribulation), and many other different doctrines that are peripheral to soteriology. However, the topic that we’re about to discuss is a salvation-issue of the utmost importance.
Easy believism holds that only belief in Jesus is necessary for salvation. Nothing else is required in order to be saved. Proponents of this view teach that no commitment to Christian discipleship or spiritual formation is required. In other words, no efforts whatsoever are necessary on the part of the believer in order to be saved. It is certainly very appealing, particularly to those who are lazy and who dislike efforts and commitments. Plus it allows you to indulge your carnal desires to your heart’s content!
There are only two categories in the spiritual life: the “saved” and the “unsaved”; the “saint” and the “sinner.” By that I mean the Christian and the nonChristian. That is to say, the person who has been born-again in a Holy Spirit experience versus the person who has not yet been regenerated. The topic of “easy believism” only concerns those people who have not yet experienced a rebirth. It refers to those people who are interested in salvation and want to know what they have to do to attain it. By contrast, those who have been reborn have received the Holy Spirit and are already saved!
Just because Jesus is said to die for our sins doesn’t mean that we should continue to practice sin, whether it be pedophilia, adultery, murder, or the like. The idea of making an effort to align our behavior with God’s will doesn’t mean that we are saving ourselves or that we reject Christ’s ultimate sacrifice. It is true that only Jesus can regenerate us. It is a gift of God. But those who are not yet regenerated need to purify themselves in order to receive God’s gift of salvation. Just like the farmer ploughs the field, prepares the soil for planting, and then plants the seeds and waits for the harvest, we, too, must prepare the soil of our heart in order to receive the harvest of God’s gift. It takes much time and effort. Not that rebirth itself has anything to do with us, but the preparation towards it definitely does. Once we receive it, God then does all the work inside us through his Holy Spirit!
Scriptural verses should be read in **canonical context,** not in isolation. The notion that we must do certain things (beyond just believing) is quite obvious throughout scripture. For example, Jesus says I know about your “deeds and your labor and perseverance” (Rev. 2.2), but you need to “repent, and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and I will remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent” (Rev. 2.5)! Notice that Jesus doesn’t say “continue to sin because you will be saved as long as you believe in my death, burial, and resurrection.” No! Jesus doesn’t say “sit back, relax, and do nothing because I will take care of all the details.” Rather, he says:
To the one who overcomes, I will grant to
eat from the tree of life, which is in the
Paradise of God (Rev. 2.7).
This is a theme that runs throughout the Bible. We have to struggle against sin so as to overcome. According to the Oxford Languages Dictionary, to overcome means to “defeat (an opponent); prevail.” We do not defeat anyone or anything if we don’t exert any effort at all. In Revelation 3.3, Christ commands the believers to stay alert and vigilant and to repent:
remember what you have received and
heard; and keep it, and repent. Then if you
are not alert, I will come like a thief, and you
will not know at what hour I will come to
you.
Proponents of easy believism claim that *repentance* and *avoidance of sin* are practices based on “works” and are, therefore, not required. Yet 1 John 1.6 declares:
If we say that we have fellowship with Him
and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do
not practice the truth.
Similarly, 1 John 3.4 says:
Everyone who practices sin also practices
lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
In 1 Timothy 6.11-12, Paul addressed the believers and issued a categorical imperative to actively flee from sin. He pronounced a solemn exhortation:
flee from these things, you man of God,
and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith,
love, perseverance, and gentleness. Fight
the good fight of faith; take hold of the
eternal life to which you were called, and for
which you made the good confession in the
presence of many witnesses.
Paul is urging us to actively flee from sin and to practice righteousness. Just like Jesus, Paul is not telling us to do nothing except believe. On the contrary, he’s urging us to fervently fight against evil thoughts, against sinful emotions & desires, and against temptations to disobey God. If no efforts were required, then why would Paul say that we must fight and struggle against sin, against falsehood, and against everything that opposes the knowledge of God (2 Cor. 10.5)? In Ephesians 6.10-14, Paul writes:
Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the
strength of His might. Put on the full armor
of God, so that you will be able to stand firm
against the schemes of the devil. For our
struggle is not against flesh and blood, but
against the rulers, against the powers,
against the world forces of this darkness,
against the spiritual forces of wickedness in
the heavenly places. Therefore, take up the
full armor of God, so that you will be able to
resist on the evil day, and having done
everything, to stand firm. Stand firm
therefore, having belted your waist with
truth, and having put on the breastplate of
righteousness.
In 1 Corinthians 6.18, Paul’s caveat to “Flee sexual immorality” explicitly contradicts the doctrine of easy believism. So does John 8.11 where Jesus says “go, and do not sin again." Same with Ephesians 4.26: “Be angry but do not sin.” Are these verses teaching that only belief is necessary? In Romans 6.13, Paul issues a command: “do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness.” These proof-texts, therefore, expose the horrific errors of easy believism!
Paul never says “it doesn’t matter if you keep sinning as long as you believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Paul never says “don’t worry if you’re having an adulterous relationship with someone’s wife, or if you keep robbing people’s homes, or if you keep molesting little children, as long as you believe in the finished work of Jesus Christ.” That’s like saying that the head of the mafia may have already killed many people——and may kill many more in the foreseeable future——but he’s actually *saved* because he believes that Jesus is the Christ. How crazy is that? In other words, Free Grace theology holds that “carnal Christians” and “unbelieving Christians” who even denounce their faith will, nevertheless, be saved. Obviously, there’s something seriously flawed with the doctrine of easy believism!
This is a perversion of the gospel. In fact, Romans 8.5-8 says that “those who live according to the flesh” are not believers. Salvation is a gift. No one is denying that. But the goal is to take up our cross daily and die to ourselves so as to become more Christ-like (Mt. 16.24). Without preparation and discipleship we are not heading towards Christ. Therefore, easy believism is a false teaching that deceives and misleads people by offering them a fake salvation that does not save! In fact, Zane Hodges and the Grace Evangelical Society have gone so far as to say that it’s not even a requirement (for salvation) to believe that Jesus is God, or that he died for sin, or that he was bodily resurrected at some point in human history!
Easy believism is a perversion of the Bible (see Mt. 7.14; Acts 2.1-4, 15; Rom. 6.3; 8.9; 2 Cor. 5.13; Eph. 4.22-24; Gal. 2.20; Rev. 3.20)! Bottom line, unless you’ve had an *existential experience* of rebirth (Jn 3.3), you’re not saved. If you think salvation is so easy that all you have to do is simply name it and claim it, then you’re only having an imaginary relationship with Jesus. Paul demonstrates that there’s far more to salvation than easy believism. He exclaims:
Work out your salvation with fear and
trembling (Phil. 2.12).