Christian Article - Tumblr Posts

Excerpts from "Jesus Was Not a Jew" by Marilyn R. Allen

Christianity is NOT based upon Judaism even slightly, and never has been: this is merely another Jewish canard to be swallowed by the gullible. They are diametrically opposed in their principles. "THE MAN OF GALILEE" (whom they hounded, tortured, and finally achieved his crucifixion—would they have crucified their own?) taught and preached against their hidebound, cruel, enslaving Traditions. HE opposed them at every turn, and said that the "Sabbath was made for man: not man for the Sabbath," as the Jewish Pharisees had it. HE said they "compassed land and sea to make one convert, and having made him, he was twofold more the child of hell than they." HE told the Jews they were "whited sepulchres" which is the best description of their two-faced hypocrisy that I know of. His Disciples were Galileans ... of the Roman province of Galilee, (Galilee was not a Jewish province: Judea was).

Always where the Light is, there is the shadow also. In this connection, I would like to recommend to Evangelist Billy Graham, and other uninformed Christian ministers, that they read the booklet, The Prophet of Galilee (A Portrait of the Christ) by Mr. John Henry Monk, Editor of Grass Roots. In his brochure, The Prophet of Galilee, Mr. Monk calls attention to the fact that "All the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not," (St. Mark 7:3): but Jesus did not wash his hands oft, and "when it came to ceremonial washing, not at all." Mr. Monk then quotes the following sayings of Jesus to prove that HE was not of their faith and race. Jesus was speaking to Jews:

"Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness" (John 6:49) "Moses gave you circumcision" (John 7:22) "Is it not written in your law?" (John 10:14) "It is also written in your law" (John 8:17) "Written in their law" (John 13:25).

Why did His disciples say unto him, "Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee?" (John 11:18). Why did He say to Pilate: "if my sovereignty were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered unto the JEWS?" (John 18:36). And there are other passages which, by their wording, prove that He did not consider Himself one of them.

Christ Was Not a Jew

There is an excellent little book, Christ Was Not a Jew, by Dr. Jacob Eton Connor, A.B., Ph. D. The work was subtitled, "An Epistle to the Gentiles." Quoting St. Matthew 21:11—And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee. See also St. Matthew 4:15-18. Now to revert to Dr. Connor, "The TRUTH demanding recognition is that Christ, as the Son of Man, was a Galilean, and the Galileans were not Jews ... Josephus, the Jewish historian, describes the Galileans as a people wholly unlike the Jews in temperament and ideals—so different indeed that they could not have been of the same race. There was a taboo against inter-marriage between them as recorded in the Jewish Talmud. In a word, Christ as the Son of Man was a Galilean, and the Galileans were not Jews. This is the verdict of history. (Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, Vol. I. p. 206, 'There is, accordingly, as we see, not the slightest foundation for the supposition that Christ's parents were of Jewish descent.'). See also L. A. Waddell, L.L.D., C.B., E.E.I., The Makers of Civilization, 1929 .... "It is begging the question for anyone to assert that Christ was of the Jewish race. The contrast of His character with that of the Jewish background establishes a presumption that differentiates Him utterly, even if only the human aspect is considered ... and we learn from Josephus ... that the Galileans were a different kind of people from those of Judaea—a fact attested by the Jews themselves." To quote from Grass Roots, Oct., 1954, by Mr. John Henry Monk:

"To ignore race," (says C. G. Campbell, in his book on Race and Religion, from which Mr. Monk quotes) "is to disregard the most important influence upon the outcome of human history; for it largely, "Generally speaking, a country takes its name from a racial group which has long inhabited and dominated it .... The temptation is strong to discover in the name Galilee the word-root found in such names as Kelt, Gaul, Galicia, and Galatia, and thus to identify the Galileans as of an early Keltic origin." (Note by Mr. Monk: The proper spelling of the name is Kelt, not 'Celt,' for the Greek alphabet has no C. Thus the Gauls descended from the queen-mother, and the Kelts from her beloved son-king. The Gauls-Kelts were Greeks, for they recorded all their important papers in Greek ....)

Continuing to quote Mr. Campbell:

"... the Israelites (meaning Jews) always referred contemptuously to the Galileans as Gentiles ... the Galileans were uncircumcised ... their religion differed essentially from orthodox Judaism." "... the Romans made a distinction between the Galileans and the Israelites (Jews) by not placing Galilee under the same provincial government as Judea. The Romans placed it under Syria or gave it a government of its own." ... "Galilee presented a background for the rise of Christianity that was Hellenistic rather than Judaic .... The Israelites (Jews) habitually spoke of them as Gentiles, classing them with the goyim of the non-Israelitic (Jewish) world .... Nor is there any indication that orthodox Jews lived in Galilee in any numbers until after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in '70, when Judeans fled into Galilee ... that orthodox Judaism was the prevalent religion among the preponderantly Gentile population of Galilee, is patently absurd .... These Galatians ... were among the earliest of racial groups to embrace the Galilean religion of Jesus .... Although it has been widely assumed, as a matter of course, that Jesus was a Jew, the only support for this assumption is its long reiteration .... The Galileans were always called Gentiles, or aliens, by the Jews, and there is no actual evidence ... that Jesus was other than a Galilean..." (End of quotes from Race and Religion.)

And now to quote Dr. Hermann Guthe, Professor of Theology Emeritus, University of Leipzig, Germany, VII: 36 p. 678, Funk and Wagnall's New Standard Bible Dictionary, 3rd Edition, 1936:

"From II Chronicles 30:10 it may be inferred that about 100 B.C. a number of families felt themselves to be in relationship to Jerusalem. But their position among the heathen was not secure. Consequently, about 163 B.C., Simon the Maccabee was ordered to remove them with their property to Judea."—Note that Dr. Guthe says these families in Galilee "felt" themselves to be related to Judea.

And to quote from I Maccabees 5:14-24: "... Behold there came other messengers from Galilee with their clothes rent, who reported on this wise, and said, they of Ptolemais, and of Tyrus and Sidon, and all Galilee OF THE GENTILES are assembled together to consume us ... "Now unto Simon were given 5,000 men to go into Galilee! ..." Then went Simon into Galilee, where he fought many battles with the heathen (this is the consignation which Jews apply to Christians), so that the heathen were discomfited by him. And he pursued them unto the gate of Ptolemais; and there were slain of the heathen about 3,000 men, whose spoils he took. And those that were in Galilee ... with their wives and their children, and all that they had, took he away with him, and brought them into Judea with great joy."—And thus it was that the last person feeling himself to be related to the Judeans was expatriated from Galilee 165 years Before Christ. The book of I Maccabees is considered to be Holy Writ by the Jews, and all others generally recognize it to be historical. The writer's new Webster's Collegial Dictionary (1949), based on Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, gives the following definition of Galilean: "A native or inhabitant of Galilee. Hence, a Christian;—after the epithet, 'The Galilean' applied to Jesus."

A Monstrous Perversion of Truth

Continuing with quotes from Dr. Connor's Christ Was Not a Jew: "Sure it is a monstrous perversion of the truth—this claim that Christ was a Jew—that is now being used by Jews ... to the incredible damage of Christ's mission to all the world. Says a recent authority, 'Whoever makes the assertion that Christ was a Jew is either ignorant or insincere: ignorant when he confuses race and religion: insincere when he knows the history of Galilee, and partly conceals, partly distorts the very entangled facts in favor of his religious prejudices, or it may be, to curry favor with the Jews. The probability that Christ was no Jew, that He had not a drop of genuinely Jewish blood in His veins, is so great that it is almost equivalent to a certainty.' (From W. D. Morrison's The Jews under Roman Rule, p. 85. 'Among no people of antiquity did race antipathy exercise so potent an influence as among the Jews of Judaea .... Among them, national inclusiveness had become one of the most vital elements of religion.') "Christ's mentality contrasts so vividly with a static-mindedness, a backward-looking type of mind, that this distinction alone divides Him from the Jewish race. It is utterly irrational to assume that He could have been evolved from a race with a hide-bound concept of morality, of ethics, of deity and humanity and their relations to each other ... His mentality was alive and unbounded .... "He went into the synagogues everywhere, as He had a right to do, because these were the 'town halls' of the public. It was thus that He went into the synagogue of His own home town, Nazareth, and when He had announced Himself in the chosen text, 'The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,' they were ready to murder Him .... "Everybody knew Him and His followers as Galileans ... even the servant who detected Peter's Galilean speech .... Christ said, 'I ever taught in the synagogue and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort' (thus naming the Jews objectively). And since HE did not include Himself among them, but throughout the whole farce of his trial He regarded Himself and was regarded by others as a Galilean, and not a Jew, what excuse has anyone for calling Him a Jew? Absolutely none ... Christ lived and died a Galilean Gentile or non-Jew, so far as He was the Son of Man. "It has been said by Ernest Renan (in his Life of Christ), that this makes Him all the more akin to the whole world—the Galileans being a mixed people but non-Jewish, and therefore He was not the scion of any one race or dynasty. He had the Galilean's independent spirit in His disposition, and not once did He show a servile attitude toward His persecutors ... no, not even to the High Priest .... Neither Christ nor any other Galilean, as Josephus describes them, would have apologized for having his face slapped .... How idle it is to think that Christianity, a world religion, could have sprung from the 'chosen people' bigotry! "But this compromise between Christianity and Judaism—for such it was [as the Disciples first taught it, after Christ's death]—could not endure, for the two were unrelated and irreconcilable. The one was broadly Gentile, the other strictly racial and intolerant.

Judaism would not have it so. Having brought about the public assassination of the Head of the new faith they had no idea of permitting His followers to preach His doctrines .... So the first Christian martyrs fell, and thus the blood persecutions began .... Finally, there was a general conference in Jerusalem of the apostles, elders and leaders of the Christians ... and the apostolic position with respect to the independence of Christianity from all Relationship with Judaism and established ... Jerusalem could never have conquered humanity: 'it is the north (Galilee) alone which has made Christianity.' (From Ernest Renan's Life of Christ p. 123) .... The Jews, on the other hand, were unrelenting in their efforts to totally exterminate the Christians." Dr. Connor then quoted excerpts from the three historians, Gibbon, Renan and Lanciani, based on the testimony of Tacitus, Seutonius and Pliny the younger, all of which have been verified, as to the Jewish incitement against the early Christians. Finally, Dr. Connor says: "It is sometimes thoughtlessly said that Christianity is an Oriental religion .... It ignores the fact that Christianity lost little time in escaping the confines of its origin, chiefly through the instrumentality of the Greeks, and thereafter attaining its full growth and its mission as a world religion only in the Occident. The sun rises in the East, but that does not make the sun Oriental: and like the sun, Christianity mounted toward the zenith of its power as it moved westward. No strictly Oriental religions have ever made much headway in the West, and owing to differences in the mentality it is safe to infer that they never will. The fact that Christianity has done so is consistent with its Occidental character—that is to say, its comprehensiveness, its breadth of human interest as opposed to the petty, provincial narrowness and bigotry, the concentrated selfishness of Judaism. Christianity is fundamentally non-Jewish: its earthly origin was among a Gentile people, the Galileans, and the principal means of freeing it from its hostile background was another Gentile people, the Greeks. The Apostolic Council held in Jerusalem to settle the matter, about the year 49 A.D., officially declared the complete independence of Christianity from Judaism."

An Essay By Eli of Kittim

Russia: The Origin of the Biblical Antichrist

By Author Eli Kittim

This paper is an excerpt from Eli Kittim’s book, The Little Book of Revelation: The First Coming of Jesus at the End of Days.

Daniel has a follow-up vision of a mighty ram, followed by a male goat that attacks and overwhelms it (8:3-7). In time, the goat’s horn [power] was broken; and in its place there came up four conspicuous horns (8:8). Daniel recounts the oracle:

'And out of one of them came forth a rather small horn which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Beautiful Land [Israel]. And it grew up to the host of heaven and caused some of the host and some of the stars to fall to the earth, and it trampled them down. It even magnified itself to be equal with the Commander of the host [God]; and it removed the regular sacrifice [Holy Communion] from Him, and the place of His sanctuary [Church] was thrown down' (8:9-11).

The angelic messenger named Gabriel appears once again and interprets the vision to Daniel (8:16). Gabriel says: ‘Son of man, understand that the vision pertains to the time of the end’ (Dan. 8:17). The celestial being now begins to expound the oracle:

‘Behold, I am going to let you know what will occur at the final period of the indignation [God’s wrath], for it pertains to the appointed time of the end. The ram which you saw with the two horns represents the kings of Media and Persia. And the shaggy goat represents the kingdom of Greece, and the large horn that is between his eyes is the first king [Alexander the Great]. And the broken horn and the four horns that arose in its place represent four kingdoms which will arise from his nation [Hellenistic Empire], although not with his power. And in the latter period [in the last days] of their rule, when the transgressors [the succeeding empires] have run their course, a king will arise insolent and skilled in intrigue. And his power will be mighty, but not by his own power, and he will destroy to an extraordinary degree and prosper and perform his will’ (Dan. 8:19-24).

In chapter 11, Daniel receives additional information concerning the previous vision:

‘But as soon as he [Alexander the Great] has arisen, his kingdom will be broken up and parceled out toward the four points of the compass, though not to his own descendants, nor according to his authority which he wielded; for his sovereignty will be uprooted and given to others besides them [the Greeks]’ (11:4).

In Daniel chapter 2 (the statue vision), the Antichrist, who mingles ‘in the seed of men’ (2:43), comes from the part of the Roman Empire which is represented by the symbol of iron (2:40-43), namely, the Byzantines. But in Daniel chapter eight, he arises out of one of the four successors of Alexander the Great. As you will see, both lines of succession are correct and coalesce so as to give us a more precise understanding of where the Antichrist comes from.

Following Alexander’s death, the heirs to the Hellenistic Empire were called the Diadochi, which means ‘successors’ in Greek. The four Generals alluded to by scripture appear to be Ptolemy, Seleucus, Cassander and Lysimachus, all of whom had ruled over different Hellenistic Kingdoms after the partition of the Empire (Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. The Footsteps of the Messiah: A study of the Sequence of Prophetic Events. [Tustin: Ariel, 1990], p. 20). The book of Daniel clearly indicates that the smallest territory in land size, held by one of these four generals, denotes the symbolic ‘small horn’ (the Antichrist) of the end times (8:8-9). Interestingly, the text also states that this small territory cannot possibly come from Alexander’s ‘own descendants,’ namely, the Greeks (11:4). Historically, Greece was conquered by the Romans in the 2nd century B.C., and so their empire came to an abrupt end.

On that account, in order to locate the actual place that represents the little horn, we must search elsewhere. By implication, Cassander, who controlled Macedonia and most of Greece, must be ruled out of the equation. On the other hand, Lysimachus’s terrain, which originally consisted of the tiny area called Thrace, is the only one to qualify as the smallest amount of land size in comparison with the other Hellenistic Kingdoms. If you recall, Daniel mentioned that the little horn ‘grew exceedingly great toward the south’ and ‘toward the east’ (8:9). Evidently, after the major Battle of Ipsus in 301 B.C., Lysimachus gained vast amounts of land to the south and to the east, as he was awarded Anatolia for his decisive allied victory. By that time, General Lysimachus had become a very wealthy and powerful man, as he presided over all aspects of life, political and otherwise, within the geographic region we now call Asia Minor. He also founded his capital at Pergamum, in modern-day western Turkey, where all his wealth was kept.

Anatolia then becomes the seat of the Ottoman Empire, which destroyed the last remaining vestige of the Roman Empire in 1453 of the Common Era. By the late 19th century, the Turks were in turn defeated by Imperial Russia through various wars, but especially after the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878 A.D. If we trace the succession of empires that supplant one another in the region denoted by the symbol of the little horn – namely, Thrace and Asia Minor – we will notice a sequence that begins with General Lysimachus and continues on with the Byzantine Romans, whose capital (Constantinople) was actually situated within the former’s domain. Next, the Ottoman Turks come forth from this same territory and are subsequently defeated by the Great Russian Empire. Since Lysimachus represents the little horn, we can trace the roots of the Antichrist from this foregoing General all the way up to Russia, the so-called Third Rome. It is for this reason, no doubt, that the book of Revelation features ‘Pergamum’ as the place ‘where Satan’s throne is’ (Rev. 2:12-13) located, indicating not only the origin of the little horn, but also the succession of empires that lead to his proverbial doorstep. In this respect, the small horn, the kingdom of Lysimachus, becomes a key piece of the puzzle that decidedly affirms the link that leads to the Antichrist (Dan. 8:9-12). That is to say, the Lysimachaean province gave rise to the Byzantine and Turkish empires, and in the process of usurping the latter, the modern Russian Empire was born.

Ezekiel, a dominant force in Jewish apocalyptic literature, prophesies that ‘in the latter years’ a mysterious ‘prince of Rosh’ and ‘Meshech’ will come ‘from the remote parts of the north,’ from ‘the land of Magog,’ to invade Israel, ‘whose inhabitants have been gathered from many nations’ (Ezek. 38:2, 8). It is customary for scholars to identify the abovementioned locations with modern day Russia, which will be in league with many nations during its latter-day military campaigns. Historical investigations reveal that the term ‘Rosh’ is derived from the tribe of the ‘Rus’ who migrated from Scandinavia and founded Russia (Kievan Rus) roughly around the 10th century of the Common Era. By the same token, the term ‘Meshech’ originates with the clan whom the Greeks called ‘moshoi,’ and whence the name Moscow is traced.

The Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, translates the term ‘Rosh’ (Ezek. 38:2) with the Greek word ρως, which stands for Ρωσία (the Greek word for Russia). The earlier Ezekiel quotation referred to ‘the land of Magog.’ In ancient times, it comprised the lands where the Scythians once lived, and thus represents contemporary Russia. In his sobering book, the biblical scholar Arnold Fruchtenbaum provides a supplementary elaboration of Ezekiel 38:

‘The identification of Magog, Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal is to be determined from the fact that these tribes of the ancient world occupied the areas of modern day Russia. Magog, Meshech and Tubal were between the Black and Caspian Seas which today is southern Russia. The tribes of Meshech and Tubal later gave names to cities that today bear the names of Moscow, the capital, and Tobolsk, a major city in the Urals in Siberia. Rosh was in what is now northern Russia. The name Rosh is the basis for the modern name Russia. These names, then, cover the modern territories of northern and southern Russia in Europe and Siberia to the east in Asia’ (Footsteps of the Messiah 70).

In addition, Ivan the Great adopted the official emblem of the Byzantine Monarchy: the double-headed eagle. He then went on to marry Sophia Paleologue, the niece of the final Byzantine ruler Constantine XI. In the aftermath of the Ottoman Turks’ conquest of the Eastern Roman Empire and in an effort to salvage the last vestiges of Christianity, Ivan designated Moscow as the Third Rome in 1497 A.D. In effect, Moscow became the offspring of the Roman Empire; heirs to the legacy. Russia, then, becomes the link of the little horn (Antichrist) to the Roman Empire (cf. Daniel 7:7-8 f.).

The celebrated seer Nostradamus confirms this conclusion and gives us an insightful clue in this regard:

‘The great Empire of the Antichrist will begin where once was Attila’s empire and the new Xerxes will descend with great and countless numbers’ (The Prophecies, Epistle to Henry II).

Maps that show the extent of Attila’s empire reveal that it comprised areas of the former Soviet Union and modern-day Russia. Moreover, Nostradamus calls the Antichrist the new Xerxes. The differences between Russia and Persia (modern-day Iran) are worlds apart! Nevertheless, Nostradamus pierces through the opaque veil of prophecy to glimpse an intimate alliance built for conquest: ‘Arabs will be allied with the Poles’ (The Prophecies, Century 5, Quatrain 73). The term Poles refers to those who dwell in ‘the remote parts of the north’ (Ezek. 38:6, 15). Here, following, is a prophecy that might lend support to the idea that a military buildup in Asia could ignite the end of the world:

‘When those of the arctic pole are united together, Great terror and fear in the East’ (The Prophecies, Century 6, Quatrain 21).

Realized Eschatology versus Future Eschatology

By Author Eli of Kittim

Realized eschatology is a term in Christian theology used to describe the belief that the end times (or latter days) have already happened during the ministry of Jesus. According to this position, all end-time events have already been “realized” (i.e., fulfilled ), including the resurrection of the dead, and the second coming of Jesus.

This view is the culmination of poor methodological considerations, misapplication of proper exegetical methods (i.e. literary context /detailed exegesis), and a confusion of terms and context. The under-mentioned examples typify this confusion:

Example A) “Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour” (1 John 2:18).

Example B) “In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son…” (Hebrews 1:1-2).

Here, without a proper understanding of context, we are led to believe that John is referring to the “last days” as occurring in or around the 1st century CE. These types of verses have misled many to follow Preterism, a doctrine which holds that biblical prophecies represent incidents that have already been fulfilled at the close of the first century. Unfortunately, the same type of misappropriation of scripture has given birth to “realized eschatology.”

Notice that in Example A, John states that “it is the last hour.” The context implies that there are two possibilities within which this phrase can make scriptural sense. Either John is literally referring to the 1st century as being the last or final hour of mankind (which would include the coming of the Antichrist, since John mentions him), or the overall context of this and other texts is, strictly speaking, an eschatological one in which all these events take place in the future, and not during John’s lifetime.

As I have shown in earlier works, scriptural tenses that are set in the past, present and future do not necessarily correspond to past, present or future history respectively. What is more, logic tells us that “the final point of time” represents the end of the world. Yet there are future events that are clearly described in the past tense. For example, “He [Christ] … was revealed at the final point of time” (1 Pet. 1:20, NJB, emphasis added). In a passage that deals exclusively with the great tribulation of the end times, we find another future event that is described in the past tense; it reads: “From the tribe of Judah, twelve thousand had been sealed” (Rev. 7:5, emphasis added). Isaiah 53 is a perfect example because we can demonstrate that Isaiah was composing a prophecy, at the time he penned this text, which was saturated with past tenses.

In Example B, we face a similar dilemma. The author of Hebrews combines the idiomatic phrase “last days” with the present tense “these,” which implies several things:

1) The phrase “in these last days” gives us the impression that the “last days” may have started or occurred during the author’s lifetime.

2) It implies that Jesus not only appeared, but he appeared specifically “in these last days.”

3) The phrase “in these last days” might simply be an allusion to the days just mentioned. It’s like saying, concerning the days in question, or with regard to the days that we are describing, rather than a reference to the present time.

So, at first sight, there seems to be some basis (biblical support) for a realized-eschatology interpretation. However, upon further scrutiny, we find many outright logical fallacies (a logical fallacy is, roughly speaking, an error of reasoning) that cannot possibly be true. For example, how can the last days of the world occur in the 1st century CE if nineteen plus centuries have since come and gone? It would be a contradiction in terms!

Moreover, these positions flatly contradict not only the broad scriptural context of the term “last days” and its cognates (i.e., “the time of the end” Dan. 12:4), but also certain definite future events, such as the “great tribulation” (Matt. 24:21; cf. Daniel 12:1-2) and the coming of the “lawless one” (2 Thess. 2:3-4; cf. Rev. 13), which clearly have yet to occur. Therefore, the so-called “realized” eschatological interpretations involve logical fallacies, blatant misappropriation of future events, methodological errors, misapplication of proper exegetical methods, and misinterpretation of tenses with regard to proper eschatological context.

Contradiction notwithstanding, many have endorsed these false teachings. Daniel 12 and Matthew 24 are two examples that demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that “the time of the end” is radically different than what these interpreters make it out to be, namely, a first-century occurrence. These views (regarding the last days as eschatological events that occurred in the 1st century CE) display, for lack of a better term, an eccentric doctrine. They are patently ridiculous!

The same holds true in the gospel of John. Jesus says:

“Truly, Truly, I say to you, the hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the son of God; and those who hear will live” (John 5:25).

The phrase “and now is” implies that this particular time period is happening now. However, notice a clear distinction between the hour that is here and “the hour that is coming” when the dead will rise again (in the under mentioned verse). These two time periods are clearly not identical because the events to which the latter prophecy points have yet to happen:

“Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in their graves will hear his voice, and come forth, … those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation” (John 5:28-29).

The context of John 5:25 ff. is ultimately based on future history (i.e., history written in advance), but the author reinterprets it through a theology. On what basis am I making these claims? Since I concluded that “realized eschatology” is seemingly erroneous, we now have to consider its opposite, namely, the view that the last days are really referring to literal future events, and not to the time of Antiquity.

One illustration of this view is in the context in which Jesus’ earthly appearance is contemporaneous with Judgment Day. Jesus uses the present tense “now” to indicate that his manifestation on earth is for the purpose of Judgment, and the overthrow of Satan:

“Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out” (John 12:31).

Jesus’ use of the word “now,” in connection with the removal of Satan and Judgment, would indicate that his earthly appearance (as described in the gospels) is a reference to a future event, one that could not have possibly happened in Antiquity.

Another example shows that Christ’s generation (as described in the gospels) is the last generation on earth. During his eschatological discourse, Christ uses the words “this generation” to refer to his audience. He says,

“Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened” (Matthew 24:34).

In the following verse, Jesus uses the words “some who are standing here” to signify his audience. Interestingly enough, Jesus implies that his audience (or generation) is the one related to the end times. The idea that Jesus’ audience (as described in the gospels) represents the last generation on earth that would see Jesus coming in the clouds is furnished in the gospel of Matthew:

“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" (Matthew 16:28).

The notion that some of Jesus’ followers would not die before they saw him coming in glory cannot be attributed to the 1st century CE. It can only be ascribed to a future event, since Jesus has yet to come in his glory! These verses would strongly suggest that the account of Jesus (as described in the gospels) is really in the context of a future event rather than one that occurred in the 1st century of the Common Era.

In conclusion, scriptural tenses that are set in the past, present and future do not necessarily correspond to past, present or future history respectively. What is more, both scripture and logic tell us that “the final point of time” represents the end of the world, and therefore this “end time” period could not have possibly happened during the 1st century CE.

There are also gospel materials, which indicate not only that Jesus’ audience represents the last generation on earth, but that Jesus’ manifestation on earth signifies the immediate removal of Satan and the commencement of Judgment. Add to this material the original Greek texts—with multiple references to Jesus appearing “once at the consummation of the ages” (Heb. 9:26; cf. Luke 17:30; Heb. 1:1-2; 1 Pet. 1:5, 20; Rev. 12:1-5) or at the end of human history—and the eschatological context of the “last days” finally comes into view as a future reference!

Jesus’ Death: Sacrifice or Suicide?

By Writer Eli Kittim

——-

John 15.13:

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

But how does one do that voluntarily?

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

——-

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

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

——-

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

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

——-

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

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

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

——-

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

——-

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

——-

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

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

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

——-

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

——-

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

——-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——-

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

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

The Original Greek text reads:

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

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

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

——-

Conclusion

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

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

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

——-

This is the PDF of my article——published in the Journal of Higher Criticism, volume 13, number 3 (Fall 2018)——entitled, The Birth, Death, and Resurrection of Christ According to the Greek New Testament Epistles.