EK Ministry - Tumblr Posts

WWIII: 2010 Decade

All the prophecies concerning Armageddon seem to converge in the 2010 decade or soon thereafter: the Mayan (their twenty-six-thousand-year cycle ended in 2012), the Sikh (in which, according to Sakhee 15th, their avatar is said to appear around the year 2015), Malachy’s prophecy of the 112 Popes (Pope Francis being the last, according to experts, who was inducted in 2013), Daniel’s Seventy-Weeks prophecy (in which Armageddon is said to be triggered seventy years after the restoration of Israel: 1948+70=2018), and the four Blood Moons that fall on Jewish holy days (apocalyptic omens that are predicted to occur in 2014-15)!

Biblical and Extra-Biblical Prophecies About the Year of the Coming Messiah

By Author Eli of Kittim

“If you shall see kingdoms rising against each other in turn, then give heed and note the footsteps of the Messiah.” —Bereshit Rabbah XLII: 4

“Each of the world’s major religions contain Messianic prophecies. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, the Zoroastrian religion and even the Native American religions all foretell the coming of a Promised One.” (Joel Smith).

Astoundingly, both the biblical and extra-biblical prophecies concerning the coming Messiah seem to converge in the 2010 decade: the Mayan (their twenty-six-thousand-year cycle ended in 2012), the Sikh (in which, according to Sakhee 15th, the avatar or god man is said to appear around the year 2015), Rabbi Yitzchak Kaduri’s prophecy (according to which the messiah will appear within a year of Ariel Sharon’s death—or 2015); Malachy’s prophecy of the 112 Popes (Pope Francis being the last, according to experts, who was inducted in 2013); Daniel’s Seventy-Weeks prophecy (in which Messiah is said to appear seventy years after the restoration of Israel: 1948+70=2018); Vilna Gaon’s prophecy (which predicts the Russian invasion of Crimea (2014) as a sign of the coming Messiah); Judah Ben Samuel’s prediction of the Messiah appearing by 2017); and the Four Blood Moons that fall on Jewish holy days (apocalyptic omens that culminate in 2015)!

Here are the links to explore some of these prophecies in more detail:

1) Vilna Gaon: The Russian invasion of Crimea (2014) is a sign of the coming Messiah https://seeker401.wordpress.com/2014/03/29/vilna-gaon-the-russian-invasion-of-crimea-is-a-sign-of-impending-redemption/

2) Judah Ben Samuel (Messiah will come by 2017). http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/12th-century-rabbi-predicted-israels-future/

3) Malachy’s prophecy (Ends in 2013) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxw4S7xGXMg

4) RABBI YITZHAK KADURI: THE MESSIAH WILL APPEAR SHORTLY AFTER ARIEL SHARON'S DEATH (in other words, sometime around 2015) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwN1QXDujp0

5) Four Blood Moons (End in 2015) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrObwDtYBrg

To sum up, both the biblical and extra-biblical prophecies indicate that the latter half of the 2010 decade is of extreme importance to all the inhabitants of the earth because it is during this time that the Messiah will appear to elevate our consciousness and transform the world. There is overwhelming evidence that the 2010 decade is the Messianic decade, as we are told in one prophecy after another! Apparently, we are the messianic generation that the prophets of old longed to see. The signs are everywhere:

"But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase." Daniel 12:4

Jesus Revealed: In the Fulness of Time, In the End Times, or in Due Time

By Goodreads Author Eli of Kittim

Sadly, we have confused biblical literature with history, and turned prophecy into biography. In the end, the New Testament (NT) gospels appear to be non-historical stories—borrowed to a large extent from the Old Testament (OT)—giving us the Messianic prophecy through an apocalyptic narrative, whereas the NT epistles (or letters) and the book of Revelation, which are NOT stories, reveal the real Jesus and tell a different story. And although I'm not Jewish, I do agree with the Jews on one point. In fact, I'm the first author, as far as I know, who legitimately fuses the messianic expectations of the Jews with Christian scripture! In my view, both the OT and NT say the SAME THING: the Messiah comes "once in the end of the world" (NT, Hebrews 9:26)!

Messiah Revealed: In the End Times

According to the NT itself, Jesus will come once, for the first time, in the "last days" (Hebrews 1:1-2), or "at the consummation of the ages" (Hebrews 9:26). The King James Version says that Christ will die as the atonement for sin "ONCE IN THE END OF THE WORLD" (Hebrews 9:26)! Without putting a spin on it, we must conclude that the church has CHANGED what the Bible ACTUALLY says, and has therefore handed us the wrong information about the precise timing of the messiah's momentous coming to earth. I present multiple lines of evidence to buttress my argument. As for my conviction that Jesus did not come the first time, this comes primarily from the New Testament epistles (Hebrews 1:1-2, 9:26; Galatians 4:4; Ephesians 1:10; 2 Thess. 2:7; 1 Corinthians 15:8, 19, 22-26, 54-55) and the book of Revelation (Rev. 6:2; 12:1-5, 19:10-11, 22:7), as well as from the Old Testament where the Messiah is depicted as dying (Zephaniah 1:7; Zechariah 12:8-10) and being resurrected (Isaiah 2:19; Daniel 12:1-2) on the Day of the Lord, or in the last days:

"Once IN THE END OF THE WORLD hath he [Jesus] appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice [death] of himself" (King James, Hebrews 9:26, emphasis added).

The original Greek New Testament says:

“νυνϊ δε απαξ επι ϲυντελεια των αιωνων ειϲ αθετηϲιν τηϲ αμαρτιαϲ δια τηϲ θυϲιαϲ αυτου πεφανερωται.” (Hebrews 9:26, Codex Sinaiticus, Greek NT).

Translation: “Once in the conclusion of the ages [in Greek the word αιωνων/’ages’ also means ‘centuries’] has he [Christ] been made manifest, to put away sin through the sacrifice of himself.” (Hebrews 9:26, Codex Sinaiticus).

Here, the phrase sinteleia ton aionon does NOT imply dispensations, speculative covenants or anything else. The word "aionon" refers specifically to chronological time, and it means "ages" or centuries, whereas the term synteleia means "conclusion," "consummation," or "end." Put together, it simply means at the "end" or at the conclusion of all the ages. That’s why the King James Version translates it as, “In the end of the world.” In other words Christ appears ONCE AND FOR ALL (hapax), not twice, to atone for sin by sacrificing himself “in the end of the world.” If you try to manipulate the verse by claiming that the end of the world was 2000 years ago, that would be nothing short of insanity! A similar phrase, ϲυντελειαϲ του αιωvos, can be found in the Gospel of Matthew chapter 28 and verse 20:

"διδαϲκοντεϲ αυτουϲ τηριν παντα οϲα ενετιλαμην ϋμιν και ϊδου εγω ειμι μεθ υμων παϲαϲ ταϲ ημεραϲ εωϲ τηϲ ϲυντελειαϲ του αιωvos.”

Translation: American Standard Version “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.”

Therefore, it is unquestionable that the Greek phrase ϲυντελειαϲ του αιωvos (Matthew 28:20) means “in the end of the world.” And if that’s the case, and it is, then the reference to Jesus being manifested once επι ϲυντελεια των αιωνων to die for the sins of the world (Hebrews 9:26) would certainly mean that his death occurs “Once in the end of the world” and not 2,000 years ago as is currently assumed! The overall meaning of Hebrews 9:26 is that Christ will die for the sins of the world at the final point of time! Read what the text ACTUALLY says: The New American Standard says "at the consummation of the ages." The Jerusalem Bible renders it "at the end of the last age," whereas the King James version translates it "in the end of the world." It's abundantly clear what it means. I've already presented numerous verses that support this view. Here's another:

"God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these LAST DAYS has spoken to us in his Son" (Hebrews 1:1-2, emphasis added).

Once again, in Greek, the "last days" are written as ep escaton ton imeron, where ep escaton means in the last, or in the final, or in the end, and where the term "imeron" refers to chronological days... The meaning is quite clear and resonates among all these verses: Jesus is manifested once and for all (απαξ) in the end of the world to die and save mankind! This is reiterated in 1 Peter 1:5, Apokalufthinai en kairo escato, which means “is revealed in the last days.” The Greek word escato means “last” and it is the same term from where we get the word eschatology. You can speculate all you want on what it means and come up with your own erroneous version of the Bible. I choose to believe EXACTLY what the Bible says WITHOUT INTERPRETING IT, changing it, or manipulating it, which would be equivalent to falsifying it!

Christ Revealed: In the Fulness of Time

Do you know what the fulness of the time means? Read Ephesians 1:10 where "the fullness of the time" means the END OF THE WORLD, confirming Hebrews 9:26 and Hebrews 1:1-2. Ephesians 1:10 reads:

"With a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth."

WITH A VIEW TO AN ADMINISTRATION SUITABLE TO THE FULLNESS OF THE TIMES: eis oikonomian tou pleromatos ton kairon where the term kairoi refer to the passing of chronological “times” or “seasons,” and where the word fullness means "completion." So the Bible ITSELF defines the idiomatic phrase, the fullness of the time as “the summing up [or “conclusion”] of all things… things in the heavens and …on the earth.” In other words, we need not speculate because Ephesians 1:10 clearly defines “the fullness of the times” as an idiom that refers to the END OF THE WORLD.

Now read Galatians 4:4--which uses the same CONSISTENT idiom--to find out exactly when Christ is incarnated:

“But when THE FULNESS OF THE TIME came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman…” (Galatians 4:4, emphasis added).

Thus, Christ is incarnated during the fulness of the time, or, as Ephesians 1:10 illustrates, at the end of time—“To be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ" (Ephesians 1:10, NIV)! The Greek text does not allow any room for confusion since to pliroma tou chronou (the fulness of the time) clearly indicates a distinctive chronological time period. In Greek, the term "Chronos" means chronological time. And pliroma means "completion." Thus, it means that at the completion of time, or when time has reached its “fulness,” Christ will be incarnated! No wonder there is a prophecy of Christ’s birth in the prophetic book of Revelation chapter 12:1-5!

Knowing this, we cannot manipulate or violate scripture in any way. We must allow scripture to define its own terms because these same terms are repeated consistently throughout the Bible! Therefore, Scripture's own definition of the fullness of the time is actually the end of the world, when all things will be summed up in Christ!!! Similarly, Acts 3:19-21 says,

“Repent ye therefore … and he [God] shall send Jesus Christ, which BEFORE was preached unto you: whom the heaven must receive [or cannot receive] until the times of restitution of all things [meaning, until the end of the world], which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.” — Acts 3:19-21, King James, emphasis added

Here's what it means: The preaching of Jesus precedes his arrival! Moreover, Peter says that Christ “Was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was manifested at the end of times for your sake.” (1 Peter 1:20). In Greek, it reads: “Fanerothentos de ep escaton ton chronon,” Ep Escaton means "during the last" and "chronon" implies chronological years, which literally means that Jesus is manifested during the last years, or at the final point of time. It fits perfectly with what Peter has been saying all along, such as “apokalufthinai en kairo escato" (1 Peter 1:5), which means “revealed in the end times.”

Jesus Revealed: In Due Time

Now, concerning the under mentioned verse, don’t let the past tenses fool you. Remember that past tenses—such as “Christ died for our sins”—do not necessarily refer to past history. Just read Isaiah 53 and you’ll see why. It is filled with past tenses—“He was despised and rejected by mankind,” “But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities,” (53:3-5) etc.—and yet Isaiah is not recounting a past event but writing about a future PROPHECY! Similarly, Paul states: “For when we were yet without strength, IN DUE TIME Christ died for the ungodly.” (Romans 5:6, emphasis added) In Greek, it reads:

Eti gar christos onton imon asthenon kata kairon iper asevon apethanen. Textus Receptus

KATA KAIRON means "at the right time" or “in due time” or season. (Strong, G2540). Now, why would Paul use this phrase KATA KAIRON (meaning, that Christ died at the right time or when the time is ripe) to refer to a past event? It doesn't make any sense at all unless he is in line with what Peter (1 Peter 1:5, 20) and Hebrews (1:1-2, 9:26) say about Christ being revealed and DYING during the end times.

Here's a scholarly rendering of the phrase "IN DUE TIME" (KATA KAIRON):

“In 1 Clement 24:2 [Apocrypha] we read: IDOMEN AGAPHTOI THN KATA KAIRON GINOMENHN ANASTASIN, "We should consider, beloved, the resurrection that happens KATA KAIRON." "...the resurrection that Happens … "at the right time" or "at the right season" --Bart D. Ehrman (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill).

That is, "The resurrection that comes when time is ripe for it" --Carl W. Conrad (Department of Classics/Washington University).

In other words, this phrase--"IN DUE TIME Christ died for the ungodly” (Romans 5:6)--implies that Christ dies for the ungodly "when the time is ripe for it," or as other passages suggest, during the fulness of the time (Gal. 4:4; cf. Eph. 1:10), at the end of times (1 Peter 1:20); “revealed in the end times" (1 Peter 1:5), in the last days (Heb. 1:2), or "IN THE END OF THE WORLD." (Hebrews 9:26). It's as if God is screaming at deaf ears...

In the New Testament epistles, we find yet another epiphany:

“You greatly rejoice … that the proof of your faith … may be found … at the revelation of Jesus Christ; and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice. … As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful search and inquiry, seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He [the Holy Spirit] PREDICTED the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow” (1 Peter 1:6-11, emphasis added).

1 Peter 1:7 exhorts us to have faith so that we are ready “at the revelation of Jesus Christ,” which apokalifthinai en kairo eshato or is “revealed in the last days” (1 Peter 1:5). Moreover, observe that “the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow” are PROPHECIES or PREDICTIONS (1 Peter 1:10-11), NOT historical events!!! Notice also that the disciples “preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven” (1 Peter 1:12)—not by historical reports! This passage tells you unequivocally that the revelation of Jesus—including his sufferings and glory—are for an appointed time in the future: "For it is the Spirit of prophecy who bears testimony to Jesus" (Rev. 19:10), NOT history! Here's an excerpt from my book (The Little Book of Revelation) that offers further clues:

"Paul, the author of numerous NT letters, explains how Jesus “appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the twelve,” and finally “to more than five hundred brethren [believers] at one time” (1 Cor. 15:5-6). But then he says: “and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me also” (1 Cor. 15:8). In other words, Paul is stating that Christ “was seen by me also, as by one born out of DUE TIME” (1 Cor. 15:8, NKJ, emphasis added). Similar to other eyewitnesses whom he cites earlier, Paul did not behold Christ in the flesh (Gal. 1:15-16), but in a vision (Acts 9:3-7) that delivered him prematurely, so to speak, before the appointed time of salvation."

As for the so-called witnesses, may I remind you that the Holy Spirit who teaches men is also called a Witness or "The Witness” (1 John 5:8-12)! Moreover, we are told:

"But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come [future events]." (John 16:13)

Conclusion: the Jesus account is not historical, but prophetic! But this does not mean that the gospels are manufactured. It simply means that they are rehashed OT stories that foreshadow the Messianic prophecy. And they are inspired by God! It’s as if history is written in advance before it happens:

“Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done” (Isaiah 46:10).

Goodreads Contest Winner!!

I'm pleased to announce that my book, "The Little Book of Revelation: The First Coming of Jesus at the End of Days," was a winner in a recent Double Decker Books contest on Goodreads. As a result, Double Decker Books and five other blogs will be promoting my end-times prophecy book. They include a book description, an author bio, editorial reviews, and buying links. Check it out! Here are the links: City Life Reader - http://citylifereader.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-little-book-of-revelation-first.html InkSpell Reviews - https://inkspellreviews.wordpress.com/2015/02/04/the-little-book-of-revelation-the-first-coming-of-jesus-at-the-end-of-days/ SunShy - http://sunshybooks.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-little-book-of-revelation-first.html Spilling Words - https://spillingwordskck.wordpress.com/2015/02/04/the-little-book-of-revelation-the-first-coming-of-jesus-at-the-end-of-days/ Jai & K's Reviews- http://jaikreviews.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-little-book-of-revelation-first.html Double Decker Books - http://doubledeckerbooks.blogspot.com/2015/02/large-french-roast-coffee-little-book.html

#The_Jesus_Prophecy

By Author Eli of Kittim

There are some who clearly misinterpret and misrepresent my view. I never said, as some have claimed, that “the Gospels are just figments of the writers’ imagination,” or that they “are just made up stories.” On the contrary, they have their rightful place in the Bible, provided we understand what that role and function is. Actually, the gospels present an overview of Jesus’ life, not through biographical data, but rather through stories that are filtered down from the Old Testament. And they are inspired by God! They tell of the Messianic story in advance, so that it can be passed down from generation to generation until the time of its fulfillment. In my view, the gospels are true, not historically, but theologically, or, as I would argue, prophetically! What we have is, the Messiah’s history written in advance in story form.

What is the difference between my view and the classical Christian perspective? I am convinced that there are not multiple comings and multiple returns of Christ, but only one decisive coming at the end of the world, which includes the resurrection, the rapture, and his appearance in the sky! If there truly was an incarnation, a cross, a death, a burial, a resurrection, and ascension of Jesus two thousand years ago—then we’d have to tear many pages out of the Bible that directly contradict the Jesus of Antiquity. For example, we’d have to throw out Luke 17:30; 1 Pet. 1:5, 20; 1 Cor. 15:22-26, 54-55; Heb. 1:1-2; Heb. 9:26; 2 Tim. 2:18; Rev. 6:2; Rev. 12:1-5; Rev. 19:10-13; Rev. 22:7, 10, 18, 19, not to mention many Old Testament (OT) passages, such as Zeph. 1:7, 15-18; Isa. 2:2, 19; Isa. 9:6; Isa. 34:8; Isa. 63:4; Zech. 12:9-10; Dan. 12:1-4, and so on. Even the gospels themselves imply that the New Testament (NT) account of Jesus is prophetic. In Jesus’ own words, his presence on earth (which includes his passion and death) signifies the end of the world, and the commencement of the Day of Judgment:

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

In Acts 1:6, a book often referred to as the fifth gospel, there is a terse passage in which Jesus’ coming is associated with the restoration of Israel (1948). Compare that to Daniel chapter 9 and verses 24-27 (the so-called 70-week prophecy) where Daniel also prophesies the death of the Messiah after the restoration of Israel. Israel’s restoration is in fact prophesied in many places of the Old Testament, most notably in Ezekiel 38:8!

In Luke 17:20-27 Jesus offers a discourse on the end of days in which he implies that his own passion and death are set for an appointed time in the future:

“Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, ‘The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or, ‘There it is!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst. And He said to the disciples, ‘The days will come when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it. They will say to you, ‘Look there! Look here!’ Do not go away, and do not run after them. For just like the lightning, when it flashes out of one part of the sky, shines to the other part of the sky, so will the Son of Man be in His day. BUT FIRST HE MUST SUFFER MANY THINGS AND BE REJECTED BY THIS [implied, future] GENERATION. And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.” (Emphasis added).

Notice that during his discourse on the end of days, the Jesus character of the gospels promulgates a prophecy which most scholars attribute to his second coming: “For just as the lightning, when it flashes out of one part of the sky, shines to the other part of the sky, so will the Son of Man be in His day” (Luke 17:24). What is surprising, however, is that this omen is then expanded by a most intriguing appendage to the previous verse: “But first He must suffer many things” (17:25). In other words, while “the literary Jesus” is predicting his supposed second coming, according to the common view, this terse statement shockingly reveals that his incarnation must necessarily precede his coming from the sky! And since the entire prophecy is set in the future, the sentence pertaining to Christ’s suffering and rejection “by this [chronologically implied] generation” cannot possibly be understood in any other context except as a reference to a future event. Otherwise we would be dislocating this sentence from the end times setting of the prophecy, thus creating a bizarre anachronism. After all, Jesus prophesies that a long time will pass before we behold “the Son of Man” (Luke 17:22), an idiomatic phrase that is deeply tied to his incarnation (cf. Ps. 8:4; Ezek. 2:1; 12:27; Matt. 9:6; 17:9; 24:44; Gal. 4:4). As a matter of fact, Luke continues by saying that “the Son of Man is revealed” for the first time in the last days (Luke 17:26-30). Thus, the latter portion of the oracle paints Christ’s coming in a very different light and calls for a reexamination of scripture. It sets the prophetic timeline in its proper chronological perspective as it supplies fresh new insights into the future incarnation of Christ: what ought to be called, “the first coming of Jesus!”

The under mentioned verses cannot be understood apart from this future context:

“Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all things be accomplished.” — Luke 21:32.

But which generation is Jesus referring to? Answer: the last one! These verses only make sense within a future context, the implication being that Jesus’ contemporaries are part of the last generation on earth:

“Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.” —Mark 9:1.

If the gospels were historical, then we would have expected Paul to reference at least some of the purported events. Yet there is complete silence from Paul with regard to the gospel narratives. Paul never once mentions Jesus’ birth, the virgin birth, or Bethlehem as his birthplace, the flight into Egypt, the slaughter of the innocents, the Magi, the star of Bethlehem, etc. Paul does not mention this gospel material at all! Why? Paul had many revelations from God and knew about the true mystery of Christ. He knew that we are saved by faith in Jesus’ death and resurrection, which would take place “Once in the end of the world” (Heb. 9:26-27).

Read 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 again. Paul implores us not to be deceived by any rumors claiming that Jesus has already appeared, as though the day of Christ had come! Contrary to popular belief, Paul’s disclaimer insists that these conventions are divisive because they profess to be biblically-based, as if from us, even though this is not the official message of scripture. That is why there is a prophecy of Jesus’ incarnation in Revelation 12:1-5!

Similarly, 1 Peter 1:10-11 tells us unequivocally that the NT writers (prophets) “PREDICTED [or prophesied] the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow” (Emphasis added). Otherwise, Philippians 3:20-21 would not say, “We eagerly wait for a savior, the Lord Jesus,” if he had already come! Hence why we find an explicit verse that introduces us to “The Revelation of Jesus Christ” in Revelation 1:1. And that is why we await the white horse of Rev. 6:2 (who is Christ) with such eager anticipation (cf. Rev. 19:11). The previous verse (Rev. 19:10) tells us that the Jesus account is not historical, but prophetic! Revelation 22:7, 10, 18, and 19 further reiterate that this book is all about prophecy, lest we disregard it as nothing more than a historical composition of its time. In fact, the entire New Testament can be summed up in three words: The Jesus Prophecy!

If we read Isaiah 53:1-9, we would swear that this passage refers to past history, and that Isaiah is recounting an event which occurred before his time. For his verses are saturated with past tenses: “He was despised and rejected by mankind”; “Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering”; “But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities,” and so on. But, surprise, surprise! Despite all of the past tenses, it’s a prophecy that Isaiah is writing about! This passage teaches us that a) past tenses in the Bible do not necessarily reflect past history, and that b) prophecies themselves could equally be set in the past. That is why biblical events are assumed to have taken place – since the authors often use past tense to describe them – even though these events contain prophetic import concerning the future.

If you think that a surface reading of the gospels will give you understanding, you are deeply mistaken:

“The disciples came to him [Jesus] and asked, ‘Why do you speak to the people in parables?’ He replied, ‘Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.’” —Matthew 13:10-11.

Some refer to Galatians 4:4 about Jesus being incarnated during the so-called “fulness of the times,” but they fail to mention that this same idiomatic phrase is defined in Ephesians 1:10 as the end of the world, “that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things upon the earth.” So, if you think you have it all figured out, think again. In the deepest sense, the Bible is not meant to be interpreted, but rather revealed! Whether you know it or not, the Bible is still a mystery:

“But you, Daniel, keep these words secret and seal the book until the time of the end.” —Daniel 12:4.

What the Gospels Are, and What they are Not

By Author Eli of Kittim

Some of my readers have not fully understood my position regarding the gospels because they have not read my book, and therefore do not know the extent of these teachings. As a result, they have voiced their disagreement with my position. But in order to conclusively reject my view on the grounds that it fails to be supported by scripture, certain criteria must be met. However, based on some of my debates, their initial grounds for dismissal are often based on erroneous premises, such as tradition or dogma, conjecture and hearsay. At any rate, whatever it is that they think of my view is patently wrong because they haven’t yet grasped the gist of it. For example, I never said or implied that the gospels are made up stories, or that they were invented or manufactured by the writers themselves. Never was I so bold as to say that the gospels are superstitious myths, or the work of pure fiction with no basis in reality. If this is what some of my readers think, they couldn’t be further from the truth.

So, in my defense, let me explain what the gospels are, and what they are not.

1) I believe that the Gospels were verbally inspired by God (known as “Verbal Plenary Inspiration”). This means that every word of the gospels is God-given (“Plenary” means that the gospels are therefore fully authoritative). A side note: This means that it's not just the gospels, but scripture as a whole is authoritative over tradition or dogma. It means that all church tradition must be subordinated to the authority of Scripture. One of those dogmas that we inherited from the church was that the story of Christ happened in history (presumably from their literal interpretation of the gospels). But unless we check it against scripture, we will never know the validity of this dogma.

2) I also believe that in order to form valid conclusions, we must cross-reference between the gospels and the epistles to make sure that the account of Jesus is the same in all these texts and does not vary or present any major problems, especially with regard to chronology (i.e. the timing of his coming). A side note: When we engage in this type of study, certain things become immediately evident:

a) the authors of the Epistles do not mention a lot of the gospel material. For instance, they never once mention the birth narrative of Jesus, the virgin birth, the Flight into Egypt, the Star of Bethlehem, the magi, or even the city of Bethlehem as Jesus’ birth place. Now, that should raise some red flags.

b) In some cases, the authors of the Epistles seemingly contradict the gospels (I say “seemingly” because they don’t really contradict them, it only appears as such from our particular viewpoint) because they allude to Christ’s revelation as occurring “once at the consummation of the ages” (Heb.9:26), or in the “last days” (Heb. 1:1-2), so that the correct timing of Christ’s coming suddenly becomes an open question!

3) Even within the gospel texts themselves, we find language that seems more consistent with the epistles than with the church’s dogma (remember that in all of this, our dispute is not with the gospels per se, but rather with the “interpretation” of the gospels as put forth by church tradition). In the gospel of Luke, there is some indication that the suffering and rejection of Christ is ascribed not to the present, but to a future generation:

“Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He [Jesus] answered them and said, ‘The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; … The days shall come [centuries will pass] when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man and you will not see it. … For just as the lightning, when it flashes out of one part of the sky, shines to the other part of the sky, so will the Son of Man be in His day. BUT FIRST HE MUST SUFFER MANY THINGS AND BE REJECTED BY THIS [implied, future] GENERATION. And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it shall be also in the days of the Son of Man: they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, … until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all’” (17:20-27, emphasis added).

During his discourse on the end of days, Jesus promulgates a prophecy which most scholars attribute to his second coming: “For just as the lightning, when it flashes out of one part of the sky, shines to the other part of the sky, so will the Son of Man be in His day” (Luke 17:24). What is surprising, however, is that this prophecy is then expanded by a most intriguing appendage to the previous verse: “But first He must suffer many things” (17:25). In other words, while “the literary Jesus” is predicting his supposed second coming, according to the common view, this terse statement shockingly reveals that his incarnation must necessarily precede his coming from the sky! And since the entire prophecy is set in the future, the sentence pertaining to Christ’s suffering and rejection “by this [chronologically implied] generation” cannot possibly be understood in any other context except as a reference to a future event. Otherwise we would be dislocating this sentence from the end times setting of the prophecy, thus creating a bizarre anachronism. After all, Jesus prophesies that a long time will pass before we behold “the Son of Man” (Luke 17:22), an idiomatic phrase that is deeply tied to his incarnation (Ps. 8:4; Matt. 9:6; 17:9; 24:44; Gal. 4:4). In fact, Luke goes on to say that Jesus will be initially revealed ("ἀποκαλύπτεται" in Greek) in the last days:

“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all. ... It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed" (Luke 17:26-30).

Now, let’s compare that passage with one from the epistles. Notice that 1 Peter 1:7 exhorts us to have faith so that we are ready “at the revelation of Jesus Christ,” which is “revealed in the last days” (1 Peter 1:5), and then Peter declares categorically and unequivocally that “the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories” that would follow are really prophecies or “predictions”:

“Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he PREDICTED the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories.” (1 Peter 1:10-11, emphasis added, ESV).

4) To shed some light to this apparent controversy, we must also consult the Old Testament. But wherever we look there, we find one prophecy after another that seems to support the epistolary view of Jesus rather than the historical view of the gospels. Zephaniah 1:7, Daniel 12:1-2, Zechariah 12:9-10, and Isaiah 2:19 all place the death and resurrection of the Messiah at “the end of time” (Dan. 12:4). It is not a coincidence that Rabbinical scholars, steeped in Hebrew Scripture, also conclude that, according to their writings, the Messiah will appear once in the last days!

5) There are also literary and historical considerations. We now know that the gospels were written approximately 40-70 years after the purported events, which would indicate that they do not contain eyewitness reports, something the early church was not privy to during the formation of their dogma. Therefore, most of the evidence seems to confirm the epistolary view of Jesus, and the only thing standing in its way from being unanimous is the church’s dogma, which is a thorn in its side because it also creates all of the apparent biblical confusion that is expressed through various diametrically opposed views, such as Preterism versus Futurism, and the like.

Conclusion

Therefore, based on these findings, we must rightly conclude that although the gospels are the word of God, nevertheless, their purpose and function within the New Testament cannot be to give us a literal interpretation of history. After all, the Bible is not a book on science or history, but a book of faith! And if the gospels are the word of God—giving us an outline of the life of Christ within the context of the entire history of mankind, not just past history—then they must be theological documents that give us a glimpse of Jesus’ future history through theological language that imparts instruction into the meanings of salvation, the Messiah, and the nature of God. In other words, the gospels are a mixed bag of theology, history (history written in advance; cf. Isa. 46:10), and prophecy!

The Jesus Story: History or Prophecy?

By Author Eli of Kittim

There is no good evidence to support that Jesus is a real historical figure. The mainstream view concerning the New Testament account of Jesus is fatally flawed. It is inconsistent, and in order for it to work, it must either ignore or gloss over many critical passages. For instance, it contradicts many explicit passages from both the Old and New Testaments regarding an earthly, end-times Messiah (cf. Zeph. 1:7, 15-18; Isa. 2:2, 19; Dan. 12:1-2; Zech. 12:9-10; Heb. 1:1-2; Heb. 9:26; 1 Pet. 1:20; 2 Thess. 2:1-3, 7-8; Rev. 12:1-5), and uses bizarre gaps and anachronistic juxtapositions in chronology in order to make heterogeneous passages appear homogeneous. The existing schema simply does not fit in with the context and content of these passages, nor does it fit into any of the Old or New Testament prophecies either.

What is more, this historical interpretation of Jesus is in error because it confuses theology with history, and tradition with scripture! Let us not forget that much of what we know about this subject is based on tradition, not scripture. And the prevailing view is largely based on a superficial, surface reading of the gospels. In retrospect, it appears that the gospels are giving us a theological outline of Christ’s life, not a purely historical one. For example, scholars now dispute that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. And even if we suppose that it were true, then why doesn’t Paul mention that? Let us not forget that some of Paul’s writings predate the gospels. The idea that Jesus is born in Bethlehem is a theological statement intended to connect Jesus with the Old Testament and to assure us that he is indeed the prophesied Messiah of Hebrew Scripture. Anything more than that would be reading too much into the text. Similarly, Jesus is called the King of the Jews in order to show that he is the new David, the Messianic fulfillment of Hebrew Scripture. Just as he supposedly goes to Egypt in order to show that he is the new Moses. These passages are not meant to be taken literally. They are theological statements.

But, in contrast to Christian Mythicism, I firmly believe that the Bible is verbally inspired by God. Hence I accept the authority of Scripture. However, I am convinced that, according to the Bible, Jesus neither existed, nor was he meant to exist during the time of Antiquity. Therefore, I still believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Lord (God-incarnate), who will appear on earth (for the first time) at the end of the world!

Furthermore, I believe there were eyewitness reports coming from the earliest Christian prophets, but these contained visions of Jesus, not physical encounters. The eyewitnesses saw Jesus just as Paul had seen him. And everyone knows that Paul saw visions of Christ. But Paul never saw Jesus in the flesh! There are many scriptural references to that effect. For example, 1 Peter 1:11 states that the account of Jesus was prophesied by the Holy Spirit, “As he [the Holy Spirit] predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow.” Revelation 19:10 further reveals that the New Testament account of Jesus is not historical: “For it is the Spirit of prophecy who bears testimony to Jesus.“ And Hebrews 9:26 confirms this view by issuing the following statement concerning the precise chronological timing of Christ’s appearance and sacrifice: “Once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” In some cases, the authors of the Epistles seemingly contradict the gospels because they allude to Christ’s manifestation as occurring in the “last days” (Heb. 1:1-2), so that the correct timing of Christ’s coming suddenly becomes an open question. Thus, according to my research, both the Old and New Testaments agree that the Messiah will come once at the end of time!

There is no mention of Jesus in any secular writings until about 100 AD

(The following is an excerpt from The Washington Post, “Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn’t add up.” Raphael Lataster, Ph.D. Religious scholar)

“The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about the Historical Jesus is the lack of early sources. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources – which they also fail to identify. Paul’s Epistles, written earlier than the Gospels, give us no reason to dogmatically declare Jesus must have existed. Avoiding Jesus’ earthly events and teachings, even when the latter could have bolstered his own claims, Paul only describes his ‘Heavenly Jesus.’ Even when discussing what appear to be the resurrection and the last supper, his only stated sources are his direct revelations from the Lord, and his indirect revelations from the Old Testament. In fact, Paul actually rules out human sources (see Galatians 1:11-12). Also important are the sources we don’t have. There are no existing eyewitnesses or contemporary accounts of Jesus. All we have are later descriptions of Jesus’ life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of who are obviously biased. Little can be gleaned from the few non-Biblical and non-Christian sources, with only Roman scholar Josephus and historian Tacitus having any reasonable claim to be writing about Jesus within 100 years of his life. And even those sparse accounts are shrouded in controversy, with disagreements over what parts have obviously been changed by Christian scribes (the manuscripts were preserved by Christians), the fact that both these authors were born after Jesus died (they would thus have probably received this information from Christians), and the oddity that centuries go by before Christian apologists start referencing them.”

(The following is an excerpt from Valerie Tarico’s article, “Five Reasons to Suspect Jesus Never Existed,” published in ExChristian.net)

“How Jesus Became God” by Bart Ehrman.

No first century secular evidence whatsoever exists to support the actuality of Jesus. In the words of Bart Ehrman (who himself thinks the Jesus stories were built on a historical kernel):

“What sorts of things do pagan authors from the time of Jesus have to say about him? Nothing. As odd as it may seem, there is no mention of Jesus at all by any of his pagan contemporaries. There are no birth records, no trial transcripts, no death certificates; there are no expressions of interest, no heated slanders, no passing references – nothing. In fact, if we broaden our field of concern to the years after his death – even if we include the entire first century of the Common Era – there is not so much as a solitary reference to Jesus in any non-Christian, non-Jewish source of any kind. I should stress that we do have a large number of documents from the time – the writings of poets, philosophers, historians, scientists, and government officials, for example, not to mention the large collection of surviving inscriptions on stone and private letters and legal documents on papyrus. In none of this vast array of surviving writings is Jesus’ name ever so much as mentioned.” (pp. 56-57)

“The earliest New Testament writers seem ignorant of the details of Jesus’ life, which become more crystalized in later texts. Paul seems unaware of any virgin birth, for example. No wise men, no star in the east, no miracles. Historians have long puzzled over the ‘Silence of Paul’ on the most basic biographical facts and teachings of Jesus. Paul fails to cite Jesus’ authority precisely when it would make his case. What’s more, he never calls the twelve apostles Jesus’ disciples; in fact, he never says Jesus HAD disciples –or a ministry, or did miracles, or gave teachings. He virtually refuses to disclose any other biographical detail, and the few cryptic hints he offers aren’t just vague, but contradict the gospels. The leaders of the early Christian movement in Jerusalem like Peter and James are supposedly Jesus’ own followers and family; but Paul dismisses them as nobodies and repeatedly opposes them for not being true Christians!

Liberal theologian Marcus Borg suggests that people read the books of the New Testament in chronological order to see how early Christianity unfolded. 'Placing the Gospels after Paul makes it clear that as written documents they are not the source of early Christianity but its product. The Gospel — the good news — of and about Jesus existed before the Gospels. They are the products of early Christian communities several decades after Jesus’ historical life and tell us how those communities saw his significance in their historical context.’

Even the New Testament stories don’t claim to be first-hand accounts. We now know that the four gospels were assigned the names of the apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, not written by them. To make matter sketchier, the name designations happened sometime in second century, around 100 years or more after Christianity supposedly began. For a variety of reasons, the practice of pseudonymous writing was common at the time and many contemporary documents are 'signed' by famous figures. The same is true of the New Testament epistles except for a handful of letters from Paul (6 out of 13) which are broadly thought to be genuine. But even the gospel stories don’t actually say, 'I was there.' Rather, they claim the existence of other witnesses, a phenomenon familiar to anyone who has heard the phrase, my aunt knew someone who … .”

Conclusion

These are Biblical Scholars who are giving us all of the critical, historical, and textual data to date. They are experts in the field (academics) who are informing us of the facts of scholarship. Even if we disagree with them, there are still certain facts that most scholars agree on that are indisputable, which give us a very clear picture of early Christianity and of Jesus. This cannot be denied.

However, this does not mean that the biblical story of Jesus is “fraudulent” or “manufactured,” as some writers have suggested. These writers got stuck on the Gospels without consulting the rest of the New Testament, namely, the Epistles and the book of Revelation, which tell us categorically and unequivocally that the biblical story of Jesus is a matter of prophecy, not history. In the final analysis, the Gospels are non-historical stories that foretell the prophecy of Christ’s coming!

How Credible is the Evidence for the Historical Jesus?

By Author Eli Kittim

I recently had a discussion with a Christian apologist who, in reaction to our conversation, posted on his blog a list of 9 sources outside the New Testament and a series of texts composed in subsequent centuries to prove the existence of Jesus.

He mentions Josephus, who is writing roughly 70 years after the purported events, and whose references to Jesus have been the source of much controversy in that they may have been subject to Christian redaction (interpolation/expansion/alteration). Incidentally, the scholarly consensus concerning the historicity of Jesus is largely influenced by the writings of Josephus. But Josephus was presumably familiar with some of the early gospels and other NT writings. So, why should his reference to John the Baptist be considered as constituting factual history? The same could be said about his references to Jesus!

Next, he mentions Phlegon who is writing in the second century about a rumored eclipse that allegedly occurred in 29 AD.  Then he mentions a group of people like Suetonius, Thallus,  Mara Bar Serapion, all of whose writings are considered ambiguous with regard to Jesus (we’re not sure if the references are to Christ or not), and which range from the late 1st to the 3rd century CE.

Some of these writings refer to Christian superstitions, such as the virginal conception of Christ, including those of Celsius (whom the blogger cites) who defends paganism and actually refers to Jesus as a person born to a Roman father. Celsius is not only writing 150 years later, but he’s also embellishing the story with anti-Christian sentiment.

Firstly, these are not independent eyewitness accounts. Secondly, some of these writers have obviously been influenced by the gospels—as is the case with Celsius who is probably drawing on Matthew and Tacitus who is presumably drawing on Luke—and, thirdly, they are writing approximately 70 to 200 years after the purported events.

In other cases, we are either dealing with explicit historical inaccuracies, or with authors who are known for sometimes embellishing a story with myth. For example, Josephus is also known for his expansion on the Moses story, as we find in the Midrash, making it difficult for us to ascertain what is real and what is mythical in some of his works. Take Justin Martyr, for example, whom the blogger cites. Writing in the second century, he proved to be historically inaccurate. In his “Apology” (1.31), for instance, he incorrectly claimed that Ptolemy, under whom the Septuagint had been translated, was a contemporary of Herod. Given his inattention to historical detail, how credible is his reference to the trial of Jesus? Not to mention his reference to the census under Quirinius, which did not exist, or at least not in the way that Luke describes it. So, he’s obviously drawing on the gospel of Luke, and he is, after all, a Christian apologist.

Despite all these discrepancies and historical inaccuracies, this Christian blogger nevertheless mentions all these figures and suggests that they provide indisputable truth for the historical existence of Jesus.

In the final analysis, the fact that Jesus is not mentioned anywhere outside the New Testament for about 70 years after his alleged death should certainly raise some red flags about his existence. It means that Jesus is missing from the historical record until the late first century AD. And the earliest New Testament texts do not mention anything about a historical Jesus, or about his birth or ministry, as we find in later developments (expansions).

And yet, despite the lack of historical evidence, Christ is still who he claims to be, to wit, the son of God! After reading this essay, you might understandably wonder how I can possibly make such a claim. How could I say that Jesus never existed and in the same breath claim to believe in him? Well, because if you study the New Testament you’ll find that Jesus was never meant to come in Antiquity, but rather at the end of the world (Luke 17:30; 1 Peter 1:5, 20; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3; Hebrews 1:1-2; Hebrews 9:26; Revelation 12:1-5; etc.).

The historical Jesus is based more on mistaken assumptions about the evangelists’ intentions than careful interpretation of their writings. I’m arguing that the traditional Christian understanding of the theology of the gospels is fundamentally incorrect. We have confused apocalyptic literature with history, and turned prophecy into biography. It’s not just the evangelists’ theological problem in finding the literary means to get Jesus to Bethlehem so as to fulfill Micah’s prophecy, it’s ours as well since our “theological needs here create biographical ‘facts’" (W.D. Davies, and E.P. Sanders).

Even so, the gospels are still valid as they give us a theological outline of Christ’s life using stories that are filtered down from the Old Testament. So, in conclusion, the gospels are prophetic parables or apocalyptic stories that are to be believed (paradoxically) and handed down to posterity until the time of their fulfillment:

“Once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. … After this the judgment" (Hebrews 9:26-27).

Isaiah 9:6 Weighs Whether the Messiah is God (Christian Position) or a Mere Mortal (Judaic View)

By Author Eli of Kittim

I will present three examples from Isaiah Chapter 9 and verse 6 (which illustrate the Messiah’s Divinity) to demonstrate that the Hebrew text is not referring to a person of mere human origin, as Judaism suggests.

Let me introduce the first point of my argument. In Isaiah Chapter 9 and verse 6, the Hebrew word פֶלֶא “pele” (Strong’s H6382) is derived from the term “pala’,” which means “a miracle”– a marvellous wonder; as in the phrase “signs and wonders" (cf. Exod 15:11; Psalm 77:11, 14; Psalm 78:12; Psalm 88:10). Therefore, the standard English translation of the Hebrew term פֶלֶא “pele” as merely “wonderful” (in Isaiah 9:6) is not entirely accurate or adequate because it fails to address the nuances of this expression, which suggest that this child is associated with miracles and wonders! In other words, the term “pele” (Hb. פֶלֶא “Wonder”) implies that this is no ordinary child (not your typical human being), thereby suggesting the possibility of his divine or supernatural origin.

Secondly, Isaiah 9:6 says that this “son” (Hb. בֵּ֚ן “ben”; Strong’s H1121 i.e., “messianic child”) is called “mighty” (Hb. גִּבּוֹר “gibbor” Strong’s H1368) “God” (Hb. אֵ֣ל “el” Strong’s H410). The attribution of the phrase “mighty God” to the Messiah confirms the previous allusion regarding his ability to work wonders while admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding that this appellation of Messiah implies he is indeed God incarnate!

Thirdly, in Isaiah 9:6, the Messiah is called “the Prince” (Hb. שַׂר־ “sar” Strong’s H8269), “the everlasting” (Hb. עַד “ad” derived from “adah,” which means “perpetuity,” “continually,” or “eternally” Strong’s H5703). In other words, this “son” that “is given” to us as a gift (Hb. נִתַּן־ “nit·tān” Strong’s H5414) is from everlasting! As a supplemental observation, compare Micah 5:2 regarding the Messiah, “whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.”

Similarly, in Daniel 7:14 it is said that the Messiah’s kingdom is “everlasting” (Hb. עָלַם֙ “alam” Strong’s H5957), thus presumably reinforcing the notion that the Messiah (Hb. בַּר אֱנָשׁ “bar enash” i.e., “son of man” Dan 7:13) is himself everlasting. That’s why Isaiah 2:19 and Zephaniah 1:7 seemingly refer to the Messiah as “Lord” (Hb. יְהוָה֙ “Yhvh”), and why Zechariah 12:10 suggests that God (Hb. אֵלַ֖י “El”) himself  is looked upon by those who pierce him, followed by a world-wide mourning in the last days.

No wonder John 1:1-2 tells us categorically that the “Word” (Gk. Λόγος “Logos” i.e., Christ) is God:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.”

The author of Colossians contributes to this discussion by stating that Christ (i.e., “Messiah” or the Anointed One) “is the image of the invisible God” (1:15).

This is precisely why the great messianic prince named Michael is likened to God in Daniel 12:1 (Hb. מִיכָאֵל “Mikael” i.e., “Who is like God?” Strong’s H4317), and why the name of the messianic child in Isaiah 7:14 is “Immanuel” (עִמָּנוּאֵל i.e., God is with us).

Conclusion

Isaiah 9:6 in the original Hebrew text paints a divine picture of the Messiah, unlike the one erroniously drawn by traditional Judaism of a mere human being!

What did Moses Mean when he Said that God will Raise Up a Prophet Like Me? Was he Referring to Muhammad or to Someone Else?

By Author Eli Kittim 🎓

Deuteronomy 18.15 foretold the coming of a notable prophet after the manner of Moses whose words would command everyone’s attention. Here, we must use the principle of "double-fulfillment" in the interpretation of Bible prophecy. The first fulfillment of the prophecy refers to Joshua, who was to succeed Moses as leader. However, the second fulfillment of the prophecy refers to the prophetic line that would follow, ultimately culminating in Jesus Christ, the Messiah (see Acts 3.20-21), as this Torahic prophecy was then carried forward into the New Testament and recorded in the Book of Acts:

 “Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you from your own people a prophet like me. You must listen to whatever he tells you. And it will be that everyone who does not listen to that prophet will be utterly rooted out from the people’” (3.22—23; cf. 7.37).

The Greek text is as follows:

Μωϋσῆς μὲν εἶπεν ὅτι

προφήτην ὑμῖν ἀναστήσει κύριος ὁ θεὸς

ὑμῶν ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ὑμῶν ὡς ἐμέ· αὐτοῦ ἀκούσεσθε κατὰ πάντα ὅσα ἂν

λαλήσῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς.

ἔσται δὲ πᾶσα ψυχὴ ἥτις ἐὰν μὴ ἀκούσῃ τοῦ προφήτου ἐκείνου 

ἐξολεθρευθήσεται ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ.

The key word, here, is ἀναστήσει (“raise up”). The Greek word ἀναστήσει is derived from the verb ἀνίστημι, which means to “raise up” or to “raise from the dead” (see G. W. H. Lampe [ed.], A Patristic Greek Lexicon [Oxford: Oxford University, 1961], pp. 145—46). The term ἀναστήσει—just like its cognates ἀναστήσεται and ἀναστήσονται—seemingly refers to a resurrection from the dead (see e.g. Mk 9.31; Lk. 18.33; Jn 11.23—24; 1 Thess. 4.16).

In Deuteronomy 18.15, the Hebrew term is קוּמ֖ (qum). The word qum means to “stand up” or to “raise up,” but all too often it means to “rise from the dead” (e.g. Isa. 26.19; Mk 5.39—42). Since the Septuagint (LXX) translates it as ἀναστήσει, it is reasonable to assume that Luke, the author of Acts, is drawing his inspiration from the LXX. 

Notice also that Acts 10.41 uses a cognate of the word ἀναστήσει (Acts 3.22), namely, ἀναστῆναι to refer to a resurrection from the dead (cf. Acts 17.3; Mk 9.10; Lk. 24.46; Jn 20.9). Interestingly enough, the New Testament uses yet another resurrection theme (ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστῇ) and a cognate of the word ἀναστήσει in reference to the teachings of Moses: “‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead’” (Lk. 16.31). What is more, the phrase “raise up” (Acts 3.22) in connection with Moses’ reference to a future great prophet is also used in Acts 5.30 to denote Jesus’ resurrection: “‘The God of our ancestors raised up Jesus, whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree.’”

Conclusion

Based on translation and exegesis of Greek and Hebrew, Moses’ prophecy that “God will raise up [ἀναστήσει; qum] … a prophet like me” gives us a criterion by which its fulfillment may be judged. In other words, by this sign everyone will know that the notable prophet has indeed come. And what is this sign? It is simply this: the great prophet like unto Moses will be raised from the dead! In using this criterion of resurrection, we’ll be able to identify whether he is a true or false prophet.

Accordingly, Muhammad cannot lay claim to Moses’ prophecy, given that he has not been brought back from the grave. There can only be one person who fits the bill of the great prophet predicted by Moses in Deuteronomy 18.15 (Acts 3.19–23): Jesus Christ!

After all, Jesus Christ himself says that Moses “wrote about Me” (John 5.46)!

Have Any Aspects of Daniel’s Seventy-Week Prophecy Been Fulfilled?

By Author Eli Kittim 

To begin with, here’s an excerpt from my book, The Little book of Revelation: 

“The rebirth of Israel marks a turning point in apocalyptic expectations, and Christ’s message concerning end-time events seems to point toward this 1948 prophetic countdown: 

‘Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place’ (Matt. 24.34). 

But what on earth does he mean by this? In order to comprehend this terse remark, we must inquire into the standard time limit of a Biblical generation. The Book of Psalms makes known that a generation is equal to seventy actual years (90.10). Similarly, a noteworthy Hebrew soothsayer named Jeremiah exclaims that the Deity will intervene in earthly affairs after a seventy-year period has elapsed (25.12). Daniel, one of the most prominent seers of the Jewish Scriptures, also claims that the Deity has appointed a portent which consists of a seventy-week interval until the conclusion of all things is finalized (9.24). Among scholarly circles, this prophecy is known as The Seventy Weeks of Daniel… . The proof is found in a revered text called the Book of Daniel. In a vision, ‘The man [named] Gabriel’ appears before Daniel to grant him ‘insight with understanding’ (9.21-22). The angelic man imparts a cryptic scriptural clue which, in effect, equates the seventy weeks of Daniel with the seventy-year oracle revealed to Jeremiah (Dan. 9.2; cf. Jer. 29.10)… . Gabriel is basically showing us that the seventy years of Jeremiah’s prophecy must continue to be calculated as years within Daniel’s seventy weeks’ oracle. Clearly, more specific details are ultimately furnished by Daniel’s seventy-week vision, but the reason why Jeremiah’s seventy years are now termed as weeks is for the purpose of allowing us to perform calculations using weeks as the standard of measuring time in addition to using actual years. Taken together, both prophecies refer to an actual seventy-year period whose completion will signal the end of the world (Dan. 9.24). But the details at the micro level entail calculations, which combine measurements in both weeks and years.” 

As I will show, Daniel’s seventy weeks’ prophecy refers exclusively to the end-time and has nothing to do with the time of Antiquity. A common misconception is to assume that the starting point of this prophecy began after the Hebrews returned from the Babylonian exile during the 500’s B.C.E. However, there are many problems with this theory. For one, the Babylonian exile didn’t last for 70 years. Historically, if the first deportation came after the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar II in c. 586 BCE, and the Jews returned to Judah in c. 538 BCE & began to rebuild the second temple in Jerusalem in c. 537 BCE, according to the Book of Ezra, then the Jews were actually held in Babylonian captivity for approximately 48 years, not 70! Thus, Jeremiah’s prophecy (29.10) is seemingly referring to the end-times Babylon of Revelation 18 (cf. Dan. 9.2). And that’s precisely what we find in the 70-week prophecy of Daniel. Daniel’s prophecy actually refers to the end of all visions and revelations, an end-time period that will in effect “seal both vision and prophet” (Dan. 9.24). The fact that John of Patmos continued to furnish us with additional visions and revelations many years later proves that the interim between the Babylonian exile and the coming of Christ in or around 30 CE cannot possibly be the timeline of Daniel’s prophecy. John MacArthur, in describing Dan.9.24, was once quoted as saying: “It’s got to be a final thing cause everything is a final… . Boy, that’s final stuff, isn’t it? The end, the finish, the seal, seal it up, close it up, that’s the way it is!” If it is “final stuff,” then the prophecy cannot possibly be referring to the time of Antiquity but rather to the time of the end! Note also that this prophecy refers to “times of distress” (Dan. 9.25 NASB), a phrase which is also used to refer to the time of the end (Dan. 12.1 NASB). 

The traditional Christian interpretation is further compounded by breaking up the prophecy into two parts: one part fulfilled during the time of Antiquity, the other referring to the last week of the great tribulation. In other words, exegetes assume that there is a two thousand-year gap between the so-called “sixty nine” weeks and the seventieth week. However, there is no indication of a long time-gap between these weeks, but rather a successive sequence of events, thus rendering the expositors’ imposition on the text unwarranted: 

‘Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city: to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. Know therefore and understand: from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an anointed prince, there shall be seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with streets and moat, but in a troubled time. After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. He shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall make sacrifice and offering cease; and in their place shall be an abomination that desolates, until the decreed end is poured out upon the desolator’ (9.24—27 NRSV). 

 Here are some further observations excerpted from my book, The Little Book of Revelation: 

“The terminology of Daniel’s prophecy suggests that we must use both weeks and actual years in calculating the Messiah’s advent within the overall context of the seventy-year time period… . Many experts have erred in their interpretations by either attributing the starting date of these prophecies to the period of time when the Jews returned to Palestine from their Babylonian captivity – sometime between roughly 538 and 536 B.C. – or by separating them (Jeremiah’s seventy years and Daniel’s seventy weeks) as if they are two mutually exclusive oracles that employ different calculation techniques. 

 At any rate, if we resume our discussion of Christ’s prophecy (Matt. 24.34)—as mentioned earlier in this section—the issue of the seventy-year generation will now become immediately apparent. Jesus is indicating that it will take one generation since the rebirth of Israel ‘until all these things take place’ (Matt. 24.34; cf. 1 Thess. 4.15). Modern Israel, then, becomes the preeminent sign as regards the end of days.” 

I should mention parenthetically that the original text was written without punctuation, thus making it difficult to determine where commas and periods should be placed. For example, some inferior translations of Dan. 9.25 do not separate the seven and sixty-two weeks, thus giving us the wrong impression that they comprise sixty nine weeks. However, the more accurate versions (e.g. NRSV; ESV) do properly separate them, implying that they represent two distinct time periods. Isaac Newton—in his Observations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel (published 1733)—notes that we should not combine the seven and sixty two weeks as if they were one number. That is a spot-on interpretation by Newton. Quite frankly, if the authorial intent was to impress upon us the notion that the numbers seven and sixty-two must be combined, using the same measurements, the author would have simply written sixty nine weeks. The fact that two sets of numbers are given in the text suggests that they are distinct. 

What is more—in stark contrast to the mainstream view—Newton also mentions in the aforesaid book that Daniel’s seventy weeks prophecy should not be confined to the time of Antiquity, but must be applicable to Christ’s eschatological coming. Just like in Revelation 12.3—4 in which the final empire is contemporaneous with Christ—(i.e. “a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns … stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, so that he might devour her child as soon as it was born”)—so in Dan. 9.26 the two princes of Daniel’s prophecy are juxtaposed to suggest that they are contemporaries: ‘After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed’ (NRSV). According to the text, there does not appear to be a two-thousand-year gap separating these two figures or events. Moreover, the Old Greek Daniel form of the Septuagint (LXX) says in Daniel 9.27, ἕως καιροῦ συντελείας, (i.e. “until the time of the end”; cf. Dan. 12.4 LXX), indicating that the context of this verse is clearly eschatological. 

 First of all, Dan. 9.24—26 predicts the return of the Jews to Palestine, which occurred in 1948 (cf. Isa. 11.11). It also forecasts the atoning sacrifice of a forthcoming Messiah, an event which, according to the Danielic text, has not yet occurred. Furthermore, Dan. 9.26 informs us that the Messiah will be ‘cut off,’ which in Biblical terminology means slain (cf. Prov. 2.22; Ps. 37.9). In working out these calculations, one comes to realize the approximate date signifying the epoch of the forthcoming Messiah. So, if we apply Jesus’ prophecy (i.e. ‘this generation will not pass away until all these things take place’; Matt. 24.34) to Jeremiah’s seventy-year time frame (Dan. 9.1—3; cf. Ps. 90.10), we get one generation of seventy years after the rebirth of Israel (1948), which would bring us to 2018 CE! 

Surprisingly, a different calculation yields similar results. On June 7, 1967, Jerusalem (the holy city) was captured by Israel. Even if 1967 becomes the starting point of a different calculation, the result is identical. For instance, the seven weeks can be measured in weeks of years (cf. Gen. 29.27-28; Lev. 25.8), whereas the sixty-two weeks could be calculated using only days (cf. Lev. 23.15—16). Thus, the ‘seven weeks’ may represent fifty years (e.g. a jubilee), whereas the ‘sixty-two weeks’ would signify a period of approximately one year plus two and one-half months. In other words, both measurements would equal to 51 years in total. This is how the calculation looks like if we take Jerusalem as our starting point: 1967 + 50y (7 weeks) = 2017 + 1y (62 weeks) = 2018! Once again, we arrive at the same date (i.e. 2018), namely, one generation of seventy years after the rebirth of Israel! In fact, from June 7, 1967 to August 21, 2018 or thereabouts is approximately fifty one years and two and one-half months, using a 365-day calendar, which is the equivalent of seven weeks of years plus sixty two weeks of days. Could this be the initial fulfillment of the prophecy? Or is it perhaps the year 2019 or 2020, given that the prophecy must be fulfilled *after* the seventy years have elapsed? This would bring us to the starting point of the end-times, namely, 2019, in which began a terrifying era for the human race. 2019 brought about pandemics, lockdowns, passport mandates where “no one can buy or sell who does not have the mark” (Rev. 13.17), mass media censorship, mass hysteria & psychosis, the abolition of human rights, the totalitarian global control of the masses, the mass protests, and the starting point of the so-called “Great Reset” that has been planned by the elite & the heads of governments for some time. Whichever it is, the Bible warns us to be vigilant:

‘From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away’ (Matt. 24.32—35).

Christ Says, “I Am Coming like a Thief”: In Other Words, like a Criminal

By Author Eli Kittim

The first point I’d like to make is that “there is no one who understands” Scripture (Rom. 3:11). Deuteronomy 21 declares that “someone guilty of a capital offense is put to death and their body is exposed on a pole” (v. 22), and further states that “anyone who is hung on a pole is under God’s curse” (v. 23). And yet, Galatians 3:13 maintains that “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.’” Moreover, Christ explicitly identifies himself with the snake mentioned in the Book of Numbers when he says, “Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up” (Jn. 3:14). Remember that the snake gave life, but only to those who beheld it: “So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they lived” (Num. 21:9). In other words, Christ is portrayed as a criminal (i.e., a snake, which represents a sinner) who is under God’s curse.

In his commentary on the Letter to the Galatians, Martin Luther wrote:

“All the prophets of old said that Christ should be the greatest transgressor, murderer, adulterer, thief, blasphemer that ever was or ever could be on earth. When he took the sins of the whole world upon himself, Christ was no longer an innocent person. . . . In short, Christ was charged with the sins of all men, that he should pay for them with his own blood. The curse struck him. The Law found him among sinners. He was not only in the company of sinners. He had gone so far as to invest himself with the flesh and blood of sinners. So the Law judged and hanged him for a sinner.”

This means that all the sins that have ever been committed throughout human history are put on the back of Jesus. Pastor Matt Richard writes,

“And then to top it off God judged Jesus to be GUILTY for the whole package. . . . The weight of that, the horror, the dread and the enormity of it all is incomprehensible. It caused Jesus to cry out to his Father, ‘My God.... Why have you forsaken me?’ . . . . As repulsive as it may sound to us, only in this truth—that Jesus became SIN—is our hope and our salvation found.”

Second Corinthians 5:21 provides the basis for this interpretation. It reads, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us.” However, when we look at the Greek text (Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th ed.), it reads: τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν (2 Cor. 5:21). The word ἐποίησεν is based on the verb ποιέω (poieó), which means to “make,” to “produce” (G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, p. 1107) or to “do.” It does not mean “to be,” as in the alternative translation: “God made him . . . to be sin for us” (cf. Jn 4:46 where ἐποίησεν means “made” water into wine). Thus, the correct reading of 2 Cor. 5:21 is as follows: “in our behalf He did make sin” (Young's Literal Translation). The Good News Translation—which reads, “God made him share our sin”—is far closer to the YLT and the original Greek text than the NIV, NASB or the KJV. Nevertheless, even the mainstream rendering of ἐποίησεν (i.e., “to be sin”) implies that Christ became “sin,” so to speak, by taking upon him our fallen, sinful nature: “He became like a human being and appeared in human likeness” (Phil. 2:7). How else could he be “fully human in every way” (Heb. 2:17), share our humanity (Heb. 2:14) and be tempted if he doesn’t have a sin nature? (cf. the Infancy Gospel of Thomas). You cannot tempt someone who, by definition, is incapable of being tempted: “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are” (Heb. 4:15). In this regard, 2 Peter 3:15—16 poignantly notes that “Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures.”

Sin is evil. If Christ became sin, or made sin, then Christ became evil in some sense via the incarnation because he took on our nature and became a sinner. Kenneth Copeland rightly asks: “Why did Moses raise a serpent instead of a lamb?” John Chrysostom, an important Early Church Father, writes: “God allowed His Son to suffer as if a condemned sinner . . .” (Homily on 1 Cor. 11:5). That is why Christ is punished; because “the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa. 53:6). And, according to the gospel narratives, Jesus is arrested, tried, condemned to death, and later executed as a criminal (i.e. an enemy of the state)!

But the real question is, did this happen in Antiquity or is God “declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done”? (Isa. 46:10). Revelation 12:5 suggests that Christ’s incarnation is a future event that takes place in the end-times. First Peter 1:20 similarly says, “God chose him as your ransom long before the world began, but he has now revealed him to you in these last days” (cf. Heb. 1:1—2). What’s more, Hebrews 9:26 explicitly states: “Once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” The NIV says that his death takes place “at the culmination of the ages,” while the NASB puts it, “at the consummation of the ages.” The NRSV associates Christ’s sacrifice with the end-times by rendering it “at the end of the age.” The Greek text is as follows: ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων εἰς ἀθέτησιν [τῆς] ἁμαρτίας διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ πεφανέρωται. Lampe defines the word συντελείᾳ as ‘consummation’ (i.e. the ultimate end), particularly in reference to Heb. 9:26 συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων and Mt.13:39 συντελείᾳ τοῦ αἰῶνος. Appropriately, the NJB equates Christ’s initial appearance on earth with the last days. It reads: “He was marked out before the world was made, and was revealed at the final point of time” (1 Pet. 1:20).

Let us now try to understand the meaning of the phrase, “I am coming like a thief!” (Rev. 16:15). In Matthew 24:43, a thief is depicted as one who breaks into a house to steal another person's property. He is commonly known as a burglar and is considered to be a criminal. Here is “Martin Luther’s Commentary on Galatians 3:13: Christ, The Greatest Of Sinners?”

(Galatians 3:13. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written: Cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree)

“It was appropriate for Him to become a thief and, as Isaiah says (53:12), to be 'numbered among the thieves.'" Similarly, C. H. Spurgeon’s sermon, “Christ Made Sin”—which was on 2 Corinthians 5:21: “For He has made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us”—echoes the words of Martin Luther. He exclaims:

“He bound His only begotten Son to the pillar and scourged and bruised Him! Sooner than sin should go unpunished, He put that sin upon Christ and punished Him—oh, how tremendously and with what terrific strokes! . . . And upon His Son He laid a tremendous, incomprehensible weight, till the griefs of the dying Redeemer utterly surpassed all our imagination or comprehension!”

In summary, Christ is “numbered among the thieves” (Isa. 53.12) and has “become a curse for us—for it is written: Cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree” (Gal. 3:13). He becomes the snake of Num. 21:9 (cf. Jn. 3:14), signifying a criminal (i.e., a sinner) who is under God’s curse. And according to the gospel narratives, he is in fact convicted of a crime: he’s arrested, tried, and condemned to death. If this story is played out in the end-times (cf. Heb. 9:26; 1 Pet. 1:20; Rev. 12:5), and if the word ἐποίησεν (2 Cor. 5:21) means that Christ "did make sin" rather than "be sin," then the exegesis of Rev. 16:15—“I come like a thief”—suggests a literal interpretation, namely, that we should expect Christ to come like a criminal; that is to say, like a thief!

Did You Know that the Name Yahweh Is Never Once Mentioned in the New Testament?

By Author Eli Kittim

Jesus never once translated the Old Testament (OT) name of God as Yahweh, nor did the rest of the New Testament (NT) writers. They always translated it as "Lord" (Gk. kurios). This has profound theological implications. It means that Jesus is the "LORD" to whom our worship should be exclusively directed! And that represents the essential revelation of the NT, namely, that Jesus Christ is Lord!

Accordingly, those who still claim that God's name is "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" (a Latinization of the Hebrew YHWH) are in error. That's the whole point of the NT, namely, the revelation of God in Jesus Christ! After all, salvation in Christianity is based on invoking the name of Jesus, not Yahweh. In John 14.6, Jesus declares:

I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Acts 4.12 says categorically and unequivocally:

Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.

We should of course accept the OT as an inspired book, and, yes, Jesus is considered to be Yahweh, the Great I Am of the OT, according to the NT writers. But the NT represents a new revelation about God and his name.

For example, in the NT, Jesus is never called by a Hebrew name, such as yeshua hamashiach. Rather, he is known by his Greek name: Iésous Christos. Keep in mind that the original NT was not written in Hebrew but in Greek!

In contrast to modern preachers----who often use the words Yahweh and Yeshua to refer to God and to Jesus in order to give the NT a Hebrew flavor----the NT writers wrote exclusively in Greek and always referred to God as Lord, and to Jesus as Iésous. These Biblical facts speak volumes about the unique message of the Greek NT and the Greek name of the Lord Jesus! Therefore, we must put a stop to all this nonsense about the Hebraization of Greek names in the NT!

Author Eli Kittim's official trailer demonstrating how his biblical convictions helped to shape his book

Based on Translation and Exegesis of the Greek New Testament, the Woman of Revelation 12.4-5 Can Only be Placed in Eschatological Categories

By Author Eli Kittim

_________________________________________

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 12.4--5

καὶ ἡ οὐρὰ αὐτοῦ σύρει τὸ τρίτον τῶν ἀστέρων τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ ἔβαλεν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὴν γῆν. Καὶ ὁ δράκων ἕστηκεν ἐνώπιον τῆς γυναικὸς τῆς μελλούσης τεκεῖν, ἵνα ὅταν τέκῃ τὸ τέκνον αὐτῆς καταφάγῃ. καὶ ἔτεκεν υἱὸν ἄρσεν, ὃς μέλλει ποιμαίνειν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ. καὶ ἡρπάσθη τὸ τέκνον αὐτῆς πρὸς τὸν θεὸν καὶ πρὸς τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ.

---- Novum Testamentum Graece NA28

________________________________________

Translation:

REVELATION 12.4--5

His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, so that he might devour her child as soon as it was born. And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron. But her child was snatched away and taken to God and to his throne.

---- New Revised Standard Version 1989

________________________________________

The key words used in the original Greek text are as follows:

τῆς γυναικὸς τῆς μελλούσης τεκεῖν

which are traditionally interpreted as "the woman who was about to bear a child."

However, there seems to be a mistranslation of the original word μελλούσης, which essentially misleads the reader with regard to the proper chronological context of the passage in question! And we're not even covering the eschatological context of the seven-headed dragon with ten horns that "stood before the woman" (12.4), which is later depicted in Rev. 17 as a final empire on earth. So let's take a closer look.

The Greek term μελλούσης that is mentioned in Rev. 12.4 is derived from the root word μέλλω, which means "about to happen" and refers to "coming" or "future" events. An inflection of the word μελλούσης is the term μέλλουσα, a derivative of the root μέλλων, which means “future” (i.e. μέλλουσες γενεές ― future generations).

We must always bear in mind the future context of the Book of Revelation, which is firmly embedded in the very first verse concerning "what must soon take place" (cf. 22.6), and which then undergirds "the words of the prophecy" (v. 3), an expression that is later reiterated several times beginning in chapter 22 verse 7 with regard to "the words of the prophecy of this book." Thus, the eschatological nature of the Book of Revelation is clearly emphasized. This would imply that any interpretations which look to the past are, by definition, anachronistic!

Here are several New Testament quotations for the word μελλούσης and its inflections:

1) μέλλοντα (i.e. things to come), Rom. 8.38, cf. 1 Cor. 3.22;

2) εἰς τό μέλλον (i.e. in the future), Luke 13.9, cf. 1 Tim. 6.19;

3) σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων (i.e. a shadow of what is to come [things future]), Col. 2.17;

4) ζωῆς τῆς νῦν καί τῆς μελλούσης (i.e. the present life and the life to come), 1 Tim. 4.8;

5) τήν οἰκουμένην τήν μέλλουσαν (i.e. the world to come), Heb. 2.5;

6) τό κρίμα τό μέλλον (i.e. the coming judgment), Acts 24.25;

7) τὴν μέλλουσαν πόλιν (i.e. the city that is to come), Heb. 13.14.

As you can see, each time the Greek term μελλούσης or one of its inflections is used (i.e. μέλλοντα, μέλλον, μελλόντων, μέλλουσαν), it is always in reference to a future event. Nowhere does it refer to a past event. For example, just as Matt. 3.7 refers to a future wrath----ἀπὸ τῆς μελλούσης ὀργῆς (i.e. from the wrath to come?)----so Matt. 12.32 refers to a future age: ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι [αἰών] (i.e. in the age to come).

Conclusion

It cannot be gainsaid that the Greek term μελλούσης in Rev. 12.4 is referring to an eschatological figure. However, according to the standard interpretation of the New Testament, there is often a proleptic interpretation that accompanies this verse, which begs the question: how could a future woman possibly give birth in Antiquity? Such an interpretation seems anachronistic and contradicts not only the content but also the context of Rev. 12.4--5.

The Septuagint's Translation of Daniel 12.1-2 Suggests an Eschatological Messianic Resurrection

By Author Eli Kittim

The Hebrew name מִיכָאֵל (i.e. Mikha'el) means "who is like God?". It is a rhetorical question, the implication of which is that no person is like God. Interestingly enough, the biblical terminology used to describe Michael is often similar to that of the Messiah. For example, "the archangel Michael" (Jude 1.9), who is described in the Old Testament as "one of the chief princes" (Dan. 10.13), is clearly identified with Christ the "anointed prince" (Dan. 9.25) in 1 Thess. 4.16:

"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" (NRSV).

In Dan. 12.1 there is a reference to a great prince named Michael, depicted as "the protector of your people," who “shall arise” during the time of the great ordeal (i.e. the great tribulation).

The so-called ‘Theodotion Daniel’ form of the LXX translates the Hebrew term עָמַד  aw-mad (i.e. "shall arise") as *ἀναστήσεται*, meaning a bodily resurrection.

The Theodotion Daniel (Δανιηλ 12.1) reads:

Καὶ ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ ἀναστήσεται Μιχαήλ ὁ ἄρχων ὁ μέγας, ὁ ἑστηκὼς ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ λαοῦ σου· καὶ ἔσται καιρὸς θλίψεως, θλίψις οἵα οὐ γέγονεν ἀφ’ οὗ γεγένηται ἔθνος ἐν τῇ γῇ, ἕως τοῦ καιροῦ ἐκείνου·

Translation:

"At that time Michael, the great prince, the protector of your people, shall arise. There shall be a time of anguish, such as has never occurred since nations first came into existence" (NRSV).

The Old Greek (LXX) goes on to say:

καὶ πολλοὶ τῶν καθευδόντων ἐν τῷ πλάτει τῆς γῆς ἀναστήσονται, οἱ μὲν εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον, οἱ δὲ εἰς ὀνειδισμόν, οἱ δὲ εἰς διασπορὰν καὶ αἰσχύνην αἰώνιον (Dan. 12.2).

It is translated as follows:

"Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt" (NRSV).

The word *ἀναστήσεται* is the future middle indicative from ἀνίστημι, which is the root word of *ἀνάστασις* and means to ‘raise up’ or to 'raise from the dead.' Accordingly, notice how the term *ἀναστήσεται* in its singular and plural form conveys the meaning of resurrection. In the Th Dan. 12.1, we have the singular form *ἀναστήσεται* ("shall arise"). Similarly, *ἀναστήσονται* (the plural form in the OG Dan. 12.2) represents an explicit reference to a resurrection from the dead, thereby establishing its meaning. And since both of these resurrection events (namely, Michael's resurrection followed by the general resurrection of the dead) are set for "the time of the end" (Dan. 12.4), the implication is that they are eschatological in nature!