Eli Of Kittim - Tumblr Posts
Author Eli of Kittim has uncovered new information that changes everything we thought we knew about Jesus!
This book uncovers new information that changes everything we thought we knew about Jesus!
If you have been inspired by author Kittim's fascinating book on Jesus and the end times, then we encourage you to like our fan page on Facebook!
[Nonfiction] The Little Book of Revelation (End times Prophecy)
By Author Eli of Kittim
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 from above!
Editorial Reviews
BlueInk Review Beautifully written. Highly creative literary analysis. An intriguing study. Bible scholars and eschatologists may want to consider its thought-provoking ideas.
Dr. Robert Eisenman Your illustrations are really good. You've mastered another world than I.
https://www.amazon.com/Eli-of-Kittim/e/B00FWAVSMC%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share
https://m.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-little-book-of-revelation-eli-of-kittim/1114638416
Jesus: the Greek God My book is not about the pseudo-historical Jewish Jesus of Christian folklore, but about the Gentile Jesus of Biblical prophecy!
Could it be possible that The Little Book is already here? ― Eli Of Kittim, The Little Book of Revelation: The First Coming of Jesus at the End of Days http://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Revelation-First-Coming/dp/1479747068/ref=la_B00FWAVSMC_1_1/178-5016372-4583639?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1414497162&sr=1-1
The First Coming of Christ at the End of Days: The Revelation of Prophecy in 1 Peter and the Present-Day Anachronism of Revelation 12
By Author Eli of Kittim 🎓
In Revelation chapter 12 verses 1 to 10 there is a sequence of events that we, as interpreters, cannot disentangle without creating a bizarre anachronism as well as a great deal of confusion. The prevailing view presents this extraordinary sequence of events by going back and forth through time. This is called anachronism. In other words, a woman is about to give birth to the Messiah (“She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth” Rev. 12:2), “and behold, a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns” (Rev. 12:3) stands “before the woman that is about to be delivered, that when she is delivered he may devour [kill] her child.” (Rev. 12:4). Even though scholars rightly interpret this seven-headed dragon as the last future empire on earth (cf. Rev. 17.7-18), and although these events are described sequentially and appear to be contemporaneous—nevertheless—they inexplicably juxtapose two ages that couldn’t be further apart from each other in order to explain what is being depicted here. That is, the current view holds that Revelation 12:1-5 refers to the Messiah’s birth, 2000 years ago, even though the seven-headed dragon represents a future empire. In short, scholars are erroneously juxtaposing the future with antiquity: the woman gives birth and the seven-headed dragon appears—then we jump back 2000 years, when he tries to kill Jesus—and then we jump forward in time when “the Devil … was cast down to the earth” (Rev. 12:9) to gather the nations for battle (cf. Rev. 20:8): “And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels going forth to war with the dragon” (Rev. 12:7). This type of anachronistic interpretation—going back and forth through time—is outrageous and represents a most precarious solution to Revelation chapter 12.
The sequence is clearly linear, and the events being depicted are consistent and contemporaneous. This is how we know that the entire sequence is linear—culminating in the future—because it reads:
“Then I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down.” (Rev. 12:10).
This means that the entire sequence is set in the future because that is when God’s Kingdom “and the authority of His Christ have come”! You can’t have all the events occurring in the future and then conveniently cherry-pick one event (the Messiah’s birth/death) and set it in the past. It’s either all or nothing. Either they’re all future or they are not. The current anachronistic interpretation is inane! It not only unravels the sequence and disentangles it from its future perspective, it also juxtaposes two different ages of history that have absolutely nothing to do with each other, let alone their total inconsistency with regard to this particular sequence of events.
The first coming of Jesus at the end of Days (cf. Hebrews 1:1-2, 9:26) is the only view that makes any sense with regard to the prophecy of Christ’s birth in Revelation 12:5. And that is my view! It is consistent with Zechariah 12:9-10 which says that “In that day … they will look on Me whom they pierced.” Otherwise, we are once again engaging in anachronism if we understand Zechariah’s passage to mean that those who pierced Jesus 2000 years ago will look at him “in that [future] day.” It is utter nonsense!
1 Peter 1:3-13 is one of those passages that need to be studied thoroughly. For it is quite clear that the first coming of Jesus is a future event:
“Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade. This inheritance is kept in heaven for you, who through faith are shielded by God’s power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time. In all this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials. These have come so that the proven genuineness of your faith—of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire—may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed. Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, for you are receiving the end result of your faith, the salvation of your souls. Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things. Be Holy Therefore, with minds that are alert and fully sober, set your hope on the grace to be brought to you when Jesus Christ is revealed at his coming.” (1 Peter 1:3-13).
Notice that Jesus Christ is revealed at his coming—not at his second or third coming, but at his coming—which occurs “hapax” or once and for all (Hebrews 9:26). No one who has studied the above passage from 1 Peter can come away thinking that it refers to the past. You can study it for yourselves. Notice that 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)! Notice also that the evangelists “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)
Conclusion
The real question is whether the birth of Jesus in Rev. 12.5 is referring to antiquity or to the end of days. The interpretation is actually very simple. The birth of the male child is obviously contemporaneous with the 7-headed dragon with 10 horns because it is said that “the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, so that he might devour her child [kill him] as soon as it was born” (Rev. 12.4 NRSV)! If the 7-headed dragon with 10 horns & the male child were NOT contemporaries, then this verse wouldn’t make any sense whatsoever because how could something that doesn’t exist kill the child? So, it’s quite obvious that the child & the 7-headed dragon with 10 horns are contemporaries. That is to say, they exist at the same time.
So, there’s only one question left: what is this 7-headed dragon with 10 horns? The answer is given by Scripture itself. It is the seventh and final empire (or superpower) on earth with 10 kings that will wage war on Jesus Christ at the end of days (see Revelation 17.7-14): https://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/revelation/17.html
If the male child is in fact contemporaneous with the end-times-7-headed dragon with 10 horns, and it is (according to Rev. 12.2-6), then the male child could not have possibly been born in antiquity but rather at the end of days! That’s the clue that the birth of Jesus occurs in “the fullness [or completion] of time” (Gal. 4.4; Eph. 1.9-10), or in the “last days” (Heb. 1.2), otherwise known as “the end of the world” (Heb. 9.26b KJV) or “the final point of time” (1 Pet. 1.20 NJB)! Therefore, the evidence is both robust & compelling! It is indisputable!
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).
The Little Book
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/19737698-the-little-book-of-revelation
Eli of Kittim's unique interpretation of the New Testament account of Jesus as prophetic rather than historical!
#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.
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).
Who Are the Twenty-Four Elders of Revelation Chapter 4?
By Author Eli Kittim
“Around the throne were twenty-four thrones; and upon the thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white garments, and golden crowns on their heads.” —Revelation 4:4
The book of Revelation does not disclose the identity of the twenty-four elders. However, based on the descriptions given, and the relationship of this passage to other parts of the Bible, we can make certain valid inferences. The illustrations depicting them as sitting on thrones signify that they are reigning with Christ. John MacArthur, a noted theologian and author, writes:
“Nowhere in Scripture do angels sit on thrones, nor are they pictured ruling or reigning. Their role is to serve as ‘ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation’ (Heb. 1:14; cf. Mat. 18:10).”—John MacArthur, Revelation 1-11: The MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999).
Moreover, The Greek word for “elders” is “Presviterous,” from where we get the English word “Presbyters,” meaning elders or ministers of the Church. Interestingly enough, the same word used in Revelation 4:4 for elder is also used in connection with the visible church on earth (otherwise known as the “body of Christ”) in 1 Peter 5:1. In this regard, Paul writes, “Do you not know that the saints will judge the world?” (1 Cor. 6:2). According to the gospel of Luke, it is human beings that will rule and reign with Christ (22:30).
Furthermore, the twenty-four elders are clothed in white raiment. Their white garments would also be more consistent with heavenly saints who were once men—and who were saved and cleansed by the blood of the Lamb—than with angelic beings. The color white always signifies the holiness and purity of God (and that’s why I also maintain that the white horse of Revelation 6:2 can only signify Christ; more on that later). For instance, Revelation 6:11 describes the tribulation saints in this way:
“And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, would be completed also.”
Similarly, Revelation 3:18 says, “I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness.”
It is of immense importance to understand the types of crowns these twenty-four elders wear because this theme will ultimately help us uncover important clues about the mysterious identity of the white horse in Revelation 6:2 (the so-called first horseman of the Apocalypse)! In the original Greek text, the twenty-four elders are said to wear golden “stephanous” crowns (Rev. 4:10). A “stephanos” crown is associated with the glory of God, and “stephanos” is the Greek word used for crown in 1 Thessalonians:
“For what is our hope, our joy, or the crown in which we will glory in the presence of our Lord Jesus when he comes?” (1 Thess. 2:19).
In fact, a “stephanos” crown is explicitly defined as representing “Righteousness,” since that is the Greek word used for crown in 2 Timothy 4:8:
“Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.”
In 1 Peter 5:4 the Greek word for crown—namely, “stephanon,”—represents “the unfading crown of glory”: “And when the Chief Shepherd appears [Christ], you will receive the unfading crown of glory.” What is more, the Greek term “stephanos” is used to represent a kingly or royal crown in connection with Christ’s passion: “And they clothed him [Christ] with purple, and platted a crown [“stephanon”] of thorns, and put it about his head” (Mark 15:17; cf. John 19:2). So, Christ is given a royal “stephanon” crown (which he also wears in Rev. 14:14) that will become a metaphor for his passion, death, and resurrection! The term “stephanos” means crown or crowned in Greek. More precisely, it is “a victor’s wreath.” In other words, the word “stephanos” signifies a victor’s crown, and is intimately associated with the Greek word “niki” (meaning “victory”), which is the Greek word used in connection with Christ’s victory over death in 1 Corinthians 15:54, 57.
The reason this study is so important is that the same Greek terms used in the New Testament to define the crowns of God’s righteousness, God’s glory, and Christ’s victory over death are the exact same terms used in describing the first horseman of the Apocalypse, the white horse! By comparison, the white horseman of Revelation 6:2 also wears a “stephanos” crown: “he was given a victor’s crown and he went away, to go from victory to victory.” In Greek it reads:
“Kai edothi auto stephanos kai exilthen nikon kai ina nikisi.”
The words “nikon” and “nikisi” are action verbs of the noun “niki,” which means “victory.” Some Bible versions mistranslate the words “nikon” and “nikisi” with the words “conquering and to conquer.”
However, the Greek word for conquest is “κατάκτηση,” and it means “the subjugation and assumption of control of a place or people by use of military force,” whereas “victory” means defeating an opponent, or winning a game, race, or other competition. Though they may appear to be similar, the words conquest and victory have completely different meanings. By transcribing the Greek “Nikon” and “Nikisi” (which mean “Victory”) with the English words “Conquering” and “Conquer” (which mean to subjugate people via military force) some scholars seem to insinuate a malevolent figure because they are essentially mistranslating the Victorious Christ into the Conquering Antichrist (which explains why many scholars identify this figure as the Antichrist).
However, there are also accurate translations of Revelation 6:2 that portray this white horseman as victorious rather than one who is bent on conquest. For instance, The New Jerusalem Bible reads: “and he went away, to go from victory to victory” (suggesting from glory to glory; cf. Common English Bible). The New International Reader’s Version says “He rode out like a hero on his way to victory.” Similarly, the Jubilee Bible 2000 says that “he went forth victorious, that he might overcome,” terms that are intimately associated with the righteous, and especially with Jesus Christ. Similarly, Irenaeus, an early church father, held that the first rider of the white horse who is depicted as a peacemaker represents Jesus Christ. And, let us not forget that Revelation 19:11 uses the same exact terminology and symbolic imagery as in Rev. 6:2 to tell us that this is in fact Jesus.
Let us now return to the twenty-four elders. The problem of identifying these figures has to do with how the book of Revelation is composed, which is to say, whether the events it alludes to are written in chronological order or not. There is ample evidence that the end time events are mentioned in detail chronologically, reaching a crescendo towards the end of the book, but there are also overlapping themes that serve the purpose of giving the reader the big picture, as it were, and this seems to be a source of great confusion. Some commentators claim that the twenty-four elders cannot represent the raptured church because they are mentioned prior to the great tribulation, and also because they are depicted as anticipating these coming events. This is partly true. Apparently, the twenty-four elders are mentioned chronologically before the chapters that allude to the rapture, and the death and ascension of Christ (Ch. 5), and prior to Ch. 6 that references the four horsemen of the Apocalypse.
However, Chapters 2 and 3 give us the overall picture (big picture) concerning the church’s tribulation, and beginning with chapter 6 we get more specific details from start to finish. The same holds true for the Antichrist in Revelation 19 and 20. The Satanic figure that is loosed in Revelation chapter 20 is the same Antichrist that died in the previous chapter; but, here, the story is described in more detail. So, although there appears to be a chronological order of events in the book of Revelation, there are also overlapping themes that are played out. Thus, we have the big picture, on the one hand, and details on the other. So then, since Chapters 2 and 3 reference the great tribulation (2:9), and since authority and rule (2:26-27) and white garments (3:4-5) are promised therein to those who overcome, it is more than likely that the twenty-four elders represent the tribulation saints (cf. Luke 22:30). In fact, Jesus says emphatically:
“He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne” —Rev. 3:21
Elsewhere, John the Revelator has a vision:
“Then I saw thrones, and sitting on them were those to whom authority to act as judges and to pass sentence was entrusted” (Rev. 20:4).
In the gospels, Jesus said the apostles would judge the twelve tribes “in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory” (Mat. 19:28). Another clue comes from an “elder” who explains to John the identity of those coming out of the Great Tribulation (Rev. 7:13-14). Therefore, these elders seemingly represent the overcomers of Revelation 2 and 3.
In many ways, Revelation 4 is a throwback to Daniel 7. According to his vision of the end times, Daniel reports that “thrones were set up,” and that “the Ancient of Days took His seat” (Dan. 7:9) in order to pass judgment “in favor of the saints” when “the time came for the saints to possess the kingdom” (Dan. 7:22). The (tribulation) saints will be given into the hands of the beast (Antichrist) for “a time and times and half a time” (Dan. 7:25), but the court will convene and remove “his dominion … forever” (Dan. 7:26).
Why Are There Twenty-Four Elders in Revelation Chapter 4?
The number 24 per se may contain a secret code and perhaps allude to a cryptic date or season when the Great Tribulation will commence, but anything more than that is pure conjecture. Biblically speaking, the figure 24 may have been taken from 1 Chr. 24:3-6, in which David divided the Tribe of Levi into 24 courses (twenty-four courses of Levitical priests rotating to minister in the Tabernacle). Since the tribulation saints represent a priestly kingdom, it would mean that they are probably represented by the twenty-four elders. This last point offers yet another clue to the fact that the twenty-four elders represent men and not angels.
Another view holds that the number of the elders represent the twelve tribes of Israel—as written on the twelve gates of the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:12)—and “the twelve apostles of the Lamb”—as written on the twelve foundations of the New City (Rev. 21:14). Since we’re discussing tribulation saints, it seems like a proleptic interpretation to suggest that twelve of the elders represent Old Testament saints, and the other twelve New Testament saints. A more realistic interpretation is to ascribe these values to Jews and Gentiles alike. Thus, twelve of the elders could represent tribulation saints from the 12 tribes of Israel (believers in Christ), and the other twelve the remainder of the tribulation saints. In other words, the twenty-four elders may be composed of all the tribulation saints, which would include both “Israel” and the “church.” Therefore, the twenty-four elders of Revelation Chapter 4 seemingly represent a remnant of both Jews and Gentiles (the redeemed tribulation saints) who meet in council before the throne of God in preparation for the coming judgment of the world!
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!
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!
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).