Epistles - Tumblr Posts

#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!

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!

Jesus Never Existed According to Christian Eschatology: He’ll be Revealed in the End-Times

By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim

Bart Ehrman, who believes in “an authentic nucleus,” argues that we don’t have anything whatsoever (not even a passing reference) by any contemporaneous works that mention Jesus of Nazareth. No such records exist to authenticate his historicity. So, why would anyone assume that he existed? If this assumption is based on the earliest New Testament writings, namely, the epistles, let me remind you that they come decades after the purported events and do not contain the later theology of the gospels: there are no magi, no Star of Bethlehem, no slaughter of the innocents, no flight to Egypt, no virgin birth, no infancy narratives, no genealogies, etc. On the contrary, the Epistle to the Hebrews (ca. CE 63) explicitly states that Christ will appear once and for all (άπαξ) “in the end of the world” (9.26b KJV) to sacrifice himself as an atonement for the sins of the world. First Peter 1.20 similarly demonstrates that this is his first visitation because it says that even though he was foreknown from the foundation of the world, he “was REVEALED at the final point of time” (NJB emphasis added)! I’d like to ask why modern scholarship does not accept this EXPLICIT eschatological chronology (as found in Hebrews 9.26b and 1 Peter 1.20) regarding the initial coming and atonement of Christ?

—————

That’s precisely why Paul says that he’s born “at the wrong time” (1 Cor. 15.8 CSB) or beforehand insofar as the temporal order of the event pertaining to Christ is concerned. That’s odd. If Christ came first, followed by Paul, then we would expect Paul to come after Christ, not before. Yet Paul suggests that he’s born before the time. The word used in the Greek text is εκτρώματι, derived from the noun έκτρωμα, which is defined as an abortion and generally interpreted as an untimely birth. In other words, Paul indicates that his birth is BEFORE the right time, not after——just as an abortion occurs before the time of birth, not after. Yet, according to our historical presuppositions, Paul didn’t come before, but AFTER, Christ. By drawing an analogy between miscarriage and the epoch in which he lived, Paul is trying to impress on us the notion that he is born at the wrong time. This would strongly suggest that Jesus was not a historical figure who preceded Paul.

—————

If we want to further understand the precise temporal and linguistic context indicated by the New Testament text, we have to be extremely careful when interpreting phrases like “Christ died,” which appear to be references to past history. For example, a close reading is definitely required for Rom. 5.6 because the Greek text implies that Christ died at some unspecified time of human history (e.g. in a transhistorical context) by using the phrase κατά καιρόν, which means “at the right time” or at “the proper time,” and does not necessarily warrant a reference to history. It’s like saying that Christ died at some point in human history, without specifying when. In Rom. 5.6, the verb ἀπέθανεν (died) is an aorist indicative active, 3rd person singular. It means “to be dying,” “be about to die,” etc. In koine Greek, the aorist tense portrays the action in summary fashion without reference to the way it actually unfolds in time, and without any specific qualification. That’s why in 1 Tim. 2.6 the author says that the testimony will come in due time or at the proper time (the future is indicated). We often take for granted the phrase “Christ died for our sins.” We suppose that a literal-historical interpretation is appropriate and valid. But is that the correct exegetical approach? For ex, Paul says:

“For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures” (1 Cor. 15.3 NRSV).

A close reading of this verse indicates that Paul is not referring to history proper but to written documents (i.e. “Apocalyptic literature”). He claims that he handed on what he himself received, to wit, prophetic writings (γραφάς) about Christ’s death, resurrection, and so on. Therefore, at least in 1 Cor. 15.3, the phrase “Christ died” seems to be in a transhistorical context precisely because Christ’s death was already known in advance and written in the prophetic writings which Paul received, as opposed to the common view that presupposes a literal death occurring in history. The typical objection that it is written in past tense changes absolutely nothing. Isaiah 53 is also written in past tense even though the account is decidedly prophetic! Similarly, Acts 2.23 reads:

“this man, handed over to you according to the definite PLAN and FOREKNOWLEDGE of God, you crucified and killed” (NRSV emphasis added).

Question: how was this man crucified and killed? Answer: “according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God.” In other words, this man was killed not according to history per se but according to the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God. A “foreknowledge” is by definition a knowledge of something before it happens or exists. So, if he was killed prior to the actual event itself, he was not killed at all. We have simply confused prophetic literature with history.

—————

Most of the evidence is really against the historicity of Jesus, including that derived from the messianic expectations of the Jews who, according to their scriptures, believe that the Messiah will appear for the first time at the end of the world! So, what’s the main reason scholars believe in an authentic nucleus? Answer: Josephus! Yet we don’t really know what the Testimonium Flavianum would have looked like prior to the interpolations. And there’s another problem regarding intertextuality: namely, literary dependence. The New Testament writings were circulating long before Josephus’ Book (Antiquities of the Jews; ca. CE 94) was published. Josephus would have been presumably familiar with the New Testament texts and might have reiterated some of the material therein. Given that he thought of himself as a historian, he must’ve felt obliged to report these purported events. But that wouldn’t constitute factual history, and the same could be said about his references to Jesus and John the Baptist. Moreover, he was not an eyewitness and his so-called “testimony” is far too removed from the purported events to have any bearing. If we can’t learn much of anything about the so-called historical Jesus through the earlier unknown evangelists who never met him or heard him speak, how could a later writer, from the close of the first century, possibly demonstrate his historicity beyond dispute? He cannot! What is truly strange is that scholars typically reject the historicity of many biblical patriarchs——including Noah, Abraham, and Moses——but surprisingly support Jesus’ historicity probably because a non-historical Christ would put them out of business! It would mean that they have spent their entire lives studying someone who never existed!

—————

Islam’s Denial of Jesus’ Crucifixion 2000y ago might be closer to the truth:

“It Was Made to Appear Like that to Them” (Q4:157).

—————

How Can Good Exegesis Make Bad Theology?

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

The Canonical Context

This principle suggests that we should read the Books of the Bible not as distinct, individual compositions but rather as parts of a larger *canonical context*, that is, as part of the “canon” of Scripture. In other words, instead of evaluating each book separately in terms of its particular historical, literary, and editorial development, this principle focuses instead on its final canonical format that was legitimized by the various communities of faith. The idea is that since the redacted version or “final cut,” as it were, is considered “authoritative” by the different communities of faith, then this format should hold precedence over all previous versions or drafts.

Moreover, this concept holds that despite the fact that the Biblical Books were written by a number of different authors, at different times, in different places, using different languages, nevertheless the “canonical context” emphasizes the need to read these Books in dialogue with one another, as if they are part of a larger whole. So, the hermeneutical focus is not on the historical but rather on the canonical context. The hermeneutical guidelines of the canon therefore suggest that we might gain a better understanding of the larger message of Scripture by reading these Books as if they were interrelated with all the others, rather than as separate, diverse, and distinct sources. The premise is that the use of this type of context leads to sound Biblical theology.

——-

Theology

Theology is primarily concerned with the synthesis of the diverse voices within Scripture in order to grasp the overarching message of the complete Biblical revelation. It deals with Biblical epistemology and belief, either through systematic analysis and development of passages (systematic theology) or through the running themes of the entire Bible (Biblical theology). It addresses eternity and the transcendent, metaphysical or supernatural world. And it balances individual Scriptural interpretations by placing them within a larger theoretical framework. The premise is that there is a broader theological context in which each and every detailed exegesis coalesces to form a coherent whole! It’s as if the Bible is a single Book that contains a complete and wide-ranging revelation! It is under the auspices of theology, then, that the canonical context comes into play.

——-

Exegesis

The critical interpretation of Scriptural texts is known as “exegesis.” Its task is to use various methods of interpretation so as to arrive at a definitive explanation of Scripture! Exegesis provides the temporal, linguistic, grammatical, and syntactic context, analysis, and meaning of a text. It furnishes us with a critical understanding of the authorial intent, but only in relation to the specific and limited context of the particular text in question. It is the task of theology to further assess it in terms of its relation and compatibility to the overall Biblical revelation! One of the things that exegesis tries to establish is the composition’s historical setting or context, also known as “historical criticism.” This approach inquires about the author and his audience, the occasion and dating of the composition, the unique terms and concepts therein, the meaning of the overall message, and, last but not least, the *style* in which the message is written, otherwise known as the “genre.” While the author’s other writings on the topic are pivotal to understanding what he means, nothing is more important than the *genre* or the form in which his writing is presented.

——-

The Analogy of Scripture

One of the most important hermeneutical principles of exegesis is called “the analogy of Scripture” (Lat. ‘analogia Scripturae’). In short, it means that Scripture should interpret Scripture. This principle requires that the implicit must be explained by the explicit. In other words, the exegesis of unclear or ambiguous parts of Scripture must be explained by clear and didactic ones that address the exact same topic. That means that one Biblical Book could very well explain another. For example, the New Testament (NT) Book of Ephesians 1.9-10 seems to demystify Galatians 4.4. This principle is based on the “revealed” inspiration (Gk. θεόπνευστος) of Scripture:

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful

for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and

for training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3.16

NRSV).

As for those scholars who refuse to take the NT’s alleged “pseudepigrapha” seriously because of their *apparent* false attribution, let me remind them that the most renowned textual scholars of the 20th century, Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, acknowledged that even alleged “forged” works could still be “inspired!” It’s important to realize that just because these works may be written by unknown authors who may have attempted to gain a readership by tacking on the name of famous Biblical characters doesn’t mean that the subject-matter is equally false. The addition of amanuenses (secretaries) further complicates the issue.

So, returning to our subject, the analogy of Scripture allows the Bible to define its own terms, symbols, and phrases. It is via the analogy of Scripture, which defines the many and varied parts, that the broader canonical context is established, namely, the principle that the various Biblical Books form a coherent whole from which a larger theological system can emerge.

And, of course, interdisciplinary studies——such as archaeology, anthropology, psychology, sociology, epistemology, and philosophy——contribute to both systematic and Biblical theology by presenting their particular findings, concepts, and theoretical ideas.

——-

Testing the Legitimacy of these Principles

In explaining how these principles work in tandem, I’d like to put my personal and unique theology to the test. I have raised the following question: “What if the crucifixion of Christ is a future event?” The immediate reaction of Christian apologetics or heresiology would be to revert to “dogmatic theology” (i.e., the dogmas or articles of faith) and the scholarly consensus, which state that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Really? Let’s consider some historical facts. There are no eyewitnesses! And there are no first-hand accounts! Although the following references were once thought to be multiple attestations or proofs of Jesus’ existence, nevertheless both the Tacitus and Josephus accounts are now considered to be either complete or partial forgeries, and therefore do not shed any light on Jesus’ historicity. One of the staunch proponents of the historical Jesus position is the textual scholar Bart Ehrman, who, surprisingly, said this on his blog:

. . . Paul says almost *NOTHING* about the

events of Jesus’ lifetime. That seems weird

to people, but just read all of his letters.,

Paul never mentions Jesus healing anyone,

casting out a demon, doing any other

miracle, arguing with Pharisees or other

leaders, teaching the multitudes, even

speaking a parable, being baptized, being

transfigured, going to Jerusalem, being

arrested, put on trial, found guilty of

blasphemy, appearing before Pontius Pilate

on charges of calling himself the King of the

Jews, being flogged, etc. etc. etc. It’s a

very, very long list of what he doesn’t tell us

about.

Therefore, there appears to be a literary discrepancy regarding the historicity of Jesus in the canonical context between the gospels and the epistles. And, as I will show in due time, there are many, many passages in the epistles that seem to contradict dogmatic theology’s belief in the historiographical nature of the gospels. So, if they want to have a sound theology, exegetes should give equal attention to the epistles. Why?

First, the epistles precede the gospels by several decades. In fact, they comprise the earliest recorded writings of the NT that circulated among the Christian churches (cf. Col. 4.16).

Second, unlike the gospels——which are essentially *theological* narratives that are largely borrowed from the Old Testament (OT)——the epistles are *expositional* writings that offer real, didactic and practical solutions and discuss spiritual principles and applications within an actual, historical, or eschatological context.

Third, according to Biblical scholarship, the gospels are not historiographical accounts or biographies, even though historical places and figures are sometimes mentioned. That is to say, the gospels are not giving us history proper. For example, the feeding of the 5,000 is a narrative that is borrowed from 2 Kings 4.40-44. The parallels and verbal agreements are virtually identical. And this is a typical example of the rest of the narratives. For instance, when Jesus speaks of the damned and says that “their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched” (Mark 9.48), few people know that this saying is actually derived from Isaiah 66.24. In other words, the gospels demonstrate a literary dependence on the OT that is called, “intertextuality.”

Fourth, the gospels are like watching a Broadway play. They are full of plots, subplots, theatrical devices (e.g. Aristotelian rhetoric; Homeric parallels), literary embellishments, dialogues, characters, and the like. Conversely, the epistles have none of these elements. They are straightforward and matter of fact. That’s why Biblical interpreters are expected to interpret the implicit by the explicit and the narrative by the didactic. In practical terms, the NT epistles——which are the more explicit and didactic portions of Scripture——must clarify the implicit meaning of the gospel literature. As you will see, the epistles are the primary keys to unlocking the actual timeline of Christ’s *one-and-only* visitation!

Fifth, whereas the gospels’ literary genre is mainly •theological•——that is to say, “pseudo-historical”——the genre of the epistolary literature of the NT is chiefly •expositional.• So, the question arises, which of the two genres is giving us the real deal: is it the “theological narrative” or the “expository writing”?

In order to answer this question, we first need to consider some of the differences in both genres. For example, although equally “inspired,” the gospels include certain narratives that are unanimously rejected as “unhistorical” by both Biblical scholars and historians alike. Stories like the slaughter of the innocents, the Magi, the Star of Bethlehem, and so on, are not considered to be historical. By contrast, the epistles never once mention the aforesaid stories, nor is there any mention of the Nativity, the virgin birth, the flight to Egypt, and the like. Why? Because the Epistles are NOT “theological.” They’re expository writings whose intention is to give us the “facts” as they really are!

Bottom line, the epistles give us a far more accurate picture of Jesus’ *visitation* than the gospels.

In conclusion, it appears that the gospels conceal Jesus far more effectively than they reveal him.

——-

Proof-text and Coherence Fallacies

The “proof-text fallacy” comprises the idea of putting together a number of out-of-context passages in order to validate a particular theological point that’s often disparagingly called “a private interpretation.” But, for argument’s sake, let’s turn these principles on their head. Classical Christianity typically determines heresy by assessing the latter’s overall view. If it doesn’t fit within the existing theological schema it is said to be heretical. Thus, dogmatic theology sets the theological standard against which all other theories are measured. They would argue that good exegesis doesn’t necessarily guarantee good theology, and can lead to a “coherence fallacy.” In other words, even if the exegesis of a string of proof-texts is accurate, the conclusion may not be compatible with the overall existing theology. This would be equivalent to a coherence fallacy, that is to say, the illusion of Biblical coherence.

By the same token, I can argue that traditional, historical-Jesus exegesis of certain proof-texts might be accurate but it may not fit the theology of an eschatological Christ, as we find in the epistles (e.g., Heb. 9.26b; 1 Pet. 1.20; Rev. 12.5). That would equally constitute a coherence fallacy. So, these guidelines tend to discourage independent proof-texting apart from a systematic coherency of Scripture. But what if the supposed canonical context is wrong? What if the underlying theological assumption is off? What then? So, the $64,000 question is, who can accurately determine the big picture? And who gets to decide?

For example, I think that we have confused Biblical literature with history, and turned prophecy into biography. In my view, the theological purpose of the gospels is to provide a fitting introduction to the messianic story *beforehand* so that it can be passed down from generation to generation until the time of its fulfillment. It is as though NT history is *written in advance* (cf. מַגִּ֤יד מֵֽרֵאשִׁית֙ אַחֲרִ֔ית [declaring the end from the beginning], Isa. 46.9-10; προεπηγγείλατο [promised beforehand], Rom. 1.2; προγνώσει [foreknowledge], Acts 2.22-23; προκεχειροτονημένοις [to appoint beforehand], Acts 10.40-41; ερχόμενα [things to come], Jn 16.13)!

So, if we exchange the theology of the gospels for that of the epistles we’ll find a completely different theology altogether, one in which the coherence of Scripture revolves around the *end-times*! For example, in 2 Pet. 1.16–21, all the explanations in vv. 16-18 are referring to the future. That’s why verse 19 concludes: “So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed” (cf. 1 Pet. 1.10-11; 1 Jn 2.28).

In response, Dogmatic Theology would probably say that such a conclusion is at odds with the canonical context and that it seems to be based on autonomous proof-texting that is obviously out of touch with the broader theological teaching of Scripture. Really? So the so-called “teaching” of Scripture that Jesus died in Antiquity is a nonnegotiable, foregone conclusion? What if the basis upon which this gospel teaching rests is itself a proof-text fallacy that is out of touch with the teaching of the *epistles*? For example, there are numerous passages in the epistles that place the timeline of Jesus’ life (i.e., his birth, death, and resurrection) in *eschatological* categories (e.g., 2 Thess. 2.1-3; Heb. 1.1-2; 9.26b; 1 Pet. 1.10-11, 20; Rev. 12.5; 19.10d; 22.7). The epistolary authors deviate from the gospel writers in their understanding of the overall importance of •eschatology• in the chronology of Jesus. For them, Scripture comprises revelations and “prophetic writings” (see Rom. 16.25-26; 2 Pet. 1.19-21; Rev. 22.18-19). Therefore, according to the *epistolary literature*, Jesus is not a historical but rather an “eschatological” figure! Given that the NT epistles are part of the Biblical *canon,* their overall message holds equal value with that of the NT gospels, since they, too, are an integral part of the canonical context! To that extent, even the gospels concede that the Son of Man has not yet been revealed (see Lk. 17.30; cf. 1 Cor. 1.7; 1 Pet. 1.7)!

What is more, if the canonical context demands that we coalesce the different Biblical texts as if we’re reading a single Book, then the overall “prophetic” message of Revelation must certainly play an important role therein. The Book of Revelation places not only the timeline (12.5) but also the testimony to Jesus (19.10b) in “prophetic” categories:

I warn everyone who hears the words of the

prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to

them, God will add to that person the

plagues described in this book; if anyone

takes away from the words of the book of

this prophecy, God will take away that

person’s share in the tree of life and in the

holy city, which are described in this book

(Rev. 22.18-19 NRSV).

Incidentally, the Book of Revelation is considered to be an epistle. Thus, it represents, confirms, and validates the overarching *prophetic theme* or eschatological “theology” of the epistolary literature. That is not to say that the •theology• of the epistles stands alone and apart from that of the OT canon. Far from it! Even the *theology* of the OT confirms the earthy, end-time Messiah of the epistles (cf. Job 19.25; Isa. 2.19; Dan. 12.1-2; Zeph. 1.7-9, 15-18; Zech. 12.9-10)! As a matter of fact, mine is the *only* view that appropriately combines the end-time messianic expectations of the Jews with Christian Scripture!

Does this sound like a proof-text or coherence fallacy? If it does, it’s because you’re evaluating it from the theology of the gospels. If, on the other hand, you assess it using the theology of the epistles, it will seem to be in-context or in-sync with it. So, the theological focus and coherency of Scripture will change depending on which angle you view it from.

——-

Visions of the Resurrection

There are quite a few scholars that view the so-called resurrection of Christ not as a historical phenomenon but rather as a visionary experience. And this seems to be the theological message of the NT as well (cf. 2 Tim. 2.17-18; 2 Thess. 2.1-3). For example, Lk. 24.23 explicitly states that the women “had indeed seen a vision.” Lk. 24.31 reads: “he [Jesus] vanished from their sight.” And Lk. 24.37 admits they “thought that they were seeing a ghost.” Here are some of the statements that scholars have made about the resurrection, which do not necessarily disqualify them as believers:

The resurrection itself is not an event of

past history. All that historical criticism can

establish is that the first disciples came to

believe the resurrection (Rudolph

Bultmann, ‘The New Testament and

Mythology,’ in Kerygma and Myth: A

Theological Debate, ed. Hans Werner

Bartsch, trans. Reginald H. Fuller [London:

S.P.C.K, 1953-62], 38, 42).

When the evangelists spoke about the

resurrection of Jesus, they told stories

about apparitions or visions (John Dominic

Crossan, ‘A Long Way from Tipperary: A

Memoir’ [San Francisco:

HarperSanFransisco, 2000], 164-165).

At the heart of the Christian religion lies a

vision described in Greek by Paul as

ophehe—-“he was seen.” And Paul himself,

who claims to have witnessed an

appearance asserted repeatedly “I have

seen the Lord.” So Paul is the main source

of the thesis that a vision is the origin of the

belief in resurrection ... (Gerd Lüdemann,

‘The Resurrection of Jesus: History,

Experience, Theology.’ Translated by John

Bowden. [London: SCM, 1994], 97,

100).

It is undisputable that some of the followers

of Jesus came to think that he had been

raised from the dead, and that something

had to have happened to make them think

so. Our earliest records are consistent on

this point, and I think they provide us with

the historically reliable information in one

key aspect: the disciples’ belief in the

resurrection was based on visionary

experiences. I should stress it was visions,

and nothing else, that led to the first

disciples to believe in the resurrection (Bart

D. Ehrman, ‘How Jesus Became God: The

Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from

Galilee’ [New York: Harper One, 2014],

183-184).

Ehrman sides with the *visionary language* that Luke, Bultmann, Crossan, and Lüdemann use. In the words of NT textual critic Kurt Aland:

It almost then appears as if Jesus were a

mere PHANTOM . . .

——-

Exegetical Application

I deliberately stay away from theology when I exegete Scripture precisely because it will taint the evidence with presuppositions, assumptions, and speculations that are not in the text. Thus, instead of focusing on the authorial intent hermeneutic, it will inevitably superimpose out-of-context meanings and create an eisegesis. All this, of course, is courtesy of confirmation bias.

So, I think one of the reasons why we’ve done so poorly in understanding, for example, the story of Jesus is because we have mixed-up exegesis with theology. When theology drives the exegesis, then the exegesis becomes blind and erroneous.

My method of exegesis is very simple. I see EXACTLY what the text *says,* EXACTLY *how* it says it. I don’t add or subtract anything, and I don’t speculate, guess, or theorize based on existing philosophies or theologies. The minute we go outside *the analogy of scripture,* that’s when we start to speculate. And that’s how we err. In short, let the Scriptures tell you what it means. Thus, the best interpretation is no interpretation at all!

——-

Conclusion

To find the truth, we must consider all the evidence objectively. Evangelicals, for instance, would be biased if they didn’t consider the academic standpoint even if, at times, it seems to be guided by liberal theology. In this way, they will be in a better position to consider objectively all the possibilities and probabilities regarding the correct interpretation of Scripture. That’s because the truth usually touches all points of view . . .

One of the exegetical stumbling blocks is our inability to view the gospels as “inspired metaphors.” Given their literary dependence on the OT, it appears as if the gospels themselves are “inspired parables.”

So, if the epistolary literature, which is both expositional and explicit, seems to contradict these so-called “theological parables,” then it becomes quite obvious that the “theology” of the gospels fails to meet scholarly and academic parameters. And, therefore, the epistolary literature must be given more serious attention and consideration!

Our exegetical shortcomings often stem from forced or anachronistic interpretations that are based on *theological speculation* and conjecture rather than on detailed exegesis. Even the Biblical translations themselves are not immune to the interpretative process, whether they be of dynamic or formal equivalence.

That’s why I have developed an exegetical system and have demonstrated the effectiveness of its approach to the study of the Biblical Christ. Accordingly, I argue that the epistles are the primary *keys* to unlocking the future timeline of Christ’s ***ONLY*** visitation! Hence, I leave you with one final rhetorical question:

What if the crucifixion of Christ is a future

event?

Academic Bias on the Web

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

I recently submitted a version of the following post in the *Group for New Testament Studies* (on Facebook) but, regrettably, the administrators did not approve it. Yet, given the validity of the Greek exegesis, it certainly deserves serious academic consideration. This is indicative of academic discrimination based on their own personal biases.

——-

2 Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics Should Guide our Investigation

Two principles of Biblical hermeneutics should be considered foundational. Exegetes must interpret the implicit by the explicit and the narrative by the didactic. In practical terms, the *NT epistles* and other more *explicit* and *didactic* portions of Scripture must clarify the implicit meaning and significance of the gospel literature, which, by the way, is not biographical but *theological* in nature, as Bultmann, Crossan, Lüdemann, Licona, Crossley, Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farnell, Dennis MacDonald, Robert Gundry, and Thomas L. Brodie, among others, have clearly demonstrated!

——-

This *Greek exegesis,* translated straight from the text itself, challenges the classical Christian interpretation, which is primarily founded upon historical-fiction narratives. This *Greek exegesis* not only complements the Jewish messianic expectations but it also fits perfectly with the end-time messianic death & resurrection themes alluded to in the Old Testament (see e.g. Isa. 2.19; Dan. 12.1-2)! In short, both the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures seem to say the exact same thing, namely, that the Messiah will appear “once for all at the end of the age” (Heb. 9.26b)!

——-

*The Future Christ* Greek Exegesis

According to the New Testament’s explicit and didactic portions of Scripture, Christ is *born* when time reaches its fullness or completion, expressed in the apocalyptic phrase τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου:

ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου,

ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ,

γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός (Gal. 4.4).

According to the principle of expositional constancy, the chronological time period known as “the fullness of time” (τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου) in Gal. 4.4 is defined in Eph. 1.9-10 as the consummation of the ages (cf. Heb. 9.26b NASB):

γνωρίσας ἡμῖν τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θελήματος

αὐτοῦ, κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν αὐτοῦ ἣν

προέθετο ἐν αὐτῷ εἰς οἰκονομίαν τοῦ

πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν,

ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι τὰ πάντα ἐν τῷ

Χριστῷ, τὰ ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς

γῆς· ἐν αὐτῷ.

The fullness of time (τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν) in Ephesians refers to the *summing up* (ανακεφαλαιώσασθαι) of all things in Christ, things in heaven and things on earth! Thus, according to Gal. 4.4, Christ is born during the consummation of the ages (i.e. in the end-times; cf. Lk 17.30; Heb. 1.2; Rev. 12.5; 19.10d; 22.7, 10, 18, 19)!

The initial appearance of Christ is also rendered as taking place “at the final point of time” in 1 Pet. 1.20 NJB:

προεγνωσμένου μὲν πρὸ καταβολῆς

κόσμου, φανερωθέντος δὲ ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν

χρόνων.

Further textual confirmation comes by way of Heb. 9.26b, which reads:

νυνὶ δὲ ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων εἰς

ἀθέτησιν ἁμαρτίας διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ

πεφανέρωται.

NRSV translation:

“he has appeared once for all at the end of

the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of

himself.”

A historical-grammatical study of the phrase ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων demonstrates that it refers to “the end of the age” (i.e. the end of the world; cf. Mt. 13.39-40, 49; 24.3; 28.20; Dan. 12.4 LXX; see also G.W.H. Lampe [ed.], “A Patristic Greek Lexicon” [Oxford: Oxford U, 1961], p. 1340).

——-

Conclusion

The assumed historicity of Jesus needs to be revisited, given that his only visitation is set to occur at the end of the age! Accordingly, this exegesis argues that the epistles are the primary keys to unlocking the future timeline of Christ’s only visitation. To demonstrate the validity of this argument, we must get back to NT Greek in order to focus on questions of authorial intent. To simply dismiss, ignore, or disregard this exegesis is tantamount to academic dishonesty!

Most people, in fact, will not take the trouble in

finding out the truth, but are much more inclined

to accept the first story they hear.

(Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War)

——-

Response

I received the following Facebook notification a week or so after submitting a version of the aforementioned post in the Group for New Testament studies:

Your pending post was declined from

Group for New Testament Studies by an

admin. See their feedback.

When I clicked on it, the reason given for the rejection of the post was as follows:

Group Rules that were violated

2 Keep it Scholarly:

NT, early Christianity, & discussion of the

field ok. Posts that assume/attempt to

impose a Christian perspective will not be

approved & commenting in this way will

result in a warning & then removal.

So, I wrote back to them . . .

Open letter

——-

I have sent a copy of this letter to both administrators because I didn’t know who was responsible for dismissing my post.

——-

You declined my post, citing a violation of group rules in which one should not impose a Christian perspective. I will get to that in a moment.

——-

As for its scholarship, the exegesis is unquestionably precise & accurate! Incidentally, I’m proficient in New Testament Greek (I’m also a native Greek speaker).

——-

Now, as to your claim, that I supposedly imposed a Christian perspective, it is quite laughable and borders on the absurd. I not only am NOT imposing a “Christian” interpretation, but, as a matter of fact, I’m NOT imposing ANY interpretation whatsoever!

I’m merely TRANSLATING what the text is ACTUALLY SAYING about C H R I S T! I did NOT invent or “impose” the Greek phrase τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου in relation to Christ’s birth: the Greek text *actually* SAYS that (Gal. 4.4)!

I did not personally invent or “impose” an interpretation of the phrase τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν as a timeline referring to the consummation of the ages: the Greek text itself *actually* SAYS that in Eph. 1.10!

——-

Have you ever read about NT linguistics, such as the work of Stanley E. Porter? Have you ever studied any scholarly New Testament lexicons or dictionaries, such as the EDNT, BAGD, ANLEX, TDNT, LSJ? They would all validate and substantiate my translations. As I emphasized earlier, this is a question of translation, not interpretation, and certainly NOT “Christian interpretation,” as you erroneously deduced!

——-

I neither invented nor “imposed” a “Christian interpretation” on 1 Pet. 1.20. It is quite laughable to make such a claim. The text itself is referring to the “appearance” of Christ ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν χρόνων or “at the final point of time,” as the scholarly NJB itself translates it.

Similarly, I neither imposed, invented, nor interpreted the Greek expression ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων in Heb. 9.26b. It is in the Greek text itself, and it is in reference to Christ, as any reputable *textual scholar* would unequivocally concur. In fact, a concordance study demonstrates that the textual reference is to “the end of the world” (KJV), “the culmination of the ages” (NIV), “the consummation of the ages” (NASB), or “the end of the age” (NRSV), as all other scholarly translations indicate (cf. Mt. 13.39-40, 49; 24.3; 28.20; Dan. 12.4 LXX; see also G.W.H. Lampe [ed.], “A Patristic Greek Lexicon” [Oxford: Oxford U, 1961], p. 1340). By the way, Lampe’s Lexicon is considered to be a scholarly book of the highest order.

Once again, this is NOT an “interpretation,” and certainly NOT an imposition of a Christian perspective, but rather——**wait for it**——A _ G R E E K _ T R A N S L A T I O N! Therefore, your decision not to publish the post is completely bogus and misinformed!

Sorry about the capitals, but it needs to be highlighted, given that your commentary is not within scholarly and academic parameters!

——-

I really couldn’t care less what actions you take as a result of this letter. And I certainly lost all respect for your credibility and your group.

——-

I have never seen any academic commentary to equal this one for downright biased and unscrupulous disregard of evidence. It is tantamount to academic dishonesty!

——-

There Was No Pre-Pauline Oral Tradition

By Eli Kittim 🎓

When asked why Paul didn’t give us more details about Jesus’ existence, some scholars often use a common strawman argument that everyone already knew the story and so Paul didn’t have to write anything about it. But after thinking about this explanation for some time, I didn’t find it convincing. A key problem besetting the assumed pre-Pauline tradition is that it is a) based entirely on the gospel literature, which came much later, and b) it hasn’t been verified because there were no eyewitnesses and no firsthand accounts. Plus, the stories that we’re all familiar with (from the gospels) were not written until a few decades after Paul’s writings. So the life of Jesus was not written before, but after, Paul. Given that Paul’s knowledge of the story of Jesus is based entirely on “a revelation,” and that Paul himself admits that he didn’t receive it from man, nor was he taught it (Gal 1:11-12), it’s reasonable to assume that no one else knew the story prior to Paul’s writings, at least from a literary standpoint. After all, Paul was the first to write about it!

There are a lot of presuppositions that are implied by the oral Pre-Pauline-tradition hypothesis that most people aren’t aware of. Many people also presuppose that the gospels are historical, even though that has not been verified either. On the contrary, the fact that they were anonymously written, and that there were no eyewitnesses and no firsthand accounts, and that the events in Jesus’ life were, for the most part, borrowed from the Old Testament, seems to suggest that they were written in the literary genre known as “theological fiction.”

What is more, because the gospel texts are found at the beginning of the New Testament, people often presuppose that the gospels were the first Christian writings, and so they completely misunderstand the New Testament literary chronology. This presupposition leads to many other false assumptions that are very misleading and totally unrelated to the actual chronological development of the New Testament writings.

They have it all backwards❗️

What is more, because of the hypothetical Q source (for which there’s no evidence), even scholars often talk as if the gospels preceded the epistles, and so given that everyone already knew about the story, Paul didn’t have to mention all the details…

But wait just a second… ⛔️

The full-fledged story we usually refer to actually starts around 70 AD with Mark, and ends at the end of the first century with John. But surprise surprise, Paul is writing much much earlier than that. Paul’s letters are the FIRST Christian writings, which are written over two decades earlier (49-50 AD)! Paul’s writings are actually the EARLIEST Christian writings. So, presumably, no one knew the story yet, at least from a literary perspective. It was Paul’s task to tell the reader all about it.

But Paul failed to mention the pertinent information regarding the details of Jesus’ life, even though it is assumed that he was in a position to know this information. If Paul was expected to have all the pertinent information regarding the Jesus-story, and intending to write a complete account of these events, and if the details of the Jesus-story were important enough to deserve to be mentioned, then why didn’t Paul talk about any of them? Astoundingly, Paul didn’t mention any of the legendary elements that we find in the later embellishments of the 70s, 80s, and 90s. In Paul’s letters, there’s no nativity, no virgin birth, no shepherds, no star of Bethlehem, no magi, no census, no Elizabeth, no Zechariah, no John the Baptist, no flight to Egypt, no slaughter of the innocents, nothing about

“Jesus healing anyone,

casting out a demon, doing any other

miracle, arguing with Pharisees or

other leaders, teaching the multitudes, even

speaking a parable, being baptized, being

transfigured, going to Jerusalem, being

arrested, put on trial, found guilty of

blasphemy, appearing before Pontius Pilate

on charges of calling himself the King of the

Jews, being flogged, etc. etc. etc. It’s a very,

very long list of what he doesn’t tell us

about.” —Source credit: Bart D. Ehrman

This doesn’t mean that Paul is writing letters to people who already knew about the story.

It means that such a story didn’t exist. It was added later!

Conclusion

How is a supposed Aramaic story suddenly taken over, less than 2 decades after the purported events, by highly articulate Greeks and written about in other countries, such as Greece and Rome? None of the New Testament books were ever written in Palestine by Jews! That doesn’t make any sense and it certainly casts much doubt about the idea of a supposed Aramaic oral tradition.

In fact, most of the New Testament Books were written in Greece: Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Titus, the Book of Revelation, and possibly others as well! To sum up, most of the New Testament Books were composed in Greece. Most of the epistles were penned in Greece and addressed to Greek communities. The New Testament was written exclusively in Greek, outside of Palestine, by “Greek” authors who copied the Greek Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Bible when quoting from the Old Testament. So where is the Aramaic tradition?

The Da Vinci Code Versus The Gospels

By Eli Kittim 🎓

Bart Ehrman was once quoted as saying: “If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it.” This is an amusing anecdote that I’d like to use as a springboard for this short essay to try to show that it’s impossible to separate literary characters from the literature in which they are found. For example, when Ehrman says, “If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it,” his comment presupposes that James is a real historical figure. But how can we affirm the historicity of a literary character offhand when the so-called “history” of this character is solely based on, and intimately intertwined with, the literary New Testament structures? And if these literary structures are not historical, what then? The fact that the gospels were written anonymously, and that there were no eyewitnesses and no firsthand accounts, and that the events in Jesus’ life were, for the most part, borrowed from the Old Testament, seems to suggest that they were written in the literary genre known as theological fiction. After all, the gospels read like Broadway plays!

Let me give you an analogy. Dan Brown writes novels. All his novels, just like the gospels, contain some historical places, figures, and events. But the stories, in and of themselves, are completely fictional. So, Ehrman’s strawman argument is tantamount to saying that if we want to examine the historicity of Professor Robert Langdon——who is supposedly a Harvard University professor of history of art and symbology——we’ll have to focus on his relationship with Sophie Neveu, a cryptologist with the French Judicial Police, and the female protagonist of the book. Ehrman’s earlier anecdote would be akin to saying: “if Robert Langdon did not exist, you would think Sophie would know it.”

But we wouldn’t know about Robert Langdon if it wasn’t for The Da Vinci Code. You can’t separate the character Robert Langdon from The Da Vinci Code and present him independently of it because he’s a character within that book. Therefore, his historicity or lack thereof depends entirely on how we view The Da Vinci Code. If The Da Vinci Code turns out to be a novel (which in fact it is), then how can we possibly ask historians to give us their professional opinions about him? It’s like asking historians to give us a historical assessment of bugs bunny? Was he real? So, as you can see, it’s all based on the literary structure of The Da Vinci Code, which turns out to be a novel!

By comparison, the historicity of Jesus depends entirely on how we view the literary structure of the gospel literature. Although modern critical scholars view the gospels as theological documents, they, nevertheless, believe that they contain a historic core or nucleus. They also think that we have evidence of an oral tradition. We do not! There are no eyewitnesses and no firsthand accounts. All we have about the life and times of Jesus are the gospel narratives, which were composed approximately 40 to 70 years after the purported events by anonymous Greek authors who never met Jesus. And they seem to be works of theological fiction. So where is the historical evidence that these events actually happened? We have to believe they happened because the gospel characters tell us so? It’s tantamount to saying that the events in The Da Vinci Code actually happened because Robert Langdon says so. But if the story is theological, so are its characters. Thus, the motto of the story is: don’t get caught up in the characters. The message is much more important! As for those who look to Josephus’ Antiquities for confirmation, unfortunately——due to the obvious interpolations——it cannot be considered authentic. Not to mention that Josephus presumably would have been acquainted with the gospel stories, most of which were disseminated decades earlier.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to downplay the seriousness of the gospel message. I’m simply trying to clarify it. The gospels are inspired, but they were never meant to be taken literally. I’m also a believer and I have a high view of scripture. The message of Christ is real. But when will the Jesus-story play out is not something the gospels can address. Only the epistles give us the real Jesus!

Biographizing the Eschaton: The Proleptic Eschatology of the Gospels

Eli Kittim

The canonical epistles strongly indicate that the narratives concerning the revelation of Jesus in the New Testament (NT) gospel literature are proleptic accounts. That is to say, the NT gospels represent the future life of Jesus as if presently accomplished. The term “prolepsis,” here, refers to the anachronistic representation of Jesus’ generation as if existing before its actual historical time. Simply put, the gospels are written before the fact. They are conveyed from a theological angle by way of a proleptic narrative, a means of biographizing the eschaton as if presently accomplished. In other words, these are accounts about events that haven’t happened yet, which are nevertheless narrated as if they have already occurred.

By contrast, the epistles demonstrate that these events will occur at the end of the age. This argument is primarily founded on the authority of the Greek NT Epistles, which affirm the centrality of the future in Christ’s only visitation! In the epistolary literature, the multiple time-references to Christ being “revealed at the end of the ages” (1 Pet. 1.20; cf. Heb. 9.26b) are clearly set in the future, including his birth, death, and resurrection (see Gal. 4.4; Eph. 1.9-10; Rev 12.5). It is as though NT history is written in advance (cf. Isa. 46.10)!

The Proleptic versus the Prophesied Jesus

The historical view is extremely problematic, involving nothing less than a proleptic interpretation of Jesus. It gives rise to numerous chronological discrepancies that cannot be easily reconciled with eschatological contexts of critical importance. What is even more troubling is that it evidently contradicts many explicit passages from both the Old and New Testaments regarding an earthly, end-time Messiah and uses bizarre gaps and anachronistic juxtapositions in chronology in order to make heterogeneous passages appear homogeneous (e.g. Job 19.25; Isa. 2.19; Dan. 12.1—2; Zeph. 1.8—9, 15—18; Zech. 12.9—10; Lk. 17.30; Acts 2.17—21; 2 Thess. 2.1—3, 7—8; Heb. 1.1—2; 9.26; 1 Pet. 1.20; Rev 12.5, 7—10).

Intertextuality in the Gospels

The canonical gospel accounts add another level of intertextual reference to the Old Testament (OT). Almost every event in Jesus’ life is borrowed from the OT and reworked as if it’s a new event. This is called “intertextuality,” meaning a heavy dependence of the NT literature on Hebrew Scripture. A few examples from the gospels serve to illustrate these points. It’s well-known among biblical scholars that the Feeding of the 5,000 (aka the miracle of the five loaves and two fish) in Jn 6.5-13 is a literary pattern that can be traced back to the OT tradition of 2 Kings 4.40-44. The magi are also taken from Ps. 72.11: “May all kings fall down before him.” The phrase “they have pierced my hands and my feet” is from Ps. 22.16; “They put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst” is from Ps. 69.21. The virgin birth comes from a Septuagint translation of Isa. 7.14. The “Calming the storm” episode is taken from Ps. 107.23-30, and so on & so forth. Is there anything real that actually happened which is not taken from the Jewish Bible? Moreover, everything about the trial of Jesus is at odds with what we know about Jewish Law and Jewish proceedings. It could not have occurred in the middle of the night during Passover, among other things.

There is only One Coming, not Two

The belief in the two comings of Christ equally contradicts a number of NT passages (e.g. 1 Cor. 15.22—26, 54—55; 2 Tim. 2.16—18; Rev 19.10; 22.7, 10, 18—19), not to mention those of the OT that do not separate the Messiah’s initial coming from his reign (e.g. Isa. 9.6—7; 61.1—2). Rather than viewing them as two separate and distinguishable historical events, Scripture sets forth a single coming and does not make that distinction (see Lk. 1.31—33). Indeed, each time the “redeeming work” of Messiah is mentioned, it is almost invariably followed or preceded by some kind of reference to judgment (e.g. “day of vengeance”), which signifies the commencement of his reign on earth (see Isa. 63.4). In 2 Thess 2, the author implores us not to be deceived by any rumors claiming that the Lord has already appeared: “to the effect that the day of the Lord is already here” (v. 2; cf. v. 1). His disclaimer insists that these conventions are divisive in view of the fact that they profess to be Biblically based, “as though from us” (v. 2), even though this is not the official message of Scripture.

Why Does the New Testament Refer to Christ’s Future Coming as a “Revelation”?

Why do the NT authors refer to Christ’s future coming as a “revelation”? The actual Greek word used is ἀποκάλυψις (apokalupsis). The English word apocalypse comes from the Greek word apokalupsis, which means “revelation.” The term revelation indicates the disclosure of something that was previously unknown. Thus, according to the meaning of the term revelation, no one knows the mystery or secret prior to its disclosure. Therefore, we cannot use the biblical term “revelation” to imply that something previously known is made known a second time. That’s not what the Greek term apokalupsis means. If it was previously revealed, then it cannot be revealed again. It’s only a revelation if it is still unknown. Thus, the word “revelation” necessarily implies a first time disclosure or an initial unveiling, appearing, or manifestation. It means that something that was previously unknown and/or unseen has finally been revealed and/or manifested. Thus, a revelation by default means “a first-time” occurrence. In other words, it’s an event that is happening for the very first time. By definition, a “revelation” is never disclosed twice.

Accordingly, the NT verses, which refer to the future revelation of Christ, never mention a second coming, a coming back, or a return, as is commonly thought. See the following verses:

1 Cor. 1.7-8; 4.5; 15.23; Phil. 1.6; 2.16; Col. 3.4; 2 Thess. 1.7; 1.10; 2.1-2; 1 Tim. 6.14; Titus 2.13; Jas. 5.7; 1 Pet. 1.13; 1 Jn. 2.28; Rev 1.1; 22.20.

In the aforementioned verses, a second coming is nowhere indicated. Conversely, Jesus’ Coming is variously referred to as an appearance, a manifestation, or a “revelation” in the last days, which seems to imply an initial coming, a first coming, and the only coming. Surprisingly, it’s not referred to as a return, a coming back, or a second coming. As N.T. Wright correctly points out, the eschatological references to Jesus in the New Testament don’t mention a second coming but rather a future appearance or manifestation. Not only do the NT writers refrain from calling Jesus’ future visitation “a second coming,” but, conversely, they further indicate that this is his first and only advent, a momentous event that will occur hapax (“once for all”) “in the end of the world” (Heb. 9.26 KJV), or “at the final point of time” (1 Peter 1.20 NJB). None of the NT authors refer to the future visitation of Christ as a second coming. It’s as though these communities expected Jesus to appear for the first time in the end of the world! The takeaway is that the NT is an apocalypse. It’s not a history.