Literary Genres - Tumblr Posts
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!
What if the Crucifixion of Christ is a Future Event?
By Author Eli Kittim
Biblical Exegesis, the Canonical Context, and the Analogy of Scripture
Biblical studies must involve “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20.27) or the entire Biblical canon, in which all books must be examined equally as parts of a larger *canonical context,* not simply on an individual basis or as isolated parts. Moreover, in order to avoid confirmation bias, we must employ the hermeneutical principle known as “the analogy of Scripture” (Lat. ‘analogia Scripturae’). Thus, the inability of an expositor to remain completely objective is offset by the process in which Scripture interprets Scripture without outside interference or intervention.
Dogmatic theology: Proof-text and Coherence Fallacies
What is Classical Christianity’s foundational faith statement? The Protestant commentariat speaks highly of the Reformation, a movement that gradually freed itself from fiercely defended church traditions and council decrees through its fervent adherence to sola scriptura. But, unfortunately, the reformation didn’t go far enough. Sadly, reformed theology is, in many ways, a reprise of a long standing interpretation of Scripture which is based on ecclesiastical theology and authority. For example, the Nicene Creed——which was adopted during the First Council of Constantinople in 381 CE——reads:
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ . . . who for
us men, and for our salvation, came down
from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy
Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made
man, he was crucified for us under Pontius
Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and
the third day he rose again, according to
the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;
from thence he shall come again, with glory,
to judge the quick and the dead.
Protestants have unquestionably accepted this church dogma. But a second coming begs the question as it is nowhere mentioned in the New Testament (NT). And there is no epistolary proof that Jesus was born of a virgin, nor is there any proof regarding the dogma of the Immaculate Conception that expounds on the implications of the virgin birth, which was only recently adopted by the Roman Catholic Church via an apostolic constitution in 1854!
And what of all the Scriptures that contradict the Nicene dogma, which erroneously asserts of a messianic sacrifice in Antiquity? What about Zeph. 1.7-9, 15-18 that clearly equates the Lord’s sacrifice with the “day of the Lord”? Are we to assume that the day of the Lord already happened in Antiquity? And what about the piercing of the Messiah “on that [apocalyptic] day”? (Zech. 12.9-10)! Can we seriously ignore the end-of-the-world timeline in Mt. 13.39-40, 49? Or in Mt. 24.3? Or in Mt. 28.20? Yet the exact same apocalyptic phrase that is used in all these verses is ALSO used in **Hebrews 9.26b**, which explicitly refers to a messianic sacrifice that will transpire “once for all” (hapax) “at the end of the age,” a period that is synonymous with the day of the Lord and with judgment day! And why ignore Scripture which says explicitly that Christ speaks to humanity in the “last days”? (Heb. 1.2). Why should we deliberately ignore the future incarnation of Christ in Rev. 12.5? Or the fact that the testimony to Jesus is prophetic? (Rev. 19.10d). Or the first coming of Jesus in 1 Pet. 1.20? Or the Son of Man that has not yet been revealed in Lk 17.30? Or the initial visitation of the messiah during “the time of universal restoration”? (Acts 3.19-21). Or Christ’s future resurrection in 1 Cor. 15.23-24? Or the admonition against the historical resurrection theology in 2 Tim. 2.18? Or the fact that Jesus’ one and only coming is associated with judgment day in John 9.39? (cf. Lk 12.49).
The Apocalyptic Aspect of the Gospels
If this is indeed the canonical context, then it cannot be overridden by Catholic dogmas against which the reformers fought so hard to free themselves from. Catholic dogmatic theology once set the theological standard against which all other theories were measured, whereby it inevitably lead to multiple coherence fallacies down through the ages. In other words, the church’s misreading of the gospel literature as historical is obviously not compatible with the overall existing theology of Scripture! In short, what was originally Apocalyptic Christianity was turned into Historical Christianity by Church dogma!
This plays such a crucial role that many Christian adherents today feel that if the historical component is discredited, then Christianity can no longer be viable or credible. Noted author John Ankerberg has said something to that effect, and so have many others, including philosopher/apologist William Lane Craig, who tries desperately to prove the historical aspects of the Christian faith. And yet Christianity is and always has been an *Apocalyptic Religion* that is based on a revelation or unveiling of the end times! Due to its prophetic and apocalyptic foundation, the NT text remains credible and viable even if its literary elements prove to be unhistorical. Ultimately, the Bible is a book on faith, not on history or science. As Kierkegaard would argue, the Christian tenets cannot be proved empirically or historically; they can only be experienced existentially! Christianity is not a belief of the mind but of the heart!
The Apocalyptic Aspect of the Epistles
If we shift theological gears and focus on the epistles, the earliest NT writings, we’ll find a completely different theology altogether, one in which the coherence of Scripture revolves around the *end-times*! For example, in 2 Pet. 1.16–21, the eyewitness testimony of Jesus’ transfiguration in vv. 16-18 is not historical but rather a vision of the future. That’s why verse 19 concludes: “So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed.” The same goes for the apocalyptic passage in 1 Pet. 1.10-11, which suggests an eschatological soteriology.
According to the principle of expositional constancy, if we compare the chronological time period or the timeline known as “the fullness of time” (τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου) in Gal. 4.4 to that of Eph. 1.9-10, we will come to realize that Christ’s birth, as recorded in the former, is in reference to the eschaton, not to a purported time period in Antiquity. The end-times incarnation of Christ in Gal. 4.4 is multiply and independently attested in Rev. 12.5, whose timeline is contemporaneous with the Great Tribulation and the apocalyptic events of the end-times!
Therefore, the church’s dogma that Jesus died in Antiquity appears to be a proof-text fallacy that is out of touch with the *teaching* of the epistles. For example, there are numerous passages in the epistles that place the timeline of Jesus’ life (i.e., his birth, death, and resurrection) in *eschatological* categories (e.g., 2 Thess. 2.1-3; Heb. 1.1-2; 9.26b; 1 Pet. 1.10-11, 20; Rev. 12.5; 19.10d).
Furthermore, if the canonical context demands that we coalesce the different Biblical texts as if we’re reading a single Book, then the overall “prophetic” message of Revelation must certainly play a significant exegetical role. Accordingly, the Book of Revelation places not only the timeline (12.5) but also the testimony to Jesus (19.10d) in “prophetic” categories.
The *apocalyptic theology* of the NT epistles is multiply attested in the Old Testament canon, which confirms the earthy, *end-time Messiah* of the epistolary literature (cf. Job 19.25; Isa. 2.19; Dan. 12.1-2; Zeph. 1.7-9, 15-18; Zech. 12.9-10)!
What About the Numerous NT References to the Revelation of Jesus: Are they Not References to a Second Coming?
A revelation by default means “a first-time” occurrence. In other words, it’s an event that is happening for the very first time. By definition, a “revelation” is never disclosed twice. If we examine the NT verses, which mention the future revelation of Christ, we will find that they are not referring to a second coming, a coming back, or a return, as is commonly thought, but rather to an initial appearance (see e.g. 1 Cor. 1.7; 16.22; 1 Thess. 2.19; 4.15; 2 Thess. 1.10; 2.1; Heb. 10.37; Jas. 5.7; 1 Pet. 1.7; 2 Pet. 1.16; 3.4; 1 Jn 2.28; Rev. 2.16; 22.20).
See my article: Why does the New Testament Refer to Christ’s Future Coming as a “Revelation”?
https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/187927555567/why-does-the-new-testament-refer-to-christs
Another objection to the second coming of Christ goes something like this. If God wants to accomplish something, he’ll get it done on the first attempt. Why the need for a second attempt? It would imply that Christ’s mission on earth was a total failure and that nothing so clearly indicates his unsuccessful earthly mission to restore God’s kingdom as his much anticipated return to set things right. In other words, the second coming implies that Jesus couldn’t get it done the first time. He has to come back to finish the job.
Visions of the Resurrection
Most credible scholars view the so-called resurrection of Christ not as a historical phenomenon but rather as a visionary experience. And this seems to be the *apocalyptic* message of the NT as well (cf. 2 Tim. 2.17-18; 2 Thess. 2.1-3). For example, Lk. 24.23 explicitly states that the women “had indeed seen a vision.” Lk. 24.31 reads: “he [Jesus] vanished from their sight.” And Lk. 24.37 admits they “thought that they were seeing a ghost.” Here are some of the statements that scholars have made about the resurrection, which do not necessarily disqualify them as believers:
The resurrection itself is not an event of
past history. All that historical criticism can
establish is that the first disciples came to
believe the resurrection (Rudolph Bultmann,
‘The New Testament and Mythology,’ in
Kerygma and Myth: A Theological Debate,
ed. Hans Werner Bartsch, trans. Reginald H.
Fuller [London: S.P.C.K, 1953-62], 38, 42).
When the evangelists spoke about the
resurrection of Jesus, they told stories
about apparitions or visions (John Dominic
Crossan, ‘A Long Way from Tipperary: A
Memoir’ [San Francisco:
HarperSanFransisco, 2000], 164-165).
At the heart of the Christian religion lies a
vision described in Greek by Paul as
ophehe——‘he was seen.’ And Paul himself,
who claims to have witnessed an
appearance asserted repeatedly ‘I have
seen the Lord.’ So Paul is the main source
of the thesis that a vision is the origin of the
belief in resurrection . . . (Gerd Lüdemann,
‘The Resurrection of Jesus: History,
Experience, Theology.’ Translated by John
Bowden. [London: SCM, 1994], 97, 100).
It is undisputable that some of the followers
of Jesus came to think that he had been
raised from the dead, and that something
had to have happened to make them think
so. Our earliest records are consistent on
this point, and I think they provide us with
the historically reliable information in one
key aspect: the disciples’ belief in the
resurrection was based on visionary
experiences. I should stress it was visions,
and nothing else, that led to the first
disciples to believe in the resurrection (Bart
D. Ehrman, ‘How Jesus Became God: The
Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from
Galilee’ [New York: Harper One, 2014],
183-184).
Ehrman sides with the *visionary language* that Luke, Bultmann, Crossan, and Lüdemann use. British NT scholar, James Dunn also thought that Jesus was not resurrected in Antiquity but that Jesus probably meant he would be resurrected at the last judgment! Even NT textual critic Kurt Aland went so far as to question whether or not Jesus was a real person. In his book, “A History of Christianity” (Vol. 1, p. 106, emphasis added), he writes:
the real question arises . . . was there really
a Jesus? Can Jesus really have lived if the
writings of his closest companions are filled
with so little of his reality . . . so little in them
of the reality of the historical Jesus . . . .
When we observe this——assuming that the
writings about which we are speaking really
come from their alleged authors——it
almost then appears as if Jesus were a
mere PHANTOM . . .
Conclusion
This is not the proposal of a Mythicist, but of an *Ahistoricist.* In sharp contrast to mythicism, which attributes the Jesus-story solely to mythological causes, my *ahistoricism* ascribes it to future eschatology! Paradoxically, you can have a high view of Scripture, and even hold to a high Christology, and yet still reject the historicity of Jesus. In other words, you can completely repudiate historical Christianity without necessarily denying the Christian faith, the divinity of Jesus, eschatological salvation, or the authority of Scripture. In fact, this view seems to be more in line with the canonical context of the Bible than the classical one! This brief inquiry into the apocalyptic aspect of the NT has therefore provided a starting point and direction for subsequent studies.
Christianity preserved the apocalyptic tradition of Judaism and reevaluated it in light of its own messianic revelations. The NT refined this type of literature as it became the vehicle of its own prophetic and apocalyptic expressions. Apocalypticism, then, not historiography, is the essence of the NT, which is based on a foreknowledge of future events that is written in advance! It is therefore thought advisable to consider the collection of NT writings as strikingly futurist books.