Eli-kittim - Eli Of Kittim

Jesus is a Gentile: The Evidence from the Gospels

By Award-Winning Author Eli of Kittim

In the New Testament, there are various ways in which Jesus is portrayed as a non-Jew. One of those depictions can be found in the Gospel of Matthew, which tells us right up front that Jesus does not come from the Kingdom of Judah (from the Jews) but rather from the region of Galilee (from the Gentiles; cf. Luke 1:26):

“Galilee of the Gentiles– THE PEOPLE WHO WERE SITTING IN DARKNESS SAW A GREAT LIGHT, AND THOSE WHO WERE SITTING IN THE LAND AND SHADOW OF DEATH, UPON THEM A LIGHT DAWNED.” (Matthew 4:15-16).

The Biblical scholar G.A. Williamson (translator of Eusebius’ The History of the Church: From Christ to Constantine) states that Jews formed only a minute portion of the Galilean population, and they were seldom seen in the province. Williamson also says that “the region was entirely Hellenistic in Sympathy.” He goes on to say that all of these facts are well-known to Christian scholars, yet they insist that “Christ was a Jew”.

According to 1 Kings chapter 9, King Solomon rewarded a Phoenician ally (King Hiram I) with twenty cities in the region of Galilee. So ever since the 10th century BCE, the land of Galilee was settled by foreigners and pagans. Galilee was once part of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. This kingdom fell into obscurity not only because much of its population was deported after the Assyrian invasion of 722 BCE, but also due to eight centuries of acculturation. Accordingly, in New Testament times, it had become the land of the Greco-Roman world (i.e. the land of the Gentiles)! That’s why it was known as “Galilee of the nations” (Isaiah 9:1)! This conclusion is archaeologically supportable. Jonathan L. Reed—professor of New Testament and Christian Origins, and a leading authority on first-century Palestine archeology—writes, “In fact, not a single synagogue from the first century or earlier has been found in Galilee” (Crossan, John Dominic, and Jonathan L. Reed. “Excavating Jesus.” San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2001, p. 25). Since then, only a few synagogues have been excavated in Galilee, with some possibly having been built after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, discoveries which in and of themselves hardly prove the existence of large Jewish communities in Galilee during the first half of the first century CE. Conversely,  all but two tribes remained in the southern kingdom of Judah—-namely, the tribes of Judah and Benjamin (Ezra 1:5)—-which alone, strictly speaking,  represent the term “Jews.” The term “Jew” (an abbreviation of the term “Judah”) was a geographical term which referred to those who came from the kingdom of Judah. In the New Testament story, however, Jesus is not called Jesus-of-Judah but rather “Jesus of Galilee” (Matthew 26:69)! As we will see, this is an extremely important piece of information!

Throughout the gospels, Christ is constantly at odds with the Jews, and even with Judaism itself—whether it be the Law of Moses, Jewish messianic prophecies, Jewish tradition, custom, culture, beliefs, and the like—that it is not difficult to see that he is not one of them. For example, the under mentioned verse exemplifies that Jesus was certainly not a Jew who studied under rabbis, as tradition holds. In the gospel story, he urges the disciples to completely disassociate themselves from the teachings of the Jews:

“Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.“ (Matthew 16:11).

The Jews were of the opinion that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem, and from the Jews, as we continue to believe today. But they were in for a shock and were quite horrified to learn this was not the case. That’s the reason why John inserts this profound exclamation that comes from one of his characters:

“Nazareth!” exclaimed Nathanael. “Can anything good come from Nazareth?” (John 1:46).

The rift between Jesus and the Jews is once again evoked when Christ forbids the disciples from being called “Rabbi,” the traditional title of a Jewish scholar or teacher, especially one who studies or teaches Jewish law. Instead, he commands them to call him “teacher” (didaskalos)—a Hellenistic title—and not “rabbi”:

“Don’t let anyone call you ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one teacher.” (Matthew 23:8).

What is worthy of notice is the fact that the gospels often do not present Jesus as a Jew, but rather as a Galilean—(“Jesus of Galilee” Matthew 26:69)—and a Samaritan (John 8:48) at that. In other words, Jesus is portrayed as a Gentile.

In his exhaustive book, “The Birth of the Messiah,” scholar Raymond E. Brown points out that biblical genealogies are important because the ancestors of a family line exemplify character traits or attributes that foreshadow something characteristic or stereotypical about a later figure. A genealogy, after all, is meant to show that someone has the right family credentials and is descended from a unique lineage. Yet, Raymond Brown is not exactly sure why four *foreign women* are mentioned in Matthew’s genealogy, and what their significance is in Matthew’s portrayal of Jesus. The answer is obvious. The 4 *foreign ancestors* of Christ exemplify that he, too, is a foreigner! Moreover, Professor Bart Ehrman asserts that both Matthew and Luke are recording the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph. Accordingly, the epiphany in the gospels that Jesus is not really Joseph’s son drives home the notion that his genealogy is not derived from the Jews (see the analogy between Jesus and Melchizedek in Heb. 7.2-6 in which the former is likened to the latter, “who does not belong to their [Jewish] ancestry,” implying that “the Son of God” is therefore not descended from the Jews either). This allusion becomes evident in another passage in which Jesus refutes the notion that he is the son or the descendent of David (the King of the Jews):

“Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question: What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?” They replied, “He is the son of David.” Jesus responded, “Then why does David, speaking under the inspiration of the Spirit, call the Messiah ‘my Lord’? For David said, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit in the place of honor at my right hand until I humble your enemies beneath your feet.’ Since David called the Messiah ‘my Lord,’ how can the Messiah be his son?” No one could answer him. And after that, no one dared to ask him any more questions.” (Matthew 22:41-46).

John’s gospel, in particular, shows that Christ’s teaching is not derived from the Jews, and that his origin or identity even defies the biblical expectations of a Jewish Messiah. For instance, Christ breaks the Law (John 5:16), and consequently the Jews want to kill him. That is why Jesus completely dissociates himself from the Jews by teaching and performing miracles exclusively in Galilee of the Gentiles (John 7:1). In fact, through the dialogues, the gospel suggests the unthinkable. Remember that there are no unnecessary words in the gospels. Every word is important. So, why does the gospel repeatedly emphasize the conflict between Jewish messianic expectations and the fact that Jesus does not meet them? Not only that, but John tells us explicitly that Jesus will not be found among the Jews, but among the Greeks! Jesus tells the Jews,

“’You will search for me but not find me. And you cannot go where I am going.’ The Jews said to one another, ‘Where does this man intend to go that we will not find him? Does he intend to go to the Dispersion among the Greeks and teach the Greeks?’” (John 7:34-35).

This dilemma between a Jewish and a Gentile Messiah is ever-present in John’s gospel. Jesus does not appear to come from the Jews and thus seems to defy scriptural expectations:

“Others said, ‘He is the Messiah.’ Still others asked, ‘How can the Messiah come from Galilee?’ ‘For the Scriptures clearly state that the Messiah will be born of the royal line of David [from Jews], in Bethlehem, the village where King David was born.’ So the crowd was divided about him. Some even wanted him arrested, but no one laid a hand on him.” (John 7:41-44).

In the following verse, we are told that none of the rabbis of Judaism can accept Jesus’ teaching—for his teaching is definitely not Judaic and even appears to contradict scripture. The Jews further imply that Christ’s followers are Gentiles, for they clearly do not know the Law of Moses:

“’No one of the rulers or Pharisees has believed in Him, has he?’ ‘But this crowd which does not know the Law is accursed.” (John 7:48-49).

A few verses later, the Jews go on to say,

“Search the Scriptures and see for yourself–no prophet ever comes from Galilee!“ (John 7:52).

These inclusions in the text by the gospel writer John clearly give us a different perspective on Jesus the Messiah, as far as his origin or identity is concerned. If he were Jewish, the Jews would certainly have accepted him, celebrated him, and honored him as one of their own. We therefore come to realize why they dislike him so intensely and why he offends them throughout the gospel stories. Because he is a Gentile!

Similarly, in Luke 4:23-29 the Jews became enraged because Jesus said that Elijah was sent to the Gentiles, not to the Jews–implying that he himself turns from Jews to Gentiles. John Dominic Crossan writes, “In that case, Jesus’ turn from Jews to Gentiles is cause rather than effect of eventual rejection and lethal attack” (Excavating Jesus,  p. 28).

This theme reminds us of the stories of Joseph and Moses (two messianic stand-ins who are also rejected by their “brothers,” the Jews)—and who are portrayed in the Bible as living and reigning in Egypt (the land of the Gentiles). By analogy, Matthew has Christ supposedly going to Egypt in order to make this connection and to show us that he’s the new Moses:

“OUT OF EGYPT DID I CALL MY SON.” (Matthew 2:15).

Thus, all these messianic figures, including Jesus, are essentially depicted as Gentiles! That’s precisely why Cyrus, a gentile, is called God’s Messiah in Isaiah 45.1! Not to mention that King David himself was not a Jew; he was a Moabite! Similarly, in Isaiah 46:11, God says: I have chosen “a man for My purpose from a far-off land” (cf. Matt. 28:18; 1 Cor. 15:24-25). This motif is also seen in Matthew 21:4-5 and John 12:14-15, which portray Jesus as a Gentile in fulfillment of Zechariah’s (9:9) prophecy. That’s because in Biblical nomenclature, the ox represents Israel, while the ass represents the Gentiles. Thus, the symbolism of the Messiah entering the holy city and riding on a donkey represents Jesus' Gentile ancestry! Paul’s emphasis of this point—which constitutes “the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the Lord’s people” (Colossians 1:26)—about Christ’s identity bears repeating:

“Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles; I will sing hymns to your name.” Again, it says, “Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people.” And again, “Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles, and sing praises to him, all you peoples.” And again, Isaiah says, “The Root of Jesse will spring up, one who will arise to rule over the nations; the Gentiles will hope in him.” (Romans 15:9-12).

The gospel of John makes clear that Jesus’ teaching is a serious threat to the Jews because it completely nullifies Judaism, as well as the Jewish temple—so much so that the Sanhedrin fears that this Gentile (non-Jewish) teaching will cause the entire nation to fall:

“So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the council and said, “What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” (John 11:47-48).

Of further interest is the dichotomy between Jesus and his Jewish audience, one in which there is a clear “I versus you” mentality running throughout the text. Jesus separates himself from the Jews by addressing them as if they were not his own people—“Your” nation, “Your” ancestors, “Your” fathers, “Your” prophets, “Your” Law, etc.—making it abundantly clear that there is a clear distinction between Jesus and the Jews:

1) “Jesus answered them, ‘Is it not written in YOUR Law…?’” (John 10:34, emphasis added).

2) “YOUR own law says that…” (John 8:17, emphasis added)

3) “I know YOU are descendants of Abraham, but you are trying to kill Me because My word is not welcome among you.” (John 8:37, emphasis added).

4) “YOU are doing the works of your own father.“ (John 8:41, emphasis added).

Also notice that while arguing with the Jews—who seek to kill him because they claim he is a Gentile—Jesus does not refute that he is a Gentile, he only refutes the idea that he has a demon:

“The Jews answered him, ‘Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan [Gentile] and have a demon?’ Jesus answered, ‘I do not have a demon, but I honor my Father, and you dishonor me.’” (John 8:48-49).

So, in John’s gospel, Jesus is called a ‘Samaritan’—a Greek—and he does not appear to deny it. Further evidence that Jesus is not a Jew can be ascertained from the fact that, in the gospel story, he is not tried in a Jewish court but rather in a Roman—one which was reserved exclusively for Gentiles; that is, for Roman and Greek citizens! Neither was he killed by stoning, which was the traditional custom for killing a Jew. Moreover, some church fathers (e.g. Clement of Alexandria) have claimed that the name “Ιησους” (i.e. Jesus) has a Greek origin, not a Hebrew one. All these clues purvey insights and teachings about a Gentile Messiah who does not conform to our rather facile biblical expectations. In fact, both Jesus and all of his disciples come from Galilee. Ironically, only one of his disciples is a Jew who comes from Judah: the one who betrays him!

Furthermore, the New Testament could not have been written by devout Jews because devout Jews would not have written in Greek. It was forbidden for them to do so. Nor could they have written such articulate, refined Greek. From the earliest times, devout Jews could only read Hebrew. During the Babylonian exile, the Jews wrote in Aramaic. During Hellenistic times, even though the official language was Greek, devout Jews continued to write in Aramaic and could not have written in Greek for fear of being dejected from their sect or congregation! Besides, ever since the overthrow of the Syrian-Greek Empire in the land of Israel, the Jews hated anything to do with the Greeks.

So, who else is left who could have written the New Testament in Greek? Answer: Greeks! And there are more epistles written to Greeks than to any other race. 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! None of the books of the New Testament were ever written in Palestine. Not even the Letter of James. According to scholars, the cultivated Greek language of the Epistle of James could not have possibly been written by a Jerusalem Jew!

It is also important to note that when the NT authors quote from the OT, they often quote from the Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, and not from the original Hebrew scriptures per se. This may indicate that the NT authors were not familiar with the Hebrew language. For example, when they quote Jeremiah or refer to Joshua (Acts 7:45; Heb. 4:8) in the NT, they use the Septuagint (the Greek text) as their source (scholarly consensus). This lends plausibility to the argument that the NT authors were not Hebrews but Greeks! And scholars now tell us that these NT authors were writing from different parts of the world, not from Palestine.

And why didn’t the New Testament writers finish God’s story in Hebrew? What better way to persuade Jews that Jesus is the messianic fulfillment of Jewish Scripture than to write it in the Hebrew language, which Jews could both read and understand? But they didn’t! The reason for this is Jesus. Apparently, he is not Jewish; he is Greek! So, the story must be written in Greek to reflect its main character, the God man, Jesus the Christ. Furthermore, if he were Jewish, he would have said I am the Aleph and the Tav. Instead, he uses Greek letters to define the divine “I AM”:

“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God.” (Revelation 1:8).

The following verse shows that we are on the right track. John the Revelator is not in Greece by accident. He is there BECAUSE (for the reason that) it has everything to do with the SPECIFIC ACCOUNT of Jesus, which is revealed to him by the word of God:

“I, John … was on the island called Patmos [in Greece] BECAUSE of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.” (Revelation 1:9, emphasis added).

If we sum up our findings, we could say with confidence that the mystery of Jesus’ non-Jewish identity is revealed even in the gospels. And the gospel mystery of Christ’s identity is supported by no less an authority than Paul:

“This message was kept secret for centuries and generations past, but now it has been revealed to God’s people.” (Colossians 1:26).

In his in-depth-Bible-study video called “Breaking the Sound of Silence,” distinguished scholar Brant Pitre agrees that “the mystery which was kept secret for long ages but is now disclosed and through the prophetic writings is made known to all nations” (Rom. 16.25b-26a) is exclusively referring to a *revelation* of Jesus’ *identity* that was previously unknown! That’s why “the mystery which was kept secret for long ages” needed to be revealed. Because we could not have possibly known this truth from any available sources (biblical or otherwise) except by way of divine revelation! There is much more proof in the Bible that Jesus is Greek (and not Jewish). But this evidence cannot be reproduced here, given the limited scope of this article.

.

#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.

Revelation 8:1, 7th seal, silence in heaven about 1 half hour? 29.6 minutes = about 1 half hour. 29.6 minutes = 1776 seconds. STRONG's Concordance H1776 is is a Hebrew word meaning "silence." Ben Franklin pen name, Silence Dogood

Perhaps this quote may shed some light: “The ten horns which you saw are ten kings, who have not yet received a kingdom, but they receive authority as kings with the beast for one hour [1 century]” (Rev. 17:9-12). If one hour equals a century, as in the aforementioned quote (for details, refer to my book), then one-half hour must refer to a half-century. The “half an hour” reference in Rev. 8:1 actually has a double meaning. On the one hand, it signifies the seven weeks of Daniel’s prophecy (fifty-year Jubilee/Ch. 9) that marks the appearance of Messiah. In others words, the Messiah is “silent” for “half an hour,” or for seven weeks until his appearance. But the “half an hour” idiom also refers to the middle of the tribulation period when Christ will be revealed to wage war on the Antichrist. And, in this case, the reference is not to thirty literal minutes but rather to the three-and-a-half year interim (or 42 months) that is constantly repeated throughout the text. That is, the Great Tribulation commences, and it appears as though God is silent for a very short period of time until he finally rescues his people. This time period is also known as "a time, times, and half a time," and it is equal to three and a half years. Here's an excerpt from my book, "The Little Book of Revelation""Likewise, the Bible warns us that the little horn’s [or Antichrist's] allied forces ‘will destroy many while they are at ease’ (Dan. 8:25); that is to say, in a time of peace. Then, all exertions cease. Only the eerie silence remains (Rev. 8:1) as the heavens prepare a punitive response. From the Bible to Nostradamus, the unifying theme that runs across the litany of these texts – like Ariadne’s thread guiding us out of a labyrinth of obscurity – is the ubiquitous prophecy of the Messiah who will deliver us from worldwide disaster at the end of time (Matt. 24:21-22)!" 

A Retelling of the Jesus Story http://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Revelation-First-Coming/dp/1479747068/ref=la_B00FWAVSMC_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1414502907&sr=1-1

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!