Author EK - Tumblr Posts

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

By Author Eli Kittim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Author Eli Kittim

_________________________________________

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 12.4--5

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

---- Novum Testamentum Graece NA28

________________________________________

Translation:

REVELATION 12.4--5

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

---- New Revised Standard Version 1989

________________________________________

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

τῆς γυναικὸς τῆς μελλούσης τεκεῖν

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

By Author Eli Kittim

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

"For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel's call and with the sound of God's trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first" (NRSV).

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

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

The Theodotion Daniel (Δανιηλ 12.1) reads:

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

Translation:

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

The Old Greek (LXX) goes on to say:

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

It is translated as follows:

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

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

First Peter 1.10-11 Suggests An Eschatological Soteriology

By Author Eli Kittim

"Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow" (1 Peter 1.10-11 NIV).

BIBLE EXEGESIS

First, notice that the prophets (Gk. προφῆται) in the aforementioned passage are said to have the Spirit of Christ (Gk. Πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ) within them, thereby making it abundantly clear that they are prophets of the New Testament (NT), since there's no reference to the Spirit of Christ in the Old Testament (OT). That they were NT prophets is subsequently attested by verse 12 with its reference to the gospel:

"It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven."

Second, the notion that 1 Peter 1.10-11 is referring to NT as opposed to OT prophets is further established by way of the doctrine of salvation (Gk. σωτηρίας), which is said to come through the means of grace! This explicit type of Soteriology (namely, through grace; Gk. χάριτος) cannot be found anywhere in the OT.

Third, and most importantly, observe that "the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow" were actually "PREDICTED" (Gk. προμαρτυρόμενον; i.e., testified beforehand) by "the Spirit of Christ" (Gk. Πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ; presumably a reference to the Holy Spirit) and communicated to the NT prophets so that they might record them for posterity's sake (cf. v. 12). Therefore, the passion of Christ was seemingly written in advance——or prophesied, if you will——according to this NT passage!

Here's Further Evidence that the Gospel of Christ is Promised Beforehand in the New Testament

In the undermentioned passage, notice that it was "the gospel concerning his Son" "which he [God] promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures." This passage further demonstrates that these are NT prophets, since there's no reference to "the gospel (Gk. εὐαγγέλιον) of God . . . concerning his Son" in the OT:

"Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, the gospel concerning his Son" (Romans 1.1-3 NRSV).

Also, Paul’s letters are referred to as “Scripture” in 2 Pet. 3.16, while Luke’s gospel is referred to as “Scripture” in 1 Tim. 5.18!

Gentile Authorship of the New Testament

By Author Eli Kittim

Paul forbid Gentiles from keeping the Mosaic law. He warned that if you keep the law you’ll be cut off from grace. I don’t know about you but Paul doesn’t sound like a Hellenistic Jew to me. Sounds more like a Gentile!

Paul was probably not a Pharisee. Jerome suspected this early on. In his debate with Mike Licona (“Are the Gospels Historically Reliable?” 2018), Bart Ehrman said he doubts that Paul knew Aramaic! What kind of a Jew doesn’t know Aramaic? There are many reasons why the Pauline narrative in Acts may not be factual; a) the idea that Paul was a disciple of Gamaliel is mentioned only in Acts, a book that was written much later than Paul’s letters. In Acts, we are told that Paul is a Pharisee and that he’s persecuting Christians at the behest of the high priest in Jerusalem. This cannot be possible because b) the high priest was a Sadducee, and the Sadducees (not the Pharisees) ran the temple in Jerusalem (Acts 5.17). Moreover, the Sadducees and Pharisees were bitter rivals, enemies who disagreed on a number of topics, including spiritual ones. So, it seems rather absurd that a Pharisee would be working for a Sadducee; c) the high priest in Jerusalem had no jurisdiction in Damascus, Syria. The point is that this story couldn’t have happened in the way that Acts describes it.

The same holds true for the trial of Jesus in the Gospels. Everything about the trial seems preposterous, from the notion that it was held at night to the idea that it took place on the day of Passover, and even some of the details seem rather improbable if one understood Jewish law.

If we look at the rest of the gospels, including Acts (the so-called 5th gospel), we’ll come to realize that the authors are seemingly unfamiliar with the local geography, customs, feasts, idioms, language, law, and the religion of the Jews. If we then look at the scholarly consensus as to how the NT authors copied the Hebrew Bible, it will give us some clues with regard to their ethnic identities. It is well-known among scholarly circles that the New Testament authors quoted predominantly from the Septuagint rather than from the Hebrew Bible. Obviously, this indicates that they were not familiar with the Hebrew language and could not understand it. Furthermore, Greek was the lingua franca. But the lingua franca was only used for commerce, not for writing sacred scripture! If the New Testament was written in Greek because it was the lingua franca, then we would expect most of the Dead Sea Scrolls to be written in Greek. But that’s not what we find. Most of them are in Hebrew, thus disproving the lingua franca hypothesis! Devout Jews preferred Hebrew. Besides, the New Testament was supposed to be a continuation of Jewish scripture! The Jews not only couldn’t understand Greek but they forbade their own from writing in it because it stood for everything anti-Jewish. Even according to modern Jewish scholars, Jews of the first century couldn’t have been such highly literate individuals in Greek to be able to write the New Testament with such refinement and eloquence. Nevertheless, the New Testament was written exclusively in Greek. And we also know that the NT authors wrote their books from various places outside of Palestine.

All in all, from the discrepancies in the stories themselves to the authors who wrote them, the evidence overwhelmingly points to Gentile authorship of the New Testament. In other words, the authors of the New Testament were neither Jews from Judea nor Hellenistic Jews from the diaspora but rather Gentiles who were highly literate, but who didn’t understand the finer points of Jewish life in first century Palestine.

The Birth, Death, and Resurrection of Christ According to the Greek New Testament Epistles

By Author Eli Kittim

“The Birth, Death, and Resurrection of Christ According to the Greek New Testament Epistles” is a scholarly monograph written by Eli Kittim. It is a 30-page academic article based on translation and exegesis of Biblical Greek, meant to be read by scholars, showing that the internal evidence of the Greek New Testament affirms “the centrality of the future in Christ’s only visitation.” It argues “that the assumed historicity of Jesus needs to be revisited, given that his only visitation is set to occur at the end of the age.” This groundbreaking paper uncovers new information that changes everything we thought we knew about Jesus. It is a study that brings out the latest insights into this specific subject of academic research, and it was published in the Journal of Higher Criticism, volume 13, number 3.

Proof that Daniel 12.1 is Referring to a Resurrection from the Dead Based on Translation and Exegesis of the Biblical Languages

By Author Eli Kittim

Dan. 12.1 is in the context of the great tribulation of the end times! It’s repeated in Mt. 24.21 as the time of the great ordeal: καιρός θλίψεως (cf. Rev. 7.14).

Daniel Th 12.1 LXX:

καὶ ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ ἀναστήσεται Μιχαηλ ὁ ἄρχων ὁ μέγας ὁ ἑστηκὼς ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ λαοῦ σου καὶ ἔσται καιρὸς θλίψεως θλῖψις οἵα οὐ γέγονεν ἀφ’ οὗ γεγένηται ἔθνος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἕως τοῦ καιροῦ ἐκείνου.

The Theodotion Daniel 12.1 of the Septuagint translates the Hebrew word עָמַד (amad) as αναστήσεται, which is derived from the root word ανίστημι and means “shall arise.”

Translation:

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

My contention that the Greek word ἀναστήσεται (“shall arise”) is referring to a resurrection from the dead has been challenged by critics. My response is as follows.

The first piece of evidence is the fact that Michael is first mentioned as the one who “shall arise” (ἀναστήσεται; Dan Th 12.1 LXX) prior to the general resurrection of the dead (ἀναστήσονται; Dan OG 12.2 LXX). Here, there is solid linguistic evidence that the word ἀναστήσεται is referring to a resurrection because in the immediately following verse (12.2) the plural form of the exact same word (namely, ἀναστήσονται) is used to describe the general resurrection of the dead! In other words, if the exact same word means resurrection in Dan 12.2, then it must also necessarily mean resurrection in Dan 12.1!

The second piece of evidence comes from the Old Greek Daniel version of the Septuagint that uses the word παρελεύσεται to define the Hebrew word עָמַד (amad), which is translated as “shall arise.”

The OG Daniel 12.1 LXX reads:

καὶ κατὰ τὴν ὥραν ἐκείνην παρελεύσεται Μιχαηλ ὁ ἄγγελος ὁ μέγας ὁ ἑστηκὼς ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ λαοῦ σου ἐκείνη ἡ ἡμέρα θλίψεως οἵα οὐκ ἐγενήθη ἀφ’ οὗ ἐγενήθησαν ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης.

The OG Daniel version of the Septuagint further demonstrates that Daniel 12.1 is describing a death-and-resurrection theme because the word παρελεύσεται means to “pass away” (to die), thereby indicating the decease of this featured prince at the time of the end! It therefore sets the scene for his resurrection as the so-called “Theodotion Daniel” form of the LXX fills in the gaps by using the word αναστήσεται, meaning a bodily resurrection, to establish the latter day period as the time during which this princely figure will be resurrected from the dead!

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

By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim

It’s important to note the language that’s often used with regard to the future coming of Christ, namely, as the “revelation” of Jesus. Why do the New Testament (NT) authors refer to Christ’s coming as a “revelation”? We must first understand what this word means in Greek, and how it is used in the NT. The actual Greek word used in the NT is ἀποκάλυψις (“apokalupsis”). The English word apocalypse comes from the Greek word apokalupsis, which means “revelation.” The terms “revelation” or “revealed” indicate 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. In other words, it’s not a revelation if it’s already known. 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. But if it’s already known and happens to reappear a second time, it is not considered to be a “revelation.” 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.

Let’s now briefly look at some NT verses, which mention the future coming of Christ, to examine whether they are referring to a second coming, a coming back, or a return, as is commonly thought:

1 Cor. 4.5; 15.23; 16.22; 1 Thess. 2.19; 4.15; 2 Thess. 1.10; 2.1; Heb. 10.37; Jas. 5.7; 2 Pet. 1.16; 3.3; Rev. 2.16; 22.20.

As you can see, a second coming or a return is nowhere indicated in the above-mentioned verses. 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. Why not? We'll explore this question a little later, but for now let’s look at the NT eschatological literature with regard to what Christians have traditionally referred to as the “second coming” of Christ. There are many references to Jesus’ future “coming” in the NT——(variously called “the day of Christ”; cf. 1 Cor. 1.8; 3.13; Phil. 1.6; 2.16; 2 Thess. 2.2)——but nowhere is it mentioned as a second coming or as a return!

Let’s examine elsewhere whether a second coming is indicated by the NT authors:

Lk. 17.30; 1 Cor. 1.7; Phil. 1.6; Col. 3.4; 1 Thess. 1.10; 2 Thess. 1.7; 1 Tim. 6.14; 2 Tim. 4.1; Titus 2.13; 1 Pet. 1.13; 5.1; 1 Jn. 2.28; Rev. 1.1.

Astoundingly, if we study these verses, none of them refer to Jesus’ second coming. No return was explicitly mentioned. Many verses refer to Jesus’ “revelation,” which was previously unknown and which will become known in the future. As I mentioned earlier, the term “revelation” means something coming to light or being manifested for the very first time!

The wholesale absence of a second coming or return in all these verses must be addressed. If this is in fact the second coming of Christ, as is commonly believed, then why don’t we find appropriate terminology that is consistent with a “coming-again” or a “return”? Why don’t we find, for instance, words such as επανέρχομαι (come again), or επιστρέφω (return), or ἔρχομαι πάλιν (come again/return), etc.? Although these terms are used with some frequency in the NT, they are never applied to the revelation of Jesus Christ. There are, however, some confusing Bible mistranslations (for example, in Acts 1.11) which claim that Jesus “will return.” But Acts 1.11 never mentions Jesus’ return or his coming back to earth. These misleading translations are not faithful to the original Greek text. Some of these inaccurate translations include the NIV, NLT, BSB, CEV, GNT, ISV, AMP, GW, NET Bible, NHEB, & the WEB. All these Bible versions mistranslate the verse as if Jesus “will come back” or “will return.” However, the original Greek uses a word (ἐλεύσεται) that does not imply a “coming back” or a “return.” It simply indicates *one* single coming! The Greek text uses the word ἐλεύσεται, which simply means “will come.” 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 referred to the future visitation of Christ as a second coming. They all referred to it as a coming, a manifestation, an appearance, especially a “revelation,” but certainly not a second coming; not a coming again: neither a coming back nor a return. And given what we know about the term “revelation” and its unique meaning, the numerous references to Jesus’ “revelation” is a strong indication that these communities expected Jesus to appear for the first time in the end of the world!

What About the Hebrews 9.28 Reference to Christ Who is Said to “appear a second time”?

The only apparent contradiction to the above-mentioned body of evidence is a single reference to Christ appearing “a second time” in Hebrews 9.28. However, I will demonstrate that it is not a contradiction and that it fits perfectly with the previous material. Let me unpack it for you.

Notice that the word in Heb. 9.28 is not παρουσία (Parousia, i.e. “presence”)——which is commonly interpreted as a “coming”——but rather ἐκ δευτέρου (“a second time”), which is a clue that v. 28 is seemingly pointing back to the previous verse (v. 26), and particularly to the term ἅπαξ (which implies “a first time”).

It’s important that we understand the temporal or eschatological timeline of Hebrews 9.26 before we interpret verse 9.28. For example, it’s clear from the textual evidence that the idiomatic expression ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων (“at the end of the age” Heb. 9.26) is referring to the end of the world (cf. Lampe A Patristic Greek Lexicon, p. 1340; Dan. 12.4 LXX; Mt. 13.39–40, 49; Mt. 24.3; Mt. 28.20). Keep in mind that this time period is associated with “the Day of the Lord,” “the day of Christ,” and with Judgment day.

What is more, the book of Hebrews would not explicitly state that Christ will appear ONCE in one verse (v. 26), and then say the exact opposite in the following verse——namely, that he’ll appear TWICE (v. 28). So, that’s another clue that something else is meant by the author. Notice that the term ἅπαξ (“once for all”) is used 3x, once in each verse respectively: in v. 26 to refer to the number of times Christ appears; in v. 27 with regard to how many times people die (in contradistinction to reincarnation); and in v. 28 with regard to how many times Christ dies for the sins of many.

Observe also in Hebrews 1.1-2 that God does not speak to humankind through his Son in Antiquity, but rather ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν “in the last days.” Similarly, Hebrews 9.26b tells us that Christ’s sacrifice is offered hapax “once and for all” at the end of the age (or at the end of the world; see above-mentioned citations). It tells us not only the precise time frame of his visitation but also the reason for his appearance: “to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself.” That would be his DEATH!

The next verse (v. 27) tells us that all mortals (including Christ) live once and die once. But it also begins to show an important parallel or analogy between all mortals and Christ that becomes the key to understanding the meaning of the following verse (v. 28). Notice the specific language that is used to draw an analogy between all mortals and Christ: “Just as all mortals,” “so Christ,” and so on. In other words, what applies to mortals applies to Christ. It implies that just as all mortals die once——followed by the resurrection and the judgment——so Christ having DIED ONCE, “will appear a second time” for the resurrection and the judgment. Given the internal consistency and development of the passage in which Christ will die ONCE “in the end of the world” (Heb. 9.26 KJV), the next two verses then evoke “the judgment” to signify Christ’s resurrection from the dead:

26b νυνί δὲ ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων εἰς ἀθέτησιν [τῆς] ἁμαρτίας διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ πεφανέρωται. 27 καί καθ’ ὅσον ἀπόκειται τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἅπαξ ἀποθανεῖν, μετὰ δὲ τοῦτο κρίσις, 28 οὕτως καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ προσενεχθεὶς εἰς τὸ πολλῶν ἀνενεγκεῖν ἁμαρτίας ἐκ δευτέρου χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας ὀφθήσεται τοῖς αὐτὸν ἀπεκδεχομένοις εἰς σωτηρίαν. (NA28)

Translation (NRSV):

26b “But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And just as it is appointed for mortals to die once, and after that the judgment, 28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin, but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.”

Conclusion

Just as v. 26 speaks of Christ’s demise, so vv. 27-28 imply his resurrection, which must necessarily follow his death, according to the NT story! Thus, the reference to Christ appearing “a second time” (Heb. 9.28) is referring to his resurrection from the dead, which will “bring salvation to those who are waiting for him” (NIV)! That’s precisely why Jesus says, “In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me” (Jn 16.16). The notion that Christ will be the first to be resurrected in the last days is also mentioned in 1 Cor 15:22-28! Similarly, theologian Dennis McCallum writes, “No Old Testament passage indicates that Messiah will come twice.” In his book, Satan and His Kingdom (p. 38), he writes:

"In some cases, predictions about the [OT] suffering servant are immediately next to prophecies about King Messiah, without any mention of a more-than-two-thousand-year gap between them (e.g., cross-reference Isaiah 61:1 ff and Jesus’ commentary in Luke 4:21)."

Thus, there is a large body of evidence which suggests that the one and only visitation of Christ will transpire in the last days. This is particularly evident in certain verses which imply that Christ has not yet been revealed (cf. Lk. 17.30)! It is reminiscent of the Epistles, in which Jesus’ long anticipated manifestation is variously referenced as “The revelation of Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1.7; 1 Pet. 1.7, 13):

“And now, little children, abide in him, so that when he [Jesus] is REVEALED we may have confidence and not be put to shame before him at his COMING” (1 Jn 2.28 NRSV emphasis added).

In this verse, notice that Jesus’ •revelation• is exclusively related to his future “coming.” In fact, in John 9.39, the literary Jesus says: “I came into this world for judgment.” In other words, his one and only coming is associated with judgment day!

This brief topical study therefore deserves academic consideration because it presents an original approach to the interpretation of the NT that challenges the way we study the second coming of Christ. It is a new Paradigm Shift!

The Trinity in the Hebrew Bible

By Author Eli Kittim

Despite the misleading objections of Judaism and Islam to the Christian concept of the Trinity, there is compelling evidence that a multiplicity of divine persons exists in the Hebrew Bible, as we find in Prov. 30.3-4, Gen. 35.1-7, as well as in Gen. 31.10-13, in which the Angel of the Lord is identified as God, no less! Note also the multi-personal God in Eccles. 12:1 (YLT):

“Remember also thy Creators in days of thy youth.”

Similarly, there are 2 YHWHs in Genesis 19.24 in the Hebrew text:

“Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven.”

There are actually 2 persons called YHWH in the above verse. One YHWH is on the earth, standing nearby Sodom and Gomorrah. The other YHWH is in the heavens. It is reminiscent of the two Lords in Psalm 110.1:

“The LORD says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.' “

In another mysterious passage, the creator of heaven and earth is speaking and surprisingly ends his speech by saying, “the Lord God has sent me." Isaiah 48.12--16 reads:

“Listen to me, O Jacob,  and Israel, whom I called: I am He; I am the first,  and I am the last. My hand laid the foundation of the earth,  and my right hand spread out the heavens;

when I summon them,  they stand at attention.

Assemble, all of you, and hear!  Who among them has declared these things?

The Lord loves him;  he shall perform his purpose on Babylon,  and his arm shall be against the Chaldeans.

I, even I, have spoken and called him,  I have brought him, and he will prosper in his way.

Draw near to me, hear this!  From the beginning I have not spoken in secret,  from the time it came to be I have been there.

And now the Lord God has sent me and his spirit.”

——-

While critics of the Triune God use Deut. 6:4 (The Shema) as a declaration of monotheism, this verse may also refer to a plurality of divine persons within the singular Godhead. The verse essentially reads:

Hear Israel, Yahweh Elohenu Yahweh is one.

It Mentions God 3 times and then declares that he [is] one (echad). Besides mentioning God 3 times, the verse also uses the plural form ĕ·lō·hê·nū to suggest numerically more than one person. It’s tantamount to saying, Israel, pay attention to my declaration about our God: one plus one plus one equals one (or 3 in 1)! Or, Yahweh, Elohenu, Yahweh = One (monotheism)! Elohenu is a noun - masculine plural construct - first person common plural.

Moreover, notice that Yahweh is not called qadosh (singular for ‘holy’) but qə·ḏō·šîm (plural) in Joshua 24.19 as well as in Prov. 9.10:

“The commencement of wisdom is the fear of Jehovah, And a knowledge of the Holy Ones is understanding.”

Hence the plurality in the meaning of the Hebrew term for God, which is “Elohim" (Gen. 1.1), not to mention the multiplicity of divine persons in Gen. 1.26, "Let US make man in OUR image" (emphasis added).

——-

As for the distinction of the third person of the Trinity, namely, the Holy Spirit, besides 2 Sam. 23.2-3, read Isaiah 63.10-11:

“But they rebelled and grieved his holy spirit; therefore he became their enemy; he himself fought against them. Then they remembered the days of old, of Moses his servant. Where is the one who brought them up out of the sea with the shepherds of his flock? Where is the one who put within them his Holy Spirit . . . ?”

——-

Conclusion

Thus, the above-mentioned verses in the Hebrew Scriptures clearly support the theological concept of a multi-personal God——that is to say, a plurality of persons within the singular Godhead, otherwise known as the Trinity, which comprises three persons but one being: One God, yet three coeternal, consubstantial persons (hypostases). These three persons are said to be distinct, yet are nevertheless one "substance, essence or nature" (homoousios).

In other words, the Hebrew Scriptures further substantiate the theological notion of the triune God.

The Two Powers of the Godhead Were Part of Judaism During the Time of Jesus

Eli Kittim (Goodreads Author)

——-

Metatron and Jesus

The early Jewish concept of “Metatron”——(He who is said to be above the angels, either consubstantial with the Ancient of days or perhaps a manifestation of his very being) as referenced by Medieval Rabbinic scholars and also found in the Babylonian Talmud and 3 Enoch——is very similar to the messianic figure of Jesus Christ in the New Testament (NT) and is suggestive of two powers in the Godhead, an idea also attested by Philo of Alexandria (see “Confusion of Tongues" pp. 62-63 and pp. 146-47; “On Dreams" 1.215). The notion of the two powers in Heaven in early Jewish thinking has recently attracted the attention of both Christian and Jewish scholarship. Peter Schafer, the noted religious studies scholar, has written extensively on this subject emphasizing that, according to Jewish writings, Metatron was seen as a lesser yhwh and was prevalent in Jewish thought in the first century, and thus helped Christianity to chalk up that designation to Jesus.

——-

The Two Powers in Heaven in the Hebrew Bible

The two powers of the Godhead or the plurality in the Godhead is certainly suggested in Hebrew scripture where there seem to be two Yahwehs, one visible, the other invisible, and they often participate in the same scenes together. In fact, according to Alan F. Segal’s book “Two powers in Heaven,” “the idea of the 2nd power was not considered heretical until the 2nd century CE.” Alan Segal was a Jewish man and professor of Jewish and Talmudic literature. So, the concept of the two powers of the Godhead was part of Judaism at the time of Jesus and only became a heresy sometime around 100 CE. Scholars suggest it was probably due to an attempt on the part of Judaism to oppose Christianity that they suddenly decided to consider it heretical. Naturally, this second YHWH was seen as Jesus by the NT authors.

——-

There are 2 YHWHs in the Old Testament (OT)

The divine plurality was not a huge problem at that time because there was already a belief in two powers in Jewish thought. There are, for example, two Yhwhs in Gen. 19.24. You can also see this idea in Gen. 22.11-12; Exod. 3.2, 4; 23.20-21; Deut. 12.5, 11. In Amos 4.11, God speaks in the first person and then curiously refers to God in the 3d person. In Judg. 2.1-4, the angel of YHWH is using first person language and speaks as if he’s God who has made a covenant with Israel. Astoundingly, in Gen. 31.10-13, the angel of God reveals himself as the God of Bethel. How could he be both the angel of God and God himself at one and the same time unless we’re talking about two different persons? Similarly, in Judg. 6.11-16, the passage begins with the angel of YHWH who said x y and z but ends with YHWH who said x y and z. In other words, as the angel of YHWH begins to speak he is then identified with YHWH himself speaking in the first person.

——-

YHWH revealed as the Word of the Lord

Further examples are found in 1 Samuel 3.1, 7-8, 10, 19-21. In 1 Samuel 3.21, for instance, we are told that the LORD (YHWH) revealed himself by/as the word of the Lord. This has profound theological implications. It clearly suggests that the Logos in Jn 1.1 (“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”) is neither a new idea nor a Christian invention but rather a conceptual derivation from Jewish theology that is contained within the OT itself. Similarly, in Jeremiah 1.4-7, Jeremiah says that “the word of the Lord came to me saying,” such and such, and then he refers to him as YHWH, but in v. 9 “the word of the Lord” that had come to him appears to be embodied because an actual hand reaches out and touches Jeremiah’s mouth, suggestive of the embodied word of God.

——-

The OT YHWH embodied in human form

In Daniel 7.13 “a human being coming with the clouds of heaven” is mentioned even though traditionally it is said to be God who rides the clouds (cf. Deut. 33.26; Ps. 68.32-33; 104.1-3; Isa. 19.1). Thus, we have a visible, embodied, incarnate God as well as an invisible God at one and the same time! We all thought that the cloud-rider was Yahweh. That’s correct. But now we find another person, a human being who takes on the qualities and attributes of Yahweh. In fact, the Matthean Jesus quotes this very passage during his purported trial (26.63-65) when Caiphas inquires to know who he really is. According to Alan Segal’s book, Daniel 7 is describing “a heavenly enthronement scene involving two divine manifestations, ‘the son of man’ and then Ancient of Days’ . . . it may easily be describing two separate, divine figures.”

——-

Jesus is unique amongst the heavenly host

While it is true that the Tanach presents other so-called “sons of God” who are not human (e.g. Job 1-2; Ps. 82.1, 6), Jesus is distinguished from them in that he is clearly identified with Yahweh per se. The NT itself makes this point in various ways. One way that the NT distinguishes Jesus from the other sons of God, which the Septuagint often translates as angels (Deut. 32.8 LXX), is through the Greek term monogenēs, a term that is translated in English as “Only Begotten.” Etymologically, this term is a combination of monos (“only”) and gene (“type” or “kind”). In other words, one of a kind. There are none like him. It means he’s “unique.” It does not have anything to do with the concepts of “begetting” or “beginning.” Hebrews 11.17 is the proof-text which clarifies this point because Isaac is also referenced there as the monogenes of Abraham. But we know that Isaac was not the only begotten son of Abraham. Ergo, it means that Isaac is unique.

——-

Summary:

Thus the “Only begotten” language refers to uniqueness, not to a “point of origin” or to a beginning. Given that Yahweh is unique and that Jesus is identified with him, this term stresses an intimate relationship between the two. The NT affirms a divine plurality and specifically Christ’s ontological link with Yahweh. In fact, Jude 1.5 suggests that it was Jesus himself who led the people out of Egypt!

——-

What about the Spirit and the Trinity?

The Holy Spirit becomes distinct as a separate entity already in the OT, as when it is said that the people rebelled not against the angel of the Lord but against “his Holy Spirit.” It’s noteworthy that later the text alludes to God “who brought them out of the sea” and “put in the midst of them his Holy Spirit” (Isaiah 63.10, 11). But wasn’t the angel of the Lord put in the midst of them, according to other passages? Well, yes. But there’s more to the story. Psalm 78.40-41 is a parallel passage. The words “rebelled” and “grieved” in Ps 78 are the same Hebrew words used in the Isaian passage. The Isaian passage says that the people rebelled and grieved “his Holy Spirit” whereas Ps 78 says that “they rebelled against him [God] and grieved him in the desert.” Verse 41 goes on to say that “They tested God again and again and provoked the Holy One of Israel.” The comparison of the two passages aligns or conflates the Holy Spirit with God and yet shows a distinction between them. In fact, Ps. 78.41 says that they tempted God and the Holy One of Israel. This is a case where two divine powers are mentioned in the same scene while one figure that we’re familiar with is clearly absent, to wit, the angel of the Lord. A third element is thus added to the two-power structure of the Godhead, namely, the Holy Spirit or the Holy One of Israel, according to the parallel passage. That’s “three-thinking” language. Accordingly, the NT authors knew their Hebrew Scriptures extraordinarily well. They were very familiar with its thematic material. So, they’re not inventing new concepts. They’re actually borrowing their ideas from the OT.

——-

A Trinitarian narrative in OT theology

By way of illustration, Ezek. 8 introduces “a form that had the appearance of a man” (v. 1), and then goes on to describe this figure in v. 2, which is suggestive of God sitting on his throne in Ezek. ch. 1. But here God appears in human form. Ezekiel says that “He put out the form of a hand” by which he grabbed his hair (v. 3). But who actually lifted him up? Ezekiel says, “and the Spirit lifted me up between earth and heaven (v. 3). The text then reverts to speaking about God in the 3rd person (v. 5) and also in the first person in verse 6.

So, in this passage we have God himself speaking, but we also have an embodied God in human form (akin to the figure in Ezek. ch. 1) as well as the “Spirit” acting as an independent agent and yet as part of the Godhead. This must have been extremely confusing to the early rabbinical scholars who probably couldn't make heads or tails of these passages. To the NT authors, who were also guided by divine revelations, these passages were obviously trinitarian in nature. Thus, there appears to be a theological correspondance between the *OT-God* (comprising the two YHWHs and the Spirit) and the *NT-God* (consisting of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). These divine modes were certainly prevalent in OT theology concerning the Two (and possibly Three) Powers in the Godhead.

——-

Conclusion

The Jewish Bible clearly suggests a plurality in the Godhead (i.e. Yahweh as two figures).

The so-called “Name” of God is yet another reference to Yahweh and this “Name” is said to be in the Angel of Yahweh as well. Ergo, we cannot escape the semantic trajectory of OT theology, namely, the running narrative that the Angel is YHWH in human form, or the visible manifestation of Yahweh. What is more, the so-called “Word of the Lord” appears to be an embodiment of YHWH. In fact, the theology of the Jewish Bible depicts the second Yahweh figure as physically embodied in human form. And, as already mentioned, the theology of first-century Judaism already contained the notion that Yahweh is present in two persons, often in the same scene.

Was James the Brother of Jesus?

Eli Kittim (Author)

——-

Given that Josephus didn’t believe in Jesus, he wouldn’t have written “the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ.” So, it’s very likely that the James passage in book 20 of Antiquities is, at the very least, a partial interpolation.

This phraseology smacks of redaction as Josephus supposedly uses NT messianic terminology to refer to Jesus as the Christ! The purpose of the interpolation is seemingly to establish James both as a historical figure and as “the brother of Jesus.”

In fact, scholars such as Tessa Rajak and G. A. Wells, among others, have argued against the authenticity of the James passage for various reasons. Not to mention that there are conflicting reports between Josephus and other early Christian writers regarding both James’ type of death and time of death, which leaves a lot of room for conjecture and speculation.

——-

The scholarly preoccupation with James is so complicated and confusing that it has taken on a life of its own. Personally, I think it’s a circular argument. It probably started out as a simple acknowledgement on the part of Josephus of the NT writings and ended up as an elaborate conspiracy theory that fueled much scholarly debate. There are quite a few people called “James” in the Scriptural record, and many early interpretations give rise to wild speculations and cases of mistaken identity. For ex, James, son of Alphaeus is said to have been stoned to death. The similarity of his purported martyrdom to that of James the Just, has led some scholars, notably James Tabor and Robert Eisenman, to assume that these “two Jameses” were one and the same. This specific identification of James, son of Alphaeus with James the Just, as well as James the Less, has been asserted since medieval times. Obviously, these presuppositions lead to divergent interpretations. There is also much scholarly disagreement about James’ exact relationship to Jesus.

——-

Archaeological findings do not support a historical James either. We know, for example, that the James Ossuary is a forgery.

——-

Surprisingly, however, there is wide attestation to James from Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, Epiphanius of Salamis, Jerome, the apocryphal works of the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of Thomas, and so on. But we need to put these findings in perspective. Many of these writers come from centuries later, and they’re doing Midrash (interpretation), irrespective of whether the James story is historical or not, much like men of letters who have expounded on works of Shakespeare throughout the centuries. So, the wide attestation to Hamlet, for example, doesn’t mean that he’s a real, factual, historical person. Thus, despite its wide attestation, the story of Hamlet is still a legend.

——-

According to the gospel narratives themselves, there is strong evidence that James was NOT the brother of Jesus, so that no matter what Josephus wrote, it was wrong. Even if the James passage in Book 20 turns out to be authentic, which I seriously doubt, it would still be false contextually and linguistically because Josephus suggests a biological blood-relationship between James and Jesus, which is unwarranted according to the sitz im leben of the gospels.

Both the Church Fathers and the Gospels reveal who the so-called “brothers” of Jesus are

Here are the proofs:

Mt. 13.53-57 names the so-called “brothers” of Jesus: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas.

There are scholarly debates about the precise relationship of these men to Jesus that goes back to the Patristic Fathers.

We also know that the term “brother” can be employed to convey the meaning of “cousin” or “ nephew (see Gen. 13 & 14).

In Jn. 19, just before his death, when Jesus entrusts the safekeeping of Mary to John, it seems highly unlikely that Jesus would’ve done this if he was survived by his brothers, such as James. It would’ve been their obligation to take care of their mother.

Mt. 27.55-56 references Mary, the mother of James and Joseph (who were mentioned back in Mt. 13.55 as the so-called “brothers” of Jesus).

Mt. 27.59-61 depicts the so-called other Mary (mother of James & Joseph), who is obviously not Mary, the mother of Jesus. This implies that James and Joseph cannot possibly be the sons of Mary, the mother of Jesus.

In other words, even from the point of view of the allegorical narratives, James and Joseph cannot be portrayed as the brothers of Jesus.

In Jn. 19.25 Mary, the mother of Jesus is clearly distinguished from her “sister” Mary, the wife of Clopas. It demonstrates that the terms “brother” or “sister” don’t necessarily mean a blood-brother or blood-sister but rather a relative of some kind——perhaps even a brother in the faith.

——-

External Evidence

Eusebius, Church History, 4.22.4: Simon, who was earlier mentioned as the “brother” of Jesus, turns out to be a cousin.

Eusebius, Church History, 3.11-12: Here we have, once again, a reference to cousins.

Eusebius, Church History, 3.32.1-6: Judas, the so-called “brother” of Jesus also turns out to be a cousin.

——-

Summary

Therefore, both the internal and external evidence demonstrate that James could not have been the biological brother of Jesus in any sense, whether literal or historical.

——-

Theology Versus Chronology: A Soteriological View

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

John 7.39 Indicates that the Holy Spirit Was Unavailable Prior to Jesus’ Glorification. Is this Verse Giving Us a Chronological or a Theological Interpretation?

——-

Let’s use John 7.39 as a case study for this exegesis. It reads:

“Now he [Jesus] said this about the Spirit, which believers in him were to receive; for as yet there was no Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified.”

——-

Question: When Was Christ Glorified? And Did Old Testament Believers Receive God’s Spirit Prior to Jesus’ Glorification?

The Greek word used for “glorified” is ἐδοξάσθη. But when was Christ glorified? Is it possible that he was glorified after his resurrection? No! It’s clear from the gospel narratives that in his postmortem appearances Jesus had not yet entered into his glory (e.g. Lk. 24.26).

Other passages have an eschatological twist, namely, the prophecy that we will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great glory (see Lk. 21:27).

Do believers have to wait till Judgement Day to see Christ coming in glory before they can receive the Spirit of regeneration? Certainly not! That would be too late, if that were the case.

According to most exegetical writers, Christ is actually glorified after his ascension, when he returns to Heaven for his coronation (see Dan. 7.13-14 and Rev. 5.6-14). But if John 7.39 suggests that Christ’s glory is the chronological cause of the outpouring of the Spirit, then how can the Bible talk about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit with regard to Old Testament patriarchs such as David? Is it the case that no one had the Spirit of God prior to Jesus’ ascension and glorification? That cannot be! If in Psalm 51:11 King David prays to God, “Do not take Your Holy Spirit from me,” this would strongly suggest that he is already in possession of the Spirit of God! How then did David receive the Holy Spirit if it was not yet available until the glorification of Jesus? That’s one of the exegetical discrepancies we face if we interpret John 7.39, strictly speaking, from a chronological rather than a theological perspective!

——-

Christ’s Glory is Partially Exhibited Prior to his Death

There is another point. The Radiant Face of Moses (a messianic stand-in; see Exod. 34.29) reminds us of Jesus’ transfiguration prior to his death:

“There he [Jesus] was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light” (Mt. 17.2).

So Jesus’ face shone, which is a temporary type of glorification, since no other human being besides Moses has ever exhibited any such phenomenon in their physical outward appearance. Still, this remains a partial glory, not the full glorification that John 7.39 seems to be indicating.

——-

Jesus’ Glory Beheld in Advance

Here’s an interesting side note. In John 1.14, the apostles testify, “we beheld his glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” But how exactly did they behold his glory if Jesus had not yet been glorified? I think we can find out by reading Second Peter 1.18-19, which says:

“We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven, while we were with him on the holy mountain. So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed.”

Wait. What? You mean to tell me that the-transfiguration-on-the-Mount narrative is a prophecy?? Yes, that’s what 2 Pet. 1.18-19 indicates!

Similarly, 1 Peter 1.10-11 suggests an eschatological soteriology that is also based on a prophecy: namely, the New Testament “testified in advance to the sufferings destined for Christ and the subsequent glory.” It reads:

“Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that was to be yours made careful search and inquiry, inquiring about the person or time that the Spirit of Christ within them indicated when it testified in advance to the sufferings destined for Christ and the subsequent glory.”

——-

Christ’s “Great Glory” is Displayed in the End Times

Christ’s “great glory” is fully displayed during the parousia when he executes judgment (Mt. 24.29-31; 25.31-35). However, according to Romans 5.2, this hasn’t yet happened:

“Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.”

——-

Conclusion

The answer is that John 7.39 is obviously giving us a theological rather than a chronological interpretation because it appears that the Holy Spirit was offered and fully available retroactively in both the Old and New Testaments •through faith• prior to Jesus’ glorification. The passage in John’s gospel (7.39) is simply trying to show the intimate connection between the reception of the Spirit and Jesus’ glorification. In other words, without Jesus’ atoning sacrifice, death, and resurrection (and ultimate glorification), there can be no salvation because the Spirit cannot be sent to reconcile humanity to God.

But if God already knows the future outcome and the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ——since he has been “declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done” (Isa. 46.10)——then believers in God can and do receive the Holy Spirit •retroactively• “through faith” (1 Pet. 1.3-5) based on the merits of the prophetic message revealed by God in Scripture! In fact, “this grace was given to us in Christ Jesus before the ages began” (2 Tim. 1.9)!

——-

Eli Kittim — Public Figure — Independent Scholar— Author

thelittlebookofrevelation.com

http://thelittlebookofrevelation.com

What does the Johannine Jesus mean in John 14.3 when he says, “if I go . . . I will come back”?

By Writer Eli Kittim

——-

SBLGNT:

καὶ ἐὰν πορευθῶ καὶ ἑτοιμάσω τόπον ὑμῖν, πάλιν ἔρχομαι καὶ παραλήμψομαι ὑμᾶς πρὸς ἐμαυτόν, ἵνα ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγὼ καὶ ὑμεῖς ἦτε (Jn. 14.3).

Translation:

“If I go away and prepare a place for you, I will come back and receive you to Myself, so that where I am you may be also” (HCSB).

——-

Definitions

In John 14.3, one of the meanings of the Greek word πορεύομαι (I go) is “die.” It can also mean “travel,” “journey,” or “go.” It comes from the root word “poros,” which means “passageway.” Thus, the connotation is “to depart.”

——-

Is Jesus a General Contractor Or Does He Mean Something Else?

So the question arises: is Jesus going to Heaven to begin preparation and arrangements for the biggest building projects in Heaven’s history? Is that what he really means? Is he going away in order to supervise large developments that will serve as living quarters for humans who will one day be transported there? Is that what he means? And then he will “come back” thousands of years later when the projects have been completed, for it takes a long time to build such ambitious developments? Is that the proper biblical interpretation of what he means when he says, “I go away and prepare a place for you”?

——-

Old Testament Parallels

First, let’s start with a basic question: how does Jesus “prepare a place” for us? Is it by using lawn mowers, cement, bricks, architectural plans, tractors, and the like? Or is it through other means? Obviously, since Jesus’ teachings are spiritually-based, it would seem pointless to look toward materialistic explanations. Therefore, we must look for parallels and verbal agreements elsewhere in the Bible in order to find out exactly what he means. For example, in Isaiah 14.21, to “Prepare a place” means to prepare a slaughtering place מַטְבֵּ֖חַ (matbeach) in order “to slaughter his children for the sins of their ancestors” (cf. Mt. 23.35 NIV). Therefore, in preparing a place, a slaughter house is indicated. Similarly, within the passion narrative, when the Johannine Jesus uttered these words, we knew exactly where he was going; namely, to his death! According to Christian theology, the atonement, namely, the “cross” or the •slaughterhouse•, prepares a place for us through the forgiveness of sins, so that we might become the sons and daughters of God through the blood of Jesus. So, it turns out that Jesus is not going to Heaven; he’s going to his death!

——-

Jesus Will “Come Back” Not from Heaven But from Death

Second, as already mentioned, in the Greek, the word for “go” (πορευθῶ), in the phrase “if I go,” can mean “to go,” to “journey,” to “die,” or to “depart.” Thus, when the Johannine Jesus says “If I go away and prepare a place for you, I will come back,” is he referring to a second coming that will occur possibly thousands of years later, or does he mean something else? Something, perhaps, related to why he is going away in the first place? Based on the aforementioned exegesis, it seemingly means that he “will come back” from the dead (cf. Heb. 9.26-28). Accordingly, it turns out that in John 14.1-3 Jesus is not talking about going to Heaven and then returning in a second coming thousands of years later. Rather, he’s referring to his sacrificial death, which prepares the way to Heaven for all humanity, after which he soon returns from the dead for the rapture (to “receive you to Myself”) and for our ultimate ascension into Heaven. So, whereas the classic interpretation proposed bizarre and remote gaps in chronology between Jesus’ death and resurrection, as well as His appearance in the sky out of nowhere centuries later, the current interpretation is robust precisely because it follows the biblical jargon closely and understands it to be a natural contemporaneous sequence of events within one single lifetime.

——-

New Testament Parallels

Third, John 14.3 can certainly mean “I go to my death” precisely because a similar phrase (“I’m ready to go” away)——using the exact same Greek word πορεύομαι——is used elsewhere in the New Testament to mean that the person is going “to [his] death”:

SBLGNT

ἕτοιμός εἰμι καὶ εἰς θάνατον πορεύεσθαι (Luke 22:33).

Translation:

“I'm ready to go . . . to death!" (HCSB).

Thus, the translation and exegesis of the Biblical languages from both the Old and New Testaments confirms that Jesus is seemingly predicting his death in John 14.3. Jesus is basically saying, “I prepare a place for you” by dying for you!

——-

Jesus is Not Preparing a House; He’s Preparing an Atonement

Fourth, contextually speaking, even Jn 14.2 (the previous verse) demonstrates that Jesus rejects the notion that his message is about living accommodations. Indeed, he stresses that Heaven already has all the accommodations it needs. If it didn’t, he would have told us. In other words, that’s NOT what he meant, and so he switches gears, so to speak, and ends the verse by saying, “I go to prepare a place for you” (πορεύομαι ἑτοιμάσαι τόπον ὑμῖν):

“In My Father's house are many dwelling places; if not, I would have told you. I am going away to prepare a place for you” (HCSB).

The question is, where does he go? Answer: to his death. He must die first. That’s the clue. That’s where he goes because “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Heb. 9.22 HCSB). And we already know from the gospel narratives precisely where he intends to go, and how the story ends!

——-

Jesus Will “Come Back” For the Resurrection and the Rapture

Fifth, then in v. 3 he says, “If I go . . . I will come back and receive you to Myself, so that where I am you may be also.” That sounds like “rapture” language (cf. 1 Thess. 4.16-17), which resembles the resurrection theme in Heb. 9.28 that closely follows the death motif in Heb. 9.26b. John 14.3 employs the term παραλήμψομαι, which comes from the verb παραλαμβάνω and means “I take”——cf. “taken” [as in the rapture] at Gen. 5.24 & Mt. 24.40-41—-or “I receive.” So, the “come back” motif could certainly imply a •resurrection from the dead.• It is not out of the question precisely because it’s not a “parousia” that the text is referring to but rather a “come back” πάλιν ἔρχομαι (cf. ἐκ δευτέρου “for a second time” rather than παρουσία in Heb. 9.28). Therefore, just as in Luke 22.33 in which the going away (πορεύομαι) is a going forth to one’s death, so the “come back” theme in Jn 14.3 can certainly imply from the grave, from death, that is, to receive us in the “rapture.”

——-

Conclusion: The Events of John 14.3 Obviously Suggest A Futurist Eschatological Model

The logical conclusion of this brief study leads to the final question, namely, if Jesus’ death and resurrection are closely followed by the “rapture,” then how could this contemporaneous sequence of events take place in first century Palestine? It could not! Thus, if the Jesus-saying, “if I go away . . . I will come back” means that Jesus will *come-back-from-the-dead* for the •rapture,• then obviously John 14.3 can only be interpreted through a future eschatological model that would account for the contemporaneity of these events! That’s precisely why Jesus says, “In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me” (Jn 16.16).

The New Testament Epistolary literature certainly supports such a model through numerous references (cf. 1 Jn 2.28; Rev. 12.5; 19.10d NRSV). Due to time constraints, I will confine myself to two examples:

1) “Once in the end of the world hath he [Jesus] appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice [death] of himself” (Heb. 9.26b KJV emphasis added).

2) “He was marked out before the world was made, and was revealed at the final point of time” (1 Pet. 1.20 NJB emphasis added).

——-

The Evolution of a Gentile Messiah in the Bible

By Biblical Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

——-

Jesus rejects the notion that he’s a descendant of David, and of the Jews, in Matthew 22:41-46.

——-

That’s precisely why the gospel writers are especially careful to dissociate him from the southern kingdom of Judah and from the Jews by locating his place of origin in the north, in the land of the Gentiles, a place outside of, and external to, the Jewish Kingdom. Btw, strictly speaking, the word “Jew “ means a person from the kingdom of Judah (Ιουδαίος).

——-

The Figurative Text (Excerpted from Kittim’s book, The Little Book of Revelation, Chapter 5):

In contrast to the “New Perspective on Paul,” which tries to Hebraize the Greek New Testament by giving Paul a Hebrew flavor, Paul himself is adamant that “Jewishness” in the Bible has nothing to do with race or descendancy. Paul gives us an exact definition of what it means to be a “Jew” within the NT context:

“For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart—it is spiritual and not literal. Such a person receives praise not from others but from God” (Rom. 2.28-29).

According to Paul’s stunning definition, the biblical term “Jew” does not denote a race or an apparent physical birthright (as the “New Perspective on Paul” would have us believe), but rather an inner essence or, more precisely, an indwelling spirit pertaining to God. This descriptive terminology certainly illustrates a radical new way of approaching, reading, and interpreting the Bible. William Barclay, a world-renowned New Testament scholar, rightly emphasizes that Paul’s message must have infuriated the Jews:

“To a Jew a passage like this must have come as a shattering experience. He was certain that God regarded him with special favour, simply and solely because of his national descent from Abraham and because he bore the badge of circumcision in his flesh. But Paul introduces an idea to which he will return again and again. JEWISHNESS, he insists, IS NOT A MATTER OF RACE AT ALL; IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CIRCUMCISION. It is a matter of conduct. If that is so, many a so-called Jew who is a pure descendant of Abraham and who bears the mark of circumcision in his body, is no Jew at all; and equally many a GENTILE who never heard of Abraham and who would never dream of being circumcised, IS A JEW IN THE REAL SENSE OF THE TERM. To a Jew this would sound the wildest heresy and leave him angry and aghast.”

(The Letter to the Romans. The Daily Study Bible Series. Rev. ed. [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975], p. 47, emphasis added).

——-

It’s not at all coincidental that in the plot of the gospels Jesus becomes the figurative “son of Joseph,” who is himself reminiscent of the great hero that once lived and reigned in Egypt (the land of the Gentiles)!

——-

Another Biblical clue concerning a Gentile Messiah (besides Moses the “Egyptian”) is the unique reference to Cyrus, who is explicitly called in the Book of Isaiah God’s “anointed” (i.e. messiah; Isa. 45.1). Cyrus is not a Jew! That’s precisely why God says in Isaiah 46.11 that he will bring from a far country the Messiah who will execute his counsel (cf. Matt. 28.18; 1 Cor. 15.24-25). Not only is the Messiah not Jewish, but the elect themselves are not defined as biological Jews. As Romans 9.8 reminds us, “it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.”

——-

And why do you suppose Jesus is compared “to the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 6.20)? What’s the point of the mimesis? Precisely because Melchizedek “does not belong to their [Jewish] ancestry” (Heb. 7.6), and when compared to Jesus, it follows that Jesus himself “does not belong to their ancestry” either! What is the New Testament trying to tell us? Just like Melchizedek, Christ is not a Jew!

——-

That’s why the gospels keep telling us over and over again that the Jews expect a Jewish messiah to arrive from the line of David but are terribly disappointed in seeing a Gentile messiah appearing from Galilee. And, as a consequence, they want to kill him! And, in the end, they do!

——-

Division of People over Jesus in John's Gospel Because He Does Not Come from Bethlehem of the Jews but from Galilee of the Gentiles:

“Others were saying, “Surely the Christ is not going to come from Galilee, is He? Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the descendants of David [Jews], and from Bethlehem, the village where David was?” So a division occurred in the crowd because of Him” (John 7.41-43).

——-

Jesus Christ (Gk. Ἰησοῦς Χριστός; 1 Cor. 3.11) Defies Jewish Messianic Expectations

John 7.52:

“Search, and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee” (cf. Mt. 4.15-16).

——-

Furthermore, it’s the Greek New Testament that introduces Jesus the Messiah, NOT the Hebrew Bible!

——-

And the Greek-New-Testament was not written by Jews but by Greeks! The New Testament was typically written in articulate, refined Greek, not in Hebrew! And it seems that they weren’t fluent In Hebrew because when these NT authors quote from the OT, they predominantly quote from the Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, and not from the original Hebrew scriptures per se. This indicates that the NT authors were not familiar with the Hebrew language. In other words, they were NOT Jews. And most of the NT letters are addressed to Greek communities rather than Jewish ones. This Greek-element——running not only through the “thematic structure” but also via the writing, composition, production, place-of-authorship (which is said to be outside of Palestine), distribution, and dissemination of the text (largely to Gentile communities)——speaks volumes about the NT’s theological purpose, authorial intention, and cultural milieu!

——-

Conclusion

Unfortunately, we have failed to notice that the narrative of a •Gentile-messiah• is a major theme that runs across the entire Bible! And, in my opinion, the gospels certainly take advantage of this literary motif by showing through various rhetorical devices that Christ is not a Jew!

——-

What is “Eyewitness Testimony” in the New Testament and Who Are the “Eyewitnesses”?

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

It’s important to note that the gospels are later embellishments, not firsthand accounts, and their historicity and authorship are disputed. Thus, the purported author of John’s Gospel, who by the way is writing in refined Greek, couldn’t have been the alleged Aramaic disciple of Jesus not only because he wouldn’t be able to write in sophisticated Greek but also because he wouldn’t have been alive around 100 CE.

——-

So, what exactly does *Eyewitness testimony* mean in the New Testament (NT)?

——-

In the NT, the term “eyewitness” doesn’t necessarily mean witnessing physical-bodily phenomena. For example, Paul claims to be an •eyewitness• of Christ (1 Cor. 15:8), yet by his own self-confession his entire knowledge of Christ is based solely on revelations (Gal. 1.11-12; Acts 9.3-5). Scholars are in agreement that Paul never saw Jesus in the flesh.

——-

By comparison, it is explicitly stated in Luke’s gospel that the group of women at the tomb saw a “vision” (24.23–24), similar to that of the “witnesses” who were said to be “chosen beforehand” (προκεχειροτονημένοις) in Acts 10.40–41 (NASB). “Beforehand” means “in advance.” It implies a •foreknowledge• that is spiritually discerned prior to the experience of an event. In short: it represents a prophecy! But there is more.

——-

For example, in 2 Peter 1.16-19 the apostles are said to be “eyewitnesses” not of physical phenomena but rather of “the prophetic message.” Astoundingly, they’re eyewitnesses of visual and auditory messages (voices & visions) that were heard, literally, as voices, but were nevertheless part of a so-called “prophecy” or prediction:

“For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been •eyewitnesses• of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory, saying, ‘This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.’ We ourselves •heard this voice• come from heaven, while we were with him on the holy mountain. So we have the •prophetic message• more fully confirmed” (emphasis added).

——-

Similarly, First Peter 1.10-11 suggests an •eschatological• soteriology (cf. Heb. 1.1-2; 9.26b; 1 Pet. 1.20), that is to say, “the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow” were actually “PREDICTED” in advance:

“Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he •predicted• the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow” (NIV emphasis added).

(If you want to further explore the exegetical details of the aforementioned quote, click on the following link):

https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/184378109027/by-eli-kittim-concerning-this-salvation-the

Eli of Kittim

First Peter 1.10-11 Suggests An Eschatological Soteriology

By Eli Kittim "Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the grea

——-

So, when John’s Gospel introduces itself as the composition of a so-called •eyewitness• to the events of Jesus’ lifetime (“who saw” something; Jn 19.35), it may be talking about •history-written-in-advance•, similar to the Book of Revelation (cf. 4.1-2), which is explicitly referred to as a Book of *prophecy* (1.3; 22.7, 10, 18-19), a book that is also believed by Christian tradition to have been penned by the same apostle, “who saw” the end of days!

Hence both 2 Peter and the Book of Revelation are two very clear examples where “Eyewitness testimony” is explicitly related to *prophecy,* that is to say, *history written in advance*! Put differently, the gospel narratives are seemingly set in a transhistorical context. Transhistoricity, in other words, is the flip side of the notion that NT meanings are restricted to their historical context.

——-

Therefore, the so-called “eyewitnesses testimonies” are actually referring to •visions• pertaining to *prophetic* events. That’s why the account or “testimony” to Jesus is NOT historical but *prophetic*:

“For the testimony [to] Jesus is the spirit of prophecy”

—(Rev. 19.10d “The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: NRSV” [4th rev. edn; New York: Oxford University, 2010], p. 2176, n.e.).

If Jesus is a historical figure, who supposedly existed prior to the composition of the Book of Revelation, shouldn’t his “testimony” be the Spirit of history? And yet, by contrast, his “testimony” is explicitly referred to as “the spirit of prophecy.” Something to think about.

——-

The argument that Jesus has not yet come is based on both the internal and external evidence

——-

The *external evidence* demonstrates that there are no firsthand accounts (the gospel writers are not eyewitnesses). There are also no independent secular accounts of Jesus until the close of the first century CE. Josephus’ “Testimonium Flavianum,” toward the turn of the century, is considered as unacceptable evidence by most scholars due to extensive interpolations. Even Tacitus’ later account represents an obvious interpolation. So, despite Jesus’ so-called extraordinary feats, no one is writing anything about him outside of the NT for approximately 65y. Not a single word is written about Jesus, there’s not even a passive reference to him, even though we have a lot of documents from that period dealing with just about every aspect of life, political and otherwise.

——-

The *internal evidence* is equally strong. Besides the *end-time* •messianic death-and-resurrection• themes that are clearly addressed in the Old Testament (e.g., Isa. 2.2, 19; Dan. 12.1-2; Zeph. 1.7, 14-18; and Zech. 12.10), there are many such motifs also found in the NT!

——-

The evidence from the NT is sometimes rather explicit and quite compelling. For example, Hebrews 1.2 clearly states that God speaks to humanity through his Son in the “last days” (ἐπ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν). Notice that the *last days* represent an eschatological time-period that is obviously distinguished from “Long ago,” in other words, it is differentiated from the time of Antiquity in verse 1. But, even more explicit is the verse from Heb. 9.26b:

“once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (KJV).

https://biblehub.com/hebrews/9-26.htm

Proper Biblical Exegesis demands that we understand NT Greek. The Greek phrase reads as follows:

ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων εἰς ἀθέτησιν ἁμαρτίας διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ πεφανέρωται (Heb. 9.26b SBLGNT).

The term ἅπαξ (hapax) means “once for all.” The Greek phrase ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων (i.e., “at the end of the age”) is a reference to “the end of the world” (KJV) or “the consummation of the ages” (NASB cf. Dan. 12.4 LXX). Whenever this Greek phrase appears in the NT it is invariably referring to “the end of the world” (cf. Mt. 13.39-40, 49; 24.3; 28.20, etc.).

There are also parallel verses and verbal agreements in which the overall linguistic meaning of this phrase is confirmed by the Patristic Fathers of that period: τόν . . . υιόν . . . ερχόμενον ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ του αἰωνος κρίναι ζώντας καί νεκρούς (G.W.H. Lampe [ed.], “A Patristic Greek Lexicon” [Oxford: Oxford University, 1961], p. 1340).

——-

Therefore, the eschatological phrase συντελείας του αιωνος (which is usually translated as “the end of the age”) can ONLY refer to the END OF THE WORLD! And Hebrews 9.26b tells us unequivocally and categorically that this is ALSO the TIME when Christ DIES for the SINS (εἰς ἀθέτησιν ἁμαρτίας) of the world. The meaning is quite obvious. But that’s not all. There are many, many other NT passages that CONFIRM this view.

——-

First Peter 1.20 is a case in point:

“He was marked out before the world was made, and was revealed at the final point of time” (NJB).

It is quite explicit. Once again, “the final point of time” (επ´ έσχάτου των χρόνων) refers to the culmination or consummation of the ages. And this is the time period when Christ will be initially “revealed,” according to 1 Peter 1.20 (cf. Lk 17.30; 1 Cor. 1.7; 1 Jn 2.28). Then there are other passages that I can’t get into right now due to time restrictions, such as Rev. 12.5, where Christ is born in the end-times as a contemporary of the final world-empire which is depicted as a red dragon with 7 heads and 10 horns. Rev. 6.2 equally shows that the first horseman that will appear in the end times is Christ! To understand why the white horse of Rev. 6.2 represents Christ, please look at the following link from my blog:

https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/168159235542/who-is-the-first-horseman-of-the-apocalypse

Eli of Kittim

WHO IS THE FIRST HORSEMAN OF THE APOCALYPSE?

By Eli of Kittim THERE ARE NO COUNTERFEIT SIGNS IN THE BIBLE There are no counterfeit signs found anywhere in the Bible. So why should

——-

I could cite many more examples, but I think you get the idea . . .

——-

Incidentally, the notion that Jesus will appear “once and for all” (hapax; Heb. 9.26b) in the end-times does not change anything whatsoever soteriologically speaking. In other words, it’s not a salvation issue because, according to the NT, we are saved IN FAITH as we “eagerly await a Savior” (Phil. 3.20 NIV) “for a salvation that is ready to be revealed at the end of time (1 Pet. 1.5 GW).

——-

Conclusion

This unique Biblical exegesis doesn’t change our Soteriology. But it does change our Theology. So, for example, those who think that Jesus already died will be shocked to see him coming not from the sky but from the earth. And “his own” (i.e. the Christians; cf. Jn 1.11) will eventually reject him as the so-called “Antichrist.” Christian Bible-Prophecy experts have already paved the way for rejecting the Christ through faulty and preconceived interpretations of Revelation 6.2. Even though this is clearly Christ, as I’ve demonstrated in the aforesaid essay, nevertheless the mainstream view holds that the first horseman who rides a white horse is the Antichrist . . .

So, unless you understand what’s going on, you will be very confused during the unfolding of these events in the End time!

——-

Jesus’ Death: Sacrifice or Suicide?

By Writer Eli Kittim

——-

John 15.13:

“Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”

But how does one do that voluntarily?

Philosophically speaking, unless God’s Sovereignty somehow orchestrates the events leading up to the death of Jesus, how else could Christ offer his life voluntarily?

——-

Thus, are we talking about a Messianic Sacrifice or a Suicide in the New Testament? There have been numerous academic studies that have addressed this question. The Canonical Epistles exclaim:

“And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma” (Eph. 5.2).

——-

So, the question arises: how exactly has Christ “given himself for us, [as] an offering and a sacrifice to God”?

Bear in mind that the term “sacrifice” has the meaning of a voluntary offering of a life. However, if other people planned and performed the execution of Jesus, then how is his atonement deemed a voluntary sacrifice?

——-

It seems to me that the only possible explanation for a voluntary sacrifice is Suicide: the laying down of one’s own life! In the New Testament gospels, Jesus himself implies that no one else actually kills him but rather that he offers (“takes”) his life voluntarily. Speaking about his life, he declares:

“No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord” (Jn 10.18)!

It can be paraphrased as follows: “no one takes my life from me; I take my own life.” Otherwise stated, if others had planned on killing Jesus through coercion, then that type of sacrifice would have occurred in an involuntary manner. Not to mention that others would have taken his life from him. Furthermore, the fact that Jesus foreknew it doesn’t necessarily make it voluntary, nor can it be described as an event that transpired according to his wishes. The fact that he was forced to drink the cup against his wishes demonstrates that even the foreknowledge of this event didn’t make his sacrifice voluntary! So what is it that allows him to lay down his life of his own accord?

——-

Remember the “Temptation of Christ,” which comprised three temptations? One is to gain the whole world and its kingdoms. The second is to satisfy his deepest wishes and desires. But in the third temptation (Lk 4.9-12) Satan tempts Jesus to commit suicide!

——-

If we consider the “typological” relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament, we can see, for example, that Samson may be seen as a “type” of Christ in being a sort of savior and superhuman figure (e.g. the “Annunciation” in Lk 1:26–38 is seemingly modelled on the announcement of Samson’s birth in Judg. 13). The last act of Samson comprises his noble death, one that is positively characterized by martyrdom and Suicide in the Old Testament! The biblical narrator seems to commend Samson’s suicide by emphasizing that God strengthened Samson to carry out this massacre: “So those he killed at his death were more than those he had killed during his life” (Judg. 16.30)! This is a reference to the massacre in which Samson, in an act of revenge, pushed the two “pillars on which the house rested” (Judg. 16.29) on top of the Philistines and cried out: “Let me die with the Philistines” (v. 30). If Samson is a “type” of Christ, then we would expect something analogous taking place in the death of Christ, the “antitype”!

——-

Another “type” of “Messianic sacrifice” in the Old Testament occurs in Genesis 22, namely, the sacrifice of Isaac! If it had been carried out, it would have been tantamount to “shedding one’s own blood.” It would be akin to the act of killing one's self; aka suicide! In fact, Abraham is commended for attempting this act (Gen. 22.16-17), and then God mysteriously equates Abraham’s act with a “type” of global redemption:

“and by your offspring shall all the nations of the earth gain blessing for themselves, because you have obeyed my voice” (Gen. 22.18).

Let’s not forget that the redemptive sacrifice of Issac is a “type” and a foreshadowing of Christ’s Atonement, that is to say, Christ’s voluntary sacrifice!

——-

The same motif of “shedding one’s own blood” is prevalent in the Old Testament, as, for example, in the killing of Abel by Cain (Genesis 4:1–16). And similar to other messianic stand-ins who have committed murder, such as Moses and David, Cain is also a Messianic-type figure on which God grants divine protection through a special “mark” (Gen. 4.15).

——-

So, these acts of “shedding one’s own blood”——as in the case of Cain killing his brother Abel and especially that of Abraham and Isaac in which Abraham is celebrated as a person of great faith in sacrificing his only son (Heb. 11.17-19)——seem to foreshadow the atoning death and voluntary sacrifice of the Messiah!

——-

Here’s another controversial example that seems to fit the bill. It begins in the Book of Zechariah the prophet:

“Strike the shepherd, that the sheep may be scattered; I will turn my hand against the little ones” (Zech. 13.7).

But who is “the shepherd” in this verse referring to? Jesus claims that it is a reference to himself:

“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” (Jn 10.11).

Let’s now take a look at the controversial verse in Mt. 26.31, which is based on Zech. 13.7:

“Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.”

First, why would his followers be offended? Death, on behalf of one’s principles, at the hands of the state has always been viewed as a heroic and noble sacrifice since the death of Socrates! So, one wonders what the cause of the offense might be?

Second, whom does "I” refer to in Mt. 26.31? We already know that Jesus is the “shepherd” in question. So then, who “will smite the shepherd”? Some say God the father; others say, Jesus! If, in fact, this first person singular pronoun refers to Jesus, then according to one noted minister, Frederick K. C. Price, “That means he’s gonna kill himself” (i.e. commit suicide). In other words, the exegesis suggests that Jesus will smite himself!

——-

Given that there are no unnecessary words in the New Testament, and that they’re all there for a reason, the undercurrent of John’s gospel raises an important question: is Jesus going to kill himself?

“Then the Jews said, ‘Is he going to kill himself? Is that what he means by saying, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come'?" (Jn 8.22).

The Original Greek text reads:

ἔλεγον οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι · Μήτι ἀποκτενεῖ ἑαυτὸν ὅτι λέγει · Ὅπου ἐγὼ ὑπάγω ὑμεῖς οὐ δύνασθε ἐλθεῖν;

That’s a non sequitur. From a literary standpoint, the Jewish conclusion of a possible suicide does not logically follow the apparent context. How can suicide be inferred from Jesus’ statement: “Where I am going, you cannot come”? It cannot! Therefore, we have to assume that something else is going on in the text and that John is trying to give us a heads-up that a suicide might lay in store for him!

Certainly, the Greek phrase “ἀποκτενεῖ ἑαυτὸν” means “to kill himself” (i.e. to commit suicide)!

——-

Conclusion

The fact that Jesus lays down his own life (Jn 15.13) as a voluntary offering and sacrifice, and given that no one else takes his life from him but that he himself lays it down of his own accord” (Jn 10.18), seems to indicate that his death is a result of his own volition rather than that of the traditional set of circumstances that we’re familiar with.

What is more, there are quite a number of references to suicidal or quasi-suicidal deaths in the Old Testament that are then carried forward into the New Testament where, for example, Jesus himself is actually tempted by Satan to commit suicide (Lk 4.9)!

And then we read in John’s penetrating and revealing gospel that the Jews were indeed wondering whether or not Jesus was “going to kill himself?” (8.22)! So, over and above the New Testament’s theological import, we might rightfully ask ourselves: is Jesus’ Death a Sacrifice or a Suicide?

——-

Was Mythicism or Historicism More Dominant In the Early History and Development of the Christian Church?

By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim

——-

Preface

There are certain things in the Bible that we all take for granted today, such as the historicity of Jesus, his execution by Pontius Pilate, and the like. We think that these “facts” were written in stone and have been known since Christianity’s inception. How can anyone seriously challenge them?

——-

Christian Origins

But early Christianity was not monolithic. It was diverse. There were many different sects that held very different views both about Jesus and the interpretation of the New Testament. Orthodoxy eventually won the day but that doesn’t mean that they necessarily represented the sect that held the hermeneutically-correct and valid Bible interpretations or that they had the correct view about Jesus. Far from it. There were, in fact, diametrically opposed views that ranged from one extreme to another, from a completely human Jesus to a phantom or a ghost that never really existed. But, as we will see, there is a middle ground where mythicism and historicism meet.

——-

Gnosticism

The New Testament is a literary creation. So it’s difficult to probe its historical antecedents. What were some of the opposing views to “Orthodoxy”? One of the most vocal of these Christian sects was centred in Alexandria, Egypt: the Gnostics. They were the first advocates of the “you-don’t-need-religion, you-need-a-relationship-with-Jesus” pitch. Although there were many splinter groups, they all emphasised a personal “gnosis” (knowledge) and acquaintance with spiritual realities rather than a preoccupation with dry religious discourses and traditions. They originated in the first century C.E. and flourished until the second century, during which the Patristic Fathers denounced them as heretics. But were they? According to Bart Ehrman and Elaine Pagels, they were the genuine Christians of that early period whom the Orthodox Church tried to suppress!

——-

To be sure, their theology was influenced by Greek thought, but the focal point of their doctrine and practice was not based on rhetoric or dogma but rather on personal existential experience. And based on their own inimitable style, one can infer that they had better insights into the divine than their orthodox counterparts who did little more than debate the issues.

——-

Docetism

Then there were the Docetists, who held the “heterodox” (i.e. “at variance with orthodoxy”) doctrine that what appeared to be a historical Jesus was nothing more than an apparition or a phantom, and that his phenomenological bodily existence was not real. This is actually more in line with Scripture, which repeatedly talks of visions and apparitions in one form or another (cf. Lk 24.23–24; Gal. 1.11-12). These are the first mythicists who believed that Jesus never existed! There’s a great deal of Biblical evidence that supports this view. This early Christian view called “Docetism” (derived from the Greek term “Dokesis,” meaning “to seem”)——which held that Christ did not really exist in human form, an idea that was later picked up by Islam——attracted some of the greatest Biblical thinkers of Antiquity:

“According to Photius [a 9th century Byzantine Patriarch], Clement of Alexandria held at least a quasi-docetic belief regarding the nature of Christ, namely that the Word/Logos did not became flesh, but only ‘appeared to be in flesh,’ an interpretation which directly denied the reality of the incarnation” (Ashwin-Siejkowski, Piotr. “Clement of Alexandria on Trial: The Evidence of ‘Heresy’ from Photius’ Bibliotheca.” [Leiden: Brill, 2010], p. 95).

As would be expected, Docetism was eventually rejected as a heretical doctrine at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. But this verdict was issued in the 4th century. And there is a very good reason why mythicism had thitherto been on the upswing. In fact, despite this setback, the hermeneutical doctrine that gave rise to Docetism continued to hold sway over most of the church until the Reformation.

——-

The Monophysite Christian church

According to tradition, the Coptic Church of Egypt was founded by Mark the evangelist in the first century CE. Due to a Christological dispute, this “Monophysite” Christian church was condemned as heretical by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE. Instead of accepting the doctrine that Christ was fully human and fully divine, the Coptic church asserted that Christ had only one nature, and that nature was divine. In other words, just like the Docetists they denied the incarnation and therefore they can be technically defined as mythicists! A similar monophysite explanation of how the divine and human relate within the person of Jesus is Eutychianism. Eutychians were often classified as Phantasiasts by their opponents because they reduced Jesus’ incarnation to a phantasm or an illusion of some kind. Their Christology was along the lines of Docetism in that they, too, denied the full reality of Jesus’ humanity. Thus, we find that there were quite a number of sects that denied the historicity of Jesus during the early period of the church. Things started to change with the onset of the first ecumenical councils!

——-

The Alexandrian School

The early Christian church held to an allegorical (theological) Interpretation of the Bible, not a historical one. Philo’s essential approach to Biblical interpretation influenced the Christian School of hermeneutics, which also developed in the city of Alexandria, Egypt. One of its principal leaders was the Great Bible scholar, Clement of Alexandria (150-215 CE), who while acknowledging that the Bible contained various levels of meaning also realized that the non-literal (i.e. the allegorical/mystical) interpretations contained the ideal spiritual insights. Alexandrian hermeneutics were so popular that they eventually became the dominant force in Biblical interpretation up until the time of the Protestant Reformation. So, the allegorical/theological Biblical interpretation that gave rise to such views as Docetism was the mainstay of early Biblical scholarship. This method was obviously more inclined towards the spiritual, the metaphorical, and the metaphysical, dare I say the Gnostic!

——-

The School of Antioch

Sometime towards the end of the 3rd century CE, the School of Antioch was founded. It was the first Seminary, so to speak, founded in Syria that overemphasized the literal interpretation of the Bible and the humanity of Christ. This so-called “exegetical school” interpreted Scripture primarily according to its historical and grammatical sense. In an attempt to offset the earlier excesses of Biblical interpretation that could lead to various questionable doctrines, such as those of Docetism, the Antioch school became increasingly dogmatic and heavily involved in overemphasizing the literal interpretation of the Bible and the full humanity of Jesus. This led to the so-called “Nestorian Heresy,” namely that Jesus possessed two hypostases, one human and one divine! As a result of the condemnation of Nestorius (386 – 450 CE) at the First Council of Ephesus in 431, the Antioch school’s influence declined considerably and never really recovered. Many followers abandoned the school and it eventually moved to another location further East in Persia. Even though the Antiochian school’s tenets had lost traction, they were eventually taken up again by Martin Luther and John Calvin, who restored them to their former glory.

——-

Conclusion

So, the earlier Alexandrian School of allegorical interpretation at least allowed the possibility of mythicism to be considered as a viable option, whereas the later Antiochian school of literal interpretation——which influenced not only “the dogma of Christ” in the early ecumenical councils, but also modern Bible scholarship——eventually became the dominant school of hermeneutics that held to a rigid form of literalism and overemphasized the historicity of Jesus. In other words, the early church was not as adamant about the historicity of Jesus as the later Church! Thus, up until the end of the third century (the Ante-Nicene Era), and just prior to the onset of the first ecumenical council, the allegorical/metaphorical Jesus dominated the Biblical landscape. It was not until much later that the literal, historical interpretation of Jesus became the prevalent view that it is today!

——-

Are We Currently Experiencing the Ten Plagues of Egypt?

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

It’s possible that Old Testament allegories may be precursors of future events. If we examine and compare the series of judgments that Moses inflicted upon *Egypt* (which represents the “nations”) to the final judgments in the book of Revelation, we’ll notice that both descriptions appear to exhibit identical events taking place. In our modern comparison it isn’t so much the presence of any one of the following plagues that is significant but rather the combination of all ten simultaneously. If we pay close attention, we’ll see that what is currently happening around the world is reminiscent of the Biblical Plagues of Egypt:

1 Locusts: Ex. 10.1–20 (cf. Rev. 9.3). The terrifying prospect and food shortages currently happening in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia are the result of extremely large and unprecedented populations of locusts, which Is unlike anything in our lifetime!

2 Thunderstorm of hail and fire: Ex. 9.13–35 (cf. Rev. 16.21). Mammoth tornadoes, giant cyclones, extremely violent hurricanes, massive earthquakes, huge typhoons, and fantastic superstorms have recently wiped out large human populations, coupled with large-scale conflagrations, unprecedented and unique wildfires that have devastated and literally destroyed incredibly large-areas of real estate in California and Australia, among other places.

3 Pestilence (includes animals) Ex. 9.1-7 (cf. Rev 6.8). Pestilences, such as those that come from animals (e.g. coronavirus that comes from bats), are plagues of one form or another. This includes plagues and pandemics the likes of which have never been seen before. For ex, just look at how fast the coronavirus pandemic started from China and spread around the world, causing worldwide economic shutdown and killing hundreds of thousands of people!

4 Water to Blood: Ex. 7.14–24 (cf. Rev. 8.8; 16.3-4). Consider the great earthquakes and powerful tsunamis that have spread terror of late, such as the 2004 magnitude 9.1-9.3 M that unleashed a super tsunami that killed approximately 230k ppl in 14 countries, “making it one of the deadliest natural disasters in recorded history” (2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami; Wiki), literally turning water into blood . . .

5 Death of firstborn: Ex. 11.1–12.36. The deaths of our loved ones (our first-born love [including but not limited to the mysterious coronavirus illness claiming children]) during this horrendous pandemic can be seen as another pestilence coming from the Biblical arsenal of plagues. And since “Egypt” represents all the nations (Gentiles) in the Bible, it would not be inappropriate to call it a pandemic that continues to kill our most treasured possessions. Not to mention the fact that we have the highest abortion rate in human history, with almost 11 million abortions worldwide this year!

6 Flies Ex. 8.20-32. The fourth *plague* of Egypt was of creatures capable of harming people and livestock. The Torah uses the term ‘arob (עָרוֹב "mixture" or "swarm"). That’s the exact same term used by the modern media to refer to the *locusts* that are currently devastating vast areas of the earth (including agriculture and food supplies) and causing famine and great terror in their wake. Not to mention the recent sightings of an increase in Asian giant hornets (aka murder hornets) that are extremely dangerous for bee populations, and may signal the end times.

7 Frogs: Ex. 7.25–8.15 (cf. Rev. 16.13). The super storms and hurricanes have produced one of the most spectacular frog and toad breeding seasons seen in decades in places like Florida, just as we see frog population explosions in places like Vermont, the Netherlands, Jersey (British Isles), and other places . . .

8 Lice or gnats: Ex. 8.16-19. There’s a surge in black fly populations, mosquitoes, and biting gnats that are killing livestock, and deer, and have forced nature center closure in Arkansas, for ex. The super lice surge is now found In 48 US states, and has caught public attention. They have developed a resistance to the pesticides and are growing in great numbers.

9 Boils or Sores: Ex. 9.8–12 (cf. Rev. 16.2). Boils are caused by bacteria. Today, nearly 50,000 men, women and children are dying each and every day from emerging infectious diseases caused by bacteria, viruses, fungi or parasites.

10 Darkness for three days: Ex. 10.21–29 (cf. Rev. 16.10). This is a plague that is yet to come. We have briefly experienced its effects during several blackouts in the US. But this particular darkness is related to the end times:

“For at that time there will be great suffering, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be” (Mt. 24.21).

It is associated with the Day of the Lord:

“Immediately after the suffering of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven will be shaken” (Mt. 24.29).

And it lasts 3 symbolic days because that’s how long the “great tribulation” will last, namely, three and a half years (cf. Dan. 7.25; 9.27; 12.7; Rev. 11.2-3; 12.6, 14; 13.5).

It is probably caused by a nuclear war that is triggered in the Middle East (Rev. 9.14) and spills over into Israel (cf. Ezek. 38.1-9, 14-16):

“This shall be the plague with which the Lord will strike all the peoples that wage war against Jerusalem: their flesh shall rot while they are still on their feet; their eyes shall rot in their sockets, and their tongues shall rot in their mouths” (Zech. 14.12).

Therefore, we can draw parallels between the judgments of Exodus and those of Revelation since they are strikingly similar! Could it be mere coincidence? I think not!

——-

Conclusion

If we look around our world today, the *increase* and *intensity* of these “plagues” has definitely multiplied exponentially in the last few decades in comparison with previous times. If we also acknowledge what prophecy scholars are telling us, namely, that the *restoration* of Israel represents the greatest fulfillment of Biblical end-time prophecy (e.g. Dan. 9.24-27; Ezek. 38.8), which was also known to one of the greatest scientists that ever lived, Isaac Newton, then Jesus’ saying becomes all the more remarkable and comprehensible when taking into account these prophetic circumstances:

“this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (Mt. 24.34).

Most prophecy scholars believe that Jesus is referring to the *last generation* associated with the restoration of Israel. According to Psalm 90.10, a generation is equal to 70-80 years. Thus, 2020, when the “birth pangs” (Mt. 24.8) began, lies at the midpoint of that prophesied generation (2018-2028)! Which raises a significant question: are we living in the end times?

——-

Another significant prophetic marker is Matthew 24.6-8, a passage that is often interpreted as describing world wars, which first began in the 20th century:

“And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that you are not alarmed; for this must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places: all this is but the beginning of the birth pangs.”

——-

Another important sign of the end times is the prophesied restoration of Israel, whose rebirth heralds the coming reign of the messiah. Daniel’s 70 weeks prophecy——if its starting date is 14 May 1948 (the founding of the modern state of Israel)——culminates in or around 2020. Perhaps the ending of the Mayan Calendar (2012), Malachiae’s “Prophecy of the Popes” (2013) that seems to end with the current pope, according to the experts, and the unique Blood Moon Tetrad of 2014-15 that fell on Biblical feasts and holy days are all pointing to the current crisis and the beginning of a new world order!

——-

Are these signs pointing to increasing turbulence in the future? And are they indicators or markers of a coming apocalypse? Almost all Bible prophecy experts answer that question with a resounding *Yes* (including this author)! In fact, I’ve been predicting that something disastrous would happen by 2020 for a good ten years now. And I was right!