Jesus' First Coming In The Last Days - Tumblr Posts

νυνϊ δε απαξ επι ϲυντελεια των αιωνων ειϲ αθετηϲιν τηϲ αμαρτιαϲ δια τηϲ θυϲιαϲ αυτου πεφανερωται.“ (Hebrews 9:26, Codex Sinaiticus, Greek NT). Translation: "Once in the conclusion of the ages [in Greek the word αιωνων/‘ages’ means 'centuries’] has he been made manifest, to put away sin through the sacrifice of himself.” (Hebrews 9:26, Codex Sinaiticus). According to this verse, did Jesus come in the time of antiquity, or is he manifested to die for the sins of mankind in the conclusion of all the centuries? Either the Gospels are right and this verse is wrong, or this verse is right and the Gospels are wrong. Both can’t be right. You’d have to tear this page out of the Bible to believe in the current view. Or is the Bible contradicting itself? No, the Bible is without contradiction. Both are right. But how? Because the Gospels are only narrative renderings of a messianic prophecy that is given to us in the form of a theological story that we can all understand and then pass it down through the corridors of time to our posterity. Whereas the Epistles are direct messages, not stories, which are meant to expatiate on the teachings of Christ. That’s why there’s no mention of the magi, the nativity scene, the virgin birth, or Bethlehem in the Epistles. So which of the two categories (the Gospels or the Epistles) provide the most accurate time of Christ’s incarnation? You decide.

Eli of Kittim

Jesus Revealed: In the Fulness of Time, In the End Times, or in Due Time

By Goodreads Author Eli of Kittim

Sadly, we have confused biblical literature with history, and turned prophecy into biography. In the end, the New Testament (NT) gospels appear to be non-historical stories—borrowed to a large extent from the Old Testament (OT)—giving us the Messianic prophecy through an apocalyptic narrative, whereas the NT epistles (or letters) and the book of Revelation, which are NOT stories, reveal the real Jesus and tell a different story. And although I'm not Jewish, I do agree with the Jews on one point. In fact, I'm the first author, as far as I know, who legitimately fuses the messianic expectations of the Jews with Christian scripture! In my view, both the OT and NT say the SAME THING: the Messiah comes "once in the end of the world" (NT, Hebrews 9:26)!

Messiah Revealed: In the End Times

According to the NT itself, Jesus will come once, for the first time, in the "last days" (Hebrews 1:1-2), or "at the consummation of the ages" (Hebrews 9:26). The King James Version says that Christ will die as the atonement for sin "ONCE IN THE END OF THE WORLD" (Hebrews 9:26)! Without putting a spin on it, we must conclude that the church has CHANGED what the Bible ACTUALLY says, and has therefore handed us the wrong information about the precise timing of the messiah's momentous coming to earth. I present multiple lines of evidence to buttress my argument. As for my conviction that Jesus did not come the first time, this comes primarily from the New Testament epistles (Hebrews 1:1-2, 9:26; Galatians 4:4; Ephesians 1:10; 2 Thess. 2:7; 1 Corinthians 15:8, 19, 22-26, 54-55) and the book of Revelation (Rev. 6:2; 12:1-5, 19:10-11, 22:7), as well as from the Old Testament where the Messiah is depicted as dying (Zephaniah 1:7; Zechariah 12:8-10) and being resurrected (Isaiah 2:19; Daniel 12:1-2) on the Day of the Lord, or in the last days:

"Once IN THE END OF THE WORLD hath he [Jesus] appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice [death] of himself" (King James, Hebrews 9:26, emphasis added).

The original Greek New Testament says:

“νυνϊ δε απαξ επι ϲυντελεια των αιωνων ειϲ αθετηϲιν τηϲ αμαρτιαϲ δια τηϲ θυϲιαϲ αυτου πεφανερωται.” (Hebrews 9:26, Codex Sinaiticus, Greek NT).

Translation: “Once in the conclusion of the ages [in Greek the word αιωνων/’ages’ also means ‘centuries’] has he [Christ] been made manifest, to put away sin through the sacrifice of himself.” (Hebrews 9:26, Codex Sinaiticus).

Here, the phrase sinteleia ton aionon does NOT imply dispensations, speculative covenants or anything else. The word "aionon" refers specifically to chronological time, and it means "ages" or centuries, whereas the term synteleia means "conclusion," "consummation," or "end." Put together, it simply means at the "end" or at the conclusion of all the ages. That’s why the King James Version translates it as, “In the end of the world.” In other words Christ appears ONCE AND FOR ALL (hapax), not twice, to atone for sin by sacrificing himself “in the end of the world.” If you try to manipulate the verse by claiming that the end of the world was 2000 years ago, that would be nothing short of insanity! A similar phrase, ϲυντελειαϲ του αιωvos, can be found in the Gospel of Matthew chapter 28 and verse 20:

"διδαϲκοντεϲ αυτουϲ τηριν παντα οϲα ενετιλαμην ϋμιν και ϊδου εγω ειμι μεθ υμων παϲαϲ ταϲ ημεραϲ εωϲ τηϲ ϲυντελειαϲ του αιωvos.”

Translation: American Standard Version “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.”

Therefore, it is unquestionable that the Greek phrase ϲυντελειαϲ του αιωvos (Matthew 28:20) means “in the end of the world.” And if that’s the case, and it is, then the reference to Jesus being manifested once επι ϲυντελεια των αιωνων to die for the sins of the world (Hebrews 9:26) would certainly mean that his death occurs “Once in the end of the world” and not 2,000 years ago as is currently assumed! The overall meaning of Hebrews 9:26 is that Christ will die for the sins of the world at the final point of time! Read what the text ACTUALLY says: The New American Standard says "at the consummation of the ages." The Jerusalem Bible renders it "at the end of the last age," whereas the King James version translates it "in the end of the world." It's abundantly clear what it means. I've already presented numerous verses that support this view. Here's another:

"God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these LAST DAYS has spoken to us in his Son" (Hebrews 1:1-2, emphasis added).

Once again, in Greek, the "last days" are written as ep escaton ton imeron, where ep escaton means in the last, or in the final, or in the end, and where the term "imeron" refers to chronological days... The meaning is quite clear and resonates among all these verses: Jesus is manifested once and for all (απαξ) in the end of the world to die and save mankind! This is reiterated in 1 Peter 1:5, Apokalufthinai en kairo escato, which means “is revealed in the last days.” The Greek word escato means “last” and it is the same term from where we get the word eschatology. You can speculate all you want on what it means and come up with your own erroneous version of the Bible. I choose to believe EXACTLY what the Bible says WITHOUT INTERPRETING IT, changing it, or manipulating it, which would be equivalent to falsifying it!

Christ Revealed: In the Fulness of Time

Do you know what the fulness of the time means? Read Ephesians 1:10 where "the fullness of the time" means the END OF THE WORLD, confirming Hebrews 9:26 and Hebrews 1:1-2. Ephesians 1:10 reads:

"With a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth."

WITH A VIEW TO AN ADMINISTRATION SUITABLE TO THE FULLNESS OF THE TIMES: eis oikonomian tou pleromatos ton kairon where the term kairoi refer to the passing of chronological “times” or “seasons,” and where the word fullness means "completion." So the Bible ITSELF defines the idiomatic phrase, the fullness of the time as “the summing up [or “conclusion”] of all things… things in the heavens and …on the earth.” In other words, we need not speculate because Ephesians 1:10 clearly defines “the fullness of the times” as an idiom that refers to the END OF THE WORLD.

Now read Galatians 4:4--which uses the same CONSISTENT idiom--to find out exactly when Christ is incarnated:

“But when THE FULNESS OF THE TIME came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman…” (Galatians 4:4, emphasis added).

Thus, Christ is incarnated during the fulness of the time, or, as Ephesians 1:10 illustrates, at the end of time—“To be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ" (Ephesians 1:10, NIV)! The Greek text does not allow any room for confusion since to pliroma tou chronou (the fulness of the time) clearly indicates a distinctive chronological time period. In Greek, the term "Chronos" means chronological time. And pliroma means "completion." Thus, it means that at the completion of time, or when time has reached its “fulness,” Christ will be incarnated! No wonder there is a prophecy of Christ’s birth in the prophetic book of Revelation chapter 12:1-5!

Knowing this, we cannot manipulate or violate scripture in any way. We must allow scripture to define its own terms because these same terms are repeated consistently throughout the Bible! Therefore, Scripture's own definition of the fullness of the time is actually the end of the world, when all things will be summed up in Christ!!! Similarly, Acts 3:19-21 says,

“Repent ye therefore … and he [God] shall send Jesus Christ, which BEFORE was preached unto you: whom the heaven must receive [or cannot receive] until the times of restitution of all things [meaning, until the end of the world], which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.” — Acts 3:19-21, King James, emphasis added

Here's what it means: The preaching of Jesus precedes his arrival! Moreover, Peter says that Christ “Was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was manifested at the end of times for your sake.” (1 Peter 1:20). In Greek, it reads: “Fanerothentos de ep escaton ton chronon,” Ep Escaton means "during the last" and "chronon" implies chronological years, which literally means that Jesus is manifested during the last years, or at the final point of time. It fits perfectly with what Peter has been saying all along, such as “apokalufthinai en kairo escato" (1 Peter 1:5), which means “revealed in the end times.”

Jesus Revealed: In Due Time

Now, concerning the under mentioned verse, don’t let the past tenses fool you. Remember that past tenses—such as “Christ died for our sins”—do not necessarily refer to past history. Just read Isaiah 53 and you’ll see why. It is filled with past tenses—“He was despised and rejected by mankind,” “But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities,” (53:3-5) etc.—and yet Isaiah is not recounting a past event but writing about a future PROPHECY! Similarly, Paul states: “For when we were yet without strength, IN DUE TIME Christ died for the ungodly.” (Romans 5:6, emphasis added) In Greek, it reads:

Eti gar christos onton imon asthenon kata kairon iper asevon apethanen. Textus Receptus

KATA KAIRON means "at the right time" or “in due time” or season. (Strong, G2540). Now, why would Paul use this phrase KATA KAIRON (meaning, that Christ died at the right time or when the time is ripe) to refer to a past event? It doesn't make any sense at all unless he is in line with what Peter (1 Peter 1:5, 20) and Hebrews (1:1-2, 9:26) say about Christ being revealed and DYING during the end times.

Here's a scholarly rendering of the phrase "IN DUE TIME" (KATA KAIRON):

“In 1 Clement 24:2 [Apocrypha] we read: IDOMEN AGAPHTOI THN KATA KAIRON GINOMENHN ANASTASIN, "We should consider, beloved, the resurrection that happens KATA KAIRON." "...the resurrection that Happens … "at the right time" or "at the right season" --Bart D. Ehrman (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill).

That is, "The resurrection that comes when time is ripe for it" --Carl W. Conrad (Department of Classics/Washington University).

In other words, this phrase--"IN DUE TIME Christ died for the ungodly” (Romans 5:6)--implies that Christ dies for the ungodly "when the time is ripe for it," or as other passages suggest, during the fulness of the time (Gal. 4:4; cf. Eph. 1:10), at the end of times (1 Peter 1:20); “revealed in the end times" (1 Peter 1:5), in the last days (Heb. 1:2), or "IN THE END OF THE WORLD." (Hebrews 9:26). It's as if God is screaming at deaf ears...

In the New Testament epistles, we find yet another epiphany:

“You greatly rejoice … that the proof of your faith … may be found … at the revelation of Jesus Christ; and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice. … As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful search and inquiry, seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He [the Holy Spirit] PREDICTED the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow” (1 Peter 1:6-11, emphasis added).

1 Peter 1:7 exhorts us to have faith so that we are ready “at the revelation of Jesus Christ,” which apokalifthinai en kairo eshato or is “revealed in the last days” (1 Peter 1:5). Moreover, observe that “the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow” are PROPHECIES or PREDICTIONS (1 Peter 1:10-11), NOT historical events!!! Notice also that the disciples “preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven” (1 Peter 1:12)—not by historical reports! This passage tells you unequivocally that the revelation of Jesus—including his sufferings and glory—are for an appointed time in the future: "For it is the Spirit of prophecy who bears testimony to Jesus" (Rev. 19:10), NOT history! Here's an excerpt from my book (The Little Book of Revelation) that offers further clues:

"Paul, the author of numerous NT letters, explains how Jesus “appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the twelve,” and finally “to more than five hundred brethren [believers] at one time” (1 Cor. 15:5-6). But then he says: “and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me also” (1 Cor. 15:8). In other words, Paul is stating that Christ “was seen by me also, as by one born out of DUE TIME” (1 Cor. 15:8, NKJ, emphasis added). Similar to other eyewitnesses whom he cites earlier, Paul did not behold Christ in the flesh (Gal. 1:15-16), but in a vision (Acts 9:3-7) that delivered him prematurely, so to speak, before the appointed time of salvation."

As for the so-called witnesses, may I remind you that the Holy Spirit who teaches men is also called a Witness or "The Witness” (1 John 5:8-12)! Moreover, we are told:

"But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come [future events]." (John 16:13)

Conclusion: the Jesus account is not historical, but prophetic! But this does not mean that the gospels are manufactured. It simply means that they are rehashed OT stories that foreshadow the Messianic prophecy. And they are inspired by God! It’s as if history is written in advance before it happens:

“Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done” (Isaiah 46:10).

What the Gospels Are, and What they are Not

By Author Eli of Kittim

Some of my readers have not fully understood my position regarding the gospels because they have not read my book, and therefore do not know the extent of these teachings. As a result, they have voiced their disagreement with my position. But in order to conclusively reject my view on the grounds that it fails to be supported by scripture, certain criteria must be met. However, based on some of my debates, their initial grounds for dismissal are often based on erroneous premises, such as tradition or dogma, conjecture and hearsay. At any rate, whatever it is that they think of my view is patently wrong because they haven’t yet grasped the gist of it. For example, I never said or implied that the gospels are made up stories, or that they were invented or manufactured by the writers themselves. Never was I so bold as to say that the gospels are superstitious myths, or the work of pure fiction with no basis in reality. If this is what some of my readers think, they couldn’t be further from the truth.

So, in my defense, let me explain what the gospels are, and what they are not.

1) I believe that the Gospels were verbally inspired by God (known as “Verbal Plenary Inspiration”). This means that every word of the gospels is God-given (“Plenary” means that the gospels are therefore fully authoritative). A side note: This means that it's not just the gospels, but scripture as a whole is authoritative over tradition or dogma. It means that all church tradition must be subordinated to the authority of Scripture. One of those dogmas that we inherited from the church was that the story of Christ happened in history (presumably from their literal interpretation of the gospels). But unless we check it against scripture, we will never know the validity of this dogma.

2) I also believe that in order to form valid conclusions, we must cross-reference between the gospels and the epistles to make sure that the account of Jesus is the same in all these texts and does not vary or present any major problems, especially with regard to chronology (i.e. the timing of his coming). A side note: When we engage in this type of study, certain things become immediately evident:

a) the authors of the Epistles do not mention a lot of the gospel material. For instance, they never once mention the birth narrative of Jesus, the virgin birth, the Flight into Egypt, the Star of Bethlehem, the magi, or even the city of Bethlehem as Jesus’ birth place. Now, that should raise some red flags.

b) In some cases, the authors of the Epistles seemingly contradict the gospels (I say “seemingly” because they don’t really contradict them, it only appears as such from our particular viewpoint) because they allude to Christ’s revelation as occurring “once at the consummation of the ages” (Heb.9:26), or in the “last days” (Heb. 1:1-2), so that the correct timing of Christ’s coming suddenly becomes an open question!

3) Even within the gospel texts themselves, we find language that seems more consistent with the epistles than with the church’s dogma (remember that in all of this, our dispute is not with the gospels per se, but rather with the “interpretation” of the gospels as put forth by church tradition). In the gospel of Luke, there is some indication that the suffering and rejection of Christ is ascribed not to the present, but to a future generation:

“Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He [Jesus] answered them and said, ‘The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; … The days shall come [centuries will pass] when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man and you will not see it. … For just as the lightning, when it flashes out of one part of the sky, shines to the other part of the sky, so will the Son of Man be in His day. BUT FIRST HE MUST SUFFER MANY THINGS AND BE REJECTED BY THIS [implied, future] GENERATION. And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it shall be also in the days of the Son of Man: they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, … until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all’” (17:20-27, emphasis added).

During his discourse on the end of days, Jesus promulgates a prophecy which most scholars attribute to his second coming: “For just as the lightning, when it flashes out of one part of the sky, shines to the other part of the sky, so will the Son of Man be in His day” (Luke 17:24). What is surprising, however, is that this prophecy is then expanded by a most intriguing appendage to the previous verse: “But first He must suffer many things” (17:25). In other words, while “the literary Jesus” is predicting his supposed second coming, according to the common view, this terse statement shockingly reveals that his incarnation must necessarily precede his coming from the sky! And since the entire prophecy is set in the future, the sentence pertaining to Christ’s suffering and rejection “by this [chronologically implied] generation” cannot possibly be understood in any other context except as a reference to a future event. Otherwise we would be dislocating this sentence from the end times setting of the prophecy, thus creating a bizarre anachronism. After all, Jesus prophesies that a long time will pass before we behold “the Son of Man” (Luke 17:22), an idiomatic phrase that is deeply tied to his incarnation (Ps. 8:4; Matt. 9:6; 17:9; 24:44; Gal. 4:4). In fact, Luke goes on to say that Jesus will be initially revealed ("ἀποκαλύπτεται" in Greek) in the last days:

“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all. ... It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed" (Luke 17:26-30).

Now, let’s compare that passage with one from the epistles. Notice that 1 Peter 1:7 exhorts us to have faith so that we are ready “at the revelation of Jesus Christ,” which is “revealed in the last days” (1 Peter 1:5), and then Peter declares categorically and unequivocally that “the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories” that would follow are really prophecies or “predictions”:

“Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he PREDICTED the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories.” (1 Peter 1:10-11, emphasis added, ESV).

4) To shed some light to this apparent controversy, we must also consult the Old Testament. But wherever we look there, we find one prophecy after another that seems to support the epistolary view of Jesus rather than the historical view of the gospels. Zephaniah 1:7, Daniel 12:1-2, Zechariah 12:9-10, and Isaiah 2:19 all place the death and resurrection of the Messiah at “the end of time” (Dan. 12:4). It is not a coincidence that Rabbinical scholars, steeped in Hebrew Scripture, also conclude that, according to their writings, the Messiah will appear once in the last days!

5) There are also literary and historical considerations. We now know that the gospels were written approximately 40-70 years after the purported events, which would indicate that they do not contain eyewitness reports, something the early church was not privy to during the formation of their dogma. Therefore, most of the evidence seems to confirm the epistolary view of Jesus, and the only thing standing in its way from being unanimous is the church’s dogma, which is a thorn in its side because it also creates all of the apparent biblical confusion that is expressed through various diametrically opposed views, such as Preterism versus Futurism, and the like.

Conclusion

Therefore, based on these findings, we must rightly conclude that although the gospels are the word of God, nevertheless, their purpose and function within the New Testament cannot be to give us a literal interpretation of history. After all, the Bible is not a book on science or history, but a book of faith! And if the gospels are the word of God—giving us an outline of the life of Christ within the context of the entire history of mankind, not just past history—then they must be theological documents that give us a glimpse of Jesus’ future history through theological language that imparts instruction into the meanings of salvation, the Messiah, and the nature of God. In other words, the gospels are a mixed bag of theology, history (history written in advance; cf. Isa. 46:10), and prophecy!

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!