How Do We Know What We Know?

How Do We Know What We Know?

By Biblical Researcher Eli Kittim

A posteriori Vs A priori Knowledge

Epistemology is a philosophical branch that questions the conditions required for a belief to constitute knowledge. The possible sources of knowledge that could justify a belief are based on perception, memory, reason, and testimony.

Postmodern epistemology is generally skeptical of “a posteriori” knowledge, which is derived by reasoning from observed phenomena (i.e. empirical knowledge). Because this knowledge gradually changes and evolves over time, its so-called “facts” also change and are not therefore necessarily true. This would imply that scientific knowledge is not necessarily true and is therefore incapable of informing us about reality as it truly is!

The only necessary “truths” appear to be contained in what is known as “a priori” knowledge, which is derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions. Since the time of Immanuel Kant this knowledge has been understood as being acquired independently of any particular experiences. Thus, logical and mathematical propositions fall under this category.

If you think about it, science cannot prove the existence of the external world independently of our perceptions or faculties. Kant was one of the first thinkers to suggest the idea of the philosophical gaze turned inward upon the self rather than focused on the external world per se. Rather than concentrating on observed phenomena, he zoomed in on the observer himself. Since then we have sought to find out what constitutes “necessary truth,” as well as its justification. In short, we have become skeptical of reality and have seriously questioned whether our perceptions of it can be trusted or not.

The Phenomenological Perspective of Experience

Along comes Edmund Husserl (1859 – 1938), a German philosopher, who founded the school of Phenomenology, which studies the structures of experience and consciousness. Consciousness at the most fundamental level is simply the awareness of existence, both internal and external. In other words, phenomenology is primarily concerned with how consciousness perceives and relates to phenomena. A phenomenon is defined as an observable event. This is in contrast to a “noumenon,” which, according to Kant, cannot be directly observed. Thus, Husserl is interested in understanding not the external world as it really is but rather how an individual experiences or perceives it subjectively. Husserl influenced many notable 20th century thinkers, such as Gabriel Marcel, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Jean-Paul Sartre, Martin Heidegger, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Emmanuel Levinas, Jacques Derrida, and many others!

What is more, Husserl acknowledged a type of gnosis that is far greater than any knowledge derived from the empirical world of the senses. He called it “authentic intuition,” denoting its capacity to grasp the essence of being (Manfred Frank. What is Neostructuralism? Trans. Sabine Wilke and Richard Gray. [Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1989], pp. 411-412)! Since “testimony” is acceptable as a source of knowledge in epistemology, the multiple and independent attestations of the born-again experience can be employed as potential sources of knowledge for a justified true belief in the Platonic sense. Søren Kierkegaard, the father of existentialism, would acknowledge its validity, given that the born-again experience (Jn 3.3) cannot be proven empirically but experienced existentially! The great mystics Rumi, Kabir, and John of the Cross would certainly concur with that statement. This is analogous to what Karl Jaspers, the German-Swiss psychiatrist and philosopher, calls a leap of faith, which is a belief in something outside the confines of reason.

From an interdisciplinary perspective, psychological testing can further confirm the existence of radical changes in the personality as a result of such experiences, not unlike those depicted in the Bible. For example, a murderer named Saul was said to be changed into a lover named Paul. Such cases abound in the “conversion-experience” literature. It seems to be a case where a new identity has replaced an older one (cf. Eph. 4.22-24). In the language of psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott, it is the difference between the False self (i.e. pseudo self) and the True self (i.e. authentic self)! Thus, there are many indicators which suggest that the born-again experience is ipso facto a possible source of knowledge (cf. Eph. 2.5).

Why Then Are There Differences Between Various Belief Systems?

The contradictory doctrinal statements of various religious traditions do not invalidate the authenticity of the existential experience precisely because they do not accurately represent the born-again experience itself, but rather the afterthoughts that follow it. Human reason tries to make sense of its experiences, thereby leading to theological diversity. However, at the point of the “mysterium tremendum” itself the experience is ubiquitous. In other words, whether one is reared in a Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist culture is irrelevant because the authentic mystical experience will be the same. The person will primarily experience a new birth, a profound sense of peace, as well as an all - encompassing love. The attempt to categorize it within a specific cultural and spiritual milieu is a secondary process. As Hegel once wrote:

“The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only

with the falling of the dusk.”

In other words, only after the experience is gone does philosophy arrive to try to understand it. In our case, theology arrives too late. It’s the same with the doctrinal variations of the different spiritual traditions!

The Absolute Being of philosophy (i.e. God) is often said to instill revelation upon humankind. There are various theological schools, such as pantheism, deism, theism, and the like, but most historians would agree that the various holy books are testaments of God’s alleged revelations (e.g. the Upanishads, Vedas, Bhagavad Gita, Torah, Quran, New Testament). However, the degree of revelation varies. It is important to note what Paul reveals in 1 Cor. 12.11:

“All these are the work of one and the same

Spirit, and he distributes them to each one,

just as he determines.”

In other words, not all get an equal share of the spiritual pie. Not all receive an equal portion of the truth. Each one gets a small amount of it. Some get more, others less. Thus, some know more, some less. This, then, explains the differences that exist between various belief systems without necessarily refuting their undergirding existential experiences per se! Put differently, they all believe in God, but which God is a question pertaining to different levels and degrees of revelation. So, given that belief systems are disseminated later, after the fact, doctrinal differences are irrelevant in refuting the initial born-again experience as a whole.

Conclusion

The epistemology of existentialism and phenomenology presents “experience” as a potential source of knowledge. Since testimony is considered to be a possible source of knowledge that could justify a belief, the multitudinous number of born-again testimonies down through the ages would present a case for the legitimacy of the existential experience! According to phenomenology, this knowledge may actually surpass that of science given its capacity to grasp the essence of being!

Η Γέννηση, ο θάνατος, και η Ανάσταση του Χριστού στο Τέλος του Κόσμου

Από τον συγγραφέα Ελι Κιτίμ

Θάνατος καί Ανάσταση στο Τέλος του Κόσμου, στην Παλαιά Διαθήκη

Απόδειξη ότι Δανιήλ 12.1 Αναφέρεται σε Ανάσταση από Θάνατο με βάση την Μετάφραση και Εκτέλεση των Βιβλικών γλωσσών.

Το κείμενο του Δανιηλ 12.1 βρίσκεται στο πλαίσιο της μεγάλης δοκιμασίας των τελικών χρόνων! Επαναλαμβάνεται στο Ευαγγέλιο του Ματθαίου 24.21 ως η εποχή της μεγάλης δοκιμασίας— καιρός θλίψεως (βλ. Αποκ. 7.14).

Δανιήλ (Θεοδοτίων) 12.1,

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.

Το Δανιήλ (Θεοδοτίων) 12.1 μεταφράζει την εβραϊκή λέξη עָמַד (amad) ως αναστήσεται, η οποία προέρχεται από τη ρίζα λέξη ανίστημι και σημαίνει *ανάσταση.*

Μετάφραση,

Εκείνη την εποχή, ο Μιχαήλ, ο μεγάλος πρίγκιπας, ο προστάτης του λαού σας, θα αναστηθεί. Θα υπάρξει μια περίοδος αγωνίας, όπως δεν έχει συμβεί ποτέ από την πρώτη ύπαρξη των εθνών.

Ο ισχυρισμός μου ότι η ελληνική λέξη ἀναστήσεται αναφέρεται σε ανάσταση από τους νεκρούς έχει αμφισβητηθεί από τους κριτικούς. Η απάντησή μου έχει ως εξής.

Το πρώτο αποδεικτικό στοιχείο είναι το γεγονός ότι ο Μιχαήλ αναφέρεται για πρώτη φορά ως αυτός που «ἀναστήσεται» (Δαν. Θεοδ. 12.1) πριν από τη γενική ανάσταση των νεκρών (ἀναστήσονται, Δαν. Θεοδ. 12.2). Εδώ, υπάρχουν ισχυρές γλωσσικές ενδείξεις ότι η λέξη *ἀναστήσεται* αναφέρεται σε ανάσταση, διότι στον αμέσως επόμενο στίχο (12.2) η πληθυντική μορφή της ίδιας λέξης (δηλ. ἀναστήσονται) χρησιμοποιείται για να περιγράψει τη γενική ανάσταση των νεκρών! Με άλλα λόγια, εάν η ίδια ακριβώς λέξη (ἀναστήσονται) σημαίνει ανάσταση στο Δανιήλ 12.2, τότε πρέπει επίσης η λέξη ἀναστήσεται να σημαίνει απαραίτητα ανάσταση και στο Δανιήλ 12.1! Είναι σημαντικό να σημειωθεί ότι το απόσπασμα του Δανιήλ 12.1 χρησιμοποιεί την εβραϊκή μεσσιανική ορολογία ενός χρισμένου πρίγκιπα (βλ. Δαν. 9.25 και ἄρχων ὑμῶν Δαν. 10.21 Ο', πρβλ. Ησα 9.6 Ο' μεγάλης βουλῆς ἄγγελός) για να σηματοδοτήσει την ανάσταση του Μεσσία στο τέλος του κόσμου.

Το δεύτερο αποδεικτικό στοιχείο προέρχεται από την παλαιά διαθήκη κατά τους εβδομήκοντα που χρησιμοποιεί τη λέξη παρελεύσεται για να ορίσει την εβραϊκή λέξη עָמַד (amad), η οποία μεταφράζεται ως *θα πεθάνει.*

Η παλαιά διαθήκη κατά τους εβδομήκοντα (Δανιήλ 12.1) είναι ως εξής,

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.

Η παλαιά διαθήκη κατά τους εβδομήκοντα καταδεικνύει περαιτέρω ότι το Δανιήλ 12.1 κείμενο περιγράφει ένα θέμα θανάτου και ανάστασης επειδή η λέξη παρελεύσεται σημαίνει *θα πεθάνει,* υποδεικνύοντας έτσι τον θάνατο αυτού του εμφανιζόμενου πρίγκιπα στο τέλος του κόσμου! Επομένως, θέτει τη σκηνή για την ανάστασή του, καθώς η λεγόμενη μορφή «Θεοδοτίων Δανιήλ» συμπληρώνει τα κενά χρησιμοποιώντας τη λέξη αναστήσεται, που σημαίνει σωματική ανάσταση, για να καθιερώσει την περίοδο της εσχάτης ημέρας ως την ώρα κατά την οποία αυτός ο πρίγκιπας θα αναστηθεί από τους νεκρούς!

Συγκρίνετε το κείμενο του Ησαΐα στην Μετάφραση των Εβδομήκοντα περί της Αναστάσεως του Κυρίου (δηλ. ὅταν ἀναστῇ θραῦσαι τὴν γῆν) ἐν ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις (Ησαΐας 2.2):

εἰσενέγκαντες εἰς τὰ σπήλαια καὶ εἰς τὰς

σχισμὰς τῶν πετρῶν καὶ εἰς τὰς τρώγλας

τῆς γῆς ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ φόβου Κυρίου

καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς δόξης τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ, ὅταν

ἀναστῇ θραῦσαι τὴν γῆν (Ησαΐας 2.19).

Η Γέννηση και ο θάνατος του Ιησού στο Τέλος του Κόσμου, στην Καινή Διαθήκη

Δύο Αρχές της Βιβλικής Ερμηνευτικής πρέπει να καθοδηγήσουν την έρευνά μας

Δύο αρχές της βιβλικής ερμηνευτικής πρέπει να θεωρηθούν θεμελιώδεις. Οι εξηγητές πρέπει να ερμηνεύουν το σιωπηρό από το ρητό και το αφηγηματικό από το διδακτικό. Στην πράξη, οι επιστολές της καινής διαθήκης και άλλες ρητές και διδακτικές μερίδες της Γραφής πρέπει να αποσαφηνίσουν την έμμεση σημασία των ευαγγελίων, η οποία δεν είναι βιογραφική αλλά *θεολογική* στη φύση, όπως οι Mπούλτμαν, Κροσάν, Λούντεμαν, Μάικ Λικόνα, Τζέιμς Κρόσλει, Ρόμπερτ Λ Τόμας, Φ Νταβίντ Φαρνελ, Ντένις Μακντόναλντ, Ρόμπερτ Γκάντρι, και Τόμας Λ Μπρόντι, μεταξύ άλλων, έχουν δείξει ξεκάθαρα!

Η ελληνική ερμηνεία, που μεταφράζεται κατευθείαν από το ίδιο το κείμενο, αμφισβητεί την κλασική χριστιανική ερμηνεία, η οποία βασίζεται κυρίως σε ιστορικές μυθοπλασίες. Η «ελληνική ερμηνεία» όχι μόνο συμπληρώνει τις εβραϊκές μεσσιανικές προσδοκίες, αλλά ταιριάζει απόλυτα με τα θέματα του μεσσιανικού θανάτου και της ανάστασης στο τέλος του κόσμου που αναφέρονται στην Παλαιά Διαθήκη (βλ. Π.χ. Ησαΐας 2.19, Δαν. 12.1-2)! Εν ολίγοις, τόσο η εβραϊκή όσο και η χριστιανική Γραφή φαίνεται να λένε το ίδιο ακριβώς πράγμα, δηλαδή, ότι ο Μεσσίας θα εμφανιστεί για πρώτη φορά στο τέλος του κόσμου (βλ. Εβρ. 9.26β)!

Ο μελλοντικός Χριστός

Ελληνική Εξήγηση

Σύμφωνα με τα ρητά και διδακτικά τμήματα της Γραφής της Καινής Διαθήκης, ο Χριστός *γεννιέται* όταν ο χρόνος θα φτάσει στην πληρότητα ή την ολοκλήρωσή του, που εκφράζεται στην αποκαλυπτική φράση τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου:

ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου,

ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ,

γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός (Γαλ. 4.4).

Σύμφωνα με την αναλογία γραφής, η χρονολογική περίοδος γνωστή ως *η πληρότητα του χρόνου* (τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου) στην Επιστολή προς Γαλάτες 4.4 ορίζεται στην προς Εφεσίους Επιστολή 1.9-10 ως η ολοκλήρωση των εποχών (πρβλ. Εβρ. 9.26β):

γνωρίσας ἡμῖν τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θελήματος

αὐτοῦ, κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν αὐτοῦ ἣν

προέθετο ἐν αὐτῷ εἰς οἰκονομίαν τοῦ

πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν,

ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι τὰ πάντα ἐν τῷ

Χριστῷ, τὰ ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς

γῆς· ἐν αὐτῷ.

Η πληρότητα του χρόνου (τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν) στην προς Εφεσίους Επιστολή αναφέρεται στην ολοκλήρωση (ανακεφαλαιώσασθαι) όλων των πραγμάτων εις τον Χριστόν, των πραγμάτων στον ουρανό, και των πραγμάτων στη γη! Έτσι, σύμφωνα με την Επιστολή προς Γαλάτες 4.4 ο Χριστός γεννιέται κατά την ολοκλήρωση των αιώνων (δηλ. στο τελευταίο χρονικό διάστημα, πρβλ. Λουκ. 17.30, Εβρ. 1.2, Αποκ. 12.5, 19.10δ, 22.7, 10, 18, 19)!

Η πρώτη εμφάνιση του Χριστού αποδίδεται «στο τελευταίο χρονικό σημείο» στην Α΄ Επιστολή Πέτρου 1,20 (Νέα Βίβλος της Ιερουσαλήμ),

προεγνωσμένου μὲν πρὸ καταβολῆς

κόσμου, φανερωθέντος δὲ ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν

χρόνων.

Περαιτέρω επιβεβαίωση κειμένου έρχεται μέσω της επιστολής προς Εβραίους 9.26β, το οποίο έχει ως εξής:

νυνὶ δὲ ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων εἰς

ἀθέτησιν ἁμαρτίας διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ

πεφανέρωται.

Μετάφραση,

Έχει εμφανιστεί μια φορά για πάντα στο τέλος του κόσμου για την εξάλειψη της αμαρτίας με τη θυσία του [δηλ. τον θάνατο του].

Η ιστορική-γραμματική μελέτη της φράσης επί συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων καταδεικνύει ότι αναφέρεται στο «τέλος της εποχής» (δηλ. στο τέλος του κόσμου, πρβλ. Ματθαίος 13.39-40, 49, 24.3, 28.20, Δανιήλ 12.4 Ο', δείτε επίσης Τζ.Γ.Χ. Λάμπ, «Ένα Πατερικό Ελληνικό Λεξικό» [Οξφόρδη: πανεπιστήμιο Οξφόρδης, 1961], σελ. 1340).

Συμπέρασμα

Η υποτιθέμενη ιστορικότητα του Ιησού πρέπει να επανεξεταστεί, δεδομένου ότι η μόνη παρουσία του πρόκειται να πραγματοποιηθεί στο τέλος του κόσμου! Κατά συνέπεια, αυτή η ερμηνεία υποστηρίζει ότι οι επιστολές είναι τα κύρια κλειδιά για το ξεκλείδωμα του μελλοντικού χρονοδιαγράμματος της μοναδικής επίσκεψης του Χριστού. Για να αποδείξουμε την εγκυρότητα αυτού του επιχειρήματος, πρέπει να επιστρέψουμε στην Ελληνιστική Κοινή της καινής διαθήκης προκειμένου να επικεντρωθούμε σε ζητήματα συγγραφικής πρόθεσης. Αν απορρίψουμε η αγνοήσουμε αυτή την υπόθεση ισοδυναμεί με ακαδημαϊκή ανεντιμότητα!

What if the Crucifixion of Christ is a Future Event?

By Author Eli Kittim

Biblical Exegesis, the Canonical Context, and the Analogy of Scripture

Biblical studies must involve “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20.27) or the entire Biblical canon, in which all books must be examined equally as parts of a larger *canonical context,* not simply on an individual basis or as isolated parts. Moreover, in order to avoid confirmation bias, we must employ the hermeneutical principle known as “the analogy of Scripture” (Lat. ‘analogia Scripturae’). Thus, the inability of an expositor to remain completely objective is offset by the process in which Scripture interprets Scripture without outside interference or intervention.

Dogmatic theology: Proof-text and Coherence Fallacies

What is Classical Christianity’s foundational faith statement? The Protestant commentariat speaks highly of the Reformation, a movement that gradually freed itself from fiercely defended church traditions and council decrees through its fervent adherence to sola scriptura. But, unfortunately, the reformation didn’t go far enough. Sadly, reformed theology is, in many ways, a reprise of a long standing interpretation of Scripture which is based on ecclesiastical theology and authority. For example, the Nicene Creed——which was adopted during the First Council of Constantinople in 381 CE——reads:

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ . . . who for

us men, and for our salvation, came down

from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy

Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made

man, he was crucified for us under Pontius

Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and

the third day he rose again, according to

the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven,

and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;

from thence he shall come again, with glory,

to judge the quick and the dead.

Protestants have unquestionably accepted this church dogma. But a second coming begs the question as it is nowhere mentioned in the New Testament (NT). And there is no epistolary proof that Jesus was born of a virgin, nor is there any proof regarding the dogma of the Immaculate Conception that expounds on the implications of the virgin birth, which was only recently adopted by the Roman Catholic Church via an apostolic constitution in 1854!

And what of all the Scriptures that contradict the Nicene dogma, which erroneously asserts of a messianic sacrifice in Antiquity? What about Zeph. 1.7-9, 15-18 that clearly equates the Lord’s sacrifice with the “day of the Lord”? Are we to assume that the day of the Lord already happened in Antiquity? And what about the piercing of the Messiah “on that [apocalyptic] day”? (Zech. 12.9-10)! Can we seriously ignore the end-of-the-world timeline in Mt. 13.39-40, 49? Or in Mt. 24.3? Or in Mt. 28.20? Yet the exact same apocalyptic phrase that is used in all these verses is ALSO used in **Hebrews 9.26b**, which explicitly refers to a messianic sacrifice that will transpire “once for all” (hapax) “at the end of the age,” a period that is synonymous with the day of the Lord and with judgment day! And why ignore Scripture which says explicitly that Christ speaks to humanity in the “last days”? (Heb. 1.2). Why should we deliberately ignore the future incarnation of Christ in Rev. 12.5? Or the fact that the testimony to Jesus is prophetic? (Rev. 19.10d). Or the first coming of Jesus in 1 Pet. 1.20? Or the Son of Man that has not yet been revealed in Lk 17.30? Or the initial visitation of the messiah during “the time of universal restoration”? (Acts 3.19-21). Or Christ’s future resurrection in 1 Cor. 15.23-24? Or the admonition against the historical resurrection theology in 2 Tim. 2.18? Or the fact that Jesus’ one and only coming is associated with judgment day in John 9.39? (cf. Lk 12.49).

The Apocalyptic Aspect of the Gospels

If this is indeed the canonical context, then it cannot be overridden by Catholic dogmas against which the reformers fought so hard to free themselves from. Catholic dogmatic theology once set the theological standard against which all other theories were measured, whereby it inevitably lead to multiple coherence fallacies down through the ages. In other words, the church’s misreading of the gospel literature as historical is obviously not compatible with the overall existing theology of Scripture! In short, what was originally Apocalyptic Christianity was turned into Historical Christianity by Church dogma!

This plays such a crucial role that many Christian adherents today feel that if the historical component is discredited, then Christianity can no longer be viable or credible. Noted author John Ankerberg has said something to that effect, and so have many others, including philosopher/apologist William Lane Craig, who tries desperately to prove the historical aspects of the Christian faith. And yet Christianity is and always has been an *Apocalyptic Religion* that is based on a revelation or unveiling of the end times! Due to its prophetic and apocalyptic foundation, the NT text remains credible and viable even if its literary elements prove to be unhistorical. Ultimately, the Bible is a book on faith, not on history or science. As Kierkegaard would argue, the Christian tenets cannot be proved empirically or historically; they can only be experienced existentially! Christianity is not a belief of the mind but of the heart!

The Apocalyptic Aspect of the Epistles

If we shift theological gears and focus on the epistles, the earliest NT writings, we’ll find a completely different theology altogether, one in which the coherence of Scripture revolves around the *end-times*! For example, in 2 Pet. 1.16–21, the eyewitness testimony of Jesus’ transfiguration in vv. 16-18 is not historical but rather a vision of the future. That’s why verse 19 concludes: “So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed.” The same goes for the apocalyptic passage in 1 Pet. 1.10-11, which suggests an eschatological soteriology.

According to the principle of expositional constancy, if we compare the chronological time period or the timeline known as “the fullness of time” (τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου) in Gal. 4.4 to that of Eph. 1.9-10, we will come to realize that Christ’s birth, as recorded in the former, is in reference to the eschaton, not to a purported time period in Antiquity. The end-times incarnation of Christ in Gal. 4.4 is multiply and independently attested in Rev. 12.5, whose timeline is contemporaneous with the Great Tribulation and the apocalyptic events of the end-times!

Therefore, the church’s dogma that Jesus died in Antiquity appears to be a proof-text fallacy that is out of touch with the *teaching* of the epistles. For example, there are numerous passages in the epistles that place the timeline of Jesus’ life (i.e., his birth, death, and resurrection) in *eschatological* categories (e.g., 2 Thess. 2.1-3; Heb. 1.1-2; 9.26b; 1 Pet. 1.10-11, 20; Rev. 12.5; 19.10d).

Furthermore, if the canonical context demands that we coalesce the different Biblical texts as if we’re reading a single Book, then the overall “prophetic” message of Revelation must certainly play a significant exegetical role. Accordingly, the Book of Revelation places not only the timeline (12.5) but also the testimony to Jesus (19.10d) in “prophetic” categories.

The *apocalyptic theology* of the NT epistles is multiply attested in the Old Testament canon, which confirms the earthy, *end-time Messiah* of the epistolary literature (cf. Job 19.25; Isa. 2.19; Dan. 12.1-2; Zeph. 1.7-9, 15-18; Zech. 12.9-10)!

What About the Numerous NT References to the Revelation of Jesus: Are they Not References to a Second Coming?

A revelation by default means “a first-time” occurrence. In other words, it’s an event that is happening for the very first time. By definition, a “revelation” is never disclosed twice. If we examine the NT verses, which mention the future revelation of Christ, we will find that they are not referring to a second coming, a coming back, or a return, as is commonly thought, but rather to an initial appearance (see e.g. 1 Cor. 1.7; 16.22; 1 Thess. 2.19; 4.15; 2 Thess. 1.10; 2.1; Heb. 10.37; Jas. 5.7; 1 Pet. 1.7; 2 Pet. 1.16; 3.4; 1 Jn 2.28; Rev. 2.16; 22.20).

See my article: Why does the New Testament Refer to Christ’s Future Coming as a “Revelation”?

https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/187927555567/why-does-the-new-testament-refer-to-christs

Eli of Kittim

WHY DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT REFER TO CHRIST’S FUTURE COMING AS A “REVELATION”?

By 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

Another objection to the second coming of Christ goes something like this. If God wants to accomplish something, he’ll get it done on the first attempt. Why the need for a second attempt? It would imply that Christ’s mission on earth was a total failure and that nothing so clearly indicates his unsuccessful earthly mission to restore God’s kingdom as his much anticipated return to set things right. In other words, the second coming implies that Jesus couldn’t get it done the first time. He has to come back to finish the job.

Visions of the Resurrection

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

The resurrection itself is not an event of

past history. All that historical criticism can

establish is that the first disciples came to

believe the resurrection (Rudolph Bultmann,

‘The New Testament and Mythology,’ in

Kerygma and Myth: A Theological Debate,

ed. Hans Werner Bartsch, trans. Reginald H.

Fuller [London: S.P.C.K, 1953-62], 38, 42).

When the evangelists spoke about the

resurrection of Jesus, they told stories

about apparitions or visions (John Dominic

Crossan, ‘A Long Way from Tipperary: A

Memoir’ [San Francisco:

HarperSanFransisco, 2000], 164-165).

At the heart of the Christian religion lies a

vision described in Greek by Paul as

ophehe——‘he was seen.’ And Paul himself,

who claims to have witnessed an

appearance asserted repeatedly ‘I have

seen the Lord.’ So Paul is the main source

of the thesis that a vision is the origin of the

belief in resurrection . . . (Gerd Lüdemann,

‘The Resurrection of Jesus: History,

Experience, Theology.’ Translated by John

Bowden. [London: SCM, 1994], 97, 100).

It is undisputable that some of the followers

of Jesus came to think that he had been

raised from the dead, and that something

had to have happened to make them think

so. Our earliest records are consistent on

this point, and I think they provide us with

the historically reliable information in one

key aspect: the disciples’ belief in the

resurrection was based on visionary

experiences. I should stress it was visions,

and nothing else, that led to the first

disciples to believe in the resurrection (Bart

D. Ehrman, ‘How Jesus Became God: The

Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from

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

183-184).

Ehrman sides with the *visionary language* that Luke, Bultmann, Crossan, and Lüdemann use. British NT scholar, James Dunn also thought that Jesus was not resurrected in Antiquity but that Jesus probably meant he would be resurrected at the last judgment! Even NT textual critic Kurt Aland went so far as to question whether or not Jesus was a real person. In his book, “A History of Christianity” (Vol. 1, p. 106, emphasis added), he writes:

the real question arises . . . was there really

a Jesus? Can Jesus really have lived if the

writings of his closest companions are filled

with so little of his reality . . . so little in them

of the reality of the historical Jesus . . . .

When we observe this——assuming that the

writings about which we are speaking really

come from their alleged authors——it

almost then appears as if Jesus were a

mere PHANTOM . . .

Conclusion

This is not the proposal of a Mythicist, but of an *Ahistoricist.* In sharp contrast to mythicism, which attributes the Jesus-story solely to mythological causes, my *ahistoricism* ascribes it to future eschatology! Paradoxically, you can have a high view of Scripture, and even hold to a high Christology, and yet still reject the historicity of Jesus. In other words, you can completely repudiate historical Christianity without necessarily denying the Christian faith, the divinity of Jesus, eschatological salvation, or the authority of Scripture. In fact, this view seems to be more in line with the canonical context of the Bible than the classical one! This brief inquiry into the apocalyptic aspect of the NT has therefore provided a starting point and direction for subsequent studies.

Christianity preserved the apocalyptic tradition of Judaism and reevaluated it in light of its own messianic revelations. The NT refined this type of literature as it became the vehicle of its own prophetic and apocalyptic expressions. Apocalypticism, then, not historiography, is the essence of the NT, which is based on a foreknowledge of future events that is written in advance! It is therefore thought advisable to consider the collection of NT writings as strikingly futurist books.

The Fullness of Time Theology: A Critique of Covenant And Dispensational Theology

By Author Eli Kittim

My Agreements and Disagreements with both Camps

One has to be au courant with Biblical Hermeneutics to evaluate various facets of Christian theology. I would like to stress at the outset that I’m not a proponent of either covenant or dispensational theology. I do accept certain aspects of both theologies while rejecting others.

I’m not a reformed theologian but I do agree that the Old Testament (OT) is essentially Christocentric (not Jewishcentric) and that the New Testament (NT) is not talking about two peoples (the church and the Jews) but rather one: the elect (cf. Eph. 2.19-20), which is to say the Biblical metanarrative of the OT is not about a race but about a person: the Messiah! Some pastors, like John Hagee, have gone so far as to say that the Jews don’t need Jesus; they can be saved by their own covenants. The dispensational view is therefore unbiblical because it creates 2 people of God: the Jews and the church. Part of the problem is their reliance on denotative meanings and a literal interpretation of Scripture. In my view, the church doesn’t replace Israel. The church is Israel (cf. Rom. 9.8; Gal. 3.29; 6.16). It’s always been about the elect in Christ. If in fact there are 2 peoples with 2 sets of standards (law & grace) by which they’re saved, then that would invalidate Christ’s atonement, as would the rebuilding of the third temple, which would necessitate the reinstituting of animal sacrifices.

The Dispensation of the Fullness of Time

As a framework for biblical interpretation, dispensationalism is often described as a series of ages or different periods in history. This interpretative framework defines each distinctive time period as a dispensation or an administration of an age. But the only temporal dispensation I find in the NT is that of the fullness of time. Ephesians 1.9-10 reads:

γνωρίσας ἡμῖν τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θελήματος

αὐτοῦ, κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν αὐτοῦ ἣν

προέθετο ἐν αὐτῷ εἰς οἰκονομίαν τοῦ

πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν,

ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι τὰ πάντα ἐν

τῷ Χριστῷ, τὰ ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ

τῆς γῆς · ἐν αὐτῷ.

Translation (NRSV):

“he has made known to us the mystery of his

will, according to his good pleasure that he

set forth in Christ, as a plan [οἰκονομίαν] for

the fullness of time, to gather up all things

in him, things in heaven and things on

earth.”

In short; the designation “the fullness of time” (τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν) refers to the period of time (οἰκονομίαν; dispensation) when all things, both in in the heavens and upon the earth, will conclude in Christ. The Greek word ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι means to “sum up” (see G.W.H. Lampe [ed.], A Patristic Greek Lexicon [Oxford: Oxford University, 1961], pp. 1094-95).

So, according to Eph. 1.10, it’s “a plan [dispensation] for the fullness of time,” which will culminate “at the end of the age” (cf. Gal. 4.4; Dan. 12.4 LXX; Mt. 13.39-40, 49; 24.3; 28.20; Heb. 9.26b)! Surprisingly, neither covenant theology nor dispensational theology refer to this Biblical dispensation. Similarly, in Acts 3.19-21, Peter is addressing a crowd and astoundingly refers to Christ’s coming in the context of futurist eschatology. He refers to “the Messiah appointed for you” as the προκεχειρισμένον (i.e. appointed beforehand) Christ “Jesus, who must remain in heaven until the time of universal restoration that God announced long ago through his holy prophets.” Peter says:

“Repent therefore, and turn to God so that

your sins may be wiped out, so that times of

refreshing may come from the presence of

the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah

appointed for you, that is, Jesus, who must

remain in heaven until the time of universal

restoration that God announced long ago

through his holy prophets.”

Thus, the key Biblical dispensation or plan of God is the one pertaining to the fullness of time (i.e. at the end of the age) when all his plans will be fulfilled.

Grace Has Always Existed

Ephesians 3.1-9 explains that God’s plan was always to turn the entire world into Israel (i.e. a holy people, not a race):

“This is the reason that I Paul am a prisoner

for Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles

—for surely you have already heard of the

commission [οἰκονομίαν; dispensation] of

God’s grace that was given me for you, and

how the mystery was made known to me by

revelation [ἀποκάλυψιν], as I wrote above in

a few words, a reading of which will enable

you to perceive my understanding of the

mystery of Christ. In former generations this

mystery was not made known to

humankind, as it has now been revealed to

his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit:

that is, the Gentiles have become fellow

heirs, members of the same body, and

sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus

through the gospel. Of this gospel I have

become a servant according to the gift of

God’s grace that was given me by the

working of his power. Although I am the very

least of all the saints, this grace was given

to me to bring to the Gentiles the news of

the boundless riches of Christ, and to make

everyone see what is the plan [οἰκονομία;

dispensation] of the mystery hidden for

ages in God who created all things.”

In other words, it was part of God’s plan from the outset to call the entire world Israel! The dispensation or plan of God was to reveal the mystery that the Gentiles also form part of the chosen people of God. However, before we can demonstrate this point, we first need to show how grace was always available, even from the time of the Pentateuch (the Torah).

I should note, parenthetically, that there’s a theological confusion pertaining to God’s dispensation of grace with regard to soteriology. Many Biblical thinkers mistakenly assume that God’s grace is not offered to humanity until the *timing* of the atonement, or the cross, if you will. The age prior to that is often viewed as a time that precedes the age of grace. But that is an incorrect position which presumes that our salvation cannot precede the timing of Christ’s sacrifice (see my article: Theology Versus Chronology https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/611676639545393152/theology-versus-chronology-a-soteriological-view).

Eli of Kittim

Theology Versus Chronology: A Soteriological View

By Eli Kittim ——- John 7.39 Indicates that the Holy Spirit Was Unavailable Prior to Jesus’ Glorification. Is this Verse Giving Us a Chrono

One could reasonably argue that grace was always available “by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2.23) and was even explicitly mentioned in the writings of the law and the prophets. Deut. 30.6 is a case in point. The undermentioned verse from the Torah doesn’t appeal to works but to grace:

“circumcise your heart and the heart of your

descendants, so that you will love the Lord

your God with all your heart and with all

your soul, in order that you may live.”

Ezekiel 36:26 is very similar. Here, once again, the OT is not referring to Works but to Grace. The text reads:

“I will give you a new heart and put a new

spirit in you; I will remove from you your

heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.”

Jeremiah 31.33 (cf. 24.7; 32.39-40) is along similar lines:

“I will put my law within them, and I will write

it on their hearts.”

In a comparable manner, Ezekiel 18.31 (cf. 11.19) says:

“Cast away from you all the transgressions

that you have committed against me, and

get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit!

Why will you die, O house of Israel?”

But if this covenant with Israel is a covenant of Grace (cf. Jer. 31.33; Heb. 8.10), then who is Israel? Answer: the elect; the chosen people; those who are in Christ. If that was always God’s plan or οἰκονομίαν, to which all things in the OT pointed, then Grace was always available and did not suddenly come into play during NT times.

Therefore, there are not two people of God but only one: those who are in Christ. At the end of the age, Christ will not judge the world like a shepherd separating three types of people: the elect, the reprobates, and the Jews. Rather, he will separate “the sheep from the goats” (Mt. 25.32). In other words, there are only two categories: you are either in Christ or out of Christ!

What is more, Pastors do Christianity a disservice when erroneously stating that the Jews will be saved after the rapture. No they will not! The gates will be shut after the church leaves the earth. Matthew 25.10-12:

“and the door was shut. Later the other

bridesmaids came also, saying, ‘Lord, lord,

open to us.' But he replied, ‘Truly I tell you, I

do not know you.' “

That’s what the Parable of the Ten Virgins signifies. The 10 virgins represent the church that is waiting for the Bridegroom, who is Jesus (Mt. 9.15), to take her away in the rapture——“for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready” (Rev. 19.7).

That is what the parable of the 10 virgins means. To teach that Jews will be saved after the rapture is a false and dangerous teaching that is jeopardizing people’s lives.

Just because the Jews misinterpreted their Scriptures doesn’t mean that grace wasn’t available or that God didn’t refer to their regeneration-through-the-spirit in the OT. Therefore, to arbitrarily superimpose different dispensational ages and read them back into the text is as dangerous as it is reprehensible.

So, Grace was always present from the very beginning. But it was not fully understood until the NT era. But that doesn’t mean that it was not alluded to or explicitly referenced in the OT. It certainly was, as I have demonstrated.

What Does the term Israel Mean?

The term Israel can refer to many things. It can mean the promise land (Palestine); it can signify the former northern kingdom; it can refer to the purported historical person known as Jacob; it can be a reference to the 12 tribes; it can refer to God’s chosen people (of which a subset would be God’s people of the OT & NT); Israel can refer to Jews; it could mean the modern nation that’s located in the Middle East; it can also refer to anyone who is of the Abrahamic covenant; that is, the descendants of Abraham (both figuratively and literally) can be called Israel; the religion itself can be called Israel (i.e. those who worship Yahweh); the people of God in today’s generation (aka the church) can also be called Israel; and so on and so forth. Thus, to interpret this term exclusively as “the Jews” is to ignore all the nuances of meaning that the text provides. Using the analogy of Scripture, we allow Paul to give us an exact definition of what it means to be a "Jew" within the NT context. Apparently, the biblical term Jew does not denote a race but rather an inner essence or, more precisely, an indwelling spirit pertaining to God. In Romans 2.28-29, Paul writes:

“For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly,

nor is circumcision that which is outward in

the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one

inwardly; and circumcision is that which is

of the heart.”

To further explore the significance of this passage, read William Barclay, a world-renowned NT scholar, and his commentaries in the book, The Letter to the Romans. The Daily Study Bible Series. Rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975, p. 47). What is more, 1 Pet 2.9 uses OT language, related to Israel, to describe the elect in Christ:

“But you are a chosen race, a royal

priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his

own possession, that you may proclaim the

excellencies of him who called you out of

darkness into his marvelous light.”

Who Are the Heirs of the OT Promises of God?

In the Book of Romans, Paul does not explicitly deny the notion that the concept of grace existed in OT writings. Since this was foreshadowed but not fully explained in the OT——with the exception of some soteriological allusions in certain passages, such as Isaiah 53.3-8 and Zechariah 12.9-10, for instance——Paul takes it upon himself to expound the merits of Grace vis-à-vis the messianic atonement in his letter to the Romans.

Even Covenant theologians find this so-called new manifestation of grace rather disturbing. According to them, there is only one covenant of grace that has been operating uniformly in each and every age. Thus, when Paul discusses “the commission of God's grace that was given” to him (Eph. 3.2), he’s referring to a “revelation” (ἀποκάλυψιν) in Eph. 3.3-7:

“the mystery was made known to me by

revelation, as I wrote above in a few words,

a reading of which will enable you to

perceive my understanding of the mystery

of Christ. In former generations this mystery

was not made known to humankind, as it

has now been revealed to his holy apostles

and prophets by the Spirit: that is, the

Gentiles have become fellow heirs,

members of the same body, and sharers in

the promise in Christ Jesus through the

gospel. Of this gospel I have become a

servant according to the gift of God's grace

that was given me by the working of his

power.”

What is this secret that “in former generations” was unknown? Ephesians 3.6 asserts that “the Gentiles have become fellow heirs”:

συνκληρονόμα [joint-heirs] καὶ [and]

σύσσωμα [a joint-body] καὶ [and]

συμμέτοχα [joint-partakers] τῆς [of

the] ἐπαγγελίας [promises] ἐν [in] Χριστῷ

[Christ] Ἰησοῦ [Jesus].

This means that the Israelites are not the sole inheritors of the OT promises of God. The Gentiles are co-inheritors. That is, they are identical with or equivalent to the people of Israel. In other words, they are like Israel in every conceivable way with regard to their divine relationship and position. In short, they share equal rights and status with Israel as the chosen people of God, the elect, so that they and Israel have become one and the same! This means that the OT passages regarding Israel, or the chosen people of God, necessarily allude to them, given that they figure prominently in the economy of God’s plan. However, in the end, it is those that are in Christ that are truly chosen (whether Jew or Gentile), not simply the literal Israelites. As descendants, Jews cannot appeal to their tradition for salvation, as if to say “We have Abraham as our father” (Mt. 3.9), because race alone will not save them (cf. Rom. 2.28-29).

The Fallacies of Dispensationalism

What is more, the arbitrary dispensations that refer to the age of innocence or the age of conscience have always been uniformly present in the development of human beings. They are not ages of time but rather stages of human development. A child is innocent until he/she reaches the age of reason or conscience after which they can make moral choices and decisions. The story of Adam and Eve is the story of humankind. It is the tale of temptation during the age of innocence in the life of every human being. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a connotative representation of those dual proclivities latent within the unconscious mind. There is no literal Cherubim wielding a flaming sword, or a literal garden, nor is there a tree of life planted somewhere on the earth which can make one live forever (i.e. the so-called fountain of youth). This is metaphorical language. To turn allegory into biography and call it the age of innocence or the age of conscience is a literal misrepresentation of Scripture.

Moreover, dispensationalists hypothesize the coming of a Millennial Kingdom, which seems to be a representation of the *timing* pertaining to the end of the age rather than a literal thousand year reign on earth (See my article, The Fallacies of Millennialism: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/634098142546198528/the-fallacies-of-millennialism).

Eli of Kittim

The Fallacies of Millennialism

By Eli Kittim ——- This article is partly excerpted from chapter 10 of my book, “The Little Book of Revelation.” Therein, I explain that the

Conclusion

The only Biblical dispensation that can be rigorously defended is that of *the fullness of time,* which refers to *the end of the age,* when “all things” will conclude in Christ (Eph. 1.9-10)! Moreover, as I have shown from the law and the prophets, grace has always been operative since the dawn of recorded history (cf. e.g. Gen. 3.15, 21). What is more, based on a *revelation* that was disclosed by Paul——the Christocentric content of which has always been part of God’s plan——the elect in Christ are the true heirs of the OT promises of God and, therefore, the true Israel. Finally, both covenant and dispensational theology have failed to grasp the Biblical metanarrative, whose central dispensation unfolds at the end of days (Dan. 12.13; Mt. 24.3; 1 Cor. 10.11), when all the inhabitants of the earth will witness “the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1.7; 1 Pet. 1.13; Rev. 1.1), the tribulation, the rapture, and the final consummation!

The Fallacies of Millennialism

By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim

This article is partly excerpted from chapter 10 of my book, “The Little Book of Revelation.” Therein, I explain that there are not 2 resurrections but only one! Daniel 12.2 explicitly mentions that both the saved & the damned will be resurrected TOGETHER in one general resurrection. By contrast, the second death in Revelation 20.14 is incorporeal, NOT physical. It’s the lake of fire; a spiritual death. So, only 1 physical resurrection is indicated in the Bible; not 2! Notice what the passage of Rev. 20.4 (KJV) actually says:

“And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them,

and judgment was given unto them: and I

saw the souls of them that were beheaded

for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of

God, and which had not worshipped the

beast, neither his image, neither had

received his mark upon their foreheads, or

in their hands; and they lived and reigned

with Christ a thousand years.”

Notice that the verse doesn’t tell us if and when they were resurrected. Only that they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years; (not “for” a thousand years).

Then, the following verse (Rev. 20.5) goes on to say:

“But the rest of the dead lived not again until

the thousand years were finished. This is

the first resurrection.”

But that’s the only resurrection! Biblically speaking, there is no other physical resurrection. And if it’s explicitly mentioned as the first resurrection, then it means that there couldn’t have been an earlier one. We erroneously assume that the previous verse (v. 4) mentions an earlier resurrection. Not so! Revelation 20.4 and 20.5 appear to be two different versions of the SAME resurrection!

It seems to me that Revelation 20 verses 4 and 5 are talking about the *same resurrection* but in light of varying reward scenarios. The implication is that the believers of verse 4 (probably the tribulation saints or the recently deceased) lived and reigned after the thousand years (καὶ ἔζησαν καὶ ἐβασίλευσαν μετὰ . . . τὰ χίλια ἔτη)! Similarly, in verse 5, the rest of the dead (presumably the believers who had been dead for many centuries) were not raised from the dead until the thousand years were finished, which is the first resurrection:

οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔζησαν ἄχρι τὰ

τελεσθῇ χίλια ἔτη. αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ

πρώτη.

In other words, it appears that the faithful throngs (both the recent dead and those who had been dead for a long time) took part in the first resurrection after the thousand years had passed. But the details of their rewards——namely, that they lived & reigned, and that they were resurrected——are differentiated for a more comprehensive elaboration!

5 Questions Need to be Asked

A) According to the text, when does the 1st resurrection take place? Answer: when the thousand years were finished (Rev. 20.5)!

B) Can there be 2 resurrections? Answer: No. There can’t be 2 physical resurrections. According to the Bible, there is only one (Dan. 12.2)!

C) Which physical resurrection is explicitly mentioned in Rev. 20? Answer: The one in verse 5, which is said to occur at the end of the millennium or at the end of the thousand years. Verse 4 does not explicitly mention a resurrection. It simply says: καὶ ἔζησαν (and lived). It doesn’t say that they came back to life or that they were resurrected, as some modern Bible versions do. Nor does the original Greek text have any parentheses, as you find in the NRSV. It reads:

καὶ ἔζησαν καὶ

ἐβασίλευσαν μετὰ τοῦ

χριστοῦ χίλια ἔτη

(Rev. 20.4 SBLGNT).

The textus receptus has it as follows:

καὶ ἔζησαν καὶ

ἐβασίλευσαν μετὰ τοῦ

χριστοῦ τὰ [the] χίλια

ἔτη;

The Greek New Testament doesn’t say “for” a thousand years. And the Greek word μετά can be translated as either “with” or “after” Christ. In other words, this could also be translated or paraphrased as follows: [after] the thousands years were completed, they lived and reigned forever. In other words, the original Greek text doesn’t say “for” one thousand years.

D) which resurrection is referred to as the 1st resurrection? Answer: the one in verse 5 that occurs when the thousand years are finished. The one in verse 4 is neither mentioned as a resurrection nor as being the first.

E) So then, how could the same people who would not be resurrected “until the thousand years were completed” (Rev. 20.5) simultaneously live and reign with Christ for a millennium? (Rev. 20.4). Answer: They cannot be both dead and alive at the same time! The only explanation is that the people who are said to reign with Christ are the same people who took part in “the first resurrection” (Rev. 20.5), but they’re described differently in the earlier verse (v. 4) in order to furnish the reader with further details about this particular time-period. It’s similar to the different descriptions in Revelation chs. 19 & 20 about the beast who is thrown into the lake of fire in Rev. 19 but who nevertheless continues to be active in Rev. 20! There are not two Beasts or Antichrists; only one. The same satanic beast who is captured in Rev. 20.2-3 is the exact same figure who was captured and thrown into the lake of fire in Rev. 19.20, but in the following chapter (ch. 20) he is described in more detail as the text provides further descriptions of his release and whereabouts prior to being cast into the lake of fire (see Rev. 20.7-10).

Conclusion

There is also a judgment (κρίμα) mentioned in Rev. 20.4. But are there really 2 judgments? No. Only one! Thus, the millennium implies 2 additional comings of Christ, 2 appearances by Satan, 2 Great Wars, 2 Great tribulations, 2 resurrections, 2 apocalypses, 2 Armageddons, 2 judgments, 2 Great Ends, and so on and so forth. This binary eschatology is biblically unfounded because there is only one of each!

It demonstrates that this brief passage must be taken symbolically, not literally. So, the passage really indicates that when the thousand years are completed the believers will be raised from the dead and begin to reign with Christ. This is also the chronological time period when the Antichrist is released for a short time. This is probably a reference to the Great Tribulation which only lasts for 3 and a half years, or 42 months, or 1,260 days, or a time, and times, and half a time (cf. Rev. 11.2; 12.6, 14; 13.5). This is also the time when the apocalyptic events will commence!

It took 21 symbolic days for God’s word to arrive on earth (Dan. 10.13–14). There are also 21 Judgments in the Book of Revelation. And since “one day is like a thousand years” (2 Pet. 3.8), the implication seems to be that the apocalyptic events are set to take place in the 21st century. It is a symbol of our century! Thus, the millennium seems to be referring to the end of the 20th century (i.e. 2,000 CE) and the beginning of the 21st!

By the way, the Bible never mentions the alleged “thousand-year reign of Christ on earth.” Only 2 verses mention those who “reigned with Christ a thousand years.” These are not to be taken literally but rather as *signs* that reveal the timing of Christ’s coming and of the apocalyptic events! In other words, when the thousand years are completed, Satan will be loosed for a little while (a reference to the 3 and a half year Great Tribulation). Then, the first resurrection will occur and the believers will henceforth reign with Christ!

What is the ultimate signpost that indicates when these events will commence? These apocalyptic events will begin when the thousand years are completed!

So, the thousand years act as the defining moment, the temporal mark, the chronological signal, the millennial warning that the end is near. It is not a coincidence that the 70 weeks of Daniel, the Mayan Calendar, Malachy’s Prophecy of the Popes, the recent Blood moon prophecy, and all the other biblical & extra-biblical doomsday prophecies began to hold sway after the thousand years were completed in 2,000 CE. Moreover, the Bible clearly prophesies the arrival of the Antichrist (Dan. 9.26-27). And I believe that he has already made his appearance on the world stage, namely, on the eve of the 2,000 year mark, that is to say, on December 31, 1999, precisely at the end of the thousand years, as prophesied in Rev. 20.7. For further details, see my article: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/623534877070016512/nostradamus-and-the-bible-seemingly-predict-the

Eli of Kittim

Nostradamus and the Bible Seemingly Predict the Coming of Putin

Chuck Missler reviews the historical roots of the modern day Russians and the peoples to which Ezekiel referred when he prophesied about tha

The reference to the chiliasm, then, serves as a caveat that Satan will be loosed when the thousand years are over. In my view, that’s what the millennium actually means! Thus, I don’t believe in a literal millennial kingdom because it contradicts the Bible. It implies, 2 comings of Christ, 2 apocalypses, 2 Great Wars, and so on. That’s probably why the doctrine of millennialism was condemned at the Second Ecumenical Council in 381 CE. In addition, the endtime war that Satan is said to unleash at the end of the millennium (Rev. 20.8) is the exact same war mentioned in Ezekiel 38: Gog & Magog. Also, 1 Thess. 4.17 says that after the rapture “we will be with the Lord forever,” not just for 1,000 years. And the Book of Daniel is clear that both the Saved and the Damned will be resurrected simultaneously, not successively (12.2).

Therefore, the millennium represents the sign of the times when the thousand years are completed. It signifies the beginning of the apocalypse, that is to say, the period of the Antichrist, who will gather the kings of the earth for Armageddon. It also represents the time of the Great Tribulation, the rapture, and the resurrection of the dead, when the faithful will be glorified and reign with Christ not simply for a thousand years, but forever (cf. Dan. 7.18; 12.2; 1 Thess. 4.17)!

Although there are some similarities between my view and that of Amillennialism, I don’t consider myself an Amillennialist because I don’t share their core views on realized millennialism, perfect/imperfect amillenarism, or that “Christ’s reign during the millennium is spiritual in nature.” We have completely different views on a number of topics! Similarly, my view is in agreement with that of postmillennialism in regard to a literal thousand years, after which Christ will come. However, I disagree both with the quality as well as with the timing of the millennium as explained by postmillennialism. I don’t view the millennium as a literal thousand-year-Kingdom of peace nor as an interim period (or parenthesis) that will transpire in the far distant future. Rather, I see it as a period that already started in the year 1,000 CE (with the crusades) and culminated in the year 2,000. That’s when the Antichrist came to power (in the year 1999 = 666) in Russia (see my articles on that subject), at the end of the thousand years, and Satan was released from prison (Rev 20.7), so to speak, and was allowed to gather the kings of the earth for Armageddon! And since I have a number of disagreements with postmillennialism, I don’t consider myself a postmillennialist either.

Is Paul a Witness to the Historical Jesus?

By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim

——-

Paul: The Visionary Witness

Paul is the earliest New Testament writer. And there is compelling textual evidence for concluding that Paul’s witness to Christ is exclusively based on visionary experiences (see Acts 9.3-5; Rom. 16.25-26; 2 Cor. 12.2-4). Critical scholarship would unequivocally concur that Paul never saw Jesus in the flesh. Yet on the very basis of his own personal revelations, which exclude human sources, Paul’s knowledge of Christ surpassed that of his contemporaries. In Gal. 1.11-12, Paul makes it abundantly clear that he’s not a reliable witness to the historical existence of Jesus. He writes:

For I want you to know, brothers and sisters,

that the gospel that was proclaimed by me

is not of human origin; for I did not receive it

from a human source, nor was I taught it,

but I received it through a revelation of

Jesus Christ.

Along similar lines, the German New Testament scholar and historian, Gerd Lüdemann, from the University of Göttingen, ascribes the belief in Jesus’ resurrection primarily to Paul’s visions. In his book (“The Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology,” Translated by John Bowden [London: SCM, 1994], 97, 100), he writes:

At the heart of the Christian religion lies a

vision described in Greek by Paul as

ophehe——‘he was seen.’ And Paul himself,

who claims to have witnessed an

appearance asserted repeatedly ‘I have

seen the Lord.’ So Paul is the main source

of the thesis that a vision is the origin of the

belief in resurrection.

——-

Bart Ehrman Says that Paul Tells Us Nothing About the Historical Jesus

Bart Ehrman, who is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, once wrote on his blog:

Paul says almost *NOTHING* about the

events of Jesus’ lifetime. That seems weird

to people, but just read all of his letters.

Paul never mentions Jesus healing anyone,

casting out a demon, doing any other

miracle, arguing with Pharisees or other

leaders, teaching the multitudes, even

speaking a parable, being baptized, being

transfigured, going to Jerusalem, being

arrested, put on trial, found guilty of

blasphemy, appearing before Pontius Pilate

on charges of calling himself the King of the

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

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

about.

Even Kurt Aland——the German Bible scholar who founded the Institute for New Testament Textual Research, and one of the principal editors of the Nestle-Aland-Novum Testamentum Graece——went so far as to question the historicity of Jesus. In his book (“A History of Christianity,” vol. 1 [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985], p. 106), he writes:

the real question arises . . . was there really

a Jesus? Can Jesus really have lived if the

writings of his closest companions are filled

with so little of his reality . . . so little in them

of the reality of the historical Jesus . . . .

When we observe this——assuming that the

writings about which we are speaking really

come from their alleged authors——it

almost then appears as if Jesus were a

mere phantom.

No wonder, then, that in his magnum opus (the Epistle to the Romans) Paul sets about describing the gospel of Christ NOT as a biography or an objective historical account but rather as a *revelation* that has been “promised beforehand” through the agency of the Holy Spirit (1.1-3 NRSV):

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.

——-

Conclusion

Gerd Lüdemann, professor of History and Literature of Early Christianity, concluded an essay——(“Paul as a Witness to the Historical Jesus” in R. Joseph Hoffman, “Sources of the Jesus tradition: separating history from myth” [Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2010], p. 212)——with the following sentence:

In short, Paul cannot be considered a

reliable witness to either the teachings,

the life, or the historical existence of

Jesus.

Christianity preserved the apocalyptic literary tradition of Judaism and reevaluated it in light of its own messianic revelations. The New Testament refined this type of literature as it became the vehicle of its own prophetic and apocalyptic expressions. Apocalypticism, then, not historiography, is the *literary style* of the New Testament, which is based on a *foreknowledge* of future events that is written in advance! It is therefore thought advisable to consider the collection of New Testament writings as strikingly futurist books (see Lk 17.30; Heb. 1.2; 9.26b; 1 Pet. 1.10-11, 20; 2 Pet. 1.19; 1 Jn 2.28; Rev. 19.10d; 22.7, 10, 18, 19)!

——-