Coherence Fallacy - Tumblr Posts
How Can Good Exegesis Make Bad Theology?
By Author Eli Kittim
——-
The Canonical Context
This principle suggests that we should read the Books of the Bible not as distinct, individual compositions but rather as parts of a larger *canonical context*, that is, as part of the “canon” of Scripture. In other words, instead of evaluating each book separately in terms of its particular historical, literary, and editorial development, this principle focuses instead on its final canonical format that was legitimized by the various communities of faith. The idea is that since the redacted version or “final cut,” as it were, is considered “authoritative” by the different communities of faith, then this format should hold precedence over all previous versions or drafts.
Moreover, this concept holds that despite the fact that the Biblical Books were written by a number of different authors, at different times, in different places, using different languages, nevertheless the “canonical context” emphasizes the need to read these Books in dialogue with one another, as if they are part of a larger whole. So, the hermeneutical focus is not on the historical but rather on the canonical context. The hermeneutical guidelines of the canon therefore suggest that we might gain a better understanding of the larger message of Scripture by reading these Books as if they were interrelated with all the others, rather than as separate, diverse, and distinct sources. The premise is that the use of this type of context leads to sound Biblical theology.
——-
Theology
Theology is primarily concerned with the synthesis of the diverse voices within Scripture in order to grasp the overarching message of the complete Biblical revelation. It deals with Biblical epistemology and belief, either through systematic analysis and development of passages (systematic theology) or through the running themes of the entire Bible (Biblical theology). It addresses eternity and the transcendent, metaphysical or supernatural world. And it balances individual Scriptural interpretations by placing them within a larger theoretical framework. The premise is that there is a broader theological context in which each and every detailed exegesis coalesces to form a coherent whole! It’s as if the Bible is a single Book that contains a complete and wide-ranging revelation! It is under the auspices of theology, then, that the canonical context comes into play.
——-
Exegesis
The critical interpretation of Scriptural texts is known as “exegesis.” Its task is to use various methods of interpretation so as to arrive at a definitive explanation of Scripture! Exegesis provides the temporal, linguistic, grammatical, and syntactic context, analysis, and meaning of a text. It furnishes us with a critical understanding of the authorial intent, but only in relation to the specific and limited context of the particular text in question. It is the task of theology to further assess it in terms of its relation and compatibility to the overall Biblical revelation! One of the things that exegesis tries to establish is the composition’s historical setting or context, also known as “historical criticism.” This approach inquires about the author and his audience, the occasion and dating of the composition, the unique terms and concepts therein, the meaning of the overall message, and, last but not least, the *style* in which the message is written, otherwise known as the “genre.” While the author’s other writings on the topic are pivotal to understanding what he means, nothing is more important than the *genre* or the form in which his writing is presented.
——-
The Analogy of Scripture
One of the most important hermeneutical principles of exegesis is called “the analogy of Scripture” (Lat. ‘analogia Scripturae’). In short, it means that Scripture should interpret Scripture. This principle requires that the implicit must be explained by the explicit. In other words, the exegesis of unclear or ambiguous parts of Scripture must be explained by clear and didactic ones that address the exact same topic. That means that one Biblical Book could very well explain another. For example, the New Testament (NT) Book of Ephesians 1.9-10 seems to demystify Galatians 4.4. This principle is based on the “revealed” inspiration (Gk. θεόπνευστος) of Scripture:
All scripture is inspired by God and is useful
for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and
for training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3.16
NRSV).
As for those scholars who refuse to take the NT’s alleged “pseudepigrapha” seriously because of their *apparent* false attribution, let me remind them that the most renowned textual scholars of the 20th century, Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, acknowledged that even alleged “forged” works could still be “inspired!” It’s important to realize that just because these works may be written by unknown authors who may have attempted to gain a readership by tacking on the name of famous Biblical characters doesn’t mean that the subject-matter is equally false. The addition of amanuenses (secretaries) further complicates the issue.
So, returning to our subject, the analogy of Scripture allows the Bible to define its own terms, symbols, and phrases. It is via the analogy of Scripture, which defines the many and varied parts, that the broader canonical context is established, namely, the principle that the various Biblical Books form a coherent whole from which a larger theological system can emerge.
And, of course, interdisciplinary studies——such as archaeology, anthropology, psychology, sociology, epistemology, and philosophy——contribute to both systematic and Biblical theology by presenting their particular findings, concepts, and theoretical ideas.
——-
Testing the Legitimacy of these Principles
In explaining how these principles work in tandem, I’d like to put my personal and unique theology to the test. I have raised the following question: “What if the crucifixion of Christ is a future event?” The immediate reaction of Christian apologetics or heresiology would be to revert to “dogmatic theology” (i.e., the dogmas or articles of faith) and the scholarly consensus, which state that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Really? Let’s consider some historical facts. There are no eyewitnesses! And there are no first-hand accounts! Although the following references were once thought to be multiple attestations or proofs of Jesus’ existence, nevertheless both the Tacitus and Josephus accounts are now considered to be either complete or partial forgeries, and therefore do not shed any light on Jesus’ historicity. One of the staunch proponents of the historical Jesus position is the textual scholar Bart Ehrman, who, surprisingly, said this 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.
Therefore, there appears to be a literary discrepancy regarding the historicity of Jesus in the canonical context between the gospels and the epistles. And, as I will show in due time, there are many, many passages in the epistles that seem to contradict dogmatic theology’s belief in the historiographical nature of the gospels. So, if they want to have a sound theology, exegetes should give equal attention to the epistles. Why?
First, the epistles precede the gospels by several decades. In fact, they comprise the earliest recorded writings of the NT that circulated among the Christian churches (cf. Col. 4.16).
Second, unlike the gospels——which are essentially *theological* narratives that are largely borrowed from the Old Testament (OT)——the epistles are *expositional* writings that offer real, didactic and practical solutions and discuss spiritual principles and applications within an actual, historical, or eschatological context.
Third, according to Biblical scholarship, the gospels are not historiographical accounts or biographies, even though historical places and figures are sometimes mentioned. That is to say, the gospels are not giving us history proper. For example, the feeding of the 5,000 is a narrative that is borrowed from 2 Kings 4.40-44. The parallels and verbal agreements are virtually identical. And this is a typical example of the rest of the narratives. For instance, when Jesus speaks of the damned and says that “their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched” (Mark 9.48), few people know that this saying is actually derived from Isaiah 66.24. In other words, the gospels demonstrate a literary dependence on the OT that is called, “intertextuality.”
Fourth, the gospels are like watching a Broadway play. They are full of plots, subplots, theatrical devices (e.g. Aristotelian rhetoric; Homeric parallels), literary embellishments, dialogues, characters, and the like. Conversely, the epistles have none of these elements. They are straightforward and matter of fact. That’s why Biblical interpreters are expected to interpret the implicit by the explicit and the narrative by the didactic. In practical terms, the NT epistles——which are the more explicit and didactic portions of Scripture——must clarify the implicit meaning of the gospel literature. As you will see, the epistles are the primary keys to unlocking the actual timeline of Christ’s *one-and-only* visitation!
Fifth, whereas the gospels’ literary genre is mainly •theological•——that is to say, “pseudo-historical”——the genre of the epistolary literature of the NT is chiefly •expositional.• So, the question arises, which of the two genres is giving us the real deal: is it the “theological narrative” or the “expository writing”?
In order to answer this question, we first need to consider some of the differences in both genres. For example, although equally “inspired,” the gospels include certain narratives that are unanimously rejected as “unhistorical” by both Biblical scholars and historians alike. Stories like the slaughter of the innocents, the Magi, the Star of Bethlehem, and so on, are not considered to be historical. By contrast, the epistles never once mention the aforesaid stories, nor is there any mention of the Nativity, the virgin birth, the flight to Egypt, and the like. Why? Because the Epistles are NOT “theological.” They’re expository writings whose intention is to give us the “facts” as they really are!
Bottom line, the epistles give us a far more accurate picture of Jesus’ *visitation* than the gospels.
In conclusion, it appears that the gospels conceal Jesus far more effectively than they reveal him.
——-
Proof-text and Coherence Fallacies
The “proof-text fallacy” comprises the idea of putting together a number of out-of-context passages in order to validate a particular theological point that’s often disparagingly called “a private interpretation.” But, for argument’s sake, let’s turn these principles on their head. Classical Christianity typically determines heresy by assessing the latter’s overall view. If it doesn’t fit within the existing theological schema it is said to be heretical. Thus, dogmatic theology sets the theological standard against which all other theories are measured. They would argue that good exegesis doesn’t necessarily guarantee good theology, and can lead to a “coherence fallacy.” In other words, even if the exegesis of a string of proof-texts is accurate, the conclusion may not be compatible with the overall existing theology. This would be equivalent to a coherence fallacy, that is to say, the illusion of Biblical coherence.
By the same token, I can argue that traditional, historical-Jesus exegesis of certain proof-texts might be accurate but it may not fit the theology of an eschatological Christ, as we find in the epistles (e.g., Heb. 9.26b; 1 Pet. 1.20; Rev. 12.5). That would equally constitute a coherence fallacy. So, these guidelines tend to discourage independent proof-texting apart from a systematic coherency of Scripture. But what if the supposed canonical context is wrong? What if the underlying theological assumption is off? What then? So, the $64,000 question is, who can accurately determine the big picture? And who gets to decide?
For example, I think that we have confused Biblical literature with history, and turned prophecy into biography. In my view, the theological purpose of the gospels is to provide a fitting introduction to the messianic story *beforehand* so that it can be passed down from generation to generation until the time of its fulfillment. It is as though NT history is *written in advance* (cf. מַגִּ֤יד מֵֽרֵאשִׁית֙ אַחֲרִ֔ית [declaring the end from the beginning], Isa. 46.9-10; προεπηγγείλατο [promised beforehand], Rom. 1.2; προγνώσει [foreknowledge], Acts 2.22-23; προκεχειροτονημένοις [to appoint beforehand], Acts 10.40-41; ερχόμενα [things to come], Jn 16.13)!
So, if we exchange the theology of the gospels for that of the epistles 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, all the explanations in vv. 16-18 are referring to the future. That’s why verse 19 concludes: “So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed” (cf. 1 Pet. 1.10-11; 1 Jn 2.28).
In response, Dogmatic Theology would probably say that such a conclusion is at odds with the canonical context and that it seems to be based on autonomous proof-texting that is obviously out of touch with the broader theological teaching of Scripture. Really? So the so-called “teaching” of Scripture that Jesus died in Antiquity is a nonnegotiable, foregone conclusion? What if the basis upon which this gospel teaching rests is itself 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; 22.7). The epistolary authors deviate from the gospel writers in their understanding of the overall importance of •eschatology• in the chronology of Jesus. For them, Scripture comprises revelations and “prophetic writings” (see Rom. 16.25-26; 2 Pet. 1.19-21; Rev. 22.18-19). Therefore, according to the *epistolary literature*, Jesus is not a historical but rather an “eschatological” figure! Given that the NT epistles are part of the Biblical *canon,* their overall message holds equal value with that of the NT gospels, since they, too, are an integral part of the canonical context! To that extent, even the gospels concede that the Son of Man has not yet been revealed (see Lk. 17.30; cf. 1 Cor. 1.7; 1 Pet. 1.7)!
What is more, 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 an important role therein. The Book of Revelation places not only the timeline (12.5) but also the testimony to Jesus (19.10b) in “prophetic” categories:
I warn everyone who hears the words of the
prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to
them, God will add to that person the
plagues described in this book; if anyone
takes away from the words of the book of
this prophecy, God will take away that
person’s share in the tree of life and in the
holy city, which are described in this book
(Rev. 22.18-19 NRSV).
Incidentally, the Book of Revelation is considered to be an epistle. Thus, it represents, confirms, and validates the overarching *prophetic theme* or eschatological “theology” of the epistolary literature. That is not to say that the •theology• of the epistles stands alone and apart from that of the OT canon. Far from it! Even the *theology* of the OT confirms the earthy, end-time Messiah of the epistles (cf. Job 19.25; Isa. 2.19; Dan. 12.1-2; Zeph. 1.7-9, 15-18; Zech. 12.9-10)! As a matter of fact, mine is the *only* view that appropriately combines the end-time messianic expectations of the Jews with Christian Scripture!
Does this sound like a proof-text or coherence fallacy? If it does, it’s because you’re evaluating it from the theology of the gospels. If, on the other hand, you assess it using the theology of the epistles, it will seem to be in-context or in-sync with it. So, the theological focus and coherency of Scripture will change depending on which angle you view it from.
——-
Visions of the Resurrection
There are quite a few scholars that view the so-called resurrection of Christ not as a historical phenomenon but rather as a visionary experience. And this seems to be the theological 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. In the words of NT textual critic Kurt Aland:
It almost then appears as if Jesus were a
mere PHANTOM . . .
——-
Exegetical Application
I deliberately stay away from theology when I exegete Scripture precisely because it will taint the evidence with presuppositions, assumptions, and speculations that are not in the text. Thus, instead of focusing on the authorial intent hermeneutic, it will inevitably superimpose out-of-context meanings and create an eisegesis. All this, of course, is courtesy of confirmation bias.
So, I think one of the reasons why we’ve done so poorly in understanding, for example, the story of Jesus is because we have mixed-up exegesis with theology. When theology drives the exegesis, then the exegesis becomes blind and erroneous.
My method of exegesis is very simple. I see EXACTLY what the text *says,* EXACTLY *how* it says it. I don’t add or subtract anything, and I don’t speculate, guess, or theorize based on existing philosophies or theologies. The minute we go outside *the analogy of scripture,* that’s when we start to speculate. And that’s how we err. In short, let the Scriptures tell you what it means. Thus, the best interpretation is no interpretation at all!
——-
Conclusion
To find the truth, we must consider all the evidence objectively. Evangelicals, for instance, would be biased if they didn’t consider the academic standpoint even if, at times, it seems to be guided by liberal theology. In this way, they will be in a better position to consider objectively all the possibilities and probabilities regarding the correct interpretation of Scripture. That’s because the truth usually touches all points of view . . .
One of the exegetical stumbling blocks is our inability to view the gospels as “inspired metaphors.” Given their literary dependence on the OT, it appears as if the gospels themselves are “inspired parables.”
So, if the epistolary literature, which is both expositional and explicit, seems to contradict these so-called “theological parables,” then it becomes quite obvious that the “theology” of the gospels fails to meet scholarly and academic parameters. And, therefore, the epistolary literature must be given more serious attention and consideration!
Our exegetical shortcomings often stem from forced or anachronistic interpretations that are based on *theological speculation* and conjecture rather than on detailed exegesis. Even the Biblical translations themselves are not immune to the interpretative process, whether they be of dynamic or formal equivalence.
That’s why I have developed an exegetical system and have demonstrated the effectiveness of its approach to the study of the Biblical Christ. Accordingly, I argue that the epistles are the primary *keys* to unlocking the future timeline of Christ’s ***ONLY*** visitation! Hence, I leave you with one final rhetorical question:
What if the crucifixion of Christ is a future
event?
What if the Crucifixion of Christ is a Future Event?
By Author Eli Kittim
Biblical Exegesis, the Canonical Context, and the Analogy of Scripture
Biblical studies must involve “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20.27) or the entire Biblical canon, in which all books must be examined equally as parts of a larger *canonical context,* not simply on an individual basis or as isolated parts. Moreover, in order to avoid confirmation bias, we must employ the hermeneutical principle known as “the analogy of Scripture” (Lat. ‘analogia Scripturae’). Thus, the inability of an expositor to remain completely objective is offset by the process in which Scripture interprets Scripture without outside interference or intervention.
Dogmatic theology: Proof-text and Coherence Fallacies
What is Classical Christianity’s foundational faith statement? The Protestant commentariat speaks highly of the Reformation, a movement that gradually freed itself from fiercely defended church traditions and council decrees through its fervent adherence to sola scriptura. But, unfortunately, the reformation didn’t go far enough. Sadly, reformed theology is, in many ways, a reprise of a long standing interpretation of Scripture which is based on ecclesiastical theology and authority. For example, the Nicene Creed——which was adopted during the First Council of Constantinople in 381 CE——reads:
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ . . . who for
us men, and for our salvation, came down
from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy
Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made
man, he was crucified for us under Pontius
Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and
the third day he rose again, according to
the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;
from thence he shall come again, with glory,
to judge the quick and the dead.
Protestants have unquestionably accepted this church dogma. But a second coming begs the question as it is nowhere mentioned in the New Testament (NT). And there is no epistolary proof that Jesus was born of a virgin, nor is there any proof regarding the dogma of the Immaculate Conception that expounds on the implications of the virgin birth, which was only recently adopted by the Roman Catholic Church via an apostolic constitution in 1854!
And what of all the Scriptures that contradict the Nicene dogma, which erroneously asserts of a messianic sacrifice in Antiquity? What about Zeph. 1.7-9, 15-18 that clearly equates the Lord’s sacrifice with the “day of the Lord”? Are we to assume that the day of the Lord already happened in Antiquity? And what about the piercing of the Messiah “on that [apocalyptic] day”? (Zech. 12.9-10)! Can we seriously ignore the end-of-the-world timeline in Mt. 13.39-40, 49? Or in Mt. 24.3? Or in Mt. 28.20? Yet the exact same apocalyptic phrase that is used in all these verses is ALSO used in **Hebrews 9.26b**, which explicitly refers to a messianic sacrifice that will transpire “once for all” (hapax) “at the end of the age,” a period that is synonymous with the day of the Lord and with judgment day! And why ignore Scripture which says explicitly that Christ speaks to humanity in the “last days”? (Heb. 1.2). Why should we deliberately ignore the future incarnation of Christ in Rev. 12.5? Or the fact that the testimony to Jesus is prophetic? (Rev. 19.10d). Or the first coming of Jesus in 1 Pet. 1.20? Or the Son of Man that has not yet been revealed in Lk 17.30? Or the initial visitation of the messiah during “the time of universal restoration”? (Acts 3.19-21). Or Christ’s future resurrection in 1 Cor. 15.23-24? Or the admonition against the historical resurrection theology in 2 Tim. 2.18? Or the fact that Jesus’ one and only coming is associated with judgment day in John 9.39? (cf. Lk 12.49).
The Apocalyptic Aspect of the Gospels
If this is indeed the canonical context, then it cannot be overridden by Catholic dogmas against which the reformers fought so hard to free themselves from. Catholic dogmatic theology once set the theological standard against which all other theories were measured, whereby it inevitably lead to multiple coherence fallacies down through the ages. In other words, the church’s misreading of the gospel literature as historical is obviously not compatible with the overall existing theology of Scripture! In short, what was originally Apocalyptic Christianity was turned into Historical Christianity by Church dogma!
This plays such a crucial role that many Christian adherents today feel that if the historical component is discredited, then Christianity can no longer be viable or credible. Noted author John Ankerberg has said something to that effect, and so have many others, including philosopher/apologist William Lane Craig, who tries desperately to prove the historical aspects of the Christian faith. And yet Christianity is and always has been an *Apocalyptic Religion* that is based on a revelation or unveiling of the end times! Due to its prophetic and apocalyptic foundation, the NT text remains credible and viable even if its literary elements prove to be unhistorical. Ultimately, the Bible is a book on faith, not on history or science. As Kierkegaard would argue, the Christian tenets cannot be proved empirically or historically; they can only be experienced existentially! Christianity is not a belief of the mind but of the heart!
The Apocalyptic Aspect of the Epistles
If we shift theological gears and focus on the epistles, the earliest NT writings, we’ll find a completely different theology altogether, one in which the coherence of Scripture revolves around the *end-times*! For example, in 2 Pet. 1.16–21, the eyewitness testimony of Jesus’ transfiguration in vv. 16-18 is not historical but rather a vision of the future. That’s why verse 19 concludes: “So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed.” The same goes for the apocalyptic passage in 1 Pet. 1.10-11, which suggests an eschatological soteriology.
According to the principle of expositional constancy, if we compare the chronological time period or the timeline known as “the fullness of time” (τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου) in Gal. 4.4 to that of Eph. 1.9-10, we will come to realize that Christ’s birth, as recorded in the former, is in reference to the eschaton, not to a purported time period in Antiquity. The end-times incarnation of Christ in Gal. 4.4 is multiply and independently attested in Rev. 12.5, whose timeline is contemporaneous with the Great Tribulation and the apocalyptic events of the end-times!
Therefore, the church’s dogma that Jesus died in Antiquity appears to be a proof-text fallacy that is out of touch with the *teaching* of the epistles. For example, there are numerous passages in the epistles that place the timeline of Jesus’ life (i.e., his birth, death, and resurrection) in *eschatological* categories (e.g., 2 Thess. 2.1-3; Heb. 1.1-2; 9.26b; 1 Pet. 1.10-11, 20; Rev. 12.5; 19.10d).
Furthermore, if the canonical context demands that we coalesce the different Biblical texts as if we’re reading a single Book, then the overall “prophetic” message of Revelation must certainly play a significant exegetical role. Accordingly, the Book of Revelation places not only the timeline (12.5) but also the testimony to Jesus (19.10d) in “prophetic” categories.
The *apocalyptic theology* of the NT epistles is multiply attested in the Old Testament canon, which confirms the earthy, *end-time Messiah* of the epistolary literature (cf. Job 19.25; Isa. 2.19; Dan. 12.1-2; Zeph. 1.7-9, 15-18; Zech. 12.9-10)!
What About the Numerous NT References to the Revelation of Jesus: Are they Not References to a Second Coming?
A revelation by default means “a first-time” occurrence. In other words, it’s an event that is happening for the very first time. By definition, a “revelation” is never disclosed twice. If we examine the NT verses, which mention the future revelation of Christ, we will find that they are not referring to a second coming, a coming back, or a return, as is commonly thought, but rather to an initial appearance (see e.g. 1 Cor. 1.7; 16.22; 1 Thess. 2.19; 4.15; 2 Thess. 1.10; 2.1; Heb. 10.37; Jas. 5.7; 1 Pet. 1.7; 2 Pet. 1.16; 3.4; 1 Jn 2.28; Rev. 2.16; 22.20).
See my article: Why does the New Testament Refer to Christ’s Future Coming as a “Revelation”?
https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/187927555567/why-does-the-new-testament-refer-to-christs
Another objection to the second coming of Christ goes something like this. If God wants to accomplish something, he’ll get it done on the first attempt. Why the need for a second attempt? It would imply that Christ’s mission on earth was a total failure and that nothing so clearly indicates his unsuccessful earthly mission to restore God’s kingdom as his much anticipated return to set things right. In other words, the second coming implies that Jesus couldn’t get it done the first time. He has to come back to finish the job.
Visions of the Resurrection
Most credible scholars view the so-called resurrection of Christ not as a historical phenomenon but rather as a visionary experience. And this seems to be the *apocalyptic* message of the NT as well (cf. 2 Tim. 2.17-18; 2 Thess. 2.1-3). For example, Lk. 24.23 explicitly states that the women “had indeed seen a vision.” Lk. 24.31 reads: “he [Jesus] vanished from their sight.” And Lk. 24.37 admits they “thought that they were seeing a ghost.” Here are some of the statements that scholars have made about the resurrection, which do not necessarily disqualify them as believers:
The resurrection itself is not an event of
past history. All that historical criticism can
establish is that the first disciples came to
believe the resurrection (Rudolph Bultmann,
‘The New Testament and Mythology,’ in
Kerygma and Myth: A Theological Debate,
ed. Hans Werner Bartsch, trans. Reginald H.
Fuller [London: S.P.C.K, 1953-62], 38, 42).
When the evangelists spoke about the
resurrection of Jesus, they told stories
about apparitions or visions (John Dominic
Crossan, ‘A Long Way from Tipperary: A
Memoir’ [San Francisco:
HarperSanFransisco, 2000], 164-165).
At the heart of the Christian religion lies a
vision described in Greek by Paul as
ophehe——‘he was seen.’ And Paul himself,
who claims to have witnessed an
appearance asserted repeatedly ‘I have
seen the Lord.’ So Paul is the main source
of the thesis that a vision is the origin of the
belief in resurrection . . . (Gerd Lüdemann,
‘The Resurrection of Jesus: History,
Experience, Theology.’ Translated by John
Bowden. [London: SCM, 1994], 97, 100).
It is undisputable that some of the followers
of Jesus came to think that he had been
raised from the dead, and that something
had to have happened to make them think
so. Our earliest records are consistent on
this point, and I think they provide us with
the historically reliable information in one
key aspect: the disciples’ belief in the
resurrection was based on visionary
experiences. I should stress it was visions,
and nothing else, that led to the first
disciples to believe in the resurrection (Bart
D. Ehrman, ‘How Jesus Became God: The
Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from
Galilee’ [New York: Harper One, 2014],
183-184).
Ehrman sides with the *visionary language* that Luke, Bultmann, Crossan, and Lüdemann use. British NT scholar, James Dunn also thought that Jesus was not resurrected in Antiquity but that Jesus probably meant he would be resurrected at the last judgment! Even NT textual critic Kurt Aland went so far as to question whether or not Jesus was a real person. In his book, “A History of Christianity” (Vol. 1, p. 106, emphasis added), he writes:
the real question arises . . . was there really
a Jesus? Can Jesus really have lived if the
writings of his closest companions are filled
with so little of his reality . . . so little in them
of the reality of the historical Jesus . . . .
When we observe this——assuming that the
writings about which we are speaking really
come from their alleged authors——it
almost then appears as if Jesus were a
mere PHANTOM . . .
Conclusion
This is not the proposal of a Mythicist, but of an *Ahistoricist.* In sharp contrast to mythicism, which attributes the Jesus-story solely to mythological causes, my *ahistoricism* ascribes it to future eschatology! Paradoxically, you can have a high view of Scripture, and even hold to a high Christology, and yet still reject the historicity of Jesus. In other words, you can completely repudiate historical Christianity without necessarily denying the Christian faith, the divinity of Jesus, eschatological salvation, or the authority of Scripture. In fact, this view seems to be more in line with the canonical context of the Bible than the classical one! This brief inquiry into the apocalyptic aspect of the NT has therefore provided a starting point and direction for subsequent studies.
Christianity preserved the apocalyptic tradition of Judaism and reevaluated it in light of its own messianic revelations. The NT refined this type of literature as it became the vehicle of its own prophetic and apocalyptic expressions. Apocalypticism, then, not historiography, is the essence of the NT, which is based on a foreknowledge of future events that is written in advance! It is therefore thought advisable to consider the collection of NT writings as strikingly futurist books.