Author of “The Little Book of Revelation.” Get your copy now!!https://www.xlibris.com/en/bookstore/bookdetails/597424-the-little-book-of-revelation
447 posts
Bible Researcher Eli Kittim Is The Goodreads Award-Winning Author Of The 5-Star Christian-Nonfiction
Bible Researcher Eli Kittim is the Goodreads Award-Winning Author of the 5-Star Christian-Nonfiction Book, “The Little Book of Revelation.”
——-
What’s the Book About?
It’s a Retelling of the Jesus Story: A Biblical Study of the Sequence of End-time Events.
——-
With Positive Reviews by Blueink Review & Renowned Bible Scholar Robert Eisenman!
——-
Grab your copy here (buying links):
Official Eli Kittim Website
https://thelittlebookofrevelation.com/
Amazon
https://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Revelation-First-Coming/dp/1479747068
Barnes & Noble
https://m.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-little-book-of-revelation-eli-of-kittim/1114638416
——-
To buy this book in Europe, click here:
More Posts from Eli-kittim
Who Are the Two Beasts of Revelation 13?
By Author Eli Kittim
A “Beast” Represents An Empire
In the Bible, a “beast” represents a kingdom or an empire (see Dan. 7.3 ff.). Dan. 7.3 reports that “four great beasts came up out of the sea, different from one another.” In Dan. 7.4 we read: “The first was like a lion and had eagles' wings. Then, as I watched, its wings were plucked off, and it was lifted up from the ground and made to stand on two feet like a human being; and a human mind was given to it.” So, although it initially appears as an empire, it ends up looking like a human being, probably signifying its leader.
•••••
The Danielic narrative continues. Then a second beast appears, but this one is not depicted as a human being. Dan. 7.5 reads: “Another beast appeared, a second one, that looked like a bear. It was raised up on one side, had three tusks in its mouth among its teeth and was told, ‘Arise, devour many bodies!’ “ This is certainly not a human being. Dan. 7.6 goes on to describe a third “beast” that is also nonhuman, given that it has four heads: “After this, as I watched, another appeared, like a leopard. The beast had four wings of a bird on its back and four heads; and dominion was given to it.” The “dominion” that “was given to it” signifies that it’s some type of a political, economic, or military power and certainly not an individual!
A “Horn” Signifies A King
Dan. 7.7 clearly demonstrates that these beasts represent “kingdoms” or “empires” because it also mentions that the fourth beast had *ten horns,* signifying “ten kings” (see Rev. 17.12: “the ten horns that you saw are ten kings”). Daniel 7.7 declares:
“After this I saw in the visions by night a fourth beast, terrifying and dreadful and exceedingly strong. It had great iron teeth and was devouring, breaking in pieces, and stamping what was left with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that preceded it, and it had ten horns.”
It’s in Dan. 7.8 that a little horn (a king) appears, in addition to the 10 earlier horns, and this king is said to be a human being. But he arises out of the fourth beast (or empire). Dan. 7.17 gives us the exact interpretation:
“As for these four great beasts, four kings shall arise out of the earth.” However, Dan. 7.23-24 is even more precise by referring to the fourth beast as “a fourth kingdom on earth”:
“As for the fourth beast, there shall be a fourth kingdom on earth that shall be different from all the other kingdoms; it shall devour the whole earth, and trample it down, and break it to pieces. As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings shall arise, and another shall arise after them. This one shall be different from the former ones, and shall put down three kings.”
Thus, in Daniel 7, a “beast” represents a kingdom, while a “horn” signifies a king. Of course, the last king of the final empire will be the one we call the “Antichrist,” who will rule on earth for 3 and a half years (i.e. during the time of the Great Tribulation):
“He shall speak words against the Most High, shall wear out the holy ones of the Most High, and shall attempt to change the sacred seasons and the law; and they shall be given into his power for a time, two times, and half a time” (Dan. 7.25).
The First Beast of Revelation 13
Revelation 13.1 reads:
“And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads” (cf. Rev. 12).
This is obviously not a description of a human being but of the final empire on earth (cf. Dan. 2; Rev. 12; 17.9-15; for further details on why this is the final empire on earth, see https://www.instagram.com/p/BYr5b5HgBq1/?igshid=1ml02os1or44x Click “more” to view the successive empires).
Revelation 13.3 goes on to say:
“One of its heads seemed to have received a death-blow, but its mortal wound had been healed. In amazement the whole earth followed the beast.”
Question: is the whole earth following a king or a kingdom? It’s quite possible that the Bible has conflated the leader with his actual kingdom, as in Dan. 7.4 where the first beast is transformed into a human being. The evidence for this is that Rev. 13.3 uses the personal pronoun “his” (Gk. αὐτοῦ) in the phrase, “his mortal wound was healed,” which is also found elsewhere in the chapter.
And even though a “beast” is typically an empire, and a “horn” a king, nevertheless this chapter suggests that the so-called first “beast” is both a person and an empire.
•••••
The beast will be granted authority for 42 months (Rev.13.5). Rev 13.7 suggests that the beast will persecute the “saints,” war against them and come out victorious, creating a religious apartheid in the process, and that authority will be given to him over every nation and every language on the planet for three and a half years. Rev. 13.3 suggests that the beast’s resurrection from the dead is what stirs great amazement and causes “the whole earth” to follow him, and ultimately to worship him (v. 8).
The Second Beast of Revelation 13
First off, it’s important to note that, unlike the first beast, the second beast is never explicitly referred to as a person (e.g. “he”) in the Greek text. No wonder that the NRSV descriptions of the second beast are always translated as “it.” And given that we are told that “It exercises all the authority of the first beast on its behalf” (Rev. 13.12), it’s reasonable to assume that it represents some kind of political/religious entity. This explains why it performs the socioeconomic and military functions as well as the public relations of the first beast. And since we know that Biblically a beast represents an empire, it seems quite plausible that the second beast is a reference to a nation. Rev. 13.11 refers to the second beast as ἄλλο θηρίον (Gk. “another beast”), which is suggestive of another nation. A further distinction is that the second beast came “out of the earth,” in contrast to the first beast that arose “out of the sea.”
•••••
So, let’s review the descriptions of the second beast. Rev. 13.11 talks of the appearance of another beast. This one came out of the Earth (not the Sea); “it had two horns like a lamb and it spoke like a dragon.”
This could be a reference to an ecclesiastical monarchy, suggested by the phrase “two horns like a lamb,” that might be governed by 2 heads of state (i.e. 2 horns/kings, such as the 2 heads of the Vatican, Pope Francis and President Bertello [the Holy See and the Vatican City State], for example). In Rev 13.12, this enigmatic second “beast,” which is probably a political/religious institution, makes the inhabitants of the earth to worship the first beast due to the latter’s miraculous resurrection. And the second beast also makes great signs, so that even fire descends from the sky. Although this could be in the category of the miraculous, it’s probably a reference to a nuclear holocaust. At any rate, Rev 13.14 suggests that this second “beast” deceives the entire world through great signs and insists that an *image* be made to the first beast who was killed by some type of weapon yet miraculously came back from the dead. And, in Rev. 13.15, the *image* was animated and took on lifelike qualities. Those who didn’t worship it were to be killed. What is more, the second beast causes all to have a mark on their right hand or forehead (v. 16), “so that no one can buy or sell who does not have the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name” (v. 17). Rev 13.18 goes on to say:
“Here is wisdom. He who has understanding, vote the number of the beast; it’s a number of a human being, and his number is 600, 60, 6” (my translation).
Who Is the First Beast?
Obviously, the reference in Rev. 13.18 is to the first beast, not the second. And the solution to the riddle of his identity may be associated with the time-period in which he’s *voted into office,* that is, the time-frame during which his political party gains ascendancy. Thus, the triple-digit 666 could be a cryptic code of this particular time-period which might be deciphered and decrypted only through a sort of retrograde inversion or reversal: (i.e. “999”):
The year 1999 seven month,
From the sky will come a great King of terror:
To bring back to life the great King of Angolmois, (the Mongols),
Before after Mars to reign by good luck
(Century X, Quatrain 72)
“Nostradamus' most famous doomsday prediction warns future generations of a King of Terror descending from the skies in July 1999. This holy terror could be linked to the Third Antichrist,” writes John Hogue, an authority on Nostradamus! It is beyond the scope of this paper to describe who the Antichrist might be, but I will briefly mention what most eschatological studies indicate.
•••••
We are accustomed to think of the European Union as the Revived Roman Empire of Bible Prophecy, with a focus primarily on the Western rather than the Eastern leg of this Empire, which was supplanted by Russia after the fall of Byzantium in 1453. The Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, uses the phrase "Ρως Μοσοχ"----which seemingly stands for Ρωσία (the Greek word for Russia) and Μόσχα (the Greek term for Moscow)----in Ezek. 38.2 to identify the country from the far north that will head up a large coalition against Israel in the latter days (see Ezek. 38.15-16). Moreover, according to Josephus, a first-century scholar and historian, "the land of Magog," which is also mentioned in Ezek. 38.2, refers to the Scythians (Ant., bk. I, 6), and thus represents contemporary Russia. And although the "chief prince" of this nation is not explicitly mentioned as the Antichrist (cf. "the troops of the prince who is to come," Dan. 9.26), Ezek. 38 is quite suggestive in this regard, while clearly pointing to the Eastern leg of the Roman Empire! Most Bible prophecy experts agree that this is a reference to Russia. Therefore, the point I made earlier about 666 being a cryptic inversion of 999 has a great deal to do with the current leader of Russia, Vladimir Putin, who actually came to power in 1999!
What Is the Second Beast?
According to the undermentioned symbols of Bible prophecy, the second beast with “two horns like a lamb,” which is traditionally associated with the false prophet of Revelation, appears to represent the Vatican City-State, a Country in Europe and the headquarters of the Roman Catholic Church! Rev 17.1-6 reads:
“Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, ‘Come, I will show you the judgment of the great whore who is seated on many waters, with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and with the wine of whose fornication the inhabitants of the earth have become drunk [the sacramental wine of the Eucharist?].’ So he carried me away in the spirit into a wilderness, and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was full of blasphemous names, and it had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was clothed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her fornication; and on her forehead was written a name, a mystery: ‘Babylon the great, mother of whores and of earth's abominations.’ And I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the witnesses to Jesus [martyrs who were killed as heretics by the Catholic Church?].”
The symbolism of drunkenness “with the blood of the saints” coupled with the golden cup in her hand suggest not only the perpetual sacramental wine of the Eucharist but also the innumerable saints that were burned or killed as heretics by the Catholic Church. The specific colored attire of verse 4 also matches the Vatican dress code: for example, the purple cassocks worn by Bishops and honorary prelates, as well as the scarlet cassocks worn by members of the College of Cardinals. Moreover, the commingling with the kings of the earth (v. 2) is suggestive of the union of church and state in former times when the Catholic Church flaunted its power in Europe and controlled both countries and kings! She is also said to be “adorned with gold and jewels and pearls” (v. 4), an obvious description of the papal tiara (crown) that is adorned with gold and is heavily bejewelled with sapphires, rubies, emeralds, and other precious stones. As you can see, the specific symbols generated in Revelation 17 match perfectly with those of the Holy Mother Church, a term that is often used to refer to the Roman Catholics Church!
Conclusion
Studies in Biblical eschatology suggest that the second beast is the so-called “false prophet” of Rev. 16.13:
“And I saw three foul spirits like frogs coming from the mouth of the dragon, from the mouth of the beast, and from the mouth of the false prophet.”
This verse would strongly indicate that the false prophet represents a religious figure/institution. And the previous symbolism strongly suggests that it might be the Roman Catholic Church. After all, the term Antichrist doesn’t only mean “against Christ”; it also means “in place of Christ.” Similarly, the term Vicar of Christ (Lat. Vicarius Christi) means that the Pope is the”earthly representative of Christ” or acts “in place of Christ” (i.e. Antichrist)! Also, the second beast appears to be in collaboration with the first beast in controlling the world for 42 months (during the time of the Great Tribulation), as well as the one that causes all to take the latter’s “mark,” while killing all those who refuse. The Bible warns that those who take the mark of the beast will be eternally condemned (Rev. 14:9-10). So, the coded trilogy of 666 appears to be a reference to a person, to wit, the so-called first beast of Revelation 13. Astoundingly, most comprehensive Bible-prophecy studies suggest that this figure is most likely the leader of Russia!
•••••
So the so-called “whore” (πόρνη) of Revelation 17.1 (the second beast) appears to be the Papacy, which is sitting on the first beast, while the “scarlet beast that was full of blasphemous names, and . . . had seven heads and ten horns” (Rev. 17.3) represents the final superpower on earth, namely, Russia!
(For further details on this point, see https://www.instagram.com/p/BqRDTWHgOIQ/?igshid=fzgzeal7j94t
Click “more” to view the 10 kings).
•••••
However, later in the narrative, Revelation 17 reveals that Russia, despite its alliance, will nevertheless turn on the Vatican and destroy the Papacy, probably after it has accomplished its mission of promoting its leader:
“The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire” (Rev. 17.16).
•••••
So, let’s answer this paper’s original question.
. . . . .
Question: Who Are the Two Beasts of Revelation 13?
Answer: The first Beast probably represents Vladimir Putin and Russia, while the second Beast seemingly represents the Pope (Vatican) and the Roman Catholic Church!
The Evolution of a Gentile Messiah in the Bible
By Biblical Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
——-
Jesus rejects the notion that he’s a descendant of David, and of the Jews, in Matthew 22:41-46.
——-
That’s precisely why the gospel writers are especially careful to dissociate him from the southern kingdom of Judah and from the Jews by locating his place of origin in the north, in the land of the Gentiles, a place outside of, and external to, the Jewish Kingdom. Btw, strictly speaking, the word “Jew “ means a person from the kingdom of Judah (Ιουδαίος).
——-
The Figurative Text (Excerpted from Kittim’s book, The Little Book of Revelation, Chapter 5):
In contrast to the “New Perspective on Paul,” which tries to Hebraize the Greek New Testament by giving Paul a Hebrew flavor, Paul himself is adamant that “Jewishness” in the Bible has nothing to do with race or descendancy. Paul gives us an exact definition of what it means to be a “Jew” within the NT context:
“For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart—it is spiritual and not literal. Such a person receives praise not from others but from God” (Rom. 2.28-29).
According to Paul’s stunning definition, the biblical term “Jew” does not denote a race or an apparent physical birthright (as the “New Perspective on Paul” would have us believe), but rather an inner essence or, more precisely, an indwelling spirit pertaining to God. This descriptive terminology certainly illustrates a radical new way of approaching, reading, and interpreting the Bible. William Barclay, a world-renowned New Testament scholar, rightly emphasizes that Paul’s message must have infuriated the Jews:
“To a Jew a passage like this must have come as a shattering experience. He was certain that God regarded him with special favour, simply and solely because of his national descent from Abraham and because he bore the badge of circumcision in his flesh. But Paul introduces an idea to which he will return again and again. JEWISHNESS, he insists, IS NOT A MATTER OF RACE AT ALL; IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CIRCUMCISION. It is a matter of conduct. If that is so, many a so-called Jew who is a pure descendant of Abraham and who bears the mark of circumcision in his body, is no Jew at all; and equally many a GENTILE who never heard of Abraham and who would never dream of being circumcised, IS A JEW IN THE REAL SENSE OF THE TERM. To a Jew this would sound the wildest heresy and leave him angry and aghast.”
(The Letter to the Romans. The Daily Study Bible Series. Rev. ed. [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975], p. 47, emphasis added).
——-
It’s not at all coincidental that in the plot of the gospels Jesus becomes the figurative “son of Joseph,” who is himself reminiscent of the great hero that once lived and reigned in Egypt (the land of the Gentiles)!
——-
Another Biblical clue concerning a Gentile Messiah (besides Moses the “Egyptian”) is the unique reference to Cyrus, who is explicitly called in the Book of Isaiah God’s “anointed” (i.e. messiah; Isa. 45.1). Cyrus is not a Jew! That’s precisely why God says in Isaiah 46.11 that he will bring from a far country the Messiah who will execute his counsel (cf. Matt. 28.18; 1 Cor. 15.24-25). Not only is the Messiah not Jewish, but the elect themselves are not defined as biological Jews. As Romans 9.8 reminds us, “it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.”
——-
And why do you suppose Jesus is compared “to the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 6.20)? What’s the point of the mimesis? Precisely because Melchizedek “does not belong to their [Jewish] ancestry” (Heb. 7.6), and when compared to Jesus, it follows that Jesus himself “does not belong to their ancestry” either! What is the New Testament trying to tell us? Just like Melchizedek, Christ is not a Jew!
——-
That’s why the gospels keep telling us over and over again that the Jews expect a Jewish messiah to arrive from the line of David but are terribly disappointed in seeing a Gentile messiah appearing from Galilee. And, as a consequence, they want to kill him! And, in the end, they do!
——-
Division of People over Jesus in John's Gospel Because He Does Not Come from Bethlehem of the Jews but from Galilee of the Gentiles:
“Others were saying, “Surely the Christ is not going to come from Galilee, is He? Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the descendants of David [Jews], and from Bethlehem, the village where David was?” So a division occurred in the crowd because of Him” (John 7.41-43).
——-
Jesus Christ (Gk. Ἰησοῦς Χριστός; 1 Cor. 3.11) Defies Jewish Messianic Expectations
John 7.52:
“Search, and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee” (cf. Mt. 4.15-16).
——-
Furthermore, it’s the Greek New Testament that introduces Jesus the Messiah, NOT the Hebrew Bible!
——-
And the Greek-New-Testament was not written by Jews but by Greeks! The New Testament was typically written in articulate, refined Greek, not in Hebrew! And it seems that they weren’t fluent In Hebrew because when these NT authors quote from the OT, they predominantly quote from the Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, and not from the original Hebrew scriptures per se. This indicates that the NT authors were not familiar with the Hebrew language. In other words, they were NOT Jews. And most of the NT letters are addressed to Greek communities rather than Jewish ones. This Greek-element——running not only through the “thematic structure” but also via the writing, composition, production, place-of-authorship (which is said to be outside of Palestine), distribution, and dissemination of the text (largely to Gentile communities)——speaks volumes about the NT’s theological purpose, authorial intention, and cultural milieu!
——-
Conclusion
Unfortunately, we have failed to notice that the narrative of a •Gentile-messiah• is a major theme that runs across the entire Bible! And, in my opinion, the gospels certainly take advantage of this literary motif by showing through various rhetorical devices that Christ is not a Jew!
——-
Bart Ehrman’s “Did Jesus Exist?”: A Critical Review by Author Eli Kittim
——-
Unfortunately, my version does not have numbered pages, nevertheless the quotes are taken directly from his book, word for word!
——-
“Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth is a 2012 book by Bart D. Ehrman, a scholar of the New Testament. In the book, written to counter the idea that there was never such a person as Jesus of Nazareth at all, Ehrman sets out to demonstrate the historical evidence for Jesus' existence, and he aims to state why all experts in the area agree that ‘whatever else you may think about Jesus, he certainly did exist’ “ (Did Jesus Exist? [Ehrman book] -Wiki).
——-
1 Bart Ehrman is not only dead wrong but also disingenuous. He writes: “The idea that Jesus did not exist is a modern notion. It has no ancient precedents. It was made up in the eighteenth century. One might well call it a modern myth, the myth of the mythical Jesus.” That is completely bogus! It’s an idea that was held as early as the second century CE, and it was known as Docetism. This was the notion that Jesus did not have a physical body: that he did not come in the flesh!
——-
2 Ehrman’s defense of Jesus’ existence is based on presuppositions and circular thinking. He presupposes that certain literary characters are *obviously* historical figures who must have known Jesus. But this is arguing in a circle because he doesn’t prove their historical existence beyond the literary narrative. On the contrary, we have every reason to believe that these are fictional characters that are employed in works of *historical fiction* as, for example, when we are told that Paul the Pharisee is working for the High Priest of the Jerusalem Temple who’s a Sadducee, which seems like a total fabrication since Pharisees and Sadducees were bitter rivals.
——-
3 Moreover, the gospels were written in Greek, and most scholars assume that their sources were also in Greek. The writers are almost certainly non-Jews who are copying and quoting extensively from the Greek Old Testament, not the Jewish Bible. They obviously don’t seem to have a command of the Hebrew language, otherwise they would have written their gospels in Hebrew. And most of them, if not all of them, are writing from outside Palestine. By contrast, the presuppositions Ehrman is making do not square well with the available evidence. He’s arguing that Jesus was an Aramaic peasant from the backwaters of Galilee who had 12 Aramaic disciples who were also peasants. He also contends that the oral traditions or the first stories about Jesus began to circulate shortly after his death, and these oral traditions were, according to Ehrman, obviously in Aramaic.
——-
4 But here’s the question. If a real historical figure named Jesus existed in a particular geographical location, which has its own unique language and culture, how does the story about him suddenly get transformed and disseminated in an entirely different language within less than 20 years after his purported death?
——-
5 Furthermore, who are these sophisticated “Greeks” who own the rights to the story, as it were, and who pop out of nowhere, circulating the story as if it’s their own, and what is their particular relationship to this Aramaic community? Where did they come from? And what happened to the Aramaic community and their oral traditions? It suddenly disappeared? Given these inconsistencies, why should we even accept that there were Aramaic oral traditions? If the Aramaic community did not exist, neither did their Aramaic character! That’s the point.
——-
6 Besides, if Paul was a Hebrew of Hebrews who studied at the feet of Gamaliel, surely we would expect him to be steeped in the Hebrew language. Yet, even Paul is writing in sophisticated Greek and quoting extensively not from the Hebrew Bible (which we would expect) but from the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament. Now that doesn’t make any sense at all! All of a sudden, Paul’s literary identity becomes suspect. Since Paul’s community represents the earliest Christian community that we know of, and since his letters are the earliest known writings about Jesus, we can safely say that the earliest dissemination of the Jesus story comes not from Aramaic but from Greek sources!
——-
7 What is more, independent attestation does not necessarily prove the historicity of the story, only its popularity. For example, if Dan Brown writes a piercing novel that captures the popular imagination, just because other writers copy the story and begin to give it their own unique expression doesn’t mean that the story in and of itself is based on historical fact. The same principle should hold true with the New Testament gospels that were widely copied by noncanonical works, and which were not in themselves historically-reliable accounts to begin with.
——-
8 All other mentions, from the second to the fourth centuries, seem irrelevant not only because of their lack of proximity to the purported events (being based neither on eyewitnesses nor firsthand accounts), but also because of inaccurate information. For example, consider Eusebius’ criticism of Papias, who claimed that Matthew wrote in Hebrew (an assertion that has been dismissed by scholars). Or how about Papias’ so-called “sources of knowledge about Jesus” in which he mentions some of the latter’s important disciples in order to impress his audience (a claim that seems highly unlikely because the original apostles would not have been around by then). These tales, of course, play right into Eusebius’ playbook of creating fictional accounts that lead back to the so-called “original” apostles and to the alleged historical Jesus. However, we’re simply reading Papias through Eusebius’ lens. Let’s not forget that Eusebius himself had created so many fables and legends about the martyrs and apostles, and had been criticised as historically unreliable and biased, not to mention that he was too-far removed from the purported events, writing in the 4th century of the Common Era.
It’s unfortunate that Ehrman has to resort to such types of “evidence” to try to defend Jesus’ historicity. It would be quite gullible for any scholar to simply accept Eusebius’ account of Papias at face value.
According to the Jesus Seminar, which comprised a large group of approximately 50 critical biblical scholars, we don’t really know what Jesus said. Why would someone from one century later (like Papias) know what Jesus said? Then why doesn’t he also tell us what Jesus looked like? Or what language he spoke? Why didn’t the companions of the apostles not disclose this information to him?
——-
9 Then Ehrman quotes a devotional homily written by Ignatius of Antioch, which is probably inspired by the gospels and therefore has no historical value whatsoever, and concludes: “Ignatius, then, provides us yet with another independent witness to the life of Jesus.”
——-
10 Ehrman aims to prove the historical Jesus by referencing 1 Clement. But how does 1 Clement prove the historicity of Jesus? How can a letter from Rome, composed more than 60 years after Jesus’ purported death, demonstrate Jesus’ actual existence? Once again, we have a devotional piece based possibly on some type of “Scripture.” But in the absence of hard evidence and eyewitness testimony, 1 Clement is useless as evidence for the historical Jesus. Yet Ehrman writes:
“Here again we have an independent witness not just to the life of Jesus as a historical figure but to some of his teachings and deeds. Like all sources that mention Jesus from outside the New Testament, the author of 1 Clement had no doubt about his real existence and no reason to defend it.”
With all due respect, that’s a lame statement and there’s no excuse for a scholar of such caliber to be making these types of blunders.
——-
11 Ehrman then employs a speech from the Book of Acts:
“Men of Israel, hear these Words. Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God through miracles and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, just as you know, this one was handed over through the hand of the lawless by the appointed will and foreknowledge of God, and you nailed him up and killed him; but God raised him by loosing the birth pangs of death” (2:22–24).
Question: according to this passage, how was Jesus handed over to them for crucifixion? Answer: “by the appointed will and foreknowledge (προγνώσει) of God.” In other words, the passage seems to indicate that it’s a prophecy that hasn’t happened yet.
Besides, we don’t even know if these speeches in Acts are made-up stories or if they coincide with actual reality, especially since 2 Tim. 2.17-18 argues that the resurrection hasn’t happened yet. Similarly, 2 Thess. 2.1-3 argues that Jesus hasn’t come yet.
——-
12 Dr. Ehrman then quotes from 1 Peter:
“For you were called to this end, because Christ suffered for you, leaving an example for you that you might follow in his steps, who did not commit sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth, who when reviled did not revile in return, while suffering uttered no threat, but trusted the one who judges righteously, who bore our sins in his body on the tree, in order that dying to sin we might live to righteousness, for by his wounds we were healed” (2:21–24).
And yet if you read 1 Peter 1.20 in the original Greek there is absolutely no way that Jesus could have existed in Antiquity:
“He was marked out before the world was made, and was revealed at the final point of time” (NJB).
Similarly, 1 Jn 2.28 places the “revelation” of Christ in eschatological categories:
“And now, little children, abide in him, so that when he is revealed [φανερωθῇ] we may have confidence and not be put to shame before him at his coming.”
By the way, to be “revealed” means for the first time; it’s a first-time disclosure (for further details see my article: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/187927555567/why-does-the-new-testament-refer-to-christs
That’s why, according to Lk 17.30, the Son of Man has not yet been revealed:
“it will be like that on the day that the Son of Man is revealed.”
——-
13 Then Ehrman quotes 2 Peter:
“For not by following sophistic myths have we made known to you the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of the majesty of that one. For when we received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was brought to him by the magnificent glory, ‘this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased,’ we heard this voice that was brought from heaven to him, for we were on the holy mountain” (1:16–18).
What Ehrman fails to tell you is that the following verse, 2 Pet. 1.19, indicates that these were not historical events but rather experiences of visions and auditions that pointed to a future-eschatological prophecy:
“So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed.”
Then Ehrman goes on to say that “Even the book of Revelation, with all its bizarre imagery and fantastic apocalyptic views, understands that Jesus was a real historical figure. For this author he was one who ‘lived’ and who ‘died’ (1:18).” Yet Ehrman fails to mention that in the Book of Revelation Jesus is said to be born in the end-times, as a contemporary of the final empire on earth which is depicted as a seven-headed dragon with ten horns (Rev. 12.1-5). Moreover, the testimony to Jesus in the Book of Revelation is said to be prophetic, not historical! Compare Rev. 19.10d:
“For the testimony [to] Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” (NRSV).
——-
14 Ehrman then quotes from the Book of Hebrews:
“Jesus appeared in ‘these last days’ (1:2).”
But that is an incorrect interpretation. The Greek implies that Jesus’ appearance takes place ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν (in the last days), not in Antiquity.
More explicit and quite unambiguous is Hebrews 9.26b:
“he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself.”
Studies in Greek reveal that the phrase “at the end of the age” always refers to the future-eschatological time of the end (cf. Dan. 12.4 LXX; Mt. 13.39-40, 49; Mt. 24.3; Mt. 28.20). Once again, all these verses are indicating a prophecy, not a historical event from the past. In particular, Hebrews 9.26b explicitly states that Jesus will die for the redemption of sins “at the end of the age,” or “in the end of the world” (KJV)!
——-
15 At this point of the discussion, Dr. Ehrman sets out to demonstrate Paul’s testimony to Jesus:
“The reality is that, convenient or not, Paul speaks about Jesus, assumes that he really lived, that he was a Jewish teacher, and that he died by crucifixion. The following are the major things that Paul says about the life of Jesus. First, Paul indicates unequivocally that Jesus really was born, as a human, and that in his human existence he was a Jew. This he states in Galatians 4:4: “But when the fullness of time came, God sent his son, born from a woman, born under the law, that he might redeem those who were under the law….”
The problem is that Ehrman doesn’t understand Greek, nor is he a trained exegete, so he misses the point entirely!
In fact, according to Gal. 4.4 and Eph. 1.9-10, Jesus will be incarnated in “the fullness of time”, or at the end of the age! The Greek phrase τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου (the fullness of time) means when time reached its fullness or completion. And Eph. 1.9-10 clearly demonstrates that it refers to the end-times and the final consummation!
Then Ehrman goes on to talk about the brothers and sisters of the Lord in order to show that Jesus was a real historical person who was surrounded by siblings. However, this proves nothing, not only because these may simply be literary stories that meet the authors’ objectives but also because it can be shown that these are not actual biological blood-relatives of Jesus (see my article: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/611675702018883584/was-james-the-brother-of-jesus-given-that
——-
16 After this, Ehrman mentions the resurrection and tries to show that “after Jesus was raised on the third day, ‘he appeared to Cephas and then to the twelve’ (1 Corinthians 15:5).” But what Ehrman doesn’t tell you is that these were visions of a prophecy that would take place at the end of the age! In Acts 10.40-41 we are told that Jesus’ resurrection is only visible “to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God” (προκεχειροτονημένοις; NASB). Nor does Ehrman tell you that Paul uses the word “eschaton,” which is a reference to the “last days,” as if he were talking about a prophecy. At any rate, Paul says ἔσχατον δὲ πάντων which could be translated “last then of all” or “at the end of all” “as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me” (1 Cor. 15:8). But the way Paul explains it, his use of the word καμοί (also to me) connotes “in the same way or manner,” which lends credence to the idea that Christ had appeared to him as he had to others: that is to say, by way of visions (cf. Gal. 1.15-16; Acts 9.3-5).
——-
17 Ehrman concludes:
“Finally, Paul is quite emphatic throughout his writings that Jesus was crucified. He never mentions Pontius Pilate or the Romans, but he may have had no need to do so.”
But again, as we will see, there are 2 things to consider, here. First, Paul is not referring to a historical event but to a tradition (to a prophecy) that was handed down to him and which he in turn delivered on to us (the readers/believers). Second, a close reading reveals that Christ didn’t die according to the historical record but rather “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.” This is a crucial point. Jesus did not die a historical death, according to past history; rather he died κατὰ τὰς γραφάς, according to the *prophetic writings* that were handed down to Paul:
“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15.3-4).
And it is for this reason that Paul “never mentions Pontius Pilate or the Romans,” precisely because they’re irrelevant to the *prophetic writings*!
——-
18 Finally, it doesn’t really matter how many sayings of Jesus Paul (or anyone else) reiterates because they’re irrelevant in proving Jesus’ historicity. Why? Because Paul claims that his gospel is not of human origin: “I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1.12). The point is that all these sayings of Jesus may have come by way of revelation and not from a historical Jesus!
——-
Conclusion
Ehrman should know better. There were quite a few early-Christian, Gnostic sects that held to a Docetic belief, namely that Jesus did not exist in physical form. This idea was certainly not invented in the 18th century.
——-
Ehrman also misinterprets certain clearly fictional characters as if they were historical figures, and therefore confuses historical fiction with biography (cf. Acts 9.1-2). Here’s a case in point. Besides the fact that the High priest of the Jerusalem Temple was a Sadducee, who wouldn’t be normally working with a Pharisee, he had absolutely no jurisdiction in Damascus. So what’s Paul doing there persecuting Christians? This is odd because the Christians were hardly a threat compared to the Romans at that point in time. So what’s Paul doing chasing them all the way to Syria? Nothing in the story seems historically accurate or probable. In fact, all the elements of this story spell *fiction,* not fact!
——-
And why are the earliest New Testament writings in Greek? That certainly would challenge the Aramaic hypothesis. How did the Aramaic oral tradition suddenly become a Greek tradition within less than 20 years after Jesus’ supposed death? That kind of thing just doesn’t happen over night. It’s inexplicable, to say the least.
——-
Moreover, who are these “Greeks” who took over the story from the earliest days? And what happened to the alleged Aramaic community? Did it suddenly vanish, leaving no traces behind? It might be akin to the Johannine community that never existed, according to Dr. Hugo Mendez. It sounds more like a conspiracy of sorts.
——-
And if Paul was a Hebrew of Hebrews who studied under Gamaliel, what is he doing quoting from the Greek Old Testament? Why are his epistles not in Aramaic or Hebrew? By the way, these are the earliest writings on Christianity that we have. They’re written roughly two decades or less after Christ’s alleged death. Which Aramaic sources are they based on? And if so, why the need to quote the Septuagint? Or to record his letters in Greek? The Aramaic hypothesis doesn’t hold up.
——-
Finally, the quite obvious interpolations in the works of Josephus and Tacitus are conceded by many Biblical scholars. Many works were actually collaborations rather than corroborations. For example, Pliny the Younger corresponded with Tacitus, demonstrating that their accounts cannot be deemed as independent attestations. And the various non-canonical offshoots can not be used as evidence to prove historicity but rather how *popular* a story was. The various legendary elements were seemingly fused with historical figures and geographical locations to give the writings a sense of verisimilitude, as any good fictional story should do. Dan Brown is a master novelist who always adds such historical elements to his stories. Similarly, it would be stretching credulity to take these clearly fictional and non-canonical stories——whose authorship, production, and dissemination is itself dubious——and turn them into historiographical facts.
——-
And I hardly fit the mould of those mythicists to whom Ehrman’s criticism is directed:
“Ehrman says that they do not define what they mean by ‘myth’ and maintains they are really motivated by a desire to denounce religion rather than examine historical evidence” (Did Jesus Exist? [Ehrman book] - Wiki).
First, I am not a mythicist; I’m an ahistoricist. That is to say, I do not believe that the story of Jesus is a *myth.* I believe it is a *prophecy* (cf. Heb. 9.26b; 1 Pet. 1.20; Rev. 19.10d)!
In other words, I don’t believe that the story of Jesus is a “mythological” motif, based on preexisting pagan myths, or that he never existed and never will. Rather, I believe that the New Testament evidence supports the notion that the Jesus-story is based on “revelations” (Gal. 1.11-12) and “prophetic writings” (see Rom. 16.25-26; 2 Pet. 1.19-21; Rev. 22.18-19).
Second, I am not “really motivated by a desire to denounce religion rather than examine historical evidence.” On the contrary, I have a high Christology and hold to a high view of Scripture. So, I don’t have an axe to grind. I actually believe in Christ, and I also believe that the Bible is the word of God. I’m just able to look at all the facts dispassionately, without any biases or presuppositions, and follow the facts wherever they may lead.
——-
All in all, I find Ehrman’s defence rather weak, and his arguments quite ineffective. In fact, the lack of archeological and interdisciplinary evidence for the existence of Jesus, coupled with the lack of eyewitness reports and firsthand accounts, seems to point in the opposite direction than Ehrman would have us believe. Not to mention that he seems to be unfamiliar with Koine Greek, ultimately mistranslating and misinterpreting the text!
——-
I’ll close with the words of a world-class Bible scholar and highly respected textual critic. Kurt Aland——who’s a world-renowned textual scholar, having founded and directed the Institute for New Testament Textual Research in Münster, Germany, and who was one of the chief editors of the Nestle-Aland - Novum Testamentum Graece (the critical edition of the New Testament)——went so far as to question the historicity of Jesus:
“If the . . . epistles were really written by the apostles whose names they bear, and by people who were closest to Jesus . . . then 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. . .“
(“A History of Christianity,” Vol 1, by Kurt Aland, p. 106 - emphasis added).
The Seven Churches of Revelation: History or Prophecy?
By Published Author Eli Kittim
Preachers whose sermons are on the 7 churches of Revelation assume that the context is of historical significance and therefore usually focus on the moral implications, but they completely miss the most important prophetic elements of the text, such as the background setting (i.e. the place where the narrative takes place), the significant players that are mentioned, the temporal sequence of events, as well as the apocalyptic symbolism that weaves everything together into a unity.
Unlike the typical “a-church-after-God’s-heart” homily that you’ve often heard regarding the 7 so-called historical churches in Revelation, I would like to draw your attention instead to the unique setting of the Book, to its arrangement of scenery: its mise-en-scène, if you will! Viewing the first chapters of Revelation from this angle will allow us to gain a new perspective on the Seven Churches of Asia and free our hermeneutic from the typical proleptic and anachronistic interpretations that have been irresponsibly applied to the text time and time again.
From beginning to end, Revelation claims to be an exclusively prophetic Book (cf. Rev. 1.1, 3, 19; 22.7, 10, 18, 19)! If we treat it as a Book on history, however, we will inevitably distort its futurist message, which undeniably comprises apocalyptic visions, and ultimately contradict its authorial intention. Yet that is precisely how the first 3 chapters of Revelation have been traditionally read, that is, as contemporaneous events and happenings during the time of John in the first century CE. But perhaps we are not reading them correctly. I’m suggesting a mode of interpretation that is consistent with the rest of the Book, namely, that the first three chapters of Revelation have a prophetic role to play whose sole purpose is to provide an outline of how the end-times begin!
Bearing this in mind, let us now see how the Apocalypse of John is actually presented to the reader. The Book opens with a declaration to promulgate “the words of the prophecy” (Rev. 1.3 NRSV):
“Blessed is the one who reads aloud the
words of the prophecy, and blessed are
those who hear and who keep what is
written in it; for the time is near.”
And so from the very outset this Book claims to contain a prophecy. It does not seem to be interested in conveying history. Next, we are told that John, who is the recipient of this future revelation, is also, by way of the Spirit, an *eschatological* partaker in the coming tribulation or persecution of Christianity in Asia Minor (i.e. Modern-day Turkey), and that he is figuratively situated on the Greek island of Patmos “because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.” Given that John claims to be “in the spirit on the Lord’s day [i.e. on the day of the Lord]” (Rev. 1.9-11), his mise-en-scène (i.e. the arrangement or setting of scenery) seems to have prophetic rather than historical value:
“I, John, your brother who share with you in
Jesus the persecution and the kingdom and
the patient endurance, was on the island
called Patmos because of the word of God
and the testimony of Jesus. I was in the
spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind
me a loud voice like a trumpet saying,
‘Write in a book what you see and send it to
the seven churches, to Ephesus, to Smyrna,
to Pergamum, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to
Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.’ “
Thus, John is basically instructed to write 7 letters to the Christian Churches that are facing persecution in Turkey! If we temporarily suspend Eusebius’ “Church History” in which John is portrayed as an exile——the accuracy of which has often been called into question——we can begin to view the *eschatological* scenery that the Book of Revelation is actually depicting. If in fact the Book of Revelation is an overlay of the end-time events described also in Mt. 24, then it must naturally start with “the beginning of the birth pangs” (Mt. 24.8) that lead up to the “great suffering” (Mt. 24.21), otherwise known as the Great Tribulation. And indeed it does! Moreover, we find Turkey also playing a prominent role in Ezekiel 38, the famous chapter on end-times prophecy!
The Ezekiel 38 War
Ezekiel 38 names a confederacy of nations that will invade many countries, including Israel, in the last days. Although there have been debates among scholars as to the precise location of some of these ancient regions, most of them have been identified with a certain degree of confidence. Of the several regions mentioned by Ezekiel, who is putting pen to parchment in the 6th century BCE, the majority of them were located in what we today would call Turkey. For example, Beth-Togarmah and Gomer are viewed as ancient regions in Asia Minor [Turkey].
Although there are admittedly conflicting reports with scholars being divided on the issue of the origins of Meshech and Tubal (as to whether they represent Russia or Turkey), the following list shows some of the historical research supporting a Turkish connection:
1. The Oxford Bible Atlas says of Meshech and Tubal that they’re “regions in Asia Minor [Turkey].”
2. The IVP Bible Background Commentary lists Meshech, Tubal, and Togarmah as “sections or peoples in Asia Minor” [Turkey].
3. The New Bible Dictionary places both Meshech and Tubal in Turkey.
4. Ralph Alexander, Old Testament scholar, in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary says, “Meshech and Tubal refer to areas in eastern Turkey, southwest of Russia and northwest of Iran.”
5. Edwin Yamauchi, scholar and historian places both Meshech and Tubal in modern day Turkey.
6. Mark Hitchcock, pastor, author and well-known prophecy teacher, places Meshech and Tubal in modern day Turkey.
7. Tim Lahaye and Ed Hindson, in their Encyclopedia of Popular Bible Prophecies, also place both Meshech and Tubal in Turkey.
8. Ron Rhodes, author and teacher in his book, Northern Storm Rising, also places Meshech and Tubal in Turkey.
9. Chuck Missler in his article, Meshech-Tubal Tensions with Syria also places Meshech and Tubal in modern day Turkey.
*Source Credit: Dalton Thomas
Therefore, of the eight regions mentioned in Ezek. 38.1-6, at least four of them are identified as parts of modern-day Turkey. And since this invasion is set to begin “in the latter years” (Ezek. 38.8), it demonstrates that Turkey will figure prominently in this campaign!
The other thing to notice, here, is that almost all the nations mentioned in Ezek. 38 were once part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. For instance, Cush comprised the area of modern-day Ethiopia or Sudan, just south of Egypt, Put was where modern Libya and Algeria (N. Africa) are located, while Tubal, Gomer, Togarmah, and Meshech were apparently in Asia Minor. And parts of Persia were also under Ottoman rule during the Ottoman-Persian wars. All in all, Ezek. 38 sounds like it’s describing a resurgence of the Ottoman Empire, consisting of an Islamic coalition of nations! Similarly, in Revelation 12.1, the woman who gives birth to the messiah at the end of days is said to have “the moon under her feet.” That is the symbol of Islam. Therefore, if a revived Ottoman Empire is indicated in the Gog-Magog War, which leads up to the battle of Armageddon, then this means that Turkey must also be either explicitly or implicitly mentioned in the Book of Revelation! Hence the Turkish persecution of the 7 churches in the Book of Revelation!
The Prophecies of Paisios of Mount Athos
A number of extra-biblical prophecies have been attributed to Elder Paisios (1924–1994), a highly respected Greek Eastern-Orthodox ascetic from Mount Athos. They include the prediction that a future geopolitical war between Greece and Turkey will spill over and draw Russia into the conflict against Turkey, which will be the latter’s ultimate demise. Similarly, there’s a prophecy attributed to the 18th century Rabbi Elijah of Vilna, aka the Vilna Gaon, in which he purportedly said that Messiah will come right after “the Russians have reached the city of Constantinople [Istanbul].” In fact, Elder Paisios said that the trigger point of Greek-Turkish hostilities will be reached when Greece extends its territorial waters from 6 to 12 nautical miles. Recently, Greece and Turkey are at variance with each other over the demarcation of sea borders and the right to explore hydrocarbon resources in the Mediterranean. There have been both air and naval incidents, tensions and hostilities have flared up and are steadily increasing since August of 2020. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the incumbent President of Turkey, in violation of international law continues to employ intimidation tactics and war-narratives in an effort to reinforce his expansionist plans. It’s no secret that he wants to rebuild the Ottoman Empire and restore its former glory. He also aspires to become the Caliph, the supreme ruler of the Muslim world! However, France has come to Greece’s aid with naval support in a countermeasure to push Erdoğan back. This situation is a disaster waiting to happen. In fact, Devlet Bahçeli, the Head of the Turkish National Movement Party, recently declared that war with Greece is “just a matter of time.” More to the point, Greece recently extended its territorial waters from 6 to 12 nautical miles in the Ionian Sea, sending a message to Turkey that it will soon do the same in the Aegean! According to Elder Paisios, this will be the trigger point of the conflict. At present, the situation in Turkey is very tense as Erdoğan has *persecuted* and shut down *Christian churches* while reverting Hagia Sophia to a mosque. That’s equivalent to the Israelis turning the Al-Aqsa Mosque into a Jewish Synagogue. It’s deplorable and provocative! It has caught the attention of the international community that has unanimously condemned this action. At any rate, this current standoff might explode into a full-blown war. According to some experts, this armed conflict over oil and gas reserves seems unavoidable! And that’s precisely where the Book of Revelation begins.
The Book of Revelation Opens with the Greek Islands, on the one hand, and the Persecuted Churches in Turkey, on the other!
In Revelation 17.9-10, John mentions the Empire that exists *contemporaneously* with the prophetic events of Revelation as they are temporally unfolding:
“This calls for a mind that has wisdom: the
seven heads are seven mountains on which
the woman is seated; also, they are seven
kings, of whom five have fallen, one is living,
and the other has not yet come; and when
he comes, he must remain only a little while.”
As regards the 8 empires of Revelation 17, John says that “five have fallen.” According to Dan. 2, that would be Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, and Byzantium. The One that “Is Living” at present is the Sixth One, which presumably persecutes the Christian Churches of Anatolia in the opening chapters of Revelation, namely, the Ottoman Empire of the Turks, which defeated the Byzantines in 1453. Incidentally, we know that John is not referring to the 1st century CE because the empire that “is living” at that time is the 4th (Rome), according to Daniel 2.40-42; 7.7. By contrast, Rev. 17.10 is referring to the prophesied 6th Empire as the “one [that] is still reigning” (WNT)! It could also be said that the Ottoman Empire actually triggered the End-Times (cf. Mt. 24.6-9) at the outset of the 20th century through the unprecedented Christian Persecutions & Genocides of Anatolia (Greek/Armenian), just prior to WWI and WWII, the brunt of which lasted for approximately 7 years, thus symbolizing the Tribulation of the 7 Christian Churches of Asia Minor that usher in the end of days in the Book of Revelation. So, in John’s own words, the empire that “is living” *now* (contemporaneously with the 7 churches) is the 6th empire: the Ottoman Empire. Why would John mention that in chapter 17 and verse 10? It’s obviously not Rome, as most people think. Rome was the 4th empire. It’s probably because the end-times will commence with a conflict pertaining to Asia Minor (Turkey). Think about it. Revelation is inundated with future predictions. Why would it spend its first 3 chapters on past or current events if it is said to be “The revelation of Jesus Christ” that contains information of “what must soon take place” (Rev. 1.1)?
Moreover, John tells us categorically and unequivocally that he was on the island of Patmos “in the spirit” (Rev. 1.10), NOT in the flesh! It appears, then, that John is on Patmos figuratively, not literally, in order to pronounce the testimony, which “is the spirit of prophecy” (Rev. 19.10d). What is more, John doesn’t tell us that he’s in exile. That is an extra-biblical interpretation. It’s a speculation that is not found in the text. This tradition, which says that John was banished to Patmos by the Roman authorities, is not credible because, although banishment was a common form of punishment by Rome for various offenses, nevertheless Tertullian’s account (in The Prescription of Heretics) is flavored with myth and legend given that he claims that John was banished after being plunged into boiling oil in Rome and suffering nothing from it. This obviously fits in the category of urban legends. Nor does the author of Revelation say that he is on the island of Patmos physically. Rather, he says that he is there “in the spirit” in order to give us the scenery, so to speak, the prophetic background of how the tribulation begins “on the Lord’s day” (Rev. 1.10) or on the day of the Lord!
Conclusion
Revelation 1.3 explicitly states that this is an exclusively prophetic Book which is not concerned with past history. The prophetic implications are further reinforced by its author, John, who claims to be “in the spirit on the Lord’s day [i.e. on the day of the Lord]” (Rev. 1.9-11). Thus, the mise-en-scène (i.e. the arrangement or setting of scenery) is itself part of the apocalyptic vision, which implicates Turkey in end-time events related to the Great Tribulation! Turkey is also implicated in the Ezekiel 38 War, which sets the stage for Armageddon, the final great battle between good and evil!
Furthermore, the prophecies of Paisios of Mount Athos center around an end-times conflict in the Mediterranean between Greece and Turkey, Biblically represented by Patmos and Asia Minor respectively, “where Satan's throne is” said to be located (Rev. 2.13). Moreover, what lends considerable support to my exegesis is the fact that John connects the timeline of the 7 churches account not with the Roman Empire (the 4th) but rather with the Ottoman Empire (the 6th), which is said to be currently reigning in Rev. 17.10. For example, we know that John is not referring to the 1st century CE because the empire that “is living” at that time is the 4th [Rome]. By contrast, Rev. 17.10 is explicitly referring to the so-called current empire that “is living” and reigning at that time, after “five have [already] fallen.” That would be the prophesied 6th empire, namely, the Ottoman Empire, the continuation of which is modern Turkey! Also, chapters 2 and 3 employ tribulation language, or the language of crisis. Given that chapters 2 and 3 reference the tribulation (θλῖψιν 2:9), and since authority and rule (2:26-27) and white garments (3:4-5) are promised therein to those who overcome, it is more than likely that these represent the tribulation saints (cf. Luke 22:30). Evidence for this comes by way of a parallel passage in Rev. 7:13-14 concerning those coming out of the Great Tribulation who “have washed their robes and made them white.” Therefore, these seemingly represent the overcomers of Revelation 2 and 3! In short, the first 3 chapters of Revelation are part of prophecy, NOT history, featuring Turkey as the epicenter of end-time events! In fact, our traditional proleptic and anachronistic interpretations——in which we have erroneously *added* a “historical” component to the first 3 chapters of Revelation, while *taking* “away from the words of the book of this prophecy”——are strongly condemned by the author himself (Rev. 22.18-19):
“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.”
What does the Johannine Jesus mean in John 14.3 when he says, “if I go . . . I will come back”?
By Writer Eli Kittim
——-
SBLGNT:
καὶ ἐὰν πορευθῶ καὶ ἑτοιμάσω τόπον ὑμῖν, πάλιν ἔρχομαι καὶ παραλήμψομαι ὑμᾶς πρὸς ἐμαυτόν, ἵνα ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγὼ καὶ ὑμεῖς ἦτε (Jn. 14.3).
Translation:
“If I go away and prepare a place for you, I will come back and receive you to Myself, so that where I am you may be also” (HCSB).
——-
Definitions
In John 14.3, one of the meanings of the Greek word πορεύομαι (I go) is “die.” It can also mean “travel,” “journey,” or “go.” It comes from the root word “poros,” which means “passageway.” Thus, the connotation is “to depart.”
——-
Is Jesus a General Contractor Or Does He Mean Something Else?
So the question arises: is Jesus going to Heaven to begin preparation and arrangements for the biggest building projects in Heaven’s history? Is that what he really means? Is he going away in order to supervise large developments that will serve as living quarters for humans who will one day be transported there? Is that what he means? And then he will “come back” thousands of years later when the projects have been completed, for it takes a long time to build such ambitious developments? Is that the proper biblical interpretation of what he means when he says, “I go away and prepare a place for you”?
——-
Old Testament Parallels
First, let’s start with a basic question: how does Jesus “prepare a place” for us? Is it by using lawn mowers, cement, bricks, architectural plans, tractors, and the like? Or is it through other means? Obviously, since Jesus’ teachings are spiritually-based, it would seem pointless to look toward materialistic explanations. Therefore, we must look for parallels and verbal agreements elsewhere in the Bible in order to find out exactly what he means. For example, in Isaiah 14.21, to “Prepare a place” means to prepare a slaughtering place מַטְבֵּ֖חַ (matbeach) in order “to slaughter his children for the sins of their ancestors” (cf. Mt. 23.35 NIV). Therefore, in preparing a place, a slaughter house is indicated. Similarly, within the passion narrative, when the Johannine Jesus uttered these words, we knew exactly where he was going; namely, to his death! According to Christian theology, the atonement, namely, the “cross” or the •slaughterhouse•, prepares a place for us through the forgiveness of sins, so that we might become the sons and daughters of God through the blood of Jesus. So, it turns out that Jesus is not going to Heaven; he’s going to his death!
——-
Jesus Will “Come Back” Not from Heaven But from Death
Second, as already mentioned, in the Greek, the word for “go” (πορευθῶ), in the phrase “if I go,” can mean “to go,” to “journey,” to “die,” or to “depart.” Thus, when the Johannine Jesus says “If I go away and prepare a place for you, I will come back,” is he referring to a second coming that will occur possibly thousands of years later, or does he mean something else? Something, perhaps, related to why he is going away in the first place? Based on the aforementioned exegesis, it seemingly means that he “will come back” from the dead (cf. Heb. 9.26-28). Accordingly, it turns out that in John 14.1-3 Jesus is not talking about going to Heaven and then returning in a second coming thousands of years later. Rather, he’s referring to his sacrificial death, which prepares the way to Heaven for all humanity, after which he soon returns from the dead for the rapture (to “receive you to Myself”) and for our ultimate ascension into Heaven. So, whereas the classic interpretation proposed bizarre and remote gaps in chronology between Jesus’ death and resurrection, as well as His appearance in the sky out of nowhere centuries later, the current interpretation is robust precisely because it follows the biblical jargon closely and understands it to be a natural contemporaneous sequence of events within one single lifetime.
——-
New Testament Parallels
Third, John 14.3 can certainly mean “I go to my death” precisely because a similar phrase (“I’m ready to go” away)——using the exact same Greek word πορεύομαι——is used elsewhere in the New Testament to mean that the person is going “to [his] death”:
SBLGNT
ἕτοιμός εἰμι καὶ εἰς θάνατον πορεύεσθαι (Luke 22:33).
Translation:
“I'm ready to go . . . to death!" (HCSB).
Thus, the translation and exegesis of the Biblical languages from both the Old and New Testaments confirms that Jesus is seemingly predicting his death in John 14.3. Jesus is basically saying, “I prepare a place for you” by dying for you!
——-
Jesus is Not Preparing a House; He’s Preparing an Atonement
Fourth, contextually speaking, even Jn 14.2 (the previous verse) demonstrates that Jesus rejects the notion that his message is about living accommodations. Indeed, he stresses that Heaven already has all the accommodations it needs. If it didn’t, he would have told us. In other words, that’s NOT what he meant, and so he switches gears, so to speak, and ends the verse by saying, “I go to prepare a place for you” (πορεύομαι ἑτοιμάσαι τόπον ὑμῖν):
“In My Father's house are many dwelling places; if not, I would have told you. I am going away to prepare a place for you” (HCSB).
The question is, where does he go? Answer: to his death. He must die first. That’s the clue. That’s where he goes because “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Heb. 9.22 HCSB). And we already know from the gospel narratives precisely where he intends to go, and how the story ends!
——-
Jesus Will “Come Back” For the Resurrection and the Rapture
Fifth, then in v. 3 he says, “If I go . . . I will come back and receive you to Myself, so that where I am you may be also.” That sounds like “rapture” language (cf. 1 Thess. 4.16-17), which resembles the resurrection theme in Heb. 9.28 that closely follows the death motif in Heb. 9.26b. John 14.3 employs the term παραλήμψομαι, which comes from the verb παραλαμβάνω and means “I take”——cf. “taken” [as in the rapture] at Gen. 5.24 & Mt. 24.40-41—-or “I receive.” So, the “come back” motif could certainly imply a •resurrection from the dead.• It is not out of the question precisely because it’s not a “parousia” that the text is referring to but rather a “come back” πάλιν ἔρχομαι (cf. ἐκ δευτέρου “for a second time” rather than παρουσία in Heb. 9.28). Therefore, just as in Luke 22.33 in which the going away (πορεύομαι) is a going forth to one’s death, so the “come back” theme in Jn 14.3 can certainly imply from the grave, from death, that is, to receive us in the “rapture.”
——-
Conclusion: The Events of John 14.3 Obviously Suggest A Futurist Eschatological Model
The logical conclusion of this brief study leads to the final question, namely, if Jesus’ death and resurrection are closely followed by the “rapture,” then how could this contemporaneous sequence of events take place in first century Palestine? It could not! Thus, if the Jesus-saying, “if I go away . . . I will come back” means that Jesus will *come-back-from-the-dead* for the •rapture,• then obviously John 14.3 can only be interpreted through a future eschatological model that would account for the contemporaneity of these events! That’s precisely why Jesus says, “In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me” (Jn 16.16).
The New Testament Epistolary literature certainly supports such a model through numerous references (cf. 1 Jn 2.28; Rev. 12.5; 19.10d NRSV). Due to time constraints, I will confine myself to two examples:
1) “Once in the end of the world hath he [Jesus] appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice [death] of himself” (Heb. 9.26b KJV emphasis added).
2) “He was marked out before the world was made, and was revealed at the final point of time” (1 Pet. 1.20 NJB emphasis added).
——-