Biblical Interpretation - Tumblr Posts
The Little Book of Revelation: The First Coming of Jesus at the End of Days By Eli of Kittim (Amazon) https://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Revelation-First-Coming/dp/1479747068
[Nonfiction] The Little Book of Revelation (End times Prophecy)
By Author Eli of Kittim
What is the difference between my view and the classical Christian perspective? I am convinced that there are not multiple comings and multiple returns of Christ, but only one decisive coming at the end of the world, which includes the resurrection, the rapture, and his appearance from above!
Editorial Reviews
BlueInk Review Beautifully written. Highly creative literary analysis. An intriguing study. Bible scholars and eschatologists may want to consider its thought-provoking ideas.
Dr. Robert Eisenman Your illustrations are really good. You've mastered another world than I.
https://www.amazon.com/Eli-of-Kittim/e/B00FWAVSMC%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share
Jesus is a Gentile: The Evidence from the Gospels
By Award-Winning Author Eli of Kittim
In the New Testament, there are various ways in which Jesus is portrayed as a non-Jew. One of those depictions can be found in the Gospel of Matthew, which tells us right up front that Jesus does not come from the Kingdom of Judah (from the Jews) but rather from the region of Galilee (from the Gentiles; cf. Luke 1:26):
“Galilee of the Gentiles– THE PEOPLE WHO WERE SITTING IN DARKNESS SAW A GREAT LIGHT, AND THOSE WHO WERE SITTING IN THE LAND AND SHADOW OF DEATH, UPON THEM A LIGHT DAWNED.” (Matthew 4:15-16).
The Biblical scholar G.A. Williamson (translator of Eusebius’ The History of the Church: From Christ to Constantine) states that Jews formed only a minute portion of the Galilean population, and they were seldom seen in the province. Williamson also says that “the region was entirely Hellenistic in Sympathy.” He goes on to say that all of these facts are well-known to Christian scholars, yet they insist that “Christ was a Jew”.
According to 1 Kings chapter 9, King Solomon rewarded a Phoenician ally (King Hiram I) with twenty cities in the region of Galilee. So ever since the 10th century BCE, the land of Galilee was settled by foreigners and pagans. Galilee was once part of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. This kingdom fell into obscurity not only because much of its population was deported after the Assyrian invasion of 722 BCE, but also due to eight centuries of acculturation. Accordingly, in New Testament times, it had become the land of the Greco-Roman world (i.e. the land of the Gentiles)! That’s why it was known as “Galilee of the nations” (Isaiah 9:1)! This conclusion is archaeologically supportable. Jonathan L. Reed—professor of New Testament and Christian Origins, and a leading authority on first-century Palestine archeology—writes, “In fact, not a single synagogue from the first century or earlier has been found in Galilee” (Crossan, John Dominic, and Jonathan L. Reed. “Excavating Jesus.” San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2001, p. 25). Since then, only a few synagogues have been excavated in Galilee, with some possibly having been built after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, discoveries which in and of themselves hardly prove the existence of large Jewish communities in Galilee during the first half of the first century CE. Conversely, all but two tribes remained in the southern kingdom of Judah—-namely, the tribes of Judah and Benjamin (Ezra 1:5)—-which alone, strictly speaking, represent the term “Jews.” The term “Jew” (an abbreviation of the term “Judah”) was a geographical term which referred to those who came from the kingdom of Judah. In the New Testament story, however, Jesus is not called Jesus-of-Judah but rather “Jesus of Galilee” (Matthew 26:69)! As we will see, this is an extremely important piece of information!
Throughout the gospels, Christ is constantly at odds with the Jews, and even with Judaism itself—whether it be the Law of Moses, Jewish messianic prophecies, Jewish tradition, custom, culture, beliefs, and the like—that it is not difficult to see that he is not one of them. For example, the under mentioned verse exemplifies that Jesus was certainly not a Jew who studied under rabbis, as tradition holds. In the gospel story, he urges the disciples to completely disassociate themselves from the teachings of the Jews:
“Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.“ (Matthew 16:11).
The Jews were of the opinion that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem, and from the Jews, as we continue to believe today. But they were in for a shock and were quite horrified to learn this was not the case. That’s the reason why John inserts this profound exclamation that comes from one of his characters:
“Nazareth!” exclaimed Nathanael. “Can anything good come from Nazareth?” (John 1:46).
The rift between Jesus and the Jews is once again evoked when Christ forbids the disciples from being called “Rabbi,” the traditional title of a Jewish scholar or teacher, especially one who studies or teaches Jewish law. Instead, he commands them to call him “teacher” (didaskalos)—a Hellenistic title—and not “rabbi”:
“Don’t let anyone call you ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one teacher.” (Matthew 23:8).
What is worthy of notice is the fact that the gospels often do not present Jesus as a Jew, but rather as a Galilean—(“Jesus of Galilee” Matthew 26:69)—and a Samaritan (John 8:48) at that. In other words, Jesus is portrayed as a Gentile.
In his exhaustive book, “The Birth of the Messiah,” scholar Raymond E. Brown points out that biblical genealogies are important because the ancestors of a family line exemplify character traits or attributes that foreshadow something characteristic or stereotypical about a later figure. A genealogy, after all, is meant to show that someone has the right family credentials and is descended from a unique lineage. Yet, Raymond Brown is not exactly sure why four *foreign women* are mentioned in Matthew’s genealogy, and what their significance is in Matthew’s portrayal of Jesus. The answer is obvious. The 4 *foreign ancestors* of Christ exemplify that he, too, is a foreigner! Moreover, Professor Bart Ehrman asserts that both Matthew and Luke are recording the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph. Accordingly, the epiphany in the gospels that Jesus is not really Joseph’s son drives home the notion that his genealogy is not derived from the Jews (see the analogy between Jesus and Melchizedek in Heb. 7.2-6 in which the former is likened to the latter, “who does not belong to their [Jewish] ancestry,” implying that “the Son of God” is therefore not descended from the Jews either). This allusion becomes evident in another passage in which Jesus refutes the notion that he is the son or the descendent of David (the King of the Jews):
“Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question: What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?” They replied, “He is the son of David.” Jesus responded, “Then why does David, speaking under the inspiration of the Spirit, call the Messiah ‘my Lord’? For David said, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit in the place of honor at my right hand until I humble your enemies beneath your feet.’ Since David called the Messiah ‘my Lord,’ how can the Messiah be his son?” No one could answer him. And after that, no one dared to ask him any more questions.” (Matthew 22:41-46).
John’s gospel, in particular, shows that Christ’s teaching is not derived from the Jews, and that his origin or identity even defies the biblical expectations of a Jewish Messiah. For instance, Christ breaks the Law (John 5:16), and consequently the Jews want to kill him. That is why Jesus completely dissociates himself from the Jews by teaching and performing miracles exclusively in Galilee of the Gentiles (John 7:1). In fact, through the dialogues, the gospel suggests the unthinkable. Remember that there are no unnecessary words in the gospels. Every word is important. So, why does the gospel repeatedly emphasize the conflict between Jewish messianic expectations and the fact that Jesus does not meet them? Not only that, but John tells us explicitly that Jesus will not be found among the Jews, but among the Greeks! Jesus tells the Jews,
“’You will search for me but not find me. And you cannot go where I am going.’ The Jews said to one another, ‘Where does this man intend to go that we will not find him? Does he intend to go to the Dispersion among the Greeks and teach the Greeks?’” (John 7:34-35).
This dilemma between a Jewish and a Gentile Messiah is ever-present in John’s gospel. Jesus does not appear to come from the Jews and thus seems to defy scriptural expectations:
“Others said, ‘He is the Messiah.’ Still others asked, ‘How can the Messiah come from Galilee?’ ‘For the Scriptures clearly state that the Messiah will be born of the royal line of David [from Jews], in Bethlehem, the village where King David was born.’ So the crowd was divided about him. Some even wanted him arrested, but no one laid a hand on him.” (John 7:41-44).
In the following verse, we are told that none of the rabbis of Judaism can accept Jesus’ teaching—for his teaching is definitely not Judaic and even appears to contradict scripture. The Jews further imply that Christ’s followers are Gentiles, for they clearly do not know the Law of Moses:
“’No one of the rulers or Pharisees has believed in Him, has he?’ ‘But this crowd which does not know the Law is accursed.” (John 7:48-49).
A few verses later, the Jews go on to say,
“Search the Scriptures and see for yourself–no prophet ever comes from Galilee!“ (John 7:52).
These inclusions in the text by the gospel writer John clearly give us a different perspective on Jesus the Messiah, as far as his origin or identity is concerned. If he were Jewish, the Jews would certainly have accepted him, celebrated him, and honored him as one of their own. We therefore come to realize why they dislike him so intensely and why he offends them throughout the gospel stories. Because he is a Gentile!
Similarly, in Luke 4:23-29 the Jews became enraged because Jesus said that Elijah was sent to the Gentiles, not to the Jews–implying that he himself turns from Jews to Gentiles. John Dominic Crossan writes, “In that case, Jesus’ turn from Jews to Gentiles is cause rather than effect of eventual rejection and lethal attack” (Excavating Jesus, p. 28).
This theme reminds us of the stories of Joseph and Moses (two messianic stand-ins who are also rejected by their “brothers,” the Jews)—and who are portrayed in the Bible as living and reigning in Egypt (the land of the Gentiles). By analogy, Matthew has Christ supposedly going to Egypt in order to make this connection and to show us that he’s the new Moses:
“OUT OF EGYPT DID I CALL MY SON.” (Matthew 2:15).
Thus, all these messianic figures, including Jesus, are essentially depicted as Gentiles! That’s precisely why Cyrus, a gentile, is called God’s Messiah in Isaiah 45.1! Not to mention that King David himself was not a Jew; he was a Moabite! Similarly, in Isaiah 46:11, God says: I have chosen “a man for My purpose from a far-off land” (cf. Matt. 28:18; 1 Cor. 15:24-25). This motif is also seen in Matthew 21:4-5 and John 12:14-15, which portray Jesus as a Gentile in fulfillment of Zechariah’s (9:9) prophecy. That’s because in Biblical nomenclature, the ox represents Israel, while the ass represents the Gentiles. Thus, the symbolism of the Messiah entering the holy city and riding on a donkey represents Jesus' Gentile ancestry! Paul’s emphasis of this point—which constitutes “the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the Lord’s people” (Colossians 1:26)—about Christ’s identity bears repeating:
“Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles; I will sing hymns to your name.” Again, it says, “Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people.” And again, “Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles, and sing praises to him, all you peoples.” And again, Isaiah says, “The Root of Jesse will spring up, one who will arise to rule over the nations; the Gentiles will hope in him.” (Romans 15:9-12).
The gospel of John makes clear that Jesus’ teaching is a serious threat to the Jews because it completely nullifies Judaism, as well as the Jewish temple—so much so that the Sanhedrin fears that this Gentile (non-Jewish) teaching will cause the entire nation to fall:
“So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the council and said, “What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” (John 11:47-48).
Of further interest is the dichotomy between Jesus and his Jewish audience, one in which there is a clear “I versus you” mentality running throughout the text. Jesus separates himself from the Jews by addressing them as if they were not his own people—“Your” nation, “Your” ancestors, “Your” fathers, “Your” prophets, “Your” Law, etc.—making it abundantly clear that there is a clear distinction between Jesus and the Jews:
1) “Jesus answered them, ‘Is it not written in YOUR Law…?’” (John 10:34, emphasis added).
2) “YOUR own law says that…” (John 8:17, emphasis added)
3) “I know YOU are descendants of Abraham, but you are trying to kill Me because My word is not welcome among you.” (John 8:37, emphasis added).
4) “YOU are doing the works of your own father.“ (John 8:41, emphasis added).
Also notice that while arguing with the Jews—who seek to kill him because they claim he is a Gentile—Jesus does not refute that he is a Gentile, he only refutes the idea that he has a demon:
“The Jews answered him, ‘Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan [Gentile] and have a demon?’ Jesus answered, ‘I do not have a demon, but I honor my Father, and you dishonor me.’” (John 8:48-49).
So, in John’s gospel, Jesus is called a ‘Samaritan’—a Greek—and he does not appear to deny it. Further evidence that Jesus is not a Jew can be ascertained from the fact that, in the gospel story, he is not tried in a Jewish court but rather in a Roman—one which was reserved exclusively for Gentiles; that is, for Roman and Greek citizens! Neither was he killed by stoning, which was the traditional custom for killing a Jew. Moreover, some church fathers (e.g. Clement of Alexandria) have claimed that the name “Ιησους” (i.e. Jesus) has a Greek origin, not a Hebrew one. All these clues purvey insights and teachings about a Gentile Messiah who does not conform to our rather facile biblical expectations. In fact, both Jesus and all of his disciples come from Galilee. Ironically, only one of his disciples is a Jew who comes from Judah: the one who betrays him!
Furthermore, the New Testament could not have been written by devout Jews because devout Jews would not have written in Greek. It was forbidden for them to do so. Nor could they have written such articulate, refined Greek. From the earliest times, devout Jews could only read Hebrew. During the Babylonian exile, the Jews wrote in Aramaic. During Hellenistic times, even though the official language was Greek, devout Jews continued to write in Aramaic and could not have written in Greek for fear of being dejected from their sect or congregation! Besides, ever since the overthrow of the Syrian-Greek Empire in the land of Israel, the Jews hated anything to do with the Greeks.
So, who else is left who could have written the New Testament in Greek? Answer: Greeks! And there are more epistles written to Greeks than to any other race. In fact, most of the New Testament books were written in Greece: Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Titus, the book of Revelation, and possibly others as well! None of the books of the New Testament were ever written in Palestine. Not even the Letter of James. According to scholars, the cultivated Greek language of the Epistle of James could not have possibly been written by a Jerusalem Jew!
It is also important to note that when the NT authors quote from the OT, they often quote from the Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, and not from the original Hebrew scriptures per se. This may indicate that the NT authors were not familiar with the Hebrew language. For example, when they quote Jeremiah or refer to Joshua (Acts 7:45; Heb. 4:8) in the NT, they use the Septuagint (the Greek text) as their source (scholarly consensus). This lends plausibility to the argument that the NT authors were not Hebrews but Greeks! And scholars now tell us that these NT authors were writing from different parts of the world, not from Palestine.
And why didn’t the New Testament writers finish God’s story in Hebrew? What better way to persuade Jews that Jesus is the messianic fulfillment of Jewish Scripture than to write it in the Hebrew language, which Jews could both read and understand? But they didn’t! The reason for this is Jesus. Apparently, he is not Jewish; he is Greek! So, the story must be written in Greek to reflect its main character, the God man, Jesus the Christ. Furthermore, if he were Jewish, he would have said I am the Aleph and the Tav. Instead, he uses Greek letters to define the divine “I AM”:
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God.” (Revelation 1:8).
The following verse shows that we are on the right track. John the Revelator is not in Greece by accident. He is there BECAUSE (for the reason that) it has everything to do with the SPECIFIC ACCOUNT of Jesus, which is revealed to him by the word of God:
“I, John … was on the island called Patmos [in Greece] BECAUSE of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.” (Revelation 1:9, emphasis added).
If we sum up our findings, we could say with confidence that the mystery of Jesus’ non-Jewish identity is revealed even in the gospels. And the gospel mystery of Christ’s identity is supported by no less an authority than Paul:
“This message was kept secret for centuries and generations past, but now it has been revealed to God’s people.” (Colossians 1:26).
In his in-depth-Bible-study video called “Breaking the Sound of Silence,” distinguished scholar Brant Pitre agrees that “the mystery which was kept secret for long ages but is now disclosed and through the prophetic writings is made known to all nations” (Rom. 16.25b-26a) is exclusively referring to a *revelation* of Jesus’ *identity* that was previously unknown! That’s why “the mystery which was kept secret for long ages” needed to be revealed. Because we could not have possibly known this truth from any available sources (biblical or otherwise) except by way of divine revelation! There is much more proof in the Bible that Jesus is Greek (and not Jewish). But this evidence cannot be reproduced here, given the limited scope of this article.
.
Revelation 8:1, 7th seal, silence in heaven about 1 half hour? 29.6 minutes = about 1 half hour. 29.6 minutes = 1776 seconds. STRONG's Concordance H1776 is is a Hebrew word meaning "silence." Ben Franklin pen name, Silence Dogood
Perhaps this quote may shed some light: “The ten horns which you saw are ten kings, who have not yet received a kingdom, but they receive authority as kings with the beast for one hour [1 century]” (Rev. 17:9-12). If one hour equals a century, as in the aforementioned quote (for details, refer to my book), then one-half hour must refer to a half-century. The “half an hour” reference in Rev. 8:1 actually has a double meaning. On the one hand, it signifies the seven weeks of Daniel’s prophecy (fifty-year Jubilee/Ch. 9) that marks the appearance of Messiah. In others words, the Messiah is “silent” for “half an hour,” or for seven weeks until his appearance. But the “half an hour” idiom also refers to the middle of the tribulation period when Christ will be revealed to wage war on the Antichrist. And, in this case, the reference is not to thirty literal minutes but rather to the three-and-a-half year interim (or 42 months) that is constantly repeated throughout the text. That is, the Great Tribulation commences, and it appears as though God is silent for a very short period of time until he finally rescues his people. This time period is also known as "a time, times, and half a time," and it is equal to three and a half years. Here's an excerpt from my book, "The Little Book of Revelation""Likewise, the Bible warns us that the little horn’s [or Antichrist's] allied forces ‘will destroy many while they are at ease’ (Dan. 8:25); that is to say, in a time of peace. Then, all exertions cease. Only the eerie silence remains (Rev. 8:1) as the heavens prepare a punitive response. From the Bible to Nostradamus, the unifying theme that runs across the litany of these texts – like Ariadne’s thread guiding us out of a labyrinth of obscurity – is the ubiquitous prophecy of the Messiah who will deliver us from worldwide disaster at the end of time (Matt. 24:21-22)!"
An Essay By Eli of Kittim
Eli of Kittim's unique interpretation of the New Testament account of Jesus as prophetic rather than historical!
Russia: The Origin of the Biblical Antichrist
By Author Eli Kittim
This paper is an excerpt from Eli Kittim’s book, The Little Book of Revelation: The First Coming of Jesus at the End of Days.
Daniel has a follow-up vision of a mighty ram, followed by a male goat that attacks and overwhelms it (8:3-7). In time, the goat’s horn [power] was broken; and in its place there came up four conspicuous horns (8:8). Daniel recounts the oracle:
'And out of one of them came forth a rather small horn which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Beautiful Land [Israel]. And it grew up to the host of heaven and caused some of the host and some of the stars to fall to the earth, and it trampled them down. It even magnified itself to be equal with the Commander of the host [God]; and it removed the regular sacrifice [Holy Communion] from Him, and the place of His sanctuary [Church] was thrown down' (8:9-11).
The angelic messenger named Gabriel appears once again and interprets the vision to Daniel (8:16). Gabriel says: ‘Son of man, understand that the vision pertains to the time of the end’ (Dan. 8:17). The celestial being now begins to expound the oracle:
‘Behold, I am going to let you know what will occur at the final period of the indignation [God’s wrath], for it pertains to the appointed time of the end. The ram which you saw with the two horns represents the kings of Media and Persia. And the shaggy goat represents the kingdom of Greece, and the large horn that is between his eyes is the first king [Alexander the Great]. And the broken horn and the four horns that arose in its place represent four kingdoms which will arise from his nation [Hellenistic Empire], although not with his power. And in the latter period [in the last days] of their rule, when the transgressors [the succeeding empires] have run their course, a king will arise insolent and skilled in intrigue. And his power will be mighty, but not by his own power, and he will destroy to an extraordinary degree and prosper and perform his will’ (Dan. 8:19-24).
In chapter 11, Daniel receives additional information concerning the previous vision:
‘But as soon as he [Alexander the Great] has arisen, his kingdom will be broken up and parceled out toward the four points of the compass, though not to his own descendants, nor according to his authority which he wielded; for his sovereignty will be uprooted and given to others besides them [the Greeks]’ (11:4).
In Daniel chapter 2 (the statue vision), the Antichrist, who mingles ‘in the seed of men’ (2:43), comes from the part of the Roman Empire which is represented by the symbol of iron (2:40-43), namely, the Byzantines. But in Daniel chapter eight, he arises out of one of the four successors of Alexander the Great. As you will see, both lines of succession are correct and coalesce so as to give us a more precise understanding of where the Antichrist comes from.
Following Alexander’s death, the heirs to the Hellenistic Empire were called the Diadochi, which means ‘successors’ in Greek. The four Generals alluded to by scripture appear to be Ptolemy, Seleucus, Cassander and Lysimachus, all of whom had ruled over different Hellenistic Kingdoms after the partition of the Empire (Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. The Footsteps of the Messiah: A study of the Sequence of Prophetic Events. [Tustin: Ariel, 1990], p. 20). The book of Daniel clearly indicates that the smallest territory in land size, held by one of these four generals, denotes the symbolic ‘small horn’ (the Antichrist) of the end times (8:8-9). Interestingly, the text also states that this small territory cannot possibly come from Alexander’s ‘own descendants,’ namely, the Greeks (11:4). Historically, Greece was conquered by the Romans in the 2nd century B.C., and so their empire came to an abrupt end.
On that account, in order to locate the actual place that represents the little horn, we must search elsewhere. By implication, Cassander, who controlled Macedonia and most of Greece, must be ruled out of the equation. On the other hand, Lysimachus’s terrain, which originally consisted of the tiny area called Thrace, is the only one to qualify as the smallest amount of land size in comparison with the other Hellenistic Kingdoms. If you recall, Daniel mentioned that the little horn ‘grew exceedingly great toward the south’ and ‘toward the east’ (8:9). Evidently, after the major Battle of Ipsus in 301 B.C., Lysimachus gained vast amounts of land to the south and to the east, as he was awarded Anatolia for his decisive allied victory. By that time, General Lysimachus had become a very wealthy and powerful man, as he presided over all aspects of life, political and otherwise, within the geographic region we now call Asia Minor. He also founded his capital at Pergamum, in modern-day western Turkey, where all his wealth was kept.
Anatolia then becomes the seat of the Ottoman Empire, which destroyed the last remaining vestige of the Roman Empire in 1453 of the Common Era. By the late 19th century, the Turks were in turn defeated by Imperial Russia through various wars, but especially after the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878 A.D. If we trace the succession of empires that supplant one another in the region denoted by the symbol of the little horn – namely, Thrace and Asia Minor – we will notice a sequence that begins with General Lysimachus and continues on with the Byzantine Romans, whose capital (Constantinople) was actually situated within the former’s domain. Next, the Ottoman Turks come forth from this same territory and are subsequently defeated by the Great Russian Empire. Since Lysimachus represents the little horn, we can trace the roots of the Antichrist from this foregoing General all the way up to Russia, the so-called Third Rome. It is for this reason, no doubt, that the book of Revelation features ‘Pergamum’ as the place ‘where Satan’s throne is’ (Rev. 2:12-13) located, indicating not only the origin of the little horn, but also the succession of empires that lead to his proverbial doorstep. In this respect, the small horn, the kingdom of Lysimachus, becomes a key piece of the puzzle that decidedly affirms the link that leads to the Antichrist (Dan. 8:9-12). That is to say, the Lysimachaean province gave rise to the Byzantine and Turkish empires, and in the process of usurping the latter, the modern Russian Empire was born.
Ezekiel, a dominant force in Jewish apocalyptic literature, prophesies that ‘in the latter years’ a mysterious ‘prince of Rosh’ and ‘Meshech’ will come ‘from the remote parts of the north,’ from ‘the land of Magog,’ to invade Israel, ‘whose inhabitants have been gathered from many nations’ (Ezek. 38:2, 8). It is customary for scholars to identify the abovementioned locations with modern day Russia, which will be in league with many nations during its latter-day military campaigns. Historical investigations reveal that the term ‘Rosh’ is derived from the tribe of the ‘Rus’ who migrated from Scandinavia and founded Russia (Kievan Rus) roughly around the 10th century of the Common Era. By the same token, the term ‘Meshech’ originates with the clan whom the Greeks called ‘moshoi,’ and whence the name Moscow is traced.
The Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, translates the term ‘Rosh’ (Ezek. 38:2) with the Greek word ρως, which stands for Ρωσία (the Greek word for Russia). The earlier Ezekiel quotation referred to ‘the land of Magog.’ In ancient times, it comprised the lands where the Scythians once lived, and thus represents contemporary Russia. In his sobering book, the biblical scholar Arnold Fruchtenbaum provides a supplementary elaboration of Ezekiel 38:
‘The identification of Magog, Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal is to be determined from the fact that these tribes of the ancient world occupied the areas of modern day Russia. Magog, Meshech and Tubal were between the Black and Caspian Seas which today is southern Russia. The tribes of Meshech and Tubal later gave names to cities that today bear the names of Moscow, the capital, and Tobolsk, a major city in the Urals in Siberia. Rosh was in what is now northern Russia. The name Rosh is the basis for the modern name Russia. These names, then, cover the modern territories of northern and southern Russia in Europe and Siberia to the east in Asia’ (Footsteps of the Messiah 70).
In addition, Ivan the Great adopted the official emblem of the Byzantine Monarchy: the double-headed eagle. He then went on to marry Sophia Paleologue, the niece of the final Byzantine ruler Constantine XI. In the aftermath of the Ottoman Turks’ conquest of the Eastern Roman Empire and in an effort to salvage the last vestiges of Christianity, Ivan designated Moscow as the Third Rome in 1497 A.D. In effect, Moscow became the offspring of the Roman Empire; heirs to the legacy. Russia, then, becomes the link of the little horn (Antichrist) to the Roman Empire (cf. Daniel 7:7-8 f.).
The celebrated seer Nostradamus confirms this conclusion and gives us an insightful clue in this regard:
‘The great Empire of the Antichrist will begin where once was Attila’s empire and the new Xerxes will descend with great and countless numbers’ (The Prophecies, Epistle to Henry II).
Maps that show the extent of Attila’s empire reveal that it comprised areas of the former Soviet Union and modern-day Russia. Moreover, Nostradamus calls the Antichrist the new Xerxes. The differences between Russia and Persia (modern-day Iran) are worlds apart! Nevertheless, Nostradamus pierces through the opaque veil of prophecy to glimpse an intimate alliance built for conquest: ‘Arabs will be allied with the Poles’ (The Prophecies, Century 5, Quatrain 73). The term Poles refers to those who dwell in ‘the remote parts of the north’ (Ezek. 38:6, 15). Here, following, is a prophecy that might lend support to the idea that a military buildup in Asia could ignite the end of the world:
‘When those of the arctic pole are united together, Great terror and fear in the East’ (The Prophecies, Century 6, Quatrain 21).
Who Are the Twenty-Four Elders of Revelation Chapter 4?
By Author Eli Kittim
“Around the throne were twenty-four thrones; and upon the thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white garments, and golden crowns on their heads.” —Revelation 4:4
The book of Revelation does not disclose the identity of the twenty-four elders. However, based on the descriptions given, and the relationship of this passage to other parts of the Bible, we can make certain valid inferences. The illustrations depicting them as sitting on thrones signify that they are reigning with Christ. John MacArthur, a noted theologian and author, writes:
“Nowhere in Scripture do angels sit on thrones, nor are they pictured ruling or reigning. Their role is to serve as ‘ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation’ (Heb. 1:14; cf. Mat. 18:10).”—John MacArthur, Revelation 1-11: The MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999).
Moreover, The Greek word for “elders” is “Presviterous,” from where we get the English word “Presbyters,” meaning elders or ministers of the Church. Interestingly enough, the same word used in Revelation 4:4 for elder is also used in connection with the visible church on earth (otherwise known as the “body of Christ”) in 1 Peter 5:1. In this regard, Paul writes, “Do you not know that the saints will judge the world?” (1 Cor. 6:2). According to the gospel of Luke, it is human beings that will rule and reign with Christ (22:30).
Furthermore, the twenty-four elders are clothed in white raiment. Their white garments would also be more consistent with heavenly saints who were once men—and who were saved and cleansed by the blood of the Lamb—than with angelic beings. The color white always signifies the holiness and purity of God (and that’s why I also maintain that the white horse of Revelation 6:2 can only signify Christ; more on that later). For instance, Revelation 6:11 describes the tribulation saints in this way:
“And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, would be completed also.”
Similarly, Revelation 3:18 says, “I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness.”
It is of immense importance to understand the types of crowns these twenty-four elders wear because this theme will ultimately help us uncover important clues about the mysterious identity of the white horse in Revelation 6:2 (the so-called first horseman of the Apocalypse)! In the original Greek text, the twenty-four elders are said to wear golden “stephanous” crowns (Rev. 4:10). A “stephanos” crown is associated with the glory of God, and “stephanos” is the Greek word used for crown in 1 Thessalonians:
“For what is our hope, our joy, or the crown in which we will glory in the presence of our Lord Jesus when he comes?” (1 Thess. 2:19).
In fact, a “stephanos” crown is explicitly defined as representing “Righteousness,” since that is the Greek word used for crown in 2 Timothy 4:8:
“Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.”
In 1 Peter 5:4 the Greek word for crown—namely, “stephanon,”—represents “the unfading crown of glory”: “And when the Chief Shepherd appears [Christ], you will receive the unfading crown of glory.” What is more, the Greek term “stephanos” is used to represent a kingly or royal crown in connection with Christ’s passion: “And they clothed him [Christ] with purple, and platted a crown [“stephanon”] of thorns, and put it about his head” (Mark 15:17; cf. John 19:2). So, Christ is given a royal “stephanon” crown (which he also wears in Rev. 14:14) that will become a metaphor for his passion, death, and resurrection! The term “stephanos” means crown or crowned in Greek. More precisely, it is “a victor’s wreath.” In other words, the word “stephanos” signifies a victor’s crown, and is intimately associated with the Greek word “niki” (meaning “victory”), which is the Greek word used in connection with Christ’s victory over death in 1 Corinthians 15:54, 57.
The reason this study is so important is that the same Greek terms used in the New Testament to define the crowns of God’s righteousness, God’s glory, and Christ’s victory over death are the exact same terms used in describing the first horseman of the Apocalypse, the white horse! By comparison, the white horseman of Revelation 6:2 also wears a “stephanos” crown: “he was given a victor’s crown and he went away, to go from victory to victory.” In Greek it reads:
“Kai edothi auto stephanos kai exilthen nikon kai ina nikisi.”
The words “nikon” and “nikisi” are action verbs of the noun “niki,” which means “victory.” Some Bible versions mistranslate the words “nikon” and “nikisi” with the words “conquering and to conquer.”
However, the Greek word for conquest is “κατάκτηση,” and it means “the subjugation and assumption of control of a place or people by use of military force,” whereas “victory” means defeating an opponent, or winning a game, race, or other competition. Though they may appear to be similar, the words conquest and victory have completely different meanings. By transcribing the Greek “Nikon” and “Nikisi” (which mean “Victory”) with the English words “Conquering” and “Conquer” (which mean to subjugate people via military force) some scholars seem to insinuate a malevolent figure because they are essentially mistranslating the Victorious Christ into the Conquering Antichrist (which explains why many scholars identify this figure as the Antichrist).
However, there are also accurate translations of Revelation 6:2 that portray this white horseman as victorious rather than one who is bent on conquest. For instance, The New Jerusalem Bible reads: “and he went away, to go from victory to victory” (suggesting from glory to glory; cf. Common English Bible). The New International Reader’s Version says “He rode out like a hero on his way to victory.” Similarly, the Jubilee Bible 2000 says that “he went forth victorious, that he might overcome,” terms that are intimately associated with the righteous, and especially with Jesus Christ. Similarly, Irenaeus, an early church father, held that the first rider of the white horse who is depicted as a peacemaker represents Jesus Christ. And, let us not forget that Revelation 19:11 uses the same exact terminology and symbolic imagery as in Rev. 6:2 to tell us that this is in fact Jesus.
Let us now return to the twenty-four elders. The problem of identifying these figures has to do with how the book of Revelation is composed, which is to say, whether the events it alludes to are written in chronological order or not. There is ample evidence that the end time events are mentioned in detail chronologically, reaching a crescendo towards the end of the book, but there are also overlapping themes that serve the purpose of giving the reader the big picture, as it were, and this seems to be a source of great confusion. Some commentators claim that the twenty-four elders cannot represent the raptured church because they are mentioned prior to the great tribulation, and also because they are depicted as anticipating these coming events. This is partly true. Apparently, the twenty-four elders are mentioned chronologically before the chapters that allude to the rapture, and the death and ascension of Christ (Ch. 5), and prior to Ch. 6 that references the four horsemen of the Apocalypse.
However, Chapters 2 and 3 give us the overall picture (big picture) concerning the church’s tribulation, and beginning with chapter 6 we get more specific details from start to finish. The same holds true for the Antichrist in Revelation 19 and 20. The Satanic figure that is loosed in Revelation chapter 20 is the same Antichrist that died in the previous chapter; but, here, the story is described in more detail. So, although there appears to be a chronological order of events in the book of Revelation, there are also overlapping themes that are played out. Thus, we have the big picture, on the one hand, and details on the other. So then, since Chapters 2 and 3 reference the great tribulation (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 the twenty-four elders represent the tribulation saints (cf. Luke 22:30). In fact, Jesus says emphatically:
“He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne” —Rev. 3:21
Elsewhere, John the Revelator has a vision:
“Then I saw thrones, and sitting on them were those to whom authority to act as judges and to pass sentence was entrusted” (Rev. 20:4).
In the gospels, Jesus said the apostles would judge the twelve tribes “in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory” (Mat. 19:28). Another clue comes from an “elder” who explains to John the identity of those coming out of the Great Tribulation (Rev. 7:13-14). Therefore, these elders seemingly represent the overcomers of Revelation 2 and 3.
In many ways, Revelation 4 is a throwback to Daniel 7. According to his vision of the end times, Daniel reports that “thrones were set up,” and that “the Ancient of Days took His seat” (Dan. 7:9) in order to pass judgment “in favor of the saints” when “the time came for the saints to possess the kingdom” (Dan. 7:22). The (tribulation) saints will be given into the hands of the beast (Antichrist) for “a time and times and half a time” (Dan. 7:25), but the court will convene and remove “his dominion … forever” (Dan. 7:26).
Why Are There Twenty-Four Elders in Revelation Chapter 4?
The number 24 per se may contain a secret code and perhaps allude to a cryptic date or season when the Great Tribulation will commence, but anything more than that is pure conjecture. Biblically speaking, the figure 24 may have been taken from 1 Chr. 24:3-6, in which David divided the Tribe of Levi into 24 courses (twenty-four courses of Levitical priests rotating to minister in the Tabernacle). Since the tribulation saints represent a priestly kingdom, it would mean that they are probably represented by the twenty-four elders. This last point offers yet another clue to the fact that the twenty-four elders represent men and not angels.
Another view holds that the number of the elders represent the twelve tribes of Israel—as written on the twelve gates of the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:12)—and “the twelve apostles of the Lamb”—as written on the twelve foundations of the New City (Rev. 21:14). Since we’re discussing tribulation saints, it seems like a proleptic interpretation to suggest that twelve of the elders represent Old Testament saints, and the other twelve New Testament saints. A more realistic interpretation is to ascribe these values to Jews and Gentiles alike. Thus, twelve of the elders could represent tribulation saints from the 12 tribes of Israel (believers in Christ), and the other twelve the remainder of the tribulation saints. In other words, the twenty-four elders may be composed of all the tribulation saints, which would include both “Israel” and the “church.” Therefore, the twenty-four elders of Revelation Chapter 4 seemingly represent a remnant of both Jews and Gentiles (the redeemed tribulation saints) who meet in council before the throne of God in preparation for the coming judgment of the world!
Realized Eschatology versus Future Eschatology
By Author Eli of Kittim
Realized eschatology is a term in Christian theology used to describe the belief that the end times (or latter days) have already happened during the ministry of Jesus. According to this position, all end-time events have already been “realized” (i.e., fulfilled ), including the resurrection of the dead, and the second coming of Jesus.
This view is the culmination of poor methodological considerations, misapplication of proper exegetical methods (i.e. literary context /detailed exegesis), and a confusion of terms and context. The under-mentioned examples typify this confusion:
Example A) “Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour” (1 John 2:18).
Example B) “In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son…” (Hebrews 1:1-2).
Here, without a proper understanding of context, we are led to believe that John is referring to the “last days” as occurring in or around the 1st century CE. These types of verses have misled many to follow Preterism, a doctrine which holds that biblical prophecies represent incidents that have already been fulfilled at the close of the first century. Unfortunately, the same type of misappropriation of scripture has given birth to “realized eschatology.”
Notice that in Example A, John states that “it is the last hour.” The context implies that there are two possibilities within which this phrase can make scriptural sense. Either John is literally referring to the 1st century as being the last or final hour of mankind (which would include the coming of the Antichrist, since John mentions him), or the overall context of this and other texts is, strictly speaking, an eschatological one in which all these events take place in the future, and not during John’s lifetime.
As I have shown in earlier works, scriptural tenses that are set in the past, present and future do not necessarily correspond to past, present or future history respectively. What is more, logic tells us that “the final point of time” represents the end of the world. Yet there are future events that are clearly described in the past tense. For example, “He [Christ] … was revealed at the final point of time” (1 Pet. 1:20, NJB, emphasis added). In a passage that deals exclusively with the great tribulation of the end times, we find another future event that is described in the past tense; it reads: “From the tribe of Judah, twelve thousand had been sealed” (Rev. 7:5, emphasis added). Isaiah 53 is a perfect example because we can demonstrate that Isaiah was composing a prophecy, at the time he penned this text, which was saturated with past tenses.
In Example B, we face a similar dilemma. The author of Hebrews combines the idiomatic phrase “last days” with the present tense “these,” which implies several things:
1) The phrase “in these last days” gives us the impression that the “last days” may have started or occurred during the author’s lifetime.
2) It implies that Jesus not only appeared, but he appeared specifically “in these last days.”
3) The phrase “in these last days” might simply be an allusion to the days just mentioned. It’s like saying, concerning the days in question, or with regard to the days that we are describing, rather than a reference to the present time.
So, at first sight, there seems to be some basis (biblical support) for a realized-eschatology interpretation. However, upon further scrutiny, we find many outright logical fallacies (a logical fallacy is, roughly speaking, an error of reasoning) that cannot possibly be true. For example, how can the last days of the world occur in the 1st century CE if nineteen plus centuries have since come and gone? It would be a contradiction in terms!
Moreover, these positions flatly contradict not only the broad scriptural context of the term “last days” and its cognates (i.e., “the time of the end” Dan. 12:4), but also certain definite future events, such as the “great tribulation” (Matt. 24:21; cf. Daniel 12:1-2) and the coming of the “lawless one” (2 Thess. 2:3-4; cf. Rev. 13), which clearly have yet to occur. Therefore, the so-called “realized” eschatological interpretations involve logical fallacies, blatant misappropriation of future events, methodological errors, misapplication of proper exegetical methods, and misinterpretation of tenses with regard to proper eschatological context.
Contradiction notwithstanding, many have endorsed these false teachings. Daniel 12 and Matthew 24 are two examples that demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that “the time of the end” is radically different than what these interpreters make it out to be, namely, a first-century occurrence. These views (regarding the last days as eschatological events that occurred in the 1st century CE) display, for lack of a better term, an eccentric doctrine. They are patently ridiculous!
The same holds true in the gospel of John. Jesus says:
“Truly, Truly, I say to you, the hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the son of God; and those who hear will live” (John 5:25).
The phrase “and now is” implies that this particular time period is happening now. However, notice a clear distinction between the hour that is here and “the hour that is coming” when the dead will rise again (in the under mentioned verse). These two time periods are clearly not identical because the events to which the latter prophecy points have yet to happen:
“Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in their graves will hear his voice, and come forth, … those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation” (John 5:28-29).
The context of John 5:25 ff. is ultimately based on future history (i.e., history written in advance), but the author reinterprets it through a theology. On what basis am I making these claims? Since I concluded that “realized eschatology” is seemingly erroneous, we now have to consider its opposite, namely, the view that the last days are really referring to literal future events, and not to the time of Antiquity.
One illustration of this view is in the context in which Jesus’ earthly appearance is contemporaneous with Judgment Day. Jesus uses the present tense “now” to indicate that his manifestation on earth is for the purpose of Judgment, and the overthrow of Satan:
“Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out” (John 12:31).
Jesus’ use of the word “now,” in connection with the removal of Satan and Judgment, would indicate that his earthly appearance (as described in the gospels) is a reference to a future event, one that could not have possibly happened in Antiquity.
Another example shows that Christ’s generation (as described in the gospels) is the last generation on earth. During his eschatological discourse, Christ uses the words “this generation” to refer to his audience. He says,
“Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened” (Matthew 24:34).
In the following verse, Jesus uses the words “some who are standing here” to signify his audience. Interestingly enough, Jesus implies that his audience (or generation) is the one related to the end times. The idea that Jesus’ audience (as described in the gospels) represents the last generation on earth that would see Jesus coming in the clouds is furnished in the gospel of Matthew:
“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" (Matthew 16:28).
The notion that some of Jesus’ followers would not die before they saw him coming in glory cannot be attributed to the 1st century CE. It can only be ascribed to a future event, since Jesus has yet to come in his glory! These verses would strongly suggest that the account of Jesus (as described in the gospels) is really in the context of a future event rather than one that occurred in the 1st century of the Common Era.
In conclusion, scriptural tenses that are set in the past, present and future do not necessarily correspond to past, present or future history respectively. What is more, both scripture and logic tell us that “the final point of time” represents the end of the world, and therefore this “end time” period could not have possibly happened during the 1st century CE.
There are also gospel materials, which indicate not only that Jesus’ audience represents the last generation on earth, but that Jesus’ manifestation on earth signifies the immediate removal of Satan and the commencement of Judgment. Add to this material the original Greek texts—with multiple references to Jesus appearing “once at the consummation of the ages” (Heb. 9:26; cf. Luke 17:30; Heb. 1:1-2; 1 Pet. 1:5, 20; Rev. 12:1-5) or at the end of human history—and the eschatological context of the “last days” finally comes into view as a future reference!
The Greek New Testament Prophesies the Birth, Death, and Resurrection of Christ in the Last Days
By Author Eli Kittim
Theological Narrative versus Expository Writing in the New Testament
In order to procure accurate information from our interpretative methods, we must first differentiate between “theological narrative” and “expository writing” in the New Testament, which represent two distinct genres.
In narrative writing, the author’s main purpose is to tell a story using characters and dialogue. In the New Testament, the gospels employ this literary technique in an attempt to portray Jesus as the Messianic fulfillment of the Jewish prophecies. That is to say, the gospel “story” now becomes the fulfillment of the earlier Messianic promises of Jewish scripture. That is why the genealogy of Christ is inserted in the gospel texts: to ensure that this connection is established. But in order to do so, the gospel writers actually borrow a great deal from Hebrew scripture and tell a story, using characters and dialogue, which is wrapped in theological language. That’s why we do not encounter these “theological” themes in any of the epistles. For instance, the epistolary authors never once mention the nativity of Jesus, the virgin birth, the flight into Egypt, the star of Bethlehem, the magi, or even the city of Bethlehem as Jesus’ birth place. Therefore, we must come to realize that the gospels are “theological narratives,” not necessarily historical accounts, especially since we now know that the gospel authors were not eyewitnesses of these events, given that they composed their texts sometime around 70-100 CE. And like any good story, they are filled with drama, conflict, and intrigue. The gospel narratives are “characteristic” of situations and events that take place at some unspecified time, as reflected in the idea that Jesus died to redeem us. The timeline of the gospel events is thus in a transhistorical context, or within the context of the entire human history, not just past history.
On the other hand, the epistles (or “letters” of the New Testament) use “expository writing.” Expository writing’s main purpose is to explain. It is a subject-oriented writing style, in which authors focus on a given topic or subject without narrative embellishment or story-telling. The epistolary authors, for example, furnish the reader with relevant spiritual facts and principles but do not include dialogue or characters. So then, if we are to understand the mystery of Christ’s revelation, we must first differentiate between “theological narrative” and “expository writing” in the New Testament. Why? Because the authors of the epistles seemingly contradict the gospels since they allude to Christ’s revelation as occurring “once at the consummation of the ages” (Heb.9:26), or in the “last days” (Heb. 1:1-2), so that the correct timing of Christ’s coming suddenly becomes an open question! But if we realize that there is a clear line of demarcation between “theological narrative” (gospels) and “expository writing” (epistles), the hermeneutical problem ceases to exist and the text resolves itself into a meaningful and “inspired” manuscript.
The second thing that we must do is to challenge the kind of historical interpretation that affords little attention to the issue of translation. The New Testament was originally written in Greek (scholarly consensus). In order to engage in deep biblical exegesis, we must first understand what the original New Testament epistles (“expository writing”) have to say about the timing of Christ’s incarnation. So, let’s dive headfirst into the discussion to uncover the facts and clear the air. I will present the Greek text so that you can go over it and form your own conclusions.
The Greek Text: In the Fullness of Time Jesus is Born
In the Greek text, Romans 5:6 makes it quite clear that Christ died (ἀπέθανεν) at some unspecified time of human history by using the phrase κατὰ καιρὸν, which means “according to the right time,” or at the appropriate time, and does not necessarily refer to past history. http://biblehub.com/interlinear/romans/5-6.htm
Similarly, Galatians 4:4 tells us that when the “right time” or, more specifically, “the fullness of the time” had come, Christ was incarnated, “having been born of a woman” (γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός). In Greek, “the fullness of the time” is τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου. The term πλήρωμα means fulness or completion while the term χρόνου refers to chronological time. It literally means when time reached its fullness or completion. http://biblehub.com/interlinear/galatians/4-4.htm
The consistency of biblical terms allows scripture to define itself. Rather than imposing our own speculations on the text (eisegesis), we should allow the Bible to interpret its own terms (exegesis) so that our interpretations and conclusions are accurate and in line with it.
Accordingly, Ephesians 1:10 defines the idiomatic phrase “the fullness of the times” (τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν, which we encountered in Galatians 4:4) as the summing up (ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι) of all things in Christ (τὰ πάντα ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ), the things in the heavens (τὰ ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς) and the things upon the earth (καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς). In short, the designation “the fullness of the time” refers to the period of time when all things, both in the heavens and upon the earth, will conclude in Christ. In other words, τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου refers to the completion of time, which is another way of saying “the end of the world.” Yet, surprisingly, according to Galatians 4:4, this is also the time of Christ’s incarnation! http://biblehub.com/interlinear/ephesians/1-10.htm
Using the “expository writing” of the epistles rather than the “theological narrative” of the gospels as our basis for procuring accurate information from our interpretative methods, we find overwhelming evidence pertaining to the incarnation of Christ at the end of days. But there is more.
Christ’s Resurrection in the Last Days
The Septuagint, an early Greek translation of Hebrew Scripture, was heavily relied upon by the New Testament authors when quoting from the “Old Testament” (which in Hebrew is called “Tanakh”). That’s why it’s important to study the Septuagint. For instance, one of Isaiah’s prophecies says that “In the last days the mountain [Messiah] of God will appear and will be exalted above the hills [human powers], and all gentile nations will flow to it” (2:2). The Septuagint translates it as follows:
Εν ταις εσχαταις ημεραις εμφανες το ορος κυριου και ο οικος του θεου επ’ ακρων των ορεων και υψωθησεται υπερανω των βουνων και ηξουσιν επ’ αυτο παντα τα εθνη (Isaiah 2:2).
Once again, notice the allusion to the Messiah becoming apparent (εμφανες) in the last days (Εν ταις εσχαταις ημεραις). The word εσχαταις means last (from where we get the term “eschatology”), while the term ημεραις refers to chronological days (⬇️ see Isaiah 2.2 LXX ⬇️):
But something far more interesting is mentioned by Isaiah in chapter 2. If we drop down to Isaiah 2:19, we get a picture of the great tribulation or the great ordeal of the end times:
“Men will go into caves of the rocks, and into holes of the ground before the terror of the LORD, and before the splendor of His majesty, when He arises to make the earth tremble.”
Here’s the translation from the Septuagint:
Εισενεγκαντες εις τα σπηλαια και εις τας σχισμας των πετρων και εις τας τρωγλας της γης απο προσωπου του φοβου κυριου και απο της δοξης της ισχυος αυτου οταν αναστη θραυσαι την γην.
(⬇️ see Isaiah 2.19 LXX ⬇️):
The game changer in this verse is the Hebrew term “qum,” which is rendered in English as “arises.” Interestingly enough, the Septuagint translates it as αναστη (from the Greek ανάσταση, which in this context means resurrection). Compare the Greek terms *ἀναστῇ* (Isa. 2.19 LXX), *ἀναστήσεται* (Th Dan. 12.1 LXX), and *ἀναστήσονται* (Dan. 12.2 LXX), all of which refer to an eschatological *resurrection* from the dead! This gives us a completely different interpretation concerning the timing of the Lord’s (Messiah’s) resurrection, namely, as taking place in the end times. What’s more, Isaiah doesn’t just say that the Lord arises and then quietly goes away, but that he “arises to make the earth tremble”:
“Men will go into caves of the rocks, and into holes of the ground before the terror of the LORD, and before the splendor of His majesty, when He arises [from the dead] to make the earth tremble.”
There is support for this conclusion in Romans 15:12, a verse which is basically quoting from Isaiah. It reads:
“And again Isaiah says, ‘There shall come the root of Jesse, and he who arises to rule over the Gentiles, in him shall the Gentiles hope.”
The key phrase, here, is “he who arises to rule over the Gentiles.” Firstly, notice that he (Christ) who arises does so with the express purpose of imposing his will upon the Gentiles. That is to say, he arises and does not wait for a two-thousand-year interim to transpire; rather, he arises to rule as king over the nations. And since we know that Isaiah is referring to the last days, as mentioned earlier, it is appropriate to note how the Greek New Testament interprets Isaiah’s prophecy. Secondly, the original Greek New Testament uses the word ἀνιστάμενος (similar to the αναστη of the Septuagint) to define what Isaiah means by the word “arises.” The term ἀνιστάμενος is derived from the Greek ανάσταση, which means resurrection:
Καὶ πάλιν, Ἠσαΐας λέγει, Ἔσται ἡ ῥίζα τοῦ Ἰεσσαί, καὶ ὁ ἀνιστάμενος ἄρχειν ἐθνῶν. http://biblehub.com/interlinear/romans/15-12.htm
Thus, it’s perfectly clear that Isaiah’s use of the term “arises”—translated by both the Septuagint and Paul as “resurrection”—refers to the Messiah’s resurrection at the end of days.
Moreover, 1 Corinthians 15:23 tells of the sequence of resurrection events in the last days without any mention of a more-than-two-thousand-year gap between them; that is, between the resurrection of Christ and that of the rest of the dead. We know this because immediately following the resurrection sequence, the text concludes:
“Then comes the end, when He [Christ] delivers up the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power” (1 Corinthians 15:24).
But what do the previous verses say about the sequence of resurrection events just before the end comes? 1 Corinthians 15:20 says—in a timeless context—that “Christ is raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.” Here’s the verse in Greek:
Νυνὶ δὲ Χριστὸς ἐγήγερται ἐκ νεκρῶν, ἀπαρχὴ τῶν κεκοιμημένων. http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/15-20.htm
But now the text becomes very specific in explaining the sequence of resurrection events that take place just prior to Christ’s kingly rule over “all authority and power” at the end of days. 1 Corinthians 15:23 tells us that the first-fruit [to be raised from the dead] is Christ; next, those who belong to Christ are resurrected, in his presence; “then comes the end” (1 Corinthians 15:24):
Ἀπαρχὴ Χριστός, ἔπειτα οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ (1 Corinthians 15:23). http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/15-23.htm
Jesus Dies for the Remission of Sins at the End of Days
As odd as this may sound, the letter to the Hebrews states:
“God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son” (Hebrews 1:1-2).
In the original Greek text, it is very clear that God speaks to mankind in the last days through his son, Jesus:
Ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων, ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν Υἱῷ (Hebrews 1:2) http://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/1-2.htm
The phrase Ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν literally means in the last days, or during the last age when time will reach its fullness or completion. The phrase ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν Υἱῷ means that God spoke to us by or in his Son. In the context of prophecy, the tense ἐλάλησεν (spoke) should be understood in a timeless context, or within the context of the entire human history, not just past history, and especially so because these words are said to be spoken in the last days.
But there is a verse that stands out among the others as the one that unequivocally and categorically points to Christ’s sacrifice and death in the end of the world. The first part of Hebrews 9:26 attempts to explain that Christ does not die over and over again, nor offer himself as a sacrifice repeatedly. The second part of the verse instills the epiphany, namely, that Christ is offered once and for all, “to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself,” and that this event takes place not at the beginning of the ages, but rather at the “consummation of the ages” (NASV), or “in the end of the world” (KJV):
Νυνὶ δὲ ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων, εἰς ἀθέτησιν τῆς ἁμαρτίας, διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ πεφανέρωται (Hebrews 9:26). http://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/9-26.htm
Translation:
“Now, however, once and for all [ἅπαξ] in the end [or completion] of the ages, [Jesus] is revealed [πεφανέρωται] to put away sin, by the sacrifice of himself.”
There is a key phrase within this sentence that undoubtedly places the timeline of this event “in the end of the world,” as opposed to any other time period, because it comprises the words ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων. The term ἐπὶ means “in,” while the word συντελείᾳ refers to “completion” or “end.” The final word of the phrase is αἰώνων, which refers to chronological time and means “ages” or centuries in the modern sense. Simply put, the phrase ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων means at the end or at the completion of all the ages. This is another way of saying at the final point of time, in the last days, in the end times, or “in the end of the world.” The exact same phrase (sinteleias tou aionos) is used in Matthew 24:3 to refer to “the end of the age" (or the end of the world), when Jesus is asked, “What will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” http://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/24-3.htm So, what does Hebrews 9:26 imply? That Jesus is revealed once and for all at the completion of all the ages to die for our sins!
1 Peter 1:5 says, “For [the] salvation is ready to be revealed in the last time.” The Greek text reads:
Εἰς σωτηρίαν ἑτοίμην ἀποκαλυφθῆναι ἐν καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ (1 Peter 1:5) http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_peter/1-5.htm
Once more, we read of Christ’s salvation as being revealed (ἀποκαλυφθῆναι) “in the last time” (ἐν καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ), otherwise known as the end-time (or the last days).
1 Peter 1:20 drives home the same biblical notion that Jesus is revealed for the first time in human history in the end times. First, it makes a point of contrast between the foreknowledge of Christ before the foundation of the world and his actual manifestation or revelation in the end times:
Προεγνωσμένου μὲν πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, φανερωθέντος δὲ ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν χρόνων (1 Peter 1:20). http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_peter/1-20.htm
The term φανερωθέντος means “is manifested,” or “made manifest,” or “shall appear.” http://biblehub.com/greek/phanero_thentos_5319.htm
The phrase ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν χρόνων is a reference to the last days or end times because it literally means “in the last times.” Also, note that the word “times” (χρόνων) is referring to chronological times, ages, or years in the modern sense. http://biblehub.com/greek/chrono_n_5550.htm
However, the most profound statement of all is found in Revelation 19:10. There, we are told in no uncertain terms that the witnesses of Christ, indeed the entire New Testament testimony pertaining to the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus is based on “prophecy” given by the “pneuma” or spirit of God. And then we begin to comprehend how the authors of the New Testament witnessed Jesus. In retrospect, the New Testament authors are bearing witness to Jesus Christ in the exact same manner as Paul. Everyone would agree that Paul never saw Jesus in the flesh. Yet, due to his personal revelations, Paul knew more about Jesus than anyone else! Revelation 19:10 says:
Ἡ γὰρ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ ἐστιν τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς προφητείας.
English translation:
“Indeed, the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” http://biblehub.com/interlinear/revelation/19-10.htm
In other words, the biblical testimony of Jesus is a matter of prophecy, not history!
(Click on the link below to read the post)
https://www.instagram.com/p/BWc46fQAogn/
TRANSLATION AND EXEGESIS OF BIBLICAL GREEK
Eli Kittim
Ἡ μετάφρασις τῶν Ἑβδομήκοντα (Septuagint)
In the Septuagint’s version of Isa. 33.10, YHWH uses the Greek word *ἀναστήσομαι* (a derivative of the term *ἀνίστημι*, which means to ‘make to stand up’ or to ‘raise up’, but often meaning to ‘rise from the dead’) as a reference to His personal *resurrection*, which is then followed by His ascension (ὑψωθήσομαι) and exaltation (δοξασθήσομαι)
νῦν ἀναστήσομαι λέγει κύριος νῦν δοξασθήσομαι νῦν ὑψωθήσομαι (Isa. 33.10 LXX)
Translation
Now I will arise, says the Lord, now I will lift myself up; now I will be exalted (NRSV)
Compare the Greek terms *ἀναστῇ* (Isa. 2.19 LXX), *ἀναστήσεται* (Dan. 12.1 LXX), and *ἀναστήσονται* (Dan. 12.2 LXX), all of which refer to an eschatological *resurrection* from the dead!
Who is the First Horseman of the Apocalypse?
By Author Eli of Kittim
There are No Counterfeit Signs in the Bible
There are no counterfeit signs found anywhere in the Bible. So why should this be a precedent? That is, why would a white horse (a symbol of purity and righteousness) represent something as black as hell? Is God deceiving us? Is it possible that white is really black or that good is really evil in the Bible? Is the Bible inconsistent in its use of imagery and symbolism when referring to good or evil? The mainstream view—which holds that the first horseman of the Apocalypse represents the Antichrist—would have to reservedly admit that it’s possible, only because that is the logical conclusion of a counterfeit sign found in Scripture. I disagree. The Bible says “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness” (Isa. 5.20)! As a matter of fact, the white symbol of purity is consistent throughout the Bible. There are no counterfeit signs in Scripture. That’s why all references to God, Christ, or to the saints are always couched in white imagery. Here are some examples (italics mine):
Ecc. 9.8 - “Always be clothed in white, and always anoint your head with oil.”
Isa. 1.18 - “ ‘Come now, let us settle the matter,’ says the LORD. ‘Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow.’ “
Dan. 7.9 - “As I looked, thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool.”
Mt. 17.2 - “There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light.”
Mt. 28.3 - “His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow.”
John 20.12 - “saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus' body had been.”
Acts 1.10 - “They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them.”
Rev. 1.14 - “The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow.”
Rev. 2.17 - “Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who is victorious, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give that person a white stone with a new name written on it.”
Rev. 3.4 - “Yet you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes. They will walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy.”
Rev. 3.5 - “The one who is victorious will, like them, be dressed in white.”
Rev. 3.18 - “I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear.”
Rev. 4.4 - “Surrounding the throne were twenty-four other thrones, and seated on them were twenty-four elders. They were dressed in white and had crowns of gold on their heads.”
Rev. 6.2 - “I looked, and there before me was a white horse!”
Rev. 6.11 - “Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer.”
Rev. 7.9 - “After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.”
Rev. 7.13 - “Then one of the elders asked me, ‘These in white robes—who are they, and where did they come from?’ “
Rev. 7.14 - “I answered, ‘Sir, you know.’ And he said, ‘These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.’ “
Rev. 14.14 - “I looked, and there before me was a white cloud, and seated on the cloud was one like a son of man.”
Rev. 19.11 - “I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True.”
Rev. 19.14 - “The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean.”
This is Irrefutable evidence, especially since Rev 19.11 explicitly says that the white horse represents Christ, and Rev. 19.14 claims that “the armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses”. The Bible is seemingly designating what is considered to be good or pure through the nomenclature of symbols. Thus, from the perspective of Biblical symbolism, the white horseman cannot possibly represent the Antichrist.
Why is the White Horse of Rev. 6.2 the Only One Announced “in a voice like thunder”?
"I watched as the Lamb opened the first of the seven seals. Then I heard one of the four living creatures say in a voice like thunder, 'Come!'" (Rev. 6.1).
Notice that none of the other horses of the Apocalypse are announced “in a voice like thunder.” In 2 Samuel 22.14, we read: “The Lord thundered from heaven, and the Most High uttered His voice.” Rev. 4.5 describes what appear to be “peals of thunder” proceeding from the throne of God. In other words, the first horseman of Revelation 6.2 is the only one that seems to be announced by heaven itself, proceeding as it were out of the mouth of God.
The Diadem Versus the Stephanos Crown
In the Bible, the Diadem (Gk. diadema) represents the crown of a ruler, whereas the Stephanos is a wreath that symbolizes the crown of a champion or victor. Both Christ and Antichrist are said to wear diadems (diadema). Case in point: the so-called "Beast" (Antichrist) wears a diadema in Rev. 13.1. Similarly, in Rev. 12.3, the fiery red dragon has seven diadems (diadema) on his head to signify he is a ruler, just as Christ wears many crowns (diadema) in Rev. 19.12 because he is King of kings and Lord of lords. But Christ is also an overcomer, so he wears a stephanos crown as well! Stephanos “crowns” are typically worn by believers and victors in Christ. For example, in James 1.12, overcomers receive the stephanos crown of life. In 2 Tim. 4.8, overcomers who are victorious receive a stephanos crown of righteousness, just as in 1 Peter 5.4, God bestows on them the stephanos crown of glory. Similarly, in Rev. 2.10, victors in Christ are given a stephanos crown of life. This pattern is repeated in Rev 4.4 in which 24 elders are clothed in white robes having stephanos “crowns of gold on their heads.” In fact, the crown of thorns placed on Jesus’ head (Mt. 27.29) is also called a stephanos because of his victory over death that would follow. Moreover, those scholars who dismiss the idea that Christ wears a stephanos crown in the Bible can be directed to Rev. 14.14 wherein Christ is said to wear a golden stephanos crown. The Stephanos “crown” is therefore a symbol of victory for the believers in Christ. Accordingly, the Antichrist would not wear a stephanos crown.
What Does the Greek Word Νikao Mean in Rev. 6.2?
Καὶ εἶδον, καὶ ἰδοὺ, ἵππος λευκός, καὶ ὁ καθήμενος ἐπ’ αὐτὸν ἔχων τόξον; καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ στέφανος, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν νικῶν, καὶ ἵνα νικήσῃ (Rev. 6.2).
Translation: “Immediately I saw a white horse appear, and its rider was holding a bow; he was given a victor’s crown and he went away, to go from victory to victory” (Rev. 6.2 NJB).
The words νικῶν and νικήσῃ that are used in Rev. 6.2 to refer to the actions of the rider of the white horse are based on the Greek word νικάω (nikaó, see Strong's G3528), which means to “overcome” or to be “victorious.” For example, Rev. 2.7 uses the same Greek word nikao (overcomes) when referring to the overcomers in Christ. Similarly, Rev. 2.11 says, “He who overcomes (nikao) shall not be hurt by the second death.” Furthermore, in Rev 2.17, he who overcomes (nikao) receives God’s hidden manna. This pattern is repeated over and over again. Rev. 2.26 similarly states, “And he who overcomes (nikao), and keeps My works until the end, I will give power over the nations” (see also Rev. 3.5, 12, 21). In Rev 5.5, Christ is worthy to open the scroll precisely because he “has prevailed” (nikao). For this reason, the word nikao, which is found in Rev 6.2, can only refer to an overcomer in Christ and cannot possibly be attributed to an Antichrist figure. What’s more, when Rev. 5.5 says that “the Lion . . . has overcome so as to open the book and its seven seals,” it is metaphorically referring to Christ initiating the final events on earth.
Conclusion
There are no counterfeit signs found anywhere in the Bible. That’s why all references to God, Christ, or to the saints are always couched in white imagery. What is more, the white horse of Rev. 6.2 is the only one that is announced “in a voice like thunder,” signifying that it is sanctioned by the Most High God. We have also seen that the stephanos “crown,” which is mentioned in Rev. 6.2 in reference to the white horseman, is a consistent symbol of victory in the Bible for the believers in Christ. Biblical studies of the Greek word nikao, which is found in Rev 6.2, have produced similar results, indicating that this word can only refer to an overcomer in Christ and cannot possibly be attributed to an Antichrist figure. Moreover, there are no hints given to suggest that the white horseman is a nefarious figure. For example, Revelation 6.8—in discussing the upcoming, end times wars and famines—makes no mention of the white horse at all, but begins rather with the second horse, the Red Horse: “And they were given authority over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by wild beasts of the earth” (Rev. 6.8). Notice that the white horse is never mentioned in the aforesaid sequence. The war commences with the second horse (The Red Horse, which I believe represents the Antichrist): “And they were given authority over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword [2nd horse/red horse: ‘and a great sword was given to him’ Rev. 6.4] and with famine [3rd horse/black horse] and with pestilence [4th horse/ashen horse] and by wild beasts of the earth.” The biblical term "victory" (nikao) is intimately associated with Christ's resurrection from the dead, which ultimately results in the conquering of death itself (see 1 Cor. 15.54, 57), while the metaphor of the bow represents God's covenant with the human race (see Gen. 9.13). Further evidence that the word “toxon” (bow) in Rev. 6.2 can mean “rainbow” comes from the Septuagint (LXX), an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, which translates “rainbow” as “toxon” (bow) in Genesis 9.13! Accordingly, this brief study would strongly suggest that the white horseman is not the Antichrist, but Jesus Christ (cf. the white horseman in Rev. 19.11)! This constitutes further proof that Jesus is the first person to be revealed in the last days, who commences the sequence of end time events.
The Birth, Death, and Resurrection of Christ According to the Greek New Testament Epistles
By Author Eli Kittim
“The Birth, Death, and Resurrection of Christ According to the Greek New Testament Epistles” is a scholarly monograph written by Eli Kittim. It is a 30-page academic article based on translation and exegesis of Biblical Greek, meant to be read by scholars, showing that the internal evidence of the Greek New Testament affirms “the centrality of the future in Christ’s only visitation.” It argues “that the assumed historicity of Jesus needs to be revisited, given that his only visitation is set to occur at the end of the age.” This groundbreaking paper uncovers new information that changes everything we thought we knew about Jesus. It is a study that brings out the latest insights into this specific subject of academic research, and it was published in the Journal of Higher Criticism, volume 13, number 3.
Mark Lehman Strauss, an American biblical scholar and professor of the New Testament
Historical Jesus Vs Eschatological Jesus: On the Question of the Historicity of Jesus
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).
——-
Was Mythicism or Historicism More Dominant In the Early History and Development of the Christian Church?
By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim
——-
Preface
There are certain things in the Bible that we all take for granted today, such as the historicity of Jesus, his execution by Pontius Pilate, and the like. We think that these “facts” were written in stone and have been known since Christianity’s inception. How can anyone seriously challenge them?
——-
Christian Origins
But early Christianity was not monolithic. It was diverse. There were many different sects that held very different views both about Jesus and the interpretation of the New Testament. Orthodoxy eventually won the day but that doesn’t mean that they necessarily represented the sect that held the hermeneutically-correct and valid Bible interpretations or that they had the correct view about Jesus. Far from it. There were, in fact, diametrically opposed views that ranged from one extreme to another, from a completely human Jesus to a phantom or a ghost that never really existed. But, as we will see, there is a middle ground where mythicism and historicism meet.
——-
Gnosticism
The New Testament is a literary creation. So it’s difficult to probe its historical antecedents. What were some of the opposing views to “Orthodoxy”? One of the most vocal of these Christian sects was centred in Alexandria, Egypt: the Gnostics. They were the first advocates of the “you-don’t-need-religion, you-need-a-relationship-with-Jesus” pitch. Although there were many splinter groups, they all emphasised a personal “gnosis” (knowledge) and acquaintance with spiritual realities rather than a preoccupation with dry religious discourses and traditions. They originated in the first century C.E. and flourished until the second century, during which the Patristic Fathers denounced them as heretics. But were they? According to Bart Ehrman and Elaine Pagels, they were the genuine Christians of that early period whom the Orthodox Church tried to suppress!
——-
To be sure, their theology was influenced by Greek thought, but the focal point of their doctrine and practice was not based on rhetoric or dogma but rather on personal existential experience. And based on their own inimitable style, one can infer that they had better insights into the divine than their orthodox counterparts who did little more than debate the issues.
——-
Docetism
Then there were the Docetists, who held the “heterodox” (i.e. “at variance with orthodoxy”) doctrine that what appeared to be a historical Jesus was nothing more than an apparition or a phantom, and that his phenomenological bodily existence was not real. This is actually more in line with Scripture, which repeatedly talks of visions and apparitions in one form or another (cf. Lk 24.23–24; Gal. 1.11-12). These are the first mythicists who believed that Jesus never existed! There’s a great deal of Biblical evidence that supports this view. This early Christian view called “Docetism” (derived from the Greek term “Dokesis,” meaning “to seem”)——which held that Christ did not really exist in human form, an idea that was later picked up by Islam——attracted some of the greatest Biblical thinkers of Antiquity:
“According to Photius [a 9th century Byzantine Patriarch], Clement of Alexandria held at least a quasi-docetic belief regarding the nature of Christ, namely that the Word/Logos did not became flesh, but only ‘appeared to be in flesh,’ an interpretation which directly denied the reality of the incarnation” (Ashwin-Siejkowski, Piotr. “Clement of Alexandria on Trial: The Evidence of ‘Heresy’ from Photius’ Bibliotheca.” [Leiden: Brill, 2010], p. 95).
As would be expected, Docetism was eventually rejected as a heretical doctrine at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. But this verdict was issued in the 4th century. And there is a very good reason why mythicism had thitherto been on the upswing. In fact, despite this setback, the hermeneutical doctrine that gave rise to Docetism continued to hold sway over most of the church until the Reformation.
——-
The Monophysite Christian church
According to tradition, the Coptic Church of Egypt was founded by Mark the evangelist in the first century CE. Due to a Christological dispute, this “Monophysite” Christian church was condemned as heretical by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE. Instead of accepting the doctrine that Christ was fully human and fully divine, the Coptic church asserted that Christ had only one nature, and that nature was divine. In other words, just like the Docetists they denied the incarnation and therefore they can be technically defined as mythicists! A similar monophysite explanation of how the divine and human relate within the person of Jesus is Eutychianism. Eutychians were often classified as Phantasiasts by their opponents because they reduced Jesus’ incarnation to a phantasm or an illusion of some kind. Their Christology was along the lines of Docetism in that they, too, denied the full reality of Jesus’ humanity. Thus, we find that there were quite a number of sects that denied the historicity of Jesus during the early period of the church. Things started to change with the onset of the first ecumenical councils!
——-
The Alexandrian School
The early Christian church held to an allegorical (theological) Interpretation of the Bible, not a historical one. Philo’s essential approach to Biblical interpretation influenced the Christian School of hermeneutics, which also developed in the city of Alexandria, Egypt. One of its principal leaders was the Great Bible scholar, Clement of Alexandria (150-215 CE), who while acknowledging that the Bible contained various levels of meaning also realized that the non-literal (i.e. the allegorical/mystical) interpretations contained the ideal spiritual insights. Alexandrian hermeneutics were so popular that they eventually became the dominant force in Biblical interpretation up until the time of the Protestant Reformation. So, the allegorical/theological Biblical interpretation that gave rise to such views as Docetism was the mainstay of early Biblical scholarship. This method was obviously more inclined towards the spiritual, the metaphorical, and the metaphysical, dare I say the Gnostic!
——-
The School of Antioch
Sometime towards the end of the 3rd century CE, the School of Antioch was founded. It was the first Seminary, so to speak, founded in Syria that overemphasized the literal interpretation of the Bible and the humanity of Christ. This so-called “exegetical school” interpreted Scripture primarily according to its historical and grammatical sense. In an attempt to offset the earlier excesses of Biblical interpretation that could lead to various questionable doctrines, such as those of Docetism, the Antioch school became increasingly dogmatic and heavily involved in overemphasizing the literal interpretation of the Bible and the full humanity of Jesus. This led to the so-called “Nestorian Heresy,” namely that Jesus possessed two hypostases, one human and one divine! As a result of the condemnation of Nestorius (386 – 450 CE) at the First Council of Ephesus in 431, the Antioch school’s influence declined considerably and never really recovered. Many followers abandoned the school and it eventually moved to another location further East in Persia. Even though the Antiochian school’s tenets had lost traction, they were eventually taken up again by Martin Luther and John Calvin, who restored them to their former glory.
——-
Conclusion
So, the earlier Alexandrian School of allegorical interpretation at least allowed the possibility of mythicism to be considered as a viable option, whereas the later Antiochian school of literal interpretation——which influenced not only “the dogma of Christ” in the early ecumenical councils, but also modern Bible scholarship——eventually became the dominant school of hermeneutics that held to a rigid form of literalism and overemphasized the historicity of Jesus. In other words, the early church was not as adamant about the historicity of Jesus as the later Church! Thus, up until the end of the third century (the Ante-Nicene Era), and just prior to the onset of the first ecumenical council, the allegorical/metaphorical Jesus dominated the Biblical landscape. It was not until much later that the literal, historical interpretation of Jesus became the prevalent view that it is today!
——-
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: