Exegesis - Tumblr Posts

https://youtu.be/5-9-vWtTcU8

Scholarly Debate: Shabir Ally Vs William Lane Craig Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?

“In my view, the gospels are true, not historically, but theologically, or, as I would argue, prophetically! What we have is, the Messiah’s history written in advance in story form.“ ― Eli of Kittim, author of The Little Book of Revelation: The First Coming of Jesus at the End of Days

The Biblical "Last Days" Have Not Yet Happened

By Author Eli of Kittim

It is of the utmost importance that we compare scripture with scripture so as to understand the author's intentions rather than projecting our own subjective interpretations into the text. For example, many conservative biblical scholars insist that the term “last days” refers specifically to Jesus’ first coming some two thousand years ago. They often refer to a handful of verses that seem to support this interpretation. One such reference can be found in the book of Hebrews chapter 1 and verses 1-2:

“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.” (Emphasis added).

Here is the assumption: if Jesus’ first coming has come to pass, then the “last days” have already begun during the time of antiquity. But this is a forced interpretation that does not take into consideration the overall context of scripture, much less the rendering of the term in the original language. The actual words in the original Greek text are “ep escaton ton imeron,” where the word “escaton” means “last.” This is the same word from where we get the term “eschatology,” or the study of the final events of human history, also known as the “end times.” Now, imagine for a moment what these same scholars would say if we suddenly announced to them that we are studying eschatology, which we define as the study of antiquity. They would either laugh or think we were mad. Yet, they are quite serious when defending the exact same preposterous postulate! If we turn to the book of Isaiah, we find that the term “last days” refers to the end of the world, not to the time of antiquity. Just as in the book of Daniel—where the angel says to Daniel: “Son of man, understand that the vision pertains to the time of the end” (8:17)—Isaiah is not referring to the time of antiquity, but to the end of time. How can we tell?

Firstly, Isaiah refers to the Messiah’s future reign. Secondly, he mentions the peace that will finally endure on earth under the messianic reign. Thirdly, Isaiah clearly indicates that all wars will end and there will be a Day of Judgment! And all this is mentioned in the context of the “last days.” Isaiah writes,

"This is what Isaiah son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem: In the LAST DAYS the mountain of the LORD's temple will be established as chief among the mountains; it will be raised above the hills, and all nations will stream to it. Many peoples will come and say, 'Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths.' The law will go out from Zion, the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore." (2:1-4, emphasis added).

As you can see, the intended meaning of the term, “last days,” is the end of time. Therefore, according to Hebrews 1:1-2, Jesus speaks to mankind not during the time of antiquity, but in the end of the world! So, it should come as no surprise that this view is reiterated elsewhere in the text:

“Once IN THE END OF THE WORLD hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" (Hebrews 9:26, KJV emphasis added).

Isaiah 9:6 Weighs Whether the Messiah is God (Christian Position) or a Mere Mortal (Judaic View)

By Author Eli of Kittim

I will present three examples from Isaiah Chapter 9 and verse 6 (which illustrate the Messiah’s Divinity) to demonstrate that the Hebrew text is not referring to a person of mere human origin, as Judaism suggests.

Let me introduce the first point of my argument. In Isaiah Chapter 9 and verse 6, the Hebrew word פֶלֶא “pele” (Strong’s H6382) is derived from the term “pala’,” which means “a miracle”– a marvellous wonder; as in the phrase “signs and wonders" (cf. Exod 15:11; Psalm 77:11, 14; Psalm 78:12; Psalm 88:10). Therefore, the standard English translation of the Hebrew term פֶלֶא “pele” as merely “wonderful” (in Isaiah 9:6) is not entirely accurate or adequate because it fails to address the nuances of this expression, which suggest that this child is associated with miracles and wonders! In other words, the term “pele” (Hb. פֶלֶא “Wonder”) implies that this is no ordinary child (not your typical human being), thereby suggesting the possibility of his divine or supernatural origin.

Secondly, Isaiah 9:6 says that this “son” (Hb. בֵּ֚ן “ben”; Strong’s H1121 i.e., “messianic child”) is called “mighty” (Hb. גִּבּוֹר “gibbor” Strong’s H1368) “God” (Hb. אֵ֣ל “el” Strong’s H410). The attribution of the phrase “mighty God” to the Messiah confirms the previous allusion regarding his ability to work wonders while admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding that this appellation of Messiah implies he is indeed God incarnate!

Thirdly, in Isaiah 9:6, the Messiah is called “the Prince” (Hb. שַׂר־ “sar” Strong’s H8269), “the everlasting” (Hb. עַד “ad” derived from “adah,” which means “perpetuity,” “continually,” or “eternally” Strong’s H5703). In other words, this “son” that “is given” to us as a gift (Hb. נִתַּן־ “nit·tān” Strong’s H5414) is from everlasting! As a supplemental observation, compare Micah 5:2 regarding the Messiah, “whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.”

Similarly, in Daniel 7:14 it is said that the Messiah’s kingdom is “everlasting” (Hb. עָלַם֙ “alam” Strong’s H5957), thus presumably reinforcing the notion that the Messiah (Hb. בַּר אֱנָשׁ “bar enash” i.e., “son of man” Dan 7:13) is himself everlasting. That’s why Isaiah 2:19 and Zephaniah 1:7 seemingly refer to the Messiah as “Lord” (Hb. יְהוָה֙ “Yhvh”), and why Zechariah 12:10 suggests that God (Hb. אֵלַ֖י “El”) himself  is looked upon by those who pierce him, followed by a world-wide mourning in the last days.

No wonder John 1:1-2 tells us categorically that the “Word” (Gk. Λόγος “Logos” i.e., Christ) is God:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.”

The author of Colossians contributes to this discussion by stating that Christ (i.e., “Messiah” or the Anointed One) “is the image of the invisible God” (1:15).

This is precisely why the great messianic prince named Michael is likened to God in Daniel 12:1 (Hb. מִיכָאֵל “Mikael” i.e., “Who is like God?” Strong’s H4317), and why the name of the messianic child in Isaiah 7:14 is “Immanuel” (עִמָּנוּאֵל i.e., God is with us).

Conclusion

Isaiah 9:6 in the original Hebrew text paints a divine picture of the Messiah, unlike the one erroniously drawn by traditional Judaism of a mere human being!

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!

Have Any Aspects of Daniel’s Seventy-Week Prophecy Been Fulfilled?

By Author Eli Kittim 

To begin with, here’s an excerpt from my book, The Little book of Revelation: 

“The rebirth of Israel marks a turning point in apocalyptic expectations, and Christ’s message concerning end-time events seems to point toward this 1948 prophetic countdown: 

‘Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place’ (Matt. 24.34). 

But what on earth does he mean by this? In order to comprehend this terse remark, we must inquire into the standard time limit of a Biblical generation. The Book of Psalms makes known that a generation is equal to seventy actual years (90.10). Similarly, a noteworthy Hebrew soothsayer named Jeremiah exclaims that the Deity will intervene in earthly affairs after a seventy-year period has elapsed (25.12). Daniel, one of the most prominent seers of the Jewish Scriptures, also claims that the Deity has appointed a portent which consists of a seventy-week interval until the conclusion of all things is finalized (9.24). Among scholarly circles, this prophecy is known as The Seventy Weeks of Daniel… . The proof is found in a revered text called the Book of Daniel. In a vision, ‘The man [named] Gabriel’ appears before Daniel to grant him ‘insight with understanding’ (9.21-22). The angelic man imparts a cryptic scriptural clue which, in effect, equates the seventy weeks of Daniel with the seventy-year oracle revealed to Jeremiah (Dan. 9.2; cf. Jer. 29.10)… . Gabriel is basically showing us that the seventy years of Jeremiah’s prophecy must continue to be calculated as years within Daniel’s seventy weeks’ oracle. Clearly, more specific details are ultimately furnished by Daniel’s seventy-week vision, but the reason why Jeremiah’s seventy years are now termed as weeks is for the purpose of allowing us to perform calculations using weeks as the standard of measuring time in addition to using actual years. Taken together, both prophecies refer to an actual seventy-year period whose completion will signal the end of the world (Dan. 9.24). But the details at the micro level entail calculations, which combine measurements in both weeks and years.” 

As I will show, Daniel’s seventy weeks’ prophecy refers exclusively to the end-time and has nothing to do with the time of Antiquity. A common misconception is to assume that the starting point of this prophecy began after the Hebrews returned from the Babylonian exile during the 500’s B.C.E. However, there are many problems with this theory. For one, the Babylonian exile didn’t last for 70 years. Historically, if the first deportation came after the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar II in c. 586 BCE, and the Jews returned to Judah in c. 538 BCE & began to rebuild the second temple in Jerusalem in c. 537 BCE, according to the Book of Ezra, then the Jews were actually held in Babylonian captivity for approximately 48 years, not 70! Thus, Jeremiah’s prophecy (29.10) is seemingly referring to the end-times Babylon of Revelation 18 (cf. Dan. 9.2). And that’s precisely what we find in the 70-week prophecy of Daniel. Daniel’s prophecy actually refers to the end of all visions and revelations, an end-time period that will in effect “seal both vision and prophet” (Dan. 9.24). The fact that John of Patmos continued to furnish us with additional visions and revelations many years later proves that the interim between the Babylonian exile and the coming of Christ in or around 30 CE cannot possibly be the timeline of Daniel’s prophecy. John MacArthur, in describing Dan.9.24, was once quoted as saying: “It’s got to be a final thing cause everything is a final… . Boy, that’s final stuff, isn’t it? The end, the finish, the seal, seal it up, close it up, that’s the way it is!” If it is “final stuff,” then the prophecy cannot possibly be referring to the time of Antiquity but rather to the time of the end! Note also that this prophecy refers to “times of distress” (Dan. 9.25 NASB), a phrase which is also used to refer to the time of the end (Dan. 12.1 NASB). 

The traditional Christian interpretation is further compounded by breaking up the prophecy into two parts: one part fulfilled during the time of Antiquity, the other referring to the last week of the great tribulation. In other words, exegetes assume that there is a two thousand-year gap between the so-called “sixty nine” weeks and the seventieth week. However, there is no indication of a long time-gap between these weeks, but rather a successive sequence of events, thus rendering the expositors’ imposition on the text unwarranted: 

‘Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city: to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. Know therefore and understand: from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an anointed prince, there shall be seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with streets and moat, but in a troubled time. After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. He shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall make sacrifice and offering cease; and in their place shall be an abomination that desolates, until the decreed end is poured out upon the desolator’ (9.24—27 NRSV). 

 Here are some further observations excerpted from my book, The Little Book of Revelation: 

“The terminology of Daniel’s prophecy suggests that we must use both weeks and actual years in calculating the Messiah’s advent within the overall context of the seventy-year time period… . Many experts have erred in their interpretations by either attributing the starting date of these prophecies to the period of time when the Jews returned to Palestine from their Babylonian captivity – sometime between roughly 538 and 536 B.C. – or by separating them (Jeremiah’s seventy years and Daniel’s seventy weeks) as if they are two mutually exclusive oracles that employ different calculation techniques. 

 At any rate, if we resume our discussion of Christ’s prophecy (Matt. 24.34)—as mentioned earlier in this section—the issue of the seventy-year generation will now become immediately apparent. Jesus is indicating that it will take one generation since the rebirth of Israel ‘until all these things take place’ (Matt. 24.34; cf. 1 Thess. 4.15). Modern Israel, then, becomes the preeminent sign as regards the end of days.” 

I should mention parenthetically that the original text was written without punctuation, thus making it difficult to determine where commas and periods should be placed. For example, some inferior translations of Dan. 9.25 do not separate the seven and sixty-two weeks, thus giving us the wrong impression that they comprise sixty nine weeks. However, the more accurate versions (e.g. NRSV; ESV) do properly separate them, implying that they represent two distinct time periods. Isaac Newton—in his Observations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel (published 1733)—notes that we should not combine the seven and sixty two weeks as if they were one number. That is a spot-on interpretation by Newton. Quite frankly, if the authorial intent was to impress upon us the notion that the numbers seven and sixty-two must be combined, using the same measurements, the author would have simply written sixty nine weeks. The fact that two sets of numbers are given in the text suggests that they are distinct. 

What is more—in stark contrast to the mainstream view—Newton also mentions in the aforesaid book that Daniel’s seventy weeks prophecy should not be confined to the time of Antiquity, but must be applicable to Christ’s eschatological coming. Just like in Revelation 12.3—4 in which the final empire is contemporaneous with Christ—(i.e. “a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns … stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, so that he might devour her child as soon as it was born”)—so in Dan. 9.26 the two princes of Daniel’s prophecy are juxtaposed to suggest that they are contemporaries: ‘After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed’ (NRSV). According to the text, there does not appear to be a two-thousand-year gap separating these two figures or events. Moreover, the Old Greek Daniel form of the Septuagint (LXX) says in Daniel 9.27, ἕως καιροῦ συντελείας, (i.e. “until the time of the end”; cf. Dan. 12.4 LXX), indicating that the context of this verse is clearly eschatological. 

 First of all, Dan. 9.24—26 predicts the return of the Jews to Palestine, which occurred in 1948 (cf. Isa. 11.11). It also forecasts the atoning sacrifice of a forthcoming Messiah, an event which, according to the Danielic text, has not yet occurred. Furthermore, Dan. 9.26 informs us that the Messiah will be ‘cut off,’ which in Biblical terminology means slain (cf. Prov. 2.22; Ps. 37.9). In working out these calculations, one comes to realize the approximate date signifying the epoch of the forthcoming Messiah. So, if we apply Jesus’ prophecy (i.e. ‘this generation will not pass away until all these things take place’; Matt. 24.34) to Jeremiah’s seventy-year time frame (Dan. 9.1—3; cf. Ps. 90.10), we get one generation of seventy years after the rebirth of Israel (1948), which would bring us to 2018 CE! 

Surprisingly, a different calculation yields similar results. On June 7, 1967, Jerusalem (the holy city) was captured by Israel. Even if 1967 becomes the starting point of a different calculation, the result is identical. For instance, the seven weeks can be measured in weeks of years (cf. Gen. 29.27-28; Lev. 25.8), whereas the sixty-two weeks could be calculated using only days (cf. Lev. 23.15—16). Thus, the ‘seven weeks’ may represent fifty years (e.g. a jubilee), whereas the ‘sixty-two weeks’ would signify a period of approximately one year plus two and one-half months. In other words, both measurements would equal to 51 years in total. This is how the calculation looks like if we take Jerusalem as our starting point: 1967 + 50y (7 weeks) = 2017 + 1y (62 weeks) = 2018! Once again, we arrive at the same date (i.e. 2018), namely, one generation of seventy years after the rebirth of Israel! In fact, from June 7, 1967 to August 21, 2018 or thereabouts is approximately fifty one years and two and one-half months, using a 365-day calendar, which is the equivalent of seven weeks of years plus sixty two weeks of days. Could this be the initial fulfillment of the prophecy? Or is it perhaps the year 2019 or 2020, given that the prophecy must be fulfilled *after* the seventy years have elapsed? This would bring us to the starting point of the end-times, namely, 2019, in which began a terrifying era for the human race. 2019 brought about pandemics, lockdowns, passport mandates where “no one can buy or sell who does not have the mark” (Rev. 13.17), mass media censorship, mass hysteria & psychosis, the abolition of human rights, the totalitarian global control of the masses, the mass protests, and the starting point of the so-called “Great Reset” that has been planned by the elite & the heads of governments for some time. Whichever it is, the Bible warns us to be vigilant:

‘From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away’ (Matt. 24.32—35).

Based on Translation and Exegesis of the Greek New Testament, the Woman of Revelation 12.4-5 Can Only be Placed in Eschatological Categories

By Author Eli Kittim

_________________________________________

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 12.4--5

καὶ ἡ οὐρὰ αὐτοῦ σύρει τὸ τρίτον τῶν ἀστέρων τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ ἔβαλεν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὴν γῆν. Καὶ ὁ δράκων ἕστηκεν ἐνώπιον τῆς γυναικὸς τῆς μελλούσης τεκεῖν, ἵνα ὅταν τέκῃ τὸ τέκνον αὐτῆς καταφάγῃ. καὶ ἔτεκεν υἱὸν ἄρσεν, ὃς μέλλει ποιμαίνειν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ. καὶ ἡρπάσθη τὸ τέκνον αὐτῆς πρὸς τὸν θεὸν καὶ πρὸς τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ.

---- Novum Testamentum Graece NA28

________________________________________

Translation:

REVELATION 12.4--5

His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, so that he might devour her child as soon as it was born. And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron. But her child was snatched away and taken to God and to his throne.

---- New Revised Standard Version 1989

________________________________________

The key words used in the original Greek text are as follows:

τῆς γυναικὸς τῆς μελλούσης τεκεῖν

which are traditionally interpreted as "the woman who was about to bear a child."

However, there seems to be a mistranslation of the original word μελλούσης, which essentially misleads the reader with regard to the proper chronological context of the passage in question! And we're not even covering the eschatological context of the seven-headed dragon with ten horns that "stood before the woman" (12.4), which is later depicted in Rev. 17 as a final empire on earth. So let's take a closer look.

The Greek term μελλούσης that is mentioned in Rev. 12.4 is derived from the root word μέλλω, which means "about to happen" and refers to "coming" or "future" events. An inflection of the word μελλούσης is the term μέλλουσα, a derivative of the root μέλλων, which means “future” (i.e. μέλλουσες γενεές ― future generations).

We must always bear in mind the future context of the Book of Revelation, which is firmly embedded in the very first verse concerning "what must soon take place" (cf. 22.6), and which then undergirds "the words of the prophecy" (v. 3), an expression that is later reiterated several times beginning in chapter 22 verse 7 with regard to "the words of the prophecy of this book." Thus, the eschatological nature of the Book of Revelation is clearly emphasized. This would imply that any interpretations which look to the past are, by definition, anachronistic!

Here are several New Testament quotations for the word μελλούσης and its inflections:

1) μέλλοντα (i.e. things to come), Rom. 8.38, cf. 1 Cor. 3.22;

2) εἰς τό μέλλον (i.e. in the future), Luke 13.9, cf. 1 Tim. 6.19;

3) σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων (i.e. a shadow of what is to come [things future]), Col. 2.17;

4) ζωῆς τῆς νῦν καί τῆς μελλούσης (i.e. the present life and the life to come), 1 Tim. 4.8;

5) τήν οἰκουμένην τήν μέλλουσαν (i.e. the world to come), Heb. 2.5;

6) τό κρίμα τό μέλλον (i.e. the coming judgment), Acts 24.25;

7) τὴν μέλλουσαν πόλιν (i.e. the city that is to come), Heb. 13.14.

As you can see, each time the Greek term μελλούσης or one of its inflections is used (i.e. μέλλοντα, μέλλον, μελλόντων, μέλλουσαν), it is always in reference to a future event. Nowhere does it refer to a past event. For example, just as Matt. 3.7 refers to a future wrath----ἀπὸ τῆς μελλούσης ὀργῆς (i.e. from the wrath to come?)----so Matt. 12.32 refers to a future age: ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι [αἰών] (i.e. in the age to come).

Conclusion

It cannot be gainsaid that the Greek term μελλούσης in Rev. 12.4 is referring to an eschatological figure. However, according to the standard interpretation of the New Testament, there is often a proleptic interpretation that accompanies this verse, which begs the question: how could a future woman possibly give birth in Antiquity? Such an interpretation seems anachronistic and contradicts not only the content but also the context of Rev. 12.4--5.

Biblical Sin: Not as Behavior but as Ultimate Transgression

By Author Eli Kittim

I think the Greek phrase χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας (i.e. “without sin”) in reference to Jesus in Hebrews 4.15 has been greatly misunderstood. If in this particular context the phrase “no sin” (2 Cor. 5.21) is referring to Jesus’ action or behavior, it contradicts many New Testament (NT) passages. One that immediately comes to mind is Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness by Satan. If Jesus is sinless in the sense that he is born without a sin-nature——and therefore incapable of committing a sin, as the church proclaims——then the so-called temptation of Jesus becomes absolutely meaningless because how can you “tempt” someone who, by definition, cannot be tempted? And would Jesus “be like His brothers in every way” (Heb. 2.17), fully human, if he was unable to be tempted? The answer is a resounding no! If by “sin,” the NT is referring to behavior, it would also contradict aspects of human nature and common knowledge. It would imply that in his human development, from childhood to adulthood, Jesus never made a mistake and was without error, which is patently ridiculous (cf. Luke 2.52; 18.19).

So, what does the NT imply when it refers to Jesus being “without sin”? I would like to suggest that this reference has nothing to do with Jesus’ actions or behavior but rather with the nature of his being. According to Robert Mulholland, a NT scholar, “sins” (in the plural) are behavioral symptoms whereas “sin” (in the singular), out of which these symptomatic behaviors and attitudes arise, is a question of being. In this sense, it is a throwback to the garden of eden and the “sin” of Adam and Eve. There’s no particular “action “ or “behavior” that is associated with their transgression except that they accepted the serpent’s advice and partook of the idiomatic apple. Similarly, although It would have been utterly impossible for Jesus to avoid sin as an activity or behavior, nevertheless he did not sin in his being because, during his temptation by Satan, he ultimately did not transgress the law of God as Adam and Eve had done! He kept it!

Just as “Adam’s one sin brings condemnation for everyone, … [so] Christ’s one act of righteousness brings [salvation] … for everyone” (Rom. 5.18).

Jesus’ Death: Sacrifice or Suicide?

By Writer Eli Kittim

——-

John 15.13:

“Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”

But how does one do that voluntarily?

Philosophically speaking, unless God’s Sovereignty somehow orchestrates the events leading up to the death of Jesus, how else could Christ offer his life voluntarily?

——-

Thus, are we talking about a Messianic Sacrifice or a Suicide in the New Testament? There have been numerous academic studies that have addressed this question. The Canonical Epistles exclaim:

“And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma” (Eph. 5.2).

——-

So, the question arises: how exactly has Christ “given himself for us, [as] an offering and a sacrifice to God”?

Bear in mind that the term “sacrifice” has the meaning of a voluntary offering of a life. However, if other people planned and performed the execution of Jesus, then how is his atonement deemed a voluntary sacrifice?

——-

It seems to me that the only possible explanation for a voluntary sacrifice is Suicide: the laying down of one’s own life! In the New Testament gospels, Jesus himself implies that no one else actually kills him but rather that he offers (“takes”) his life voluntarily. Speaking about his life, he declares:

“No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord” (Jn 10.18)!

It can be paraphrased as follows: “no one takes my life from me; I take my own life.” Otherwise stated, if others had planned on killing Jesus through coercion, then that type of sacrifice would have occurred in an involuntary manner. Not to mention that others would have taken his life from him. Furthermore, the fact that Jesus foreknew it doesn’t necessarily make it voluntary, nor can it be described as an event that transpired according to his wishes. The fact that he was forced to drink the cup against his wishes demonstrates that even the foreknowledge of this event didn’t make his sacrifice voluntary! So what is it that allows him to lay down his life of his own accord?

——-

Remember the “Temptation of Christ,” which comprised three temptations? One is to gain the whole world and its kingdoms. The second is to satisfy his deepest wishes and desires. But in the third temptation (Lk 4.9-12) Satan tempts Jesus to commit suicide!

——-

If we consider the “typological” relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament, we can see, for example, that Samson may be seen as a “type” of Christ in being a sort of savior and superhuman figure (e.g. the “Annunciation” in Lk 1:26–38 is seemingly modelled on the announcement of Samson’s birth in Judg. 13). The last act of Samson comprises his noble death, one that is positively characterized by martyrdom and Suicide in the Old Testament! The biblical narrator seems to commend Samson’s suicide by emphasizing that God strengthened Samson to carry out this massacre: “So those he killed at his death were more than those he had killed during his life” (Judg. 16.30)! This is a reference to the massacre in which Samson, in an act of revenge, pushed the two “pillars on which the house rested” (Judg. 16.29) on top of the Philistines and cried out: “Let me die with the Philistines” (v. 30). If Samson is a “type” of Christ, then we would expect something analogous taking place in the death of Christ, the “antitype”!

——-

Another “type” of “Messianic sacrifice” in the Old Testament occurs in Genesis 22, namely, the sacrifice of Isaac! If it had been carried out, it would have been tantamount to “shedding one’s own blood.” It would be akin to the act of killing one's self; aka suicide! In fact, Abraham is commended for attempting this act (Gen. 22.16-17), and then God mysteriously equates Abraham’s act with a “type” of global redemption:

“and by your offspring shall all the nations of the earth gain blessing for themselves, because you have obeyed my voice” (Gen. 22.18).

Let’s not forget that the redemptive sacrifice of Issac is a “type” and a foreshadowing of Christ’s Atonement, that is to say, Christ’s voluntary sacrifice!

——-

The same motif of “shedding one’s own blood” is prevalent in the Old Testament, as, for example, in the killing of Abel by Cain (Genesis 4:1–16). And similar to other messianic stand-ins who have committed murder, such as Moses and David, Cain is also a Messianic-type figure on which God grants divine protection through a special “mark” (Gen. 4.15).

——-

So, these acts of “shedding one’s own blood”——as in the case of Cain killing his brother Abel and especially that of Abraham and Isaac in which Abraham is celebrated as a person of great faith in sacrificing his only son (Heb. 11.17-19)——seem to foreshadow the atoning death and voluntary sacrifice of the Messiah!

——-

Here’s another controversial example that seems to fit the bill. It begins in the Book of Zechariah the prophet:

“Strike the shepherd, that the sheep may be scattered; I will turn my hand against the little ones” (Zech. 13.7).

But who is “the shepherd” in this verse referring to? Jesus claims that it is a reference to himself:

“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” (Jn 10.11).

Let’s now take a look at the controversial verse in Mt. 26.31, which is based on Zech. 13.7:

“Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.”

First, why would his followers be offended? Death, on behalf of one’s principles, at the hands of the state has always been viewed as a heroic and noble sacrifice since the death of Socrates! So, one wonders what the cause of the offense might be?

Second, whom does "I” refer to in Mt. 26.31? We already know that Jesus is the “shepherd” in question. So then, who “will smite the shepherd”? Some say God the father; others say, Jesus! If, in fact, this first person singular pronoun refers to Jesus, then according to one noted minister, Frederick K. C. Price, “That means he’s gonna kill himself” (i.e. commit suicide). In other words, the exegesis suggests that Jesus will smite himself!

——-

Given that there are no unnecessary words in the New Testament, and that they’re all there for a reason, the undercurrent of John’s gospel raises an important question: is Jesus going to kill himself?

“Then the Jews said, ‘Is he going to kill himself? Is that what he means by saying, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come'?" (Jn 8.22).

The Original Greek text reads:

ἔλεγον οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι · Μήτι ἀποκτενεῖ ἑαυτὸν ὅτι λέγει · Ὅπου ἐγὼ ὑπάγω ὑμεῖς οὐ δύνασθε ἐλθεῖν;

That’s a non sequitur. From a literary standpoint, the Jewish conclusion of a possible suicide does not logically follow the apparent context. How can suicide be inferred from Jesus’ statement: “Where I am going, you cannot come”? It cannot! Therefore, we have to assume that something else is going on in the text and that John is trying to give us a heads-up that a suicide might lay in store for him!

Certainly, the Greek phrase “ἀποκτενεῖ ἑαυτὸν” means “to kill himself” (i.e. to commit suicide)!

——-

Conclusion

The fact that Jesus lays down his own life (Jn 15.13) as a voluntary offering and sacrifice, and given that no one else takes his life from him but that he himself lays it down of his own accord” (Jn 10.18), seems to indicate that his death is a result of his own volition rather than that of the traditional set of circumstances that we’re familiar with.

What is more, there are quite a number of references to suicidal or quasi-suicidal deaths in the Old Testament that are then carried forward into the New Testament where, for example, Jesus himself is actually tempted by Satan to commit suicide (Lk 4.9)!

And then we read in John’s penetrating and revealing gospel that the Jews were indeed wondering whether or not Jesus was “going to kill himself?” (8.22)! So, over and above the New Testament’s theological import, we might rightfully ask ourselves: is Jesus’ Death a Sacrifice or a Suicide?

——-

How Are We Saved: Is It Simply By Belief Alone, Or Do We Have To Go Out Of Ourselves Ecstatically In Order To Make That Happen?

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

What does the Bible say about salvation?

Romans 8.14 implies that if you’re not “led by the Spirit” you’re NOT a child of God. The phrase “led by the Spirit” implies an actual “existential experience” (cf. Mt. 4.1), not mere belief (i.e. an idea presumed, but not known):

“For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God” (Rom. 8.14).

Romans 8.9 makes it absolutely clear that without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit we are not saved: https://biblehub.com/romans/8-9.htm

Jesus also makes it very clear in John 3.3 that you can not even see the kingdom of God, let alone be possessed by it, unless you are born again: https://biblehub.com/john/3-3.htm

That’s precisely why the Epistle to the Ephesians instructs us to put away the “old self” and to put on a new identity, namely, “the new self,” which is made in the image of God:

“You were taught to put away your former way of life, your old self, corrupt and deluded by its lusts, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to clothe yourselves with the new self, created according to the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness” (4.22-24 NRSV).

And, of course, we must “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 3.18) and truly believe “that Jesus is Lord” (Rom. 10.9), especially in the midst of this existential crisis!

*****

All these verses seem to indicate that the requirements for salvation involve considerable risk. Therefore, we must undergo some kind of personal existential experience (or a Dark night of the soul) in order for a transformation to take place. It is only in the midst of this mysterium tremendum, or existential dread, that salvation can take place. Thus, Philippians 2.12 poignantly says, “So work with fear and trembling to discover what it really means to be saved” (CEV): https://biblehub.com/philippians/2-12.htm

Ezekiel 36.26 drives home this spiritual idea of death and resurrection: “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you” (cf. John 12.24)!

——-

We must first die to our ego before we can reach out for God in faith

The language of the New Testament thus implies that we have to go out of ourselves in order to find God, as Thomas Merton used to say. For example, 2 Corinthians 5:13 suggests that Paul (and by implication each and every apostle) had lost his identity to gain Christ’s (cf. Gal. 2.20):

εἴτε γὰρ ἐξέστημεν, θεῷ ·

Translation: “If we are out of our mind, it is for God” (BSB): https://biblehub.com/2_corinthians/5-13.htm

So the question arises: Why is a *Mad-Mind* mentioned in 2 Corinthians 5:13, and what exactly is Paul trying to teach us about the process or the goal of Salvation?

Astoundingly, we find the exact same theme reiterated in Mark 3.21 where Jesus himself is said to be “out of his mind” (which may be an allusion to the biblical narrative known as the “Temptation of Christ” in which after being baptized Jesus was led by the Spirit into the Judaean Desert to be tempted by Satan): https://biblehub.com/mark/3-21.htm

The soteriological point of that existential experience is that Jesus must lose his identity so as to enter into the divine union with God. I’m by no means suggesting “Adoptionism,” the notion that Jesus was adopted as the Son of God at his baptism. No! Not at all! All I’m saying is that Jesus becomes one of us by taking on human nature (and all the suffering that it entails) so that he, too, like us, is confined to the same spiritual process and requirement of transcending the “self.” As Søren Kierkegaard once wrote, “to have faith is precisely to lose one’s mind so as to win God” (The Sickness Unto Death: A Christian Psychological Exposition for Upbuilding and Awakening)!

Similarly, John of the Cross, the celebrated 16th century mystic, says that during “the night of sense” a spirit of dizziness overtakes the spiritual faculties of an individual. This energy overwhelms the mind and causes it to lose its identity. That’s probably what Isaiah 19.14 is all about: https://biblehub.com/isaiah/19-14.htm

Do you recall Acts 2.15 in which Peter had to explain to the crowd that “Indeed, these are not drunk, as you suppose, “ but rather filled with the Holy Spirit?

A contemplative exegesis of Psalm 107.27-30 suggests this mystical journey through the Dark night of the soul:

“they reeled and staggered like drunkards, and were at their wits' end. Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble, and he brought them out from their distress; he made the storm be still, and the waves of the sea were hushed. Then they were glad because they had quiet, and he brought them to their desired haven.”

This is reminiscent of the path of the mania of love (or the madness sent from the gods) by which we arrive at divine knowledge, as exemplified in Plato’s works: Phaedrus and Symposium. Evagrios the Solitary (aka Evagrios Pontikos), a mystical monk from Pontus (ca. 345-399 ce), says something similar about the prayer of stillness, “which by virtue of the most intense love transports to the noetic realm the intellect that longs for wisdom” (The Philokalia: The Complete Text; Compiled by St. Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain and St. Makarios of Corinth. Trans. G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard and Kallistos Ware. Vol. 1. [London: Faber, 1983], p. 62).

*****

The Beatitudes must be understood in the same exact context. They’re not a political manifesto that calls for social reform, nor are they about the materially poor or the physically hungry. Matthew 5.3 reads: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Notice that Matthew doesn’t say that they are poor in the sense that they lack sufficient money, but rather that they’re “poor in spirit,” as are those who enter the dark night of the soul! Similarly, the text unambiguously says: “those who hunger and thirst for righteousness” (Mt. 5.6), not for food and drink! It would appear then that the Beatitudes are a guide to inner transformation or regeneration, what it means to be “born from above” (3.3) in the Johannine gospel. Only those who are poor in spirit (not in money), who have emptied themselves and have become as nothing can be blessed, meek, righteous, merciful, pure in heart, peaceful, and loving! Why? Because only those can be “born from above” and “be called children of God” (Mt. 5.9) and receive “the kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 5.10). Only those are worthy of salvation! No one else. That’s the point!

——-

How then is the Dark night of the soul (which makes us poor in spirit) depicted in Scripture?

One illustration might come from Isaiah 6.5:

“Woe is me! I am lost, for I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips; yet my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!”

Elsewhere, Isaiah 50.10 reads:

“Who among you fears the Lord and obeys the voice of his servant, who walks in darkness and has no light, yet trusts in the name of the Lord and relies upon his God?”

*****

It’s quite clear from Exodus 20.21 that we can only approach God in darkness:

“Then the people stood at a distance, while Moses drew near to the thick darkness where God was.”

——-

So if this is in fact the cost of salvation, how do we obtain it?

Well, first we have to “estimate the cost”:

“Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Won't you first sit down and estimate the cost to see if you have enough money to complete it?” (Lk. 14.28).

If you reply to this question in the affirmative, then the next question is a practical one, namely, how do we proceed?

Answer: Not through discursive thinking but rather through meditation. That’s because God can only be found in silence. Thought is a distraction. One form of Western contemplation that goes back to the desert fathers of Egypt is what is known as *Centering Prayer.* This is a popular Christian meditation that places a strong emphasis on interior silence. In a very advanced stage it leads to inner transformation and union with Christ! In other words, it leads to authentic salvation! And the litmus test of that experience is that you fall madly in love with Jesus Christ!

*****

Allegorically speaking, Matthew 6.6 alludes to this prayer of stillness when it says:

“But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”

The Hebrew Bible also says: “Be still, and know that I am God” (Psalm 46.10; 62.5)!

——-

Conclusion

Salvation is not an act of the will or the intellect. Rather, it’s a transformation of the mind: a rebirth! This, then, is the noblest path to salvation, the symbolic road to Emmaus that leads to resurrection, regeneration, and new life! But regeneration and rebirth from above (Jn 3.3-6) require much suffering (Heb. 12.6), pain (Acts 14.22), fear (Phil. 2.12), as well as deep and profound changes to the personality (Acts 2.1-4, 15; 9.20-22). That’s why in 2 Corinthians 12.9 God doesn’t say “my power is made perfect in weakness,” but rather “my power is accomplished in illness.” Most, if not all, Bible versions translate the Greek word ἀσθενείᾳ as “weakness.” But ἀσθενείᾳ really means “illness.” In other words, God’s power is manifested and accomplished in us when we become ill: that is, mentally ill! This, more accurate, translation should really change our understanding of soteriology & inform us about the process of salvation itself❗️

——-

How Can Good Exegesis Make Bad Theology?

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

The Canonical Context

This principle suggests that we should read the Books of the Bible not as distinct, individual compositions but rather as parts of a larger *canonical context*, that is, as part of the “canon” of Scripture. In other words, instead of evaluating each book separately in terms of its particular historical, literary, and editorial development, this principle focuses instead on its final canonical format that was legitimized by the various communities of faith. The idea is that since the redacted version or “final cut,” as it were, is considered “authoritative” by the different communities of faith, then this format should hold precedence over all previous versions or drafts.

Moreover, this concept holds that despite the fact that the Biblical Books were written by a number of different authors, at different times, in different places, using different languages, nevertheless the “canonical context” emphasizes the need to read these Books in dialogue with one another, as if they are part of a larger whole. So, the hermeneutical focus is not on the historical but rather on the canonical context. The hermeneutical guidelines of the canon therefore suggest that we might gain a better understanding of the larger message of Scripture by reading these Books as if they were interrelated with all the others, rather than as separate, diverse, and distinct sources. The premise is that the use of this type of context leads to sound Biblical theology.

——-

Theology

Theology is primarily concerned with the synthesis of the diverse voices within Scripture in order to grasp the overarching message of the complete Biblical revelation. It deals with Biblical epistemology and belief, either through systematic analysis and development of passages (systematic theology) or through the running themes of the entire Bible (Biblical theology). It addresses eternity and the transcendent, metaphysical or supernatural world. And it balances individual Scriptural interpretations by placing them within a larger theoretical framework. The premise is that there is a broader theological context in which each and every detailed exegesis coalesces to form a coherent whole! It’s as if the Bible is a single Book that contains a complete and wide-ranging revelation! It is under the auspices of theology, then, that the canonical context comes into play.

——-

Exegesis

The critical interpretation of Scriptural texts is known as “exegesis.” Its task is to use various methods of interpretation so as to arrive at a definitive explanation of Scripture! Exegesis provides the temporal, linguistic, grammatical, and syntactic context, analysis, and meaning of a text. It furnishes us with a critical understanding of the authorial intent, but only in relation to the specific and limited context of the particular text in question. It is the task of theology to further assess it in terms of its relation and compatibility to the overall Biblical revelation! One of the things that exegesis tries to establish is the composition’s historical setting or context, also known as “historical criticism.” This approach inquires about the author and his audience, the occasion and dating of the composition, the unique terms and concepts therein, the meaning of the overall message, and, last but not least, the *style* in which the message is written, otherwise known as the “genre.” While the author’s other writings on the topic are pivotal to understanding what he means, nothing is more important than the *genre* or the form in which his writing is presented.

——-

The Analogy of Scripture

One of the most important hermeneutical principles of exegesis is called “the analogy of Scripture” (Lat. ‘analogia Scripturae’). In short, it means that Scripture should interpret Scripture. This principle requires that the implicit must be explained by the explicit. In other words, the exegesis of unclear or ambiguous parts of Scripture must be explained by clear and didactic ones that address the exact same topic. That means that one Biblical Book could very well explain another. For example, the New Testament (NT) Book of Ephesians 1.9-10 seems to demystify Galatians 4.4. This principle is based on the “revealed” inspiration (Gk. θεόπνευστος) of Scripture:

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful

for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and

for training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3.16

NRSV).

As for those scholars who refuse to take the NT’s alleged “pseudepigrapha” seriously because of their *apparent* false attribution, let me remind them that the most renowned textual scholars of the 20th century, Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, acknowledged that even alleged “forged” works could still be “inspired!” It’s important to realize that just because these works may be written by unknown authors who may have attempted to gain a readership by tacking on the name of famous Biblical characters doesn’t mean that the subject-matter is equally false. The addition of amanuenses (secretaries) further complicates the issue.

So, returning to our subject, the analogy of Scripture allows the Bible to define its own terms, symbols, and phrases. It is via the analogy of Scripture, which defines the many and varied parts, that the broader canonical context is established, namely, the principle that the various Biblical Books form a coherent whole from which a larger theological system can emerge.

And, of course, interdisciplinary studies——such as archaeology, anthropology, psychology, sociology, epistemology, and philosophy——contribute to both systematic and Biblical theology by presenting their particular findings, concepts, and theoretical ideas.

——-

Testing the Legitimacy of these Principles

In explaining how these principles work in tandem, I’d like to put my personal and unique theology to the test. I have raised the following question: “What if the crucifixion of Christ is a future event?” The immediate reaction of Christian apologetics or heresiology would be to revert to “dogmatic theology” (i.e., the dogmas or articles of faith) and the scholarly consensus, which state that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Really? Let’s consider some historical facts. There are no eyewitnesses! And there are no first-hand accounts! Although the following references were once thought to be multiple attestations or proofs of Jesus’ existence, nevertheless both the Tacitus and Josephus accounts are now considered to be either complete or partial forgeries, and therefore do not shed any light on Jesus’ historicity. One of the staunch proponents of the historical Jesus position is the textual scholar Bart Ehrman, who, surprisingly, said this on his blog:

. . . Paul says almost *NOTHING* about the

events of Jesus’ lifetime. That seems weird

to people, but just read all of his letters.,

Paul never mentions Jesus healing anyone,

casting out a demon, doing any other

miracle, arguing with Pharisees or other

leaders, teaching the multitudes, even

speaking a parable, being baptized, being

transfigured, going to Jerusalem, being

arrested, put on trial, found guilty of

blasphemy, appearing before Pontius Pilate

on charges of calling himself the King of the

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

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

about.

Therefore, there appears to be a literary discrepancy regarding the historicity of Jesus in the canonical context between the gospels and the epistles. And, as I will show in due time, there are many, many passages in the epistles that seem to contradict dogmatic theology’s belief in the historiographical nature of the gospels. So, if they want to have a sound theology, exegetes should give equal attention to the epistles. Why?

First, the epistles precede the gospels by several decades. In fact, they comprise the earliest recorded writings of the NT that circulated among the Christian churches (cf. Col. 4.16).

Second, unlike the gospels——which are essentially *theological* narratives that are largely borrowed from the Old Testament (OT)——the epistles are *expositional* writings that offer real, didactic and practical solutions and discuss spiritual principles and applications within an actual, historical, or eschatological context.

Third, according to Biblical scholarship, the gospels are not historiographical accounts or biographies, even though historical places and figures are sometimes mentioned. That is to say, the gospels are not giving us history proper. For example, the feeding of the 5,000 is a narrative that is borrowed from 2 Kings 4.40-44. The parallels and verbal agreements are virtually identical. And this is a typical example of the rest of the narratives. For instance, when Jesus speaks of the damned and says that “their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched” (Mark 9.48), few people know that this saying is actually derived from Isaiah 66.24. In other words, the gospels demonstrate a literary dependence on the OT that is called, “intertextuality.”

Fourth, the gospels are like watching a Broadway play. They are full of plots, subplots, theatrical devices (e.g. Aristotelian rhetoric; Homeric parallels), literary embellishments, dialogues, characters, and the like. Conversely, the epistles have none of these elements. They are straightforward and matter of fact. That’s why Biblical interpreters are expected to interpret the implicit by the explicit and the narrative by the didactic. In practical terms, the NT epistles——which are the more explicit and didactic portions of Scripture——must clarify the implicit meaning of the gospel literature. As you will see, the epistles are the primary keys to unlocking the actual timeline of Christ’s *one-and-only* visitation!

Fifth, whereas the gospels’ literary genre is mainly •theological•——that is to say, “pseudo-historical”——the genre of the epistolary literature of the NT is chiefly •expositional.• So, the question arises, which of the two genres is giving us the real deal: is it the “theological narrative” or the “expository writing”?

In order to answer this question, we first need to consider some of the differences in both genres. For example, although equally “inspired,” the gospels include certain narratives that are unanimously rejected as “unhistorical” by both Biblical scholars and historians alike. Stories like the slaughter of the innocents, the Magi, the Star of Bethlehem, and so on, are not considered to be historical. By contrast, the epistles never once mention the aforesaid stories, nor is there any mention of the Nativity, the virgin birth, the flight to Egypt, and the like. Why? Because the Epistles are NOT “theological.” They’re expository writings whose intention is to give us the “facts” as they really are!

Bottom line, the epistles give us a far more accurate picture of Jesus’ *visitation* than the gospels.

In conclusion, it appears that the gospels conceal Jesus far more effectively than they reveal him.

——-

Proof-text and Coherence Fallacies

The “proof-text fallacy” comprises the idea of putting together a number of out-of-context passages in order to validate a particular theological point that’s often disparagingly called “a private interpretation.” But, for argument’s sake, let’s turn these principles on their head. Classical Christianity typically determines heresy by assessing the latter’s overall view. If it doesn’t fit within the existing theological schema it is said to be heretical. Thus, dogmatic theology sets the theological standard against which all other theories are measured. They would argue that good exegesis doesn’t necessarily guarantee good theology, and can lead to a “coherence fallacy.” In other words, even if the exegesis of a string of proof-texts is accurate, the conclusion may not be compatible with the overall existing theology. This would be equivalent to a coherence fallacy, that is to say, the illusion of Biblical coherence.

By the same token, I can argue that traditional, historical-Jesus exegesis of certain proof-texts might be accurate but it may not fit the theology of an eschatological Christ, as we find in the epistles (e.g., Heb. 9.26b; 1 Pet. 1.20; Rev. 12.5). That would equally constitute a coherence fallacy. So, these guidelines tend to discourage independent proof-texting apart from a systematic coherency of Scripture. But what if the supposed canonical context is wrong? What if the underlying theological assumption is off? What then? So, the $64,000 question is, who can accurately determine the big picture? And who gets to decide?

For example, I think that we have confused Biblical literature with history, and turned prophecy into biography. In my view, the theological purpose of the gospels is to provide a fitting introduction to the messianic story *beforehand* so that it can be passed down from generation to generation until the time of its fulfillment. It is as though NT history is *written in advance* (cf. מַגִּ֤יד מֵֽרֵאשִׁית֙ אַחֲרִ֔ית [declaring the end from the beginning], Isa. 46.9-10; προεπηγγείλατο [promised beforehand], Rom. 1.2; προγνώσει [foreknowledge], Acts 2.22-23; προκεχειροτονημένοις [to appoint beforehand], Acts 10.40-41; ερχόμενα [things to come], Jn 16.13)!

So, if we exchange the theology of the gospels for that of the epistles we’ll find a completely different theology altogether, one in which the coherence of Scripture revolves around the *end-times*! For example, in 2 Pet. 1.16–21, all the explanations in vv. 16-18 are referring to the future. That’s why verse 19 concludes: “So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed” (cf. 1 Pet. 1.10-11; 1 Jn 2.28).

In response, Dogmatic Theology would probably say that such a conclusion is at odds with the canonical context and that it seems to be based on autonomous proof-texting that is obviously out of touch with the broader theological teaching of Scripture. Really? So the so-called “teaching” of Scripture that Jesus died in Antiquity is a nonnegotiable, foregone conclusion? What if the basis upon which this gospel teaching rests is itself a proof-text fallacy that is out of touch with the teaching of the *epistles*? For example, there are numerous passages in the epistles that place the timeline of Jesus’ life (i.e., his birth, death, and resurrection) in *eschatological* categories (e.g., 2 Thess. 2.1-3; Heb. 1.1-2; 9.26b; 1 Pet. 1.10-11, 20; Rev. 12.5; 19.10d; 22.7). The epistolary authors deviate from the gospel writers in their understanding of the overall importance of •eschatology• in the chronology of Jesus. For them, Scripture comprises revelations and “prophetic writings” (see Rom. 16.25-26; 2 Pet. 1.19-21; Rev. 22.18-19). Therefore, according to the *epistolary literature*, Jesus is not a historical but rather an “eschatological” figure! Given that the NT epistles are part of the Biblical *canon,* their overall message holds equal value with that of the NT gospels, since they, too, are an integral part of the canonical context! To that extent, even the gospels concede that the Son of Man has not yet been revealed (see Lk. 17.30; cf. 1 Cor. 1.7; 1 Pet. 1.7)!

What is more, if the canonical context demands that we coalesce the different Biblical texts as if we’re reading a single Book, then the overall “prophetic” message of Revelation must certainly play an important role therein. The Book of Revelation places not only the timeline (12.5) but also the testimony to Jesus (19.10b) in “prophetic” categories:

I warn everyone who hears the words of the

prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to

them, God will add to that person the

plagues described in this book; if anyone

takes away from the words of the book of

this prophecy, God will take away that

person’s share in the tree of life and in the

holy city, which are described in this book

(Rev. 22.18-19 NRSV).

Incidentally, the Book of Revelation is considered to be an epistle. Thus, it represents, confirms, and validates the overarching *prophetic theme* or eschatological “theology” of the epistolary literature. That is not to say that the •theology• of the epistles stands alone and apart from that of the OT canon. Far from it! Even the *theology* of the OT confirms the earthy, end-time Messiah of the epistles (cf. Job 19.25; Isa. 2.19; Dan. 12.1-2; Zeph. 1.7-9, 15-18; Zech. 12.9-10)! As a matter of fact, mine is the *only* view that appropriately combines the end-time messianic expectations of the Jews with Christian Scripture!

Does this sound like a proof-text or coherence fallacy? If it does, it’s because you’re evaluating it from the theology of the gospels. If, on the other hand, you assess it using the theology of the epistles, it will seem to be in-context or in-sync with it. So, the theological focus and coherency of Scripture will change depending on which angle you view it from.

——-

Visions of the Resurrection

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

The resurrection itself is not an event of

past history. All that historical criticism can

establish is that the first disciples came to

believe the resurrection (Rudolph

Bultmann, ‘The New Testament and

Mythology,’ in Kerygma and Myth: A

Theological Debate, ed. Hans Werner

Bartsch, trans. Reginald H. Fuller [London:

S.P.C.K, 1953-62], 38, 42).

When the evangelists spoke about the

resurrection of Jesus, they told stories

about apparitions or visions (John Dominic

Crossan, ‘A Long Way from Tipperary: A

Memoir’ [San Francisco:

HarperSanFransisco, 2000], 164-165).

At the heart of the Christian religion lies a

vision described in Greek by Paul as

ophehe—-“he was seen.” And Paul himself,

who claims to have witnessed an

appearance asserted repeatedly “I have

seen the Lord.” So Paul is the main source

of the thesis that a vision is the origin of the

belief in resurrection ... (Gerd Lüdemann,

‘The Resurrection of Jesus: History,

Experience, Theology.’ Translated by John

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

100).

It is undisputable that some of the followers

of Jesus came to think that he had been

raised from the dead, and that something

had to have happened to make them think

so. Our earliest records are consistent on

this point, and I think they provide us with

the historically reliable information in one

key aspect: the disciples’ belief in the

resurrection was based on visionary

experiences. I should stress it was visions,

and nothing else, that led to the first

disciples to believe in the resurrection (Bart

D. Ehrman, ‘How Jesus Became God: The

Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from

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

183-184).

Ehrman sides with the *visionary language* that Luke, Bultmann, Crossan, and Lüdemann use. In the words of NT textual critic Kurt Aland:

It almost then appears as if Jesus were a

mere PHANTOM . . .

——-

Exegetical Application

I deliberately stay away from theology when I exegete Scripture precisely because it will taint the evidence with presuppositions, assumptions, and speculations that are not in the text. Thus, instead of focusing on the authorial intent hermeneutic, it will inevitably superimpose out-of-context meanings and create an eisegesis. All this, of course, is courtesy of confirmation bias.

So, I think one of the reasons why we’ve done so poorly in understanding, for example, the story of Jesus is because we have mixed-up exegesis with theology. When theology drives the exegesis, then the exegesis becomes blind and erroneous.

My method of exegesis is very simple. I see EXACTLY what the text *says,* EXACTLY *how* it says it. I don’t add or subtract anything, and I don’t speculate, guess, or theorize based on existing philosophies or theologies. The minute we go outside *the analogy of scripture,* that’s when we start to speculate. And that’s how we err. In short, let the Scriptures tell you what it means. Thus, the best interpretation is no interpretation at all!

——-

Conclusion

To find the truth, we must consider all the evidence objectively. Evangelicals, for instance, would be biased if they didn’t consider the academic standpoint even if, at times, it seems to be guided by liberal theology. In this way, they will be in a better position to consider objectively all the possibilities and probabilities regarding the correct interpretation of Scripture. That’s because the truth usually touches all points of view . . .

One of the exegetical stumbling blocks is our inability to view the gospels as “inspired metaphors.” Given their literary dependence on the OT, it appears as if the gospels themselves are “inspired parables.”

So, if the epistolary literature, which is both expositional and explicit, seems to contradict these so-called “theological parables,” then it becomes quite obvious that the “theology” of the gospels fails to meet scholarly and academic parameters. And, therefore, the epistolary literature must be given more serious attention and consideration!

Our exegetical shortcomings often stem from forced or anachronistic interpretations that are based on *theological speculation* and conjecture rather than on detailed exegesis. Even the Biblical translations themselves are not immune to the interpretative process, whether they be of dynamic or formal equivalence.

That’s why I have developed an exegetical system and have demonstrated the effectiveness of its approach to the study of the Biblical Christ. Accordingly, I argue that the epistles are the primary *keys* to unlocking the future timeline of Christ’s ***ONLY*** visitation! Hence, I leave you with one final rhetorical question:

What if the crucifixion of Christ is a future

event?