#1peter1v20 | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

eli-kittim · 2 years

Text

🔥 The Fullness of Time 🔥

By Bible Researcher and Author Eli Kittim 🎓

What does the Bible mean when it says that God sent his son in “the fullness of time”? Many scholars and pastors automatically take for granted that this phrase refers to the birth and first coming of Jesus 2,000 years ago. In other words, instead of doing rigorous linguistic research to find out exactly what this phrase actually means, many experts simply rely on their *theological assumptions* and speculations in hopes that they can carry them through. But there’s no linguistic or biblical support for their conclusion.

In order to bolster their point of view that “the fulness of time” simply means the “appropriate” time or the “fulfillment” of time, they often cite Mark 1.15, which uses the term πεπλήρωται. But, as we shall see, this term is different from its cognate (πλήρωμα) in Galatians 4.4, from where we get the phrase “the fullness of time.” So, let’s compare both texts. Mk 1.15 (SBLGNT) reads:

καὶ λέγων ὅτι Πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς καὶ

ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ·

My translation:

And saying that the time has been fulfilled

and the kingdom of God has drawn near.

In the aforementioned verse, the verb πεπλήρωται (peplērōtai) is in the perfect indicative form and it’s translated as “has been fulfilled.” But this so-called *fulfillment* of time (Πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς) in Mk 1.15 is not grammatically equivalent to the *completion* of time (τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου) in Gal 4.4! Not to mention that Mark 1.15 doesn’t even tell us which particular time-period or age has been fulfilled.

What is more, according to verbal aspect theory, we cannot establish the objective “time of an action” (or the Aktionsart) simply by looking at the “aspect” (or the semantics of a tense-form), which is the author’s subjective portrayal of an action. Moreover, if we apply “the criteria of authenticity”——the various methods of ascertaining the historical plausibility and probability of an event——to the gospel genre, it will probably turn out that the narratives are purely theological and literary constructs rather than historical or biographical accounts.

Two principles of Biblical hermeneutics should also be considered foundational. Exegetes must interpret the implicit by the explicit and the narrative by the didactic. In practical terms, the NT Epistles and other more explicit and didactic portions of Scripture must clarify the implicit meaning and significance of the Gospel literature. Accordingly, this paper argues that the Epistles are the primary keys to unlocking the future timeline of Christ’s only visitation.

Accordingly, the epistle to the Galatians chapter 4 and verse 4 gives us the exact period of time when Jesus’ incarnation will take place, namely, when time reaches its "fullness" or "completion." Galatians 4.4 gives us a specific point in time that is indicated by the nominative noun πλήρωμα, which is translated as “fullness.” This means that Christ's incarnation will transpire when time reaches its “fullness” or “completion.” Ephesians 1.10 further demonstrates that “the fullness of the times” will occur at the final consummation, when all things will conclude in Christ, “things in the heavens and things on the earth.” Therefore, “the fullness of time” coincides with “the completion of time” and with “the end of the age.”

By contrast, Mk 1.15 only tells us that an indefinite time-period has been fulfilled, without ever objectively specifying “when” or “what” has been fulfilled, irrespective of the theological genre. In other words, how do we even know that this timeframe was actually fulfilled? Because from a literary standpoint, given the subsequent rhetorical development and embellishment of the gospel literature, it’s quite difficult to deconstruct the authors’ literary assumptions, or to separate history from theology, or the “historical Jesus” from the “literary Jesus.”

The Greek text of Mark 1.15 reads πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς (the time has been fulfilled). The verb πεπλήρωται (peplērōtai) is the perfect passive indicative of πληρόω and it means to “make full,” “fulfill,” or “accomplish.” It’s used 4 other times in the New Testament to mean that “the time has come” or “the time has been fulfilled” (Πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς). Interestingly enough, the term πεπλήρωται (peplērōtai) is derived from the root word πληρόω (pléroó), which means “to make full” or “to complete.” And pléroó in turn comes from the term πλήρης (plérés), which means “full” or “complete.” It actually means “completely filled up.” Think of the hour hand of a clock which turns 360 degrees in 12 hours. At 9 o’clock it has turned 270 degrees, or 3/4 of a circle. It’s not yet full or complete. It’s only when the hour hand of a clock has come full circle that it is plérés or “full.” Or think of a cup that is half full. It will become πλήρης or “completely full” when it’s filled to the brim. This same idea is conveyed in the New Testament. See, e.g., Mt 14.20: “twelve full [πλήρεις] baskets”; Lk 4.1: “Jesus full [πλήρης] of the Holy Spirit”; Acts 19.28: “they were full [πλήρεις] of wrath.” That’s why Colossians 2.9 tells us that in Christ dwells not simply a part of the deity but rather the “fullness” (πλήρωμα) of the deity bodily:

ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς

θεότητος σωματικῶς.

Similarly, the Greek text of Galatians 4.4 reads: τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου (the fullness of time). The term πλήρωμα (plḗrōma) also comes from πληρόω (pléroó) and means “fullness,” “completion,” “summing up,” or “total” (see Liddell & Scott [1940] “A Greek–English Lexicon,” Oxford: Clarendon Press). Thus, when the term πλήρωμα (plḗrōma) is used in the New Testament (in 18 occurrences), it usually means “fullness” or “completion” (as in Gal 4.4: τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου [the fulness of time]; cf. e.g. Mk 6.43; 8.20; Jn 1.16; Rom 11.25; 15.29; 1 Cor 10.26, 28; Gal 4.4; Eph 1.10, 23; 3.19; 4.13; Col 1.19; 2.9)!

In fact, none of the Bible versions of Gal 4.4 (that I’m aware of) translate πλήρωμα as a *fulfillment* of prophecy that has already taken place. On the contrary, all of them, without exception, render πλήρωμα as the *completion* of historical time in one form or another! Most Bible versions say “when the fullness of time came.” For example, the Aramaic Bible in Plain English says “But when the end of time arrived.” The Christian Standard & the Holman Christian Standard Bibles are far more explicit in saying “When the time came to completion.” Not one version translates τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου (in Gal 4.4) as fulfilled prophecy. None!

Furthermore, if we read the New Testament in canonical context, using the analogy of scripture, we’ll come to realize that Ephesians 1.10 actually interprets and expounds Galatians 4.4! Ephesians 1.10 clearly defines God’s “plan of the fullness of the times” (οἰκονομίαν τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν) as the “summing up” or “completion” (ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι) of all things in Christ (τὰ πάντα ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ), “things in the heavens” (τὰ ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς), “and things on the earth” (καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς · ἐν αὐτῷ). Thus, in both Galatians 4.4 and Ephesians 1.10, *the fullness of time* clearly denotes *the completion of time,* when all things will conclude in Christ. For this reason, the alternative expressions τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου/τῶν καιρῶν act as signifiers for “the end of the age.” Yet remarkably, according to Gal. 4.4, this is also the time of Christ’s incarnation! Consequently, the Epistolary literature of the NT sets Christ’s birth in a different light, while apparently contradicting some of the Gospel material.

According to the Collins English Dictionary:

If you say that something will happen in the

fullness of time, you mean that it will

eventually happen after a long time or after

a long series of events.

And, as an example, it quotes a written excerpt:

…a mystery that will be revealed in the

fullness of time.

The conclusion drawn from this brief study of “the fullness of time” matches the results obtained from other areas of research. For instance, it squares well with an eschatological Jesus who makes his initial appearance “at the final point of time” (1 Pet 1.20 NJB). It also fits well with the messianic male-child who is said to be born in the end-times (Rev 12.5), and who is expected to *sacrifice* himself and *die* “in the end of the world” (Heb 9.26 KJV). Accordingly, Christ will subsequently resurrect at the time of the end (Dan 12.1 LXX) and abolish “all rule and all authority and power” (1 Cor 15.22-24)! And there’s no two-thousand-year gap between Christ’s *resurrection* and *judgment-day* because “He arises to terrify the earth” (Isa 2.19)!

For further details, please consult the following articles:

——-

1. THE LORD RESURRECTS TO TERRIFY THE EARTH

——-

2. PROOF THAT DANIEL 12.1 IS REFERRING TO A RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD BASED ON TRANSLATION AND EXEGESIS OF THE BIBLICAL LANGUAGES

——-

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

——-

4 notes · View notes

eli-kittim · 2 months

Text

Eli Kittim on Instagram

Eli Kittim’s Unique Interpretation of Jesus

Eli Kittim’s eschatology is a view in biblical studies that interprets the story of Jesus in exclusively eschatological terms. This unique approach was developed by Eli of Kittim, especially in his 2013 work, The Little Book of Revelation. Kittim doesn’t consider Jesus' life as something that happened in history but rather as something that will occur in the last days as a fulfillment of bible prophecy. It involves a new paradigm shift! Kittim holds to an exclusive futuristic eschatology in which the story of Jesus (his birth, death, and resurrection) takes place once and for all in the end-times (see Heb. 9:26b; 1 Pet. 1:20). Kittim’s eschatology provides a solution to the historical problems associated with the historical Jesus.

0 notes

eli-kittim · 3 years

Text

Academic Bias on the Web

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

I recently submitted a version of the following post in the *Group for New Testament Studies* (on Facebook) but, regrettably, the administrators did not approve it. Yet, given the validity of the Greek exegesis, it certainly deserves serious academic consideration. This is indicative of academic discrimination based on their own personal biases.

——-

2 Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics Should Guide our Investigation

Two principles of Biblical hermeneutics should be considered foundational. Exegetes must interpret the implicit by the explicit and the narrative by the didactic. In practical terms, the *NT epistles* and other more *explicit* and *didactic* portions of Scripture must clarify the implicit meaning and significance of the gospel literature, which, by the way, is not biographical but *theological* in nature, as Bultmann, Crossan, Lüdemann, Licona, Crossley, Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farnell, Dennis MacDonald, Robert Gundry, and Thomas L. Brodie, among others, have clearly demonstrated!

——-

This *Greek exegesis,* translated straight from the text itself, challenges the classical Christian interpretation, which is primarily founded upon historical-fiction narratives. This *Greek exegesis* not only complements the Jewish messianic expectations but it also fits perfectly with the end-time messianic death & resurrection themes alluded to in the Old Testament (see e.g. Isa. 2.19; Dan. 12.1-2)! In short, both the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures seem to say the exact same thing, namely, that the Messiah will appear “once for all at the end of the age” (Heb. 9.26b)!

——-

*The Future Christ* Greek Exegesis

According to the New Testament’s explicit and didactic portions of Scripture, Christ is *born* when time reaches its fullness or completion, expressed in the apocalyptic phrase τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου:

ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου,

ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ,

γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός (Gal. 4.4).

According to the principle of expositional constancy, the chronological time period known as “the fullness of time” (τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου) in Gal. 4.4 is defined in Eph. 1.9-10 as the consummation of the ages (cf. Heb. 9.26b NASB):

γνωρίσας ἡμῖν τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θελήματος

αὐτοῦ, κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν αὐτοῦ ἣν

προέθετο ἐν αὐτῷ εἰς οἰκονομίαν τοῦ

πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν,

ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι τὰ πάντα ἐν τῷ

Χριστῷ, τὰ ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς

γῆς· ἐν αὐτῷ.

The fullness of time (τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν) in Ephesians refers to the *summing up* (ανακεφαλαιώσασθαι) of all things in Christ, things in heaven and things on earth! Thus, according to Gal. 4.4, Christ is born during the consummation of the ages (i.e. in the end-times; cf. Lk 17.30; Heb. 1.2; Rev. 12.5; 19.10d; 22.7, 10, 18, 19)!

The initial appearance of Christ is also rendered as taking place “at the final point of time” in 1 Pet. 1.20 NJB:

προεγνωσμένου μὲν πρὸ καταβολῆς

κόσμου, φανερωθέντος δὲ ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν

χρόνων.

Further textual confirmation comes by way of Heb. 9.26b, which reads:

νυνὶ δὲ ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων εἰς

ἀθέτησιν ἁμαρτίας διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ

πεφανέρωται.

NRSV translation:

“he has appeared once for all at the end of

the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of

himself.”

A historical-grammatical study of the phrase ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων demonstrates that it refers to “the end of the age” (i.e. the end of the world; cf. Mt. 13.39-40, 49; 24.3; 28.20; Dan. 12.4 LXX; see also G.W.H. Lampe [ed.], “A Patristic Greek Lexicon” [Oxford: Oxford U, 1961], p. 1340).

——-

Conclusion

The assumed historicity of Jesus needs to be revisited, given that his only visitation is set to occur at the end of the age! Accordingly, this exegesis argues that the epistles are the primary keys to unlocking the future timeline of Christ’s only visitation. To demonstrate the validity of this argument, we must get back to NT Greek in order to focus on questions of authorial intent. To simply dismiss, ignore, or disregard this exegesis is tantamount to academic dishonesty!

Most people, in fact, will not take the trouble in

finding out the truth, but are much more inclined

to accept the first story they hear.

(Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War)

——-

Response

I received the following Facebook notification a week or so after submitting a version of the aforementioned post in the Group for New Testament studies:

Your pending post was declined from

Group for New Testament Studies by an

admin. See their feedback.

When I clicked on it, the reason given for the rejection of the post was as follows:

Group Rules that were violated

2 Keep it Scholarly:

NT, early Christianity, & discussion of the

field ok. Posts that assume/attempt to

impose a Christian perspective will not be

approved & commenting in this way will

result in a warning & then removal.

So, I wrote back to them . . .

Open letter

——-

I have sent a copy of this letter to both administrators because I didn’t know who was responsible for dismissing my post.

——-

You declined my post, citing a violation of group rules in which one should not impose a Christian perspective. I will get to that in a moment.

——-

As for its scholarship, the exegesis is unquestionably precise & accurate! Incidentally, I’m proficient in New Testament Greek (I’m also a native Greek speaker).

——-

Now, as to your claim, that I supposedly imposed a Christian perspective, it is quite laughable and borders on the absurd. I not only am NOT imposing a “Christian” interpretation, but, as a matter of fact, I’m NOT imposing ANY interpretation whatsoever!

I’m merely TRANSLATING what the text is ACTUALLY SAYING about C H R I S T! I did NOT invent or “impose” the Greek phrase τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου in relation to Christ’s birth: the Greek text *actually* SAYS that (Gal. 4.4)!

I did not personally invent or “impose” an interpretation of the phrase τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν as a timeline referring to the consummation of the ages: the Greek text itself *actually* SAYS that in Eph. 1.10!

——-

Have you ever read about NT linguistics, such as the work of Stanley E. Porter? Have you ever studied any scholarly New Testament lexicons or dictionaries, such as the EDNT, BAGD, ANLEX, TDNT, LSJ? They would all validate and substantiate my translations. As I emphasized earlier, this is a question of translation, not interpretation, and certainly NOT “Christian interpretation,” as you erroneously deduced!

——-

I neither invented nor “imposed” a “Christian interpretation” on 1 Pet. 1.20. It is quite laughable to make such a claim. The text itself is referring to the “appearance” of Christ ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν χρόνων or “at the final point of time,” as the scholarly NJB itself translates it.

Similarly, I neither imposed, invented, nor interpreted the Greek expression ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων in Heb. 9.26b. It is in the Greek text itself, and it is in reference to Christ, as any reputable *textual scholar* would unequivocally concur. In fact, a concordance study demonstrates that the textual reference is to “the end of the world” (KJV), “the culmination of the ages” (NIV), “the consummation of the ages” (NASB), or “the end of the age” (NRSV), as all other scholarly translations indicate (cf. Mt. 13.39-40, 49; 24.3; 28.20; Dan. 12.4 LXX; see also G.W.H. Lampe [ed.], “A Patristic Greek Lexicon” [Oxford: Oxford U, 1961], p. 1340). By the way, Lampe’s Lexicon is considered to be a scholarly book of the highest order.

Once again, this is NOT an “interpretation,” and certainly NOT an imposition of a Christian perspective, but rather——**wait for it**——A _ G R E E K _ T R A N S L A T I O N! Therefore, your decision not to publish the post is completely bogus and misinformed!

Sorry about the capitals, but it needs to be highlighted, given that your commentary is not within scholarly and academic parameters!

——-

I really couldn’t care less what actions you take as a result of this letter. And I certainly lost all respect for your credibility and your group.

——-

I have never seen any academic commentary to equal this one for downright biased and unscrupulous disregard of evidence. It is tantamount to academic dishonesty!

——-

7 notes · View notes

eli-kittim · 3 years

Text

A Critique of the Three Comings of Christ

By Eli Kittim

Mainstream Christianity holds to the three comings of Christ. This modern eschatological position is so bizarre that it has actually devised not one, not two, but three comings of Christ. Some offshoots of this doctrine have additional comings. Here’s a brief summary of this view:

1. First Coming = Christ’s Incarnation, believed to have been witnessed in the first century c.e. (cf. Lk 2.11).

2. Second Coming = Christ will *invisibly* return for the rapture of the faithful (cf. 1 Thess. 4.16-17).

3. Third Coming = Christ will return once again and will be followed by a great multitude of saints (cf. 1 Thess. 3.13).

By contrast, I propose that there’s only *one* coming mentioned in the New Testament (NT), which complements the *one* coming mentioned in the Old Testament (OT).

The Gospel Genre

This is the starting point of all the hermeneutical confusion, which sets the tone for the rest of the Christian Canon. The gospels are not biographies or historiographical accounts. As most Bible scholars acknowledge, they are largely embellished theological or apocalyptic documents that show a heavy literary dependence on the OT. So, the assumption that the gospels are furnishing us with biographical information seems to be a misreading of the genre, which appears to be theological in nature. In comparison with the expository writing of the NT epistolary literature, which is explicit and didactic, the literary style of the canonical gospels can only be described as a theological genre of historical fiction!

The epistles apparently contradict the gospels regarding the timeline of Christ’s birth, death, and resurrection by placing it in eschatological categories. 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)! According to the NT Epistles, the Christ will die “once for all” (Gk. ἅπαξ hapax) “at the end of the age” (Heb. 9.26b), a phrase which consistently refers to the end of the world (cf. ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων in Dan. 12.4 LXX; Mt. 13.39-40, 49; 24.3; 28.20). Similarly, just as Heb. 1.2 says that the physical Son speaks to humanity in the “last days,” 1 Pet. 1.20 (NJB) demonstrates the eschatological timing of Christ’s *initial* appearance with unsurpassed lucidity:

“He was marked out before the world was

made, and was revealed at the final point of

time.”

The 70-Weeks Prophecy of Daniel

Daniel’s seventy weeks’ prophecy refers exclusively to the end-time and has nothing to do with the time of Antiquity. It specifically alludes to the reestablishment of the State of Israel, a prophecy that was fulfilled in 1948 (cf. Ezek. 38.8)! A common misconception is to assume that the starting point of this prophecy began after the Hebrews returned from the Babylonian exile during the 500s b.c.e. However, this prophecy 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). 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! This prophecy also refers to “times of distress” (Dan. 9.25 NASB), a phrase which is used elsewhere in the Book of Daniel to refer to the time of the end (see Dan. 12.1). Note also that Daniel outlines the timeline of the Messiah’s *death* as occurring *AFTER* the prophesied rebirth of Israel (9.25-26) at the end of days!

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 (GT). 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 Biblical evidence of a long time-gap between these weeks, but rather a successive sequence of events that combines both *princes* within the same context of the eschatological timetable (cf. Dan. 9.24-27), thus rendering the expositors’ imposition on the text unwarranted. That’s why Isa. 2.19 puts the resurrection of Christ in the last days. He says that people will hide in the caves of rocks when “the Lord … arises to terrify the earth” (cf. Rev. 6.15-17). First Cor. 15.22-24 tells us explicitly that Christ will be resurrected in the end-times (an idea also entertained by British New Testament scholar James Dunn).

2 Thessalonians Chapter 2

The author of 2 Thess. 2 warns against deception by stating unequivocally that the coming of Christ for the rapture cannot occur “unless the rebellion comes first and the lawless one is revealed” (2.1-3). There’s a further condition that has to be met before the rapture can take place, and before the “lawless one” (i.e. the Antichrist) can be revealed, namely, someone needs to be removed from the earth. A common misinterpretation is that this must either be a reference to the *Holy Spirit* or to the *church*, which will be taken out of the way before the Antichrist can be revealed. But if it is the Holy Spirit or the church it would directly contradict the Book of Revelation (7.13-14), which foresees a great spiritual revival during the time of the GT. For instance, John the Revelator sees “a great multitude that” came “out of the great ordeal [GT]” (Rev. 7.9, 14). This multitude represents the “church” of Christ, which is obviously present, not absent, during the GT. And without the Holy Spirit no one can be saved (Rom. 8.9b). Therefore, the so-called “restrainer” of 2 Thess. 2.6-7 can neither be the Holy Spirit nor the church. This mysterious figure can only be explained by my unique eschatological view. Since I hold that the first horseman of the Apocalypse is Christ (the white horseman), it is he and he alone who is the restrainer, and after he is *slain* the Antichrist will be revealed.

Millennialism

Christian eschatology holds that the so-called “second coming” of Jesus will transpire either before the Millennium (i.e. premillennialism) or after the Millennium (i.e postmillennialism). First, a literal millennial kingdom would contradict the Bible because it would imply more than 2 comings of Christ, 2 apocalypses, 2 Great Wars, 2 resurrections, 2 Great Endings, and so on, as opposed to one of each, which is what the Bible teaches. Second, the endtime war that Satan is said to unleash at the end of the millennium (Rev. 20.8) is the exact same war mentioned in Ezekiel 38: Gog & Magog. Third, 1 Thess. 4.17 says that after the rapture “we will be with the Lord forever,” not just for 1,000 years. Fourth, the Book of Daniel is clear that both the Good and the Damned will be resurrected simultaneously, not successively (12.2). By contrast, the second death in Revelation 20.14 is incorporeal, NOT physical. It’s the lake of fire; a spiritual death. It’s a category, not an event. So, only 1 physical resurrection is indicated in the Bible; not 2! Fifth, the only physical resurrection mentioned in the Bible is the one that is called the 1st resurrection, presumably because it comes prior to the above-mentioned spiritual one. And this resurrection is said to occur when the thousand years are finished (Rev. 20.5). And if it’s explicitly mentioned as the first resurrection, then it means that there couldn’t have been an earlier one. So then, how could the same people who would not be resurrected “until the thousand years were completed” (Rev. 20.5) simultaneously live and reign with Christ for a millennium? (Rev. 20.4). They cannot be both dead and alive at the same time! Therefore, Amillennialism (i.e. the view that there will be no literal millennial reign of the righteous on earth) is not obliged to subscribe to the *three-comings-of-Christ* model!

Does Christ Return Multiple Times?

The belief in the *three comings* of Christ equally contradicts a number of NT passages (e.g. 1 Cor. 15.22—26, 54—55; 2 Tim. 2.16—18; Rev. 19.10; 22.7, 10, 18—19), not to mention those of the OT that do not separate the Messiah’s initial coming from his reign (e.g. Isa. 9.6—7; 61.1—2). Rather than viewing them as three separate and distinguishable historical events, Scripture sets forth a single coming and does not make that distinction (see Lk. 1.31—33). Indeed, each time the “redeeming work” of Messiah is mentioned, it is almost invariably followed or preceded by some kind of reference to judgment (e.g. “day of vengeance”), which signifies the commencement of his reign on earth (see Isa. 63.4).

Conclusion

Most people expect Christ to come from the sky. The truth is, he will come from the earth (cf. Acts 1.11). The sequence of eschatological events is as follows: Christ will appear “at the final point of time” (1 Pet. 1.20 NJB; Rev. 6.2). He will die “once in the end of the world” (Heb. 9.26b KJV; Zeph. 1.7-8, 14-18) and resurrect (1 Cor. 15.22-24; Heb. 9.27-28) to rapture the faithful (1 Cor. 15.51-52; 1 Thess. 4.15-17; 2 Thess. 2.1-3) and fight the nations (Isa. 31.5; 63.3; Zech. 14.3; Rev. 19.15)!

The difference between my view and the classical Christian perspective is that I’m 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 in the sky!

1 note · View note