Eli of Kittim

This is a unique book that is based on special revelation, coupled with scholarly research. It provides insights into the coming apocalypse, including the sequence of end-time events, the Great Tribulation, the Antichrist, and the coming of Christ.

Eli Kittim is a Bible scholar who has published articles in numerous prestigious Biblical journals & magazines, such as Rapture Ready, the Journal of Higher Criticism, and many others. He’s the Award-Winning Author of the Christian-Nonfiction Book, The Little Book of Revelation.

Editorial Reviews:

“Beautifully written. Highly creative literary analysis. An intriguing study. Bible scholars and eschatologists may want to consider its thought-provoking ideas.” — BlueInk Review

"Your illustrations are really good. You've mastered another world than I." — Robert Eisenman, eminent biblical scholar and author of James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Available as an ebook for $3.99

Paul’s View of Christ’s Resurrection: Past Event or Transhistorical Context?

Eli of Kittim

In the First Epistle to the Corinthians, the apostle Paul says, I’ve delivered to you the message that Christ died “according to the scriptures” (κατὰ τάς γραφάς), and that he died and was raised “according to the scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3). At this particular juncture, we must pause and take stock. Paul doesn’t tell us when Christ died. He doesn’t anchor this event to a specific date, time, or period. He doesn’t say that Christ died in the past, or a few years ago. Rather, he says that Christ died “according to the scriptures” (κατὰ τάς γραφάς). In other words, there is no explicit reference to the timing of this event. All that Paul is saying is that Christ died at some unspecified point in human history according to the prophecies of scripture, or in accordance with the biblical claims.

If we want to pinpoint the exact time period when this event took place, there are, in fact, many references in the New Testament epistles which state that Christ lived and died in the “last days,” or “at the end of the ages,” rather than in past history. Exegetical studies show that these phrases do not refer to the end of the old covenant age, but rather to literal chronological time! For example, the Letter to the Hebrews 9:26 tells us explicitly that Christ lived and died “once in the end of the world” (ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων), or at some future time period. The First Epistle of Peter 1:20 also places Christ’s first coming in the “last days” (ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν χρόνων)! What is more, in Romans 5:6, Paul intimates that Christ “died” (ἀπέθανεν) at some unspecified time of human history by using the phrase κατὰ καιρὸν, which means “at the right time” (cf. 1 Tim. 2:6), or at “the proper time,” which does not warrant a reference to history:

Ἔτι γὰρ Χριστὸς ὄντων ἡμῶν ἀσθενῶν ἔτι κατὰ καιρὸν ὑπὲρ ἀσεβῶν ἀπέθανεν.

Thus, Paul places Jesus’ death in a transhistorical context! Pauline theology, then, is not about an imminent eschatology that takes place in the first century AD but about a transhistorical eschatology that will happen at some unspecified, future time in history.

In 1 Corinthians 15, after preaching the message that Christ died “according to the scriptures,” Paul then goes on to list a number of witnesses who supposedly “saw” this event and testified “according to the scriptures.” However, we must read and interpret this individual text within the larger canonical context, that is, within the framework of the entire collection of scripture. If we look at parallel passages within the New Testament canonical context, it seems as though a number of preselected witnesses were chosen beforehand by God, who saw “visions” (revelations) through the agency of the Holy Spirit. And this view fits with the metanarrative or the overarching theme of the New Testament epistles. Compare Acts 10:40-41:

“God raised Him up on the third day and granted that He be revealed, not to all the people, but to witnesses who had been chosen beforehand by God.”

In other words, the so-called witnesses "saw" Christ’s resurrection “beforehand,” not during! It is clear then that the witnesses did not see the moment of the resurrection but rather witnessed it “beforehand,” in the prophetic or visionary context that is mentioned in early Christian texts. There is, in fact, an overarching theme that runs throughout the New Testament epistles that Christ’s gospel, crucifixion, and resurrection is either promised, known, or witnessed beforehand by the foreknowledge of God. For instance, we read that “the gospel concerning his Son” is “promised beforehand” (προεπηγγείλατο; Rom. 1:2). Moreover, the text confides in us that Jesus was known to be crucified “according to the … foreknowledge of God” (προγνώσει; Acts 2:22—23). This theme is reiterated in Acts 10:40—41 where we are told that Jesus’ resurrection is only visible “to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God” (προκεχειροτονημένοις). In fact, according to 1 Peter 1:10-11, “the sufferings of the Messiah” were actually "predicted" (Gk. προμαρτυρόμενον; i.e., testified beforehand) by "the Spirit of Christ" (Gk. Πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ; presumably a reference to the Holy Spirit) and communicated to the New Testament prophets so that they might record them for posterity's sake (cf. v. 12). Therefore, the passion of Christ was seemingly written in advance, or prophesied (cf. Isa. 42:9; 46:10; 48:5; Jn 13:19; 14:29)! Accordingly, the evidence suggests that the knowledge of Christ's coming was communicated beforehand to the preselected witnesses.

Remember that according to Verbal aspect theory, central to modern New Testament Greek studies, verb tense-forms—whether perfective (viewed as a whole) or imperfective (viewed as unfolding)—are not conveying time. Similarly, in the First Epistle of John 2:18, the Greek verb tenses are simply telling us how the action is viewed (aspect) rather than when it occurs (time). For instance, when John says “it is the last hour,” he’s not referring to the time of the composition during his lifetime but rather to the timing of the message. In other words, if John could speak plainly, he’d say, “it is the last hour we are writing to you about.” Not that 90 AD was “the last hour,” the day of Judgment, the day of the Lord, or the harvest. It would contradict everything in the New Testament! Paul’s argument is along these lines. In using “if-then” conditional statements within a transhistorical context, Paul argues in 1 Corinthians 15:12-17 that if Christ has not been raised, at some point in human history, then neither are the dead raised (ἐγείρονται; 1 Cor. 15:16)! This argument does not warrant a reference to history, as most interpreters would have us believe.

In fact, as the narrative unfolds, we quickly learn that Paul is alluding to a future time period. Starting in 1 Corinthians 15:22-23, Paul explicitly states that all people will be raised from the dead (πάντες ζωοποιηθήσονται)! But what is of critical importance is that he actually lists a step-by-step sequence or timeline of the resurrection events! According to Paul, Christ will be resurrected first (ἀπαρχὴ Χριστός), followed by all those who belong to him (ἔπειτα οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ)! This idea of Christ coming back to life a second time (from the dead) to receive to himself all those who are eagerly awaiting for him is also alluded to in Hebrews 9:28.

The Christian Dilemma: Did Jesus Live in Antiquity or in the Last Days?

Eli of Kittim

If the New Testament is inspired, we would expect its language to be consistent and non-conflicting. So, if the New Testament uses language concerning the end-times which is only consistent with the last days of human history, then why would we confuse this language with the time of classical antiquity, with first-century Palestine, or the end of Second Temple Judaism? The New Testament would have been inconsistent and utterly confusing if it were using the exact same language to mean two completely different and contradictory things at the same time and in the same place. For starters, it would contradict the law of noncontradiction which states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. Yet that’s exactly what mainstream New Testament interpretation maintains, namely, that the “last days” refer to both the past and the future. That interpretation appears to be completely bogus and profoundly misinformed, relying on false assumptions rather than precise linguistic evidence.

Therefore, we have to distinguish between the New Testament language that refers to classical antiquity versus that which refers to the end of days. For example, when we find idiomatic language in the New Testament——such as “the consummation of the ages,” “the culmination of the ages,” “the end of the ages,” “the fullness of time,” or the “last days”——which is consistently referring to the end of the world, to the lake of fire, to the harvest, to the separation of the righteous from the wicked, to judgment day, and to the end of days, we can’t possibly use this exact same language to refer to first-century Palestine or to the end of the Jewish age in 70 CE. This would clearly be a contradiction in terms and totally absurd! It would be mixing apples and oranges. That’s because it would represent an anachronism, that is to say, a chronological inconsistency in which these phrases are placed outside their proper time-period.

Thus, the question arises, why would the New Testament literature present this linguistic dichotomy not only to represent the end-times but also the time of classical antiquity? How can two mutually exclusive time-periods be mentioned in the same breath, using the exact same terms? That is not what’s happening. The New Testament actually uses a different language to refer to the last days, and a completely different set of expressions when referencing the time of classical antiquity or the end of the Old Testament. So what are these different literary expressions, and what do they mean?

Well, to begin with, we have two different literary genres or literary forms in the New Testament that are set under the general heading of form criticism, which is a method of classifying biblical passages according to literary patterns. One genre is represented by the gospels, which were written towards the close of the first century, and which are trying to tell a story using literary characters, dialogues, drama, intrigue, rhetorical and theological devices, and various other literary techniques, set in the form of a theatrical play.

On the other hand, we have a different stylistic form, namely, the “letters” or epistles, some of which were the earliest writings of the New Testament, which are more matter-of-fact, expository writings, that are basically trying to teach us spiritual principles, and which are not interested in using literary characters, dialogues, or rhetorical devices in the literary style of the gospels. So, we have two completely different genres, namely, the gospels and the epistles. One focuses on story-telling, the other on explanations and facts. One can be considered a theological genre, the other an expository genre.

The question is, are the gospels and the epistles telling the same story about the same time, the same place, and the same events that happen in the life of Jesus, or are they essentially talking about two fundamentally different time-periods? And if they are indeed talking about two different and distinct time-periods, then why would they use the exact same linguistic terms to refer to both of them? For example, when the epistles talk about the time-period of Jesus’ first appearance and subsequent death, they claim that he appears in the “last days,” or “at the final point of time,” and that he dies “once in the end of the world,” “at the consummation of the ages,” or at the conclusion of human history, that is to say, “at the end of the ages”! These idiomatic expressions can be found in places like Hebrews 9:26, First Peter 1:20, Hebrews 1:1-2, and so on. There is also the recurrent motif that Jesus is born in the end-times, which is presented in Revelation 12:5 as well as in Galatians 4:4 (“the fullness of time”; cf. Ephesians 1:9-10)! So, the question is, if Jesus lived in the middle of the first century, then why would the epistles place the timing of his life and death in end-time categories? That wouldn’t make any sense, would it? Nor would it be consistent with the language that is used to refer to the last days!

The basis of Christian theology is centered around the gospels, which suggest that Jesus is a historical figure from the first century CE, despite the fact that there is nary a mention of Jesus by contemporary authors, comprising biblical scholars, historians, and biographers, such as Philo of Alexandria or Plutarch. Nevertheless, the gospels give us the story of Jesus in relation to historical figures, places, and events, such as the time of his birth during the reign of Caesar Augustus (27 BCE – 14 CE), his whereabouts in early childhood, such as the flight to Egypt (a narrative that mirrors the story of Moses), and the time of his public ministry and crucifixion during the governorship of Pontius Pilate who served as the Roman prefect (governor) of Judaea from approximately 26 to 37 CE.

So we are trapped in two historical time-periods, not knowing which genre is giving us the actual timing, and which one is giving us a theological or non-historical rendering. The confusion is as follows. Are the gospels giving us the actual time of Jesus’ historicity, or are the epistles giving us the actual timing of Jesus’s birth, life, death, and resurrection? That’s the fundamental question, and that’s what I call, the Christian dilemma! The only way it can be answered is by looking at what the language of the New Testament actually says. The epistles clearly use a distinct language that is associated specifically with the end-times when referencing Jesus’ birth, life, and death. Why would two different genres of the New Testament present the time-period of Jesus’ life in two completely different ways, each using a different language? This is why many interpreters confuse the different terms that the New Testament uses as if they are all talking about the same time-period.

Some people don’t see this linguistic dichotomy at all and therefore confuse the language of the end-times, assuming that it refers to both classical antiquity and the end of days, but a close grammatical study of the New Testament shows that it clearly doesn’t. In fact, the language that is used concerning the end of days does not in any way, shape, or form apply to the time of classical antiquity or to first-century Palestine. We have to get it through our heads that two completely different time-periods are mentioned, each with its own distinct terminology and context. We have to be clear about that, otherwise we will be confused about what we’re reading and end up misattributing historical events, timelines, and time periods, to the point that the overall picture will become increasingly chaotic and confusing. That’s when biblical exegesis is needed the most.

So, if the timeline of Jesus‘ life is referring to the end of days, then there’s no question that this cannot be applied to first-century Palestine. Under no circumstances can we say that the New Testament language is referring to both time-periods. If the New Testament language is simultaneously referring to both the time of classical antiquity and the end of human history, that would represent an anachronism that would devolve into complete and utter nonsense. It’s like saying that antiquity and the end-times are one and the same.

New Testament interpretation has therefore created a Christian dilemma and an apparent contradiction because there are two different genres at work. One is a theological genre; the other a prophetic genre. If we don’t get this point right, we are left in a Christian dilemma because anytime we claim that the gospels are giving us history, critics could rightly argue that the language of the New Testament epistles seems to contradict the time-period of Jesus‘ life by placing it in eschatological categories. So, that’s the Christian dilemma. And it’s simply this: Did Jesus live and die in classical antiquity or in the last days? The narratives of the gospels seemingly present the former assumption, while the language of the epistles clearly suggests the latter view.

For more on this topic, see the following essays:

The Time of the End: End of the Old Testament or End of the World?

When is the end of the age?

The Time of the End: End of the Old Testament or End of the World?

Eli of Kittim

This is the most misunderstood concept in the entire Bible and the cause of much misinterpretation and confusion. It is the root of bad theology and the cause of much misinformation in both eschatology and theology proper.

When John says, in 1 John 2:18, “it is the last hour,” he’s not talking about the time in which he’s composing the letter. Rather, he’s saying that the “message” we’re writing of is about “the last hour”! As I will show, the so-called “last hour” is referring to the last days, not to the end of the Old Testament or the end of the Jewish age. As we shall see, it is actually a reference to the last days of the world, to judgment day, the end time, the consummation of the ages, and the end of the world! In fact, this particular time period is given special treatment in 1 Corinthians 15, which is referring mainly to the time when everything will conclude in Christ, namely, when he will fight all his enemies, re-create the universe, and glorify his people.

The “last days” are not the last days of the Old Testament, as Scott Hahn argued in a recent interview on the More pints with Aquinas podcast. He claimed that the “last days” do not refer to the end of the world but rather “to the end of the world as the people of God knew it.” But, as I will show, the biblical phrase “the end of the world” does not in any way, shape, or form, refer to the first century c.e. or to the time of Antiquity.

Let’s start off with First Corinthians 15:22-23, which references the general resurrection of the dead that will take place at “the time of the end,” an event that has not yet happened (“For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive”). The next verse (1 Cor. 15:24) is obviously talking about “the end of the world,” not about the first century c.e., when it talks about “the end”:

“Then the end will come [εἶτα τὸ τέλος], when he [Jesus] hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.”

So, “the end” will come (1 Cor. 15:24) at approximately the same time period when the general resurrection of the dead will take place (1 Cor. 15:23 ff.), as well as the rapture (see 1 Thess. 4:16-17). Moreover, in Daniel 8:17, a specific “vision concerns the time of the end” (Heb. לְעֶת קֵ֥ץ lə·‘êṯ qêṣ), which refers to judgment day because, in Daniel 8:19, we are told “what will happen later in the time of [God’s] wrath, because the vision concerns the appointed time of the end.”

Furthermore, Daniel 12:1 speaks about the worst time period in human history (“a time of distress”). This is repeated in Matthew 24:21 as a cataclysmic future event, which is apparently contemporaneous with the general resurrection of the dead (see e.g. Dan. 12:2). Then, in the following verse (Dan. 12:4), the angelic messenger refers to this specific time period as “the time of the end” (Gk. καιροῦ συντελείας; LXX).

Just as in Daniel 12:4, a similar phrase (συντελείᾳ τοῦ αἰῶνος) is used throughout the New Testament to refer to judgment day, the harvest, the lake of fire, the consummation of the ages, and the time of the end. The King James Version translates it as “the end of the world.” For example, in Matthew 13:39, the reader is told that “the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.” In Matthew 13:49, we are told what will happen “at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just.” In fact, in Matthew 24:3, the sign of Jesus’ coming is intimately associated with “the end of the world.” What is more, in Matthew 28:20, we read of Jesus's command to his followers to spread his teachings globally (the Great Commission), as he promises to be with them “even unto the end of the world.” Thus, the apocalyptic phrase the end of the world is not connected to the first century c.e. but rather to the “end times”!

Similarly, in Matthew 24:6, the Greek phrase τὸ τέλος (“the end”) is not referring to the first century c.e. but to “the end of the world” when there will be something analogous to world wars (“nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom”; Mt. 24:7), and, in this eschatological context, Jesus uses the phrase τὸ τέλος to refer to the future, not to the first century c.e.:

“You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end [τὸ τέλος] is still to come.”

The word τέλος means “the end.” In Matthew 24:14, Jesus says, “this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end [τὸ τέλος] will come.”

Christ is the Mighty Angel of Revelation 10 and the Author of the Little Book

Eli of Kittim

Rev. 10 opens with a “mighty angel” who is robed in a cloud, with a rainbow above his head; his face was like the sun, and his legs were like pillars of fire. A close study of these images shows a strong affiliation with Christ. Let’s unpack these motifs one by one.

First, Rev. 10:1 introduces a “mighty angel” who is “clothed with a cloud.” There are many references to Christ being robed in a cloud in both the Old and New Testaments. For example, compare the following phrases: “I saw … a son of man, coming with the clouds” (Dan. 7:13); “they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds” (Mk 13:26); “I saw a white cloud, and seated on the cloud was someone like the Son of Man” (Rev. 14:14). So, it’s clear that the “clothed-with-a-cloud” theme is closely associated with Christ!

Second, with regard to the “mighty angel” in Rev. 10:1, we are told there’s “a rainbow on his head.” In Rev. 4:2-3, the rainbow is associated with God himself because the throne of God, on which he sat, had a rainbow encircling it. This typically symbolizes the covenant between God and the earth, as depicted in Gen. 9:13! The rainbow is also symbolically associated with Christ who is both God and mediator of a new covenant (Heb. 9:15).

Third, the description continues to hint that the mighty angel is Christ by saying that “his face was like the sun.” In the New Testament, Christ's face is explicitly described as being like the sun in two distinct contexts. In Matt. 17:2, the text states: "his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as light.” And in Rev. 1:16, John sees a vision of the glorified Christ. Describing the majestic figure, he notes: "His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.”

Fourth, Rev. 10:1 adds another image, namely, that “his feet were like pillars of fire.” Christ himself is revealed within scripture through the use of this same striking image. John the Seer in his visions beheld an apocalyptic semblance of Christ in which “his feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace” (Rev. 1:15; 2:18). Then, in Rev. 1:17-18 this figure reveals himself as Christ, “the First and the Last,” who holds “the keys of death and Hades.” This is reminiscent of Ezek. 1:7, in which there’s a figure gleaming “like burnished bronze.” In Ezek. 1:28 this figure is later identified as the image of the glory of the Lord. Compare Col. 1:15, where we are told that “Christ is the visible image of the invisible God.” Thus, the imagery of Revelation 10:1 strongly suggests that this figure is Christ!

Finally, the mention of a “mighty angel" should not throw us off, so that we are unable to figure out his identity. There are several places where Christ is alluded to as an angel. For example, 1 Thess. 4:16 mentions Christ the Lord descending "with the voice of an archangel.” Moreover, in Gal. 4:14, Paul mentions Christ Jesus as an Angel of God! This mirrors the Old Testament Angel of the Lord who speaks as God and performs divine acts, leading many scholars to identify this as pre-incarnate Christ (a Christophany). This is confirmed by some manuscripts of Jude 1:5 which explicitly state that “Jesus rescued His people out of the land of Egypt” (Ἰησοῦς λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας). Let’s not forget that “The angel of the Lord appeared to … [Moses] in a blazing fire” (Exod. 3:2-3). Note also the similar cloud/fire imagery of Rev. 10:1 with that of Exod. 13:21, in which the “Lord was going before them in a pillar of cloud by day … and in a pillar of fire by night.” In addition, Dan. 7:9 reminds us that God’s “throne was ablaze with flames.” Hence, all these clues strongly suggest that the "mighty angel" in Rev. 10 shares descriptions similar to Christ (such as the rainbow around his head, robed in a cloud, face like the sun, feet like pillars of fire), reminiscent of the Old Testament "Angel of the Lord" (pre-incarnate Jesus). These descriptions therefore emphasize divine glory (like the Son of Man in Rev. 1:14-16), while depicting Christ's divine identity.

In fact, Rev. 10:3 reveals that this is a giant and mighty angel who stands over land and sea (Rev. 10:2, 5) and who “gave a loud shout like the roar of a lion.” This, too, is reminiscent of Christ and echoes 1 Thess. 4:16 in which we are told that “the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel.” And "the roar of a lion" in Rev. 10:3 evokes the “Lion of the Tribe of Judah" in Rev. 5:5 who “judges and wages war” (Rev. 19:11) and who tramples the winepress of God (Rev. 14:19; cf. Isa. 63:3). This literary connection is showing yet another parallel between the mighty angel and Christ!

The mighty angel of Rev. 10 also makes an oath which, once again, suggests that he is Christ because only God makes oaths; angels do not swear oaths. In Rev. 10:5-7, this mighty angel raises his hand to heaven and swears by God that “there will be no more time.” The Greek text says “χρόνος οὐκέτι ἔσται,” meaning “time will be no more” or “time will no longer exist”, marking the transition from earthly time to eternity.

Will Time End? Will We Become Immortal? William Lane Craig says, No!

Eli Kittim

Time, as we understand it, is deeply tied to the universe's existence, and its "end" has been predicted by Albert Einstein’s General Relativity: it might cease if the universe collapses (Big Crunch) or rips apart (Big Rip). The New Testament also teaches that worldly time will end with Christ's coming, ushering in an eternal state. While the current "age" passes away, believers will enter an everlasting spiritual reality where time as we know it will cease to exist. In the New Testament, there are key passages that signify the end of time and the beginning of eternity, as well as a transformation from mortality to immortality, marking a transition from fleeting worldly existence to eternal life with God.

But the well-known apologist William Lane Craig denies all this! He claims that time will never end and that we will never become immortal. As will be shown, he is clearly contradicting scripture. Furthermore, he seems to be advocating a form of panentheism (theistic personalism), which is similar to open theism, in his view of God as coexisting with the universe in time. Readers should therefore exercise caution with this apologist, as some of his teachings may contain misinformation.

For example, in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul uses the term “imperishable” to refer to the state of the resurrected body. The term imperishable means not subject to decay, death, or time. Imperishable means “eternal” and “indestructible.” It's the opposite of perishable, meaning “temporary” or subject to decay, entropy, or death, all of which presuppose the element of time. In this way, Paul contrasts the earthly (perishable/Gk. φθορᾷ) with the heavenly (imperishable/Gk. ἀφθαρσίᾳ). As a matter of fact, he explains that when we (the elect) will rise from the dead, we will not only be glorified (theosis) but our bodies will be transformed from the perishable to the imperishable, and from mortality (θνητὸν) to immortality (ἀθανασίαν). First Corinthians 15:50-53 reads thusly:

“I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. … For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.”

Yet, William Lane Craig says, “We are not going to be immortal souls.”

What is more, Revelation 21 says that “there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away,” signifying the end of temporal suffering and existence. Similarly, Revelation 22 signals a complete renewal of creation replacing temporary earthly life with eternal reality. In fact, Revelation 22 suggests that the regular, observable cycles that govern time on Earth will be absent. Day and night are absent. The sun and light, which act as markers of time, are also missing. It’s important to note that the earth’s rotation relative to the sun is the basis for our 24-hour cycle of day and night. This cycle is a fundamental element of how we perceive and measure time. Thus, Revelation 22 suggests a timeless or eternal state where the physical constraints of our current temporal experience are no longer present. Revelation 22:5 says:

“There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.”

Moreover, in Revelation 10:6, it is explicitly stated that after the mystery of God is finished "there will be no more time.” The Greek text says “χρόνος οὐκέτι ἔσται,” meaning “time will be no more” or “time will no longer exist," marking the transition from earthly time to eternity. Certain misleading translations render χρόνος as “delay.” But chronos means “time,” not delay.

Yet, once again, William Lane Craig contradicts scripture by saying, “time will definitely go on forever.” Craig also seems to think that God is not entirely outside the universe (transcendent) but that he co-exists with the universe (having entered into time), which can be characterized as a form of panentheism, at worst, or open theism, at best. In fact, Craig's view is not that different from the anthropomorphic view of the Mormon God as an exalted man! When asked “Will Time Ever End?,” he responded by saying that it will definitely not end because “He [God] once existed with the universe. And so It seems to me that this is an irrevocable decision on God’s part to enter into time.” William Lane Craig doesn’t believe in the rapture either, even though it is clearly stated in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17:

“The dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who remain, will be caught up [ἁρπαγησόμεθα] together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.”

In essence, the New Testament portrays Christ's coming as the definitive end of the current age, bringing about a transformed existence in a renewed creation, completely free from time's limitations and sin's effects. So, I’m surprised that a philosopher of his caliber would make such a mistake confusing time with eternity.

Incidentally, everything that was mentioned about William Lane Craig’s claims (except for the rapture, which he explains away elsewhere) can be confirmed by watching this short, 1-minute, video clip:

Will Time Ever End? (William Lane Craig)

Follow Eli Kittim on MeWe

Christian Origins in Mystical Knowledge: The Role of Mystical Experiences in Early Christianity

Eli of Kittim

I agree with Paul-Louis Couchoud who, in his work The Mystery of Jesus, expressed the idea that Christianity's origins lay in mystical experience, not historical events. He wrote:

“At the origin of Christianity there is... not a personal biography, but a collective mystical experience, sustaining a divine history mystically revealed." 

Biblical exegesis demonstrates that the New Testament is based on foreknowledge pertaining to the coming of Christ that was mystically revealed beforehand to a few preselected witnesses and written in advance. See, for example, 1 Peter 1:10-11 in which the life of Christ was actually “predicted” (Gk. προμαρτυρόμενον) beforehand by “the Spirit of Christ.” Acts 3:20-21 also says that Christ will not be sent to earth until the consummation of the ages (cf. Mt. 19:28). Luke 17:30 tells us that the Son of Man has not yet been revealed (ἀποκαλύπτεται). The notion that everything in the New Testament comes by way of revelations and “prophetic writings” is attested by all the New Testament books (see e.g. Romans 16:25-26; Galatians 1:11-12; 2 Peter 1:19-21; Revelation 22:18-19)! The idea that Biblical history is written in advance is recorded in Isaiah 46:10 (CEV):

“From the very beginning, I told what would happen long before it took place.”

Thus, Christ’s gospel, crucifixion, and resurrection are known beforehand by the foreknowledge of God! This mystical knowledge that is communicated by means of revelations should be the guiding principle for New Testament interpretation. First, we read that “the gospel concerning his Son” is “promised beforehand” (προεπηγγείλατο; Romans 1:2). Second, the text confides in us that Jesus was known to be crucified “according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” (προγνώσει; Acts 2:22-23). Third, this theme is reiterated in Acts 10:40-41 where we are told that Jesus’ resurrection is only visible “to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God” (προκεχειροτονημένοις)! Bottom line, the New Testament is based on mystical knowledge (gnosis) and written in advance. In other words, the New Testament is an apocalypse! It’s not a history. Paul, who was the earliest Christian writer, admitted that everything he knew about Christ was based on mystical knowledge. In his letter to the Galatians (1:11-12), he wrote:

“I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.”

The New Testament epistles clearly demonstrate that Christ’s birth, death, and resurrection are prophetic events that will occur at the end of the ages, or at the end of the world. For example, Galatians 4:4 proclaims that Jesus will be born during the consummation of the ages, expressed by the apocalyptic phrase τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, which is defined in Ephesians 1:10 as the end of the world! Christ’s birth in Revelation 12:5 is also set in the future. In First Peter 1:20 it is explicitly stated that Jesus will be initially revealed “at the final point of time”. Additionally, Hebrews 9:26 says that Jesus will die for the sins of humankind once “at the end of the ages” (ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων)! A word study of the phrase ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων demonstrates that it refers to “the end of the world” (cf. Mt. 13:39-40, 49; 24:3; 28:20; Dan. 12:4 LXX). Revelation 19:10 also informs us that the testimony to Jesus is prophetic (not historical).

In fact, most of the evidence with regard to the Messianic timeline in both the Old and New Testaments is consistent with an eschatological messianic appearance. For example, Zephaniah 1:7-8 declares that the Lord’s sacrifice will occur during “the day of the Lord” (not in antiquity; cf. Zeph. 1:14-18). Isaiah 2:19 says that people will hide in the caves of the rocks when “the Lord … arises to terrify the earth.” In other words, the Lord’s resurrection is not separate from but contemporaneous with judgement day (cf. Rev. 6:15-17)! Similarly, Daniel 12:1 puts the death and resurrection of the anointed prince just prior to the great tribulation of the end times. In fact, First Corinthians 15:22-24 tells us explicitly that Christ will be resurrected at the end-times (an idea also entertained by James Dunn). That’s precisely why the New Testament accounts of Jesus are essentially futurist (Mk 13:23). My method is therefore revolutionizing the field of historical Jesus Studies by showing that the New Testament is based on mystical Knowledge (gnosis) pertaining to the coming of Christ that was revealed beforehand to certain witnesses and written in advance.

“The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.”

—Matthew 13:11

How to Reconcile Apparent Contradictions in the New Testament

Eli of Kittim

Unlike the English language which uses verb forms to indicate time, Koine Greek is widely considered an aspectual language, meaning that the verbal system primarily expresses how an action is viewed rather than when it occurs. A narrative that does not give us the element of "time" is not giving us history, because history is fundamentally about events happening over time. This explains why some of Jesus's sayings are misinterpreted by time-bound readings and, consequently, misattributed to imminent eschatology or its offshoot, Preterism. Thus, Koine Greek is an aspectual language that is primarily not interested in giving us “time” or “history” but aspect. And in that sense, given that it was originally penned in Greek, the language of the New Testament is primarily aspectual! Therefore, since different New Testament authors present their varying accounts while emphasizing different aspects, these texts cannot be considered contradictory, in the strict sense of the word. If their accounts were classified as “historical,” then the differences in their reports would be considered, technically speaking, contradictory. But since the accounts are aspectual, not historical, the accounts cannot be considered contradictory. It’s simply the way each author chose to depict his particular narrative. In that sense, one can hold that the Bible is inerrant in how it presents its narratives in the original texts. That’s because New Testament Greek is basically aspectual, not temporal, in its verbal system.

Mainstream Christianity does not Comprehend what the New Testament is Actually Saying

Eli Kittim

“Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things.”

—2 Peter 1:20

This verse tells us categorically and unequivocally that no one is allowed to interpret scripture, not even the prophets who penned it. So how come we get to interpret scripture when even the authors of the books of the Bible did not dare to do so? What then is the correct method of interpretation?

When the Old Testament prophets said "Thus says the Lord," they were declaring that the message was not their own but was directly from God, implying the words carried the ultimate authority and infallibility of the divine. This authoritative statement underscored the message's origin, emphasizing it was a command from God and not merely a human opinion, and served to identify them as true spokespersons of God. 

Similarly, when Paul says “The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons” (1 Timothy 4:1), this is not his opinion but a declaration of a message that is revealed by God. The Johannine Jesus confirms that no human interpretation is required but rather a communication with the Spirit of God:

“But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.”

—John 16:13

In other words, Biblical interpretation starts with divine revelation, not with human guesswork. Thus, the meaning derived from the text is not determined by the reader's intentions but rather by divine insight (i.e. supernatural knowledge). That the Bible is the inspired word of God is foundational to Christian faith. It is not NT Wright, Richard Bauckham, or DA Carson but the Holy Spirit who provides inner understanding of scripture. And instead of following different denominations and traditions that hold varying views on the Bible and its interpretation, we should all share the exact same divine message. This is why the multitude of debates and books written on the Bible have created more confusion than clarity. It’s because the starting point of all these readings is based on human rather than divine wisdom. Therefore, the standard Christian reading of the New Testament fails to understand the original context and intent. This is due to the fact that it lacks a spiritual or metaphysical component. In 1 Corinthians 2:14-16, Paul states that the person without the Spirit does not understand spiritual things, whereas we do because "we have the mind of Christ"!

The way proper interpretation works is that God first initiates the process by giving us the meaning of a core issue in the New Testament (i.e. the doctrine of illumination). This is revealed collectively to multiple people, not just to a single individual. This “shared knowledge" then becomes the criterion for distinguishing between the "right" and "false" interpretation. Having this knowledge at our disposal, we can then begin to see how it might fit into the scriptural context. That’s how authentic interpretation works. That’s the process. You hear from God and study.

Modern interpretation works the other way around. First, you enroll in a seminary where you are taught certain human assumptions and speculations based on the history of theology. And then you are indoctrinated into certain teachings concerning biblical methods and approaches. After several years of study, you are awarded an accredited degree which states that you’re an expert on biblical studies (which is grounded in guesswork and probabilities), even though you may not really know what the Bible is talking about due to a lack of spiritual information regarding God.

Unfortunately, these days, many Bible scholars don’t accept revelations. They don’t accept the workings and operations of the Holy Spirit. They think that God signed his last will and testament and then went on vacation. These scholars are called Cessationists. And this is the mainstream view of scholarship that is being taught in Christian universities and seminaries the world over. So it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to try to convince these inveterate naysayers that God bestows revelation even in modern times.

The Christian faith, in its current form, fails to grasp the true meaning of the New Testament. Biblical interpretation should come directly from God, not from seminary professors, who might be atheists, or who might be struggling with their own faith and salvation. Christians today are misguided because they look to famous professors and pastors for direction and guidance, thinking that they are giving them sound advice, but don’t realize that these pastors might not know what the Bible is talking about if they never received any information directly from God. Wouldn’t you rather hear someone like Paul, whose teaching is based on revelations from God as opposed to human sources? (see Galatians 1:11-12). Who would you rather listen to, someone who is basing his ideas on human knowledge, or someone who hears from God?

It’s precisely because there’s no direct knowledge coming from God that we are actually being taught doctrines based on probabilities and guesswork (what Paul calls “things taught by demons”). These are private interpretations that should never be accepted as the word of God. So despite claiming the New Testament as its foundation, Christianity has fundamentally misconstrued its central message.

In conclusion, if a doctrine is not given under the inspiration of the spirit, if it’s not a God-breathed message, I don’t want to hear it, no matter how lofty it might sound. This is not gnosticism or elitism. It is the basis of scriptural interpretation:

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.”

—2 Timothy 3:16

What is Faith?

Eli Kittim

What faith is to outsiders, knowledge is to insiders. In a 1959 BBC interview, Carl Jung was asked if he believed in God, to which he quickly replied, “I don’t need to believe; I know.” Faith is often misunderstood and criticized because it is usually a topic of discussion among atheists, that is, people who have never experienced God and who have never had any existential experiences of the supernatural. They do not actually know how the supernatural works, so they either reject it altogether or group it with superstition and the occult.

Existential Experience versus Blind Belief

The supernatural has nothing to do with superstition. The supernatural comprises miraculous events that go far beyond the so-called laws of nature, thereby transcending the laws of physics. They are spectacular events which defy what is possible, while altering our perception of reality, prompting us to redefine and question the established “facts” of science.

A long time ago, when I had my first encounter with the supernatural, I was a university-trained skeptic who did not believe in miracles. Nevertheless, after my experiences——which, btw, are still ongoing——not only did I accept miracles as factual but they also taught me that so many things that we hold to be true are really not true at all. A new world of possibilities began to open up for me at that time. And I tested the miracles repeatedly using rigorous scientific methods. They proved to be authentic. The phenomena are repeatable, replicable, reliable, and authentic. By contrast, I've never seen a miracle of science!

Besides the miraculous happenings that were taking place, which defied scientific explanations, there was also a briefing during which sensitive information was revealed by God that no one could have possibly known apart from divine revelation. And I came to realize that what God had revealed to me he had also revealed to many others, thus authenticating and verifying his Word by providing multiple attestations. No one could have known various personal details unless a supernatural being had revealed them. Typically, God does not reveal his messages to a single individual but rather disseminates it to a host of people. Through this process of multiple attestation there is a "shared knowledge" so that we don't have to rely on any single individual or assume that their interpretation is correct. There is a "mutual knowledge" that is known by all participatory agents, which is given at different times and in different places. Therefore, God grants the elect intimate knowledge.

These experiences provide evidence for the world beyond the senses, which many philosophers have acknowledged since the time of Plato. It is, perhaps, the world that only quantum mechanics can investigate, where impossible things are possible. In short, someone who has never ever had such veridical experiences would naturally be skeptical, as I was at first. That is perfectly reasonable. It’s understandable. But for me, that's not even a debatable topic anymore. Like Carl Jung, I don’t have blind faith. I know that what I know is a fact! I'm convinced that it's categorically and unequivocally true!

Therefore, as far as outsiders are concerned, it could be called “faith”. However, given everything I know, everything I’ve seen, and everything I’ve experienced, this is knowledge, not belief. Interestingly enough, Plato famously defined knowledge as “justified true belief”! So what faith is to outsiders, knowledge is to insiders.

The Myth of Blind Faith

Widespread myths have created a distorted view of what faith truly means. For example, nominal Christians have no firsthand knowledge of Christ because they have never had any existential experiences of him. So their belief can be described as blind faith (i.e. trust without evidence). They refer to themselves as Christians because they either prayed the sinner’s prayer, answered an altar call, or made a public profession of faith. They think that simply believing in Christ is enough to get saved. However, these are fake conversions. Thus, the myth of blind faith is perpetuated by these types of people who identify as Christians but who have never had any supernatural experiences. Many of them eventually give up on God and end up talking on social media about how they deconstructed their faith. But they were never Christians to begin with.

This myth is further perpetuated by many inexperienced pastors who are teaching that only belief in Jesus is necessary for salvation. They claim that nothing else is required in order to be saved. It is certainly very appealing, allowing you to indulge your carnal desires to your heart’s content!

But this is contrary to scripture. Paul never says “it doesn’t matter if you keep sinning as long as you believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Paul never says “don’t worry if you’re having an adulterous relationship with someone’s wife, or if you keep burglarizing people’s homes, or if you keep molesting little children, as long as you believe in the finished work of Jesus Christ.” That’s like saying that the mafia godfather is saved simply because he believes that Jesus is the Christ. How crazy is that?

Ego Death versus Armchair faith

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). What is more, Romans 8.9 makes it absolutely clear that without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit we are not saved. In John 3.3, Jesus explains that you cannot have knowledge of the kingdom of God unless you are born again. The need for an existential transformation via the Holy Spirit is backed by psychological research like Jung’s work on individuation, which suggests personal transformation requires confronting the unconscious.

That’s why the Epistle to the Ephesians (4.22-24) 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. This process begins during the dark night of the soul. As Carl Jung famously quipped: “One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious.” In reference to self-transcendence, the German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer said: “When Christ calls a man, he bids him to come and die.” Therefore, salvation is not an act of the will or the intellect. Rather, it’s a transformation of the mind: a rebirth! And it is not within human control. It is an act of God! Carl Jung once wrote, "No tree, it is said, can grow to heaven unless its roots reach down to hell".

Conclusion

Notice that faith is not described in Hebrews 11:1 as a leap in the dark, a roll of the dice, a gamble, or an emotional reaction, but rather as an expectation (ἐλπίζω) that is grounded in evidence or proof (ἔλεγχος) of things that cannot be seen or known with the human senses. In summary, true faith is based on knowledge, not mere belief. It is an encounter with the supernatural that is established in existential experience, and has nothing whatsoever to do with a naive faith that is based on speculation, conjecture, or guesswork. We don’t just believe. We know!

“The difference between a theist and an atheist is the degree to which God has revealed himself to them.”

—— Eli of Kittim, The Little Book of Revelation: The First Coming of Jesus at the End of Days

The Paranoia of Christian Fundamentalism

By Eli of Kittim

Taking the Bible literally, as a standard method of interpretation, can lead to some unrealistic and outrageous conclusions. Various texts show that there are many instances in the Bible where a literal rendering is completely unwarranted. On the other hand, it’s equally important to emphasize that the allegorical approach to scriptural interpretation in no way diminishes the reliability of the Bible or its truth values!

Biblical genres require different methods of interpretation. The Bible has many different genres, such as prophecy, poetry, wisdom, parable, apocalyptic, narrative, and history. It is obviously inappropriate to interpret poetry or parable in the same way that we would interpret history because that would ultimately lead to logical absurdities. Alas, the history of Biblical interpretation is riddled with exegetes who have erroneously tried to force parables and metaphors into a literal interpretation, which of course cannot be done without creating ridiculous effects that you only encounter in sci-fi films. This view creates logical absurdities, such as talking serpents, talking donkeys, trees of immortality that are guarded by aliens with lightsabers, fruits literally producing evil after consumption, mythological beasts with multiple heads that are populating our planet, and the like.

It’s important to stress that a refutation of the literal interpretation of certain passages is not equivalent to a refutation of the “truths” of the Bible. The scriptural “truth values” work on many different levels. For example, truth can be presented in poetic form without necessarily compromising its validity.

Some Christian fundamentalists often try to justify their belief system by using the phrase, “With God all things are possible.” Is that true? No, it’s not! God cannot create evil, nor can he bring into existence logical impossibilities, such as married bachelors, squared circles, hexagonal triangles, or any irrational contradictions which violate the laws of reason. When Jesus says, “All things are possible for one who believes” (Mk 9.23), he’s not thinking of irrational absurdities like talking donkeys or people turning into salt. He’s talking about rational things like healing and spiritual transformation.

Some fundamentalists have a problem understanding what is real and what is unreal. It’s not even a theological or hermeneutical issue because their interpretations are tenaciously maintained despite evidence to the contrary. So they’re actually dealing with an existential or ontological question (or anxiety). And they often end up confusing the supernatural with the superstitious. It is important to note that people who lose touch with reality experience a similar disconnect between fantasy and reality, coupled with firmly held delusions, which often lead to paranoia and mental illness. In a similar manner, but without the associated psychiatric disorders, some fundamentalists exhibit firmly held false beliefs that anything is possible in reality, including angels and demons appearing or disappearing at will, people literally turning into salt, talking animals, and the like. For them, anything goes. This misunderstanding of physical reality, and its limitations, if left unchecked, can lead to serious psychological problems down the road.

But that’s not how God works. This is not how reality works either. In his book Miracles, CS Lewis says that although God’s miracles transcend the laws of nature, they never actually break them. Lewis answers in the affirmative when questioned whether it is logically possible that miracles can occur in principle. For him, miracles are neither absurd nor irrational. Thus, a stable foundation, both psychologically and biblically, rests upon a clear distinction between the supernatural and the absurd.

But some fundamentalists confuse the supernatural with the absurd. They often lump them together. They conflate the rational with the irrational, the metaphorical with the literal, and the supernatural with the superstitious. That's because they often take words out of context. Their insistence on literal interpretations lead to logical contradictions that are incoherent and nonsensical. For example, when Jesus says, “I am the bread of life,” he’s not claiming to be a loaf of bread. He’s using figurative language. Or when he says, “I am the light of the world,” he’s using a metaphor. He’s not claiming to be a lightbulb. Jesus frequently uses metaphors to describe himself as the source of goodness, such as “the good Shepherd” or “the true vine”. But he’s neither a shepherd nor a plant. The apostle Paul also discussed Sarah and Hagar as allegories of the two covenants in his letter to the Galatians.

The truth is, anyone who believes in talking donkeys, people literally turning into salt, or living inside whales, has an immature and superstitious faith that contradicts reason and the laws of nature. The Bible talks about the supernatural, not the superstitious! Belief in the existence of such irrational and absurd things is closer to mental illness than to God’s revelations. It’s one thing to believe in God’s word, but quite another to believe in incoherent nonsense. Fundamentalism is therefore turning God into a fabulist, and the Bible into a collection of fables. Absurd interpretations of things that cannot possibly exist turn the Bible into an object of ridicule. Not only that, but some fundamentalists then try to pass off these nonsensical interpretations as the word of God, egregiously misinterpreting the authorial intent. And they even accuse anyone who doesn’t share in their literal interpretation of the Bible as lacking in faith or not trusting in the word of God. How crazy is that? It is therefore critical to recognize the limitations of this methodology which typically leads to misleading or unwarranted conclusions. These are dangerous misinterpretations and distortions of the said texts.

From young-earth creationism to pre-trib dispensationalism, Christian fundamentalists are often depicted as cranks, who, similar to flat-earthers, refuse to acknowledge both scientific and biblical scholarship: