What if the Crucifixion of Christ is a Future Event?
By Author Eli Kittim
Biblical Exegesis, the Canonical Context, and the Analogy of Scripture
Biblical studies must involve âthe whole counsel of Godâ (Acts 20.27) or the entire Biblical canon, in which all books must be examined equally as parts of a larger canonical context, not simply on an individual basis or as isolated parts. Moreover, in order to avoid confirmation bias, we must employ the hermeneutical principle known as âthe analogy of Scriptureâ (Lat. analogia Scripturae). Thus, the inability of an expositor to remain completely objective is offset by the process in which Scripture interprets Scripture without outside interference or intervention.
Dogmatic theology: Proof-text and Coherence Fallacies
What is Classical Christianityâs foundational faith statement? The Protestant commentariat speaks highly of the Reformation, a movement that gradually freed itself from fiercely defended church traditions and council decrees through its fervent adherence to sola scriptura. But, unfortunately, the reformation didnât go far enough. Sadly, reformed theology is, in many ways, a reprise of a long standing interpretation of Scripture which is based on ecclesiastical theology and authority. For example, the Nicene Creedââwhich was adopted during the First Council of Constantinople in 381 CEââreads:
Jesus Christ . . . shall come again, with glory,
to judge the quick and the dead.
Protestants have unquestionably accepted this church dogma. But a second coming begs the question as it is nowhere mentioned in the New Testament (NT). And there is no epistolary proof that Jesus was born of a virgin, nor is there any proof regarding the dogma of the Immaculate Conception that expounds on the implications of the virgin birth, which was only recently adopted by the Roman Catholic Church via an apostolic constitution in 1854!
And what of all the Scriptures that contradict the Nicene dogma, which erroneously asserts of a messianic sacrifice in Antiquity? What about Zeph. 1.7-9, 15-18 that clearly equates the Lordâs sacrifice with the âday of the Lordâ? Are we to assume that the day of the Lord already happened in Antiquity? And what about the piercing of the Messiah âon that [apocalyptic] dayâ? (Zech. 12.9-10)! Can we seriously ignore the end-of-the-world timeline in Mt. 13.39-40, 49? Or in Mt. 24.3? Or in Mt. 28.20? Yet the exact same apocalyptic phrase that is used in all these verses is ALSO used in Heb. 9.26b, which explicitly refers to a messianic sacrifice that will transpire âonce for allâ (hapax) âat the end of the age,â a period that is synonymous with the day of the Lord and with judgment day! And why ignore Scripture which says explicitly that Christ speaks to humanity in the âlast daysâ? (Heb. 1.2). Why should we deliberately ignore the future incarnation of Christ in Rev. 12.5? Or the fact that the testimony to Jesus is prophetic? (Rev. 19.10d). Or the first coming of Jesus in 1 Pet. 1.20? Or the Son of Man that has not yet been revealed in Lk 17.30? Or the initial visitation of the messiah during âthe time of universal restorationâ? (Acts 3.19-21). Or Christâs future resurrection in 1 Cor. 15.23-24? Or the admonition against the historical resurrection theology in 2 Tim. 2.18? Or the fact that Jesusâ one and only coming is associated with judgment day in John 9.39? (cf. Lk 12.49).
The Apocalyptic Aspect of the Gospels
If this is indeed the canonical context, then it cannot be overridden by Catholic dogmas against which the reformers fought so hard to free themselves from. Catholic dogmatic theology once set the theological standard against which all other theories were measured, whereby it inevitably lead to multiple coherence fallacies down through the ages. In other words, the churchâs misreading of the gospel literature as historical is obviously not compatible with the systematic theology of Scripture! In short, what was originally Apocalyptic Christianity was turned into Historical Christianity by Church dogma!
This plays such a crucial role that many Christian adherents today feel that if the historical component is discredited, then Christianity can no longer be viable or credible. Noted author John Ankerberg has said something to that effect, and so have many others, including philosopher/apologist William Lane Craig, who tries desperately to prove the historical aspects of the Christian faith. And yet Christianity is and always has been an Apocalyptic Religion that is based on a revelation or unveiling of the end times! Due to its prophetic and apocalyptic foundation, the NT text remains credible and viable even if its literary elements prove to be unhistorical. Ultimately, the Bible is a book on faith, not on history or science. As Kierkegaard would argue, the Christian tenets cannot be proved empirically or historically; they can only be experienced existentially! Christianity is not a belief of the mind but of the heart!
The Apocalyptic Aspect of the Epistles
If we shift theological gears and focus on the epistles, the earliest NT writings, weâll find a completely different theology altogether, one in which the coherence of Scripture revolves around the end-times! For example, in 2 Pet. 1.16â21, the eyewitness testimony of Jesusâ transfiguration in vv. 16-18 is not historical but rather a vision of the future. Thatâs why verse 19 concludes: âSo we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed.â The same goes for the apocalyptic passage in 1 Pet. 1.10-11, which suggests an eschatological soteriology.
According to the principle of expositional constancy, if we compare the chronological time period or the timeline known as âthe fullness of timeâ (Ďὸ ĎΝΎĎĎΟι Ďοῌ ĎĎĎÎ˝ÎżĎ ) in Gal. 4.4 to that of Eph. 1.9-10, we will come to realize that Christâs birth, as recorded in the former, is in reference to the eschaton, not to a purported time period in Antiquity. The end-times incarnation of Christ in Gal. 4.4 is multiply and independently attested in Rev. 12.5, whose timeline is contemporaneous with the Great Tribulation and the apocalyptic events of the end-times!
Therefore, the churchâs dogma that Jesus died in Antiquity appears to be 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 Jesusâ 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).
Furthermore, if the canonical context demands that we coalesce the different Biblical texts as if weâre reading a single Book, then the overall âpropheticâ message of Revelation must certainly play a significant exegetical role. Accordingly, the Book of Revelation places not only the timeline (12.5) but also the testimony to Jesus (19.10d) in âpropheticâ categories.
The apocalyptic theology of the NT epistles is multiply attested in the Old Testament canon, which confirms the earthy, end-time Messiah of the epistolary literature (cf. Job 19.25; Isa. 2.19; Dan. 12.1-2; Zeph. 1.7-9, 15-18; Zech. 12.9-10)!
Visions of the Resurrection
Most credible scholars view the so-called resurrection of Christ not as a historical phenomenon but rather as a visionary experience. And this seems to be the apocalyptic 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 âhad indeed seen a vision.â Lk 24.31 reads: âhe [Jesus] vanished from their sight.â And Lk 24.37 admits they âthought that they were seeing a ghost.â 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,
âThe New Testament and Mythology,â 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, âA Long Way from Tipperary: A
Memoirâ [San Francisco:
HarperSanFransisco, 2000], 164-165).
At the heart of the Christian religion lies a
vision described in Greek by Paul as
opheheâââhe was seen.â And Paul himself,
who claims to have witnessed an
appearance asserted repeatedly âI have
seen the Lord.â So Paul is the main source
of the thesis that a vision is the origin of the
belief in resurrection . . . (Gerd LĂźdemann,
âThe Resurrection of Jesus: History,
Experience, Theology.â 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 disciplesâ 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, âHow Jesus Became God: The
Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from
Galileeâ [New York: Harper One, 2014],
183-184).
Ehrman sides with the *visionary language* that Luke, Bultmann, Crossan, and LĂźdemann use. British NT scholar, James Dunn also thought that Jesus was not resurrected in Antiquity but that Jesus probably meant he would be resurrected at the last judgment! Curiously enough, Jesus' expression "it is done," in Jn 19.30, is elsewhere described as a future event (see Rev. 16.17). Even NT textual critic Kurt Aland went so far as to question whether or not Jesus was a real person. In his book, âA History of Christianityâ (Vol. 1, p. 106, emphasis added), he writes:
the real question arises . . . was there really
a Jesus? Can Jesus really have lived if the
writings of his closest companions are filled
with so little of his reality . . . so little in them
of the reality of the historical Jesus . . . .
When we observe thisââassuming that the
writings about which we are speaking really
come from their alleged authorsââit
almost then appears as if Jesus were a
mere PHANTOM . . .
Conclusion
This is not the proposal of a mythicist, but of an ahistoricist. In sharp contrast to mythicism, which attributes the Jesus-story solely to mythological causes, my ahistoricism ascribes it to future eschatology! Paradoxically, you can have a high view of Scripture, and even hold to a high Christology, and yet still reject the historicity of Jesus. In other words, you can completely repudiate historical Christianity without necessarily denying the Christian faith, the divinity of Jesus, eschatological salvation, or the authority of Scripture. In fact, this view seems to be more in line with the canonical context of the Bible than the classical one! This brief inquiry into the apocalyptic aspect of the NT has therefore provided a starting point and direction for subsequent studies.
Christianity preserved the apocalyptic tradition of Judaism and reevaluated it in light of its own messianic revelations. The NT refined this type of literature as it became the vehicle of its own prophetic and apocalyptic expressions. Apocalypticism, then, not historiography, is the essence of the NT, which is based on a foreknowledge of future events that is written in advance! It is therefore thought advisable to consider the collection of NT writings as strikingly futurist books.

















