#NewTestamentvisions

[eli-kittim]

The Fifth Quest for the Historical Jesus: The Kittim Factor

Kittim’s eschatology is a view in biblical studies that interprets the story of Jesus in exclusively futurist 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 biblical claims. It involves a new paradigm shift! Kittim holds to an exclusive futurist eschatology (i.e. future/anticipated history) in which the story of Jesus (his birth, death, and resurrection) takes place once and for all in the end-times. Kittim’s eschatology provides a solution to the historical problems associated with the historical Jesus.

Kittim views God's revelation of Jesus in the New Testament gospel literature as a proleptic account. That is to say, the gospels represent the future life of Jesus as if presently existing or accomplished. They are written as historical fictional stories, meaning that they are fictional narratives set in a specific historical period, incorporating real events and details while allowing for invented characters and plotlines to drive the stories. The term “prolepsis,” in this particular case, refers to the anachronistic depiction of Jesus as existing prior to his proper or historical time. This is based on a foreshadowing technique of biographizing the eschaton as if presently accomplished.

By way of illustration, Second Peter 1:16-19 demonstrates that the so-called “eyewitness accounts” were actually based on visions that were then written down as if they had already happened (proleptically). The same holds true in Acts 10:40-41 in which we are told that Jesus’ resurrection was based on visions because it was only visible “to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God.” We find the same motif in Luke’s gospel! No one saw Jesus during or after the so-called resurrection. The women saw a “vision” (Lk 24:23–24). Likewise, Paul’s knowledge of Jesus is based entirely on visions (Gal. 1:11–12).

Acts 3:20-21 also says that Christ will not be sent to earth until the consummation of the ages (cf. Mt. 19:28). Put differently, the gospel stories were written down as if the events they were depicting had already happened (proleptically). Similarly, First Peter 1:10-11 claims that the New Testament prophets “predicted the sufferings of the Messiah” in advance (cf. Isa. 46:10)!

In contrast to the gospels, the epistles demonstrate that all these events 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. Verse 5 describes the birth of the messiah, and the immediate next verse talks about the great tribulation of the end times. Even Luke 17:30 claims that the Son of man has not yet been revealed! In First Peter 1:20 it is explicitly stated that Jesus will be initially revealed “at the final point of time”. Hebrews 9:26 leaves no room for doubt about what is being communicated when it states 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 the epistles rather than the gospels. 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 in the end-times (an idea also entertained by James Dunn). That’s precisely why the New Testament accounts of Jesus are essentially futurist. Kittim’s method is therefore revolutionizing the field of historical Jesus Studies.

Kittim’s new findings falsify the conclusions drawn from the previous quests for the historical Jesus both epistemologically and methodologically. Epistemologically because what we thought we knew was derived from fiction, not fact. And methodologically because the approaches were not, in fact, based on historical or expository data.

Eli Kittim’s work seeks to develop certain new criteria to the study of the historical Christ. His extensive research project is primarily based on translation and exegesis of Biblical Greek, with special attention given to the New Testament epistles. In his view, instead of using subjective criteria to evaluate sources, it’s best to employ a different approach to research methodology. The problem in the previous quests for the historical Jesus was that everything was centered on the gospels without much attention given to the epistles. For centuries, we’ve tried to interpret the explicit (epistles) in light of the implicit (gospels). And yet, it’s the didactic portions of the Bible that teach with clear and explicit statements. Thus, priority must be given to the epistles. This represents a significant paradigm shift, which certainly contributes to the historical Jesus studies and could, perhaps, be viewed as the fifth quest for the historical Jesus. In analyzing sources, both the biblical and extra-biblical references about Jesus complement rather than contradict Kittim’s findings. If Jesus’ life in the New Testament epistles is, in fact, set in a different context than previously assumed, then it would necessitate that we revisit our previous considerations.