All too often the differences between Fulfilled Eschatology and Orthodox Christianity are minimized to simply be about an “interpretation” of scriptures. When a system of interpretation is invented by any individual or group, the first result is a divergent or departure from what is Orthodox. Scholarship recognizes that a consistent interpretation is maintained by a strong set of unified Hermeneutic. When those rules are followed the church has come to the same interpretation concerning doctrines and theology for the last two thousand years. Each generation examines the claims of the previous generation of scholars and upon that foundation we build a core set of doctrines. Groups such as Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, who deny such core doctrines of the church such as the deity of Christ, incarnation, or the Trinity garner their followers the label of heretical, apostate, shipwrecked, or even deceived. The major problem is that when those basic rules of hermeneutics are abrogated then scriptures become subject to the whims of the leaders whose goal is promote their interpretation as if it is a valid method. Further compounding the process, any group that adopts the “spiritualization” of scriptures departs from the golden rule.
“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.
A hermeneutic that approaches scriptures with a spiritualized interpretation suffers under the weight of a private interpretation where the essence of a passage is made to mean something other than the intended meaning of the words used. While Fulfilled Eschatology gives lip service to an “analogy of faith” where scriptures are to be understood in the light of other similar passages, in theory, the practice by the uneducated bible teacher becomes entangled in a mass of confusion when the language, grammar, and context is ignored or simply what is “unknown” by the teacher, the interpretation ends in left field. The worst offenders argue for the meaning of English words found on google as the proper interpretation of Greek words.
A very simple example is that of the word μέλλω “Mello” in most cases the word means “about to” and yet Thayer’s Lexicon provides a detailed use of the word in which in some cases does not demand something is about to happen but is better understand as “to what is sure to happen.” In Acts 24:15 the verb μέλλειν (Present NA) is used with a second verb, ἔσεσθαι, “to be” (Future NM) grammatically it can be demonstrated that the two verbs used together form a different thought and idea and translated as “sure to be” since the ἔσεσθαι is used in a future tense which erases the idea of something that is about to take place very soon. Fulfilled Eschatology teachers, (FET) such as Holger Neubauer insists the meaning of the word must remain consistent in every place it’s used as meaning the same thing, that something is “about to take place soon.” Yet based on the context the resurrection is being declared as something that will take place, not is ”about to “ take place which means for the FET some 10-20 years later. Mello, immediately, is never used in scriptures of something that is to take place a long time off unless accompanied by the helping verb ἔσεσθαι.
When it then comes to interpretation the FET will go to an old testament passage to justify there interpretation because the passage is most likely to be “spiritualized” For example in Zech 14:2 You have a prophetic description of the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem. Yet later in the same chapter it states, “Then everyone who survives of all the nations that have come against Jerusalem …” which indicates a Jewish victory, Zech 12 (14) a sister passage, states,
‘The inhabitants of Jerusalem have strength through the LORD of hosts, their God.’
“And the LORD will give salvation to the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem may not surpass that of Judah.”
On that day the LORD will protect the inhabitants of Jerusalem
And on that day I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
And it shall be inhabited, for there shall never again be a decree of utter destruction. Jerusalem shall dwell in security.
Preston insists that the “Jerusalem” being talked about in these passages is the New Jerusalem. Simply because in AD 70 just the opposite happened therefore it cannot be talking about the events of AD 70 even though that is how the passage begins. There is no such hermeneutic that justifies the literal Jerusalem in the first few verses to be turned into the spiritual New Jerusalem. The conundrum presented by the text in which Jerusalem clearly gains the victory dispels the myth that all prophecy must be fulfilled by AD 70 or be about AD 70. Instead of changing the interpretation, which leads to a change in the paradigm (since all scriptures is truth.) we would suggest “on that day” is a different day. God cannot send judgment on a people and in the same breath declare their victory over their enemies who God sent to punish them. This same issue is relevant to an interpretation of Rev 19 where Christ returns and defeats the armies and the beast that comes against Jerusalem. There is simply no precedent or hint in the language that the passage warrants any type of FET interpretation. That somehow in the same day where God sends an army to judge a nation and at the same time give victory to the defeated.
Two other major passages come to mind.
For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Math 5:18
The same verse is found in Luke 16:17,
But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void.
Mathew presents us with the Hebrew “idiom” figure of speech, while Luke presents the basic idea plainly spoken. The meaning does not suggest that the heaven and earth have to pass away in order for the law to come to its end, So the FET will argue, “did the world pass away” in AD 70? Meaning that no sane person would say the heaven and earth passed away literally so it continues on as does the law. The FET then will spiritualize the “heaven and earth” to mean the temple. Instead of understanding from Luke he is simply stating that it is easier for the heavens and earth to cease to exist than for any of Gods promises not to be fulfilled that are contained in the old covenant.
The same type of mistake is reiterated in Luke 24:44
Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets, and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
Mathew stated,
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
So when the FET comes to Luke 21:22
for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written.
they narrowly interpret it to mean, that every prophesy ever made in the OT must be fulfilled during the days of vengeance, and yet it has been grammatically understood for hundreds of years to mean, that all prophecy concerning HIM must be fulfilled, the prophecies concerning the days of vengeance must also be fulfilled. (Duet 28)
So there is no doubt there are many prophecies concerning Israel’s last days. Israel’s last days does not mean then then the new covenant also comes to an end.
Now Bower states, “we see no such language to indicate such events were to be global in nature.” Concerning Duet 32:43 and yet it states, “O you nations, with his people:” indicates many nations not just Israel. Many nations is a global reference. In Rev 7, it is people from “every nation,’ that’s stands before the throne, which is a global context unless again FET changed the meaning of words. When Revelation uses the word γῆ, “earth” the FET will translate it as The Land, referring to the Roman empire. Yet in Rev 3:10 Thayer’s again states the context refers to the whole inhabited earth. More clearly the verses in Zech 12. 14 have to do with the day ““he will avenge the blood of his servants”
Then the LORD will go out and fight against those nations as when he fights on a day of battle. 4On that day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives that lies before Jerusalem on the east,
Which also tells us that day in which he seeks revenge against his enemies, is the day of his return. Now Bowers points out that the avenging of his servants, from “Abel to Zechariah” is fulfilled in AD 70. Of this we definitely agree it is a judgment on that generation.
What precipitated this judgment was that Israel and Judah were united into one nation during the years of intertestamental silence, as the scattered were regathered in the land of Judea. This included all twelve tribes, yet some measure of people remained in their foreign lands and did not return.
Now Bowers directs us to Eze 37:23, which is a prophecy concerning the regathering
They shall not defile themselves anymore with their idols and their detestable things, or with any of their transgressions. But I will save them from all the backslidings in which they have sinned and will cleanse them; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.
“My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes. They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children’s children shall dwell there forever, and David my servant shall be their prince forever.[1] I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will set them in their land and multiply them and will set my sanctuary in their midst forevermore. My dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Then the nations will know that I am the LORD who sanctifies Israel, when my sanctuary is in their midst forevermore.”[2]
While we know that Ezekiel 37:23, 26-28, 2nd Corinthians 6:16, and Revelation 21:3 refer and best support a premillennial paradigm, for a future fulfillment, it is impossible to see this as a fulfillment that happens in AD 70 or in the events leading up to the Jewish wars, or even soon after as far as that goes. The last few verse of Ezekiel 28 demonstrate the repeated promise of a future fulfillment.
Thus says the Lord GOD: When I gather the house of Israel from the peoples among whom they are scattered and manifest my holiness in them in the sight of the nations, then they shall dwell in their own land that I gave to my servant Jacob. And they shall dwell securely in it, and they shall build houses and plant vineyards. They shall dwell securely, when I execute judgments upon all their neighbors who have treated them with contempt. Then they will know that I am the LORD their God.”
This follows logically from Isa 11,
In that day the Lord will extend his hand yet a second time[3] to recover the remnant that remains of his people, from Assyria, from Egypt, from Pathros, from Cush,a from Elam, from Shinar, from Hamath, and from the coastlands of the sea.
He will raise a signal for the nations
and will assemble the banished of Israel,
and gather the dispersed of Judah
from the four corners of the earth.
The jealousy of Ephraim shall depart,
and those who harass Judah shall be cut off;
Ephraim shall not be jealous of Judah,
and Judah shall not harass Ephraim.
But they shall swoop down on the shoulder of the Philistines in the west,
and together they shall plunder the people of the east.
They shall put out their hand against Edom and Moab,
and the Ammonites shall obey them.
The Ezekial 28 verses talk of a days of “security” after God has avenged his enemies, of those other nations. Zech 12, 14 suggest the same thing, a day of revenge against the nations and not against Jerusalem which will dwell in security. The interpreter is hard pressed to explain how Jerusalem/Isarel is “dwelling in security” in the days leading up to the arrival of the “one crying in the wilderness” or any time after AD 70 when they were scattered for a second time.
Bowers makes an “illegitimate transfer” in suggesting the idea that God tabernacles with his people when Israel is revived, and the people regathered spiritually which denies the literal languages in which Israel was regathered after the Babylonian captivity as the first. Using Rev 21:3 as his basis requires that he uses a spiritual interpretation in order to justify his interpretation because the main problem is that according to Rev 20 the judgment of all men must take place where the unrighteous are removed and the earth made like new in its restoration.
No such restoration or judgment took place in the days following AD 70.
Now like many FET Bowers make a secondary fundamental mistake of interpretation. The literal idea of a resurrection, based in Isa 26:19 is that dead bodies come back to life. This imagery is then applied to Israel as one who is coming back to life. The prophet uses the literal idea of a dead people coming back to life as the metaphor for the restoration of Israel.
If I say it’s raining cats and dogs the metaphor is cats and dogs, the literal is that it’s raining very hard. The metaphor is seeds going into the ground, the literal is the dead body going into the ground in I Cor 15.
Now Bowers uses the idea that David’s temporary unification was short lived. So completely misses the idea the prophecy of the two sticks was fulfilled in the days of the intertestamental time. In the days of Christ it was a unified nation of twelve tribes. In Ezra and Nehemiah and we have references to the return of representatives of the twelve tribes.
Bowers makes the statement,
In addition to all that Christ has done; and was sent to do, a primary function was the reunification/restoration/reconciliation and resurrection of Israel.
Though we know this has not occurred in our natural/physical world, the “timing” of this as told in scripture, demonstrates that “nature” was to be spiritual.
And yet as pointed out the resurrection of Israel took place in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah who laid the groundwork upon the returning twelve tribes to the land was very literal. If people are to return to the land and then dwell insecurity with King Jesus on the throne, then it is to be taken literally.
Bowers claims that this prophecy to be fulfilled sometimes in the future. Then denies any type of physical or literal fulfillment and demands that is must have been fulfilled spiritually. Yet cannot explain how outside the hinted suggestion of replacement theology where the church replaces Israel as the people of God, how it was to be fulfilled.. Then he suggest this is all contradictory “in timing and nature.”
Where does the scriptures declare claims of contradictory fulfillment between nature and timing?
[1] If Jesus is to be the prince forever then why would the children’s children not also live there in the land forever and ever. Again this is interpretated in a replacement theology where the church replaces OT references meant for Israel alone.
[2] This passage is spiritualized to mean God is with his church spiritually after AD 70 and not a literal personal presence.
[3] The first scattering took place during the Babylonian captivity, a command of judgment. The second scattering took pace in AD 70, by prophetic command of judgment. Therefore common sense that Israel will be regathered a second time following the events of AD 70 when the people were again scattered. But this time Christ will be their king in a restored Kingdom of Israel. (Acts 1:11)
Leave a Reply