In any process that man goes through, there is a beginning and an end to that process. It is an axiom that one must always start at the beginning for the process to be completed correctly. For instance, in building a house, one does not first build the roof, then the walls, then the foundation; such would never work. One must begin "at the beginning," and lay the foundation before one can build the house! What has this to do with our study now? Simply this, we must recognize that in the study of the Bible, there is also a logical process that one must follow. There is a proper beginning point for every study we engage in with relationship to the word of God. If that process is not honored, our study will end in error.
This is an absolutely essential item to remember in Bible study, but especially in relationship to the study of certain "sections" of the Bible, and with regard to certain Bible "topics." For instance, all who have read the Bible know that the Book of Revelation is much harder to understand than any other New Testament book. Common sense demands that we exercise greater caution to ensure that we have laid the right foundation for this book before we build some fanciful interpretation based upon all the signs and symbols found within. All of the various wild and fanciful explanations for the book that one can read today support this conclusion. One must build the right foundation by ascertaining how the first century saints viewed such language, and what meaning it had for them to whom it was originally addressed.
The same caution must be exercised when researching various topical studies in the Bible. Paul and Peter both stated that there are both "milk" and "meat" issues (i.e. easy and difficult) in the Bible (Heb.5:12-14; 1 Pet.2:2). Plainly stated, not all subjects are as easy to grasp as others. What one must do to obtain salvation is a subject that is very clear in the New Testament. God never wanted this to be hard to grasp. The study of "Eschatology" (i.e. last things) however, is not an easily approached study. Peter makes this quite clear when he warns his readers that Paul's writings on the issues of eschatology contain: "...things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction..." (2 Pet.3:16).
Eschatology covers a wide variety of issues and questions, and is inseparably linked to all of scripture, not just small sections. Eschatology deals with the development of God's "Scheme of Redemption," critically involving everything from the fall of man in sin (Gen. 3) to the final consummation of the salvation that comes through Christ and the New Covenant.
Needless to say, we are talking about countless factors that make this a complex study indeed. There are thousands of years of history, the development and relationship of three major covenants (i.e. Patriarchal, Mosaic, and Christian), and God working out his plan in and through all of these. So just to approach these issues from a twentieth century mind-set is not wise at all. This is never more clear than when considering the discussion of "language" as it is employed in the Bible.
What we have through all of the Old Testament and most of the New Testament is not language based upon our standards today, but rather, it is language that springs forth from a rich "Jewish" heritage. This is completely logical and consistent since the Bible declares that "...salvation is of the Jews" (John 4:22); and that the Gospel was for all, but that it was, "...for the Jew first and also for the Greek" (Rom.1:16). In later chapters of this same epistle Paul continually reminds them that their salvation as Gentiles was contingent upon and inseparable from the Messianic hope of Israel (see 11:12,15,26-28). Then in the closing chapters when Paul was giving instructions regarding the financial collection being made among the predominantly Gentile congregations, for the poor saints in Judea, he encourages them to be willing to render this physical assistance, because they had been allowed to share and become "...partakers of their spiritual things..." (15:27); referring of course to the Messianic promises and hope of Israel.
All of that is said to say this, that since the Messianic hope of all men today rests in the teachings, traditions and prophecies of the Jewish nation, we in the twentieth century must give guarded care to ensure that we are interpreting the scriptures concerning eschatology - the completion of God's scheme to save man - in a way not determined by our use of language today, but in a way that the first-century Jew would have understood the language. This is the only valid way to ever approach the scriptures. We must always ask, "what did those original Jews and first century saints, taught by Jewish Apostles, understand this language to mean?" When we have determined that, only then will we know how to correctly apply it to our own time!
It is this writer's firm conviction that all of the confusion in the studies of eschatology (e.g. the coming of the Kingdom, the millennium, the final judgment, the resurrection, and the "second" coming of Christ) stems from two basic failures as one approaches these eschatological contexts. When we clarify these two areas and correct whatever error(s) we have been making, then and only then will we understand these matters as they were originally intended to be understood. On a very positive note, this writer can say from very personal experience that when one makes the necessary correction(s) and begins allowing the Bible to shed light and render commentary on itself, it will absolutely open vistas of understanding to the beauties of the sacred text that one never dreamed possible.
In a series of articles to follow, this writer will attempt to define, identify and correct these two major errors of biblical exegesis that have resulted in so much confusion. To accomplish this, examples and quotes from various scholarly sources will be cited to demonstrate the clear error and then, allowing the Bible to define itself, we will show how easily understood these passages really are. Also, when necessary, these scholarly sources will be quoted to show the inconsistencies they are guilty of, that lead to the erroneous conclusions reached.
There are two areas in particular that we will, in several articles, give our attention to. First of all, we will pay close and strict attention to the time statements made by the inspired writers concerning these events. More specifically, did these inspired writers ever give any clearly distinguishable time indicators as to when in history we might look for the fulfillment of these matters? It is the conclusion of this writer, that not one area of New Testament eschatology is left undefined, not only by a time statement, but by a very "specific" time statement. If that is indeed the case, then our greatest burden to correct application of these passages is removed, namely, "to what period of time do they apply?" This is a separate issue from any other consideration. If the time statement is specific, whatever it is modifying must come about within that designated time frame.
Then the next thing that we will do, to build upon the first, will be to look at the consistent use of biblical terminology. Since in the development of these "last things" themes, the New Testament writers consistently employ the language of, and direct quotes from, the Old Testament Prophets and writers, we must determine how the language was employed by them. When that is accomplished, we will know how to use it in the New Testament. Having established the precedent for how the language was used (e.g. is it figurative or literal), we will also have demonstrated the clear demand to show compelling evidence from the context, if one will vary from the normal and precedential meaning. These two factors are seen by this writer as the most critical in understanding issues of eschatology and a neglect of them has created more confusion than anything else. (To be continued)
