e-Book Victorious Eschatology download

"Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, "You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down." As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?"" Matthew 24:1-3, RSV.

Victorious Eschatology is a profound book which challenges the popular belief in Dispensational Theology, most typified in the "Left Behind" series of books. Victorious Eschatology makes the case that Dispensationalism has misinterpreted these passages and gives a very credible alternate explanation of Daniel's prophesy and of Jesus' discourse in Matthew 24. The authors argue that Dispensationalists have misunderstood the chronology of Jesus' answer to the disciples' question in Matthew 24:3. They argue that Jesus' prediction of the coming destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. is separate from his prediction of the final judgment, which begins in verse 35. Everything leading up to verse 35, including the references to the Great Tribulation, have to do with the judgment on Jerusalem which took place in "this generation," or approximately 40 years after his crucifixion.

I believe the most profound and simple example of their reasoning is in response to the disciples' question about "when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming...?" When the disciples asked this question, first of all, they did not believe Jesus was going to be crucified, nor did they believe he was going to be raised from the dead (Mark 9:31-32). They could not have been asking about his Second Coming, because they didn't know anything about it. They believed, like all good Jews of that time, that the Messiah would be a king like David, who would come and rule in Jerusalem, and kick the Romans out of Israel. Instead, they were asking, "when are you going to come into your kingdom and rule in Jerusalem."

Jesus' response is that they should look for signs, especially that "when you see the desolating sacrilege spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains;" Matthew 24:15, 16, RSV. The authors point out the parallel passage in Luke reveals that the desolating sacrilege is not an anti-Christ sitting on the Holy Seat in the Temple, but the armies of Rome:
"when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it;" Luke 21:20, 21, RSV.

Obviously, this sign happened in 70 A.D. followed by the complete destruction of Jerusalem, with a great tribulation wherein the starvation was so rampant that the citizens resorted to cannibalism and over 1 million Jews either starved to death or were killed by the Roman army.

The final point the authors make is that none of the signs Jesus prophesied in Matthew 24: 1-34 need to take place in order for his Second Coming. From verse 35 on into the next chapter, Jesus emphasizes that his coming will be "in an hour you do not expect." In the next section, they point out how perfectly Daniel's prophesy of the 70 weeks of years is fulfilled in Jesus' first coming and crucifixion. The prediction is so perfect that it seems to come in the exact year the Lord predicted through Daniel.

These first two sections make a very convincing argument and should be studied as a mandatory corrective to Dispensational fear of the future. But my praise for the book ends at that point. There are three issues where I think the book becomes very questionable at best and illogical at worst.

The first issue is their theological view that everything is going to get better until Jesus comes to take over the world: that the expansion of his kingdom by the conversion of the nations is inevitable and that the history of Christian expansion is one long story of the advance of Jesus' millennial reign. My problem with this theological retrospective is that they cherry-pick their history to show how things are improving. For some reason, the last century, where more were martyred than in all the history of Christendom combined, and where over 100 million were murdered by genocidal, atheist nations (including 6 million Jews in the Holocaust), is overlooked, while the advance of women's rights and the end of slavery prove that Christ is conquering the nations. This facile interpretation of history reminds me of the "Social Gospel" movement of the early 20th Century that found its end in WWI, where the continuing depravity of humankind was on full display in the mass destruction of the Great War. My point is that human nature has not changed and the advance of Christianity is by no means measurable in the transformation of world governments and society as a whole.

My second issue is their unconvincing interpretation of Revelation. While David Chilton, makes an excellent argument for Revelation being a Covenant lawsuit against Israel for its rejection of the Messiah in his book "Days of Vengeance," many of the arguments the authors use in this section of the book are just weak. They make a few good points, and they point out that the 7 churches do not represent the 7 ages of the Church, but most of their arguments lack scholarly citations or scriptural backing.

Finally, they make a very weak argument about the Man of Lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians. The cumulative effects of the latter sections of the book leave me with a feeling of disappointment; that they tried to twist and fit everything into their predetermined understanding of a brighter tomorrow.

While I cannot go into the full detail here, I believe the authors' eschatology fails because it does not deal adequately with the simultaneous growth of both good and evil (wheat and the tares) until the time of the end. Yes, Jesus will conquer, but the overcoming of evil will be a cataclysmic event and not one of gradual progress.

Eberle and Trench lay forth the truth that Dispensationalism and the rapture doctrines are not biblical. Rather, the Scripture clearly teaches the events listed in Matthew 24 and revelation as well as other so-called end times passages occurred all prior to 70 A.D. culminating with the destruction of Jerusalem. As the title suggests, this view is most certainly a victorious eschatology wherein the Church triumphs and the world continues to get better until the ultimate return of Jesus Christ. This view allows believers to live with hope and expectation for the future rather than fearing a one world leader that will never come, massive amounts of disaster and great judgment from God. As a pastor, I wholeheartedly recommend this book!!

I first read my bible from cover to cover when I was seven years old, and read it often as a young teenager as well. The book of Revelation and certain other passages like Matthew 24 seemed impossible to understand. Of course I was exposed to the popular interpretations of them, and assumed to some degree that parts of those interpretations were true and we would have a terrible time of tribulation, ect. But so much of what I heard popular teachers explain made no sense whatsoever. In fact, I wondered how they got parts of their tales from the Bible. After all, the word "antichrist" wasn't even in the book of Revelation! I had just about given up on hoping to be able to understand the book of Revelation, and forgotten about it.

I also loved to read the Prophets and Psalms as a young person, and was confused by the contradiction between very victorious passages in books like Psalms and Isaiah about the Lord's glory filling the earth, and the righteous inheriting the land, but the wicked being cut off. (Psalm 37) These passages seemed to me to contradict the book of Revelation and other passages that I honestly really didn't understand.

This book was for me a great first presentation of a view that has been around for much longer than today's popular fairy tales, and just completely made sense in so many ways. It was based on reasonable methods of interpretation and not on wild speculation that completely ignored clear historical fulfillments of prophecy and clearly literal scriptural statements like "Surely, all these things will take place before this generation passes away" and "Do not seal up the words of this book because these things are about to take place very soon." I especially liked the quotes from historical figures and church fathers about the book of Revelation. Of course the book didn't answer all of my questions(no one book could), and I don't feel like I understand everything yet! But I do understand so much that I never heard a sensible explanation about before, and I can say that most of the book of Revelation makes sense to me know.