I could have written this title: My Main Hermeneutic for Understanding NT Eschatology. Why did I not attend Calvary Chapel, Costa Mesa, in the 1970s?

Yes, they taught through the Bible, and that’s good, but one big reason I avoided Calvary Chapel back in the 1970s, except an occasional Friday night (or Saturday night?) concert, is that the leaders obsessed over the end times. Even their publishing house, whether books or music, is called to this day Maranatha! (This is taken from 1 Cor. 16:22 and means, “Come, Lord!”).

On March 8, 2021, Mike Winger, a “Calvary guy,” as he called himself in the video,  exposed Pastor Chuck’s prediction that the rapture would happen in 1981 and the Second Coming in 1988. I assume that Pastor Chuck reasoned it out this way: Israel is the most important end-times factor in the Bible. Israel became a nation in 1948. A biblical generation is forty years. So add forty to 1948 and you get 1988. The seven-year tribulation happens before the Second Coming. Subtract seven from 1988 and you get 1981. Therefore the rapture will occur in 1981.

I’m missing some pieces of the jigsaw puzzle, so I cannot figure out how Smith connected a biblical generation to the Second Coming or Israel. But I don’t see the need to study it out any further, since his interpretation of the biblical data combined with his interpretation of historical events was false.

A book titled 88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will Be in 1988 was published by a NASA engineer, who was not associated with Calvary Chapel. (I remember the book, and some in my circle mocked it. I may have done so too.) So he varied the timing of the rapture by seven years. It sold 4.5 millions copies. The engineer got rich from a really and obviously false teaching (as distinct from an ordinary mistaken interpretation).

The same NASA engineer corrected his mistake. How? By apologizing and retracting? No. By publishing a revised version: The Final Shout: Rapture Report 1989. So the rapture would take place in 1989 because he miscalculated the Gregorian calendar.

My point: See how needlessly convoluted and complicated very popular and influential systems of eschatology can get!

in 2026, I recently saw a brief excerpt of a longer interview between Greg Laurie, a long-time Calvary Chapel guy, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Laurie brought up the end times. Rubio chuckled or smiled nervously and said something like: “We win in the end, right?”

I thought how strange and out of place the end times (or Laurie’s view of the end times) were in this context. I’m certain that if I had interviewed the good Secretary, it would not have even crossed my mind to bring up eschatology. It’s not that important to me. (Daily discipleship is.)

If Rubio had gotten entangled in Laurie’s (and Calvary Chapel’s) complicated eschatology, can you imagine what his critics would say? Apocalypse now! Giant conflagration! Israel first! He’s not fit to be president because he will have access to the nuclear codes!

Obvious Conclusions from Casually Reading the NT

Back in the 1970s, when I read the NT, on my own, without formally studying eschatology, I could see, even glancing at various verses, that there was no way eschatology was so complicated. But I did not do a serious, long study.

I just now recall that back in the 1970s I was friends with a solid and thorough student of Scripture, who did not attend Calvary Chapel. And he kept explaining that the rapture was not Scriptural, and we would go though the “seven-year tribulation.” Intuitively, I knew he was right.

By the way, no place in Scripture clearly mentions a “seven-year tribulation.” Popular eschatology teachers get there by the most ingenious and complex matching of verses scattered in the Bible. But the NT writers never clearly bring up this belief, certainly not in the four Gospels, Acts, or epistles, not even the Revelation, though I believe they do teach that the church will go through tough times.

So it turns out my instincts were right. I was not made for Calvary Chapel. We were mismatched .(I decided to hang out with the charismatics at Ralph Wilkerson’s Melodyland Christian Center, and this brought its own set of problems, which I won’t get into here.)

My Main Interpretive Principle

And so, at long last, after formally studying eschatology a few years ago, without imposing overloaded assumptions, almost innocently, I discovered that the NT writers had a streamlined and simple and unified eschatology. This shocked me. But it also thrilled me. Wow! It really is simple. They really did boil things down. They really were unified because they followed the simple and clear eschatology of Jesus. Amazing!

Go here for my main article explaining this NT simplicity:

Sec. 11, 1 Eschatology, Doctrine of Last Things: New Testament Basics

And after discovering the simplicity and clarity of NT eschatology, I kept pondering what interpretive or hermeneutical key I could use to unlock eschatology here at my old-fashioned website, where I don’t obsess over clicks and hits (I’m free!), but where I can write out my ideas before venturing into video media. I write to learn. Written posts can be edited and re-edited more easily than videos. I’m just about ready to transition to video platforms, but not quite. I need another half-year or more likely a full year, Lord willing.

So here is my interpretive key:

Don’t outsmart the NT writers. If they don’t bring forward an OT prophecy, then I don’t bring it forward, not to NT times and certainly not to mine. What they leave behind in the OT, I leave behind.

Here’s a simpler version:

I don’t outsmart the NT writers on their simple eschatology.

It keeps me humble and my feet on the ground.

Two Diagrams

As to the wrong way to interpret the Old, in this diagram, next, the lines represent biblical themes, like sacrifices, covenants, the building of the third temple, whether in this age or the new millennium (assuming millennialism is right), commanded Sabbath keeping, celebrating the commanded festivals (e.g. Passover, booths / tabernacles), and so on.

The number of lines is not designed with mathematical precision. They merely illustrate the main point. The main point here is that the NT is not allowed to do its job of filtering the OT. And this is wrong.

Wrong (Unfiltered):

The NT should act as a filter; however, in the above diagram the themes circumvent or go around the NT. Therefore the major themes of the OT do not get filtered or reinterpreted through Christ. But our interpretation must be Christo-centric.

So, many themes do not in fact get filtered through the NT in the confusing mishmash of popular Bible eschatology.

Now for the right way to interpret the Old and New. In this diagram, the NT does filter the OT, and this is the right hermeneutic.

Right (Filtered)

The number of lines should not be pressed too hard with mathematical precision. They merely illustrate that many themes do not get carried forward or they get transformed as they get filtered. All OT themes must be filtered through Christ. All OT themes must be carefully checked by the NT. Note the question mark on the right. We need to ask the question: do the themes really apply to us today?

One example of a future fulfillment: the Second Coming. Jesus and the NT writers proclaimed it often enough. I follow their teaching and do not outsmart it.

For the record I do not unhitch the NT from the OT. This is a dangerous teaching that Jesus and the NT authors would say no to, in the clearest terms. They drew heavily from the OT.

First Example

Even though the NT writers never once mentioned Ezekiel’s temple, many eschatology teachers say a third temple must be rebuilt, and we have to look around for a red heifer to inaugurate it (Num. 19).

These interpreters read Ezekiel 40-48, which describe a new temple in the future, whether in this age or in the millennium (if one believes in a literal millennium).

However, the writers of the NT clearly teach that the church is the new temple. In no place do they clearly teach: “Look for a newly rebuilt temple two thousand years from now!” Or not this: “Look for it during the 1000 year reign!” (if you’re not an amillennialist or postmillennialist).

Remember: if Moses lived, say, in 1250 B.C, then the Israelites followed his temple religion from then until the temple was destroyed by the Romans in A.D. 70 (with a gap during the Babylonian exile). Jesus predicted its destruction.

Matthew 24:4-35 Predicts Destruction of Jerusalem and Temple

Mark 13:5-31 Predicts Destruction of Jerusalem and Temple

Luke 21:5-33 Predicts Destruction of Jerusalem and Temple

We don’t need to bring forward animal sacrifices–to do what exactly? To remember Christ’s sacrifice? Wrong direction. Instead, the peoples around the globe can celebrate his sacrifice as he told us to: through bread and wine, communion or the eucharist.

To purify us with those sacrifices? The indwelling Spirit does this. We can be purified by being born again and through the ongoing, Spirit-filled sanctification process.

To forgive our sins? No! Christ’s once-and-for-all sacrifice is the basis of God’s forgiveness.

And the “third temple guys” cannot consistently dismiss Ezekiel 45:18-20, particularly v. 20, which insists on atoning sacrifices for people’s unintentional sins, because these sacrifices are fulfilled in Christ, and at the same time believe that the church does not fulfill any third temple. More evidence of a needlessly convoluted, ad-hoc interpretive system.

And thus, from A.D. 70 to right now adds up to about 2,000 years, without any temple religion. There is no theological or biblical reason to reinstitute the temple and its religion. We have lived for 2000 years without it. Let’s not go backwards. Most importantly, biblically speaking, everything is fulfilled in Christ and everyone who lives in him, his church.

By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear. (Heb. 8:13)

And so Hebrews 7-10 teach the teachable that there will absolutely be no future sacrifice in a third temple because there will be no temple, whether in this age or in some sort of literal millennium. Most importantly, Jesus already told us how to honor his sacrificial death: through the eucharist or communion.

Therefore, we now have clarity about the (supposed) third temple because we have filtered the OT verses through the NT. Simplicity leads to clarity.

It’s wonderful.

I won’t quote the many Scripture references, but you can go here to find them on how the church is the new temple of God where his presence now dwells permanently:

The Church Fulfills and Replaces Old Testament Temple

Just two passages: Jesus said to the Samaritan woman that true worshippers will not be obsessed with the right location to worship, whether in Jerusalem or the local Samaritan mountain. But they will worship the Father in Spirit and truth (John 4:21-24). And in his magnificent defense, Stephen proclaimed, with the temple looming large in the background, that God does not dwell in hand-made things or houses (Acts 7:48-50).

No NT writer ever predicted a third temple. (In Revelation 21-22, the heavenly Jerusalem and God himself become our temple.) God was moving past such small and petty geopolitical concerns. His message about his Son and Messiah and the Messiah’s Body, the new temple, was about to go global.

Second Example

This NT simplicity and clarity is true even about the Anointed One being cut off (Dan. 9:25-27). The synoptic Gospel writers certainly bring forward Jesus as the divine Son of Man in Daniel 7:13-14. So they were aware of what the prophet Daniel had written, but why not quote from 9:25-27? It’s startling (to me at least) that the NT writers did not quote it. Maybe they believed it would bring up too many complications, like Daniel’s seventy weeks. Whatever their reasons, they left it alone, unless perhaps indirectly as a type.

For me, though, I see the passage as interesting and revealing, but I don’t go beyond what the synoptic Gospel authors wrote or omitted. So my only concern is the Anointed One being cut off.

In fact, I really don’t bring it forward at all. Maybe I would at least discuss it and the seventy weeks–which is not as clear as most interpreters say it is–if I were ever to teach through Daniel, which I don’t envision doing (but I cannot know the future).

Answering Objections

Let’s circle back around to the third temple. And let’s use a dialogue format.

PE = Popular Eschatologist (anyone, no one specific)

The first objection I can hear in my mind from popular teachers of complicated eschatology systems is this one:

PE: But you’re making God a liar. If he prophesied it in the OT, then it has to come to pass. If it was not fulfilled in the OT times and the NT times, it shall be fulfilled in ours. It shall be! It might even be “refulfilled” in our times, if it was fulfilled back in biblical times.

Me: No, God is not a liar. But he is a fulfiller and replacer and filterer. He uses the NT, which he inspired by his Spirit, to filter out, fulfill, and replace many OT verses and even gigantic concepts, like the entire sacrificial system or the Sinai Covenant itself (Heb. 8).

PE: Don’t you believe in double fulfillments? Antiochus IV desecrated the temple in 167 B.C, and Jesus predicted it would happen again (Matt. 24:15-16, Mark 14:14). That hasn’t happened yet. We need a third temple for it to happen.

Me: Yes, I believe that double fulfillments can happen because a few actually do (like the one you bring up), but we’ll know it only when we see it after the fact. They may never happen. It’s not automatic, nor is it my bedrock, go-to interpretive key. (It looks suspiciously like an ad-hoc principle just to prop up a convoluted eschatology.)

And the abomination of desolation did happen in the temple in Jesus’s generation, just as he had predicted in the Olivet Discourse, when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the temple and stomped all over the Holy of Holies with their dusty boots, in A.D 70 (Luke 21:20). They even took some sacred implements:

See the Menorah on the Arch of Titus in Rome.

Honestly, what kind of prophetic ministry would Jesus have had, if he had not predicted such a monumental event in the religion of Moses? Not a very good prophetic ministry!

(By the way, Muslims have also been desecrating the old temple with their buildings on top of it, continuously, for centuries, if anyone thinks this is still an issue.)

PE: So there was a second fulfillment! Even a third one! I can’t see why there can’t be a third temple. (By the way, we will blow up those Islamic buildings into small bits, so a third temple can be rebuilt there!)

Me: It looks like I have not convinced you. That’s okay. One must be open to overturning popular beliefs and study the text afresh without imposing popular assumptions on it.

But I believe my basic principle has been fulfilled, filtering out and replacing convoluted systems. One more time:

I don’t outsmart the NT writers on their simplified eschatology.

Conclusion

If they do not bring forward an OT prophecy, then I don’t either. If the NT writers never brought up a third temple, I will not outsmart their streamlined eschatology and muddy the waters with any popular expectations.

I had to start over–or really study eschatology seriously for the first time, a few years ago. I avoided the topic because it was made to appear much too complicated. I had not achieved any status to bounce around and zigzag between the OT and NT as I construct my complicated system. I was more directed to study the basics in the four Gospels, Acts and epistles and basic theology. My eschatology, whatever it was, also submitted to the Great Commission (as one wise teacher, Bill Bright, said long ago).

It was a joy for me when I discovered that the NT writers were very clear about the end times. I discovered It is better to follow the apostolic generation who wrote the NT and who streamlined and filtered out the complications of OT prophecies. Instead, they focused on the Messiah and salvation through him, from the OT texts, and brought them into their own writings.

The problem as I see it is epistemological (theory of knowledge)  No one but God knows the future. And our very limited knowledge of future events depends on our zigzagging and ad-hoc interpretations of complex OT prophecies. The way I see things, our interpretations of complex passages land us in a world of uncertainty, because no one interpretation of those numerous verses clears away competing theories and leaves only one winning interpretive system on the playing field.

Yes to the Second Coming, and some future events that will happen before then, like a man of lawlessness, satanic signs and wonders, the great apostasy, and moral degradation as it was during the times of Noah and Sodom.

What about natural disasters in the Revelation? Even they may be an extensive description of cosmic disasters revealed during times of judgment in the OT, like the earth splitting in two or stars falling from the sky. They did not happen literally, or else we would not be here.

Check out this link for more passages about cosmic disasters:

Cosmic Disasters = Apocalyptic Imagery for Judgment and Major Change

Sec. 11, 1 Eschatology, Doctrine of Last Things: New Testament Basics (on the simplicity and clarity of NT eschatology. I also explain how I believe the Revelation fits into the end times, in relation to the four Gospels, Acts, and epistles).

Here is my list of the signs of the end times, according only to the NT:

What Are the Signs of the End Times, Really?

It’s short list, compared to other eschatological lists.

There is simply too much fake certainty about end time events. Popular eschatology teachers don’t seem to understand their limitations but blithely teach their interpretations with great authority. Do they have enough humility to acknowledge they may be wrong? It doesn’t seem like it.

But I don’t accept their diverse and competing theories–I certainly don’t base my life or my discipleship on them. Remember Chuck Smith’s and the NASA engineer’s wrong predictions about the timing of the rapture? No thank you.

Time to wrap up this conclusion.

In the next equations the arrows mean “leads to” or “produces”:

Not this:

NT does not filter or only ad-hoc filters OT → Bloated Interpretations → Complications

But this:

NT always filters OT → Streamlined Interpretations → Clarity and Simplicity

The latter flow chart reveals the method of the God-inspired and infallible NT writers. Let’s follow them and not be presumptuous, as if we know better than they do.

I for one do not outsmart them and teach a complicated eschatology. Following their example, I like to keep things simple.

RELATED

New Testament Must Always Filter Old Testament (more examples of filtered themes)

What Does the New Covenant Retain from the Old?

My fuller eschatology:

Sec. 11, 1 Eschatology, Doctrine of Last Things: New Testament Basics (on the simplicity and clarity of NT eschatology)

What Are the Signs of the End Times, Really?

2 The Olivet Discourse

3 Dispensationalism, Tribulation, Return of Christ, and the Millennium

10 Final and Total Victory of God over Evil and Then Comes His New Creation

4 In Search of a Grand Biblical Narrative (better key interpretive themes than eschatology)

Twelve Reasons the USA Should Support Israel