Probably some of the greatest errors in Biblical understanding occur because folks take literally what should be understood spiritually. Jesus told those to whom he preached that they erred because they didn’t take into consideration that the words he spoke were spiritual (John 6:61-63), and they kept trying to make sense of them literally (John 6:60). We can avoid this type of misunderstanding, if we use the word of God to interpret itself for us, by comparing one part of Scripture with another part (1Corinthians 2:13).
Both Jesus and Peter agree as to what constitutes the Day of the Lord, that is that it comes as a thief in the night and there will be signs in the heavens (Revelation 1:10; 3:3; 16:15: Matthew 24:29, 43; 2Peter 3:10). Joel claimed the heavenly signs pointed the coming of the Day of the Lord (Joel 2:10, 30-31). Jesus foretold of the same types of signs (Matthew 24:29), and Peter claimed the Day of the Lord brought new heavens and a new earth (2Peter 3:10). It all points to the same thing.
The language of Isaiah (Isaiah 13:9-11; 34:4-5) and Ezekiel (Ezekiel 32:7-8) use the darkening of the sun, moon and stars to express the judgment of God. Similarly, Jesus points to heavenly signs (Matthew 24:29), whereby the heavenly bodies stop giving their light. Isaiah used the heavenly bodies to show the judgment of Babylon (Isaiah 13:2) and Idumea (Isaiah 34:5), while Ezekiel used the same kind of signs to show God’s judgment upon Egypt (Ezekiel 34:5). What Jesus does in his use of these same signs is to foretell his own judgment upon the nation of the Jews in Matthew 24:29.
This type of language is what we call apocalyptic. It is highly figurative and shouldn’t be taken literally. After all, who in his right mind could believe in a literal beast with seven heads (Revelation 13)? The figures mentioned have a meaning, which, if taken as it should be understood, tell a reasonable story about how God addresses the sins of men. For example, the sun in the apocalyptic language represents the king or leader of the nation. We know this to be true because immediately after judging Babylon in Isaiah 13, the prophet discusses his judgment again in the next chapter (Isaiah 14:4). There he refers to the king of Babylon as the morning star or the sun (Isaiah 14:12). This is substantiated more clearly by considering Joseph’s dream in Genesis 37:9-11. There the sun and moon represent Joseph’s mother and dad—Jacob and Rachel. The stars represent Joseph’s brothers. They are the patriarchs or leaders of the Jewish nation, which gave birth to Jesus (Romans 9:5; Hebrews 7:14; cf. Revelation 12:1).
In light of this understanding Jesus no doubt referred to the leaders of the Jewish nation (Matthew 24:29). They were cast down, and the Jews had no secure homeland. They no longer could represent God as expressed in their original covenant (Exodus 19:6). The Temple was destroyed. The nation didn’t exist any longer. The covenant was annulled, but what would this mean in terms of Peter’s heavens passing away and elements of the earth melting? Since the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD proved to the world that Jesus was the Christ, and he reigns in heaven (Matthew 24:30; Daniel 7:13-14; cf. Matthew 26:64), Peter means that the Jews no longer represent God to the world. The disciples of Christ have become a kingdom of priests to the world (Revelation 1:6; 5:10), bringing his word to the nations.
Before the Flood the patriarchs ruled the world without the intervention of God, until God decided to judge the whole world with the flood waters. He destroyed the patriarchs and all their works. On the other side of the Flood God used men as leaders of the nations to judge the more wicked nations. Israel, ideally was supposed to be God’s effective instrument of judgment, but they failed to carry out his will in that they wished to be like the nations they were supposed to judge and educate in the ways of the Lord. The flood waters changed how God intended to deal with mankind, and the judgment of Jerusalem by fire (war) accomplished the same thing in 70 AD as the Genesis Flood did in the days of Noah. The powers of the heavens and earth were shaken and changed as a result of both judgments.
Moses, quoted by Paul, predicted the failure of the Jewish people and that God would rebuke them through a foolish people (i.e. a people who were idolaters) who were not a people. They would provoke the Jews to jealousy (Deuteronomy 32:21; cf. Romans 10:19). The church or the disciples of Jesus have no human king, queen or princes. We are all servants, led by servants and ultimately led by God. He alone is our light, and no man can take his place (cf. 1Samuel 8:5).
Smoodock's Blog 
25 responses to “Apocalyptic Language”
Dear Eddie
I fear you misunderstood something I wrote and probably took some offense. Your asking me to clarify which of Job’s three friends’ logic I consider your logic comparable to indicates that to me.
When I said Job’s friends’ logic was comparable to yours, I meant the common logic that motivated them to be looking into Job’s life for a fault to attribute his predicament to. I believe I clarified this by quoting your statement that gave me that impression of your logic.
All I’ve been saying is simply that when things go wrong (like when we arrive at erroneous positions or misunderstand Scriptures), surely God cannot be faulted, but man also may not be at fault. This is what I mean by paradox. That God is not at fault when things go wrong does not automatically mean that man is at fault.
Your statement which I quoted took the position of either your logic is faulty or God must be faulted. I said no. I said it is not necessarily an “either this or that” situation. I specifically said YOUR logic could be SOUND and God faultless and things would still go wrong. That is my point.
I hope this clarifies my comparison.
By the way, I never said God leads us into error, I said in guiding us into truth, he sometimes may take us THROUGH misunderstanding.
Grace to you sir
Boluwade, greetings and thank you for your clarification.
I suppose I was a little hurt by your previous remarks, and may have understood properly if I wasn’t already somewhat depressed over a personal matter not involving you. But, praise God, he took care of both in a single day! :-)
I do see what you mean now, and should have seen it earlier, but as I said, I wasn’t thinking properly to begin with. As for man not being at fault, I’ll have to think on that a little more.
If he takes us THROUGH misunderstanding, how did we get there? Were we there before he began guiding us into truth, in which case we are at fault—my point, or does he take us through misunderstanding in order to guide us to truth? If it is the latter, I don’t see the difference. The word “take” would be the same as the word “lead” in such a scenario.
May the Lord bless you and keep you safe from all harm.
I do not believe God leads us into misunderstanding. It reminds me of the age old argument of election versus free will. Are we chosen by God? Yes, no man comes to the Lord without the prompting of the Holy Spirit. Yet do we have a free will? Absolutely. We are created in his image; we aren’t robots. I recall my wife and I witnessing to a (at the time wealthy) doctor who came to that very edge of accepting Christ. Ultimately he rejected him. His comment was “it’s not worth the price”…
Greetings Dave, and welcome.
I agree, ‘leading’ and ‘permitting’ are two different matters entirely. I don’t believe God leads anyone into error. The subject of ‘election’ and ‘freewill’ however is pretty complex. I think I remember writing about it, but where escapes me at the moment. I’ll have to write about it again soon, perhaps in the context of my current study on Luke.
Greetings Dave
Eddie has actually explained better his understanding of my statement. I do really understand and appreciate our different perspectives. Your technical clarification is welcomed too.
I think I could further clarify my statement and buttress your distinction by drawing example from how sometimes we humans, in other to explain what something is or the truth of it, we first explain what it is not. That is the way I see God leading us sometimes through misconceptions, misunderstandings and imperfect conclusions to get us to the truth. Depending on his knowledge of who one is and how one best learn, among several other factors, he may judge it beneficial for one to be walked through errors on our way to the truth.
God certainly knows our state of mind at every point in time and how a specific piece of information from him would be processed by us. Many times he cautions us ahead against misunderstanding him but other times he does not. I believe that sometimes when he does not, he could actually be using our imperfect understanding for our good. He sometimes sees our mistakes as useful for a greater good and rather than prevent us from making them he allows us to make them but uses them to perfect us. This is similar to how he foreknew of Peter’s denial and chose not to pray to prevent it, rather choosing to work with it to teach Peter a greater lesson of the futility of self assurance and the need to always trust God for divine support, even in the things we consider firmly under our control.
Notice above that I used the word “mistakes”, this is what Eddie sees for which he puts the fault at our doorstep. And from his perspective, he is absolutely right. I however see beyond the mistake and see God’s permission preceding it. Because God foresaw the mistake, which would be committed under his watch (while you are following his leading) and could prevent it but does not, I see the mistake as part of his pre-chosen tools for guiding you to the truth. I take this position because I know that mistakes are not necessarily committed out of a bad heart but could also be committed by justified ignorance or developmental immaturity. A growing child for instance, has limited logic for processing communication. It’s immaturity can cause it to misunderstand communication which is why the child under such circumstances is not charged with error. The adult is made responsible for the child’s misunderstanding because he should know better and should have provided for it.
Similarly, I see God dealing with us in like manner. He knows each person’s level of developmental maturity per time and the related logical and analytic powers available to the person. Those mistakes we make by reason of our immature and imperfect logic because of our level of development, I believe he takes responsibility for them. Hence I say that he sometimes leads us THROUGH.
My position however does not in any way excuse mistakes that are made by reason of inexcusable wrong attitudes. I am only saying that God knows the difference and treats them differently. A childish attitude in a child is just that and nothing more, but in an adult, it is could be very wrong and unacceptable.