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”
While I agree with you regarding Israel, and that the church is the ‘chosen people’ of God to carry his message , I still believe that God has a plan for Israel and that a covenant with God is a covenant, and that God will fulfill his promise to the nation (terrible sentence structure!). Yet, while there are movements to rebuild the temple (the blueprints are complete) and there are also movements to reinstate the Sanhedrin (now nascent), I see no real corporate move of Israel towards recognizing the true Messiah.
I also agree that when we take spiritual truths in scripture literally and it leads us to error. …thus the fallacy of “I believe in the literal interpretation of the scriptures”. This is especially true if you rely on the KJV only
Greetings Dave and thanks for reading. By the way, do you have a brother / relative named James?
Indeed, God does have a plan for Israel. Paul, himself, says that God has not cast off his people (Romans 11:1, 28-29). Nevertheless, they are not his witnesses today. We are.
Concerning the plans to build a new Temple, I don’t believe this has anything to do with the Scriptures. The fact is, I don’t believe the “Temple Mount” that is believed to exist today is the same mount that existed in Jesus’ day. The foundation doesn’t fit Josephus’ description of it. Rather, the so-called ‘Temple Mount’ foundation that we see today fits the description of the Antonia. So, if any Temple is built upon this foundation, it cannot replace the Temple of David and Solomon / Herod. That structure–foundation and all–was completely destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD.
Concerning the KJV, I am not a KJV only person, but I do love the translation. It is very poetic, and it is the Bible that I first used to understand God’s word. I use many translations to understand the Scriptures, but I use the KJV as my main Bible. I quote others only when I think the KJV isn’t as good a translation of the Scripture I’m quoting. I agree with you about the fallacy of the doctrine of literal interpretation of the Scriptures. The Bible is made up of many literary types: poetry hyperbole, metaphor, parable, apocalyptic, history, biography, law, letters, and prophecy to name some. Entire books have been written to define the ‘figures of speech’ found therein. To say it must be taken literally, is a misnomer.
Lord bless you, Dave.
James D (Dave) White. One and the same.
I was not suggesting that the new Temple had anything to do with scripture, it doesn’t. In fact I think it is incorrect to correlate ANY modern day rebuilding of the Temple or reinstatement of the old ways to be any fulfillment of prophesy, rather it is Israel’s attempt to usher in the Messianic age.
There is no use for a temple as he resides in us and in his church (people). The destruction of the temple happened in part as a statement that “all things have become new”. I further think that the modern day focus on Israel and its role in prophesy is highly overrated. ….i.e. Jack Vanempy, Hal Lindsey, the left behind series, el.al.
Many forget that prophesy is understood once fulfilled, not before!
God bless; I’m glad I found your blog and you challenge me!
Dave
Thanks Dave, that is one of the best encouragements anyone has ever given me on my blogsite. Usually, I am challenged if I don’t go along with the norm. Lord bless you in all your studies of his word.
Hi Eddie
“Probably some of the greatest errors in Biblical understanding occur because folks take literally what should be understood spiritually”
I would like to remark that in my own opinion, this is also true on the reverse. Great errors have been committed too when people take symobilcally or spiritually what should be understood literally. Even the Lord’s apostles fell victims of this mindset so much so that when he spoke plainly of his impending suffering and death they still were wrestling to find a symbolic meaning to it. Luke 18:34.
Theirs was so bad that even the literal fulfiment of the first elements of his ordeal still could not jolt them out of their blindness of heart and make them look forward to his ressurection. They felt sorrowful at his death, became despondent following his burial and remained unbelieving at the report of his resurrection.
I think the real question to answer is how do we know when the Lord is speaking literally or symbolically? Is it the believability that should determine if we should understand him as literal or symbolic? This seems to be the apostles’ stumbling block with his plain words for example. For they must have thought like: how could the so powerful Messiah suffer and die so cruelly? And even if he did, how would he rise back 3 days after so much damage to his body? Since their minds did not find rationality in the literalism, they opted for symbolism.