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”
Greetings Boluwade, and herein you will find part two of my reply.
“I honestly cannot dismiss the logic, either as employed by them or by you, as something inspired by an insincere heart or a pre-received false doctrine.”
I have to believe their logic system and / or mine is flawed, otherwise I must fault God for not revealing the truth to us as he has promised to do. If I or anyone else brings false doctrine to the table, we limit our ability to see the truth. Jesus told us that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth. Moreover, concerning the process, he has said that **everyone** who continually seeks will find, and **everyone** who continually asks will receive, and **everyone** who continually knocks, the door will be open. If God or I am at fault, the fault lies with me—always.
Concerning Proverbs 26:4-5, consider Luke 6:6-11. The scribes and Pharisees sought to trap Jesus into healing on the Sabbath, so they could accuse him. This was their motive. What was Jesus’ motive? He asked them if it was lawful to heal or do good on the Sabbath or do evil or kill on the Sabbath. Over a century earlier the Pharisees had reasoned it would be fitting to kill their attacking enemies on the Sabbath. Jesus’ motive was to get them to see their error and repent. He didn’t answer them according to their folly. Yet, he answered them according to their folly by healing the man, lest they would arrogantly believe they had prevented God (Jesus) from doing as he willed to do. The first pertained to attitude, while the second pertained to the actual argument.
Concerning your understanding of the Jewish position on Isaiah 53 during the time of the Apostles, I disagree. Unless I see ancient documents wherein the argument is stated, I will not believe it is true. My position is the Jews have received their current position on Isaiah 53 from reading Paul. I could be wrong, but I would have to see it proved through ancient writings before I would believe otherwise.
Concerning one’s perception of truth and how we logically express that truth as led by the Holy Spirit, “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” (Isaiah 8:20 KJV) I begin by believing this Scripture is true in every matter of determining what is true. If the Lord speaks literally all of the time about a matter, I won’t choose to interpret anything concerning that matter in a spiritual way, and contrarily, if that were true. Everything I conclude must agree with the Scriptures. I am allowed no innovations. The men who wrote the Scriptures either had them dictated to them by God, or they were strongly guided by his Spirit. While I am influenced by the Spirit, it is not in the same manner as was done with the writers of Scripture.
Concerning how we see Acts 10 and Peter’s response to Jesus, we will have to disagree on this matter. When Jesus first spoke of his crucifixion, Peter rebuked him, and the Lord soundly rebuked Peter, saying he was his enemy, if he held that position. There is no such rebuke from the Lord in Acts 10. Moreover, when the Lord told the prophet to eat a man’s dung as a testimony against evil men (Ezekiel 4:12), the prophet protested, saying he had never eaten any unclean thing (Ezekiel 4:14), and this was Peter’s protest too. Yet, the prophet wasn’t rebuked. Instead, the Lord substituted cow dung for a man’s (Ezekiel 4:15). Words cannot express how glad I am that I was not born Ezekiel [:-)]. However, both his and Peter’s protest was unlike Peter’s rebuke in Matthew 16:22. I see them begging for clarification, because surely the Lord wouldn’t have either do what the Law commands them not to do.
Concerning Paul’s thorn in the flesh and knowledge puffing up, I agree, as do the Scriptures (1Corinthians 8:1). I don’t agree with your conclusion about the Pharisees. Paul was sincerely deceived and repented, while the Pharisees, as a group, were not sincere seekers of truth, because when were faced with clear truth, they refused to repent. But we agree that knowledge puffs up. However, we must continue to disagree concerning apocalyptic versus literal language in my posting above. To explain, I’ll quote from a future blog post, which I intend to publish when I come to Luke 21:25:
If we seek to make Luke 21:25 and Matthew 24:29 literal, the whole earth would be black. I don’t know that artificial light would be of any help, because whatever we assume shut out the light of the sun may even be effective in shutting out artificial light as well. I don’t see such a thing happening, and if it would, how long would it occur? The text is silent, but if apocalyptic language is understood, the length of time is implied, namely, until judgment is complete.
“Sometimes strangely, both sides of the argument are supported in substantial measures in the final fulfillment. Only God can tell. For he sometimes combines both literal and figurative messages in one and the same communication such that either side can remain authentic without excluding the other.”
I don’t believe truth is understood in this manner. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong, but either Christ comes literally in the clouds to the earth, or he comes spiritually in the clouds as a sign of judgment against those living upon the earth. I can point to the latter in Scripture, but I cannot point to the former, unless you count the pillar of cloud that led Israel out of Egypt, but in that case the cloud, not God, was seen. Yet, Matthew claims we shall **see** Jesus coming in the clouds. If that is to be taken literally, it is the first time in Scripture that this would be so. However, taken apocalyptically, it occurs several times in the Old Testament.
Lord bless you, Boluwade, in all you do and in all your studies of his word.
God’s desire has always been relationship. When we examine his prophets and mighty men and women of the old testament, even then, while the law was essential as it pointed out sin, it is clear from reading the Psalms that his desire is and was always to have a relationship with us. One cannot but come to that conclusion by looking even at Abraham (Abram) whose relationship with God predated the law. So whether Pharisee, Sadducee, or Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic, Pentecostal, or go to church just to recite liturgies, and if we only focus on the do’s and don’ts we miss the true meaning of scripture. …in response to Boluwade’s comments.
Greetings Eddie
Permit me to respond to you in parts.
LOGIC & GOD’S GUIDANCE INTO TRUTH
I begin with this as it is the center of my original comment
I am quite intrigued at the way you present yourself sometimes as seeing things only as black or white without the possibility that it could sometimes be both as with paradoxes which you confess to believing in your statement of beliefs.
I believe sometimes, our logic can be sound but just not applicable to certain subjects that we assume it applies to or at certain times. Like I referred you in one of my responses on FB, Job’s friends had a sound logic, comparable to yours. They believed Job’s calamities, especially judging by the suddenness, swiftness and scope, happens to only wicked and sinful people. That God being a good God would not allow such catastrophic misfortune to be visited on a good man. For them, it was either Job was guilty of some really gross secret sin since they could not point to any apparent one, or God was mean. They thought the misfortunes of Job’s life could only be explained by an “either or” logic. Since God cannot be faulted, they focused on Job and making him own up to some secret sin he was covering from them. Their one way logic was generally correct and sound, but in Job’s case it was wrongly applied. The problem was that it was ignorant of God forcing an exception by a superior rule of proving a man’s character. But how wrong they were.
God does not need to be mean for him to allow a righteous man to be extremely visited with misfortune. He can be just and still allow a righteous man to suffer innocently. A man also need not be wicked or sinful to suffer calamitous losses directly attributable to God’s express permission. Their trying to paint Job black in order to prove God white succeeded only in incurring for them a wrathful rebuke from God. They wrongly inferred that since sin attracts unpleasant response from God then every unpleasant situation can be explained by sin.
You also seem to me to be in many respects like them in this. You say:
“I have to believe their logic system and / or mine is flawed, otherwise I must fault God for not revealing the truth to us as he has promised to do”
By the above, what I understand you to be saying is that since God promised to guide us into all truths, every time we arrive at something not truthful or for as long as we are yet to arrive at the truth then God is not guiding us. So you cannot see how your logic can be correct if you arrive at a false conclusion with it without God being wrong. You fail to factor in the fact that the Holy Spirit guiding us into all truth sometimes is a process that takes us through misunderstandings and walks us through layers of information that form a complete picture only when they are added up. It is not guaranteed to be a straight line dash. I personally have experienced God lead me that way on occasions. He never tells me he’s brought me to the end or complete truth but I presume so by the overwhelming nature of the information he helps me to uncover. I settle in for sometime only for him to bring some new information to my attention that then compels me to move from my previously presumed position. Once when I confronted him on why he lets me so misunderstand things, his response was that it helps me empathize better with people who stumble in the same situation, as well as to fortify me against being enticed into it after knowing the truth.
While seeking for the truth, when you settle into something that is not the finality of it, but just on the way and so close to the truth, it feels like the truth to you and so all pieces of information appear to support it and converge at it. When God however helps you past it, you able to look back at the things that shaped your misunderstanding and see how others too could be ensnared by them. You therefore are in a position to lovingly and tactfully guide them out along the same path that God walked you.
Also, sometimes, a straight line dash to the truth makes us unbalanced and naive, leaving us underestimating the pull and lure of error. No wonder some who’ve found the truth get lured away by the persuasiveness of falsehood. But if God allows you to go through the falsehood on your way to the truth, it looses it’s appeal and attraction after because you see it for what it really is. It’s like a sort of immunity by inoculation.
So you see sir, your logic need not always be wrong to make God true, it could just be that it is lacking additional information to yield correct understanding.
Moreover, if sound logic were sufficient by itself to discovering the truth, we would not need the Holy Spirit. Logic by nature is multifaceted. There is not one single logic that thoroughly answers all questions. Sometimes a matter can be tackled by multiple valid logic paths among which only one applies as determined by the person who raised the matter originally. Similarly, the Holy Spirit is the one who knows the mind of God concerning any and all matters. He knows what logic God used to put forth a statement and can help us select the appropriate logic to understand it. Salvation for instance has been hinged by God on a logic of grace and free gift. Some people however are seeking it by works. The logic of works is very much a valid logic that God himself established and by which he causes many things in our world operate. The problem is that for salvation, it will not work. God’s standard here is absolute perfection and none of us can meet it. Some of those who seek it by works reasonably assume that God’s requirements with it are similar to many other areas where he overlooks our failings and accepts our imperfect works sympathetically. Now it takes the Holy Spirit to convince a man to abandon works and adopt grace, not because it is a bad logic by itself, but simply because God has disapproved of it for salvation.
In conclusion sir, God faithfully guides all his own by the Holy Spirit into all truths, even those who start out with false doctrines. He does not leave us to our false doctrines just because we started out with them or because we view and relate with him through their lenses. He continuously works in us and around us to get us to realize the errors in our understanding as much as he does to supply us with those that we know nothing about. The way he does it and how long it takes for each person is what he has not fixed for anyone to make a definitive pronouncement on. He has his own priority for every life and orders his guidance based on that.
SUFFERING SERVANT
Regarding this, I only used as a means to explain my original point, I really do not want to stretch it into a real point of argument. If you however really wish to explore Jewish position and not our Christian bias of their position, I recommend the following:
http://judaismsanswer.com/targum.htm
http://judaismsanswer.com/yosef.htm
http://nojesus4jews.weebly.com/sophiees-blog/missionary-misuse-of-jewish-sources-on-isaiah-53-targum-yonatan-jonathan
http://nojesus4jews.weebly.com/sophiees-blog/missionaries-misuse-jewish-sources-lets-discuss-how
There I find a convincing explanation for those statements we use to accuse them of believing in two Messiahs. I also see there that even if they could be proved to have believe in two Messiahs, there is no proof they believed he would suffer in the way we believe.
In reading the above, I will advise you to try and free yourself of our common Christian lense with which we see their Scriptures first and judge the arguments purely on the merits. For objectivity, remember how some who are not Christians also take the Bible and select passages out of context to allege we teach things we do not just because it is written in it, so that you do not fall into the same with Jewish beliefs.
As regards corroboration from ancient document, I don’t know if the following statement from Origen in Contra Celcum counts with you:
“Now I remember that, on one occasion, at a disputation held with certain Jews, who were reckoned wise men, I quoted these prophecies; to which my Jewish opponent replied, that these predictions bore reference to the whole people, regarded as one individual, and as being in a state of dispersion and suffering, in order that many proselytes might be gained, on account of the dispersion of the Jews among numerous heathen nations.”
Like I mentioned before, I personally believe that even if the Jews believed in 2 or more Messiahs, the dominant or pervasive view at the time of the early Christian Jews was that there was to be one Messiah. The disciples never asked the Lord about a Messiah but rather “the Messiah”. They never spoke of the Messiah as one of two or more expected. The Pharisees asked John the Baptist if he was not “the Messiah” not one of the Messiahs. He said he was not “the Messiah.” The Jews claimed to Jesus that they were taught that “the Messiah” abides forever. I could go on. Some even at some point questioned his claim to being the Messiah by questioning his link to David. They evidently thereby prove not to be expecting a Messiah that is not of Davidic lineage. There is just no internal evidence for the two Messiah theory in the New Testament. Only when someone has accepted it as truth will one begin to make allowance for it in the language of the New Testament. Whatever one looks for one will find support for in the Scriptures.
LITERAL VS SPIRITUAL
I said:
“Sometimes strangely, both sides of the argument are supported in substantial measures in the final fulfillment. Only God can tell. For he sometimes combines both literal and figurative messages in one and the same communication such that either side can remain authentic without excluding the other.”
You replied:
“I don’t believe truth is understood in this manner.”
What do you say concerning the promises to Abraham and his seed? Can you honestly say anything in the promises suggested or necessitated a spiritual fulfillment? Could everything not be intepreted and explained literally? Yet Apostle Paul by the Holy Spirit declares to us as follows:
“The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ.” NIV
Today we know that natural Israel and Christ are both supported in the promises. God did not speak to include one and exclude the other. So the fact that Christ is the seed does not mean natural Isreal is not.