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”
ANSWERING A FOOL
Your example for Prov. 26:4-5 do not fit by my assessment.
It is one thing to answer a fool, it is another to answer a fool “according to his own folly.” The latter implies using the logic of the fool back against him. The Lord’s healing of the man does not amount to using their logic back to them. It is rather his asking them if it was lawful to do good on a Sabbath that constitutes answering them “according to their folly.” They clearly believed it was lawful to do good on Sabbath but somehow disapproved of healing on Sabbath.
Another example is when he asked which one of them would his sheep fall into a well on a Sabbath that will not rescue it. He answered them by their logic.
When sometime they asked him for a sign he declined and said no sign would be given to them. Mark 8:12. That is an example of not answering them according to their own folly. He refused to respond with a sign which was what they sought. Yet when some other time he was asked for the same he gave them the sign of Jonah.
More grace to you sir
Greetings Boluwade and welcome.
Which one? Is it he that judged Job by ‘tradition’ or he that judged Job by ‘personal experience’ or he that judged Job out of his own understanding? Which one of these remind you of me or my logic. It can’t be all three, because they differ in content and approach.
If I gave this impression, I apologize. It was not intended. Many evil folk go to their grave without ever having been required to pay for their evil deeds (other than death itself).
I said: “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”
You replied:
I believe our differences with one another amount to the vocabulary we choose to explain what we mean. You say God leads us into error (or at least imperfect truth) in order to lead us to the perfect (or at least more perfect truth). In contrast I said the truth we receive at the Lord’s table is in directly proportional to the error we bring with us. You account for everything as the guidance of God, while I account the error as mine and the guidance of God takes me out of that error. Depending upon your underlining point, I don’t believe this is worth debating. In my opinion it can be seen either way. Certainly, from my point of view, God at least permitted me to be seduced by error, out of which he intends to lead me.
I don’t believe I have even implied a “straight line dash to the truth”. Certainly, the disciples often received error from the Pharisees. Jesus corrected that error by speaking the truth. Nevertheless, often, the disciples didn’t understand the contrast and stumbled, until Jesus led them through certain experiences and then repeating the truth. Some things waited until Pentecost to be understood.
I don’t believe I ever claimed logic was sufficient by itself. If memory serves, I said logic will eventually fail. Some things, after we have been led by logic to a certain point, must be received on faith. Logic helps us only so far, but because it isn’t perfect, this doesn’t mean we should reject it. After all the Lord does say: “Come let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18).
We agree here, and how we got ‘here’ is probably the same way, although explained through the choice of different words.
Blessings to you, my friend.
Greetings Boluwade, and once more I wish to thank you for our discussion.
“If you however really wish to explore Jewish position and not our Christian bias of their position, I recommend the following:…”
Thank you for the links. I intend to read them a little later. Time for me at present is a premium. :-)
I thought I remembered another ancient document agreeing with Rashi, but I couldn’t remember from where, but since you pointed out Origen’s statement, I remembered then. I had a similar discussion with a Jew on one of the debate forums years ago and that came up. However, what would sway me would be an intertestamental document showing Isaiah 53 being spiritualized into pointing to Israel. It is my contention that they draw their point of view from Paul’s understanding of Christ and the Church. This idea was also pointed out by my Jewish friend (Howie). He claimed it seemed dishonest for us to see Christ as a body of believers and not permit Jews the same freedom to see the Suffering Servant as the nation. I was caught off guard by his statement and had to really consider what he was saying. Nevertheless, there are phrases in Isaiah 53 that cannot point to the nation, and since there are no records extant before Paul showing Isaiah 53 in this light, I presume that later records reflect the Jewish doctrine modeled after Paul’s account of Christ and the Church. Certainly, my Jewish friend, Howie, was able to see the similarity and draw conclusion for it. :-)
I believe I mentioned in our previous round that I didn’t believe the two messiah theory was a fully developed doctrine. I mentioned it only because it showed a non-spiritual interpretation of Isaiah 53 from the Talmud, which was supposed to reflect a similar first century understanding (at least by some rabbis at that time).
Two things; first, I don’t know of anywhere in the New Testament whereby the Jews thought the Messiah would come without having a link to David. If you know of a Scripture, I’d like to see it. Secondly, I didn’t mention the two messiah theory as one found in or implied in the New Testament. If memory serves, it was in response to your claim that the Jews might have been able to spiritualize Isaiah 53 into showing the nation rather than the Messiah.
May the Lord continue to bless you.
Greetings Boluwade,
You are correct on this point, and I am wrong. I can only say that I was looking for something else when I made that claim. I thought you were leading me down a different path, and I didn’t believe truth could be understood in that manner. I goofed, sorry.
However, in this vein, obviously you believe I am in error about something, and you are seeking to help me see that error. What is it really? Is it to say, as you said in your first comment (paraphrased): “Some of the greatest errors in Biblical understanding occur, because folks take spiritually what should be understood literally”?
Lord bless you, Boluwade.
Greetings Boluwade,
Sorry, but I believe it did, and I still do.
Another would be Luke 6:1-5. The Pharisees took issue with the disciples taking the grain from the fields, rubbing them together, blowing the chaff away and then eating the seeds. They claimed this was technically harvesting, winnowing and preparing a meal on the Sabbath, all of which was against the Law. Jesus answered their argument according to their reasoning by showing that David technically broke the Law by eating the bread of the Temple, which only the Levites were lawfully able to eat. The emphasis was upon mercy rather than the letter of the Law.
If we take into consideration the same account in Matthew and Mark, we find Jesus’ argument goes deeper and shows that ultimately Jesus doesn’t answer them according to their folly, because, in truth David, being the King of Israel (appointed by God, but not yet in effect), had the authority to modify the Law of God, which he did on several occasions. If David had that authority, then certainly the one greater than David also had that authority and could modify the Sabbath law (if that were necessary for the sake of mercy). Additionally, Jesus also argues that the Levites and priest technically break the Law of the Sabbath every Sabbath day, when they slaughter and offer the sacrifices in the Temple, but are blameless, because the Law also demands they do such things. Jesus did both answer the fool (scribes and Pharisees) according to his folly and not according to his folly for the same question.
May the Lord richly bless you, my friend.