-=For theologically minded people: Anyone care to test my logic?=-
Today's gospel reading was surprisingly from Matthew 24. In fact it begins with this verse:
Immediately after the distress of those days " 'the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken (Matt 24:29)
Many would read such a passage saying, "Oh that's obviously about the end of the world". It seems there's that tendency to always interpret things literally. Yet Jesus is, in a sense, quoting or alluding to other Old Testament passages which sounds nearly verbatim:
The stars of heaven and their constellations will not show their light. The rising sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light. (Is 13:10)
Interestingly, this chapter is about the judgment that God poured upon Babylon where the Medes came in and destroyed them in 539BC (Isaiah 13:1,17). Yet none of this apocalyptic stuff happened. The same lingo appears later in the same book:
All the stars of the heavens will be dissolved and the sky rolled up like a scroll; all the starry host will fall like withered leaves from the vine, like shriveled figs from the fig tree. (Isaiah 34:4)
This was a prophesy that involved Edom's demise in 703BC (Isaiah 34:6), yet again, none of this apocalyptic stuff literally happened! And this apocalyptic lingo appears again in another passage:
When I snuff you out, I will cover the heavens and darken their stars; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon will not give its light. (Ezekiel 32:7)
This was another prophesy, which involved Egypt (Ezekiel 32:1). And Egypt was destroyed by the Babylonians in 572BC. Yet no literal destruction of the cosmos.
Either these are all failed prophesies, or they weren't taken literally. And that's what I'm trying to get at: If they weren't taken literally in the Old Testament, why should Jesus's prophesy be any different (Matt 24:29)? This is, what I believe, apocalyptic lingo that wasn't taken literally, rather idiomatically. It's not like God literally took the Israelites out of Egypt on "eagle's wings" (Ex 24:4). This is idiomatic lingo. Nor do I believe that God saved David from Saul by causing earthquakes and shooting bolts of lightning (Psalm 18:7,12,14). It's not like David was literally drowning either (Ps 18:16). It's idiomatic...or maybe I really am crazy....
Interestingly, Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD, by the Roman armies, as prophesied in Luke 21:20. If anything Jerusalem's destruction neatly fits with all the previous judgments I mentioned (i.e. Babylon in 539BC, Egypt in 572BC, Edom in 703BC) where an army would decimate the particular nations.
I just find it frustrating how many don't consider Jewish idioms when interpreting the New Testament, particularly when it comes to Revelation and Matthew 24.
Ok. Time to study. Anyone have any thoughts?? Please do share =)
