Prophetic Language

"And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.

And they kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean."

-Mark 9: 9-10

The same Greek word rendered "questioning" here is translated "disputing" in Acts 6:9 and "disputed" in Acts 9: 29. The implication is there may have been a vigorous debate between the three disciples who were descending the mountain where they had seen Jesus transfigured before them, with Elijah and Moses beside Him. But what were they debating? According to the Greek text, the subject of their discussion was, "What is it: rising from the dead?" The disciples' hermeneutical difficulty with Jesus' prophetic word appears to have manifested because they seemed not to accept its most obvious meaning: the literal one. This is punctuated by their complete surprise when, in fact, Jesus did rise from the dead, just as (what do you know) He said!

We don't know the nature of any interpretive alternatives they may have proposed to each other during this discussion; the text does not elaborate. Perhaps someone in the group warned against attaching a "wooden literal meaning" to the words of Jesus. Perhaps it was hypothesized that prophecy typically employs catastrophic language with poetic hyperbole and that a more ordinary meaning than actual death and resurrection could be found. Maybe the disciples sought to settle upon an allegorical interpretation for the words. Maybe they explored numerous possibilities other than the obvious.

When Jesus prophesied His crucifixion and resurrection (Matthew 20: 19), he meant it literally; in fact, a wooden literal interpretation of His words would be accurate even to the literal wood of the literal cross. We read of how often He prophesied His death and resurrection to the disciples, for example, in Mark 8: 31, where Peter responded by rebuking Him, and in Mark 9: 31, where the text says the disciples didn't understand.

Why didn't they understand? Did they rule out the possibility of a literal interpretation, not only of Jesus' multiple prophecies, but also of such classic Old Testament passages as Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53: 3-12?

The statement in Matthew 20: 19 requires no exegesis; it "interprets" itself. So if Jesus' prophetic words in Matthew 20: 19 and Mark 9: 9 are literal, why (you know where this is going, don't you?) would His words in Matthew 24 not be literal as well? Yes, including verses 21-31. For that matter, if Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53: 3-12 are to be taken literally, and they are, then why not Isaiah 13: 6-13? Do the rules for interpreting prophecy change between the 13th and the 53rd chapter of Isaiah? Is it because verses like Isaiah 13: 10 and Matthew 24: 29 indicate events too supernatural and spectacular for one's sensibilites? Well, the physical resurrection of Jesus was supernatural, spectacular...and literal. The prophecy given at the time of Mark 9: 9-10 is now a historical event.

Rather than impose an allegorical or "hyperbolic" eisegetical straightjacket on Matthew 24, why not let Christ's words speak for themselves? Hermeneutics is both an art and a science, and its proficiency should be developed by the believer. But it all begins with "hearing" the message.