Saturday, August 26, 2006

Signs in the Sky

In a previous post, I pointed out that Matthew 24: 15-31 refers to a time yet future, for one reason because the language in verses 21 and 22 describe a time of distress "such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be", in which no life would be saved if the days were not cut short. Since this requirement was not met in A.D. 70, the prophecy in these verses is still awaiting fulfillment.

Another reason to interpret the passage in a futuristic sense, as I pointed out in this post, is the event known as "The Abomination of Desolation" did not occur in A.D. 70 and also awaits being fulfilled.

A third reason to understand this passage as indicating events still anticipated is the language in verses 29-31, which describes a scenario which did not take place in A.D. 70, nor at any time as yet. Therefore the reader of this passage, upon arriving at verses 29-31, is faced with two choices. One is to conclude that since we have not yet seen the sun darkened, the moon not giving its light, the stars falling from the sky, the sign of the Son of Man appearing in the sky, and the elect gathered from one end of the sky to the other after the sound of a great trumpet, we must still be waiting for the events of these verses to be realized. "Then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn." That is still future. "...and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." Future.

A second choice the reader has is to interpret the verses in a nonliteral way. I previously offered some comments here about why I do not agree with this way of viewing the passage. I want to talk a little more about that in this post.

The events described in Matthew 24: 29-31 do not present any difficulty when considered in the context of the Second Coming and the events immediately preceeding it. We know the Second Coming is a literal future event, these verses obviously describe that event. The context of Matthew 24 does not suggest that suddenly the reader should shift gears in verse 29 and begin applying an allegorical hermeneutical method here after reading the passage in a literal sense up to this point. Those verses in the Olivet Discourse (such as Luke 21: 21-24 in a parallel passage) which do refer to 70 A.D. were literally fulfilled, as was Matthew 24:2. So one question that must be asked before accepting a nonliteral view of Matthew 24: 29-31 is: What is it about the context of this passage that would compel an allegorical view of those scriptures? It seems the only reason to resort to allegory at this point in the passage is to force the verses to conform to a first-century fulfillment, but hermeneutics should be about letting the Scripture shape the doctrine rather than imposing a predetermined viewpoint on the verses.

Another way of interpreting Matthew 24: 29-31, Isaiah 13: 6-13, Zephaniah 1: 14-18, various passages in Revelation, etc. (and this method of interpretation frustrates me even more than taking these passages allegorically!) is to assign them to a category of hyperbole that is supposedly "typical" of "catastrophic" prophetic language. I see no validity in this hermeneutical method whatsoever, and I certainly don't believe it is the intent of these passages. I want to empasize here that I don't consider this the same method as the allegorical or metaphorical, even though I also disagree w/ those modes of looking at these verses. The difference is that at least the allegorical method concedes there must be a point to the language and a satisfactory allegory indicated by the words. The method I call the "hyperbole" method seeks no point other than to try to avoid the task of expositing the verses.

In addition to the context itself, the historical example of those Biblical prophecies which have been literally fulfilled, and the lack of a compelling allegorical interprepretation, another reason that I believe these verses in Matthew 24: 29-31 should be taken literally is the disciples have come to Jesus in private to answer their eschatological questions. They sought clarification and details, so it seems that if verse 29 was a parable, this would be stated, especially since, at the time, the Olivet Discourse was a private teaching.

Finally, we know the Second Coming, described in Matthew 24: 30-31, is going to happen literally. But it did not happen in the first century and has not happened yet. As we see in this passage, when it happens, it will be cataclysmic. Literally.