Visions using "outdated" language

[Randy Kluth]

It seems clear to me that God speaks in language that is symbolic to make it more accessible to believers and less accessible to unbelievers. He does not "throw pearls to the swine."

We understand this clearly when Jesus talked about his use of parables, to not allow unbelievers to stir up confusion over simple stories, but to allow those with right hearts to hear the simple truths about God's righteousness. But do we see how the use of symbolism in Bible Prophecy is used in just the same way?

When we read, for example, in Ezekiel of Gog's army coming down on horses, should we think God is speaking of literal horses, or symbolically of an endtime military mobilization? I think the latter. I think unbelievers will write this prophecy off as outdated and impossible, and will not see the dangers of divine judgment against a pagan mobilization.

The same is true, I believe, of Eze 40-48, where Ezekiel uses the symbolism of an OT temple to express the Jewish Hope at the end of the age. Is God trying to say temple worship will literally be restored in the endtimes, that Jewish temple worship will actually be done again?

I don't think so. This was a vision, and prophetic visions sometimes use parables or symbolic language to depict things that speak to believers, but not to unbelievers, who find cause for dismissing the message.

Ezekiel was speaking to people of his own time, who had failed under the temple system and under the Law of Moses. And so, they were given a vision as to how the OT temple *should* operate and will find fulfillment in the Jewish Hope.

It will not be a literal OT temple, but rather, the thing that the OT temple redemption symbolized, namely the redemption of Christ. But it will result in a real restoration of Israel, along with the many other Christian nations God promised to Abraham. The promises are literal, but the language is symbolic, to be hidden from unbelief, but revealed to faith.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I received feedback from elsewhere:

The question that comes to my mind is not whether this is true in in places, but how we can know it is true in this place.

For example, what has the author written to cue his readers that the language should not be taken literally, but is symbolic or figurative? Sometimes the genre is such that this is expected, such as is found in Revelation, but even apocalyptic literature has recognizable features. Similarly, parables, letters, proverbs, psalms, and legal statutes have features that guide a reader in interpretation. When the writer departs from the literal or otherwise, literary cues are expected to avoid confusion.

Having said that, I wonder if Ezekiel has used such literary cues to show that the temple passage is purely symbolic?

I answered as follows:

Exactly. Your kinds of questions is exactly why I've had trouble with this passage all of my life!

It seems to have its own genre, as opposed to the parable/stories Jesus told. The use of "Prophetic Symbolism" appears to have its own genre, especially apocalyptic visions. We see in Daniel and in the book of Revelation, as well as perhaps in Zechariah, these kinds of figures that are obviously intended to be taken symbolically.

I don't know--perhaps there really are angelic creatures with 4 different kinds of animal parts? ;) But the Locust Plague really goes over the top for me (Rev 9)--well, just about every vision in Revelation appears to belong to the "symbolic" camp!

So how do we know what is to be taken literally and what is to be taken symbolically? I think you really answer the question for me--it has to be in the context. It has to be *obviously* symbolic! Otherwise, we just couldn't know.

But in the case of Gog's "horsemen" in Eze 38-39, it isn't so obvious. It wasn't known at that time that horses would become antiquated in modern warfare. And quite frankly, it may not have even been recognized in Ezekiel's time that the temple itself would become outdated and no longer used?

So in this different kind of "symbolic" genre, namely Prophetic Visions, perhaps the symbolic doesn't have to be completely explained at that time? What mattered for the people of that time is that *they* understood what was pertaining to them, leaving to us many years later to figure out how it pertains to us?

After all, Peter said that prophetic language was given about the Messiah to the ancient Prophets, without explaining to them precisely what was meant--only enough to carry the idea forward from their own time. This is the best I can do for now. Your questions are spot on, and I'm trying not to run from them! ;)

 

[Keraz]

So how do we know what is to be taken literally and what is to be taken symbolically? I think you really answer the question for me--it has to be in the context. It has to be *obviously* symbolic! Otherwise, we just couldn't know.

But in the case of Gog's "horsemen" in Eze 38-39, it isn't so obvious. It wasn't known at that time that horses would become antiquated in modern warfare.

The problem, in most cases lies in the lack of knowledge of ALL the Bible prophesies.
With the Gog/Magog attach, they WILL ride horses, they will use antiquated weapons, because as we are told; the Lord is soon to send His fiery wrath upon the world and that disaster will destroy all weapons of war; Amos 5:9, Hosea 2:18, Micah 5:10-11, Psalms 70:3, Jeremiah 50:22-27

 

[Randy Kluth]

The problem, in most cases lies in the lack of knowledge of ALL the Bible prophesies.
With the Gog/Magog attach, they WILL ride horses, they will use antiquated weapons, because as we are told; the Lord is soon to send His fiery wrath upon the world and that disaster will destroy all weapons of war; Amos 5:9, Hosea 2:18, Micah 5:10-11, Psalms 70:3, Jeremiah 50:22-27

So you also believe a literal temple will be built as Ezekiel indicated in chs. 40-48?

 

[marks]

So you also believe a literal temple will be built as Ezekiel indicated in chs. 40-48?

That was a great post about recognizing the type of writing to help in interpretation.

I think they key in understanding this passage is in Ezekiel 43,

Ezekiel 43:5-11 KJV
5) So the spirit took me up, and brought me into the inner court; and, behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house.
6) And I heard him speaking unto me out of the house; and the man stood by me.
7) And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever, and my holy name, shall the house of Israel no more defile, neither they, nor their kings, by their whoredom, nor by the carcases of their kings in their high places.
8) In their setting of their threshold by my thresholds, and their post by my posts, and the wall between me and them, they have even defiled my holy name by their abominations that they have committed: wherefore I have consumed them in mine anger.
9) Now let them put away their whoredom, and the carcases of their kings, far from me, and I will dwell in the midst of them for ever.
10) Thou son of man, shew the house to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities: and let them measure the pattern.
11) And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house, and the fashion thereof, and the goings out thereof, and the comings in thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the laws thereof: and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.

God gives these instructions for a temple, and charges Ezekiel, show them all these things, so they will be ashamed, and put away their idolatries, and keep this law of the temple.

I think God was telling them, at the end of your captivity, come back, put away your idols, and build this temple, where I will live with you!

Most of the Jews did not return, only a small number, and they built a much smaller temple.

Much love!

 

[marks]

It seems to have its own genre, as opposed to the parable/stories Jesus told. The use of "Prophetic Symbolism" appears to have its own genre, especially apocalyptic visions. We see in Daniel and in the book of Revelation, as well as perhaps in Zechariah, these kinds of figures that are obviously intended to be taken symbolically.

One thing about this . . . I don't consider Daniel or the Revelation to be "Hebrew Apocalyptic" genre literature, and I think it's a mistake to look at them that way. Hebrew Apocalyptic was a genre of writing that was not inspired, and was filled with allusions and undefined symbology, written by men for their own purposes. While Daniel is the story of the man, and a record of his visions, and interpretations given to him, and the Revelation is a revealing of Jesus, a record of John's vision sent from God. Personally I maintain the same thinking on the Revelation as the rest of the Bible, in that I look for it to tell me when something is a symbol, and what that symbol means. That normal rules of language apply.

Otherwise there is some circular reasoning involved, "This is a symbol of something else, because it's in the Revelation, and the Revelation is an highly symbolic book. Just look at all the symbols used!"

Much love!

 

[Raccoon1010]

It seems clear to me that God speaks in language that is symbolic to make it more accessible to believers and less accessible to unbelievers. He does not "throw pearls to the swine."

We understand this clearly when Jesus talked about his use of parables, to not allow unbelievers to stir up confusion over simple stories, but to allow those with right hearts to hear the simple truths about God's righteousness. But do we see how the use of symbolism in Bible Prophecy is used in just the same way?

When we read, for example, in Ezekiel of Gog's army coming down on horses, should we think God is speaking of literal horses, or symbolically of an endtime military mobilization? I think the latter. I think unbelievers will write this prophecy off as outdated and impossible, and will not see the dangers of divine judgment against a pagan mobilization.

The same is true, I believe, of Eze 40-48, where Ezekiel uses the symbolism of an OT temple to express the Jewish Hope at the end of the age. Is God trying to say temple worship will literally be restored in the endtimes, that Jewish temple worship will actually be done again?

I don't think so. This was a vision, and prophetic visions sometimes use parables or symbolic language to depict things that speak to believers, but not to unbelievers, who find cause for dismissing the message.

Ezekiel was speaking to people of his own time, who had failed under the temple system and under the Law of Moses. And so, they were given a vision as to how the OT temple *should* operate and will find fulfillment in the Jewish Hope.

It will not be a literal OT temple, but rather, the thing that the OT temple redemption symbolized, namely the redemption of Christ. But it will result in a real restoration of Israel, along with the many other Christian nations God promised to Abraham. The promises are literal, but the language is symbolic, to be hidden from unbelief, but revealed to faith.

I think people that are well versed in the bible might see your ideas as incorrect. Moses was given literal prophecy, and so was Jonah, I think I have read other literal prophecies in the bible. God speaks in parables to the sinner, not the prophet. For instance the Pharaoh received a parable of famine that Joseph interpreted for him. And God gave him that literal interpretation to give to the Pharaoh.

God told Moses to stretch out his hand over the land of Egypt to bring a plague of locusts. The locusts covered the face of the land and swallowed up every crop and all the fruits of the trees. Afterwards there was nothing green in the trees, and all the crops in the fields had been destroyed.

Jonah was a prophet. The Lord told him to warn the people in Nineveh that their city would be destroyed if they did not repent. But the people of Nineveh were enemies to the Israelites.

 

[Randy Kluth]

That was a great post about recognizing the type of writing to help in interpretation.

I think they key in understanding this passage is in Ezekiel 43,

Ezekiel 43:5-11 KJV
5) So the spirit took me up, and brought me into the inner court; and, behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house.
6) And I heard him speaking unto me out of the house; and the man stood by me.
7) And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever, and my holy name, shall the house of Israel no more defile, neither they, nor their kings, by their whoredom, nor by the carcases of their kings in their high places.
8) In their setting of their threshold by my thresholds, and their post by my posts, and the wall between me and them, they have even defiled my holy name by their abominations that they have committed: wherefore I have consumed them in mine anger.
9) Now let them put away their whoredom, and the carcases of their kings, far from me, and I will dwell in the midst of them for ever.
10) Thou son of man, shew the house to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities: and let them measure the pattern.
11) And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house, and the fashion thereof, and the goings out thereof, and the comings in thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the laws thereof: and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.

God gives these instructions for a temple, and charges Ezekiel, show them all these things, so they will be ashamed, and put away their idolatries, and keep this law of the temple.

I think God was telling them, at the end of your captivity, come back, put away your idols, and build this temple, where I will live with you!

Most of the Jews did not return, only a small number, and they built a much smaller temple.

Much love!

Thank you. I agree with you in all points.

 

[Randy Kluth]

One thing about this . . . I don't consider Daniel or the Revelation to be "Hebrew Apocalyptic" genre literature, and I think it's a mistake to look at them that way. Hebrew Apocalyptic was a genre of writing that was not inspired, and was filled with allusions and undefined symbology, written by men for their own purposes. While Daniel is the story of the man, and a record of his visions, and interpretations given to him, and the Revelation is a revealing of Jesus, a record of John's vision sent from God. Personally I maintain the same thinking on the Revelation as the rest of the Bible, in that I look for it to tell me when something is a symbol, and what that symbol means. That normal rules of language apply.

Otherwise there is some circular reasoning involved, "This is a symbol of something else, because it's in the Revelation, and the Revelation is an highly symbolic book. Just look at all the symbols used!"

Much love!

Well yes, the use of apocalyptic language is not strictly a reference to non-biblical sources, which if compared can mean virtually anything. In this case, the term "apocalyptic language" is being applied strictly to the Bible, and the language is tied strictly to the word of God.

There are similarities between apocalyptic language used in non-biblical sources and use of the same kind of language in biblical sources. This is often recognized and then grouped together as "apocalyptic literature."

From Wikipedia:
The apocalyptic literature of Judaism and Christianity embraces a considerable period, from the centuries following the Babylonian exile down to the close of the Middle Ages.

The fact people in that period of time used that language in common indicates that similar conditions existed and that the same God was operating in similar ways in different places, even if some people contaminated the message. The use of symbolism is obviously a universal practice, and the style of its use is comparable to the changes we see in language.

God obviously speaks to mankind in a language they understand in their own time. Sometimes that language can cross many centuries, as it does with the book of Revelation, although understanding it requires some work.

 

[Behold]

It seems clear to me that God speaks in language that is symbolic to make it more accessible to believers and less accessible to unbelievers.

The word of God has to be "spiritually discerned" not "symbolically figured out".

 

[marks]

Well yes, the use of apocalyptic language is not strictly a reference to non-biblical sources, which if compared can mean virtually anything. In this case, the term "apocalyptic language" is being applied strictly to the Bible, and the language is tied strictly to the word of God.

There are similarities between apocalyptic language used in non-biblical sources and use of the same kind of language in biblical sources. This is often recognized and then grouped together as "apocalyptic literature."

From Wikipedia:
The apocalyptic literature of Judaism and Christianity embraces a considerable period, from the centuries following the Babylonian exile down to the close of the Middle Ages.

The fact people in that period of time used that language in common indicates that similar conditions existed and that the same God was operating in similar ways in different places, even if some people contaminated the message. The use of symbolism is obviously a universal practice, and the style of its use is comparable to the changes we see in language.

God obviously speaks to mankind in a language they understand in their own time. Sometimes that language can cross many centuries, as it does with the book of Revelation, although understanding it requires some work.

I think Wikipedia demonstrates the common error, in lumping together divinely inspired Scripture with purely human writings. At the end of the day, my thinking is that either the Bible shows us when something is a symbol, and what that symbol means, and otherwise, such interpretations merely lack Biblical authority.

Much love!

 

[Randy Kluth]

The word of God has to be "spiritually discerned" not "symbolically figured out".

I don't know how you can avoid having to figure out symbols? This often requires learning what the symbols have meant in other applications and how they would have been understood in the time they were given. We know that Nebuchadnezzar and Pharaoh had trouble understanding symbols. So yes, it does require spiritual discernment, as well.

 

[Keraz]

So you also believe a literal temple will be built as Ezekiel indicated in chs. 40-48?

Absolutely I do.
What Ezekiel describes has never been built and other Prophesies confirm it will be. Haggai 1:2-15, Zechariah 8:9-10, Revelation 11:1-3, +
It is a mistake to think the Jews have to do it, as we are told in many prophesies that they will be replaced in all of the holy Land by the Lord's faithful Christian people. THEY will come from far away and built the new Temple.... Zechariah 6:15

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The problem, in most cases lies in the lack of knowledge of ALL the Bible prophesies.
With the Gog/Magog attach, they WILL ride horses, they will use antiquated weapons, because as we are told; the Lord is soon to send His fiery wrath upon the world and that disaster will destroy all weapons of war; Amos 5:9, Hosea 2:18, Micah 5:10-11, Psalms 70:3, Jeremiah 50:22-27

LOL. Why in the world would they use horses and antiquated weapons in this day and age? That is complete nonsense.

 

[Keraz]

LOL. Why in the world would they use horses and antiquated weapons in this day and age? That is complete nonsense.

You, like most people; have no conception of the terrible destruction that will be caused when the Lord strikes the earth with His fiery wrath.
I provided in #3 & 13, some of the Prophesies which say ALL weapons of war will be destroyed then. Don't you bother to read scripture references?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Absolutely I do.
What Ezekiel describes has never been built and other Prophesies confirm it will be. Haggai 1:2-15, Zechariah 8:9-10, Revelation 11:1-3, +
It is a mistake to think the Jews have to do it, as we are told in many prophesies that they will be replaced in all of the holy Land by the Lord's faithful Christian people. THEY will come from far away and built the new Temple.... Zechariah 6:15

At least you're consistent. But I can't personally buy the idea of a restored OT temple law. Nope, it's unbiblical to me. That's why I try to explain the vision of Ezekiel's temple the way I do. Peace.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I think people that are well versed in the bible might see your ideas as incorrect. Moses was given literal prophecy, and so was Jonah, I think I have read other literal prophecies in the bible. God speaks in parables to the sinner, not the prophet. For instance the Pharaoh received a parable of famine that Joseph interpreted for him. And God gave him that literal interpretation to give to the Pharaoh.

Peter said prophecies of Messiah were given to the Prophets in an obscure way, not so much to hide things from them, but only to speak truth into the then-present times, and leave fulfillment to be understood for a future generation. Parables were just as relevant in OT times as it was when Jesus came, just prior to the new covenant. Isaiah indicated that unbelievers in Israel had the prophets and revelation hidden from them, making parables virtually undecipherable for them.

 

[JohnPaul]

You, like most people; have no conception of the terrible destruction that will be caused when the Lord strikes the earth with His fiery wrath.
I provided in #3 & 13, some of the Prophesies which say ALL weapons of war will be destroyed then. Don't you bother to read scripture references?

I understand.

 

[Keraz]

At least you're consistent. But I can't personally buy the idea of a restored OT temple law. Nope, it's unbiblical to me. That's why I try to explain the vision of Ezekiel's temple the way I do. Peace.

As an average Christian, I wouldn't believe the restoration of the sacrifices and the Temple rituals, either.
But with intensive studies of all the prophesies, it becomes clear; that is what God does intend to happen. One of my favourite scriptures is Isaiah 56:1-8. It plainly tells how the Lord will accept foreigners as His servants and how they will make sacrifices and offerings to Him on the Altar in His House.
Many other prophesies confirm it, to reject a new Temple and deny what God desires, is seriously wrong and ignores many scriptures.

Remember, God does not change, we will praise and thank Him like He asked the ancient Israelites to do, they started off OK, but fell away into sin. WE must do better, we can do better and we will do better!

 

[Raccoon1010]

Peter said prophecies of Messiah were given to the Prophets in an obscure way, not so much to hide things from them, but only to speak truth into the then-present times, and leave fulfillment to be understood for a future generation. Parables were just as relevant in OT times as it was when Jesus came, just prior to the new covenant. Isaiah indicated that unbelievers in Israel had the prophets and revelation hidden from them, making parables virtually undecipherable for them.

Yes and I think that is especially true for the book of revelation and Isaiah.