Chapter # 9 Paragraph # 1 Study # 2
December 13, 2022
Moss Bluff, Louisiana
(Download Audio)
(363)
Thesis: Mark's switch in major themes in his Gospel requires us to understand the "setting" of the first century.
Introduction: One of the outcomes of the use of metaphorical analogies in the words of many biblical prophecies has been a great deal of theological contention regarding just how "literal" (a misuse of this word in that "literal" does
not mean "rooted in the physical creation" when that is actually the question) those prophecies are. In hermeneutical discussion, "literal" means "according to the letters" (of the words that are to be "interpreted"). This standard ("the letters") is directly established by the appeal to the "letters" that make up the "words" that make up the sentences, paragraphs, and chapters, etc. In other words, "literal" means "according to the jots and tittles" and all of the other letters of the alphabets of the languages in which the words are written. This is
the standard of all "interpretation".
However, the question that is actually at stake in the contentions mentioned above is not "the letters"; it is the level of involvement of physical realities that are referred to in the "letters of the words". In other words, if a "prophecy" uses words that involve physical realities, to what degree is the "prophecy" tied to the presence of those physical realities? The classic example is the use of "born again" to refer to a person's transition out of the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light. Is "born" to be taken as a physical event as Nicodemus took it? Another example is from the "prophecy" given to King Nebuchadnezzar regarding a "stone" cut out of a mountain that pulverizes the image in his dream: are the "stone" and the "mountain" to be taken in physical terms?; is the "dust" to which the image is reduced to be taken as "dust"?
The conundrum:how do we decide which of the details that are presented in words of physical reality are to be understood as physical and which are to be understood as legitimate figures of speech?
- I. Illustrations.
- A. Matthew's persistent "this is the fulfillment of the prophecy which said...".
- B. Edward Steven's argument for his "preterist" view of the prophecies of Mark 13 as well as many other New Testament texts.
- II. Solutions??
- A. For "physical" things to be understood as "physical" in any given text, there must be "letters" in the text that argue for that understanding; and for them to be taken as "expressions of analogy between different types of "realities", there must be "letters" in the text that argue for a non-physical understanding. This is not a small problem.
- B. Typically, the solution is to be found in the context (as in Jesus telling Nicodemus that his confusion exists because he does not grasp the different realities involved: "That which is born of flesh is flesh; that which is born of spirit is spirit").
- C. Why Edward Stevens doesn't understand his Bible.
- When a person sets out to attack other theological positions, the first thing he needs to understand is the place in humility that arguing for Truth requires. Then, he needs to understand how language works. And, finally, he needs to understand how incompetent for persuasion are false arguments. It is my contention that Edward Stevens doesn't understand any of these three things.
- First, there is an almost total lack of humility in Stevens' way of expressing himself. To hear him tell it, his understanding of biblical prophecy is "...the only prophetic view which faithfully interprets the PAST, teaches us how to live righteously in the PRESENT, and equips all FUTURE generations for life in this eternal universe." There is no difference in this arrogance than that of the multitudes of other "Bible Teachers" who cannot seem to grasp the significance of the fact that "their" understanding is nothing more than that -- "their understanding". This so-called "only prophetic view which [properly] interprets..." is nothing more, nor less, than Stevens' view of things. It has no claim to accuracy, infallibility, uniqueness, nor even common sense. It is only a claim made by an arrogant man who does not know his own pride.
- Second, Stevens has a very flawed grasp of how language works. One example, of many, is his claim that Josephus recorded the fulfillments of biblical prophecy in his 23rd claim that "hailstones weighing a talent- #Re 16:21 (Wars 3:7:9; 5:6:3)" was a fulfillment of Revelation 16:21. Interestingly, Stevens himself puts the word "hailstones" in quotes. The reason is that he wants Josephus' record of the Romans using a catapult to hurl stones of up to a "talent" in weight to be a "fulfillment of biblical prophecy" but he recognizes that the stones were not "hailstones". Let's look at this briefly. The prophecy comes immediately after the statement that "every island fled away and the mountains were not found". It then says that "there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven...". Now, Stevens wants the very near atmosphere of the Roman catapult to be the "heaven" out of which the "hail" fell. He wants the word "stones" to be literally "stones". He wants the weight of a "talent" to be literally a "talent". He wants the "fell" to be the literal falling of a stone heaved by a catapult. And he wants the "men" to be the "men" who were defending the walls of Jerusalem. In other words, to find a "fulfillment" in Josephus, Stevens finds a host of words that are to be taken "literally" (that, by the way, is the only way "fulfillments" can be identified). But, there is one fact of the biblical word "hail" that is not literal in Steven's "fulfillment". It is that it is identified as "hail". In other words, the word is not "hailstones" (Stevens needs the word "stones" to fit the "literal" interpretation of the biblical text to align with the literal interpretation of Josephus). To call a massive onslaught of catapults hurling stones "hail" in order to get the "prophecy" to align with the "fulfillment" is a handy bit of sleight of hand. To be sure, it was a "hail of stones" (according to our modern English parlance), but it was not "hail". Nor was there any mention of any islands or mountains being moved out of place -- a phenomenon that was to have accompanied the "hail". Surely if such a massive upheaval of the topography of the land had occurred, Josephus would have mentioned it. Thus, Stevens reveals that he does not understand how language works. In order to identify "fulfillments" of prophecy, the language of the prophecy has to be "literal" enough to make such an identification possible. It would be rather foolish for a person to claim he has identified a "fulfillment" of a prophecy if he could not identify the characteristic elements of that prophecy in both the prophecy and the fulfillment. To claim that a prophecy about a Mack truck has been fulfilled by a Chevrolet truck has one major flaw. The trucks may be exactly alike except for the fact that one is a "Mack" and the other is a "Chevrolet"--but that one distinction would abrogate the "fulfillment" of the "prophecy" which specified "Mack". By the same token to dismiss the word "hail" and replace it with stones of this earth tossed into the air in order to find a "fulfillment" shows to what lengths a man who is only presenting his view of things will go to try to make his view "the only legitimate one".
