Can you prove it was not? (No, I'm not saying it would be better to consider it literal til proven otherwise.)
How about we wait for
@David Lamb to answer the question asked in Post 48
They are surely not all non-literal.
Why not just come right out and say, "Yes, Josh, I think the verse is literal"? Or, if I understand Post 50 correctly, why not come right out and state, "Perhaps Matthew 24:35 is not to be read literally but I do believe there are other verses about the end of the world that should be taken literally."
Can you prove it was not? (No, I'm not saying it would be better to consider it literal til proven otherwise.)
Yes, I can prove Matthew 24:35 is not literal. That verse states
both the earth
and heaven will pass away but not Christ's words.
To begin with that phrase "earth and heaven" can be understood in the context of the very first verse of the Bible, which states God created the heavens and the earth. There are many other verses that could be brought to bear on Mt. 24:35 but one in particular comes to mind: The heaven is God's throne, and the earth is His footstool (Isa. 66:1; Acts 7:49). Therefore, if Mt. 24:35 were taken literally it would all of creation ceases to exist. It would also mean God no longer has a throne. Since the hope of those in Christ is to be raised incorruptible and immortal Mt. 24:35 poses a contradiction. There is no immortality if creation no longer exists. The logic would be we get raised to heaven to live in heaven, and heaven then passes away. Jesus' comment is a figure of speech. It's an hyperbole. He could have said "
I will get tired of your stupid ideas, but my words will never pass away." He could have said something more temporal, like, "
The sun will eventually burn itself out but my words will never pass away," or even included a
synecdoche and said, "
The well will eventually dry up but my words will never pass away."
More importantly, if the earth and heaven do pass away
and all the creatures living in heaven and earth go with it then what good will Jesus' words be? Who, beside the Trinity, would there be to hear, understand, and obey those words? Are we to understand Jesus to be saying, "My words will never pass away but one day there will be no one around to hear, understand, or obey them?"
So..... it is foolishness to read Mt. 24:35 literally. Doing so defies reason. It runs into multiple conflicts with the whole of scripture.
Once the whole of scripture is consulted the same will prove true of 2 Peter 3:10 and Rev. 21:10. If the first earth and heaven have passed away, then upon what is the new heavens and earth descending? John is standing on the earth when, in his vision, he sees the new heaven and earth descend. Furthermore, if the seas are dried up then there still exists land. However, if the seas all dry up, so too does all life cease to exist. The verse says, "
pass away," not "
ended," not "
destroyed." The original point of dispute is that the Bible supposedly teaches the world will
end. We should all be prepared for the world to
end, not be replaced by something better. What the original verse in question actually, factually, explicitly, and demonstrably states is that the
age ends, not the world. The KJV got it wrong.
And this is important because soteriology and eschatology are intertwined throughout scripture. It's a challenging book to get through because of its esoteric content and formal language but Geerhardus Vos' "
The Pauline Eschatology" is well worth the read. It will alternatively inform and challenge one's soteriology with a pile of facts about scripture, beginning with the fact the NT writers were experiencing then end of an age, not the end of the world.
