You are letting the proof flow in the wrong direction. The End Times will be a period of extraordinary events. As an example of this Jesus used the accepted story of flood. To me this doesn’t mean the flood has to be taken as reality but only as an easily understood example of extraordinary events, like the mustard seed being the smallest of all seeds (which we know isn’t true but was accepted as true at the time).
Jesus uses the mustard see as a parable among many other parables to explain the Kingdom of God (Matthew 13).
The crucial feature in this parable is the growth of the mustard seed from an almost imperceptible size to a large plant. And this growth has to be taken as reality: Jesus teaches the growth of the Kingdom of God will be as real as the growth of the mustard see.
If we apply this to Jesus explanation of the End Times we are led to this conclusion:
The End Times have to be taken as an extraordinary event which is as real as Noah’s Flood.
If you assume that the Flood is “hyperbole” you can as well assume that the End Times and General Judgement are “hyperbole”.
On the other hand, till now neither you nor anyone in this thread has proposed an argument proving my interpretation of Genesis Flood as miracle wrong.
To reject this option without giving arguments amounts to deny the possibility of miracles by “downgrading” extraordinary events to ordinary ones. In my view this is as great a prejudice as YECs trying to “upgrade” ordinary events to miracles.
That is not my point. Jesus started with the accepted truth that the mustard seed was the smallest seed.
It is wrong for the simple reason that there is no evidence that it ever happened in this world. I am not saying the God couldn’t have flooded the entire planet and then removed all traces that he did. It is just the Bible gives no indication that this is what happened. The same could be said for the six days of creation so why don’t you argue that it is also a miracle?
The parable of the mustard see appears in Matthew 13 together with the parables of the sower, the weeds, and the yeast. Jesus uses all of them to explain the growth of the Kingdom of Heaven by comparison with processes where very little things (seeds, yeast) give rise to big transformations. In this context the point of the comparison is that the growth of the Kingdom of Heaven although imperceptible is as real and huge a transformation as that seeds undergo or yeast produces.
By introducing the Flood into his End Times prophecy Jesus is teaching to us (and not only to those who were listening him on the spot) two things:
The End Times and the Flood are both extraordinary miraculous events.
The End Times will really happen, as really as the Flood happened.
This is “a clear indication in the Bible”, since, as Brad very well claims:
As already said, according to @JohnWalton (see this YouTube IP video) “the Flood narrative works as a Recreation narrative”, and this means that from the Flood universal order emerges.
None knows what is inspired in the Bible better than the Incarnate Word of God: Can you indicate Bible verses where Jesus speaks about “the six days of creation”?
If not, then we have not to worry for an interpretation beyond ordinary natural phenomena.
Apparently YECs do not realize that for Christians the authority to ascertain what is inspired in the Bible is Jesus Christ. But you would fall into the same error if you deny that Jesus Christ is teaching to us that the End Times will be as real an event as the Flood was.
So we are compelled to search for a coherent explanation integrating the fact that Noah’s Flood was an extraordinary miraculous event, and the fact that no geological trace of such a catastrophe can be found in our ordinary world.
And lo and behold quantum physics today is telling us that parallel worlds are possible: What more can you ask for?
In one world Noah and all Image Bearers around him perceived the Flood as it is narrated in Genesis. In the parallel world (our world) nothing extraordinary happened, and thus there is no need for God to remove any trace: Just like in the Miracle of the Sun in Fatima on October 13th, 1917.
You raise an interesting point in noting the tie between Jesus’ end-times teaching and events like Sodom, Gomorrah, and the flood. Between your insistence that Jesus’ teaching makes both the interpretation and the event inspired, and Walton’s thinking that it is the interpretation (not the event) that carries the significance, I still don’t see where you have made your case. [I may have missed something significant above – I’ve been skimming things rather hastily these days.]
It seems to me that you may be confusing premises with desired conclusions, and thinking that the inspired teacher is aiming for the premises rather than using them to usher the reader/listener to the conclusion, which is in the center of focus. We may think that a speaker’s reliance on premises makes his observation or argument vulnerable if a premise turns out to not be true, and in many cases that would be true … but not always!
If I say that my niece can climb a tree like Jack climbed the beanstalk, my statement conveys a truth that is not in the least falsified or even imperiled by the fact that Jack’s beanstalk is a fiction. My statement is not about Jack’s historicity, but is using a common cultural referent to usher the reader to my real point: that my niece is quite a good climber.
To make my statement be about Jack rather than about my niece would be like Jesus’s listeners nitpicking with him about the condition of the inn found between Jerusalem and Jericho after he speaks of the Good Samaritan; or of them inquiring about inheritance practices after he speaks of the prodigal. Any who would do so only demonstrate that they have missed the entire point of his narrative. They aren’t about mustard seeds or whether chasms are fixed between heaven and hell, … they are about God’s kingdom, our faith (or lack of it) and so forth. It still seems to me that Walton is right to focus on the interpreter (Christ) and not on the cultural fodder that Christ, Peter, and Paul freely use to shed light on important subjects. In fact I might press further (if Walton didn’t already) and suggest that our present situation is not “Christ’s interpretations vs. the events so referenced” but rather “Christ’s interpretations vs. our interpretations of the events so referenced.” Not only are we trying to refocus Jesus’ points back onto their premises (the events themselves), but we are actually even elevating our own interpretations about what should be important about those cultural referents (vulgar historicity apparently!) above the original scriptural aim.
So it seems to me that when we are instructed that the final days and judgment are compared to the flood or to Sodom and Gomorrah, we are to understand and tremble (as they would have) at the terrible magnitude, scope that reaches all of us, and eternal finality of that cataclysmic event. If you have to impress upon hearers what an unprecedented event will be like (and I think the final judgment probably qualifies, no?) we will reach for the most dramatic cultural references we have available. Our doing so does not necessarily sanctify or venerate those cultural references. One might object that these are not merely 1st century cultural references, but scriptural references. But to divorce scriptural teachings from cultural may more be a reflection of our state of culture today than theirs back then. Scripture was effective precisely because God has embedded it culture (echoes of the incarnation?) not because it remains loftily above it.
I knew you would be going to your parallel worlds idea. While QM may well indicate parallel worlds are possible. If the flood only happened in some other parallel world that makes the flood just a story in OUR world. It didn’t happen here, it isn’t in our history. And if it didn’t happen in our history how did the author know the story? So you are basically saying the same thing that I am, it is just a story.
But in Matthew 24, 25: 31-46, and Luke 17: 20-37 Jesus is clearly speaking to us as well, to convey the crucial teaching about the End Times and Final Judgment.
Now you seem to claim that for us “the most dramatic cultural references” Jesus is using in his teaching are not real facts but simply “hyperbole”.
But then how could we “tremble at the terrible magnitude, scope that reaches all of us, and eternal finality of that cataclysmic event”?
We will rather LOL about such a teaching and paraphrasing Richard Dawkins claim: “It is only Hyperbole. Don’t worry and enjoy your life”.
If one believes that Genesis 1-11 is an allegory teaching truths but not literal history, this soul would say “no.” If one is a literalist that accepts Genesis 1-11 as actual history ,e.g., Billy Graham who could also believe in theistic evolution, then the anwer would be “yes.”
… “speaking to us” … agreed on that. “clearly”? well, I do agree that we should study what Jesus says and that what we need to know is available to us in his teachings when we study them and read them, not just to ourselves, but in community with other believers and especially believing scholars who have devoted significant study to them. (Even non-believing scholars will have valuable insights we should not neglect.) But when it comes to apocalyptic literature, very little (especially of detail) is just merely “clear” to our surface readings.
Hyperbole in the mouth of a little boy who frequently cries “wolf!” is one thing. Hyperbole from the living God to help drive a desperately important point home to us is quite another. You disparage hyperbole as something that is automatically false and to be dismissed. Sometimes it is that. But when a father warns his child not to play in the road because he will be killed, it is not an idle warning. Is it guaranteed that the child will die the moment he transgresses? Hardly. And yet the father’s warning is very real, and the child neglects it to his extreme (and yes, perhaps even fatal) peril. Now some will jump on this as a concession to your point, saying “see? …now it is suggested that God’s command is no more than a prudent suggestion like not playing in the street!” But you will err if you think this. I am not comparing God’s commands to parental imperatives. I am only making the point that hyperbole is not (as you suggest) an indicator of falsehood. It may be a warning that something merits its use for very good reasons! If someone is told it is better that to cut off their hands than use them to commit sin, then this is a teaching about how desperate we should be in our struggle against sin; it is not a reprimand to all of us still-two-handed individuals for seeing that this imperative is given to us by means of hyperbole.
You seem to agree with @Mervin_Bitikofer and me in that according to the teaching of Jesus Christ the End Times and General resurrection will be an “unprecedented cataclysm event” of “terrible magnitude”.
Also in agreement with @Mervin_Bitikofer I endorse the idea that to impress upon us what the event will be like Jesus reaches for “the most dramatic cultural references we have available”. The reference to the Flood has to be understood in this context.
If now the quality of information we have about the Flood is that it is “purposeful exaggeration” (“fake news” after all), then Jesus should have known that comparing the End times to the Flood would not impress us at all but rather provoke hilarity, and had avoided the comparison.
So I think my argument is not fallacious and the option “Flood=Miracle” deserves a study that till now has not been done.
Jesus didn’t seem much bothered by what might or might not provoke “hilarity”. Turning the other cheek probably sounded pretty funny to Roman soldier types (and still sounds beyond the pale to many Christians today). Mockery was [is] part of the world’s natural reaction to him. But all that is beside the point here.
I think you still fail to take on board my point that hyperbole does not always equal “not serious” or “false”. No sane parent is laughing at the dad who tells his kid that playing in the street will get him killed – even though such a risk assessment is obviously hyperbole. But even this comparison is unnecessary. You seem to want to take modern reporting culture and impute it back onto them, pretending that their take-away from certain styles of teaching and certain phrases and expectations attached to those phrases ought to match ours. In some cases perhaps that is fair, but across the board … it just ain’t so. When the almighty Creator God puts something in stark and dire terms and decides to use hyperbole to make sure you get the point, then that is God’s prerogative and your very salvation may be contingent on the warning; you mock at your own peril. Part of the whole notion of the Word becoming incarnate is that He reaches into our culture and makes use of our languages and norms – complete with sarcasm, cajoling, pining, and yes … even hyperbole. God could deliver a dry, more clinically accurate depiction of any given situation, but we tend to need to be shouted at. The prophets, it seems, will try everything. But we can manage to be deaf in many different languages and genres.
I understand the references to the Flood in the same manner I understand Job’s references to snow and hail warehouses: they are colorful figurative narratives that really don’t affect the metaphysics of the Cosmos in any real way.
I take on board your point with pleasure but I think your arguments in the context of the Flood are not convincing.
It seems to me we both agree in that the basis for any coherent explanation is Jesus’ teaching:
Now, the crucial Jesus’ teachings in this respect are in Matthew 24; 25: 31-46, and Luke 17: 20-37.
As a matter of fact the scholars responsible for the article at the basis of this thread have not even referred these verses. Neither have these verses been discussed in detail in the Interview by Brad Kramer with John Walton @JohnWalton and Tremper Longman @tremperlongman.
It seems beyond doubt that Jesus in Matthew 24; 25: 31-46, and Luke 17: 20-37 is clearly speaking for Christian of all times to convey His crucial teaching about the End Times as a real event to come, making clear, as you yourself claim:
If Jesus were comparing this event to a past event (the Flood) that never took place but was only the result of “purposely exaggeration”, it seems plain that He would actually and “purposely” be proposing to Christians today to interpret His teaching about the End Times and Final Judgement as “purposely exaggeration” as well.
For this reason I think that in the light of Matthew 24; 25: 31-46, and Luke 17: 20-37 “hyperbole” cannot be considered a sound explanation for the Flood, even if one accepts (as I do) that:
You yourself provide an excellent argument in favor of my conclusion:
By teaching “it is better to cut off their hands than use them to commit sin” Jesus uses an expression that I understand today exactly in the same sense as anyone who was listening to Him 2000 years ago understood: “it is better to cut off my hands than…”.
Accordingly when Jesus uses the “Flood” (in Matthew 24; 25: 31-46, and Luke 17: 20-37) he wants us to understand the comparison in the same sense as those listening him understood it, i.e.: as real history.
In summary, Matthew 24; 25: 31-46, and Luke 17: 20-37 clearly suggest that “hyperbole” is not a good explanation for the Flood and therefore, if we want to keep to science, we should take seriously the option Flood=miracle.
In any case I am very thankful to you for your comments: They are allowing us to discuss openly Matthew 24; 25: 31-46, and Luke 17: 20-37.
Except this is a hypothetical event which everyone knew doesn’t actually take place. So it is not an extraordinary event.
So when Jesus quotes Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 He likewise wants us to understand the the 6 days of creation are real history?
Nothing in Jesus’ use of the Flood requires it to be real history. What is required is the listeners had to believe it referred to an extraordinary event.
As far as I know (thanks in advance for correcting me, if I am wrong), it is the first time in this Blog that the passages where Jesus explicitly refers to Noah’s Flood are being object of detailed discussion.
Jesus quotes Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 (in Matthew 19:3-6 and Mark 10:2-9) to explain His teaching about the sanctity of Marriage and astonishingly He makes plain that this teaching:
Was contained in God’s primeval commandment to humans;
Is related to the concept of “Imago Dei” in Genesis 1:27 (an idea that both Karl Barth and Pope Johannes Paul II have developed).
In Matthew 19:3-6 and Mark 10:2-9 Jesus does not refer at all to the “6 days of creation”.
Regarding “creation times” the only thing you could derive from these verses is that actually Creation happens at the very moment God makes mankind in His Image, that is, capable of making free choices. Such an interpretation would fit perfectly well to what quantum physics is telling to us: No physically reality, without free choices on the part of human experimenters, all starts with our observations, or in John Wheeler’s wording: “The Big Bang is here”.
We also are “listeners” in the sense that we also are taught by Jesus when He speaks about the End Times and Final Judgement.
So, if I understand well, you are claiming that both, those who were listening when Jesus spoke and we ourselves have to believe the Flood referred to an extraordinary event.
This is exactly the idea I am proposing: Noah’s Flood as miracle.
Once again: it would useful if the scholars responsible for the article at the origin of this thread would agree in discussing this idea more in depth.
Sorry for the delay in responding to this. You wrote:
I’m not trying to use hyperbole as any kind of catch-all explanation to force [what I would call unnatural] concord between ancient understandings and modern sensibilities. Though to be fair, I do see hyperbole in some parts; I just don’t have the seeming knee-jerk reaction against hyperbole that you do.
If we were to read passages clearly commanding us to gouge out eyes and cut off fingers the same way that YECs want us to read Genesis, then it would be easy to identify the truly faithful around us. So – no – I don’t agree that we, or they then, took this as a teaching to actually follow literally.
I do agree that what Jesus teaches by his life and words is central to any Christian understanding. One does start treading in tricky waters, however, when one lifts out one or two passages as you have above, and identifies these as the crucial teachings … which you do go on to qualify as crucial “in this respect” which mitigates this concern somewhat.
But still, I would not call those passages “clear” in what all we can conclude from them (especially the Luke passage, but the sheep and the goats would seem to be a pretty clear teaching). Those who proclaim end times passages to be clearest are usually the same people who have made themselves most beholden to a dogmatic narrowness in how all such things are to be understood, which does not engender confidence that they are adequately engaged with the depths of scriptural wisdom as much as they could be.