In a prior letter I discussed the question of whether God will eventually destroy the earth. I think the passages you said the Jehovah's Witnesses cite to support the idea of its permanence are Ecclesiastes 1: 4:
"A generation goes, and a generation comes, but the earth remains forever."
... as well as Psalms 78:69:
"He built his sanctuary like the heights,
like the earth that he established forever."
Earlier I explained the use of figurative language in portions of Scripture. I can further illustrate what I mean using these passages.
Let's consider the verse from Psalms. Reading it in context, it strikes me that the mention of the earth is a tangential thought in the chapter. Even though Psalms 76 mentions something about the earth, the chapter is not really about the earth. What precedes verse 69 is a very lengthy recounting of the history of God's people. It is a story that is strikingly dramatic and dynamic in nature. In stark contrast, verse 69 introduces the reader to the Lord's sanctuary, comparing it to the mountains and to the earth. It says that the way the Lord built His sanctuary is like the way He built "the heights" and the earth.
Your point was that the verse does say "forever." And I can see that. It does say forever.
However, like other Psalms, this passage is a poem. And in this case, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the intention of this line is limited to conveying an impression to the reader.
It's similar to how someone might describe a very hot room by saying, "It's as hot as a furnace in here!" -- a literal inaccuracy, but serving the limited purpose for which it was intended. Of course, if we had no familiarity with furnaces, we might be confused by the saying.
In a similar way, if Scripture was otherwise silent on the fate of the earth, I'm sure everyone would be sympathetic to a literal interpretation of this verse. But as I pointed out before, Scripture is not silent on this topic. And other passages clearly contradict the literal meaning of this verse.
I don't think it's far-fetched, sloppy, or disrespectful of God to conclude that the reference to the earth's permanence here is intended figuratively and relatively.
The point of the verse is that God's sanctuary is permanent. And while the author could have just said that, he chose to make his point by comparing it with something else known for its permanence. From the vantage point of human beings, the earth is the most permanent thing we know of in nature. It outlives us all. Generation after generation have shared this same planet. People come and go, but the earth remains.
Now the verse in Ecclesiastes is a little different. The greater passage it appears within is all about how nothing man does is permanent. Everything he does is temporary, and ultimately futile. (As I told you guys, Ecclesiastes is an "interesting" book.) The point of the passage is to relay the nature of man's work and existence, not the earth's.
Like I said, if the rest of Scripture was silent on the issue, I could see being persuaded. It simply isn't.
Mike
No comments:
Post a Comment