Does the Earth Abide Forever, Like the Bible Says?

"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea." (Rev 21:1 KJV)

Some even believe there will literally be no seas/oceans in the "new earth!" But there are many other verses that seem to contradict Rev 21:1, as follows:

"One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever." (Eccl 1:4 KJV)

"Bless the Lord, O my soul. O Lord my God ... Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever." (Ps 104:1, 5 KJV)

"For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited …" (Isa 45:18 KJV)

"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." (John 3:17 KJV)

"I am the living bread which came down from heaven… which I will give for the life of the world." (John 6:51 KJV)

"And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world." (John 12:47 KJV)

"Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen." (Eph 3:21 KJV)

"And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever." (Rev 11:15 KJV)

When considering all that, it does seem likely that Revelation 21:1 has been misinterpreted. Similar verses to 21:1 can be found in Isaiah:

"And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen: for the Lord God shall slay thee, and call his servants by another name: That he who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth; and he that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth; because the former troubles are forgotten, and because they are hid from mine eyes. For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind." (Isa 65:15-19 KJV)

"For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord. And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me …" (Isa 66:22-24 KJV)

My first question on that passage would be, "where did all those dead people come from? Isn't this supposed to be a new earth?"

Digging deeper, I find similar inconsistencies in the New Jerusalem references of the "new earth" in Revelation 21 and 22, as follows:

"And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it." (Rev 21:24 KJV)

"In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations." (Rev 22:2 KJV)

So, in the "new earth" we find nations and we find kings? Where did they come from? And some or all of the nations even require healing?

Nothing seems to fit a literal new-heaven, new-earth scenario. It seems more likely that the new heaven and new earth terms are symbolic for a major spiritual change, or something similar. Peter offers this:

"Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness." (2 Pet 3:13 KJV)

Now, if God sent his Son to save the world, what better way to save it than changing the spirituality of the inhabitants from evil to righteous?

After examining all this evidence, I have no alternative but to conclude that this earth abideth forever, like the Preacher, the Son of David, has declared in Ecclesiastes 1:4.

Some of your verses refer to the Kingdom of God, not the earth. But let start with the one that out of context sounds the most straightforward....

"Eccl 1:4 One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever."

So What's the context? First, what is already known at the time this is written?

Gen 8:22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

Now "while the earth remaineth" does imply to me, that the earth will not remain forever. In 9:11 God promises not to destroy the earth by flood. But He the promise is specific to the method, not a general promise not to destroy the earth. But as long as the earth remains, we're not going to have an extinction level climate change problem.

So back to the context... Well, this is Ecclesiastes. Written by Solomon. He claims in this book that all is vain (1:14), yet God claimed it was good. And he claims that which is crooked can not be made straight(1:15), though we know that's not true for all things are possible through Christ. In 3.19, he claims we are no better than the beasts, but we know this is not true either, for unlike the beasts we were made in the image of God, and given dominion over the beasts.

So maybe everything he's writing in Eccl shouldn't be taken literally. In fact, this verse, is intended to show that generations of men are like vapors in the wind to support his argument that all is vain. I don't think Solomon actually meant to claim that there would never be an end to the earth.

There are many other verses that support the traditional interpretation of a new heaven and new earth.

Isa 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Isa 13:13 Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.

Isa 34:4 And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.

>>>But don't forget, the disciples asked Jesus 3 questions in Matthew 24: When will this happen (destruction of temple), what will be the sign of your coming, and of the end of the age.<<<

Exactly. And Jesus said to them that all the things he told them up, until verse 34, would happen in their generation, including the sign of his coming:

"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." (Mat 24:30-31 KJV)

What is your point? And what is the big deal about a new age? I consider the arrival of our Messiah and his the introduction of Christianity; his crucifixion and resurrection; and the dismantling of Mosaic Law and all supporting structures after 1500 years, to be a very reasonable sign that it could be the end of one age, and the ushering in of a new one. What does it take for a new age in your doctrine?

>>>1. Josephus does not mention the sun going dark or the moon turning red or any falling stars in his first hand account of the destruction of Jerusalem. (If you have not read it, I highly suggest it!)<<<

I have read it. I have a searchable copy of that and his Antiquities in my database. But before I get to Josephus, what do you think about this from Isaiah?

"Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the Lord of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger." (Isa 13:13 KJV)

I don't recall a single history book mentioning the earth being removed out of it's place when ancient Babylon was destroyed by the Medes.

Since you like Josephus, what do you think about these strange events and coincidences? For example, what do you think about the similarities in these two verses, one from Josephus and the other from the Revelation?

“The engines, that all the legions had ready prepared for them, were admirably contrived; but still more extraordinary ones belonged to the tenth legion: those that threw darts and those that threw stones were more forcible and larger than the rest, by which they not only repelled the excursions of the Jews, but drove those away that were upon the walls also. Now the stones that were cast were of the weight of a talent, and were carried two furlongs and further. The blow they gave was no way to be sustained, not only by those that stood first in the way, but by those that were beyond them for a great space.” Wars Of The Jews V.6.3

"And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great." (Revelation 16:21)

Wow! That is one remarkable coincidence! And what about this strange phenomena: armored soldiers flying around in the clouds in chariots?

“Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the one and twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities.” Wars Of The Jews VI.5.3

Now that is astonishing. Tacitus wrote about it, as well:

"There had happened omens and prodigies, things which that nation so addicted to superstition, but so averse to the Gods, hold it unlawful to expiate either by vows or victims. Hosts were seen to encounter in the air, refulgent arms appeared; and, by a blaze of lightning shooting suddenly from the clouds, all the Temple was illuminated. The great gates of the Temple were of themselves in an instant thrown open, and a voice more than human heard to declare, that “the Gods were going to depart.” [The Works of Tacitus, Vol 4, Book V, The Summary]

And what about this strange events, some of which Tacitus also mentioned above?

"Thus there was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year." [Wars of the Jews, VI.5.3]

"Thus also before the Jews' rebellion, and before those commotions which preceded the war, when the people were come in great crowds to the feast of unleavened bread . . . at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house, that it appeared to be bright day time; which lasted for half an hour. This light seemed to be a good sign to the unskillful, but was so interpreted by the sacred scribes, as to portend those events that followed immediately upon it." [Wars of the Jews, VI.5.3]

"Moreover, the eastern gate of the inner [court of the] temple, which was of brass, and vastly heavy, and had been with difficulty shut by twenty men, and rested upon a basis armed with iron, and had bolts fastened very deep into the firm floor, which was there made of one entire stone, was seen to be opened of its own accord about the sixth hour of the night. Now those that kept watch in the temple came hereupon running to the captain of the temple, and told him of it; who then came up thither, and not without great difficulty was able to shut the gate again. . . But the men of learning understood it, that the security of their holy house was dissolved of its own accord, and that the gate was opened for the advantage of their enemies. So these publicly declared that the signal foreshowed the desolation that was coming upon them." [Wars of the Jews, VI.5.3]

"Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the temple,] as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, Let us remove hence." [Wars of the Jews, VI.5.3]

>>>2. Irenaeus place the authorship of Revelation well after the destruction of Jerusalem, around 95 AD<<<

We have already beaten that dead horse to death a few times over. No one really knows what he meant! We do know that he wrote a contradictory statement in almost the same "breath," if the bandwagon interpretation is accurate. Read the paragraph you are referring to, then read about the "ancient copies" of the Revelation two paragraphs earlier.

>>>3. Regardless of Revelation's dating, you have to dismiss most of Revelation as allegorical or whatever, ignoring the plain reading of many of it's passages, like all inhabitants of the earth worshipping the beast, his calling fire down from heaven, the mark, 7 bowls and 7 trumpet, etc.<<<

All of that has been explained in remarkable detail. I suggest you hold your nose and read books by those you disagree with. For example, I think C.I. Scofield was one of the most deceitful, conniving con-men of the past two centuries, surpassed only by his buddy, Samuel Untermyer (whose arrogance cost the lives of countless Jews, in my opinion;) but I keep a copy of his 1909 handy, and several of his books. Try Ken Gentry's books, "Before Jerusalem Fell" and "Beast of Revelation," for some eye-openers. Dispensationalists have what appears to me to be an unnatural hatred of his work, so he is probably right on the money, or close. I recently found them online in PDF format, free for download at:

http://preteristarchive.com/Books/pdf/1989_gentry_before-jerusalem-fell.pdf

http://entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/kgbr.pdf

>>>4. Rev 20 uses the phrase "1000 years" 5 times in 7 verses. That's a lot of repetition of a precise number to be cast off as non-specific or general<<<

I have considered that. But with nothing to back it up, I will continue to keep it in mind, but not in my routine vocabulary.

>>>5. Rev 21:4 plainly states "there will be no more death...for the old order of things has passed away". Generations can't "come and go" unless someone is dying. Blatant, inescapable, fatal contradiction.<<<

Don't complain to me! I was quoting God's Word. If you have a problem with His Word, I can't help you; nor can anyone else on this earth, that I am aware of.

>>>6. Zephaniah, in reference to the great Day of the LORD (1:14) states in verse 18 "In the fire of his jealousy the whole earth will be consumed, for he will make a sudden end of all who live on the earth.<<<

The ancient Jews were much more familiar with the old testament prophecies than anyone today; and literal interpretation was not helpful to them.

>>>7. Ecc 1:4 states "Generations come and generations go, but the earth remains forever. This does not state that generations will come and go forever, only that the earth remains forever. I would not hang a doctrine of eternal cycle of life and death on that verse!<<<

What about all the other verses I quoted? Can you explain away all of them?

>>>FWIW, I have considered both "post" and "a" millenial, and find they contradict too much plain reading of scripture to be viable.<<<

I have no idea what that means.

Philip

>>>Some of your verses refer to the Kingdom of God, not the earth.<<<

Jesus implied the kingdom of God was on the earth: of course, he and his servants rule from heaven, but the kingdom is here. Recall Jesus said this to the Jews:

"Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." (Mat 21:43 KJV)

And do you recall Jesus eating in the kingdom of God after his resurrection?

"And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God." (Luke 22:15-16 KJV)

"And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him [Jesus] a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them." (Luke 24:41-43 KJV)

To be more specific, the Kingdom of God is within us:

"And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:20-21 KJV)

>>>Now "while the earth remaineth" does imply to me, that the earth will not remain forever. <<<

And "the earth abideth forever," and "world without end" do not imply the opposite? That is a very interesting interpretive method, I must admit.

>>>[Eccl 1:4] Well, this is Ecclesiastes. Written by Solomon. He claims in this book that all is vain (1:14), yet God claimed it was good. And he claims that which is crooked can not be made straight (1:15), though we know that's not true for all things are possible through Christ.<<<

If all things are possible, do you think all things are likely? For example, have you seen anyone move any mountains lately? It only takes faith as a grain of mustard seed. And if the crooked could be made straight, why did God send armies to destroy evil nations, including Israel, twice? Over 1.1 million Jews were killed or starved to death in Jerusalem during the Jewish-Roman war, alone! Why didn't he simply make them "straight?" I believe we are in way over our heads on this one.

BTW, I didn't know it was written by Solomon. I never really considered it since the author claimed to be a Preacher. I assumed it was one of David's other sons, say, Nathan.

>>>In 3.19, he claims we are no better than the beasts, but we know this is not true either, for unlike the beasts we were made in the image of God, and given dominion over the beasts. So maybe everything he's writing in Eccl shouldn't be taken literally.<<<

I believe that to be true in every book, and especially in visionary prophecies like those of Daniel, Ezekiel, Zechariah, the Revelation, and the like. Any pretense of "plain language" in the prophecies should always be questioned.

>>>In fact, this verse, is intended to show that generations of men are like vapors in the wind to support his argument that all is vain.<<<

That is true, and will always be. Did he say the earth was also like a vapour?

>>>I don't think Solomon actually meant to claim that there would never be an end to the earth.<<<

He is not around to ask, nor are any of the others. Maybe we should compare his scripture with others, say with John 3:17, or Eph 3:21, or Rev 11:15, and even others. Letting the scripture interpret the scripture is, in my opinion, the only valid way to interpret it. I certainly cannot get into the Lord's mind to "see" what he was thinking; and it is all God's Word, which sorta makes a mockery of so-called "scholars" who pretend they can get into the minds of the writers, like Paul.

>>>There are many other verses that support the traditional interpretation of a new heaven and new earth. [Isa 65:17, 13:13, 34:4] <<<

I referenced Isa 65:17 in my original post. I only recently referenced Isaiah 13:13, which referred to the destruction of ancient Babylon by the Medes: a verse which shoots a few holes into a literal interpretation of the earth, stars and sun doing really crazy things. Regarding Isaiah 34:4, this is the context:

"Their slain also shall be cast out, and their stink shall come up out of their carcases, and the mountains shall be melted with their blood. And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree. For my sword shall be bathed in heaven: behold, it shall come down upon Idumea, and upon the people of my curse, to judgment." (Isa 34:3-5 KJV)

That passage refers to the destruction of ancient Idumea. In the continuation in the next chapter, it explains why Idumea was destroyed:

"As thou didst rejoice at the inheritance of the house of Israel, because it was desolate, so will I do unto thee: thou shalt be desolate, O mount Seir, and all Idumea, even all of it: and they shall know that I am the Lord." (Isa 35:15 KJV)

Those passages present the same dilemma for the literal interpreter as 13:13. If all that bizarre stuff in 34:3-4 happened many centuries ago, why is there not so much as a whisper about it in the history books?

Philip

"And do you recall Jesus eating in the kingdom of God after his resurrection?"

Yes, Jesus ate in his ressurected body, which implies we'll eat in our resurrected bodies. And the Baptists rejoiced!!!

I'm thinking you bought up eating to imply the earth is necesary for production of food. I don't think it is, but in any event we know there will be a new earth.

"And "the earth abideth forever," and "world without end" do not imply the opposite?

The difference is that, the Gen statement was a conditional logic statement. While the earth remaineth, the seasons will occur. It makes no claim that the earth will remain forever, rather it implies that seasons will occur only until the earth itself ends.

Taken out of context those two phrases would seem to imply the opposite. But in the greater context of scripture you have both Isaiah, Peter, and Revelations stating ambivalently that the earth will be destroyed and new earth will replace it.

"Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen." (Eph 3:21 KJV)

The context here is that Jesus will always have a church through all time. Not sure world even refers to the earth and not the kingdom in this passage. And even if it does, the new earth would qualify. In the same way that we live forever, but our mortal bodies die, and we take on new bodies. There is a replacement earth, thus a world without end.

I agree with your general approach, that scripture should be interpreted in light of the rest of the scripture. But it seems to me that you're picking a couple of phrases and interpreting them to mean the earth isn't destroyed when there are clear unambivalent passages indicating that it will be.

It looks to me like you're trying to force a preconceived interpretation instead of letting scripture speak. And it has you treating whole passages as allegorical to support the meaning you've assigned to a couple of phrases.

>>>Maybe because that is NOT what the passage is talking about! Isaiah 13:6-13 refers to the Day of the Lord, as it says in vs 6, 9 & 13. He is going to punish the world for the sins of Babylon. See Rev 18, written well after the Medes had their day.<<<

Of course it was. That is why John called the old testament destruction of Babylon into remembrance in Rev 16:19: because of the similarities between the destruction of ancient Babylon and Babylon in the Revelation, which was Jerusalem.

Misinterpreting the destruction of ancient Babylon (and the Chaldeans) would require one to misinterpret a lot of other scriptures and history relating to Cyrus and the Assyrians including the prophecy of Jeremiah where he explained why ancient Babylon was destroyed:

"Israel is a scattered sheep; the lions have driven him away: first the king of Assyria hath devoured him; and last this Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon hath broken his bones. Therefore thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will punish the king of Babylon and his land, as I have punished the king of Assyria." (Jer 50:17-18 KJV)

The prophecies of Daniel would be another matter altogether. LOL! By the way, there have been several "Day's of the Lord."

>>>Also, Isaiah 13:10 sounds a lot like Matthew 24:29, I wonder why?<<<

So do a lot of historians and commentators, although most have similar interpretations, for example:

John Gill believed the darkening of the sun in Matt 24:29 implied the departure of the glory of God from the temple; the dark moon as the elimination of ceremonial law (e.g., the Church has the moon under her feet in Rev 12:1;) and the falling stars represented the falling away in the doctrine of the rabbinical class, and so on.

James Stewart Russell wrote, "If these symbols therefore were proper to represent the fall of Babylon why should they be improper to set forth a still greater catastrophe--the destruction of Jerusalem? Take another example. The prophet Isaiah announces the desolation of Bozrah, the capital of Edom, in the following language: 'The mountains shall be melted with the blood of the slain. . . . All the host of heaven shall be dissolved and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from my vine, and as a falling fig from the fig-tree. For my sword shall be bathed in heaven: behold it-shall come down upon Idumea,' etc. (Isa. Xxxiv. 4, 5.) Here again we have the very imagery used by our Lord in His prophetic discourse; And if the fate of Bozrah might properly be described in language so lofty, why should it be thought extravagant to employ similar terms in describing the fate of Jerusalem?

"What, then, is the great catastrophe symbolically represented as the shaking of the earth and heavens? No doubt it is the overthrow and abolition of the Mosaic dispensation, or old covenant; the destruction of the Jewish church and state, together with all the institutions and ordinances connected therewith. There were 'heavenly things' belonging to the dispensation: the laws, and statutes, and ordinances, which were divine in their origin, and might be properly called the 'spiritualia' of Judaism - these were the heavens, which were to be shaken and removed. There were also 'earthly things:' the literal Jerusalem, the material temple, the land of Canaan - these were the earth, which was in like manner to be shaken and removed. The symbols are, in fact, equivalent to those employed by our Lord when predicting the doom of Israel. 'Immediately after the tribulation of those days (the horrors of the siege of Jerusalem) shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken' (Matt 24:29). Both passages refer to the same catastrophe and employ very similar figures; besides which we have the authority of our Lord for fixing the event and the period of which He speaks within the limits of the generation then in existence: that is to say, the reference can only be to the judgment of the Jewish nation and the abrogation of the Mosaic economy at the Parousia."

Albert Barnes wrote, "The images here used are not to be taken literally. They are often used by the sacred writers to denote any great calamities. As the darkening of the sun and moon, and the falling of the stars would be an inexpressible calamity, so any great catastrophe, any overturning of kingdoms or cities, or dethroning of kings and princes, is represented by the darkening of the sun and moon, and by some terrible convulsion in the elements. Thus the destruction of Babylon is foretold in similar terms, Isa 13:10; and of Tyre, Isa 24:23. The slaughter in Bozrah and Idumea is predicted in the same language, Isa 34:4. See also Isa 50:3; 60:19,20; Eze 32:7; Joe 3:15.

John William Burgon wrote, "True indeed it is that Sun, Moon, and Stars are often spoken of figuratively,—are sometimes put symbolically for Christ, and his Church, and his Saints: true also it is, that, as at our Saviour's Birth it was foretold that" every valley should be filled, and every mountain and hill should be brought low,"(f)—words which do not admit of being understood literally,—so may the present place be rightly explained by those many ancient Fathers who interpret it altogether in a figurative manner. For ourselves, we prefer to take our Lord's words in the most literal sense they will possibly bear; suggesting only that beneath that literal sense and literal fulfillment, there may lie a mystical intention also.(g) If the Sun "put on mourning" at the Crucifixion, why may he not "be darkened" at the second Advent? But it is safer to meditate on the mysterious predictions of the text, than to pretend to explain them."

Matthew Henry wrote: That there shall be then a great and amazing change of the creatures, and particularly the heavenly bodies (v. 29). The sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light. The moon shines with a borrowed light, and therefore if the sun, from whom she borrows her light, is turned into darkness, she must fail of course, and become bankrupt. The stars shall fall; they shall lose their light, and disappear, and be as if they were fallen; and the powers of heaven shall be shaken. This intimates, That there shall be a great change, in order to the making of all things new. Then shall be the restitution of all things, when the heavens shall not be cast away as a rag, but changed as a vesture, to be worn in a better fashion, Ps. cii. 26. They shall pass away with a great noise, that there may be new heavens, 2 Pet. iii. 10-13. It shall be a visible change, and such as all the world must take notice of; for such the darkening of the sun and moon cannot but be: and it would be an amazing change; for the heavenly bodies are not so liable to alteration as the creatures of this lower world are. The days of heaven, and the continuance of the sun and moon, are used to express that which is lasting and unchangeable (As Ps. lxxxix. 29; xxxvi. 37); yet they shall thus be shaken. It shall be a universal change. If the sun be turned into darkness, and the powers of heaven be shaken, the earth cannot but be turned into a dungeon, and its foundation made to tremble. Howl, fir trees, if the cedars be shaken. When the stars of heaven drop, no marvel if the everlasting mountains melt, and the perpetual hills bow. Nature shall sustain a general shock and convulsion, which yet shall be no hindrance to the joy and rejoicing of heaven and earth before the Lord, when he cometh to judge the world (Ps. xcvi. 11, 13); they shall as it were glory in the tribulation The darkening of the sun, moon, and stars, which were made to rule over the day, and over the night (which is the first dominion we find of any creature, Gen. i. 16-18), signifies the putting down of all rule, authority, and power (even that which seems of the greatest antiquity and usefulness), that the kingdom may be delivered up to God, even the Father, and he may be All in all, 1 Cor. xv. 24, 28. The sun was darkened at the death of Christ, for then was in one sense the judgment of this world (John xii. 31), an indication of what would be at the general judgment.

In other words, they believe it is all symbolic. And I don't recall a single commentary to the contrary.

Philip

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.