Many take the Bible's prophecies about Elam to mean modern Iran.
Elam was a province which existed by that name, at the time the prophecies were given. The most apparent meaning that springs to my mind therefore is that the prophecies most likely referred to that Elam which was known by that very name at the time when the prophecies were spoken.
There are other indicators too:
For example, the prophecies mention Elam falling by the sword. Swords are not the likely weapons of warfare today, but they were, in Elam, at the time of the prophecies.
Then it mentions that all the slain were uncircumcised. Uncircumcision was an issue during Old Covenant times, but it's not something God would care to point-out in modern times. So it sounds to me like the prophecy must have been fulfilled in Old Covenant times when uncircumcision was still a pertinent issue.
The inhabitants of Elam were almost certainly uncircumcised, whereas modern Iranians are most likely circumcised. That detail of the prophecy could easily have been fulfilled in Elam's time. But for the prophecy to mean Iran, it would require that Iranians first stop the practice of circumcising, which is unlikely, being a Muslim country.
Also the prophecy states that after the fall of Elam, there won't be a single nation on earth where their people do not go into exile. Then later God will restore Elam again. So if Elam means modern Iran, then it requires that after Iran stops circumcising, and then their boys grow up to be men, and then they attack Israel, after that they must be destroyed by sword, then we must see Iranians scattered all over the world, and then we must see Iran restored again. All before the second coming! That's a very different scenario to popular end-times time-line forecasts.
Alternatively we could allegorise so many details in the prophecy - all except the geographical location - to try to make it fit more easily with modern Iran. But we'd have to allegorise it so extensively, to the point that the prophecy could be made to fit almost anyone's end-times presuppositions.
To think that the prophecy literally meant the Elam of Jeremiah's, Ezekiel's and Daniel's times seems to me therefore to be the more obvious meaning.
Or is there a precedent in the Bible which demonstrates that allegorising a prophecy to that extent is a valid way of interpreting Prophecy?
Elam was a province which existed by that name, at the time the prophecies were given. The most apparent meaning that springs to my mind therefore is that the prophecies most likely referred to that Elam which was known by that very name at the time when the prophecies were spoken.
There are other indicators too:
For example, the prophecies mention Elam falling by the sword. Swords are not the likely weapons of warfare today, but they were, in Elam, at the time of the prophecies.
Then it mentions that all the slain were uncircumcised. Uncircumcision was an issue during Old Covenant times, but it's not something God would care to point-out in modern times. So it sounds to me like the prophecy must have been fulfilled in Old Covenant times when uncircumcision was still a pertinent issue.
The inhabitants of Elam were almost certainly uncircumcised, whereas modern Iranians are most likely circumcised. That detail of the prophecy could easily have been fulfilled in Elam's time. But for the prophecy to mean Iran, it would require that Iranians first stop the practice of circumcising, which is unlikely, being a Muslim country.
Also the prophecy states that after the fall of Elam, there won't be a single nation on earth where their people do not go into exile. Then later God will restore Elam again. So if Elam means modern Iran, then it requires that after Iran stops circumcising, and then their boys grow up to be men, and then they attack Israel, after that they must be destroyed by sword, then we must see Iranians scattered all over the world, and then we must see Iran restored again. All before the second coming! That's a very different scenario to popular end-times time-line forecasts.
Alternatively we could allegorise so many details in the prophecy - all except the geographical location - to try to make it fit more easily with modern Iran. But we'd have to allegorise it so extensively, to the point that the prophecy could be made to fit almost anyone's end-times presuppositions.
To think that the prophecy literally meant the Elam of Jeremiah's, Ezekiel's and Daniel's times seems to me therefore to be the more obvious meaning.
Or is there a precedent in the Bible which demonstrates that allegorising a prophecy to that extent is a valid way of interpreting Prophecy?
No comments:
Post a Comment