The Great Causality
“But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. Matthew 24:29-30 NASB
Sign – In a fascinating psychological study, Richard Nisbett tested the differences in the ways Westerners and Easterners think. One of his conclusions is as follows:
Westerners’ success in science and their tendency to make certain mistakes in causal analysis derive from the same source. Freedom to pursue individual goals prompts people to model the situation so as to achieve those goals, which in turn encourages modeling events by working backward from effects to possible causes. When there is systematic testing of the model, as in science, the model can be corrected. But Westerners’ models tend to be limited too sharply to the goal object and its properties, slighting the possible role of context. When it is everyday life—all too often a buzzing confusion—that is being modeled, recognition of error is more difficult. A mistaken model will be difficult to correct. So despite their history of scientific-mindedness, Westerners are particularly susceptible to the Fundamental Attribution Error [attributing behavior to a presumed disposition of the person rather than to an important situational factor] and to overestimating the predictability of human behavior.[1]
Nisbett is primarily interested in the implications for business and social engagements, but we should look deeper—into theological assumptions. There are significant reasons why the Semites never developed systematic theologies while the Western Greek world is overflowing with such works. One of the differences is the significant divergence between East and West concerning the complexity of the universe. Another is what Nisbett notices above. Westerners are victims of “backward causality,” that is, they think that there is a discoverable causal chain of simple explanations behind every event, and that if this causal chain is articulated (or discovered), then the inevitability of the event is (1) rationally understandable and (2) predictable. As a result, theological backward causality asserts that if we know the signs, that is, the prior causal connections in the chain, then we can predict the inevitable outcome. Et voila, end-times theology is born!
But all of it depends on reading what is essentially an Eastern document (the Hebraic Scriptures) from the perspective of a Western paradigm. And the errors compound! Western exegesis of this passage assumes that Yeshua is describing a chain of causality, but the Eastern view is far more complex. What if he is speaking about only one aspect of a dynamically changing set of circumstances? What if this is not prediction, but rather description from one point of view, subject to all kinds of alterations in the complexities of the universe? What if those things Westerners take to be physically observable signs (the moon, the sun and the stars) are metaphorical indicators of interpreted calamity, subject to the perceptions of the audience of Eastern thinkers? Then “Blood Moons” mania is exactly that—mania, the application of causal thinking to statements that are essentially dynamic, changing and interpretative.
It is extremely difficult to see the world from the paradigm of another culture, especially when we think that all the evidence points to the supremacy of our point of view. But the Hebraic world is not Western and wherever we allow our Western presuppositions to interfere with exegesis, especially without noticing that interference, we do damage to the text.
My, oh my, we have such a long way to go!
Topical Index: Nisbett, sign, paradigm, causality, Matthew 24:29-30
[1] Richard Nisbett, The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently . . . and Why, pp. 134-135.
Wow Skip, getting to the root of the matter!! Coming to terms with our Western drawbacks, and learning to think like the Hebrews is not at all optional! I wish I was younger… but grateful for the rope you have consistently been throwing to the rescue! Arnella
Skip, I hope you are going to go into more of this. With all the end time talk, we need more ammunition to help others from the mania. I can’t help but think about Yeshua’s statement just before todays, “For there will appear false Messiahs and false prophets performing great miracles — amazing things! — so as to fool even the chosen, if possible.” Just how close will things look to fool the masses?
Hi Skip,
Very similar types of problems are encountered in mathematics. There are ‘direct problems’ and ‘inverse problems’. Crudely speaking, the former are ‘Given A and B, what is C?’ and the latter are ‘Given A and C, what is B?’. Thus for a direct problem we may sweep a known object with sound waves and ask what the resulting scattered sound field looks like. The corresponding inverse problem, much more important from a practical point of view, and much more difficult, is to deduce the nature of the scatterer (submarine, or aircraft if we are using microwave radiation – radar) from the scattered radiation. Is it one of ‘theirs’ or one of ‘ours’ for example. These inverse problems are plagued with lack of uniqueness, that is, two or more very different objects (B) may, for the same A yield the same C!
We in the West are trying to discern B from the signs C. 🙂
I couldn’t have said it better. Mathematical clarity is a forte of Greek thinking and, in this case, demonstrates once again that Hebrew is not Greek.
I’m still working on it but at least now it is not “all Greek to me” anymore. Thanks Skip
We definitely have a Greek mindset; and it is difficult to cast that aside an put on an Eastern one. We’d need to have Middle Easterners spend a lot of time with us and share their perceptions of how things operate in their culture; we need exposure to their worldview. It would be beneficial to midrash with them. It would help to live in their country for awhile and observe how people interact with each other and see how they respond to what goes on around them. Our responses to their daily routine would not always be correct. In the beginning, we’d need help just to survive. When they ask a question, we might respond inappropriately because we can’t read their mind to know what they really mean because what they are asking is based on their worldview or cultural context. We’d find that their idea of cause and effect is not the same as ours; therefore they seek solutions to their problems in a way that would seem illogical to us. What is funny to them, might not be humorous to us. What is a sign to them, is probably not a sign to us. The way they interpret all aspects of life is probably vastly different too; this includes Scripture interpretation. The standard Christian method of exegesis/hermeneutics is different from that of Hillel the elder. It doesn’t always work like mathematics. Because we don’t understand how to make the same thematic connections as Easterners, we might not be able to understand what the writer intended. We might be looking for/trying to make a conclusion that was never intended. In addition, we often don’t see thematic patterns, chiasms, and parallels in Scripture. We don’t write with that kind of forethought and skill. Even when patterns play out in our own lives, we just can’t see them and make the right connections to Scripture. We aren’t wise because we aren’t fully learning from these patterns. If we are wise, we might know when to do something in opposition to or according to an established pattern. We are also not in tune with the fact that Satan parallels Yeshua while attempting to counterfeit him. There is also sometimes an oppositional dualism in typology in Scripture that we need to be aware of; we need to see that going on too. There is just not enough space to describe all the things to consider.
I’m probably the odd one out here but just because i want to understand HOW the original writers thought, doesn’t mean i want to adopt it.
The *primary* issue isn’t about us taking off our western clothing and putting on eastern clothing, but rather recognizing the biblical authors *did* wear eastern clothing. If our faith is derived from the text, we have to deal with the text on its terms, not ours. That means the *primary* issue is one of recognition.
So, what are you saying is the meaning of this verse?