In this fourth installment of our series on refuting the so-called flat/stationary-earth prooftexts in the Bible, we’ll address the “high altitude perspective” passages that FSIPs (Flat Stationary Interpretation Proponents) frequently cite: Daniel 4, Matthew 4, and Revelation 1. As we examine these passages within their contexts, we’ll once again find that the FSIPs’ interpretations are unwarranted and their claims unjustified.
Daniel 4
In Daniel 4, we’re told by Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian king, that he was at ease in his house when, “I saw a dream that made me afraid. As I lay in bed the fancies and the visions of my head alarmed me” (Dan 4:5).
Nebuchadnezzar describes this dream, “I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth, and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth” (Dan 4:11).
FSIPs reason that if a tree were visible “to the ends of the whole earth,” then the earth must be flat because, “How could someone possibly see this tree from the other side of a sphere?”
Now, we should first note the obvious. This image is identified as “the fancies and visions of my head” seen in a dream by a pagan king. Yes, you read that correctly. This is a vision. These are fanciful, non-literal images in Nebuchadnezzar’s head that are intended to portray something that is or will be.
What parts of fanciful, non-literal images are meant to be taken as literal cosmology? Should we also derive cosmological truths from Joseph’s dream in Genesis 37 when he saw that “the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were bowing down to me” (Gen 37:9)?
Are we really meant to understand from Joseph’s dream that the actual sun, moon, and eleven stars literally descended from the heavens to a field in the Middle East and bowed to Joseph? Or should we assume these astronomical objects already dwelled somewhere on the surface of the earth so they wouldn’t have to descend? Are we really meant to infer from Joseph’s dream that these astronomical objects literally bow to people?
FSIPs might object to this analogy, arguing that the cosmological objects in Joseph’s dream were obviously symbolic of something else. After all, the objects in the dream were clearly understood to represent certain people and things. I couldn’t agree more! And that’s exactly what is happening here in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. He doesn’t for a second think that his vision is of a literal tree that can be visibly seen from every geographical location on earth. That’s why he seeks an interpretation. He’s asking what these images symbolize and what the dream means.
We learn that none of the king’s wise men were able to interpret the dream. And so, he turns to Daniel, who interprets it, revealing exactly what the objects in this dream symbolize.
The tree you saw, which grew and became strong, so that its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth… is you, O king, who have grown and become strong. Your greatness has grown and reaches to heaven, and your dominion to the ends of the earth. (Dan 4:20-22)
First, we see that the tree isn’t a real, terrestrial tree in a geographical location somewhere on our planet, but it’s a metaphor for Nebuchadnezzar. Its top reaching to heaven is a metaphor depicting Nebuchadnezzar’s superiority over all the other kings and kingdoms of his time.[1]
As commentator Bob Fyall explains, “The tree represents Nebuchadnezzar at the zenith of his power.”[2]
More importantly for our discussion is the interpretation of “and it was visible to the end of the whole earth.” Daniel’s interpretation is that this symbolizes the extent of Nebuchadnezzar’s dominion; it was “to the ends of the earth.”
What does this mean? Did Nebuchadnezzar’s rule literally extend beyond the oceans to the outer reaches of Antarctica? Was the earth that he saw in this vision the whole planet?
The Ends of the Earth
It’s worth pausing here to take a little closer look at the phrase “to the ends of the earth”
because FSIPs often perpetrate the fallacy of amphiboly, alleging that this phrase contains a literal, geographical reference to an actual edge or end of the earth.
The fallacy of amphiboly is when someone confuses the meaning of a phrase. This fallacy often occurs when someone takes literal speech figuratively or figurative speech literally. For instance, when Joshua says, “the hearts of the people melted” (Josh 7:5), it would be fallacious to take this literally. He’s not meaning that the blood-pumping organs in their chests went from a solid to a liquid state. This is a figure of speech, a non-literal image meant to convey an idea that has nothing to do with human organs nor organic physics. To then allege otherwise is to engage in the fallacy of amphiboly.
This is true whenever someone makes a literal interpretation of a figure of speech.
When Jesus said, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh,” the Jews took His figurative speech literally, arguing, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
Was Jesus telling them to cannibalize Him? Was He asserting that no one can live unless they literally ingest part of His physical body? Of course not! Jesus was using figurative language. They confused and distorted the meaning of what He said.
Jesus then continued, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (Jn 6:51–53).
Is obtaining eternal life impossible for us since Jesus’ physical body and blood are no longer on earth? How ridiculous! This has nothing to do with the literal ingestion of human anatomy. Eating His flesh and drinking His blood is an idiom for belief in Him and in what He did by becoming a sacrificial offering on the cross.
These are just a few of many idiomatic expressions contained in the Bible. These are non-literal figures of speech, phrases that say one thing but mean another. That is, the intended meanings of these phrases cannot be rightly derived by combining the individual meanings of their words.
So, is the phrase “end(s) of the earth” meant to be taken literally (as a depiction of the earth’s physical geography) or as an idiomatic expression? The phrase appears dozens of times in the Bible. Let’s look at some of these.
27 All the ends of the earth shall remember
and turn to the Lord,
and all the families of the nations
shall worship before you.
28 For kingship belongs to the Lord,
and he rules over the nations. (Ps 22:27-28)
The synonymous parallelism is clearly visible in this passage. In this Psalm, “the ends of the earth” is synonymous with “all the families of the nations.” The phrase refers to people from distant/foreign nations remembering the Lord and turning to Him.
As A. R. Fausset observes, “He passes to the conversion of all the Gentile nations, consequent on the conversion of all Israel. They shall then ‘remember’ Him whom they have so long forgotten by apostasy, and shall turn to Him.”[3]
Commentator Allan Harman writes, “In the context the primary meaning is that even far off nations will hear about David’s deliverance and turn to the Lord in repentance. Gentile nations will come and bow in subjection to him who has all dominion and authority”.[4] [emphasis mine]
This is just like in Psalm 2.
8 Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage,
and the ends of the earth your possession.
And Psalm 65.
5 By awesome deeds you answer us with righteousness,
O God of our salvation,
the hope of all the ends of the earth
and of the farthest seas;
6 the one who by his strength established the mountains,
being girded with might;
7 who stills the roaring of the seas,
the roaring of their waves,
the tumult of the peoples,
8 so that those who dwell at the ends of the earth are in awe at your signs.
You make the going out of the morning and the evening to shout for joy.
Is the Psalmist talking about the geological outskirts of Antarctica here or the people of distant lands?
As Tremper Longman III notes, “God performs mighty deeds throughout the whole earth, causing all the inhabitants of the earth (all the ends of the earth and of the farthest seas, v. 5; from the place where morning dawns [the east] to the place where evening fades [the west], v. 8) to marvel.”[5]
And Psalm 67.
5 Let the peoples praise you, O God;
let all the peoples praise you!
6 The earth has yielded its increase;
God, our God, shall bless us.
7 God shall bless us;
let all the ends of the earth fear him!
Dirt and ice don’t fear. People do.
Of Psalm 67:7 Allan Harman says, “Blessing of Israel brings God’s knowledge to the nations so that they will revere him. Through the fall of Israel riches indeed came to the Gentiles.”[6]
Richard D. Phillips comments, “Since the Lord is a God of salvation, his grace is certain to gather a great host from all nations to receive the blessing of his shining face.”[7] [emphasis mine]
It’s obvious in these Psalms that the psalmist is referring to people from foreign nations and distant lands, inhabitants of the remotest parts of the earth, not geologic or geographic boundaries of the planet.
Not only is the phrase “ends of the earth” an idiom referring to distant nations and peoples in these Psalms, but also in Psalms 48:10; 59:13; 72:8; 98:3; and 135:7. This is also the idiomatic meaning in most other passages in which it’s contained.
Take Isaiah 41:5 for instance.
The coastlands have seen and are afraid;
the ends of the earth tremble;
they have drawn near and come
Here, “the coastlands” is synonymous with “the ends of the earth,” and they are afraid and tremble. These are idioms for people from faraway places.
Commentator Larry L. Walker writes, “The reference is to the coastlands of the Mediterranean, and the whole verse (including the next line, ‘remote lands’) indicates the known world at that time.”[8]
A. Bertram and Alfred Tucker note, “These verses indicate the state of feeling which was created among the heathen nations by the rapid and victorious career of Cyrus.”[9]
And Isaiah 5:26.
26 He will raise a signal for nations far away,
and whistle for them from the ends of the earth;
and behold, quickly, speedily they come!
Here, “nations far away” is synonymous with “the ends of the earth.”
Commentator John A. Martin writes, “When God’s judgment would come on Judah, the nations of Egypt and Assyria (7:18), and later Babylon would respond as if God had raised a banner as a signal for war. Those nations would seemingly come from the ends of the earth, a phrase Isaiah used frequently to suggest people everywhere (5:26; 24:16; 40:28; 41:5, 9; 42:10; 43:6; 45:22; 48:20; 49:6; 52:10; 62:11).”[10]
Did you catch that last line? This is an idiom used throughout Isaiah to suggest “people everywhere.”
Let’s look at Moses’ words of warning to the people as they prepared to enter the Promised Land.
“The LORD will bring a nation against you from far away, from the end of the earth, swooping down like the eagle, a nation whose language you do not understand” (Dt 28:49).
Notice how “from the end of the earth” is synonymous with “from far away.” And then just a few verses later, “And the LORD will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other, and there you shall serve other gods of wood and stone, which neither you nor your fathers have known” (Dt 28:64).
Were the Israelites scattered to some ice wall in Antarctica? Were there literally nations set right on “the edge of the earth”? Or was he meaning nations far away?
Isaiah prophesies the Israelites’ return from dispersion this way…
5 Fear not, for I am with you;
I will bring your offspring from the east,
and from the west I will gather you.
6 I will say to the north, Give up,
and to the south, Do not withhold;
bring my sons from afar
and my daughters from the end of the earth,
7 everyone who is called by my name,
whom I created for my glory,
whom I formed and made.” (Is 43:5–7)
Here, “ends of the earth” is an idiomatic expression for foreign nations from every direction. As William Mounce explains in his Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words, “Often the phrase ‘the end of the earth’ means the remote places of the world, seen from the vantage point of the land of Israel.” [emphasis mine]
Another illustration of this is in Matthew 12. There Jesus says, “The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon” (Matt 12:42; Luke 11:31).
Jesus is here referring to the events recorded in 1 Kings 10 and 2 Chronicles 9, where we’re told, “Now when the queen of Sheba heard of the fame of Solomon concerning the name of the LORD, she came to test him with hard questions” (1 Ki 10:1–2; 2 Chr 9:1).
Jesus himself says that the Queen of Sheba came “from the ends of the earth.” Where exactly did she come from? Where was Sheba? It was a region about 1,200 miles away in southern Arabia which is now a part of Yemen.
Obviously, Jesus was not wrong. He was using “ends of the earth” as a figure of speech, an idiom meaning “a nation far away,” just as Joel describes Sheba as “a nation far away” (Joel 3:8) and Jeremiah “a distant land” (Jer 6:20).
“Ends of the earth” is clearly an idiomatic expression that’s even used by Jesus.
As an idiom, the phrase “ends of the earth” possesses multiple meanings depending on context. Those meanings include: distant/faraway nations (Dt 28:49; Joel 3:8), distant/faraway lands (Jer 6:20), distant/faraway people(s) (Dt 13:7), foreign nations from every direction (Isa 43:5), people from the coastlands (Isa 24:16; 41:5), families of the nations (Ps 22:27), all people and places throughout the earth (Job 28:24; Ps 46:9; 59:13), areas beyond the horizon (Ps 19:6; 135:7), and the remotest parts of the earth (Job 28:24; Pr 30:4; Isa 40:28).
With all of this in mind, let’s look at the context of “to the ends of the earth” here in Daniel. Is it also an idiomatic expression or is Nebuchadnezzar saying that the tree could actually be seen from beyond some Antarctic ice wall at the geographic ends of the earth?
We’re told in Daniel’s interpretation that the phrase “the ends of the earth” is encompassed in the extent of Nebuchadnezzar’s greatness and dominion: “Your greatness has grown and reaches to heaven, and your dominion to the ends of the earth.”
So, did Nebuchadnezzar rule the whole world? Did his kingdom extend over every continent, even Antarctica? Well, just like we know where Sheba was, so we know the geographical extent of Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom. (See the image below.)
Nebuchadnezzar’s rule extended over a very large geographic area of the ancient world but a very small geographic portion of the whole world.
So, no, Nebuchadnezzar is not seeing the entirety of the geographical earth nor anything close to it in this vision. He’s simply seeing a vision of distant lands from his vantage point. The phrase “the ends of the earth” is an idiom meaning distant lands. It’s metaphorical, just like the tree is metaphorical. When Nebuchadnezzar uses this phrase to describe his vision, he’s simply saying, “The tree was visible from lands as far as the eye could see”. It’s a figure of speech, a metaphor for a great Babylonian dominion that spread to distant lands.
This vision literally has nothing to do with the shape of the earth. To say that it does is another egregious distortion of Scripture.
But that was a pagan king’s dream. What about the passage in Matthew 4?
Matthew 4
This is the historically accurate record of the temptation of Jesus. One of the temptations by the devil was to try to get Jesus to worship him. We’re told, “the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory” (Mt 4:8).
In the parallel passage in Luke, it says, “And the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time” (Luke 4:5).
Nowhere do either of these passages mention the shape of the earth, but it’s supposed by many FSIPs that only if the earth were flat would Jesus be able to visibly see all the kingdoms of the world from a very high mountain. After all, who can see around a ball? So, this scene must be depicting a flat earth.
Assuming that this passage is speaking of physical kingdoms (the lands and territories ruled by those present-day kings), does this deduction of a flat earth from the passage then logically follow?
Please notice that this interpretation presupposes a natural explanation for Jesus being able to physically see all the kingdoms of the world. They’re saying that Jesus could only naturally see on a flat surface. He couldn’t naturally see around a spherical earth.
Yet at the same time, this natural interpretation requires supernatural intervention in order to explain how Jesus was able to see these kingdoms.
For example, there must be a supernaturally created mountain high enough from which to see all the kingdoms of the world (because there wasn’t and isn’t one). For example, people with high magnification cameras can only see about 200 miles from the top of Mt. Everest, the highest mountain on earth.
If one can only see ~200mi. from the tallest mountain on earth, then how could Jesus possibly see “all the kingdoms of the world”?
As John Gill notes, “There is no mountain in the world, from whence can be beheld any one kingdom, much less all the kingdoms of the world”. [11]
Also, the FSIPs’ natural interpretation would require the exercise of supernatural eyesight in order for Jesus to be able to physically see and also distinguish each kingdom from hundreds to thousands of miles away (and through all the atmospheric interference nonetheless).
Further, it would require supernatural intervention for Jesus to visibly see the numerous kingdoms of the world in the distant lands that were currently shrouded in the physical darkness of night at that moment.
And then there were those kingdoms that would’ve been obscured by mountains that stood between them and Jesus. I mean, can you see any kingdoms from that photo at the top of Mt. Everest, or do you just see other mountains?
The fact that this natural interpretation requires supernatural intervention undermines the FSIPs’ entire argument. Since supernatural intervention was unquestionably occurring for Jesus to see “all the kingdoms of the world,” it would’ve been just as easy and reasonable for Jesus to supernaturally see all the kingdoms on a cube world, pyramid world, or spherical world! If He can see kingdoms from thousands of miles away through solid physical obstacles with night vision… then He can see around a ball.
And all of this “in a moment of time” (Lk 4:5). In a single instant Jesus saw all the kingdoms of the world!
John Gill comments, “For this a mountain was no more a proper place, than any other; nor was it any real object he presented to his bodily sight, or any real prospect he gave him of the kingdoms of the world, which are not to be seen from any one place, no not one of them, not even from the highest mountain in the world, and still less to be seen together at once in a moment: but this was a mere phantasm.”[12]
But wait! There’s more! The verse says that it was all the kingdoms “and their glory” that the devil showed Jesus. Matthew and Luke have much more than physical geography in mind.
Jesus not only saw all of these kingdoms, but also their glory, “setting forth, in proper and lively colours [sic], the glories and the splendid appearances of princes; their robes and crowns, their retinue, equipage, and lifeguards; the pomp of thrones, and courts, and stately palaces, the sumptuous buildings in cities, the gardens and fields about the country-seats, with the various instances of their wealth, pleasure, and gaiety; so as might be most likely to strike the fancy, and excite the admiration and affection. Such was this show, and his taking him up into a high mountain, was but to humour [sic] the thing, and to colour [sic] the delusion.”[13]
The FSIPs’ interpretation has Jesus looking out at dirt and brick, rather than a wide-ranging vision of the dominion of all the kings of the earth, a vision not only of their geographical territory, but of their wealth, splendor, majesty, power, and authority.
Philip Graham Ryken comments, “Whether in body or spirit, the devil took Jesus to some lofty height. In an instant, he could see all the royal treasure, military power, and cultural achievements of the world’s great civilizations—everything from the golden roof of the temple in Jerusalem to the mighty Roman Empire in all its proud splendor.”[14]
How could Jesus physically, visibly see all that from a mountain in a moment of time? These passages have nothing to do with eyesight and the couple square miles of dirt and hills (and maybe the outline of a city or two) that Jesus could naturally see around Him. This is clearly and obviously a supernatural vision.
As Dr. Danny Faulkner writes, “The glory of all the world’s empires was shown to Jesus all at once. This sounds more like a vision rather than a vista.”[15]
In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Walter Liefeld says, “The Temptation involved a vision. It was not necessary for Jesus to see every part of the world physically for this to be an actual temptation.”[16]
And Craig A. Evans comments, “Again, this is visionary, so we should not expect to be able to identify a specific mountain in or near Israel.”[17]
Since this is a supernatural vision of all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, how then is the shape of the earth indicated, implied, depicted or assumed here? It’s clearly not. This flat-earth deduction is yet another example of FSIPs imposing their cosmological presuppositions on the text and twisting the Scriptures to suit their own ends.
It’s rather ironic to find the FSIPs twisting the very passages in which we find the devil twisting the Scriptures. This is a sinful and godless practice that they’re engaging in, and so as believers we ought to call them to repent and turn from this sin.
Revelation 1
In his introduction to the book of Revelation, John writes, “Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen” (Re 1:7).
This prophetic expectation of what will someday come to pass when Christ returns is also frequently cited by FSIPs. Their argument here is like that of Matthew 4. They reason that the only way it would be possible for every eye to see Jesus returning is if the earth is flat because someone cannot naturally see around a globe.
FSIPs face the same problem with this interpretation as they do with Matthew 4. Their argument presupposes a natural explanation for people being able to physically see Jesus, yet their own interpretation requires supernatural intervention in order to explain how all people are able to see Jesus.
After all, how can every eye visibly see Jesus when we can’t all even visibly see the sun at the same time?
Further, how can someone naturally see something that small from a great distance? Let’s assume Jesus is 6’ tall. What does a 6’ tall person look like from a mile away? What about 10 miles? 100 miles? Jesus would not be visible to the naked human eye from even 50 miles away let alone 5000 miles.
Additionally, what about people dwelling in valleys where the surrounding mountains would impede their view? And what about people whose lands would be currently shrouded in the darkness of night? Or people who are indoors at that time? How could any of them naturally, visibly see Jesus descending on the clouds with their own eyes?
If we’re talking about the naked eye and natural vision, there would be very few people who would be able to naturally see it with their own eyes. But of course, John’s not intending this at all. It’s obvious that means well beyond natural vision are at play.
Moreover, the passage says that “those who pierced him” would even see him. Well, those who pierced him were Jews and Romans that all died nearly 2000 years ago. So, we have dead and decayed people seeing him as well.
The fact that the FSIPs natural interpretation requires supernatural intervention once again undermines their entire argument. Since supernatural intervention is unquestionably in play for Jesus to be seen by every eye around the world, the natural shape of the earth is utterly inconsequential. Whether the earth is flat, spherical, or any other shape makes no difference whatsoever.
The FSIPs citations of these passages are yet another example of contextomy and quote-mining. Their mishandling and misappropriation of God’s Word is sinful and dangerous. And so, as I said above, I say again–we ought to call them to repent and turn from this sin.
In our next article we’ll examine the FSIPs’ misinterpretation and misuse of Genesis 1.
[1] Gill, J. 1810. An Exposition of the Old Testament (Volume VI) (p. 297). London: Mathews and Leigh.
[2] Fyall, B. 1998. Daniel: A Tale of Two Cities (Focus on the Bible) (p. 62). Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus.
[3] Jamieson, R., et al. 1984. A Commentary: Critical, Experimental, and Practical on the Old and New Testaments (vol. III, p. 151). London: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
[4] Harman, A. 2011. Psalms: A Mentor Commentary (p. 223). Ross-shire, Scotland: Mentor.
[5] Longman, T. III. 2014. Psalms: An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries Volumes 15-16) (D. G. Firth, Ed., p. 251). Nottingham, England: Inter-Varsity Press.
[6] Harman, A. 2011. Psalms: A Mentor Commentary (p. 490). Ross-shire, Scotland: Mentor.
[7] Phillips, R. D. 2019. Psalms 42–72 (Reformed Expository Commentary) (p. 265). Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing.
[8] Walker, L. L. and E. A. Martens. 2006. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations (Cornerstone Biblical Commentary) (P. W. Comfort, Ed., p. 174). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.
[9] Bertram, R. A. 1892. The Preacher’s Complete Homiletic Commentary: Isaiah (Volume II) (p. 53). New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company.
[10] Walvoord, J. F. and R. B. Zuck. 1985. The Bible Knowledge Commentary (Old Testament) (p. 1043). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.
[11] Gill, J. 1809. An Exposition of the New Testament (Volume I) (p. 31). London: Mathews and Leigh.
[12] Gill, J. 1809. An Exposition of the New Testament (Volume I) (p. 543). London: Mathews and Leigh.
[13] Henry, M. 1994. Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete (p. 1624). Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994.
[14] Ryken, P. G. 2009. Luke (Volume 1, Reformed Expository Commentary) (pp. 157-158). Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing.
[15] Faulkner, D. 2019. Falling Flat: A Refutation of Flat Earth Claims (pp. 279-280). Green Forest, AR: Master Books.
[16] Carson, D. A., et al. 1984. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke (F. E. Gaebelein, Ed., p. 864). Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House.
[17] Evans, C. A. (Ed.). 2003. Bible Knowledge Background Commentary: Matthew–Luke (Bible Knowledge Series) (p. 86). Colorado Springs: David C Cook.