The Bible and Metaphor

[B-man]

How is it--and what does it mean--that evangelical Christianity has derived a stubbornly literal interpretation of a book so rich in symbolic language?

For the record, I believe the Bible's stronger sense, in terms of its possession of truth, is the allegorical.  Thoughts?

[DaveW]

Scripture, like all Semetic literature, has several levels of meaning and ALL are true.  (that is one reason the Koran is never properly translated) It is not an either-or between literal and allegorical meaning; rather it is often a both - and situation.

[B-man]

Sounds like you're familiar with the tenets of Midrash.

[DaveW]

To a small degree, yes.

[notreligus]

If my understanding of Midrash is correct this is more of a line-for-line commentary while the Talmud resembles systematic theology by speaking to particular subjects or doctrines.    Having said that, I don't want Christians to think that the Talmud is anything resembling a Christian book of systematic theology as Christian systematic theologies don't include creative teachings on how to torture Christ or to treat Gentiles (Goyim) as less than animals, nor do they teach ways to torture Jews.   Anything that Luther wrote in that regard is not held to be "Scriptural" but his personal misguided opinion.   I believe that the vast majority of Christians think that the Judaism is summarized by the Old Testament and Christianity is summarized by the New Testament but that is not true.   I think I am correct in stating that although Christians sometimes give too much weight to the writings of the early church fathers we still have not given them the same weight as the Scriptures, but certain Jewish traditions give their external writings the same authority of the Bible/Tanakh/Torah.   

I know that the Karaites are subjects of criticism but I think that the Karaite Jews are more in-line with how Orthodox Christians don't accept external writings with the same weight as the God-breathed canon of Scripture.   These external writings are the recorded Oral Law as the Midrash or the Talmud.   To accept this approach would be like a Christian accepting Billy Graham's books as Scripture.   As far as I can tell there are no Messianic Karaites as the two groups are in opposition because the Karaites reject the oral tradition and do not rank the Rabbinic teachings anywhere near the authoritative position ascribed to them by other Jews.   The Karaites emphasize the Tanakh with emphasis on the Torah.   

When I first saw the title of this thread I thought it was going to be a discussion about literal vs. allegorical interpretation of the Bible as the subject concerns one of the greatest divides within the Christian faith.   

[B-man]

When I first saw the title of this thread I thought it was going to be a discussion about literal vs. allegorical interpretation of the Bible as the subject concerns one of the greatest divides within the Christian faith.

You thought correctly.  I merely commented to what DaveW wrote, noting I thought his short post seemed to have some correspondence the Jewish Midrash.  I'm certainly no expert, but it seems to me Midrash lies somewhere in the middle of line-by-line study and metaphor.  They are connected insofar as Midrash appears to accept embedded symbolism in their study much more readily than western hermeneutics.

So, back to the point....what's your take on the subject of literal vs. allegorical interpretation of the Bible?

[notreligus]

When I first saw the title of this thread I thought it was going to be a discussion about literal vs. allegorical interpretation of the Bible as the subject concerns one of the greatest divides within the Christian faith.

You thought correctly.  I merely commented to what DaveW wrote, noting I thought his short post seemed to have some correspondence the Jewish Midrash.  I'm certainly no expert, but it seems to me Midrash lies somewhere in the middle of line-by-line study and metaphor.  They are connected insofar as Midrash appears to accept embedded symbolism in their study much more readily than western hermeneutics.

So, back to the point....what's your take on the subject of literal vs. allegorical interpretation of the Bible?

One aspect of this is the literal vs. allegorical argument about whether or not Israel must be restored as a national entity per OT passages that indicate this.   An interpretation of the Book of Revelation is an example as since the 70th week of Daniel has not been fulfilled and Revelation is to the NT what Daniel is to the OT then Revelation must taken to literally refer to Israel after Chapter Three.   The rest of the Book describes the aspects of the seven years of tribulation of the Jews until Christ returns and restrains Satan while He reigns over the literal Millennial Kingdom, also known as the Glorious Age, during which Christ is Messiah over His earthly kingdom, the restored nation of Israel, for a thousand years.   Dispensationals argue that to see Revelation as history, or having been fulfilled by the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70, or to view it as symbolism concerning the various persecutions endured by Christians during their lifetimes is to allegorize away the literal fact that Christ is going to establish the Millennial Kingdom prophesied in the Old Testament.   

[notreligus]

Rom 12:19  Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord."
Rom 12:20  To the contrary, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head."

The above is definitely an example of metaphor.   The "heap burning coals" metaphor has been interpreted in various ways.  I believe that the right meaning is that to share hot coals with someone is a good thing.   In other words repay someone who has wronged you with kindness, or like the idiom, "kill them with your kindness."   

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Something that's recently come to my attention is that "allegorical" is the wrong word to describe much of the Bible's language.  I am guilty of using this word rather frequently over the past decade or so in describing parts of the Bible.

However, "allegorical" not only implies that the surface meaning isn't literal, but *also* that the underlying meaning is ethereal in nature.  That is, it's not something concrete - the story's meaning demonstrates a principle or a moral tale.  Essentially this is the same as saying that something is a fable.  I do not believe this adequately represents the metaphorical language in the Bible.

Instead, there seem to be two distinct types of writings with layered meanings in the Bible.  Neither of them is allegorical.

1) Typological - Real historical events foreshadow *other* real, historical events.

A good example is Isaiah 7:14 "the virgin shall conceive."  By Isaiah chapter 9, this sign or prophecy is fulfilled in a real, concrete way - Isaiah goes to the temple, where he weds and beds one of the temple "virgins" - a woman who was sworn to the service of the temple complex and forbidden from marriage or intercourse.  The temple "virgin" did conceive.  (In the original sense, "virgin" is her job title.)

Of course, we are all more familiar with the *other* fulfillment of that particular prophecy.  Mary, literally a virgin, conceived supernaturally.

The Bible speaks of these as types and antitypes.  These aren't allegories, because neither the original nor the secondary meaning is figurative.  Both describe actual events!  But the secondary meaning certainly isn't what you would take from an in-context reading of the text, either.  The language is figurative in that it figures something else that comes later.

2) Apocalyptic - Metaphorical (often fantastical) visions portray other real events, usually with some explanation provided.

In an apocalypse, the surface text contains fantastical images that ought not to be interpreted literally.  Often, they are shown to someone as part of a dream, or vision.  However, the images, once interpreted, refer to real, literal events.  Oftentimes, an interpreter is present in the vision to explain some things to the reader and the one who is seeing the vision.

Our word Revelation is the English equivalent of "Apocalypse," and that entire book serves as an example.  Revelation 9:1 says "I saw a star fall from heaven, and to him was given the keys to the bottomless pit."  If this was literal, then a star falling from heaven would destroy not only the whole earth, but our whole solar system.  Not only that, but stars don't take possession of keys.  Clearly some intepretation is called for.

I will not venture to interpret the verse in Revelation, but I think we all agree that it describes something which actually, literally happens.  Note that in Revelation, John is guided by an angel, who frequently offers some helpful advice to John in interpreting what he is seeing.  We ought to interpret the angels words to John literally; he is offering us a decoded glimpse of some parts of the vision.

Jarrod

TL;DR - Allegories have to do with object lessons, not real events.  The Bible's figurative language refers to real events.  So, "allegories" is the wrong word for what the Bible does.

[B-man]

"allegorical" is the wrong word to describe much of the Bible's language.  I am guilty of using this word rather frequently over the past decade or so in describing parts of the Bible.

However, "allegorical" not only implies that the surface meaning isn't literal, but *also* that the underlying meaning is ethereal in nature.  That is, it's not something concrete - the story's meaning demonstrates a principle or a moral tale.  Essentially this is the same as saying that something is a fable.  I do not believe this adequately represents the metaphorical language in the Bible.

Allegories have to do with object lessons, not real events.  The Bible's figurative language refers to real events.  So, "allegories" is the wrong word for what the Bible does.

As good a place to start discussion as any.

I've learned over the years that the study of symbolic language and its various terms have nearly as many definitions as there are people to offer one.  Even scholars often seem to contradict one another in their discussions on this topic.  So I disagree that it's "wrong" to use the term allegorical on the definition you provide.  On the other hand, if the conversation comes to the point of discussing the meaning of particular passages and you wish to use an interpretive structure using the definitions provided above, if I want to participate I will in charity adapt to your set of definitions for purposes of discussion.  I would expect you to reciprocate.  The common shared meaning element in allegory, metaphor, symbolism is simply a symbolic representation, a figure of speech using literal elements to denote some likeness or analogy.  This is why so many people (including me) tend to use the terms interchangeably, and I don't see that it's wrong to do so. 

I do see a structure for figurative language in the Bible, however, and it's fairly simple: passages (single or multiple) are base metaphors or symbols, most of which have no objective structure.  They can be discussed with varying degrees of objectivity, and a few have established objective meaning (for example Jesus' statement to those who demanded by whose authority He had turned over the moneychangers' carts at the temple: "Destroy this temple and on the third day I will raise it up", which most objectively agree referred to His death and resurrection.)  Another is that most Christians accept that Moses in the story of the Exodus is a type of Christ--this can be seen as a metaphor generally granted to be objectively true, but there are few of these relative to the large number of metaphors in the Bible.

As I understand the Bible's structure, metaphors virtually all consist in subjective meaning in terms of truth unless they are able to be brought together in an overarching organization in which meaning transcends the individual metaphors in the same sense that meaning in sentences transcends the individual words that comprise them, or (to borrow from William James) the meaning of a picture transcends that of its individual paints smeared across a canvas.

For purposes of general discussion, sharp distinctions don't help but hinder forward-moving dialog.  Example...some years ago I was posting on this topic at a Calvinist board.  As the heresy of "spiritualizing" was apparently a hot topic at the time, two Calvinists quickly tag teamed me.  Every time I used "allegory" or "metaphor" or "symbolizes" in a post, one would quickly offer some cumbersome definition which "disproved" my points and supported theirs.  After three or four posts these fellows began contradicting each other in their definitions!  The thread quickly degenerated into confusion.  There was no reason to continue in it.

As to your comment, "allegorical" not only implies that the surface meaning isn't literal, but *also* that the underlying meaning is ethereal in nature.  That is, it's not something concrete - the story's meaning demonstrates a principle or a moral tale.  Essentially this is the same as saying that something is a fable.", God is ethereal in nature, not someone concrete.  That doesn't make Him a moral tale or fable except in the eyes of atheists.

As asked in the OP, what should we make of a religious system which fixes on a rigidly literal interpretation of an obviously symbolic Bible?

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

You're right about this - I will always try to understand you for what you mean when you say something.  But communication works better when we start with common definitions, and best when that language is precise.

"Typological" and "Apocalyptic" are more precise than using a hodgepodge of words interchangeably for a single generic meaning.  I recommend them.

Jarrod

[B-man]

communication works better when we start with common definitions, and best when that language is precise.

Precision isn't necessarily better.  One thing I have against historical-grammatical literalism is its attempt to force a manmade structure on the Bible, a God-breathed book.  Evangelicals typically deny the existence of metaphor or its possibility of bearing truth beyond meaning expressed by the authors themselves. I touched briefly on this subject in a paper I'm just finishing up on the subject of Christian Universalism from an allegorical sense:

"A body of work exists defending a perceived exegetical obligation to limit the meaning of the Bible to author intent, to strip meaning and deny truth to metaphor beyond its use as "an aesthetic rhetorical device".  This view constrains figurative language in Scripture to the subservient role of a mere linguistic tool whose semantic legitimacy resides only in the author's mind, stripped of any possibility of objective truthfulness and forced into the function of verbal ornamentation."
["Grounding Biblical Metaphor in Reality: The philosophical basis of realist metaphorical language" by Simon Walker; http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/churchman/112-03_214.pdf]

I'll concede that some forms of communication work best using precise definitions.  Can't have a decent discussion on metaphysical topics using biological jargon. There are degrees of precision acceptable to various contexts.  Scholars need precision in their work.  The generic sense we laymen use in everyday language on theology message boards works fine for bandying ideas about.  And as noted, if the occasion calls for it, I'm willing to adapt to your choice of definitions...which brings me to point #2....

"Typological" and "Apocalyptic" are more precise than using a hodgepodge of words interchangeably for a single generic meaning.  I recommend them.

I do too if it contributes properly to the conversation.  What I think best, though, is to adapt our terms to the symbolic structure God orchestrates into His word rather than forcing what the Bible says to adapt to our definitions.  The problem with literalism is that it forces manmade linguistic conventions on God's word.  I don't think folks do this consciously, it's part of our fallen nature, but it's control all the same

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

communication works better when we start with common definitions, and best when that language is precise.

Precision isn't necessarily better.  One thing I have against historical-grammatical literalism is its attempt to force a manmade structure on the Bible, a God-breathed book.  Evangelicals typically deny the existence of metaphor or its possibility of bearing truth beyond meaning expressed by the authors themselves. I touched briefly on this subject in a paper I'm just finishing up on the subject of Christian Universalism from an allegorical sense:

I think what you're talking about is the Literal-Grammatical hermeneutic.  That's the one the AoG and several other Evangelical groups use, and which insists on complete Biblical literality.  The Historical-Grammatical method recognizes figurative language, although its goal is still to interpret the Bible according to the author's intended meaning.  The difference is that it attempts to include historical context.  Literal-Grammatical eschews all non-Bible sources of data.

Actually, I don't know of any hermeneutic which doesn't attempt to restrict meaning to the context of the book they are written in.  That's kind of what a hermeneutic does.  Kind of like a paint sprayer only sprays paint, a Biblical hermeneutic can only interpret the Bible according to original meaning.  They're limited that way.

If you want to apply passages or quotes to your own life, then that's clearly out of original context, so hermeneutics won't help you do that. 

A problem I find, and maybe what you're on about in this article...

"A body of work exists defending a perceived exegetical obligation to limit the meaning of the Bible to author intent, to strip meaning and deny truth to metaphor beyond its use as "an aesthetic rhetorical device".  This view constrains figurative language in Scripture to the subservient role of a mere linguistic tool whose semantic legitimacy resides only in the author's mind, stripped of any possibility of objective truthfulness and forced into the function of verbal ornamentation."
["Grounding Biblical Metaphor in Reality: The philosophical basis of realist metaphorical language" by Simon Walker; http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/churchman/112-03_214.pdf]

...is that applying Scripture entirely outside its original context, in particular to one's own life, is entirely within the scope of how-to-use-Scripture.  That's according to (what else?) Scripture.  Even according to in-context Scripture!

I'll concede that some forms of communication work best using precise definitions.  Can't have a decent discussion on metaphysical topics using biological jargon.

What an unfortunate example.  The Bible DOES use biological jargon for metaphysical topics.  Spirit, heart, breath, soul, flesh, body, blood, and members are all biological jargon common to the day in which the Bible was written.  This is actually one of the "root metaphors" of the New Testament, to borrow a term from your article, used to describe the union between God and man.

There are degrees of precision acceptable to various contexts.  Scholars need precision in their work.  The generic sense we laymen use in everyday language on theology message boards works fine for bandying ideas about.  And as noted, if the occasion calls for it, I'm willing to adapt to your choice of definitions...which brings me to point #2....

"Typological" and "Apocalyptic" are more precise than using a hodgepodge of words interchangeably for a single generic meaning.  I recommend them.

I do too if it contributes properly to the conversation.  What I think best, though, is to adapt our terms to the symbolic structure God orchestrates into His word rather than forcing what the Bible says to adapt to our definitions.  The problem with literalism is that it forces manmade linguistic conventions on God's word.  I don't think folks do this consciously, it's part of our fallen nature, but it's control all the same.

Actually, the red part (above, my emphasis) is what I'm trying to do.  The Bible doesn't talk about metaphors, or allegories, but it does talk about types, anti-types, and apocalypses.

Finally, if I may opine for a moment... 

My studies into proto-Hebrew (Western Semitic) have brought me to the conclusion that, although it is technically a phonetic language, it still bears most of the behaviors of a language of logograms.  That is, each Hebrew word draws a picture, rather than strictly being a recollection of sounds.

So, in a manner of speaking, I believe ALL Hebrew writing to be series of something not unlike metaphors.  I try to interpret Hebrew words as pictures, and then let the picture inform my understanding of the sentence.

Jarrod

[DaveW]

My studies into proto-Hebrew (Western Semitic) have brought me to the conclusion that, although it is technically a phonetic language, it still bears most of the behaviors of a language of logograms.  That is, each Hebrew word draws a picture, rather than strictly being a recollection of sounds.

So, in a manner of speaking, I believe ALL Hebrew writing to be series of something not unlike metaphors.  I try to interpret Hebrew words as pictures, and then let the picture inform my understanding of the sentence.

Quite right.  That is one reason why Semitic languages have multiple levels of meaning.  The literal is true but so is the picture and so is the metaphore.  They are ALL true.  And since at least Mark and Matthew used it to tie scriptures together; apparently so is the gematria (numeric value of words).

To limit your understanding to only one level means you are missing everything else.

[B-man]

I don't know of any hermeneutic which doesn't attempt to restrict meaning to the context of the book they are written in.  That's kind of what a hermeneutic does.

Agreed.  Here's a quote from a fellow named Bob DeWaay that brings into sharper focus the kind of thing I'd disagree with:

"The basic idea in hermeneutics is that the author's meaning is to control our interpretation. God the Holy Spirit inspired the human writers of Scripture, who used their own languages in their historical setting to convey their meaning. The job of the interpreter is to come to a clear understanding of that meaning.

It does not follow from the fact that the Bible is God's inspired Word that it has some mystical, non-standard way of communicating...People err in assuming that because the Holy Spirit inspired the words of Scripture those words have some hidden, secret, mystical meaning. This is not the case. The Bible follows the same grammatical and literary conventions as other Jewish literature of its time."

http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue59.htm

I believe the insistence on author's meaning as exclusive to truth is wrong as it seals off any avenue to understanding what God might be saying in the rich metaphor of the Bible using what Dewaay calls  "some mystical, non-standard way of communicating".  I see no reason why God can't choose to use "some mystical, non-standard way of communicating" in His word, nor that this sort of  meaning has the property of hiddenness.  Jesus hid meaning in almost exclusively in metaphor; shouldn't we take that as a hint to dig deeper ourselves?  Even a casual reader of the Bible will find all sorts of hiddenness in its pages.  This is common to spiritual matters.  I have no problem with hermeneutical methods--secular-based approaches--to find the literal meaning of Scripture.  It's when men go beyond the simple use of manmade interpretive rules in this fashion and claim that this is God's chosen way of communicating in the Bible and any allegorical form is to be immediately rejected--by virtue of its not following the author's intended meaning.  This is circular.  I see it as an attempt, albeit subconscious, to control what God is allowed to say in His Scriptures.

applying Scripture entirely outside its original context, in particular to one's own life, is entirely within the scope of how-to-use-Scripture.

I agree, but that's not what I had in mind.  This fails to move metaphor outside the subjective sphere.  Didn't intend to get into specifics here, but see no way to avoid it if discussion is to be  relevant.  I'm suggesting God has arranged an allegorical system--the use of individual metaphors, found in both Testaments which together form a higher allegorical arrangement.  This system  is not only objectively available to readers, but establishes its own contexts and conventions which, while not contradicting literal meanings, are entirely above and separate from them.

What an unfortunate example.  The Bible DOES use biological jargon for metaphysical topics.  Spirit, heart, breath, soul, flesh, body, blood, and members are all biological jargon common to the day in which the Bible was written.  This is actually one of the "root metaphors" of the New Testament, to borrow a term from your article, used to describe the union between God and man.

Good point, though more accurately I think it uses them metaphorically to convey spiritual, not necessarily metaphysical, topics.  I should have said it's like trying to train an electrician using plumbing jargon.  Hopefully this analogy will pass muster...?

My studies into proto-Hebrew (Western Semitic) have brought me to the conclusion that, although it is technically a phonetic language, it still bears most of the behaviors of a language of logograms.  That is, each Hebrew word draws a picture, rather than strictly being a recollection of sounds.

So, in a manner of speaking, I believe ALL Hebrew writing to be series of something not unlike metaphors.  I try to interpret Hebrew words as pictures, and then let the picture inform my understanding of the sentence.

Interesting you mention this.  I just finished reading "All Israel will be Saved: Paul's Midrash in Romans 9-11" by Anne Davis who I believe heads up BibleInteract.  She makes use of Paul's "artistry of language" and points up other interpretive concepts that appear to be similar to what you contend for.  I found her approach to Scripture a good read; you might like it.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

It sounds like we agree on a few general principles, if not in the details.  One, that the literal meaning (author's intent) of the Bible isn't the most important aspect/understanding.

I guess my question to you, then, is... what is most important?  Are you saying that the picture of morality that is painted is most important?  (That's what the word allegory leads me towards)

Or maybe you could expound on this?

I'm suggesting God has arranged an allegorical system--the use of individual metaphors, found in both Testaments which together form a higher allegorical arrangement.  This system  is not only objectively available to readers, but establishes its own contexts and conventions which, while not contradicting literal meanings, are entirely above and separate from them.

Oh, and...

I should have said it's like trying to train an electrician using plumbing jargon.  Hopefully this analogy will pass muster...?

When I studied circuits the first thing they did was compare the flow of electricity to the flow of water through a system of pipes. 

Jarrod

[B-man]

It sounds like we agree on a few general principles, if not in the details.  One, that the literal meaning (author's intent) of the Bible isn't the most important aspect/understanding.

Seems so.

I guess my question to you, then, is... what is most important?  Are you saying that the picture of morality that is painted is most important?  (That's what the word allegory leads me towards)

I don't think I'm smart enough to know what's most important.  I don't what's important is so much a picture of morality but what exists metaphorically within the moral law, and the literal hasn't the tools to access this sort of truth.  I have a sense that there's spiritual gold yet to be mined from Scripture and am just frustrated with a system of interpretation that puts controls on what the Bible is allowed to say.  As noted earlier, I see a salvific allegorical system so widely prominent [structured by dozens of harmonizing metaphors] in the Bible that it's hiding in plain sight right in front of the readers' eyes.  Modern hermeneutics, like the seemingly parallel system of literalism the Jewish hierarchy forced on the Tanakh, seems to have produced a general and subtle contempt in Christian's minds for anything outside the status quo.

When I studied circuits the first thing they did was compare the flow of electricity to the flow of water through a system of pipes.

Dang!  I feel I'm being pelted with metaphors.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

I have so much to say on this topic.  But, I'm not really sure if you'd care to hear?  Maybe I'll just link some old threads...

How the apostles applied OT Scriptures out of context in the writing of the NT.
http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/theology/matthew-122-23/

How 2Timothy 3:16 shows that Scripture should inspire us, not just that it is infallible/inspired.
http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/theology/what-does-it-mean-when-someone-says-the-scriptures-are-inspired/msg423901/#msg423901

The hydraulic metaphor of the body, and it's metaphorical usage in the Bible.
http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/theology/the-bible-a-textbook-on-anatomy/msg796555/#msg796555

Metaphorical usage of "sun, moon, stars, heavens, and earth" in the Bible.
http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/theology/is-the-'throne-of-david'-a-heavenly-throne-or-an-earthly-throne/msg1054804668/#msg1054804668

Jarrod

[B-man]

I have so much to say on this topic.  But, I'm not really sure if you'd care to hear?  Maybe I'll just link some old threads...

I suspect we hold a number of beliefs in common, especially after reading your links.

(1) Isaiah predicted a future event in Isaiah 7.
(2) His prediction came true in Isaiah 8.

The fact that Isaiah's prediction had already come true, and the events predicted had already come to pass once before, did not stop Matthew from applying this prophecy to Jesus.  Neither did the fact that the major context of Isaiah's prophecy regarding the Assyrians had no correspondence.

In light of the above,
(1) Why do I always have to look at contex? 
(2) Why can't there be other meaning beyond the plaint-text meaning of other prophecies? and
(3) Why should I believe that the Bible is to be taken literally?

Excellent points.  This is another point of contention I have with 'hardcore' literalists, their stubborn insistence on only one meaning per passage or set thereof.  God should be allowed to use as many meanings as He chooses, as many as He has interested, perceiving minds to touch.  And I'd also like to know, why are we always forced to delve into beloved "context" in many discussions?  Context derived from the literal about literal meaning is fine--for literal truth.  But the nature of a proper allegorical system is that just as meaning and truth rise above the literal to a higher plane in symbolic language, so does context.  An allegorical system should, if the system is complex and true, develop its own interpretive conventions and their accompanying contexts.

The New Testament authors quoted and used the Old Testament Scriptures absolutely freely, without special regard to hermeneutics of any sort, because they were relying on God to inspire the listener, rather than relying on their own abilities of argumentation.

Interesting idea.  Sounds very much like something Anne Davis would say, referencing the book I mentioned in an earlier post.

I'll have to admit, though, I really didn't get the point of the anatomy post

I hadn't planned to post the fundamentals of the allegorical system I contend for here as there don't seem to be many respondents in the Christian universalism area.  I may give it a go anyway, see if I can drum up some discussion....

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

I'll have to admit, though, I really didn't get the point of the anatomy post.

I didn't really have a theological point there I was making.  It was simply a list of X (metaphorically) equals Y (literally).

The parts of the body, when used in Scripture, ALL have a secondary meaning which is consistent in usage.  It's one of those core metaphors you'll find in the Bible.  Heart always deals with motives.  Bowels always deal with compassion.  Right hand deals with grace.  Left hand with judgment.  And so on and so forth.

Once you know what they are and stand for, it illuminates other passages of Scripture.  For instance,

Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.  And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.  (Matthew 20)

What did she ask for?  I'm pretty sure it wasn't just to sit in places of honor at the table.

Jarrod

[DaveW]

What did she ask for?  I'm pretty sure it wasn't just to sit in places of honor at the table.

Jarrod

Quite right.  Sitting at a king's right and left hand were his 2 most trusted under-rulers who excercised almost as much authority as the king himself.  It was a place of incredible authority and power.   She wanted her boys to rule over everyone.

[B-man]

Quite right.  Sitting at a king's right and left hand were his 2 most trusted under-rulers who excercised almost as much authority as the king himself.  It was a place of incredible authority and power.   She wanted her boys to rule over everyone.

This makes sense.

Now I'll ask a question...curious to get youse guy's input.

Assuming Jesus, who is God, said nothing in Scripture that doesn't have any number of meanings.....why, when asked by His detractors by whose authority had He scolded the moneychangers and drove them from the temple, did Jesus answer "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up."?

Of all the possible answers He could have given, why this?

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Quite right.  Sitting at a king's right and left hand were his 2 most trusted under-rulers who excercised almost as much authority as the king himself.  It was a place of incredible authority and power.   She wanted her boys to rule over everyone.

This makes sense.

Now I'll ask a question...curious to get youse guy's input.

Assuming Jesus, who is God, said nothing in Scripture that doesn't have any number of meanings.....why, when asked by His detractors by whose authority had He scolded the moneychangers and drove them from the temple, did Jesus answer "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up."?

Of all the possible answers He could have given, why this?

First, they specifically asked for a "sign." (John 2:18)

Second, the Bible says that Jesus spoke in riddles to keep those who were only there to undermine and detract out of the loop.  In my experience, His parables are designed so that they cannot be understood without putting on a different mindset, which was precisely what those people wouldn't do.

Third, it's funny.  It was clear that the good ol boys would interpret it to mean Herod's temple, and take some affront.  Which is further humorous, when you realize that He knew that THAT temple was already marked out for destruction within their lifetimes (John and Jesus both prophecy regarding the destruction of the temple).

Finally, it tweaks their fears and insecurities.  At some level, I think the Pharisees realized that the temple system was on it's last legs as well.  After all, they did actually understand OT prophecy, which calls for its destruction.  And John the Baptist had already prophecied that to their face (for which they had him beheaded).  In walks "another prophet saying the same thing."  They were pre-programmed to take it that way.

There are probably other meanings as well...

Jarrod

[3 Resurrections]

Wycliffes_Shillelagh  -  I realize this post is one from quite some time back, but I wanted to inquire a little further into one of the points you made in your reply #19.  You mentioned that body parts in scripture have a secondary meaning that is consistently applied.  One of your examples was the left hand being a sign of judgment, and the right hand one of grace.  Total agreement with you there.  Now for some application of that point, that I wonder if you would agree with. 

With this concept of the left side being the one related to judgment, (such as the goats which are put on the left side of rejection), and the right side one of grace, or favor (such as Benjamin being the son of Jacob's right hand), I am presuming this same symbolic concept is being consistently employed in Revelation 10:2 also.  In this text, the mighty angel clothed with a cloud, and with a rainbow about his head (a picture of Christ) puts his LEFT foot on the EARTH (which appears to indicate the land of Israel about to receive its judgment in the AD 70 era), and his RIGHT foot upon the SEA (which appears to indicate God preserving the (Roman) Sea Beast to use as his instrument of judgment on Israel.  After all, Christ's parable referred to the Roman forces as "HIS armies" that would finally burn up the city of those who had murdered His servants). 

If this is the case, then to me, that contributes to the proof that there are three beasts being spoken of in Revelation (Sea Beast, Land Beast, and Scarlet Beast), since the false prophet / Land Beast and another 2nd beast are thrown alive into the Lake of Fire together in Revelation 19:20 for judgment.  If God preserved the Sea Beast (with His right foot) to perform His work of judgment on the Land Beast (with His left foot), that means there must be ANOTHER Beast connected with the Land being judged that ends up being thrown in the Lake of Fire along with the False Prophet / Land Beast.  That would have to be the (Judean) Scarlet Beast which is shown to us as being in the WILDERNESS - a feature of the Judean landscape, as well as being connected with Israel's history of wilderness wanderings during the Exodus.   The Sea Beast couldn't possibly be the one cast into the Lake of Fire, if Christ's RIGHT foot of preservation was put upon the SEA in Revelation 10:2. 

One reason I believe this mighty angel actually is Christ with both Land (Israel) and Sea (the Gentile Roman empire) under both of His feet, is because we have Paul's Ephesians 1:20-22 verses telling us that, as of that point in time, Christ already had all things under His feet after God set him at His own right hand in the heavenly places at His ascension.

So, Wycliffes_Shillelagh, any opinion on whether this follows the consistent use of the left / judgment and right / grace interpretation of these things?  I'd be interested in your thoughts, whether pro or con.   

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

I guess I'm a little late responding, but if you're still here... I doubt it.  It isn't left and right (the directions) that are analogous so much as it is the two hands.  In the passage in Revelation, they are feet rather than hands.

[3 Resurrections]

Wycliffes_Shillelagh  -  Hmmm, not sure it really matters if it is a literal hand as opposed to a literal foot - the symbolic message seems to be that the right SIDE represents the favored, blessed side, and the left SIDE being the rejected one.  Isn't there an Old Testament text that has the RIGHT EAR, THUMB, and TOE being dabbed with oil in the dedication of the high priest and his sons?  And the same ceremony for cleansing a leper, too I think.  Yep, just looked it up - Lev. 8:23-24 and 14:17.  That seems to encompass everything on the right SIDE being the side of blessing and righteousness - not just a man's right hand itself...