Use of figures of speech in the Bible ...
Comments
-
Not intentionally. The Kingdom of God is eternal and spiritual in the same sense God is Spirit. Neither God or the Kingdom are figurative or symbols of a separate entity. In contrast, the Book of Revelation is largely symbolic or figurative of spiritual and physical realities.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
Example, to say the law of the Lord is sweeter than the honey of the honeycomb. Does that mean if we were to take a scroll and taste it that it is sweet? No, it's a figure of speech and obviously so.
Literal whenever possible forces a false interpretation on Revelation every single time it is used beyond the opening passages.
A false interpretation is forced at any time when a passage involving a figure of speech is interpreted as being meant in a literal sense, but equally so if a something meant literally is interpreted as involving a figure of speech ... that problem goes both directions.
So then, how does one determine reliably if an expression involves a figure of speech?
The safest way I know is by taking clear passages that have bearing on the subject and then make the obscure passages conform to it. If you ignore Jesus all together in his description of the Kingdom, and use the OT prophecies as literally spoken you end up with Premillennialism and Dispensationalism. But if you take Jesus' description of the Kingdom as spiritual, you end up with Amillennialism. But even then, Amillennialism only places you in the ball park.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
If you think there is a figure of speech involved in regards to these points, perhaps you can point out which figure is being used and which words or expression is involved?
The problem is there is no physical reign.
However, that is not shown or stated by means of a figure of speech but by a number of plain statements and passages which are to be understood literally, such as "spiritual", "not of this world", etc.
Jesus says his kingdom is not of this world. And it comes without observation. Nothing physical remains possible.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
Literally whenever possible is the best line of reasoning. If something is figurative it is usually if not always obvious.Example, to say the law of the Lord is sweeter than the honey of the honeycomb. Does that mean if we were to take a scroll and taste it that it is sweet? No, it's a figure of speech and obviously so.
Literal whenever possible forces a false interpretation on Revelation every single time it is used beyond the opening passages.
Dave, you do know that we cannot possibly know with 100% certainty the meaning of Revelation as these things have not yet happened, yes? Just like Israel couldn't know with 100% certainty the meanings of the prophecies until they happened?
Much has happened only physical kingdom buffs missed it.
That is your opinion, but honest scholars admit that they cannot say that with 100% certainty. Are you willing to say that you can't be 100% absolute on that and that is just an opinion?
Find where Jesus mentioned or even hinted at a physical kingdom. The Kingdom is spiritual and a present reality, but one must be born again to see it.
What does that have to do with the whole of Revelation and what I said to you?
It changes the way people interpret the 1000 years of Revelation 20 for starters.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
Literally whenever possible is the best line of reasoning. If something is figurative it is usually if not always obvious.Example, to say the law of the Lord is sweeter than the honey of the honeycomb. Does that mean if we were to take a scroll and taste it that it is sweet? No, it's a figure of speech and obviously so.
Literal whenever possible forces a false interpretation on Revelation every single time it is used beyond the opening passages.
Dave, you do know that we cannot possibly know with 100% certainty the meaning of Revelation as these things have not yet happened, yes? Just like Israel couldn't know with 100% certainty the meanings of the prophecies until they happened?
Much has happened only physical kingdom buffs missed it.
That is your opinion, but honest scholars admit that they cannot say that with 100% certainty. Are you willing to say that you can't be 100% absolute on that and that is just an opinion?
"Honest scholars" exist in whatever persuasion you prefer.
-
@Dave_L said:
... The Kingdom of God is eternal and spiritual in the same sense God is Spirit. Neither God or the Kingdom are figurative or symbols of a separate entity.Indeed ... the reality to which a figure of speech refers is not itself figurative, but the passage describing it may use a figure of speech
Cp. in Mt 13, there are a number of passages speaking about "the kingdom of heaven" and to describe it, Jesus used the figure of speech called "parable".In contrast, the Book of Revelation is largely symbolic or figurative of spiritual and physical realities.
See above ... I agree that there are many passages in the book of revelation in which figures of speech are used, some use "apocalyptic" imagery and language which definitely is not meant to be understood literally (cp. beasts with numerous heads, etc)
-
@GaoLu said:
Here are a handful of quickie passages for seed (maybe choose one?):
1. Jesus says to the woman at the well: "Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life." - Jn 4:13-14There are references to (a) literal water ("this water") and (b) emphatic use of "water I shall give" by means of an Idiom
- "Let the rivers clap their hands; let the hills sing for joy together" - Ps 98:8
This expression involves the figure of speech personification ("rivers" and "hills" are not literally persons who clap hands and or sing
- "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple." Lk 14:26
This expression involves the figure of speech hyperbole / exaggeration. The might be literally expressed by "does not esteem them less than me" ... but the figure and use of "hate" emphasizes the point, but does not speak about hating parents in a literal sense.
- "Once the trees went forth to anoint a king over them, and they said to the olive tree, 'Reign over us!' - Jud 9:18
The passage about the 4 "trees" employs the figure of speech hypocatastasis, actually a continued hypocatastasis
Cp. what E.W.Bullinger mentions regarding this passae from Judges 9:
It is interesting to note that the four trees referred to—“the Fig-tree, the Olive, the vine, and the Bramble—“are the four which are used to combine the whole of Israel’s history.
The FIG-TREE represents the National position of Israel, from which we learn (in the Synoptic Gospels) that it withered away and has been cut down.
The OLIVE TREE represents the Covenant privileges of Israel (Rom. 11): which are now in abeyance.
The VINE represents Israel’s Spiritual blessings, which henceforth are to be found only in Christ, the True Vine (John 15).
_The BRAMBLE represents the Antichrist, in whose shadow they will yet trust, but who will be to Israel a consuming fire in the day of “Jacob’s trouble”—“the great Tribulation.”* (Bullinger, E. W. (1898). Figures of speech used in the Bible (pp. 749–750). London; New York: Eyre & Spottiswoode; E. & J. B. Young & Co.)- "Death reigned from Adam to Moses" -Rom 5:14
Here again, the figure personification is used, by which "death" is ascribed an action "to reign" which is true in a literal sense only of persons but not "things"
If these are too easy, then offer your own.
I trust, my reply illustrates at least a little what I am interested in when encountering a passage involving a figure of speech .... I expect not just some "personal idea that this may be a figure", but would like to know which figure of speech is used, what is being emphasized by it, etc ...
-
Thanks, @Wolfgang. Your responses are thoughtful, reasonable and characterize how discernment isn't that hard and interpretation may vary somewhat, but is fundamentally clear.
Yet, perhaps there are more difficult passages. Anyone?
-
I'm curious to @Wolfgang was there a specific passage that promoted this thread?
-
No, there was actually no specific passage that prompted this thread ...
Rather it was my observation over some time and various topics that the matter of correctly identifying the use of figures of speech used in Scripture seemed to be (a) a fundamental principle for correctly understanding Scripture, and (b) a major problem for many Christians trying to understand Scripture, usually because of a lack of knowledge about figures of speech
I would hope that with an objective exchange in this thread on different aspects relating to the use of figures of speech we as forum participants can increase our understanding of the matter and perhaps learn to more objectively address Biblical topics from textual perspective rather than denominational theology perspectives.
As an example, I refer to my reply to Gao_Lu's post with the list of sample passages ...I did not just throw in my "theology interpretation", but rather focused on the text and identified the figure of speech used in the passage and on that textual basis mentioned some observation concerning my understanding of the meaning of the passage. No one else thus far has even responded to Gao_Lu's post trying to point out which figures of speech were used in those passages ... possible reasons? -
@Wolfgang said:
No, there was actually no specific passage that prompted this thread ...
Rather it was my observation over some time and various topics that the matter of correctly identifying the use of figures of speech used in Scripture seemed to be (a) a fundamental principle for correctly understanding Scripture, and (b) a major problem for many Christians trying to understand Scripture, usually because of a lack of knowledge about figures of speech
I would hope that with an objective exchange in this thread on different aspects relating to the use of figures of speech we as forum participants can increase our understanding of the matter and perhaps learn to more objectively address Biblical topics from textual perspective rather than denominational theology perspectives.
As an example, I refer to my reply to Gao_Lu's post with the list of sample passages ...I did not just throw in my "theology interpretation", but rather focused on the text and identified the figure of speech used in the passage and on that textual basis mentioned some observation concerning my understanding of the meaning of the passage. No one else thus far has even responded to Gao_Lu's post trying to point out which figures of speech were used in those passages ... possible reasons?Cool
-
Let's continue the discussion on the Use of figures of speech in the Bible ...
Riddle
Samson's riddle. Usually, riddles are difficult questions (1 Kgs 10:1; 2 Chr 9:1). "There are several Old Testament riddles: Ps 19:5, 3-4; Judg 13:18; 6:23; Amos 7:8; Jer 1:11; Ezek 17:3- 10; Cant 8:9-10; Eccl 12:2-6; --(See Torczyner below).
The method of God's revelation to the prophets, except Moses, was described by the use of this riddle (Num 12:8: in dark speech). "With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in dark speech: and he beholds the form of the Lord."
One may see that this provides a background for John 16:25. When we try to understand John 16:25 in the light of Num 12:8 it may help with understanding--the disciples do not remain as ordinary prophets, but they will be like Moses.
God's dealings with the people, its history, and its hidden meaning were labeled as riddles (Ps 78:2). The king who understands riddles will arise (Dan 8:23).
The Old Testament and Judaic riddles are usually short.
Samson's riddle in Judge 14:14:
- "Out of the eater came something to eat. Out of the strong came something sweet. " Only six words in Hebrew.
We find a riddle in Lamentations Rabbah 1.1.11:
- "What are the following: nine go out but eight come in, two pour out but one drinks and twenty-four serve?"
We also find several riddles in Yebamoth 97b:
- "My paternal, but not my maternal brother, and he is the husband of my mother and I am the daughter of his wife'!" "He whom I carry on my shoulder is my brother and my son and I am his sister'?" "’Greetings to you my son; I am the daughter of your sister'?"
What says ye? CM
SOURCE:
-- H . Torczyner, "The Riddle in the Bible," HUCA 1 (1924): 125-49.
-
Brethren,
More on the Use of figures of speech in the Bible-- The Book of John.
To be classified as a Johannine riddle, a saying should satisfy most of these conditions:
- (1) They include ambiguous words.
- (2) The sayings cause the audience to ask questions or fail to understand.
- (3) These sayings about Jesus emphasize his origin and destiny, and especially his relationship with the Father.
- ( 4 ) The term αίνιγμα indicates the presence of a riddle.
- (5) The riddles are not resolved until after the resurrection.
- (6) The sayings can be expanded by means of a proverb or a parable [listed 9 Proverbs: 21:18; 2:10; 3:8; 4:35, 37; 4:44; 5:19-20a; 9:4; 11:9-10] -- See Collins below.
- (7) The sayings can be introduced by the riddle formula.
The sayings about Jesus include Jesus as the topic of the sayings. So we may call them Jesus-centered sayings. They should include all the sayings Jesus said about himself, about the relationship between him and the Father, and him and the believers, and him and the non-believers, and him and the world, and his mission, identity, and destiny, therefore Christological.
The riddles can be long or short.
The list of Johannine riddles, the Christological sayings of Jesus which apparently caused the audience to question or to misunderstand is as follows: John 2:19; 3:3; 4:32; 6:32-33, 35, 51, 53; 7:33-34; 7:37b-38; 8:21, 31-32, 51, 56, 58; 11:11; 12:32; 13:8, 10, 21c, 27b; 13:33, 36b; 14:19; 21:18. There are others.
Truth found truth shared. CM
SOURCES:
- -- Raymond F. Collins, These Things Have Been Written (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,1990), 128-150.
-- For more information on the Johannine misunderstandings:
- Charles H. Giblin, "Suggestion, Negative Response, and Positive Action in St John's Portrayal of Jesus (John 2:1-11; 4:46-54; 7:2-14; 11:1-44)," NTS 26 (1979/80): 197-211.
- -- Culpepper, R. Alan. Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983. pp., 152-164
- -- D. A. Carson, "Understanding Misunderstandings," Tyndale Bulletin 33 (1932): 91. The criterion of misunderstanding makes the list an assured minimum because there are of Christologicalical sayings such as 1:51 and 12:24 which can be included in this list if without this criterion. We employ it because we deal with non-designated "αίνιγμα".
- -- George Johnston, The Spirit-Paraclete in the Gospel of John (Cambridge: University Press, 1970), 162, 152.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
