Let's play literal or figurative

[mark kennedy]

But the Song of Songs has never been considered a "prophecy." It belongs with the "Ketuvim" - The Writings - which include Ruth, Esther, Lamentations and Ecclesiastes - not the prophets. Two stories and two poems. It was probably written down a long time after Solomon. The books we call histories, by the way, they consider to be prophets. Chronicles belongs to the later Ketuvim, along with Daniel, Job, Psalms and Proverbs.

Ruth and Esther are 'Ketuvim' or writings but they describe actual events as well. Job descibes actual events but you would be hard pressed to find richer and more elaborate metaphor in the Scriptures. The bulk of Job is a discussion between Job and his friends. I think it's important to discern between metaphor and narrative. Ruth for example is a simply, straight forward narrative. She was David's great grandmother and her place in redemptive history is vital.

One thing that you seem to be doing is what a lot of people do with scripture - you're considering it in isolation to anything else that was written in the same area at the time. As if the books of the Bible appeared sui generis out of nowhere. As neither of us, probably, are great experts on ancient Near Eastern literature, neither of us can make a comparative study; but it wouldn't surprise me to find that there are (or were) similar poems in the surrounding culture. What was this poem like in its form and imagery, in the surrounding culture?

I thought the insights I made into this would be helpfull along these lines. It tells us some things about how marriages grew from commitments and prescribed responstibilities. Now obviously, someone more knowledgable about the ancient Near Eastern world would be able to glean a great deal more. It would be interesting to compare Solomon's song to say, an Eqyptian wedding song. Actually, I would like it if I had some idea what the content of his lessor songs was.

And there is still the question of why you find it difficult to cope with the idea of a book not being historical. I don't take the poem as an allegory, either, by the way; any more than I consider the story of Romeo and Juliet to be an allegory. But I don't go to Shakespeare for history; I go for profound meditations on the nature of love, on the nature of family and feuding; and for the sheer beauty of the language. Whatever else the Song of Songs is, it is beautiful.

It didn't really trouble me when I looked at this as poetic literature. Ecclesiasties is and it is still as meaningfull to me as any of the historical books, actually more so. I mean seriously, do I really care how many people were in the tribe of Dan after the Exodus? This song sparked something in me that made me wonder if it was two real live people. I don't need this to be somekind of an historical narrative for it to speak to me. I'm just saying because I see this book as an actual series of events it opens up the meaning of the metaphors.

Sometimes I think we're so busy trying to find "meaning" in the Bible; or trying to defend if from largely imaginary enemies, that we forget that it is one of jewels of ancient literature.

I suppose your right, it just bugs me sometimes that I'm the only one who looks at SOS in this way. I find many of the interprutations distastefull, particularly the one were Solomon is trying to steal her away. Maybe it is after all just a story about two people preparing to raise a family. Oh by the way, I think this is their final vows to one another:

"Set me as a seal upon your heart.
As a seal upon your arm;
For love is as strong as death,
Jealousy as cruel as the grave;
Its flames are flames of fire,
A most vehement flame.

Many waters cannot quench love,
Nor can the floods drown it.
If a man would give for love all the wealth of his house,
It would be utterly despised"

(Song of Songs 8:6,7)

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[LewisWildermuth]

I just see no reason why they would be, the people hearing these parables would have been better able to relate to real life examples.

Why would you think that, even today people relate more to Luke Skywalker then to the all the Katrina, tsunami, bird flu, and any other group of victims you might want to think of. Going back in time, more people related to King Arthur than any real crusader. More people related more to Hercules then any real hero of the time. There is a reason that fiction or semi fictional accounts of history far outnumber real history books. Fiction touches humans at a deeper level. In a fiction you can distil the story down to its essence.

You might have some personal problem with God using fiction, but I would personally surprised if He did not. It is fiction and poetry that stands the test of time, not real history. It is the non-literal elements of writing that stirs mens souls, not the dry literal facts. Why would God not use the most powerful form of communication to send a message to us?

 

[artybloke]

Ruth and Esther are 'Ketuvim' or writings but they describe actual events as well. Job descibes actual events but you would be hard pressed to find richer and more elaborate metaphor in the Scriptures.

They are no more historical than Dickens.

 

[mark kennedy]

They are no more historical than Dickens.

Well now, that is exactly what I was wanting to know. Let's get a little more contemporary. Looking at the New Teastament would you say these passages are literal or figurative?

"In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the begining with God. All things were made through Him and without Him nothing was made that was made" (John 1:1-3)

"When He had said these things, He spat on the ground and made clay with the saliva; and He anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay. And He said to him, "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam (which translated, Sent). So he went and washed and came back seeing' (John 9:6,7)

"Now when He had said these things, He cried with a loud voice, 'Lazarus come forth!' And he who had died came out bound hand and foot with the graveclothes, and his face was wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, 'Loose him, and let him go'. (John 11:43,44)

"Now when He had spoken these things while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight." (Acts 1:9)

Your telling me that Ruth, Esther, Job and the Song of Songs are no more historical then Dickens. I'm left wondering where the line is drawn with regards to historical narrative.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[shernren]

I think you're trying too hard to shoehorn the Scriptures, this might not be so true for the other passages you quoted but for John 1:1-3 I'm really surprised that this question can even be asked.

It isn't purely literal. With all due respect (looking at the passage in context) is Jesus really literally light? In what sense? Was He made out of photons? If Jesus is the Word, what Dictionary defines Him? I am not poking fun at the holy doctrine of the Trinity, which I believe as much as you do. But I am pointing out that you cannot "literalize" this passage even as much as you can "literalize" its sister passage in the Old Testament Genesis 1 (which is what all this is about, isn't it?).

On the other hand, of course, I am not going to call it purely figurative am I? It is true about Jesus, although Jesus isn't made out of photons and is not a global photonic source (1:9). We know that Jesus really did come to give "light", although not a literal or a scientific light. It is entirely applicable to Jesus in who He really is.

So then, it is not purely literal and it is not purely figurative. What then? By your forced dichotomy is this passage even Scripture?

I think you've found a beautiful example of what really happens when we talk about looking at Scripture "as myth". It's something that cuts through the false dichotomy creationists often erect around their favourite verses. "Literal or figurative?" is a little like asking "Is this car old, or is it well-maintained?" when we know full well that it could be neither and it could be both.

 

[mark kennedy]

I think you're trying too hard to shoehorn the Scriptures, this might not be so true for the other passages you quoted but for John 1:1-3 I'm really surprised that this question can even be asked.

The passage is saying that Jesus was the Word of God before the Creation of the world. Also that the entire creation was made by Him, that's really the point. It goes on to say that in Him was light. The glory of God is often described as a light, the same light that raised Christ from the dead (Romans 6:4).

It isn't purely literal. With all due respect (looking at the passage in context) is Jesus really literally light? In what sense? Was He made out of photons? If Jesus is the Word, what Dictionary defines Him? I am not poking fun at the holy doctrine of the Trinity, which I believe as much as you do. But I am pointing out that you cannot "literalize" this passage even as much as you can "literalize" its sister passage in the Old Testament Genesis 1 (which is what all this is about, isn't it?).

Of course this is about Genesis 1:1, John uses the same phrase 'In the Beginning'. This is not a figure, it's either factual or it is not. Jesus Christ is not just presented as the Savior, He is explicitly presented as the Creator (Col. 1:16,17; 2:9; Heb. 1:2). For me believing that Christ was God in human flesh was so much more difficult then believing God created the world in six days. There is no real basis of comparison of the two.

On the other hand, of course, I am not going to call it purely figurative am I? It is true about Jesus, although Jesus isn't made out of photons and is not a global photonic source (1:9). We know that Jesus really did come to give "light", although not a literal or a scientific light. It is entirely applicable to Jesus in who He really is.

John uses the term light 36 times, more then any other New Testament writer. John's focus was theological and the 'light was life and that light was the light of men'.

So then, it is not purely literal and it is not purely figurative. What then? By your forced dichotomy is this passage even Scripture?

There is no dichonomy, the deity of Christ is either a fact or highly figurative language. The interprutation of Genesis 1 does not phase me, but this passage speaks volumes of the incarnation. John is making a huge statement, on that is repeated throughout the New Testament. He is either the Creator or He is not.

I think you've found a beautiful example of what really happens when we talk about looking at Scripture "as myth". It's something that cuts through the false dichotomy creationists often erect around their favourite verses. "Literal or figurative?" is a little like asking "Is this car old, or is it well-maintained?" when we know full well that it could be neither and it could be both.

This is clearly not mythology, hyperbole or figurative comaparisons. This is presented as a simple fact, 'The Word was God...and the Word became flesh'. It's also important to realize the Jesus being the Son of God is said of no one except Adam. Adam is said to be the son of God in a temporal sense (Luke 3:28). That is that Adam did not have a lineal descent from a human father. Obviously Adam was not the son of God in the same sense Jesus was and is. Jesus is the eternal Son of God who was before the foundation of the world. Adam is the son of God in the sense that he was created by God, fully formed, without human parents. I guess the angels could be included in that they have no lineal descent either and are sometimes spoken of as the sons of God. Here I am most concerned with human lineage rather then the angels.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[artybloke]

There is no dichonomy, the deity of Christ is either a fact or highly figurative language.

You see, this is the problem. What do you mean by "fact" here?

"Fact" seems to me to be something that can be observed using the five senses in some way. Something that you can point to using either your physical senses alone or some physical enhancement of them such as a telescope. Can you find Christ by looking through a telescope?

Are you saying that if we investigated using scientific method we'd be able to find out that Jesus Christ is the second person of the Trinity? Because that's what you seem to be saying when you say that the diety of Christ is a "fact."

It's not a "fact"; because that would make Christ part of the created order, something that can be discerned using scientific method. It's a "truth." It is something that can only be discerned through revelation, not something you can discover by looking down a microscope.

It's a truth that is expressed in highly figurative language. If you look forever, you will never find Christ by looking in a test-tube, or by seeking to "prove" the literalness or otherwise of this passage of scripture or that. If you do find "Christ" this way, what you are looking at will not be Christ but an idol, a something that is created, not the creator.

"Facts" are created things; "truths" are eternal things. The Bible is about truth, not facts.

 

[artybloke]

PS That doesn't mean that there are no facts in the Bible; or that they sometimes don't matter. If Jesus of Nazareth had never lived we'd be pretty stumped.

But, on the whole, the "facts" don't matter as much as the "truths." Does it make any difference to the truth of the Bible if I don't think that David really killed a giant called Goliath? Does it make that much difference if Jesus never walked on water, even? I have no particular problem with either event; they may have happened or they may be legendary. But are they True? Most certainly...

 

[mark kennedy]

You see, this is the problem. What do you mean by "fact" here?

Something that is necassarily true or necessarily false. When looking at the Song of Songs I looking for clues to the identity of the principle participants, specific location and a series of events. There I was looking for material facts with a hermeneutic application. Here I am looking at a fact in the absolute sense, are the divine attributes of the Living God applied to Jesus Christ as an established, absolute fact?

"Fact" seems to me to be something that can be observed using the five senses in some way. Something that you can point to using either your physical senses alone or some physical enhancement of them such as a telescope. Can you find Christ by looking through a telescope?

John is explicit in his witness as to the deity of Christ. It is the central focus of his witness that is foundational to his Theology.

"That which was from the beginning, whcih we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life- the life was manifested and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was minifested to us." (I John 1:1)​

The view of Scripture is through the lens of the New Testament witness. We have the lessor light of revelation concerning the 'attributes of God being understood from the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead', (Romans 1:20).

The fuller revelation is found in Christ and this is anything but ambiguise in John's Gospel.

Are you saying that if we investigated using scientific method we'd be able to find out that Jesus Christ is the second person of the Trinity? Because that's what you seem to be saying when you say that the diety of Christ is a "fact."

It's not empirically testable in the modern sense, not does it need to be. When the Scriptures speak in metaphor there is usually a 'like' or 'as' inserted identifying this. Invariably it is followed by the facts the underly the analogy. There are two kinds of truth here, one that acts as a vehicle to an actual fact. Then there is a fact that is true in and of itself. The material facts here are the manifestation of the glory of God in the person and work of Christ. Many of these works can only be described as miracles, the primary manifestation being the incarnation of the Word of God.

It's not a "fact"; because that would make Christ part of the created order, something that can be discerned using scientific method. It's a "truth." It is something that can only be discerned through revelation, not something you can discover by looking down a microscope.

Theologians call this the aseity of God which is the utter independance of God from the created universe. God exists independant of all created things, both seen and unseen but it is the things made that reflect God's glory. They are manifest in God's works and in the incarnation. God is not subject to empircal testing and certainly not direct observation as He said to Moses, "No man can see me and live" (Exodus 33:20). Yet the New Testament witness is clear that God is indeed manifest in the person and work of Christ. Just as God's general revelation is clearly seen in the things that are made He is manifest in Scripture and ulitmately in Christ.

It's a truth that is expressed in highly figurative language. If you look forever, you will never find Christ by looking in a test-tube, or by seeking to "prove" the literalness or otherwise of this passage of scripture or that. If you do find "Christ" this way, what you are looking at will not be Christ but an idol, a something that is created, not the creator.

"Facts" are created things; "truths" are eternal things. The Bible is about truth, not facts.

Jesus asked told Nicodemus, "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?" (John 3:12) Still the problem remains that we might dwell on the shadow and never really see the substance. C.S. Lewis, who coined the phrase 'true myth' saw a way of reconciling the two.

"...you cannot go on ‘explaining away’ forever: you will find that you have explained explanation itself away. You cannot go on ‘seeing through’ things forever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to ‘see through’ first principles. If you see through everything then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To ‘see through’ all things is the same as not to see."​

http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/pages/resources/publications/knowingDoing/2002/LewisAbsolutes.pdf

This is the whole problem with modernism, it's all figures, symbols, parables and inspirational poetry. When do we get past the shadow and look at the substance? I say it is precisely here that we must begin to establish first principles in our minds. C.S. Lewis is unambiguous
about the deity of Christ being a first principle and a fact, in and of itself:

"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a mad man or something worse."​

(Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis)

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[artybloke]

deleted

 

[rmwilliamsll]

i stumbled across an interesting article that talks about the importance of narrative

Why? Probably because RPGs and first-person shooters rely most heavily on a narrative structure, and narrative is one of the world's oldest technologies for transmitting an emotional payload. Indeed, when Bowen asked his respondents to pick the single most emotionally affective game, the far-and-away winner -- with a remarkable 61 percent of votes -- was Final Fantasy, one of the most narrative-heavy series in history.

As it turns out, my friend back in 1997 wasn't alone. Aerith's death in Final Fantasy VII was "a sort of watershed moment for the gaming industry," Bowen argues, because in their written notes on the surveys, many gamers singled it out as the first time a game caused them genuine heartache. I went back and re-watched the scene, and I can understand why; it's nearly Wagnerian in its sadness. As Aerith collapses, a ball of life force seemingly emerges from her body and falls slowly away, each bounce triggering the opening notes of her funeral melody. No wonder teenagers are now lining up to watch symphonies perform music from the game. It's that heart-piercing.

from: http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,69475-0.html

as an aside, did you catch the reference to Pilgrim's Progress? another great narrative.