Dispensational Things...pt2

[John of Japan]

Well that looks like another thread looming in the near future...I do not think men who disagree on this aspect, or that aspect, do away with the teaching in the same way you do not do away with dispensationalism because not all agree.

IMO, theologians with the normative dispensational view agree far more than do covenant theologians.

As long as John 6, and the book of Hebrews, the Book of Isaiah remain in the canon of scripture.. the Covenant of Redemption can be clearly seen and understood.

John was the first book of the Bible I read through as a little boy, and of course I've translated it into English and Japanese. I taught through Isaiah in Japan in two courses worth 4 credits. I took a college course in Hebrews. You know what? Until you just mentioned it, I have never in my entire life thought, "Oh, John 6 and Hebrews and Isaiah prove that there is a covenant of redemption." It's just not a natural interpretation of those passages.

Just to be sure, I just skimmed John 6, and nope, there's not a single covenant of any kind in there.

 

[John of Japan]

Where is the LOSER rating?

In America, when we call someone a loser it is a grave insult, indicating that they have failed at life. Are you comfortable with your Christian testimony, insulting me in this way? Or does it mean something else in England?

And why no comment on my post #51 which was on topic?

I saw nothing there to comment on. And even if I had seen something, I am under no ethical or moral onus to answer your every post. And the BB rules do not require it either.

 

[Covenanter]

In America, when we call someone a loser it is a grave insult, indicating that they have failed at life. Are you comfortable with your Christian testimony, insulting me in this way? Or does it mean something else in England?

No offence meant - I was referring to your post - NOT you personnally.

The available post ratings are:
like; agree; winner; informative; funny; friendly; useful; prayers.

There isn't a standard rating that shows a negative opinion of the post. What do you suggest would be appropriate for the opposite of "winner" ?

 

[John of Japan]

No offence meant - I was referring to your post - NOT you personnally.

I kind of thought so.

The available post ratings are:
like; agree; winner; informative; funny; friendly; useful; prayers.

There isn't a standard rating that shows a negative opinion of the post. What do you suggest would be appropriate for the opposite of "winner" ?

"Wrong," or "Disagree" maybe. No exactly opposite to "winner." How about "Defeated"?

 

[Covenanter]

John -
5 - Law

Ian -
5. Mosaic - Covenant of blessed relationship with God conditional on obedience, with various Messianic types provided for salvation of those who have a living faith;

As indicated by Disp 4, post #60 -
This dispensation - the covenant of grace to Abram & his seed - continues through the various law-covenant revelations through Moses, the judges, the kings & prophets until the Seed completes his saving work by his death, resurrection & ascension.

The Mosaic Law in no way annuls nor supersedes the Abrahamic covenant/dispensation. It was given to clarify the laws for human government & the role of a priesthood in teaching & administrating sacrificial worship.

The Law is given in the old covenant statement:

Exo. 19:3 Then Moses went up to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain and said, ‘This is what you are to say to the descendants of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: 4 “You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. 5 Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6 you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.’​

The Israelites readily accept the covenant & God proceeds to give the Decalogue & ratifies the covenant with sacrificial blood sprinkled on the assembly. Ex. 24 & Hebrews 9.

Clearly God did not set out the Law as a covenant condition for his acceptance of the people he had redeemed from Egypt, & who were to inherit the covenant promises to Abraham. He provided sacrifices, a tabernacle, a priesthood, & general rules of conduct so that the people of Israel could live lives acceptable to God.

Willing, but imperfect, obedience to the covenant provisions was acceptable.

The terms of the old covenant Law were set out in such a way that they prefigured the perfect obedience of the Messiah, the LORD Jesus Christ, who would identify himself as the Israel of God & for the people of Israel keep every aspect of that Law as their representative. Yet suffer as a lawbreaker for the sins of those he was redeeming.

There would be a New Covenant in the blood of the Redeemer, a Covenant - Eternal Covenant - that would refer back to cover all the redeemed people of God, past present & future, from all families, all nations on earth.

Paul - Romans; Peter - 1 Peter 2;- & John - Revelation 1, apply the terms of the Old Covenant to all believers, now living under the New, Eternal Covenant.
======================

I need to comment on Scofield's Law dispensation introduced in Genesis 12, & commenting on Exodus 19.

He does not separate
3. Human Government (Gen. 9:6), beginning with Noah
4. Patriarchal Rule (Abraham, etc.)
but combines them as one -
Human government,
beginning with Noah & continuing through Abraham to Moses & the Law dispensation.

Scofield was seriously wrong when he wrote highlighted:

The Fourth Dispensation: Promise. For Abraham, and his descendants it is evident that the Abrahamic Covenant See Scofield Note: "Gen 15:18" made a great change. They became distinctively the heirs of promise. That covenant is wholly gracious and unconditional. The descendants of Abraham had but to abide in their own land to inherit every blessing. In Egypt they lost their blessings, but not their covenant.
The Dispensation of Promise ended when Israel rashly accepted the law Ex 19:8. Grace had prepared a deliverer (Moses), provided a sacrifice for the guilty, and by divine power brought them out of bondage Ex 19:4 but at Sinai they exchanged grace for law. The Dispensation of Promise extends from Gen 12.1 to Ex 19.8, and was exclusively Israelitish. The dispensation must be distinguished from the covenant. The former is a mode of testing; the latter is everlasting because unconditional. The law did not abrogate the Abrahamic Covenant Gal 3:15-18 but was an intermediate disciplinary dealing "till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made" Gal 3:19-29 4:1-7. Only the dispensation, as a testing of Israel, ended at the giving of the law.

Scofield seems unaware of the fact that the LORD used the wickedness of Joseph's brothers to establish him as the ruler of Egypt, & to enable them to settle in Goshen during the famine. Remaining in the promised land - which at that time was not "their own land" was not a valid option.

And as for "rashly accepting the Law" has he not read the gracious way the Law was introduced in Exodus 19?

 

[Iconoclast]

IMO, theologians with the normative dispensational view agree far more than do covenant theologians.


John was the first book of the Bible I read through as a little boy, and of course I've translated it into English and Japanese. I taught through Isaiah in Japan in two courses worth 4 credits. I took a college course in Hebrews. You know what? Until you just mentioned it, I have never in my entire life thought, "Oh, John 6 and Hebrews and Isaiah prove that there is a covenant of redemption." It's just not a natural interpretation of those passages.

Just to be sure, I just skimmed John 6, and nope, there's not a single covenant of any kind in there.

The wording of being born again does not appear in the book of Acts...so would you say you find no one being born again there?
This is the reason many have" left behind".....the dispensational ideas for covenantal studies.
You say there is more agreement among those in that camp....this in itself is not conclusive
Maybe it would be helpful to look at what a Divine Covenant is.....what is this arrangement?
If all the teaching is there...but you do not see the word.....covenant.....do you suppose it could just be....a covenant????

 

[John of Japan]

The wording of being born again does not appear in the book of Acts...so would you say you find no one being born again there?

How is that relevant to the covenant of redemption being (or not being) in John 6?

 

[Iconoclast]

How is that relevant to the covenant of redemption being (or not being) in John 6?

Simply that the teaching for example of the agreement between the members of the trinity teach the Covenant of Redemption before the world was.
The Father elects,....gives a multitude to the Son....
The Son is mediator and surety for them....(opps...those terms are not in this passage either)...He says...I will in no wise cast out.
The Spirit brings them effectually....ie shall come....
Jesus comes as the elect Servant....(oh no....language from Isa: 40-66)
To do the will of the Father........accomplish the planned and promised REDEMPTION.....I did it again...I used a word not mentioned in the text????
He willingly obeyed the terms of the needed covenant.

If you isolate books and do not see the bible as a whole....you will resist and teach falsely on these things everytime.....I will never abandon these truths although I have much more to learn about them moving forward.

In John 10.....Jesus explains...My Father which gave them to me..........(when did this happen?)
Gave them.....for what reason? To be friends, and go fishing?
Biblical Theology answers this very simply and biblically consistently because it does not fragment the revelation. It connects the dots.
Yes...there are differences how men attempt to connect the theological dots, that is why it is an ongoing work.

 

[Covenanter]

I saw nothing there to comment on. And even if I had seen something, I am under no ethical or moral onus to answer your every post. And the BB rules do not require it either.

Of course - but
thread was opened to continue the discussion of the teaching you started in a previous thread.
I have tried to stay on topic & discuss points that you indicated were the dispensations.
You did agree that "conscience" did not end with the end of the dispensation.

I understood that you were on the forum partly in a teaching capacity, & your concern in the previous thread was to teach a correct view of dispensationalism, rather than the commonly received view.

You rarely interact positively - it seems you like to treat us as your students & criticize matters of detail rather than the theology under discussion.

 

[John of Japan]

Simply that the teaching for example of the agreement between the members of the trinity teach the Covenant of Redemption before the world was.
The Father elects,....gives a multitude to the Son....
The Son is mediator and surety for them....(opps...those terms are not in this passage either)...He says...I will in no wise cast out.
The Spirit brings them effectually....ie shall come....
Jesus comes as the elect Servant....(oh no....language from Isa: 40-66)
To do the will of the Father........accomplish the planned and promised REDEMPTION.....I did it again...I used a word not mentioned in the text????
He willingly obeyed the terms of the needed covenant.

If you isolate books and do not see the bible as a whole....you will resist and teach falsely on these things everytime.....I will never abandon these truths although I have much more to learn about them moving forward.

In John 10.....Jesus explains...My Father which gave them to me..........(when did this happen?)
Gave them.....for what reason? To be friends, and go fishing?
Biblical Theology answers this very simply and biblically consistently because it does not fragment the revelation. It connects the dots.
Yes...there are differences how men attempt to connect the theological dots, that is why it is an ongoing work.

Simply that the teaching for example of the agreement between the members of the trinity teach the Covenant of Redemption before the world was.
The Father elects,....gives a multitude to the Son....
The Son is mediator and surety for them....(opps...those terms are not in this passage either)...He says...I will in no wise cast out.
The Spirit brings them effectually....ie shall come....
Jesus comes as the elect Servant....(oh no....language from Isa: 40-66)
To do the will of the Father........accomplish the planned and promised REDEMPTION.....I did it again...I used a word not mentioned in the text????
He willingly obeyed the terms of the needed covenant.

You have danced all around my point and not answered it at all. Let me rephrase.

Where in John 6 is any mention of a covenant? I'm not asking for the term covenant or the term redemption. I'm simply asking for something in John 6 about a covenant, which of course, is an agreement. Where is there an agreement of any kind in John 6?

If you isolate books and do not see the bible as a whole....you will resist and teach falsely on these things everytime.....I will never abandon these truths although I have much more to learn about them moving forward.

I really don't think I "isolate books and do not see the bible [sic] as a whole."

 

[John of Japan]

Of course - but
thread was opened to continue the discussion of the teaching you started in a previous thread.
I have tried to stay on topic & discuss points that you indicated were the dispensations.
You did agree that "conscience" did not end with the end of the dispensation.

I understood that you were on the forum partly in a teaching capacity, & your concern in the previous thread was to teach a correct view of dispensationalism, rather than the commonly received view.

Yes, that was my purpose in the previous thread. I think it went well, and I hope people on the BB are now better educated about the theology.

You rarely interact positively - it seems you like to treat us as your students & criticize matters of detail rather than the theology under discussion.

It's a debate forum. I wasn't aware that interacting positively was part of the debate process.

Look, I oppose as a basic principle the type of hermeneutics that you and other preterists engage in. I believe with all of my heart in grammatical-historical interpretation, and the positions of amil, postmil, preterism, covenant theology, and similar positions do not do that kind of interpretation. You simply cannot do literal interpretation and come out with any of these positions. I am passionate about taking the Bible for exactly what it says, but you guys don't do that. So if my passion offends you, I'm sorry, but I will never change.

I'm still flabbergasted that Icon was offended that I told you guys you do allegorical interpretation. Anyone who has studied hermeneutics would say exactly the same thing.

P. S. I did praise your obviously diligent habits of study recently. Perhaps you did not notice it.

 

[agedman]

One of the remarkable aspects of the discussion on the thread is that points of view are taken seriously enough that folks are engaging in almost emotionless discussion.

This is important because there is little thought in emotionalism, and the thinking level this thread has engaged is similar to what I experienced in the undergrad classrooms as teacher(s) and students would challenge each other on the strengths and weaknesses of some matter.

Please continue this enlightening discussion!

I am getting a good work done to both memory and recall.

 

[prophecy70]

You simply cannot do literal interpretation and come out with any of these positions.

No one did a literal interpretation until the 1800s to come up with the conclusion of dispensationalism?

 

[Jerome]

Baptist pastor Morgan Edwards (1722-1795), from his work Res Sacrae:

"Miserable work do the Antimillenarians make of these texts....Literal millennarianism alone will do justice to these texts and many others"

"Another event prior to the Millennium is the binding of Satan and shutting him up in the abyss for a thousand years (Rev. xx. 1, 2, 3.). ...Poor work do the Antimillenarians or spiritualizing Millenarians (who are much the same) make of this matter: They say that the devil was bound when Christ came in the flesh....but if the Devil has not been loose these thousand years past, and for seven hundred and forty–two years besides, he never was loose in his life."

 

[John of Japan]

No one did a literal interpretation until the 1800s to come up with the conclusion of dispensationalism?

Isaac Watts did. Justin Martyr did. Many other theologians acknowledged the existence of dispensations in the Bible. But on the other hand, if you really want to go down this road, no one came up with covenant theology until Kaspar Olevianus (1536-1587). So any argument against dispensationalism or premillennialism or covenant theology, for that matter, that begins with "...didn't until..." is invalid.

 

[John of Japan]

No one did a literal interpretation until the 1800s to come up with the conclusion of dispensationalism?

To add a little more hermeneutics history to this, everyone interpreted literally but Clement of Alexandria until Origen, but Origen's view did not become popular. Augustine then in the late 4th-early 5th century. After that, the Catholic religion happened in the 6th century, and they all followed Augustine. When the Reformation came along, the reformers interpreted literally--but pretty much ignored prophecy. Gradually after the Reformation various individuals began to interpret literally, as has been noted on this thread, until in the early 19th century literal interpretation broke free and prospered.

 

[Iconoclast]

John of Japan,

You have danced all around my point and not answered it at all. Let me rephrase.

I have answered you quite directly...maybe I could clarify more for you.
The reason you are not seeing it , is your flawed way of viewing and understanding scripture does not allow for it. I will attempt to show it now...

Where in John 6 is any mention of a covenant? I'm not asking for the term covenant or the term redemption. I'm simply asking for something in John 6 about a covenant, which of course, is an agreement. Where is there an agreement of any kind in John 6?

First off Jesus refers to the manna from the first Exodus...but describes Himself as the True, or Spiritual manna from the New Exodus...

32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven;
The Manna...was real, and physical...yet it was only the shadow..Jesus is now going to explain what was and is taking place...the Spiritual reality....The Literal truth is Spiritual...not the physical.

Notice earlier you said this;

Look, I oppose as a basic principle the type of hermeneutics that you and other preterists engage in. I believe with all of my heart in grammatical-historical interpretation, and the positions of amil, postmil, preterism, covenant theology, and similar positions do not do that kind of interpretation. You simply cannot do literal interpretation and come out with any of these positions.

I am passionate about taking the Bible for exactly what it says, but you guys don't do that. So if my passion offends you, I'm sorry, but I will never change.

I'm still flabbergasted that Icon was offended that I told you guys you do allegorical interpretation. Anyone who has studied hermeneutics would say exactly the same thing.

Jesus was correcting and teaching those who tried to keep things, literal and physical...[like you do]....or like the woman at the well in jn4;

11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?
13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:

14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

15 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.


He was showing that the LITERAL TRUTH IS SPIRITUAL, not allegorical, but Spiritual.....observe

26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

33, For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven and giveth life unto the world.

Jesus is revealing Spiritual truth, part of an "agreement"...with the Father
The Son is sent....From the Father [incarnation]
The Son is sent for a purpose....
The Son provides meat which endures to everlasting life...
The Son provides Living Water...
The Son is The TRUE Manna...
The Son came to do"the Fathers will"

In post 68....I showed how the Trinity was involved in the planning and accomplishing of redemption....not in detail, but it is obvious to anyone who wants to see it...

I will expand on what I offered in post #68

The Father elects,....gives a multitude to the Son....

watch now....
36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me;

1]WHEN do you think the Father gives these described as ALL?
2] How is He certain they will come?
3] Does the Spirit insure this?
You asked;

Where is there an agreement of any kind in John 6

4]Are you suggesting that there was no agreement of any kind before Jesus was sent?

5] Are you suggesting Jesus was sent in the incarnation with no agreement or purpose, but that purpose was revealed later on?

6]Do you not think that would be strange since gal 4:4 tells us why He was sent, and for what reason....?
4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

7] When Jesus reveals the Father, and His Father's business, did he make it up? or was it agreed upon?
8]Could this be the elusive Covenant you do not see, being spoken of and revealed?






The Son is mediator and surety for them....(opps...those terms are not in this passage either)...He says...I will in no wise cast out.
The Spirit brings them effectually....ie shall come....
Jesus comes as the elect Servant....(oh no....language from Isa: 40-66)
To do the will of the Father........accomplish the planned and promised REDEMPTION.....I did it again...I used a word not mentioned in the text????
He willingly obeyed the terms of the needed covenant.

I asked you a few questions;

↑Icon said;
So....you believe in the Covenant of Redemption as taught by Covenant Theologians ? The term is not there but the teaching certainly is....

JOJ said
Nope, don't believe it. Why should I when it is nowhere described per se in the Bible,

I really don't think I "isolate books and do not see the bible [sic] as a whole."

Looks like you do..as you see no Covenant of Redemption in the three books mentioned....I find that stunning....more stunning then when you say you are flabbergasted at how we interpret scripture.

 

[John of Japan]

John of Japan,

I have answered you quite directly...maybe I could clarify more for you.
The reason you are not seeing it , is your flawed way of viewing and understanding scripture does not allow for it. I will attempt to show it now...

First off Jesus refers to the manna from the first Exodus...but describes Himself as the True, or Spiritual manna from the New Exodus...

32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven;
The Manna...was real, and physical...yet it was only the shadow..Jesus is now going to explain what was and is taking place...the Spiritual reality....The Literal truth is Spiritual...not the physical.

Notice earlier you said this;

The manna/bread is a type. A type is a figure of speech. Yet you continually try to make figures of speech into allegorical/spiritual interpretation. I do wish you'd figure out what figures of speech are. I see that I need to do an entire thread on the subject, since you preterists just don't understand them.

Jesus was correcting and teaching those who tried to keep things, literal and physical...[like you do]....or like the woman at the well in jn4;

11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?
13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:

14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

15 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.


He was showing that the LITERAL TRUTH IS SPIRITUAL, not allegorical, but Spiritual.....observe

Again, with the woman at the well, Jesus was using a metaphor, which is a figure of speech. Simply because the lady did not understand the metaphor, Jesus had to explain it. That is not "spiritual interpretaion.

26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

33, For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven and giveth life unto the world.

Jesus is revealing Spiritual truth, part of an "agreement"...with the Father
The Son is sent....From the Father [incarnation]
The Son is sent for a purpose....
The Son provides meat which endures to everlasting life...
The Son provides Living Water...
The Son is The TRUE Manna...
The Son came to do"the Fathers will"

Again, Jesus was using metaphors. This is not an excuse for "spiritual" interpretation in any way, shape or form.

In post 68....I showed how the Trinity was involved in the planning and accomplishing of redemption....not in detail, but it is obvious to anyone who wants to see it...

I will expand on what I offered in post #68

The Father elects,....gives a multitude to the Son....

watch now....
36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me;

1]WHEN do you think the Father gives these described as ALL?
2] How is He certain they will come?
3] Does the Spirit insure this?
You asked;

Well all of this is quite obvious. I have been redeemed and believe in it. But there is not proof of a covenant here.

4]Are you suggesting that there was no agreement of any kind before Jesus was sent?

5] Are you suggesting Jesus was sent in the incarnation with no agreement or purpose, but that purpose was revealed later on?

Now you are putting words in my mouth, and I hate that. I believe there was no agreement, but there was a purpose.

6]Do you not think that would be strange since gal 4:4 tells us why He was sent, and for what reason....?
4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

7] When Jesus reveals the Father, and His Father's business, did he make it up? or was it agreed upon?
8]Could this be the elusive Covenant you do not see, being spoken of and revealed?

Like that old commercial used to say, "Where's the beef?" So, where's the covenant? You have given no Scripture yet indicating some kind of agreement between anyone for a "covenant" of redemption.

God is a unity. He doesn't have to agree with Himself. He doesn't have to agree with mankind, either.

Looks like you do..as you see no Covenant of Redemption in the three books mentioned....I find that stunning....more stunning then when you say you are flabbergasted at how we interpret scripture.

I'm still flabbergasted. Over and over you refer to simple figures of speech as "spiritual." You don't even appear to understand plain English figures of speech.

 

[Yeshua1]

The manna/bread is a type. A type is a figure of speech. Yet you continually try to make figures of speech into allegorical/spiritual interpretation. I do wish you'd figure out what figures of speech are. I see that I need to do an entire thread on the subject, since you preterists just don't understand them.



Again, with the woman at the well, Jesus was using a metaphor, which is a figure of speech. Simply because the lady did not understand the metaphor, Jesus had to explain it. That is not "spiritual interpretaion.


Again, Jesus was using metaphors. This is not an excuse for "spiritual" interpretation in any way, shape or form.


Well all of this is quite obvious. I have been redeemed and believe in it. But there is not proof of a covenant here.

Now you are putting words in my mouth, and I hate that. I believe there was no agreement, but there was a purpose.


Like that old commercial used to say, "Where's the beef?" So, where's the covenant? You have given no Scripture yet indicating some kind of agreement between anyone for a "covenant" of redemption.

God is a unity. He doesn't have to agree with Himself. He doesn't have to agree with mankind, either.

I'm still flabbergasted. Over and over you refer to simple figures of speech as "spiritual." You don't even appear to understand plain English figures of speech.

Recognizing the genres and speech types used in the scripture is not spiritually understanding them, but in a literal fashion!

 

[John of Japan]

Recognizing the genres and speech types used in the scripture is not spiritually understanding them, but in a literal fashion!

Yes, literal interpretation of figures of speech.

In fact, it is basic linguistics. All linguists know about figures of speech. Many of them are defined in the various dictionaries of linguistics. No one can claim to know anything about language (and hermeneutics is all about language) without understanding figures of speech.