Name That Figure of Speech

[Iconoclast]

Okay.
Well, of course. But then in that case we are still interpreting literally. Heaven is a literal, physical place. When my grandfather's book on Heaven was published by Moody Press back in the 1940's, he insisted they capitalize Heaven because it is a literal place just like New York is.
Again, just because something is spiritual does not mean it is not literal and not physical.

Now you are getting into dangerous territory. Figures of speech are not to illustrate concealed truth but revealed truth.
Spiritual, literal, and non-allegorical. Those were real Gentiles. So what is your point?

James saw gentiles being saved as a fulfillment of Amos prophecy.
When gentiles believed in Jesus how do you believe it was the rebuilding of the the tabernacle of David?

 

[Iconoclast]

John,
I am not sure that anyone reading Amos 9 before the cross would have seen it as James does in Acts 15.

 

[Darrell C]

"Quick" is a Middle English adjective for "living" (not the noun "life"). I don't see your stated union in this verse. That would be an allegorical interpretation to me.

Right, the living have life, as opposed to what I see in view here, which is physical death.

Again, the "soul" being the person, which is used primarily in regards to men who are still in their bodies (though we see "souls," persons in Heaven in Revelation), and the spirit being separated from their physical functionality.

This meaning is seen throughout Scripture. And I would just ask, don't you think knowing which (if one did embrace a trichotomy) is in view would be critical to understanding certain texts?

Secondly, I would just ask, what do you look at the statement that the Word of God is "living" as meaning? Would you consider John 1 an allegory?

The Greek word for "dividing asunder" is merismos, defined by the Friberg Analytical Lexicon: "as a process dividing up, division, separation." Thus, my translation would use the term "dividing point." The metaphor is a sharp, two-edged sword, which can pierce right down into the bone. So the metaphorical point is that there is within a human a place where the spirit and soul are joined together eternally. In other words, the spirit and soul, though one, are distinct. The Word of God brings conviction to the soul, and the spirit can thus be caused to live. (It is dead in a lost person.)

Hebrews 4:12
King James Version (KJV)

12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Just pulling that back up to have the key verse in view.

I can't really give a physical context to the metaphor of the sword, because what is in view is spiritual, dealing with the inner man. It gives a picture represented with the concept of a sword being used to cut into a man, but that would be as far as I would go, seeing only "the joints and marrow" giving a glimpse of the physical body, and this in a state of death.

I have given the links for "joints and marrow" in the above verse. Best as I can make out, joints could be viewed as a reference to the body, and marrow (this word used only here in the New Testament and in Job 21:24 in the Septuagint) has, from my perspective, an implication of "that which is within." If this is the case, then again we see physical death and the separation of the spirit from the "person." Just take a look at these and the root for "marrow" and let me know what you think.

The Word of God brings conviction to the soul, and the spirit can thus be caused to live. (It is dead in a lost person.)

Exactly. Except instead of seeing "soul" as an inner aspect of man, I view it as the persons themselves, which doesn't come into conflict with this passage or any other.

"The Word of God brings conviction to the person, and he/she remains alive physically." As opposed to eternal judgment being in view for the spirit. Spirits do not die, but the soul can die (i.e., "Thy soul shall be required of thee this night). The penalty for violating the Word of God relevant to the Hebrews would have been physical death. Remission of sin was accomplished on a physical and temporal plane, men did not gain eternal life because they kept the Word of GOd, or if they offered up sacrifice for sin.

Okay, sorry for digging into this, just hoping you could give it a look and see what you think.


God bless.

 

[Iconoclast]

Here we see our premillinial friend Alva Mcclain explain the problem as he interacts with O.Allis{amill}

The literal method. Probably this method has never been stated better than by Ellicott: “The true and honest method of interpreting the Word of God [is] the literal, historical, and grammatical.”

He gives an opinion...

This method, as its adherents have explained times without number, leaves room for all the devices and nuances of language, including the use of figure, metaphor, simile, symbol and allegory. in their criticism of this literal method, most of its critics have been guilty of a “crasser literalism” than ever used by any reputable adherent of the method in its application to the Word of God.

He mentions the same literary figures that the Postmill and Amill use....but no one accuses him of spiritualiziing

Certainly the literal method is not without its problems, but these problems are only such as naturally arise out of the nature of human language.

opinion....

Basically the method is extremely simple. For example, Psalm 72:6 speaks of the Messianic King as follows: “He shall come down like rain upon the mown grass.” Here we have a literal coming—the Lord “shall come down.” Also the effect of his coming is literal, although in this case it is described by a simile—”like rain upon the mown grass.”

He describes....a literal coming...THAT IS NOT A BODILY COMING When a postmill describes the coming in judgment in 70 ad[ as a non literal coming]...He is said to be spiritualizing

If you have ever seen the glorious effect of a summer shower coming down on a field of grass which, has been cut, then you will have some idea of what the literal effect of our Lord’s coming will be upon a troubled world.

again the postmill would be accused of spiritualizing....

Of course, if you wish to depart from simple common sense, you can say that in this text “grass” stands for the church at Pentecost; “mown” stands for the unsanctified state of the disciples upon that occasion; and, the “rain” stands for the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Now he gives an example without any biblical foundation as if to answer the many that have a biblical foundation.....

Once launched on the sea of conjecture, it is not surprising that interpreters finally arrive at strange ports, as far removed from reality as the “beautiful isle of somewhere.

[/QUOTE]
By making the caricature he thinks he has won the day...but he avoided the issue.

 

[Iconoclast]

earlier he avoids the language of the sun,moon ,and stars by simply skipping over it with the dubious double fulfillment scheme...

Thus the student may find a prophecy referring to some event in the near future connected with the historical phase of the kingdom, and also to some far off event connected with the Messiah and his millennial kingdom. When the first event arrives it becomes the earnest and divine forecast of the more distant and final event. An excellent example may be found in Isaiah 13:17—14:4, a prediction which begins with the defeat of Babylon by the Medes, and moves from that point immediately to a Babylon of the end-time. The same phenomenon may be observed in prophecies of the coming of the Messianic King, which New Testament history “outrolls” into two advents greatly separated in time. Such a view of prophecy does not mean an abandonment of its literality, as some have argued. The double prediction is literal, and is to be literally fulfilled:

 

[John of Japan]

James saw gentiles being saved as a fulfillment of Amos prophecy.
When gentiles believed in Jesus how do you believe it was the rebuilding of the the tabernacle of David?

That's not how I approach the Scriptures. The first task is exegesis. Until you have done the hard work, your interpretation will be shallow.

For example, before answering your question about the Gentiles, what do Amos and James mean by the "tabernacle of David"? To discover that, we must look at the Hebrew. What is a tabernacle, exactly?

 

[John of Japan]

John,
I am not sure that anyone reading Amos 9 before the cross would have seen it as James does in Acts 15.

That's the whole point of prophecy.

 

[John of Japan]

He mentions the same literary figures that the Postmill and Amill use....but no one accuses him of spiritualiziing

You still don't get it, though I have tried to explain it many times--hence this very thread. The postmil and amil positions depend on a non-literal method of hermeneutics for most prophetic passages. Period. End of story.

I now have no idea how to get across these basic hermeneutical principles to you. Apparently, you stubbornly cling to the notion that you are somehow doing grammatical-historical hermeneutics in your postmil position. Will you please just read a basic textbook on hermeneutics, or something? Just try to figure this out, because you haven't yet and I can't make you understand.

He describes....a literal coming...THAT IS NOT A BODILY COMING When a postmill describes the coming in judgment in 70 ad[ as a non literal coming]...He is said to be spiritualizing

You completely misunderstand McClain's point. He is arguing for Ps. 72 as prophesying the literal and physical Davidic reign of Christ on earth during the millennium.

 

[John of Japan]

This meaning is seen throughout Scripture. And I would just ask, don't you think knowing which (if one did embrace a trichotomy) is in view would be critical to understanding certain texts?

If you are asking if a trichotomist should distinguish soul and spirit when interpreting certain texts, absolutely. That is the very heart of trichotomy.

Secondly, I would just ask, what do you look at the statement that the Word of God is "living" as meaning? Would you consider John 1 an allegory?

Again, "living" is a metaphor in Heb. 4:12. The written Word of God acts like a living being within the heart when read and understood.

I have given the links for "joints and marrow" in the above verse. Best as I can make out, joints could be viewed as a reference to the body, and marrow (this word used only here in the New Testament and in Job 21:24 in the Septuagint) has, from my perspective, an implication of "that which is within." If this is the case, then again we see physical death and the separation of the spirit from the "person." Just take a look at these and the root for "marrow" and let me know what you think.

I look at "joints and marrow" as literal, actual joints and marrow, but continuing the metaphor of the sword. When one strikes with a sharp two-edged sword, he can cut to the very bone, even down to where the bone meets the marrow. Any more than that, to me, carries the metaphor too far. Remember, we don't create doctrine from figures of speech.

 

[Darrell C]

I look at "joints and marrow" as literal, actual joints and marrow, but continuing the metaphor of the sword. When one strikes with a sharp two-edged sword, he can cut to the very bone, even down to where the bone meets the marrow. Any more than that, to me, carries the metaphor too far.

But you have to make "joints" mean bone, rather than joints. That's one of the reasons why I think the implication of physical death is in view. "Joints" being a reference to that which is joined (which pictures the physical body and the spirit, as does "soul/person" and spirit), and that which is within.

We have the physical and the spiritual (the spirit) implied in both.

And again, the Word of God is said to cause death.

It all fits.

Remember, we don't create doctrine from figures of speech.

I don't really see understanding the figurative language as describing death caused by the Word of God as creating doctrine. All elements suggested are supported by Scripture.

And while I agree we may not create doctrine with figurative language, certainly we can support and understand doctrine better in the lessons taught that employ figurative language.

Ok, I am satisfied we cannot pursue this any further, so thanks for taking a look.


God bless.

 

[John of Japan]

But you have to make "joints" mean bone, rather than joints.

Funny. I always thought joints were made of bone.

 

[Darrell C]

Funny. I always thought joints were made of bone.

No, they are what connect the bone.

Joints may be classified functionally based upon how much movement they allow.

• A joint that permits no movement is known as a synarthrosis. The sutures of the skull and the gomphoses that connect the teeth to the skull are examples of synarthroses.
• An amphiarthrosis allows a slight amount of movement at the joint. Examples of amphiarthroses include the intervertebral disks of the spine and the pubic symphysis of the hips.
• The third functional class of joints is the freely movable diarthrosis joints. Diarthroses have the highest range of motion of any joint and include the elbow, knee, shoulder, and wrist.

Joints may also be classified structurally based upon what kind of material is present in the joint.

• Fibrous joints are made of tough collagen fibers and include the sutures of the skull and the syndesmosis joint that holds the ulna and radius of the forearm together.
• Cartilaginous joints are made of a band of cartilage that binds bones together. Some examples of cartilaginous joints include joints between the ribs and costal cartilage, and the intervertebral disks of the spine.
• The most common type of joint, the synovial joint, features a fluid-filled space between smooth cartilage pads at the end of articulating bones. Surrounding the joint is a capsule of tough dense irregular connective tissue lined with synovial membrane. The outer layer of capsule may extend into thick, strong bands called ligaments that reinforce the joint and prevent undesired movements and dislocations. Synovial membrane lining the capsule produces the oily synovial fluid that lubricates the joint and reduces friction and wear.
  
  
  

God bless.

 

[John of Japan]

No, they are what connect the bone.

Joints may be classified functionally based upon how much movement they allow.

• A joint that permits no movement is known as a synarthrosis. The sutures of the skull and the gomphoses that connect the teeth to the skull are examples of synarthroses.
• An amphiarthrosis allows a slight amount of movement at the joint. Examples of amphiarthroses include the intervertebral disks of the spine and the pubic symphysis of the hips.
• The third functional class of joints is the freely movable diarthrosis joints. Diarthroses have the highest range of motion of any joint and include the elbow, knee, shoulder, and wrist.

Joints may also be classified structurally based upon what kind of material is present in the joint.

• Fibrous joints are made of tough collagen fibers and include the sutures of the skull and the syndesmosis joint that holds the ulna and radius of the forearm together.
• Cartilaginous joints are made of a band of cartilage that binds bones together. Some examples of cartilaginous joints include joints between the ribs and costal cartilage, and the intervertebral disks of the spine.
• The most common type of joint, the synovial joint, features a fluid-filled space between smooth cartilage pads at the end of articulating bones. Surrounding the joint is a capsule of tough dense irregular connective tissue lined with synovial membrane. The outer layer of capsule may extend into thick, strong bands called ligaments that reinforce the joint and prevent undesired movements and dislocations. Synovial membrane lining the capsule produces the oily synovial fluid that lubricates the joint and reduces friction and wear.
  
  
  

God bless.

Your point is aptly made. But I just have to ask, did the Greek speakers of the 1st century know all of this?

 

[Darrell C]

Your point is aptly made. But I just have to ask, did the Greek speakers of the 1st century know all of this?

I doubt they were as articulate in knowledge as the article presents, but...they did know there were joints and marrow, lol.

As one holding to a dichotomy, I am sure you can understand the reason for looking at the figurative speech of that verse a little closer. I think that they probably understood anatomy better than some might think. Their healing procedures left quite a bit to be desired, lol, but, we have to recognize inspiration. It's like Eve's creation, God didn't have Adam bite on a stick while He performed surgery, right?


God bless.

 

[Iconoclast]

"John of Japan

Hello John....

You completely misunderstand McClain's point. He is arguing for Ps. 72 as prophesying the literal and physical Davidic reign of Christ on earth during the millennium.

I did misunderstand McClain's point in the first half of it,lol.
I have to give you that one...haha...I read the premill writer with a post/amill train of thought.

So he is not seeing this as accomplished at the first coming
He just relegates the effects of the "future coming" to the simile...lol.

You had recommended him as more in line with up to date thought on these issues.
I understand he is premillenial dispensational
I like parts of what he offers. I think he is trying to make a biblical case for his view. That is all we can ask of a person...
What I find interesting is how the passages we view of necessity have to have some level of agreement....and then the disagreement portion.

Yes....He is suggesting a literal and physical Davidic reign of Christ on earth during the Millenium....

So do the Postmill men.....

The difference is in the timing and sequence....They believe the Kingdom has started.
Jesus has already come down in the incarnation.
He has inaugurated the Kingdom reign....it is growing as the mustard seed.

I like where he says....and describes the effect of the Kingdom , which he describes this way...

For example, Psalm 72:6 speaks of the Messianic King as follows: “He shall come down like rain upon the mown grass.” Here we have a literal coming—the Lord “shall come down.”

Also the effect of his coming is literal, although in this case it is described by a simile—”like rain upon the mown grass.” If you have ever seen the glorious effect of a summer shower coming down on a field of grass which, has been cut, then you will have some idea of what the literal effect of our Lord’s coming will be upon a troubled world.

I liked how he recognized the language of the simile had a literal meaning...In the same way postmill writers whenever they make use of the literary devices always intend a literal meaning.

Nothing in the text says anything to say the Kingdom is a future thousand year Kingdom.

 

[Iconoclast]

That's not how I approach the Scriptures. The first task is exegesis. Until you have done the hard work, your interpretation will be shallow.

For example, before answering your question about the Gentiles, what do Amos and James mean by the "tabernacle of David"? To discover that, we must look at the Hebrew. What is a tabernacle, exactly?

John, I notice the Apostles did not suggest looking up the word tabernacle.
Here we see they understood the fulfillment of this Amos 9 quote as the great influx of gentiles coming into the church on equal footing with jewish believers, the plowman shall overtake the reapers....

For what it is worth Vine says this;
Tabernacle - Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words


(f) the house of David, i.e., metaphorically of his people, Acts 15:16;

There is no suggestion of anything future from Acts 15....other than the full amount of the sheep being gathered.

I now have no idea how to get across these basic hermeneutical principles to you. Apparently, you stubbornly cling to the notion that you are somehow doing grammatical-historical hermeneutics in your postmil position.

I believe I am John. You and others think that a person has to go off the rails like Origen did to consider anything that deals with literary devices...
Here McClain says this;

Of course, if you wish to depart from simple common sense, you can say that in this text “grass” stands for the church at Pentecost; “mown” stands for the unsanctified state of the disciples upon that occasion; and, the “rain” stands for the gift of the Holy Spirit. Once launched on the sea of conjecture, it is not surprising that interpreters finally arrive at strange ports, as far removed from reality as the “beautiful isle of somewhere.”

Most postmill writers are not just assigning random conjecture to prophecy...they are using the language of scripture to interpret scripture...

 

[John of Japan]

Yes....He is suggesting a literal and physical Davidic reign of Christ on earth during the Millenium....

So do the Postmill men.....

Wait. Really? Never heard of this one. So you believe that Christ is now ruling on earth physically, but then someday He will physically come to earth in the second coming (which is after the millennium in your scheme)? Clue me in. Just how does Christ physically do this?

The difference is in the timing and sequence....They believe the Kingdom has started.
Jesus has already come down in the incarnation.
He has inaugurated the Kingdom reign....it is growing as the mustard seed.

You realize that the mustard seed story is a parable, right? And thus just an illustration, right? And it is poor hermeneutics to try to form doctrine out of parables and other figures of speech.

Nothing in the text says anything to say the Kingdom is a future thousand year Kingdom.

Try this in Ps. 72:

8 He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.
9 They that dwell in the wilderness shall bow before him; and his enemies shall lick the dust.
10 The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents: the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts.
11 Yea, all kings shall fall down before him: all nations shall serve him.

None of this has every happened in history. Therefore it is prophecy, which is--wait for it--about future events!

 

[John of Japan]

John, I notice the Apostles did not suggest looking up the word tabernacle.

It sounds like you are actually suggesting that knowing the meaning of the original words is useless or unnecessary. Please, say it isn't so. You can't understand Acts 15 without understanding the full meaning of "tabernacle." Compare to the actual tabernacle David built in the OT--figure out the two Hebrew words for tabernacle.

Most postmill writers are not just assigning random conjecture to prophecy...they are using the language of scripture to interpret scripture...

No, most postmil writers are completely out of date. "Postmillennialism is no longer an issue in theology. World War II brought about the demise of this system. Its collapse may be attributed to (1) the inherent weakness of postmillennialism in that, based on the spiritualizing principles of interpretation, there was no coherence in it; (2) the trend toward liberalism, which postmillennialism could not meet, because of its spiritualizing principles of interpretation; (3) its failure to fit the facts of history" and etc. (Things to Come, J. Dwight Pentecost, p. 386).

The liberals abandoned the postmil position because of WW2. Now that Boettner is dead, the only ones who hold to it (post-Dwight P., so he did not write about them) are the "Christian Reconstructionists," who are not Baptist and have no real scholars on their side. You really need to abandon this outmoded and unbiblical system.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I'm a bit like the Prince of Venice in Romeo and Juliet here. I want to shout, "A plague on both your [Post- and Pre-mil] houses!" But I can't let this post go by.

Wait. Really? Never heard of this one. So you believe that Christ is now ruling on earth physically, but then someday He will physically come to earth in the second coming (which is after the millennium in your scheme)? Clue me in. Just how does Christ physically do this?

Icon will answer for himself on this, but I don't think He was suggesting that Christ has now a bodily presence on earth, but that He is right now reigning over the earth.

You realize that the mustard seed story is a parable, right? And thus just an illustration, right? And it is poor hermeneutics to try to form doctrine out of parables and other figures of speech.

I will agree that parable must not be taken too literally but they have a meaning. And the meaning of the Parable of the Mustard Seed is that the KoG starts very small and grows to a great size. Christ will build His Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

Try this in Ps. 72:

OK.

8 He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.

"All authority has been given [past tense] to Me in heaven and on earth." What is left from 'all' that will be given to Christ In your millennium that He has not already received?

9 They that dwell in the wilderness shall bow before him; and his enemies shall lick the dust.

Like the mustard seed, the KoG has been growing ever since Pentecost. And people in the most obscure places have been coming to Christ and the pagan priests and witch doctors have been repenting and burning their books and spells. This is still going on today.

10 The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents: the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts.
11 Yea, all kings shall fall down before him: all nations shall serve him.

There will be no 'literal' fulfilment of this because these countries no longer exist, but if we understand that it is poetry and therefore figurative, it is something that has been going on for a long time, and reach its conclusion when Christ returns in glory at the end of the age. No 'thousand-year reign' is necessary. 'His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed' (Daniel 7:14).

None of this has every happened in history. Therefore it is prophecy, which is--wait for it--about future events!

It's going on right now, in India, China, Nepal, Africa, South America....... even in the midst of apostasy and persecution.[/QUOTE]

 

[John of Japan]

For what it is worth Vine says this;
Tabernacle - Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words

By he way, as I hope you realize, Vine's does not deal with the OT words for "tabernacle," since he was a NT guy. Until you understand the Hebrew used by Amos, you will not understand the quote by James in Acts 15.