TIP OF THE DAY 109: Doctrinal disputes arising from figures of speech
I am adding these posts to the previous tip list L/V 10 Tip of the Day
QUESTION: How can a figure of speech, e.g. metaphor, become a theological dispute?
ANSWER: from Perplexity:
In Christian theology, the metaphor of father-son in the divine Trinity has been a subject of much debate and reflection among Bible scholars. The question of whether the divine relationship serves as a model for human relationships or vice versa is complex and has been approached from different perspectives.
The Divine as Model for the Human
Many theologians argue that the divine Father-Son relationship within the Trinity serves as the ultimate model for human father-son relationships. This view is based on the following considerations:
Eternal Nature: The Father-Son relationship in the Trinity is seen as eternal and perfect, existing before creation. This suggests that it is the original and ideal form of the father-son relationship.
Essential Equality: While there is a functional subordination of the Son to the Father in the Trinity, there is also an essential equality between them. This provides a model for human relationships that balance authority and equality.
Perfect Love: The relationship between the Father and Son in the Trinity is characterized by perfect love and unity, which human relationships should strive to emulate.
The Human as Model for the Divine
Some scholars argue that human father-son relationships serve as a metaphor to help us understand the divine relationship:
Anthropomorphic Language: The use of human familial terms like "Father" and "Son" to describe God is seen by some as an accommodation to human understanding.
Cultural Context: The father-son metaphor is understood in light of ancient Near Eastern cultural norms, where sons were often seen as subordinate to fathers.
Scholarly Positions
Different scholars have taken varying positions on this issue:
Augustine of Hippo: Emphasized the eternal generation of the Son from the Father, suggesting the divine relationship as the model.
Bruce Ware: Argues for an eternal functional subordination of the Son to the Father, seeing this as a model for human relationships.
Kevin Giles: Opposes the idea of eternal subordination, emphasizing the equality within the Trinity.
John Calvin: Viewed the Father-Son relationship as eternal and essential to the nature of God, implying it as the model for human relationships.
Conclusion
The debate over whether the divine Father-Son relationship is the model for human relationships or vice versa remains ongoing in Christian theology. While many scholars lean towards the divine as the ultimate model, others emphasize the use of human language and concepts to describe the divine. The complexity of this issue reflects the broader challenges in understanding and articulating the nature of the Trinity in Christian thought.1
Note: Logos tags son referring to Jesus as metaphoric rather than human sons being tagged as metaphoric with Jesus as son being literal.
QUESTION: List some other examples in which the figurative vs. literal language or the direction of the comparison results in theological disputes.
ANSWER: from Perplexity:
The interpretation of Biblical figurative language has indeed been the basis for numerous doctrinal disputes throughout Christian history. Here are some additional examples:
Creation Account in Genesis
The interpretation of the creation narrative in Genesis 1-2 has been a source of significant debate:
Literal vs. Figurative Interpretation: Some interpret the six days of creation literally as 24-hour periods, while others view them as figurative representations of longer epochs. This debate has implications for understanding the age of the Earth and the relationship between science and faith.
End Times Prophecies
Eschatological passages, particularly in the book of Revelation, have led to various interpretations:
Millennium: The "thousand years" mentioned in Revelation 20 is interpreted literally by some (premillennialism) and figuratively by others (amillennialism). This affects views on Christ's return and the nature of His kingdom.
Rapture: The interpretation of passages like 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 has led to debates about whether there will be a literal "rapture" of believers or if this language is figurative.
Nature of Hell
Descriptions of hell in the Bible have led to doctrinal disagreements:
Eternal Conscious Torment vs. Annihilationism: Some interpret passages about "eternal fire" literally, while others see them as figurative expressions of complete destruction.
Baptism
The mode and meaning of baptism have been disputed based on interpretations of figurative language:
Immersion vs. Sprinkling: The phrase "buried with him in baptism" (Romans 6:4) is taken literally by some to require full immersion, while others see it as a figurative description allowing for other modes.
Lord's Supper / Eucharist
As mentioned in the previous answer, the interpretation of Jesus' words "This is my body" has led to major doctrinal differences:
Transubstantiation vs. Symbolic View: The Catholic view interprets these words literally, while many Protestant traditions see them as figurative.
Predestination and Free Will
Passages using figurative language about God's sovereignty have led to debates:
Calvinism vs. Arminianism: Interpretations of phrases like God "hardening hearts" or "vessels of wrath" in Romans 9 have contributed to disagreements about the nature of predestination and human free will.
These examples demonstrate how the interpretation of figurative language in the Bible can have profound implications for Christian doctrine and practice. The challenge of distinguishing between literal and figurative meanings continues to be a source of theological debate and reflection within Christianity.2
QUESTION: Provide some examples of doctrinal differences arising from differing opinions as to what attributes are the basis of the comparison.
ANSWER: from Perplexity:
You're asking about doctrinal disputes arising from different interpretations of which attributes form the basis of comparison in figurative language. This is indeed a more nuanced and specific question. Here are some examples of such disputes:
The Church as Christ's Body
Paul's metaphor of the church as the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:12-27) has led to various interpretations based on which attributes are seen as the primary basis for comparison:
Unity vs. Diversity: Some interpreters emphasize the unity aspect of the body, focusing on how all parts work together. Others prioritize the diversity of functions, stressing the unique roles of individual members.
Organizational Structure vs. Spiritual Interconnectedness: Some view the metaphor as primarily about church hierarchy and organization, while others see it as emphasizing the spiritual connection between believers.
The Fatherhood of God
The metaphor of God as Father has led to doctrinal disputes based on which attributes of fatherhood are seen as the basis for comparison:
Authority vs. Nurture: Some traditions emphasize God's fatherly authority and discipline, while others focus on His nurturing and protective aspects.
Biological vs. Relational: Debates arise over whether the metaphor is primarily about God's role in creation (biological fatherhood) or His relationship with believers (adoptive fatherhood).
The Bride of Christ
The church described as the Bride of Christ (Ephesians 5:22-33) has led to different interpretations based on which aspects of marriage are seen as central to the comparison:
Submission vs. Intimacy: Some emphasize the bride's submission to Christ, while others focus on the intimate, loving relationship between Christ and the church.
Purity vs. Unity: Debates arise over whether the metaphor primarily emphasizes the church's need for moral purity or its unity with Christ.
These examples demonstrate how interpreting the basis of comparison in biblical metaphors can lead to significant doctrinal differences. The challenge lies in discerning which attributes the original authors intended to emphasize, while recognizing that multiple aspects may be relevant to the comparison.
QUESTION: What steps does one take in Bible study to identify language as figurative and to correctly choose among the multiple interpretations of that figurative language?
ANSWER: drawn from multiple sources
If it is a logical impossibility, assume it is figurative e.g. "You are the salt of the earth" - Matthew 5:13).
If it is a commonly used figure of speech, assume it is figurative e.g. “good shepherd.”
In context of the overall topic being discussed, is this more likely literal or figurative?
If it is figurative, can you identify the figure (or trope) being used?
Within that figure can you identify all the elements – think part and whole, or like attribute.?
Are there additional ways the figure could be described or its elements identified?
Verify that the interpretation you are giving the figure is compatible with the whole message of Scripture.
Use commentaries covering as much history and geography as possible to explore the reception history, i.e. how others have interpreted the figure.
Never mindlessly accept the Logos coding of figurative language. It is inherently theological.
Note in apologetics and polemics, always check for differences in the interpretation of figurative language as a possible root cause of a difference in doctrine.
1 and and and https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/distinguishing-among-the-three-persons-of-the-trinity-within-the-reformed-tradition/ and and and and https://www.gty.org/library/articles/A235/reexamining-the-eternal-sonship-of-christ
2 and and and https://navigatingbyfaith.com/2024/04/23/when-jesus-said-literally-not-to-take-him-literally/ and and and and https://www.gci.org/articles/literal-and-figurative/ and and https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/comments/q19k88/what_are_the_most_controversial_and_heatedly/
https://bible.org/seriespage/lesson-5-resolving-doctrinal-differences-church-acts-151-21
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."