BIBLICAL FIGURES OF SPEECH LITERAL OR SYMBOLIC?

[Kat]

I know that when we study the Scriptures there are so many symbols and parables that it can be quite confusing. Then there is the literal and the spiritual and when to take what is being spoken which way. So as I was reviewing this for myself I thought I would post parts of the LOF article 1. 'The Book of Revelation is a Book of Symbols.' Hope this review helps us in our studies.

http://bible-truths.com/lake1.html -----------------------------

It is most important to understand that the study of the Scriptures is not the same as studying a high school or college text book. And if we do not have even an elementary understanding of these many and varied figures of speech, we will hardly be in a position to TEACH God's Word to others.
v
Paul did not instruct Timothy to "STUDY" the scriptures if a mere casual reading is all that is necessary to comprehend its many deep and profound teachings. On the other hand, I believe that those who have "studied" God's Word are able to open up much understanding to those who are not called to teach (even babes, or minors as our Lord stated).
v
"...no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation" (II Pet. 1:20).
The Scriptures themselves really do interpret other Scriptures. This is true for interpreting prophesies and doctrinal issues.

The parables of Jesus are certainly true, but they are not literally true. Example: one cannot possibly put a "beam" (a large piece of lumber) in or out of one's eye, Mat. 7:3-5. The moral of this parable is certainly a great truth. The symbols used to teach that truth (namely a large piece of lumber in one's eye) is, of course, not literally or possibly true. The beam represents a huge character flaw, not foreign matter in one's eye. It's a figure of speech.

We also use such figures dozens of times a day without even realizing it. We say such things as "Don't cry over spilt milk" although we are not literally speaking of crying, nor are we speaking of    milk, but rather of a disappointment that has caused sadness.

When we show our respect for our country's flag, we are not even thinking about respecting a piece of cloth, but rather the nation that the flag represents. A flag is a symbol that represents a nation. A band of gold is just a band of gold, but a wedding ring is symbolic of something much larger, something huge, something GRAND!
v
All languages have many, many figures of speech that are not literally true. And God also uses symbols, figures, idioms, metaphors and parables, over and over in His Word--hundreds and hundreds of times!
v
I want to quickly show my readers just how impossible it is to assume most of God's word is literal.

Again I state: All God's Word is TRUE, however, much of it is figurative language which is not literally true to fact, but rather in what the figurative language of symbols, metaphors, and parables represent.
v
BIBLICAL FIGURES OF SPEECH
Here are some of the fully substantiated figures of language used in Scripture. I borrowed many of these examples from an appendix in the back of The Concordant Literal New Testament.

We will begin with FIGURES OF LIKENESS which include:
--metaphors (where one thing is said to actually be something else) as in, "all life is grass" I Pet. 1:24. Therefore, the subject of this paper IS a metaphor and CANNOT be literal: John says, "...the lake of fire, This IS the second death" (Rev. 20:14), and "...the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which IS the second death" (Rev. 21:08)
--similes (when something is like, or as something else, it is a simile rather than a metaphor)
--implications
--parables (there are many, the shortest one being, "Physician, heal Thyself" Luke 4:23)
--allegories (as in the two women standing for two covenants, Gal. 4:22-28)
--visions (as in a sheet let down from heaven, Acts 10:11-16)
--signs (as in the sign of Jonah the prophet, Matt. 12:39)
--types (as in Adam corresponding with Christ, Rom. 5:12-21)
--shadows (as in the law being a shadow of good things to come, Heb. 10:1)
--examples (as in the tabernacle vessels being examples of what is in heaven , Heb. 9:23)
--images (as Christ is the image of God, Col. 1:15)
--impersonations or personifications (where things are spoken of as persons)
--condescension's (as where God takes on human attributes)
--diminutives (as in "little women, heaped with sins" II Tim. 3:6)

There are FIGURES OF ASSOCIATION which include:
--association or metonymy's

--appellations (as when a quality or office is used instead of a proper name, as in "Son of Mankind" instead of saying Jesus Christ)

--compound associations (as "the word of the cross" I Cor. 1:18, which has to do with Christ's shameful and agonizing death)

--near associations (as in a phrase that is partly literal, "Then went out to Him Jerusalem [that is the people of Jerusalem]", Matt. 3:5)

--retention's (this one is too complicated to explain, but I'll give you an example, "the tablets of the heart" II Cor. 3:3)

--circumlocutions or periphrasis (what is "circumlocution"? Well, it's a descriptive phrase in place of a name in order to emphasize the association. Examples, "the product of the grapevine [though not named is, wine]" Matt. 26:29, "the city of David [though not named is, Bethlehem]" Luke 2:11,

--enigmas, and symbols (where a known object or something else is used to typify something else, or even an intangible quality such as love, power, beauty, etc.)

Here are many of the words from the book of Revelation used as SYMBOLS:
candlesticks
horses
locusts
beasts
birds
animals
dragons
heads
horns
teeth
tails
eyes
mouths
wings
hair
feet
hands
foreheads
odours
books
gold
seals
crowns
names
cities
nations
kings
tongues
Nicolaitans
Antipas
Armageddon
Balaam
Balak
Abaddon
Apollyon
Babylon
Sodom
Egypt
Jezebel
book of life
tree of live
water of life
hours
days
months
seasons
rod of iron
sickle
bow
blades
swords
reap
harvest
grass
trees
thrones
garments
robes
signs
images
wonders
marks
numbers
vials
trumpets
winds
rivers
lakes
seas
waters
clouds
floods
mountains
islands
lightnings
voices
thunders
earthquakes
hails
songs
winepresses
grapes
wine
balances
wheat
barley
oil
eyesalve
pebbles
manna
wreaths
palm fronds
whores
harlots
fornications
keys
doors
temples
synagogues
pillars
rich
poor
blind
naked
hot
cold
lukewarm
blood
deaths
fire
sulfur
brimstone
smoke
sun
moon
stars

There is no mistaking this language. The book of Revelation is written in SYMBOLS! So what is written externally, on paper, in symbols, has a SPIRITUAL meaning and application.
v
And even heaven and earth are used as symbols in this great book of symbols.
v
Now chapter one was pretty easy as God told us just what some of those symbols represented. But there are dozens and dozens more symbols in this book of Revelation that are not explained in the verses that follow immediately. How shall we understand all those symbols. First of all, without the spirit of God, the answer is we will never understand these symbols. But guided by God's spirit, God can show us in other places in His Word what these mysterious symbols represent. It is God Who provides us with "ears to hear and eyes to see."
v
The book of Revelation was "signified" by the use of signs and symbols. Signs and symbols always represent or mean something other than the sign or symbol itself. We are all familiar with symbols and signs so that we should never be confused as to what a sign or symbol is or is not.
v
Be it known however, that the lake of fire and the second death DO INDEED picture something spiritual that relates to or has some properties of, LITERAL FIRE and LITERAL DEATH. Without some similar properties, the metaphor would be meaningless. I have read some extremely complex definitions of a metaphor which were totally wrong. A metaphor is where one thing is said to BE something else. Here's a Scriptural example: "All flesh is grass" (I Pet. 1:24). That's simple enough. Now then, is that statement by Peter true? Yes, of course, it is true. Is it literally true? No, it is not literally true. Then how do we know for sure what there is ABOUT this metaphor that is true? If a metaphor is not literally true, how is it true at all?
v
(Here is an) explanation of a metaphor and see if these things be so or not.

"The lake of fire, which, by virtue of being its cause, thus, represents the second death.

"...the symbolic subject [the lake of fire] is like the literal predicate [the second death]."

When one thing (or things) [in this case the lake of fire] which represents another thing [in this case the second death], is finally said to be that other thing [the second death], whether or not the representative thing itself is a literal entity [second death], in any case, that which it finally represents consists in a literal expression and is a literal entity [a LITERAL second death]."
v
Is it true that one part of a metaphor must be literal or there is no way to understand the metaphor? No, that is not true. Let me give you an example that I doubt many have really meditated on:

"Now at their eating, Jesus, taking the bread, and, blessing, breaks it, and, giving to the disciples, said, 'Take eat [this bread], This [bread] IS my body" (Matt. 26:26).

The greatest minds in theology have haggled for hundreds of years over this metaphor that Christ used at the last supper. Does the bread literally turn into the body flesh of Christ when we eat that bread as the Catholic faith demands? What a silly question. IT'S A METAPHOR! And the idea that one of the two parts of a metaphor must be literal is likewise silly.

In this metaphor, the bread is a symbol. Is there anyone who cannot recognize that Christ used bread from the table as a "symbol" of something? Then when used as a symbol, neither can it be any longer literal. Is there anyone who cannot recognize that Christ used His own body as a "symbol" of something? Then when used as a symbol it neither can be any longer literal. That being said then, the bread is symbolic AND Christ's body is also symbolic! Jesus used literal "bread" from the table and used the literal words "my body." When Jesus picked up the bread and broke it, no one thought that He was talking about CHEESE! When Jesus said, "my body," no one thought He was speaking of His clothing or His shoes. Everyone at that table knew what "bread" was and what Christ's "body" was. However ... HOWEVER, Christ used the words "bread" and "my body" in a METAPHOR! He said, "Take eat, this [bread] IS My body." That my friends is a METAPHOR! And as a metaphor, neither the bread nor Christ's body is to be taken literally! "I am the BREAD OF LIFE..." (John 6:35).

We do NOT eat physical bread to partake of the symbolic or spiritual life-giving food of Christ's body. Nor would we be partaking of spiritual or symbolic bread by eating Christ's literal flesh and blood body. Can we not see that neither part of a metaphor must always be literal. The bread is used as a symbol because literal bread is called the staff of life. Christ's body is used in this metaphor because our spiritual nourishment comes from no other source but Jesus Christ. They say that we are what we eat. When we partake of the real staff of life--the spiritual food of Christ's body, we ourselves BECOME the very body of Christ ourselves!

Here's the Scriptural proof:
"I am the BREAD OF LIFE..." (John 6:35).

"For we, who are many, are ONE BREAD, ONE BODY, for we all are partaking of the ONE BREAD" (I Cor. 10:17).

"The Jews, then, murmured concerning Him, that He said, 'I AM the Bread which descends out of heaven." (John 6:41).

"I am the living Bread ... Now the Bread also, which I shall be giving for the sake of the life of the world IS MY FLESH" (John 6:51).

But just as most are totally blind regarding the meaning of Scriptural metaphors today, they were also ignorant of Christ's words when He spoke them:
v
Jesus said that the words that he spoke were SPIRIT (John 6:63). Jesus Christ changes not. His words are STILL spirit and they certainly were spirit when John wrote the words of Christ regarding His unveiling or revelation. Just as we physically feed on physical bread for PHYSICAL LIFE, thus also we spiritually feed on Jesus Christ's spiritual body for SPIRITUAL LIFE.
v
In many cases it is not difficult to determine whether a verse is literal or not. But, since we use figures of speech so often we tend to forget that much of what we say daily is not literally true. Many of us would hardly be able to carry on a conversation if we had to drop out of our vocabulary every word and every phrase we speak that is NOT LITERALLY TRUE. The English language, as well as all other languages, is just filled with symbolic and metaphorical phrases.
v
Understand this! Some think that by accepting the Scriptures as they are given (in the case of Revelation that means AS SYMBOLS), that somehow this "spiritualizes away" the teaching. What? It is the "spiritual" aspect of these symbols that IS THE REAL THING; THE REAL UNDERSTANDING! Physical things "pass away" whereas spiritual things are eternal! The very FACT that this book is written in "symbols" is proof positive that the understanding of them is SPIRITUAL and not physical or literal.

Symbols, metaphors, and parables ARE NEVER LITERALLY TRUE! But they powerfully demonstrate SPIRITUAL TRUTHS!

[microlink]

I agree with your post Kat and what  Ray has written concerning literal vs symbolic or metaphorical.

Sometimes I find it unclear as to whether it is one or the other or BOTH Here are 3 scriptures dealing with FIRE that may be both literal and symbolic:

Act 2:3  And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

Exo_3:2  And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

Gen_19:24  Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

The one in Genesis has to be literal although Gods spiritual fire came out of Heaven.

Just a thought

[Kat]

Hi microlink,

On these verses, for the first 2, well it says about the burning bush that it "was not consumed," therefore we know this could not be literal fire. The same holds true for those that had the tongues of fire upon them, neither were they consumed by it, therefore it would not be literal fire there either.

But in Genesis where Sodom and Gomorrah were consumed so this was literal fire that God rained down on them from heaven. Just because there is a word with a certain meaning used in one place in Scripture does not mean it will have the same meaning somewhere else, you really have to look at the context and see how it is used... that is especially true with the words dead and life. Hope that helps.

mercy, peace and love
Kat

[lilitalienboi16]

Hi Kat and Micro,

In Exodus, Moses was speaking to God who appeared to Him from out of a bush.

Since first is the natural and then the spiritual, while we may surmise spiritual truths from such verses, I do believe Moses saw a fiery bush. Whether it was the bush that was on fire or an Angel of the Lord in the bush which had the appearance of fire, I still believe He saw something afire.

Steven describes it as this in Acts:

Acts 7:30 "After forty years had passed, an angel appeared to Moses in the flames of a burning bush in the desert near Mount Sinai. (ISV)
Act 7:30 And, at the completion of forty years, a messenger was seen by him in the wilderness of mount Sinai, in the flame of a thorn bush fire." (CLV)

I wouldn't dismiss Acts 2:3 as having been cloven tongues which appeared to the eyes on the same principle that, that which is first is the natural and then the spiritual. That isn't to say though that there isn't spiritual meaning behind each of these things, only that I can believe they were literal events first.

God bless,
Alex

[Kat]

Well Alex, I do agree with the Scripture that the natural comes first...

1Cor 15:46  However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual.

1Cor 15:46  Howbeit, not first, is the body of the spirit, but that, of the soul,—afterwards, that of the spirit. (Rotherham)

But in that particular Scripture Paul is speaking of the resurrection of the dead, as you can see Rotherham makes that clear. Now certainly this 'natural before spiritual' has many more applications, but I'm thinking when it is speaking of the natural/physical coming first, that is purely for worldly things, and not things of a spiritual nature or things from heaven that would need to take on a physical nature first.

What I trying to say is that when it is God's Spirit that is apparently causing the phenomenon it does not require a physical/natural application first. Though things that do appear from heaven do look 'like' things we know and can relate to, as with the burning bush and the tongues of fire, these are not real physical things, nor do they have the properties of them. We know "our God is a consuming fire" (Heb 12:29), Christ appeared in a glorious state in Revelation.

Rev 1:13  and in the midst of the seven lampstands One like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band.
v. 14  His head and hair were white LIKE wool, as white as snow, and His eyes LIKE a flame of fire;
v. 15  His feet were LIKE fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters;

If you will noticed that all those things that was used to depict Christ was only "like" it and not the actual literal thing. So we can understand that this is not speaking of literal flame of fire as His eyes. Moses actually entered this "fire" when he went on top of the mountain to get the 10 commandments and was not burned or consumed by it.

Exo 24:17  The sight of the glory of the LORD WAS LIKE a consuming fire on the top of the mountain in the eyes of the children of Israel.
v. 18  So Moses went into the midst of the cloud and went up into the mountain. And Moses was on the mountain forty days and forty nights.

This apparent glorious manifestation radiated onto Moses and obviously it was nothing like real fire.

Exo 34:29  Now it was so, when Moses came down from Mount Sinai (and the two tablets of the Testimony were in Moses' hand when he came down from the mountain), that Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone while he talked with Him.
v. 30  So when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone, and they were afraid to come near him. 

So anyway just thought I would make these comments of my observations on this.

mercy, peace and love
Kat

[lilitalienboi16]

Hi Kat,

Are you saying Moses SAW a burning bush but that it wasn't actually burning?

Are you saying John SAW Jesus with eyes of fire but that His eye's weren't actually a-fire?

Just trying to understand.

I believe they actually literally saw these things with their eyes even if what they saw wasn't exactly literal fire. It looked like fire, it may have been hot like fire (though I guess we have no description on how hot it was ), and so it was described 'as' or 'LIKE' fire. It seems to me like this is what you're saying and I can see it that way too. My point originally was not to dismiss these events as actual recorded history which happened to these people. They witnessed with their eyes some amazing things and it was necessary because it was written for our admonishment.

Jesus is the one whose eye's burn like a fire. John saw that with his eyes in the spirit on the Lord's day. It appears to be part of His glory.

God bless,
Alex

[Kat]

Yes Alex, that is what I was saying, that it was not actual literal fire, but this glory of the Lord 'appears' to man as something like fire, I guess it's the best representation we have of it. But it is not literal fire, nor does it consume like literal fire would. When looking at the burning bush passage you will see what the 'fire' actually is.

Exo 3:2  And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed.
v. 3  Then Moses said, "I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn."
v. 4  So when the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, "Moses, Moses!" And he said, "Here I am."

What the bush was showing was the glory of the Lord on it, not a physical thing, but it appeared 'like' fire, "our God is a consuming fire" (Heb 12:29). So is that hot? Well Moses was up on the mountain with God and the glory of that actually shone on his face, don't think that is hot like physical fire is.

So I think we are saying pretty much the same thing, just wanted to add to the discussion for clarity.

mercy, peace and love
Kat

[lauriellen]

There is a 'figure of speech' that is often used to describe my 3 sisters and myself. People have often said, "if you have seen one of them, you have seen them all."  They say this because we look so much alike. Of course there are many differences as well in height, weight, hairstyle, etc., but the similarities are so strong, that they overshadow the differences. I have often wondered if this could be the case as well, when Jesus declared "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father"....could this be just a figure of speech?

[lilitalienboi16]

]
There is a 'figure of speech' that is often used to describe my 3 sisters and myself. People have often said, "if you have seen one of them, you have seen them all."  They say this because we look so much alike. Of course there are many differences as well in height, weight, hairstyle, etc., but the similarities are so strong, that they overshadow the differences. I have often wondered if this could be the case as well, when Jesus declared "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father"....could this be just a figure of speech?
[/quote]

Hi Lauriellen,

Here are some of Ray's thoughts before he passed.

You wrote about Jesus talking to Phillip as Phillip is requesting to see God,  "Jesus said that no man has ever seen God, but yet He chided Philip: "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known Me, Philip? HE THAT HAS SEEN ME HAS SEEN THE FATHER; and how say you then, Show us the Father?" (John 14:9).  There is a problem here.  If no man has ever seen or heard the Father, yet through Jesus we both see and hear the Father, then Jesus is the only God that anyone has ever seen or heard.  But don't we then have two Gods?  But the Scriptures insist on only one God."

----------------------

Both the Father and the Son are scarcely alluded to inthe Hebrew Scriptures.  Well then, WHO IS GOD of the Hebrew Scriptures?You'll have to wait till I finish my research for what I believe is the Scripturalanswer to this enigma.  There is far more to this subject than most couldever imagine, and yet, the answer has been there all the time, it's just thatwe haven't believed the Scriptures. And giving the answer and proving theanswer are two different things, I assure you.  At least I now know the Nameof the Father.

----------------------

"But to us one God, the Father, of whom all things, and we in Him,and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom all things, and we by Him."Paul's subject in this chapter is "idols."  So He is teaching Who the real God is.Who is the "one God" of Whom he speaks?  He answers: "the FATHER," followedby a description of the Father's role in the universe, but if we take out the descriptionof His role we loose nothing, as the thought is the same only shortened:  "to us there isone God, THE FATHER. But Paul doesn't end his statement with a period. There ismore to follow.  He also speaks of "one Lord Jesus Christ" and a description of Hisrole in the universe.  Okay, let's leave out ALL the descriptive words describing bothof Their roles, and we have this:"...to us...ONE GOD:  the Father...AND...Jesus."I am not suggesting that this is the way to study all Scripture, by taking outwords, but I am trying to draw attention to the most important words.Jesus said: "I [Jesus] and My Father are one" (John 10:30).  Who is the"one" in Jesus's statement?  The Father?  NO--"the Father AND Jesus."Wow.  Isn't that also what Paul really says in I Cor. 8:6?

--------------------------

Ray,When will your new paper be finished?  I feel like his spirit in me says that in the flesh Jesus wascompletely man, he had divested himself of divinity, but in spirit he is once again the creator god.From RandyDear Randy:  I have no idea.  Only God knows.  A better question would be: "When will you STARTwriting your new paper?"  I have not been feeling very well the whole last year.  However, I have beenreading and studying a lot, also taking hundreds of pages of notes, but I haven't written but a fewpages on what could be called my "New Paper."  I know people think that I should be able to solvein a few months what hundreds of thousands of theologians, scholars, teachers, and ministers havenot been able to solve in over two thousand years, but that is not the case I'm afraid. There arenumerous problems with the appearing of Jesus Christ in the New Testament as not only the Son ofGod, but God Himself, and yet remain true to the teaching that there is only ONE GOD. I may knowthe answer, but Scripturally proving it is a little more difficult than most can imagine.Who was Jesus when "he had divested himself of divinity" as you say?  The only "Jesus" we aretold of in the Bible is the One Who was born of the virgin Mary.  Who was He and where was He atthe time that He "divested" Himself?  Where do we find Jesus Christ BEFORE the New Testament? Where did He come from?  Who was He BEFORE He divested His divinity and BEFORE He wasborn of a virgin?  Is He even mentioned in the Old Testament?  Or did the God of the Old Testamentdivest Himself of His divinity? If there is only ONE God and that ONE God "divested" Himself of His divinity, then Who is running theUniverse?  Who remains as a God UN-divested of Divinity?  If you say that that God is God the Father,then Who was the God that divested Himself of divinity?  If you say Jesus, then we have TWO GODS--One divested and One UN-divested!  If there was but ONE GOD and that One God divested Himselfof His divinity and DIED, then how is it that we still have TWO LIVING GODS?  We have [1] Jesus, theOne that Thomas called "My LORD and my GOD," and we have [2] God the Father Who raised the"LORD AND GOD" of doubting Thomas from the dead.  See what mean?  It's a ENIGMA!!  May Godgrant us all patience till we come into a greater knowledge of the Truth.Ray

--------

All these are from rays emails which you can find in the email section. I'm on my phone amd can't post the links properly hence why they are omittted. I can find and post them when I'm home if you like.

The last email I posted will be of most interest to you and your question

Also in the second to last email,

"Jesus said: "I [Jesus] and My Father are one" (John 10:30).  Who is the"one" in Jesus's statement?  The Father?  NO--"the Father AND Jesus."Wow.  Isn't that also what Paul really says in I Cor. 8:6?

God bless,
Alex

[Colin]

Hello everybody
In relation to the use of figurative language in scripture, I have been thinking about the subject of "darkness"....(and by association, "light").   An article of Ray's started me off on this "journey"...can't remember which particular one I had been reading.

The first place we come across darkness is in Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

As Ray taught us to "take notice of the words", and think about what we are reading, I asked "why did we need to know that there was darkness"?    What difference does it make to know that, except, as Ray also remarked, the whole Bible is a parable. 

I applied the principle Ray often mentioned "first comes the physical, then the spiritual" ....
1Cor 15:46  Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

I coupled that with the use of figurative speech regularly used throughout scripture.   Fire is just one instance in which we find literal, as well as figurative speech being used.

When I began a search using e-sword, I was surprised to see the number of times we find darkness (and light) occurring in the scriptures. 
The "literal darkness" at the time of creation of the earth prefigured, I venture to say, the spiritual darkness which the earth's inhabitants were to be subjected to... Jesus used the metaphor of darkness in Matthew 6:23 and Luke 11:34,35.

Mat 6:22 KJV The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
Mat 6:23  But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!
Luke 11:34 KJV  The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness.

I consulted the Living Bible version and found it expresses the concepts well....

Matt 6:22, 23  LB "If your eye is pure, there will be sunshine in your soul.  But if your eye is clouded with evil thoughts and desires, you are in deep spiritual darkness.  And oh, how deep that darkness can be!"

Ray also mentioned in a bible study that he had read where scientists state that light has taken an enormous length of time to escape from the interior of the sun (or any star) before "breaking forth" to reach into space.   Again, I sense there is an analogy there.....spiritual truth does not come to any of us "instantaneously".

An interesting account is found in Exodus 10:22
Exo 10:22  And Moses stretched forth his hand toward heaven; and there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt three days:
Exo 10:23  They saw not one another, neither rose any from his place for three days: but all the children of Israel had light in their dwellings.

Imagine being Moses...stretching out your hands and then an impenetrable darkness occurs in Egypt......yet, not too far away, the Israelites could still see quite well.....it certainly wasn't done by having thick rain clouds gather overhead.....otherwise some "stray light" would have allowed the Egyptians to see a little.   But it was so dark, they couldn't even see each other.....for three days.   Like being deep underground in a mine and turning off any form of lighting....the darkness presses on your eyeballs!

It is clear that God does control the "physical" light and darkness, as well as their spiritual counterparts. 
Isa 45:7  I form [Hebrew yâtsar = shape, mould] the light, and create [Hebrew bârâ = create, select] darkness: I make [Hebrew `âśâh = accomplish] peace, and create [Hebrew bârâ = create, select] evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Another instance of a similar control by God of light and absence of light.....
Exod 14:19  And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them:
Exod 14:20  And it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it was a cloud and darkness to them, but it gave light by night to these: so that the one came not near the other all the night.
Joshua 24:7  And when they cried unto the LORD, he put darkness between you and the Egyptians, and brought the sea upon them, and covered them; and your eyes have seen what I have done in Egypt: and ye dwelt in the wilderness a long season.

I then came across Isaiah 58 in my word search – the chapter which deals with the topic of what is the (spiritual) lesson of "fasting", which the Israelites were commanded to do literally on the Day of Atonement.
Isa 58:10  And if thou draw out thy soul to the hungry, and satisfy the afflicted soul; then shall thy light rise in obscurity, and thy darkness be as the noonday:
Isa 58:11  And the LORD shall guide thee continually, and satisfy thy soul in drought, and make fat thy bones: and thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not.

The use of figurative language is an effective way in which God conveys to us the parable content of His word.         
Just as God is a consuming fire (Heb 12:29), He is also the Father of lights (James 1:17).

[Kat]

There is a 'figure of speech' that is often used to describe my 3 sisters and myself. People have often said, "if you have seen one of them, you have seen them all."  They say this because we look so much alike. Of course there are many differences as well in height, weight, hairstyle, etc., but the similarities are so strong, that they overshadow the differences. I have often wondered if this could be the case as well, when Jesus declared "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father"....could this be just a figure of speech?

I'm thinking that a problem that may be keeping us from understanding the relationship of the Father and Son better is that we keep trying to picture Them as we do a human relationship. Now I realize that Father and Son is what Christ referred to Them as and so of course that is a good and proper way to say it, because in so many ways it is a very good way to describe it. But I think it does not characterize it perfectly, because for one thing the Father is not human... and when we try to look at it in 'every' aspect in a human way, then we cannot understand it completely.

The thing of Them being 'one' seems to be a major hung up in figuring this out too. I try to think of the Father as the source of everything, even the Son... I don't know what to call Him, but He is not a man, as Ray has said... I don't even see Him as a being, He cannot be contained or limited to a specific space (1Ki 8:27, 2Ch 2:6, 6:18). So He is God or the Source of all.

The Father first thought up this whole creation and all the intricate functions and creatures that it would possess and then determined to have it so. I believe the Son was brought forth to do all this... I think of the Son as something like another appendage of the Father, to be purely for this Creation. Now appendage is not the best term, because it is also a human term, but that's the best I can come up with. But I see the Son as a special part of the Father made just for the work of this creation. So if you get what I'm saying They are one, not separate and certainly not 2 Gods, but the Son is not everything that the Father is.

Another thing to think about is that we too will become sons and daughters of God and be 'one' with Them too. When resurrected and born into the kingdom, we will be joined and permanently united with Christ and the Father, which will bring us to perfection as God is and then we will be one with them as Christ is now. Christ has His on personality and so will we continue to have our on personality too, and we will be incorruptible (1 Cor 15:42) sons/daughters of God.

John 17:11  Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are.

John 17:21  that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.
v. 22  And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one:

mercy, peace and love
Kat

[Nelson Boils]

On these verses, for the first 2, well it says about the burning bush that it "was not consumed," therefore we know this could not be literal fire.

Clearly you didn't read the verse after it:

Exodus(ISV) 3:3 "Then moses told himself,"I'll go over and see this REMARKABLE SIGHT.Why isn't the bush burning."

Moses calls it a "REMARKABLE SIGHT."Why?Because the "BUSH ISN'T BURNING."
Moses couldn't believe what his eyes were seeing.Still think this was not literal?

What the bush was showing was the glory of the Lord on it, not a physical thing, but it appeared 'like' fire,"

No,Kat.Where did you get that it appeared "like fire?"It doesn't say that.This is what it says:

Exo 3:2  And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed.

It "appeared to him in a flame of fire,"it didn't appear to him "like fire."Where did you get the "like" in this verse?

Then you say,"Moses actually entered this "fire" when he went on top of the mountain to get the 10 commandments and was not burned or consumed by it."

No,Kat.Moses didn't enter this "fire" as you suggest.Did you read:

Exodus 24:18 "Then Moses entered the Cloud.." - That is what he entered,"the cloud," not there "fire."

Kat,in a previous thread,the figurative and literal confused you,now it is happening again.

Please take extra caution when cooking and dishing up.

[Kat]

Shechiyn, then we just disagree on this matter of God's fire being literal or not.

mercy, peace and love
Kat

[microlink]

Hi everyone,

Did God (Yahweh) reveal Himself to Moses in a literal manner? At least a part of Him. I think He did.

Exo 33:18  And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.
Exo 33:19  And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.
Exo 33:20  And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
Exo 33:21  And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
Exo 33:22  And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
Exo 33:23  And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

[Kat]

Hi Joe, yes I agree with you that this is literal event, that Moses was given a partial view of the Lord. I don't think this was a vision or something, but actually took place just as it is written.

mercy, peace and love
Kat

[Pini56]

Hello,

Just a thought. When three people are thrown into the fiery furnace in Daniel's time, this was a literal fire because when they were thrown in, the guards that threw them in were consumed by the fire. In the midst of the fire these three were not harmed because there was a fourth Person in there with them, the Lord of course. Could this be used similarly with the burning bush, as the Lord was in the midst of this also. I might dare to suggest that maybe it was a literal fire but because the Lord was in the midst of it, Moses was protected from being consumed, the bush as well. I am sorry I didn't have time to fully explain and give you chapter and verse but I was in a hurry. This might help with the discussion though. Regards Geoff

[lilitalienboi16]

Hello,

Just a thought. When three people are thrown into the fiery furnace in Daniel's time, this was a literal fire because when they were thrown in, the guards that threw them in were consumed by the fire. In the midst of the fire these three were not harmed because there was a fourth Person in there with them, the Lord of course. Could this be used similarly with the burning bush, as the Lord was in the midst of this also. I might dare to suggest that maybe it was a literal fire but because the Lord was in the midst of it, Moses was protected from being consumed, the bush as well. I am sorry I didn't have time to fully explain and give you chapter and verse but I was in a hurry. This might help with the discussion though. Regards Geoff

Great observation Geoff.

I am very inclined to believe that it was first literal. That is my preferred view but I cam see the symbolism in it too as Kat was leaning more towards. I see no contradiction in that.

Thank you for the reminder in Daniel's account.

God bless,
Alex

[Kat]

Hello,

Just a thought. When three people are thrown into the fiery furnace in Daniel's time, this was a literal fire because when they were thrown in, the guards that threw them in were consumed by the fire. In the midst of the fire these three were not harmed because there was a fourth Person in there with them, the Lord of course. Could this be used similarly with the burning bush, as the Lord was in the midst of this also. I might dare to suggest that maybe it was a literal fire but because the Lord was in the midst of it, Moses was protected from being consumed, the bush as well. I am sorry I didn't have time to fully explain and give you chapter and verse but I was in a hurry. This might help with the discussion though. Regards Geoff

Hi Geoff, well yes it certainly was a literal fire in the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego, and that story in in Daniel 3.

Dan 3:4  Then a herald cried aloud: "To you it is commanded, O peoples, nations, and languages,
v. 5  that at the time you hear the sound of the horn, flute, harp, lyre, and psaltery, in symphony with all kinds of music, you shall fall down and worship the gold image that King Nebuchadnezzar has set up;
v. 6  and whoever does not fall down and worship shall be cast immediately into the midst of a burning fiery furnace."

Dan 3:20  And he (Nebuchadnezzar) commanded certain mighty men of valor who were in his army to bind Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego, and cast them into the burning fiery furnace.

Dan 3:24  Then King Nebuchadnezzar was astonished; and he rose in haste and spoke, saying to his counselors, "Did we not cast three men bound into the midst of the fire?" They answered and said to the king, "True, O king."
v. 25  "Look!" he answered, "I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and they are not hurt, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."
v. 26  Then Nebuchadnezzar went near the mouth of the burning fiery furnace and spoke, saying, "Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego, servants of the Most High God, come out, and come here." Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego came from the midst of the fire.
v. 27  And the satraps, administrators, governors, and the king's counselors gathered together, and they saw these men on whose bodies the fire had no power; the hair of their head was not singed nor were their garments affected, and the smell of fire was not on them.
v. 28  Nebuchadnezzar spoke, saying, "Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego, who sent His Angel and delivered His servants who trusted in Him, and they have frustrated the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they should not serve nor worship any god except their own God!

So the fire was certainly very literal fire that these godly men were case into, because they worshiped God and not the king, but God sent an angel to protect them. There is another incident where King Nebuchadnezzar had Daniel cast into a den of literal lions and again God protected him from any harm.

Dan 6:16  So the king gave the command, and they brought Daniel and cast him into the den of lions. But the king spoke, saying to Daniel, "Your God, whom you serve continually, He will deliver you."
v. 17  Then a stone was brought and laid on the mouth of the den, and the king sealed it with his own signet ring and with the signets of his lords, that the purpose concerning Daniel might not be changed.
v. 18  Now the king went to his palace and spent the night fasting; and no musicians were brought before him. Also his sleep went from him.
v. 19  Then the king arose very early in the morning and went in haste to the den of lions.
v. 20  And when he came to the den, he cried out with a lamenting voice to Daniel. The king spoke, saying to Daniel, "Daniel, servant of the living God, has your God, whom you serve continually, been able to deliver you from the lions?"
v. 21  Then Daniel said to the king, "O king, live forever!
v. 22  My God sent His angel and shut the lions' mouths, so that they have not hurt me, because I was found innocent before Him; and also, O king, I have done no wrong before you."

The fire in the fiery furnace was not from/of God, but He has power over all the elements that He has created, so He rendered the lions harmless to Daniel and the fire as well to those that served and obeyed Him.

mercy, peace and love
Kat

[octoberose]

 "and the smell of fire was not on them. "

That has always been my favorite part of this 'story'. They didn't even smell like smoke, meaning they walked through the flames and they came out of it not looking bedraggled and smelly, but unscathed. I think about that in my fiery trials. Am I walking around moaning and groaning and 'smelling like smoke?" . Or do I live my life in faith and victory through Christ so that if you didn't know the struggles in my life you would never know there are any struggles?
  The Joy of the Lord is my Strength is my verse to keep remembering this year. 

[lilitalienboi16]

"and the smell of fire was not on them. "

That has always been my favorite part of this 'story'. They didn't even smell like smoke, meaning they walked through the flames and they came out of it not looking bedraggled and smelly, but unscathed. I think about that in my fiery trials. Am I walking around moaning and groaning and 'smelling like smoke?" . Or do I live my life in faith and victory through Christ so that if you didn't know the struggles in my life you would never know there are any struggles?
  The Joy of the Lord is my Strength is my verse to keep remembering this year. 

Romans 8:31-39
31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

2 Corinthians 4:5-18
5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.
6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.
8 We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair;
9 Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed;
10 Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body.
11 For we which live are always delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.
12 So then death worketh in us, but life in you.
13 We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;
14 Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you.
15 For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God.
16 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.
17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, producing for us a transcendently transcendent eonian burden of glory,
18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eonian.