Metaphor vs Literal? Pt 3

0:02 Looking at our world from a theological perspective. This is the Theology Central podcast, making Theology Central. Good morning everyone, It is Saturday, October nineteenth, twenty twenty four. It is currently eleven four am Central Time, and I am coming to you live from the Theology Central studio located right here in Abilene, Texas. Bible interpretation, Biblical hermeneutics, rules of Bible interpretation, Bible study, Bible study methods. Now, these are terms.

0:46 These are ideas that Christians across all denominations, all philological streams, they all talk about. They all will tell you the importance of it is important to study your Bible. It is important to study your Bible correctly. It is important to interpret the Bible and to interpret it correctly. Christians will talk about how they don't interpret the Bible correctly. They are wrong, they are wrong, They're wrong, but we are right. Everyone loves to talk about all of these concepts. But after all of the discussion, after all the books, after all the conferences, after all the sermons, when you get down to it, when you finally just remove all of that, You remove all the talk, you remove all of the materials, you remove everything. You know what It all comes down to Christians read the Bible and just make up whatever they want to make up. They can just make it say whatever they want it to say.

1:45 There really aren't any rules, There aren't any actual ways of knowing. It's just a free for all. It's spiritual anarchy. It's chaos, it's subjective, it's relativistic. It's just it's just insanity. Now. I know when I say that, I'm going to get some immediate pushback and go no, no, no, there are rules and there's ways you have to do it. Everyone claims that, But when you really listen to the preaching and you really listen to what people say, it's just total complete Everyone makes it say whatever they want it to say. The Bible says whatever people want it to say. That's the reality. Now you can disagree with that, but I'm just telling you from a practical standpoint. Theoretically, I understand. Theoretically, no, the Bible says what it means by the words that you.

2:37 I know all the cliches, I know all the things we're supposed to say. But in reality, it's just a free for all. It's insane. And we've witnessed this over the last few days on this broadcast. I mean, it all started with, Hey, let's go to Second King's chapter six. Go to Second King's chapter six. Oh, it's about a floating axehead. Okay, all right, let's talk about it next thing, you know, the floating axehead wasn't a floating axehead. The axehead represents our fellowship. The axehead represents our effectiveness in our work for God. The axehead represents our passion and zeal for God. It represents who knows a countless number of things, even though it's borrowed. But then the borrowed well, okay, and then it just it just got crazy. Then we did have a sermon that tried to take it from a much more literal approach, so that was interesting. But the more sermons you listen to on Second King's chapter six, at some point you're like, I don't know what it means.

3:38 I don't know what it means because everyone thinks it means something else. Other people like, no, the axehead represents our lives. And when we're trying to chop down the tree, we're trying to chop down the wood. That's us trying to keep the law, and we're trying to keep the law. But we can't keep the law perfectly. So what happens The axehead comes off and it falls into the water, which is judge, it's the it's the wrath of God. And we sink to the bottom, consumed by God's wrath. So what can help us? Well, you put a stick in the water. That's the cross of Jesus Christ who died for us, and then we are resurrected. Okay, every everyone, just I mean, next thing, you know, who knows what it means? Because everyone thinks they know. And then then so we listened to that and it just kind of turned into like what is going on? So we started talking about metaphorical language, how people interpret the Bible, and so it turned into a discussion and I told everyone to listen to sermons in the Second King's chapter six, and it was already a little bit like so how far do we take this? How much do we do?

4:40 What do we how much work do we do on this? And just kind of like trying to figure it all out. So then I thought, well, we'll take a we'll take a little break, right, We'll take a little break. And then we saw a message on the metaphorical the metaphorical system of Bible interpretation. Well we do. We're like, oh, this this is on a series on Bible Study on how to study the Bible, and this is going to be I think they call it the allegorical method. I'm sorry, not the metaphorical, the allegorical. And we're like we'll get a little and well it turned into it was a metaphor because it wasn't the allegorical method. I don't even know. It was a misrepresentation of the allegorical method. It was making accusations about Calvinists that weren't accurate. It was just insane.

5:23 I don't even know what that was. So then I'm like, okay, well this allegorical metaphorical, we've got to try to do a little bit of work on this. So we thought we could work on that. Then then I was like, well, let's take a little bit of a break. We'll do We'll find a sermon called Bible Study and it's well, it's a sermon on Proverbs chapter thirty. I'm like, okay, this will be fun, right because Proverbs chapter thirty, starting in verse eleven, there is a generation verse twelve, There is a generation verse thirteen. There is a generation Verse fourteen. There is a generation. Okay, that's that's going to be fun to take apart, right, Okay, how let's and the next thing, you know, we weren't talking about there is a generation. We were talking about there's coming a time where the people will eat poor folk. What there's coming a time where the people will eat poor folk? That there's coming a time that people will eat poor people, And you're like, what is happening right now? What is going on? And then the next thing, you know, we're over in all of these other passages of scripture saying yes, there's coming a time where they're going to eat people and they're going to take them and they're going to chop off their heads, drink their blood, and eat their flesh.

6:40 And you're like, what is am I listening to a sermon? What is going on? And yet this is from a sermon, ladies and gentlemen, not the latest horror movie from a sermon, And you're like, what is all of this? And they were taking texts that many would say would be metaphorical and they were like, no, this is literal, and so it just got all confusing. So we listened to us somewhere where a person spent about fifteen to twenty minutes, starting in Proverbs thirty fourteen, there is a generation whose teeth are as swords, and their jaw teeth as knives, to devour the poor from off the earth and the needy from among men. All right, so they go here, they say this is literal. Well, they kind of, they try to hedge their beds a little bit, but before it's all said and done, they're basically making it that it's literal. There's coming a time, they say, it's in the tribulation where all of these horrible things gonna happen, and they're going to eat people rights that. They went to Proverbs thirty. They also went to some the book of Psalms Psalm fourteen. They also went to Psalm fourteen.

7:47 I'll turn to this one. I'm not going to go to all of them, Psalm fourteen. Four have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? Who eat up my people as they eat bread? So now now are the poor going to be eaten my people? Here? It's Israel. Israel's going to be eaten up. Okay. Then they went to Micah chapter three, more people being eaten and then they go to the Book of Revelation and it was just oh, they went to Isaiah six and there was all these passages, but people are being eaten, and that they went from passage after passage after passage, and they were like, this is literal, literal, literal, literal, literal, literal, literal. And then all of a sudden, after about fifteen to twenty minutes of showing us that all these people are going to be eaten and it's all literal, and how Satanists are literally doing this thing and grinding people up. After just this, I don't know what you call it. You can call it a I don't know how. I don't want to say anything in a negative way. But after all of this discussion about eating people, then all of a sudden, it's literal, literal, literal. All of a sudden, we get to the figurative part. All of a sudden, the entire tone changed when he said.

9:00 This, you want to hear the figurative part. There's a group of people from Rome that do that every Sunday. That's what they teach. I don't believe they're eating the literal body of Jesus, but that's what they say. In fact, they say, if you don't believe that, you're damned that they drink in the little blood and eating the literal body of Jesus for their salvation. That priest stands up and says any meani mighty more or whatever he says. In Latin, they call it trans something substant Yeah, whatever that long word is, And what it means is he's turning that cup of wine into literal blood, and the people drink it. He's turning the wafer into literal body, and you digest it in your system. So there is a generation.

10:07 Now. So then he goes after transubstantiation of Roman Catholicism and says, this is ridiculous, this is not true. Well, where would Roman Catholics go to support such a notion of transubstantiation. Where would they go? Well, they would go to John chapter six, verse fifty three, where we read these words. Then Jesus said, under them, verily, verily, I say into you, except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood have eternal life. And I will raise him up the last day for my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I am in him.

10:52 It repeats it multiple times. Eat my flesh, drink my blood, Eat my flesh, drink my blood. Now for him, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no no, all these other passages about people eating people literal, literal, literal, literal, literal, literal, literal, literal, literal, literal. We get to John six all of a sudden, figurative figurative, figurative, figurative, figuritive, figurative, if not real, not true, not true. What does this demonstrate? It demonstrates that this is a major problem in Bible interpretation, is that people can say something is literal when they want it to be literal. They can say it's figurative when they want it to be figurative. When they want it to be a metaphor, they committim a metaphor. When they want it to be allegorical, they can make it allegorical.

11:34 They can literally do anything they want. The Bible is basically Plato in the hands of Christians, and we don't want to acknowledge that but it is true. That's why when you listen to preaching, you can be like, well, these ten sermons interpret it this way, and these ten sermons interpret it this way, and these ten sermons interpret it another way. You can get fifty commentaries. They will give you one hundred different interpretations. It is literally insane. So it appears that we have found ourselves and somewhat of a dilemma. I think we have found ourselves. So at least I have found myself because now we're going to have to do a lot of work. Because when we listen to that message about you know, the allegorical method, the metaphorical method of Bible interpretation, they didn't even bother to actually teach what it is. They misrepresented it, they didn't even it was just a disaster. I don't even know what that. That was so frustrating. I really thought we were going to be able to go, oh, here's what the allegorical method teaches. Let's take the allegorical method.

12:39 Let's go back to Second Kings chapter six, and let's see it if preachers are using really methods of the allegorical method to handle Second King six about the axe head, when even though they would say they don't agree with the allegorical method. I wanted to show a little bit of inconsistency, but we didn't even get the opportunity because it was not even an actual presentation on the allegorical method. And then the next thing, you know, we have someone saying, oh, in Proverbs thirty, they're eating people, and so I'm fourteen, they're eating people, and Micael three, they're eating people. In Revelation they're eating people, and then get very graphic in describing it. But then in the same sermons say no, no, no, no, no over here in John six, when that's not literal, that's that's figurative. And it's like, so, when is something literal?

13:20 When is something figurative? When is it the allegorical method? When is the historical grammatical literal approach? Nobody seems to know, and it's just wild inconsistency. So I don't know where we're going to be going moving forward. We're going to be dealing with a lot of things. We're gonna be dealing with a lot of things. But I want to at least just take a few minutes here. I don't want to spend a lot of time. Well, I mean there's a there's a part of me that wants to say, you know what, for the next fifteen hours, we're just going to be talking about this, but I'm going to try to break things down into smaller segments at least maybe on the podcast. A lot of this may show up at church. There's other things we need to do at church, but it just feel like, I feel like we have to do something with this because it's just crazy.

14:09 So when you take Proverbs thirty fourteen, right, and you've got someone saying that's literal, and then they cross reference that with Psalm fourteen, Micah three, Isaiah six, the Book of Revelation, and they're like, there's coming a time where people are going to eat poor people, and they say it's literal, But in the very same sermon you go to John six and say, no, that's not literal. I think that this highlights a common challenge in biblical interpretation, and that is one the need for consistency when applying hermeneutical principles. To interpret both Proverbs thirty fourteen and John six fifty three through fifty seven in a text based consistent manner, we would have to apply specific rules of Hermannudie that would help us determine whether a passage should be understood literally or metaphorically. We're going to look at some of those rules at least in these two passages, just to kind of continue this discussion, and then later time we'll really expand this a little bit more. So again, I'm just gonna put forth my hypotheses, and I know it's not popular, and I know people are going to disagree, but I think in reality, you know, we read about everyone did what was right in their own eyes. I think that's really that phrase. Metaphorically speaking, we could say that's really Christian hermeneutics. Everyone does what is right in

15:40 their own eyes. But what makes Christian hermanutics so frustrating is everyone does what is right in their own eyes while at the very same time telling everyone that what they're doing, what is right in their own eyes, is not only right. If you don't agree with them, you are wrong. That's how Biblical Christians do Bible interpretation. My interpretation is right, yours is wrong, and if you're wrong too much, you're a heretic. And I may say you're not even safe because you have to agree with my interpretation because my interpretation is the only right interpretation. And this is where I'm going to take Christians off. But Christians love to run around and say, Sola scriptra, the scripture is the final authority. Now, the final authority is your own interpretation, because you make your interpretation authoritative and you judge everyone according to your interpretation. And you got Christians running around they will say this passage means this past I mean, I get emails all the time. I can offer any interpretation. I'll get an email saying you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong. It's like, okay, great, But then if you want to ask them basic questions about hermeneutical principles, they don't even know what you're talking about, but they feel qualified. Because that's very much the non Catholic world, right, the non Catholic world is every individual Christian is qualified.

17:04 In fact, every individual Christian many of them will run around claiming not only are they qualified to interpret the Bible, they will claim they have God himself helping them interpret the Bible, which then logically would mean their interpretation comes from God. Therefore it's infallible. Therefore you cannot challenge it. And pastors play that game behind the pulpit, and the people in the peu say amen. If your pastor says God helped him interpret it, led him to the interpretation, or gave him the interpretation, he just now put himself in a position where you cannot challenge his interpretation. So if I would just get on the air and just say God gave me all of my interpretations, you couldn't email me and question me. I would tell you to email God. Well, see what that's Oh, there's so many things wrong with that whole approach. So what we're gonna do is just look at all I'm going to do in this message in this episode. It would go look at Proverbs thirty fourteen, John six fifty three, try to apply some rules and see where we come up with.

18:04 Because again Proverbs thirty fourteen and one sermon, this is this is what makes even listening to preaching insane. And one sermon we hear Proverbs thirty fourteen, there is a generation whose teeth are as swords, and their jaws jaw teeth as knives, to devour the poor from off the earth. Right now, According to the sermon, literal. However, they did not quote John six fifty three, but they clearly are referencing the teaching that Catholicism has taken from John six fifty three. Transubstantiation barely rarely asked the into you, except you eat the flesh, eat the flesh of the sun of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you. And he argued, that's the figurative part. Okay, Well, how did you come to this conclusion. Well, let's just let's just follow some basic rules. How about the rules of context Proverbs thirty fourteen and the context of Proverbs thirty The passage is a part of a list of negative characteristics of a certain people described metaphorically. The context suggests that devouring the poor is figurative language describing the exploitation or oppression of the poor. The passage uses strong imagery to emphasize the cruelty of those who take advantage of the vulnerable. The overall genre of proverbs wisdom literature commonly uses such metaphorical language to express moral or ethical points.

19:36 So they say, the context here is using that type of thing, all right, and you can just look at the text itself, right, verse just go to Proverbs thirty thirteen, there is a generation. Oh, how lofty are their eyes? And their eyelids are lifted up? Issue about eyes and eyelids, No eyes and eyelids is being used metaphorically to represent pride. And then even in Proverbs thirty fourteen, the very verse, there is a generation whose teeth are as swords. As swords. It's clearly showing you, it's screaming at you, it's using metaphorical language. It clearly is. Now what about John Chapter six, Verse fifty three and fifty seven. Well, in the context of John six, Jesus is using spiritual language to describe belief in him as the bread of life. The broader passage points to faith in Jesus as essential for eternal life.

20:34 His statements about eating his flesh and drinking his blood are metaphorical, pointing to the need for intimate union with him, and this would be symbolized in the Lord's Supper. The context of the passage with reference to spiritual life and belief suggest a symbolic rather than literal meaning. I think most would see that right, because if you go to John six, I want to break these down in a much more like in a greater in a greater way, John six, John chapter. Six, he says, hang, if I can find the exact phrase, see John chapter six. Hang on, but yeah, John six thirty five, Jesus said into them, I am the Bread of life.

21:40 I am the bread. Clearly, that's a metaphor. Clearly Jesus is not saying he's actual bread. Clear So already in John six thirty five, we already have the metaphorical language proven nobody would take that literal right. So there we and and Proverbs thirty we are we have metaphorical language clearly being utilized. So that help us understand the eating part. And in John six we have the metaphorical idea I am the bread of life, would clearly indicate Jesus is not actually bred. I think any reasonable person should be able to draw a conclusion that Proverbs thirty and John six is using metaphorical language at least in some to some level that we should make us go hmmm. I think we should be careful. So by considering the immediate and broader context, it becomes clear that both passages use metaphorical language to convey deeper spiritual truths. The context of each passage directs us to a non literal interpretation. The context would seem to go, I don't know if if Proverbs is talking about a future time prophetically that people are going to eat people, I think it's seemingly describe.

22:47 There's pride, and then there's a generation that's going to treat the poor in a very exploitive and very oppressive way. That's going to be like devouring them off the face of the earth. They're going to be using this up. Oh, and here Jesus is making a reference here or that he's the bread. Hey, you at physical bread, but that bread you still die. I am the bread that will give you eternal life. Well, is Jesus saying we have to physically eat him? Or is Jesus saying that somehow we believe in him? Is is likened unto that? Right? And so in fact, if you if you go down, if you just look at the at the if you look at the text John six thirty five, I am the bread of life. He that cometh to me, she'll never hunger. He that believes up in me, she'll never thirst. Well, obviously we're still gonna get hungry, and we're still gonna get thirsty. So we already know this is metaphorically, he's the bread. We're never gonna hunger and thirst spiritually, not physically.

23:50 But I say to you that ye also have seen me and believe not. Now there is the belief part brought in immediately right there, all right, look at verse forty, and this is the will of him that sent me, that everyone would see the sun and believeth on him may have everlasting life and will raise him up the last day. So the believing is in a sense the idea of the partaking, of the eating of the bread of life, which gives you eternal life by believing. So clearly you can see the metaphorical if you follow it three, you can see the metaphorical part. Now most all non Catholics would be like, well, obviously John six is not literal. But now we have a non Catholic going to Proverbs thirty going they're eating people. Well, you see the inconsistency there.

24:41 So we have the real rule of context. I think if you just go through the context, you have what we will call the rule of genre or literary genre. Proverbs thirty fourteen. Proverbs is a part of wisdom literature, which is known for its frequent use of metaphor and hyperbole to illustrate moral and ethical principles. In this genre, descriptions like teeth, our swords, and devouring the poor are poetic expressions used to depict the cruelty of the wicked. I mean, it's the genre is right there. So and proverbs we know the genre. We shouldn't have any problems. Some there's poetry. It's using that metaphorical type of language. We've already talked about this. Now John six is where you can have a little bit. You would actually have a better argument for John six being literal than you would Proverbs, because John is a different literary style, literary genre.

25:35 John six, the Gospel of John, has written in narrative and philological discourse, and Jesus often uses symbol symbolic language such as I am the lot of the world, I am the bread of life to convey spiritual truths. Now, on one hand, the type of literary the genre of literature that it is, you could kind of argue, well, we take a lot of John literally, do we not? We do? I mean, there's no way to get around it. Right when we reread about and John, we say, well, this is literal. This is literal. This is literal. So this makes it a little bit more You've got to be a little bit more cautious. But I think we can see that within the literal historical narrative there is philological discourse, and within the philological discourse there is figurative language being utilized, like I am the light of the world, or I am the door, or I'm bred. We see then that it's conveying these truths. The philological nature of John's Gospel emphasizes belief in union with Christ and Jesus uses metaphors and symbolisms frequently to explain these spiritual realities.

26:44 The genres of both passages suggest non literal interpretations. Proverbs, poetic and moralistic genre invites metaphorical reading. John's philological discourses uses spiritual language to express deeper truths. And I think that's the case. But you can see where that even that can become IFFI in the beginning, was the word the word was with God, and the word was God? Well, well that's just figurative language, you see. And the word became flesh, Well is that figurative? See, this is where it can get iffy, right, because then you have another section of John, well, well that's not literal, that this is the very how can we say it? Almost a I don't like to say it. There is a subjective nature to Bible interpretation, which at times can be very troubling and inconsistent. Right, And what typically happens if you're in the pew, you just go with whatever you've been told.

27:44 Someone tells you it's literal, someone tells you it's figurative, and you just go along with it. Now, so to me, the Catholics would have a greater argument and arguing that John six fifty three through the following should be taking literal, because they would just go so they could just flip over you a couple of chapters back and go, well, wait a minute, do you interpret John Chapter one? Is literal? Do you take that? Was the word made flesh? Was? Was he literally made flesh? Did he dwell among us? Was? Was? You know? All these things that happen were they were these literal? Were the miracles literal? And you would say, well, the miracles were literal? This was literal, This was literal, And then you would go John one, two, three, four, and all of a sudden, no, no, no, no, this isn't literal, So Catholics would actually have the better argument then going to proverbs, which is a part of poetry and wisdom literature, and then say well, they're eating people. I think you would have a better argument if you wanted to just look at it hermeneutically and arguing that the eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood is literal, at least from a contextual and literary genre standpoint. Now, I think the thing that helps us in John six is when Jesus says I am the Bread of life. We know that can't be. He's not literal bread. So therefore we have a little clue in John six that Jesus is using figurative language. Immediately, he's contrasting that bread with

29:18 him being the bread. That bread you going to die with him? You have eternal life. Well, how do we have eternal life? Well, we have verse after verse by believing in him. So the believing is contrasted with the eating. Okay, we can make it work, but just make sure you understand it can be. It requires a little bit of effort, so we do have the rule of I think context here is most important more than genre. Literary genre I think helps us with psalms and helps us with proverbs. Okay, but when it comes to John six, the rule of genre or the rule of literary genre becomes a little bit more difficult. I think. So number one, we have what we call the rule of context. Number two we have the rule of genre, and number three the rule of figurative language indicators. So you look for are there figurative language indicators, which is what I've been trying to I place that within the role of the role of context.

30:21 But within the context, do I find these figurative language indicators? Is there indicators? Well? In Proverbs thirty fourteen, I mean, I think it's very simple. Teeth teeth are swords, fangs are knives, strongly indicating figurative language. Literal teeth cannot be swords, nor do literal knives grow in people's mouths. The figurative indicator suggests that devouring the poor is a metaphor for oppressive, harmful behavior, and I think we can indicate that. And if you go back to verse thirteen, it's not talking about eyes and eyelids. That's being metaphorically speaking to be speaking about pride. So we have figurative language indicators. Now how about John six. Well, John uses figurative language when he says eat my flesh and drink my blood. Literal cannibalism would contradict other scriptural teaching, and Jesus intent is to emphasize the necessity of believing on him and participating in his life. The language Jesus uses meant to provoke deeper reflection on spiritual truth rather than literal consumption. But now that's one explanation again. I think if you go back when he says I am the bread of life in John six thirty five, I think that sets up. Hey, guys, I'm using a metaphor here. I'm using a figurative's language here.

31:36 I think the text then that's where you have the indicator. I think when you go back, because I mean, it's only it's not that, it's what ten verses nine verses before. So it's in the very same section. We're not like going completely Well, actually, I'm sorry, take it back. It's more than that. It's thirty five he says I'm the bread of life. Fifty three is where he says eat my flesh. So it's a little it's more than that, but it's within the very same section. It's within the same discourse, it's within the same narrative. It's not like everything has changed here. So I think that makes sense, at least I believe it does. So what do we have here? We have the rule of context, we have the rule of genre, We have the rule of figurative language indicators number four. What we would call this the rule of absurdity, the rule of absurdity Proverbs thirty fourteen.

32:36 A literal interpretation of the poor being physically eaten by oppressors would be absurd and not aligned with the overall teaching of scripture. The idea of people physically eating the poor would contradict the common Biblical theme of justice for the poor and vulnerable. Now, the only problem is I don't necessarily agree with that argument. Now, I do think there's a rule of absurdity, all right. I do think there's a rule of absurdity. But I don't think that's Hey, it would be absurd to have a text about people eating people, because it would go against basic morality. But the whole point of that text is there's a generation coming that's going to be wicked, and they're going to do things. They're not supposed to do, so I don't think that works. So I don't think that. I don't think that explanation works in any way, shape or form. Right.

33:18 I think the reason it becomes absurd is a couple of things. Right, There is a generation, oh how see verse fourteen. There is a generation whose teeth are as swords and their jaw teeth as knives. All right, the text itself, it would be absurd to believe that someone's teeth really are becoming swords and knives. Clearly it's using a metaphor. So therefore it would be absurd to say their teeth is becoming knives swords, and they're eating people. The text would be absurd because you would have to then make it all work, and it would not. It would not work in any way, shape or form. It would not work. It's like the same thing in I think it's I think it's Micah three. Micah three. Um, yeah, so it talks about the people being eaten in Micah three, starting a verse two, they pluck off their skin, their flesh from off their bones. They will eat the flesh of my people. They will flay their skin. And then in verse fourteen, then shall they cry unto the Lord. Okay, well, I don't think people being eaten and their skin being flayed are going to be crying to the lord. And now I guess you could try to work around that, but I think you start finding yourself into the absurd.

34:38 So I think with Proverbs thirty, the rule of absurdity is the fact that the very verse itself is using clearly metaphorical language, figurative language about their teeth. And it would be absurd then to say, no, that the eating is literal, but the other part is figuring. Now, that would be absurd just even in trying to make that work. That would be like, this is what it would be doing this generation whose teeth are as swords. Okay, that's not real soreds. It's just they have really sharp teeth and their jaw teeth as knives. It doesn't mean it's knives. It just means it's really sharp teeth to devour the poor. But they're really eating the poor. That's that's absurd. You don't averse that would be contrad having two different ways of interpreting it. Now, is there a rule of absurdity?

35:28 In John six Well, a literal interpretation of eating Jesus flesh and drinking his blood would lead to an absurdity, especially considering that Jesus consistently teaches against literalism and other spiritual matters. When Nicodemus misunderstood being born again literally, because Jesus corrects that, like and John three, what does he do a man being born again? And Nicodemus is like, how can a man be born when he's all And Jesus is like, you're misunderstanding this, right, I'm talking about being born again from above, I'm talking about being born against spiritual Well, here I think the rule of absurdity shows up in John six. Because Jesus says I am the Bread of life. It would be absurd to turn him into a loaf of bread. Therefore we know immediately he's using the figurative language. The absurd part would be to have within the same narrative where Jesus says I am bread and then talks about eating and drinking of his flesh, to then make that literal when you just just you know versus before you have to go with the figurative once again, you would have within the same kind of section you're trying to have some literal and some figurative and that just doesn't make sense hermeneutically, a literal interpretation of both passages lead to absurd conclusions and contradictions. Therefore, metaphorical understanding is necessary for coherence. Now I do agree with that, I don't agree necessarily with the way they try to argue it. Can I think we can show

36:59 when it's a absurd And I think that's the thing. Whenever you're trying to figure out whether it's metaphorical, is it absurd? Does it just stop making any sense? Right? So we have the rule of context, we have the rule of genre, we have the rule of figurative language indicators. We have the rule of absurdity. Next we have what we'll call the rule of philological consistency. Proverbs thirty fourteen. A literal interpretation of eating the poor would conflict with the Bible's broader teaching on protecting the poor and promoting justice. Se I don't I disagree with that. That makes no sense. The whole point of the passage is that people are doing that which is wrong. So that doesn't make any sense.

37:44 You can't say, well, it would be thiologically inconsistent. I it's not promoting the eating of the poor, it would be condemning it. So it would be completely philologically consistent to say these people are doing horrible things, and these horrible things are wrong. It's so it would be theologically inconsistent to be saying go eat people, but another passage saying don't do that, that would be theologically inconsistent. So that makes no That makes no sense to me. Is there a thiologically uh? Is it theiologically consistent? I don't think there's a thiological consistency issue here. I don't think there's a theological consistency issue here. That rule I don't think has any application to this problem. How about in John six, a metaphorical interpretation of eating jesus flesh and drinking his blood aligns with the philological themes of union with Christ uh Jesus teaching here fits with a broader Biblical emphasis on spiritual sustenance and eternal life. I do think if you argued, if we actually have to eat jesus flesh and eat eat his flesh and drink his blood, now we would be like, now, where would be theological consistency? Well, now is that a violation? Are we are? We told?

38:58 To eat people. Now we may have a thiological inconsistency because we're actually being told you have to do this basically in order to be saved. So it'd be actually, you're almost participating in some form of actually eating his s flesh and drinking his blood in order to be saved. Does that violate other scriptures? There would be some theologically inconsistency Proverbs thirty. I don't think that you have theologically inconsistency by saying, hey, this they're really eating people. That's not theologically inconsistent because this is describing wicked people. And John six it would be like you have to eat in order to be saved. Well, then we could argue there's theological inconsistency. So, yeah, I'm a I'm not a fan.

39:43 I don't think that rule. Really. I think the rule may apply more to John six than it does to Proverbs thirty. So to avoid subjective interpretations, applying these hermeneutical principles consistently leads to a more reliable text based and interpretation. Proverbs thirty fourteen, the devouring of the people is clearly metaphorical, symbolizing oppression and exploitation, as supported by the context genre and philological themes of Proverbs John six fifty three through fifty seven. Jesus statement about eating his flesh and drinking his blood are metaphorical, emphasizing the spiritual relationship believers must have with him. The context of the passage and the genre of philological discourse support the symbolic understanding. By using rules of hermeneutics, we can interpret both passages in a way that is consistent, contextual, and faithful to the intent of the text, avoiding subjective interpretations that might lead to contradictions.

40:43 Now I do agree with that, So let's go through the rules one more time. What are the rules? The rules of context, the rules of context. Now, when I first learned, you know, when I first started, you know, taking courses on Hermae and you know, working on degrees and biblical studies, and started trying to become, you know, as an expert as I could be with all the concepts of biblical harmoneutics, reading every book I could find on the subject, I thought it was like, ooh, context, if we just interpret the Bible in its proper context, we won't have any problems. That's what I always thought. But you know what, after a while, I don't even like even saying it anymore, because every Christian says that, Well, you just have to look at the context. You just have to look at the context. You just have to look at the context. You'll have a Presbyterian or an a millennial list or or you know, someone from from you know, an well from an all millennial system of eschatology, and they will go to the Old Testament, and we're over and over it mentions Israel, Israel, Israel. Now that that's not really Israel, that's not really Israel, that's spiritual Israel, that's the Church, and that land is not really land, And you're like, what in the world name of bubblegum are you talking about. You just have to read it and context. I've heard Presbyterians, so if you would just read the Bible in context, you would understand why there's infant baptism. I'm like, or I could just read and never see the concept. But you're right, I'm not reading it in context. Everyone claims that, right, Calvinists like, if

42:16 you would just read it in context, non Calvinists, if you just read it in context, Lutherans, if you just read it in context. At Presbyterians, if you just read it in context. Baptist, if you would just read it in context, Charismatics, if you would just read it in context. Church of Christ, if you would just read it in context. Everyone says, if you would just read it in context, we would fix all of our problems. Clearly, just reading it in context doesn't really fix anything. So that's really that's really like there was a time I was like, that's the answer. Well, see, the reason the reason people don't interpret things the way I interpret them is they just don't read it in context. If they would read it in context, of course they would interpret it the way I interpret it. Now, it is a rule we have to look at content text. I do agree with that, but it doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter. I mean, I've been in too many philological debates and discussions. It just really it's just a waste of time. I Look, you'll have someone who'll go to Ezequel thirty six, say, we get a new heart, we get a new spirit, we get a new heart, we get a new spirit.

43:24 It's right there in Ezequel thirty six. If you would just read it in its context, if you'll just read it in its context. I mean I've heard that a thousand times. I'm like, well, if I go to Ezequel thirty six and just read it in its context, I'm gonna see Israel Israel, Israel, Israel, Israel, Israel, Israel Israel. Mentioned I forgot how many times we counted it one time in church, over and over and over again. And then it says when they get their new heart, Oh, then they're going to go into the land, I promise their fathers. If I just read it in context, the promise of a new heart here is not for you or for me, It's for Israel, right before they go into the land. Oh but no, I'll get I'll get typically more on the reform side. Oh, you just don't know how to read, and you just don't know, Herman Nudison, you would just understand the context. You just don't know.

44:11 You're you're basically an idiot. We're smart. I'm like, oh, I could just say you don't know how to read the Bible. See, I think I'm reading it correctly. They think they're reading it correctly. So conn I would love to think that context fixes everything, but it really doesn't. I wish it did, but it is still a rule. So we always have to look at the context. What that's going to actually accomplish, I don't know. I guess the one thing it would accomplish is if we could just get everyone to acknowledge the actual context. Maybe. I mean, if you read Ezequel thirty six, the context is this real? How can you get around that? If you're reading Jeremiah was at twenty nine to eleven the plans I have for you, if you just read the context, you know those plans are not for you or for me. Those are for the people coming out Babylonian captivity. Can we at least acknowledge that I can do all things through Christ, which strengthened to me. That's not about you dunking a basketball or running a marathon. Okay, the context is about contentment, right, So context matters, but in some ways it doesn't matter.

45:23 But it is a rule. The rule of literary genre. I think this is important. I think this one should be helpful. A lot of times when people argue with me, I'll be like, well, what's the literary genre of the book you're quoting from? I don't But you know what, even if you even if you kind of stump them or they do a quick Google search and find out and they don't really know. It doesn't matter. They're still going to have the interpretation they want. Doesn't really matter. But rule of genre, rule of figurative language indicators, Now you think we should be able to go find the indicators going, hey, come on, that's I think that's an indicator that we should take this vigatively. Come on, I think that's an indicator. Don't you think. Don't you think that's a good indicator. When Jesus says he's bred, I think that's a pretty good indicator. When it talks about people's teeth becoming swords and knives, I think that's a pretty good indicator. The rule of absurdity, when your literal interpretation seems to become absord absurd, I think that I think we should be able to determine that. The problem is a lot of people won't think their interpretation is absurd even though it clearly seems to be absurd. And then rule of philological consistency. Now, I think that's a good point. If you're going to interpret to passage a certain way, got to make sure that's philologically consistent with everything else in the Bible. Right, I think that is fair.

46:50 So those are some basic rules. And I just wanted to contrast Proverbs thirty fourteen and John six fifty three, just because in one sermon we had fifteen to twenty men of seeing Proverbs thirty fourteen they're literally eating John six they're not literally eating. And you're like, but it's the same type of language. Why why Why? Well, because guess what literally eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ goes against their theology. Having people eating the poor doesn't impact their theology. And guess what this determines or just what demonstrates over and over and over. The Bible is interpreted not based off rules of hermeneutics. The Bible is interpreted based off the principles of our theological system.

47:46 So if you have a certain theological system, you always interpret the Bible consistent with your theological system. Our theology does the interpretation, not hermeneutics. And when your theology is guiding your interpretation and you're not doing Bible study, you're simply reading the Bible through the lens of your theology, You've got to take your theological system and burn it and throw it in the trash. When you study the Bible. I'm not saying you can't have a theological system, but you read and study the Bible and you don't care if it agrees or disagrees with your theological system. You don't care because you're not loyal to a thiological system. You're supposed to be loyal to the scriptures. Well, just what when you do that? Then you take off everyone.

48:28 You take off the reform people, you ticked off, the non reform people, you take off the a millennialist, the premillennialist, you take off Calvinists. Non can you take off everyone? Because everybody thinks the Bible should be interpreted according to their theological system, and it never is that simple. So you can at least write these down. Rule of context, which I don't think actually means anything, rule of genre, rules of figurative language indicators, rule of absurdity, and rule of philological consistency. Now we haven't really advanced this very far, but I had to deal with that because we ended the last the last study with him going off on Catholics, and it was just seems so absurd to me, like he didn't even he didn't even register in his mind. Well, wait a minute, I've been saying all these passages are literal eating, but now I'm saying that this passage is not literal eating. Now you notice he didn't read John six.

49:36 He just condemned Catholicism, made fun of them, mock them again, just you know, being very derogatory instead of just speaking. And you know, I'm more, I don't know reasonable, you know, I think a more accurate way. He just kind of used derogatory terms, but he didn't actually deal with the text. I've got the Catholic Catechism right here. If I pull it up and look up the section on the Eucharist, right on transubstantiation, it's going to quote John Siggs. Well, why wouldn't John six be literal eating? If Proverbs thirty is literal eating and Psalm fourteen four is literal eating, Amica three is literal eating. If all these other passes is are literal eating and using very similar language, then why wouldn't it just all of a sudden here, Well, because well, how do we handle that? All? Right? I know that leaves us with a million questions, but I wanted to at least get this done. I know it's not great. I know it's not perfect. I know, there's I feel like I'm kinda I feel like someone through me in the ocean, and I'm just trying to keep my head above water, trying to figure out what to do.

50:52 And I'm overwhelmed with the ocean. Right, I'm like, I don't even know where we begin with all of this, Like, how did we get there? We were going to listen to a message on the allegorical method that just completely didn't even bother to teach us the allegorical method, so that was frustrating. And then I go to Proverbs thirty, thinking, Okay, we can escape all of this. We'll just get to have a good discussion about Proverbs thirty. And the next thing, you know, we're like people are eating people and I'm like, what is happening now? What is going on? So we will work all of this out at some point where we will do this, I don't know, but we will find a We're going to keep putting it together until we find a solution. So all right, thanks for listening. Everyone, have a great Saturday. God bless