Bible Question:
Intrinsic perhaps with the belief of a literal millennial reign of Christ would also be the idea of a literal physical and bodily return of Christ to this earth. Similar also to Christ's literal resurrection of the dead. (As opposed to symbolical). Indeed, the first three chapters of the book of Genesis are very similar in writing style to the book of revelation. This similarity stands out with the depictions in each book (Genesis and Revelation) of a Tree of Life that was once in the Garden of Eden and then resurfaces in the New Jerusalem, which descends from heaven to earth. I might ask what exactly in the bible should we take literally versus symbolically? The millennial reign of Christ? The Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden or the heavenly New Jerusalem? The miracle healings of Christ and the bodily resurrections that He performed on others? The physical bodily resurrection of Christ Himself? The ascension into heaven and therefore bodily return of Christ? I suggest that each of these things are intricately interrelated. But are they physically literal or merely symbolic? I suppose if we had the power to make our dreams into physical realities with mere thought, like immortals probably do, we could manifest many of these things ourselves. But alas, we are mortals and will likely remain so, as the majority of our fallen species ever has. What do we know of such wonders, but what we read? - Blessings, Reighnskye |
Bible Answer: I am afraid to contribute to this topic --- and I won't go on and on. But the discussion seems to have a consensus that seems forced. A lot of the Bible is symbolic. We use symbolic language so often in life, day to day --- perhaps we avoid it in legal language, but so much of language functions as metaphor. Metaphors do NOT use the words "like" or "as" to clarify them. So when Jesus talked about the camel going through the eye of the needle, what did he mean? It's a puzzle that people solve in different ways (ie. the eye of the needle was actually a gate into Jerusalem, etc.) It is difficult to interpret the symbolic language without understanding the time period. One of the main things to look at is the genre. Sure, the wisdom books are full of imagery --- but they also recount history.... What about apocalyptic writing, such as Daniel? There is so much metaphor in there, it has been argued about ever since the 2nd century BC. Not every word is literal. But every word IS authoritative. So we have to study and wrestle. As for Jesus' resurrection --- I am convinced this is literal. The goal is to read the words as they were intended by the authors, and if you read Acts, it is clear they were empowered by encounters with a physically risen Lord. I think this is the most critical thing for us all to deal with, and is the foundation of our faith. As for the creation account, well, I'd say the genre shifts from "mostly mythic" to "mostly history" around Genesis 12. Every word is true, and God wants us to align our lives with it. But exegesis that takes it all literally is imposing a kind of modernist empiricism on the text that doesn't belong there. They are reading it as science, in a way that didn't exist before 1600. Most of all, the Bible should be read as a whole. The relationship between the Garden and the Heavenly City; the suffering servant in Isaiah and Christ's passion; the promises and their fulfillment. We need to immerse ourselves prayerfully in the whole text in order to interpret each part. I know much of this note won't be accepted by the majority of forum users... but I really enjoy discussing the Bible with people who love it as much as I do. Blessings to all. JRM |