|
 One
of the most common ways of teaching the unknown is by comparison
with the known. This is the basis for figures of speech such as
the simile, parable, and various metaphors. But a comparison is
limited by the maker and he alone has the right to
establish its use or application. If I say of a track star, “He
runs like a deer” I do not mean he bounds on all fours,
browses, or drops his antlers like a deer. But in Bible
interpretation (?) such absurdities are common. Saints are
called “children” of God, so some conclude the aspects of
the physical relation must be found in them. They think
we must have a “pre-natal” state, and “once a child,
always.”
The
“point” of comparison intended in a figure is usually
indicated by the context (“this man receiveth sinners”) or
is stated (“likewise joy shall be in heaven —” Lu.
15:2,7), and is never left to the fancies of others.
Bullinger, in his introduction to “Figures of Speech,” said
“No one is at liberty to exercise any arbitrary power in their
use. All that art can do is to ascertain the laws to which
nature has subjected them. There is no room for private opinion,
neither can speculation concerning them have any authority.”
Again, “It is used for a definite purpose and with a specific
object.”
There
is no reason to believe that figurative language in one context
must, in another context, be used in exactly the same way.
Christ used the keep and sheepfold in two ways, one immediately
following the other. He was the “door” of the sheepfold, and
he was the “good shepherd” (Jn. 10:9f). “Born” of God
may
|
|
refer to the initial entrance into God’s
family (Jn. 3:5, 1 Cor. 4:15, Phile. 10, 1 Pet. 1:3) or it may
indicate the sustained relation of those who continue to be
influenced by the “seed” (1 Pet. 1:23, 1 Jn. 2:29, 3:9, 4:7,
5:1-4). We become children of God, but we must continue
to show God-like characteristics in order to be His children
(see Jn. 8:37-47, Matt. 5:44-45).
Those
who ask, “How can one be unborn?” make a like mistake with
Nicodemus (Jn. 3:4) in that they fail to see the metaphorical
nature of the matter, and expect the figure to have all points
of the literal. Shank, in “Life in the Son” (p. 90f) lists
three essential differences between physical and spiritual
birth. (1) One effects inception of life in toto, but the
other is only a transition from one mode of life to another. (2)
In physical birth the subject has no prior knowledge and gives
no consent, but these must be present in spiritual birth. (3) In
the first the individual receives a life independent of his
parents. They may die, but he lives on. Such is not the case in
the spiritual birth. One becomes partaker of the life and nature
of Him who begets. (Shank has a chapter on the subject, well
worth reading and study.)
In
debate one may answer another’s illustration by extension —
and prove his opponent inept at figure making. Even here,
logical consequences are not chargeable unless avowed. But God
makes no improper figures, and we had better accept His
comparisons for the “point” indicated — and leave it
exactly where He left it. Period!
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
