The Lake of Fire.7
Keeping the Simple, Simple
Must we all be theologians with a 150 IQ to understand these things? That leaves me out.
Let’s just take a couple of very simple metaphors from the Scriptures and apply the above conclusions to them. Here’s a simple one:
"All life is grass" (I Pet. 1:24).
Can we apply the first deduction made by the author quoted above? Let’s try it:
"All life is (that is, REPRESENTS) grass."
No, this is clearly not true, anymore than all life REPRESENTS trees, or all life REPRESENTS worms, or any other thing! We can certainly use the word "represents" with reference to metaphors, but not in the way the above author does. It is wrong to say that the subject of a metaphor "represents" the predicate, and it is equally wrong to say that the predicate of a metaphor "represents" the subject. Neither is true. However, both the subject AND the predicate TOGETHER, do "represent" something. And THAT’S why it is called a metaphor rather than a statement of fact!
What about number 2:
The subject of a metaphor is symbolic, while the predicate is literal Let’s try this out on our sample metaphor:
"All (SYMBOLIC) life (the subject) is (LITERAL) grass (the predicate)."
No, that doesn’t work either. How in the world can "symbolic life" BE "literal grass?"
And now number 3:
Is it true that the subject of a metaphor must "represent" something that "...consists in a literal expression and is a literal entity"? Nope. Not true. All life is not LITERALLY grass! PEOPLE are not grass, ELEPHANTS are not grass, BIRDS are not grass, FISH are not grass, BACTERIA are not grass, and a thousand other forms of life are NOT literal grass! Am I going to fast for anyone?
Earlier I stated that most believe one of the following:
the lake of fire is literal and the second death is literal,
or the lake of fire is literal but the second death is symbolic,
or the lake of fire is symbolic (with literal fire) but the second death is literal.
I believe that the lake of fire AND the second death are both symbolic and figurative language.
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 about:
"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 it is no 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:
"The Jews, then, fought with one another, saying, ‘HOW THEN CAN THIS ONE GIVE US HIS FLESH TO EAT?" (John 6:52)
They too thought that metaphors were LITERAL! Christ is the Bread that come down FROM HEAVEN, not the bread that comes from wheat out of the ground. Christ is NO LONGER flesh and blood. He has been raised with a SPIRITUAL BODY
I Cor. 15:44, "...it is raised A SPIRITUAL BODY."
Besides "flesh and blood CANNOT inherit the Kingdom of God."
We partake of Christ’s spiritual body, not literal flesh, blood and muscle protein.
If we fight and argue as the foolish Jews did over what part of metaphor must be literal, we will learn nothing. If we can’t understand a simple metaphor as "Take eat, this (bread) IS by body," how will we ever understand "The lake of fire which IS the second death?"
I don’t wish to belabor this point, but it is of paramount importance and sometimes if we would hunger and thirst after righteousness, there is definitely some labor involved.
The easiest way I know to explain a metaphor is to simply state how metaphors are used, and it all becomes rather simple. If Peter’s statement that "all life is grass" is not literally true, then why say it? Why use it? Because when we understand metaphors, they speak volumes about a subject in just a very few words-much like poetry. "All life is grass" means that all life is like grass IN CERTAIN WAYS. That’s it! That’s just how simple it is. Life is like grass in certain ways, in that it is fragile, easily killed, short-lived, here today; gone tomorrow, etc. But, on the other hand, ALL life is NOT like grass in certain other ways. Not all life is attached to the ground, unintelligent, and colored green! Am I going to fast for anyone?