The Lake of Fire.6
Making the Simple Complicated
Reading some theories about the meaning of metaphors causes me to think of the man who when describing the feats of a circus performer stated: "He performs feats of ease with the greatest of difficulty." It is absolutely amazing how theologians can make relatively easy to understand principles seem most difficult. I will now show you an exercise of just such grammatical gymnastics. It’s just three very short paragraphs, so indulge me and I will try to simplify the whole thing immediately thereafter.
Here then is a complicated example from "Concordant Studies-The Lake of Fire" page 9:
"The lake of fire is the second death. That is, the lake of fire is the cause of, or the agency which produces, the second death. ‘This’ represents ‘that.’ The idea is, the lake of fire-by figure of association in which the cause is put for the effect-represents the second death. This is a compound figure. That is, it incorporates more than one figure of speech. In such a case as this, ‘is’ itself is also a figure of speech. Instead of its literal significance (which denotes existence), ‘is,’ as a symbolic metaphor, means ‘represent.’ The concept is this: Part A represents Part B; thus Part A symbolizes Part B. As a symbol of Part B, Part A itself has become a figure."
From page 10:
"The lake of fire, which, by virtue of being its cause, thus, represents the second death." "In the interpretation of a metaphor, the goal is to take note of the essential way in which the symbolic subject is like the literal predicate. Indeed, if in the presence of a symbolic, subject-expression, the meaning of the predicate-expression were itself unknowable-which would be the case if the predicate expression were a figure of speech-it would be impossible to note the likeness between the two."
And finally, from page 11:
"When one thing (or things) which represents another thing, is finally said to be that other thing, whether or not the representative thing itself is a literal entity, in any case, that which it finally represents consists in a literal expression and is a literal entity." (Italics is author’s throughout).
Okay, did you get all that? I want to just borrow a few statements from the above explanation of a metaphor and see if these things be so or not. Trust me, we will get through this quickly:
"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)."