The way truth is explained has everything to do with how we understand it. For example, it's possible to describe the church as a besieged fortress, a busy hospital or an international business. Each illustration on its own results in a different understanding of what the church is. Clearly, these are aspects of the church's multifaceted mission. None is wrong, and none is complete. In deed the church's mission includes and transcends the composite picture these and other illustrations present.
Illustrations are what metaphors are about. According to Webster, a metaphor is "a figure of speech containing an implied comparison, in which a word or phrase ordinarily and primarily used of one thing is applied to another."1 We use metaphors and word pictures to illustrate, to make understanding easy, to move from the known to the unknown.
The value of metaphors
A metaphor helps us understand truth. But truth is more than the point made by the illustration, and there fore must not be limited to the illustration. Weller Embler emphasizes this point well: "A work of literature can be discussed sociologically, bio logically, economically, psychoanalytically, anthropologically, in the vocabulary of those disciplines. . . . And the insights derived from application of, say, a theory of society to a work of literature may be valuable and enriching. But one can never say all there is to be said of a work of art either sociologically or psychoanalytically, or through any single systematic method of analysis." 2
If this is true for a literary work of art, how much more should this principle apply to biblical truth? Truth is what God tells us. But even all the biblical illustrations cannot project a complete picture of truth. For example, the truth of salvation is more than the sum of all that the biblical metaphors can communicate. The Gospels do not reveal everything about the kingdom of God; but they contain different pictures---for example, each of the parables about the kingdom, making a unique contribution towards understanding the kingdom.
Proper use of metaphors
Metaphors should be easy to understand. They should not be so complicated that they require additional illustrations to explain them.
Illustrations using metaphors may vary in length. The leaven in the meal (Matt. 13:33) and the hidden treasure (verse 44) are just one-verse parables containing great truths about the kingdom. On the other hand, the parable of the king and the two debtors (Matt. 18:23-35) and the laborers who were paid equally for varying hours of work (Matt. 20:1-16) are fairly lengthy ones.
Illustrations must be specific and to the point, each one focusing on a main emphasis. The four parables mentioned above are well focused. Although they all speak about the kingdom of God, each metaphor emphasizes a specific point. The parable of the leaven shows that the kingdom of heaven affects everything. The hidden treasure calls for total allegiance in the search for the kingdom. In the parable of the king, the two debtors refer to relational requirements on the part of the aspiring citizens of the kingdom. The parable of the laborers who were paid equally yet worked different lengths of time points to the fact that the ultimate in the kingdom is dependent not on our length of service, but our commitment to the One who calls.
Several illustrations may be grouped together to emphasize a broader view of a theme. New Testament metaphors often lend themselves to such treatment. For example, Jesus is not just the lamb of God He is also the lion of the tribe of Judah (see John 1:29; Rev. 5:5). Jesus is judge, law yer, and victim (see John 5:22, 27; 1 John 2:1; Gal. 3:13 and 2 Cor. 5:21). He is a shepherd as well as a door to the fold (see John 10:1-18); He is a husband (see Eph. 5:22-32; Jer. 3), a foundation (see 1 Cor. 3:9-11); a farmer (see Matt. 13:37ff); a king (Rev. 17:14); and a servant (see Isa. 53:11; Matt. 20:28).
Jesus often grouped metaphors to bear force on a particular teaching. For example, the condition of human lostness and divine grace is illustrated by three parables in Luke 15: the parables of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son. "By using a variety of illustrations [Christ] not only presented truth in its different phases but appealed to the different hearers." 3 You can find such illustrations around you, and with some imagination you can make them convey great truths (see sidebar).
Illustrations must not be over stretched. In the parable of the lost coin, the woman is motivated to search every nook and corner until she finds it. She searches because it is very valuable to her. Her diligence illustrates God's loving quest in our lostness. But the coin does not represent our lostness entirely, for it did not choose to be lost or found. A parable's usefulness is measured, not by what it cannot say, but by what it can say!
Take the parable of the prodigal son. The point of the story is to teach not about right and wrong, reward and punishment, but the unconditional grace and love of God. The story may be completely foreign to a strictly forensic comparison, but it is set in a family context.
Interpretation of biblical metaphors should not lead to teachings that are not supported by or that contradict other texts. The parable of Lazarus and the rich man is a prime example. The parable's main purpose is not to teach about a fire that will literally burn forever, or about the immortality of the soul, or about the immediate reward or punishment after death. Such interpretations contradict the teachings of the Bible else where.
Another example is the metaphor that Jesus' return would be "as a thief in the night" (1 Thess. 5:2). The metaphor does not teach secret rapture, as that doctrine is in contradiction to other scriptural teachings (see Matt. 24:23-31; Thess. 4:13-18and5:4; Rev. 1:7). The point of the metaphor is not secrecy but suddenness. The time of Jesus' return will be as sudden and unexpected as a thief in the night.
Metaphors must not be given imported meanings. For example, to say that God is our Father is one thing; but from that to imply that God is male and married is an unwarranted importation into the metaphor. Nor could we inversely make God female just because we might want to address God as mother. God transcends gender or any other metaphorical classification, including personhood. The term father is valuable and useful, but limited. Taking it any further than the intended point would be as ridiculous as saying Jesus went to law school because He functions as our advocate and judge.
Illustrations must be related to common areas that affect the daily life of your hearers. Jesus spoke of leaven (Matt. 13:33), treasure (verse 44), two debtors (Matt. 18:23-35), landowner (Matt. 20:1-16), two sons (Matt. 21:28-32), and a wedding banquet (Matt. 22:1-14). Jesus' hearers were familiar with the situations of these parables, each one making unique and alive contribution toward understanding of the nature of God's kingdom.
The limitations of metaphor
No single metaphor can fully portray all the facets of the truth. There fore when one metaphor is isolated and accepted as chiefly representative, other aspects of truth (as brought to view by other metaphors) are neglected, even leading to misunderstanding or misinterpretation. In Mat thew alone, Jesus uses 11 times the phrase "The kingdom of heaven is like . . ."4 Each time a different emphasis of the kingdom emerges. The parables all speak on the same theme, but each parable emphasizes a different aspect of that theme.
Ellen White says: "So wide was Christ's view of truth, so extended His teaching that every phase of nature was employed in illustrating truth."5 There is a distinction be tween the truth that is being conveyed and the means in terms of which it is communicated. An illustration is not a truth, it is only a way to communicate it.
A person visiting a museum with just enough film for a single photo graph can never really capture that museum. If theology is to accomplish its task to communicate the gospel and its related, surrounding, subordinate truths one picture is not enough. It must "familiarize itself as best it can with the ever-changing models of the various disciplines; . . . also, . . . show the way in which traditional phrases and formulae were and are able to be accepted currency for the mystery of which they spoke. If theology may alert other disciplines to the claims of mystery and insight and disclosures, it must learn from other disciplines how to be more reliably articulate."6
The apostle Paul was aware of this. He used many different approaches to bear on the same truth because he well knew that no single word picture could (or can) adequately describe what he was trying to say. Each snapshot contributes to the picture album of God, but by itself one photo limits our understanding.
When talking of what God in Christ did for humankind on the cross, Paul used many different illustrations: (1) justification/imputed righteousness a judicial or legal term (Rom. 5:9); (2) reconciliation expressing "refriendment," or the mending of a relationship (verse 10); (3) adoption a mixture of legal and family ideas (Rom. 8:15); (4) sanctification an expression from the Hebrew cultus (1 Cor. 1:30; Heb. 10:10); (5) redemption common to Hebrew civil law regarding land inheritance and reacquisition (Rom. 3:24; Heb. 9:12); (6) freedom from slavery or bond age the possible result of several different situations, including some mentioned in Hebrew civil law (Rom. 6:22); (7) wages of labor and pay (Acts 20:28; Rom. 6:23); (8) marriage a divinely instituted relation ship as the basis of family (Eph. 5:22- 27); (9) forgiveness a commercial expression (Acts 13:38; Eph. 1:7); (10) washing/cleansing from the Hebrew cultus (Acts 22:16;Titus 3:5); and (11) salvation rescue from a dangerous situation such as war or threat of war (1 Tim. 1:15; 2 Tim. 1:9)7 Even with all these varied metaphors and illustrations, what God accomplishes for us and in us remains beyond human understanding.
That should lead us to approach the Word of God with a spirit of humility and a desire to listen to what it says. Keeping an open mind, we can learn from the Word, and see many aspects of truth from different points of view without having to fight or argue over differences in emphasis and without loosing the need to treat one another with love and respect at all times.
1. Webster's New World Dictionary of the American language, 2nd college ed. (1984).
2. Weller Embler, The Language of Criticism, cassette 134A in Metaphor and Meaning cassette series: (Everett/Edwards, 1972).
3. Ellen G. White, Highways to Heaven (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1952), p. 13.
4. The 11 instances are Matthew 13:24, 31, 33, 44, 45, 47; 18:23; 20:1; 22:2; 25:1, 14.
5. White, pp. 11, 12.
6. lan T. Ramsey, "Models and Mystery," in Essays on Metaphor, ed. Warren Shibles (Whitewater, Wis.: Language Press, 1972), p. 166.
7. A systematic outline, modification, and expansion on some points made in "The Dynamics of Salvation," Ministry, February 1988, pp. 25, 26. From a reprint of a document produced by righteous-by-faith consultation group and an editorial committee in 1979-1980.
