Figurative language in the Bible • Kernbeisser

Sweeter than honey

“How sweet are your words to my palate, sweeter than honey to my mouth!”
(Ps. 119:103, Rev. Elbf.)

The Bible is rich in imagery and figures of speech. We, too, often use figurative comparisons in our own speech. They help us convey emotions or add depth to what we’re saying. The Psalm quote above reads: “How sweet are… your words.” Of course, words aren’t actually sweet. That’s figurative language. We can only hear words; we can never taste them.

The psalmist uses this figurative language to say something about God’s Word. It is not meant literally here. We intuitively understand that he is expressing something positive. Sweetness is pleasant; it does him good. To make the comparison even clearer and more personal, he says: “ How sweet are your words to my palate.” It is an expansion of the statement—using another image. The palate symbolizes the writer’s entire person. God’s Word does him good as a human being, just as sweetness does the palate.

In the second part of the sentence, the comparison is taken even further and strengthened:

A. “How sweet to my palate are your words,
B. More than honey to my mouth!”

The sweetness is compared to honey in the second line. The increase says: Sweet are your words to my palate, more than honey to my mouth. Even sweeter than honey are God’s words. This cannot be increased any further (see also Prov 16:24).

To experience the Bible in this way is a great blessing. The comparison to honey is figurative, and in some Jewish traditions, this verse is also used quite literally as an example to teach children the value of God’s Word. Around the age of eight, children begin studying the Torah and learning the Hebrew language. This beginning is celebrated with a small ritual. The words of this verse are carved into wood. The grooves are filled with honey, and the children are allowed to lick it off—which they certainly enjoy doing. A fitting way to describe this is: “As sweet as this tastes, so good is God’s Word.” Thus, an everyday food has found its way into the Bible as a metaphor and has been carried back from there as an example into everyday life.

Not everything is literal

The Bible, as God’s Word, is reliable, but not everything in it is literally true. This is also true in our everyday language. Figurative language and tropes symbolically explain important concepts, but they should not be confused with reality. In the example above, for instance, it’s not about honey, and it certainly isn’t about beekeeping. Note: Figurative language explains the main theme, but it is never the main theme.

Figurative language
– explains the main theme,
– but never is the main theme.

Examples

“A land flowing with milk and honey”
Deut. 27:3

Milk and honey symbolize the fertility of the land and indirectly explain that it is good to live there.

But this does not mean (as I have heard someone doing) that a Christian should be living on nothing but milk and honey. If I take the words out of context and interpret them quite literally, they lose their original meaning. The text becomes nothing more than a canvas for projection. The way this man approached it disregarded, on the one hand, the figurative language, and on the other hand, the context, which speaks of a promise to Israel and of a specific land. When this happens in the life of faith, trust is replaced by projection.

Figurative language is a richness of our language. We think in pictures, draw comparisons, explain pictorially. All of this makes our language come alive. Visual language should not lead to false conclusions. For us to take advantage of the richness of figurative language, it is worth thinking about these things. Here is another example:

“Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light for my path.”
Ps 119:105

The Bible provides “light” for our daily “journey” and helps us navigate our lives. The imagery also suggests that we can illuminate our path well even in the dark “night.” However, this verse does not say that the Word (the Bible did not yet exist!) is, for example, a literal lamp.

Metaphors

Famous are the eight “I am” words from the Gospel of John:

“I am the bread of life”(Jn 6:35 Jn 6:48).
“I am the bread from heaven”(John 6:41).
“I am the light of the world”(John 8:12 and John 9:5).
“I am the door”(John 10:7)
“I am the good shepherd”(John 10:11).
“I am the resurrection and the life”(John 11:25).
“I am the way, the truth, and the life.” (John 14:6)
“I am the true vine”(John 15:1).

They are metaphors. Figures of speech like these explain connections and functions. They symbolize important truths. Literally speaking, Jesus is not a piece of bread; he is not a door; and, as far as we know, he did not work as a shepherd. This figurative language says something about Jesus. Figurative language can point to the subject in just a few words.

When Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, ” these are not separate elements; rather, they belong together. It is a single statement. If we listen carefully, Jesus is saying, “I am the true way to life” (a figure of speech called hendiatris, “one through three”). It is a composite statement with a single theme.

There are also several metaphors of God himself, for example:

“God is light”(1Jn 1,5)
“God is love” (1 John 4:8; 1 John 4:16)

In all these metaphors, the verb “to be” is used as a connecting element. This is not always the case in Greek. When a comparison is involved, as in these metaphors, the verb is used (“I am…” and“God is…”). However, there are cases where the verb is missing. In those cases, it is no longer a comparison but a direct statement—about the essence, so to speak. This cannot be rendered in German because we always use the word “sein,” even when it is missing in Greek. Let’s look at one such case:

“God [is] Spirit” (John 4:24)

That’s not really a comparison. This isn’t about a function, but about essence. In Greek, it says “God is Spirit.” The verb “to be” is omitted, which expresses a unity of essence. God is essentially Spirit. In Greek, no verbs are needed to convey this. It is “often omitted, except when used to express a metaphor, as in ‘This is my body.’ When present, it is usually an indication that the statement should be understood figuratively and not literally” (The Sacred Scriptures Concordant Version, I, Lexicon and Concordance, p. 28, Greek“eimi”).

However, when it is written, “God is light,” this is a metaphor, a comparison that we read as, “God is like light.” When we read “God is love,” we understand it to mean “God is like love.” After all, He is neither a lamp nor a feeling. If we want to compare our God to anything, it is to light or love. Whenever the verb “to be” is used in a compound construction in Greek, it is a comparison, and we can mentally supplement it with “like.” This is used to express attributes of God. But what is essential to God is “Spirit.”

Examples

Understanding figurative language and figures of speech can also help in evaluating doctrinal statements.

Example 1: Doctrine of transubstantiation

An example is the doctrine of transubstantiation (a real tongue twister and perfect for a pun) of the Catholic Church. Here it is assumed that in the Lord’s Supper (Eucharist) the host is “changed” into the body of Christ and the wine into the blood of Christ. According to them, there is a transformation of substance. The doctrine was established as dogma in the Council of Trent, which took place in various stages between 1545 and 1563. The wording read:

“Whoever says that, in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains together with the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wondrous and unique transformation of the entire substance of the bread into the Body and of the entire substance of the wine into the Blood, whereby only the appearances of bread and wine remain, let him be anathema.” (Source: Wikipedia)

Here it is explained without further ado that anyone who denies this transformation is subject to the “anathema”, i.e. is seen as a heretic and is excommunicated. That’s how it goes with councils. Let us now test this teaching against the Bible. There is an incident here that must be taken as a basis. It is the statement of Jesus:

“While they were eating, Jesus took the bread, gave thanks, broke it, gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’ Then he took the cup, gave thanks, gave it to them, and said, ‘Drink from it, all of you! For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” 
Mt 26:26–28

The question here is: Is this a metaphor, or is it a literal equivalence? Is the bread like his body, and the wine like his blood—that is, a symbol—or does Jesus mean that the bread and wine were “transformed” into his body and blood? Consequently, this leads to the absurd question: Did Jesus drink his own blood? We can now determine the answer.

We found that a metaphor is present when the verb “to be” is used. An essential similarity is present when the verb is omitted. In these words of Jesus, the verb “to be” was used. It is about a comparison. For this reason, I personally reject the doctrine of transubstantiation. This is a misinterpretation of the figure of speech. Bread and wine are merely symbols because they are metaphors. This can be further substantiated by the use of the verb “to be.”

Example 2: The hollow earth

Misinterpretations of figurative language and literary devices can also be found in other doctrines. One such doctrine is the Hollow Earth theory. It’s a truly bizarre concept. I’ve read various books on the subject and spoken with people who consider this view to be the correct one. It is promoted as the “biblical universe” and is said to shed more light on the Bible than any other perspective. There are various versions of this doctrine.

The first version goes like this: The Earth is no longer flat, and it’s true that it’s round, but… we don’t walk on the outside; we walk on the inside. It’s the idea of a hollow Earth, and the entire universe, so to speak, is enclosed within this sphere, with heaven and God’s throne at the center. It’s a closed universe. To help us visualize this, Australia wouldn’t be at the bottom—it would be at the top. A truly unusual perspective! The closer you get to heaven, the smaller you become, so there’s plenty of room even for moon landings and the like, because the planets still fly between heaven and Earth. This view is supported by Bible verses. We’ll get to that later.

Insofar as biblical passages are quoted, it is almost without exception a matter of figurative language that is interpreted literally, for example:

“And God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of heaven”.
Gen 1:14

This interpretation suggests that the text is referring to lights attached to a fixed expanse of the heavens. Lamps are, so to speak, suspended from the ceiling. Other descriptions of the heavens and the earth are imagined in similarly concrete terms. The conclusion drawn from all these inferences is that the Earth is hollow, with God at its center, and that we walk all around it on the inside of the sphere. However, these are merely inferences, since nowhere is the Earth described as hollow.

The second theory also views the Earth as round, and while we do walk on the outside, others walk on the inside. The Earth is hollow, but inhabited. (Some believe these are aliens observing our world from UFOs.) It would be an inner world of the Earth, with two entrances—one at the North Pole and one at the South Pole. On Google Earth, there are a few crevasses that have been marked as entrances to this inner world. Imagination truly knows no bounds. The focus of our discussion is whether we can recognize and evaluate these ideas as far-fetched.

This last view is particularly strongly advocated by a Mormon. It’s an unusual combination, further reinforced by the fact that this man also supports another doctrine—namely, that of the British-Israel movement—which holds that all Western peoples are the lost tribes of Israel. He has therefore traced his own family tree back to the Vikings. Is that bizarre? Certainly, and I believe everyone has the right to their own fantasies. They are not true simply because they seem plausible to some.

How do we read the Bible when we hear things like this? For me, the biblical narrative is accurate. By that I mean that the Bible tells the story it intends to tell. However, it is not an attempt at a scientific description. It does not say here, “I will now objectively explain to you how the universe works scientifically,” but rather addresses an entirely different subject.

The point is that God enters into the human experience of this world. We read how He brings light into existence through His Word. He acts. That is the understanding, and that is what is described. It requires neither our approval nor our rejection. We can respect the text and recognize what it is talking about. Why was this told and written down?

Let’s go back to the time when these texts were written and imagine the text as a narrative in which people wrote down their understanding in a way that others could understand. This, of course, conflicts with the view that God dictated every letter and that therefore everything is divine. If that is your understanding, I ask for your patience. Imagine for a moment how the biblical stories sound from this perspective: From our vantage point on Earth, it is correctly noted that the lights are “in” the expanse of the heavens (Hebrew: b-rqi, “in” the expanse, not “on” the expanse). That is our perception. This is natural, human, logical, understandable, and good—even if it is not a scientific explanation.

Perhaps we can see how language often draws on pragmatic, everyday situations to illustrate a point. As another comparison: Some derive the Greek word for “sky” (Gr. ouranos) from the word elements “our” (to see) and “an” (upward), and it refers to what one sees when looking up. For example, someone who sees the garden is a gardener (Greek: kepouros, John 20:15, from kepos, “garden ,” John 19:41, and our, “to see” ). The etymologies of words often seem simple and take on more abstract meanings over time.

While these words do tell us something about the origin of our world, the subject is not creation, but God Himself. The first words of the Bible are: “In the beginning, God created.” This tells us what it’s all about. It’s about God. He is central to this story. And creation, in which we live, speaks of Him (Rom. 1:20). That is the connection to our reality. The psalmist says: “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament proclaims the work of His hands.” (Ps 19:2). This is figurative language, not a scientific explanation—and we should understand it as such.

Warum nenne ich diese Beispiele? Not everywhere that says biblical on it is actually biblical in it. In the second version, the speculative nature is easily discernible. But the first version also raises questions. Neither version leads to Christ. We should recognize this: They focus on something else— namely , an assumption about this world. It is more of a worldview than a view of Christ, and that should make us sit up and take notice.

Figurative speech

There are many more examples of figurative language, but they go beyond the scope of this article. Therefore, we will mention only a few. We often find descriptions in the Bible that correspond to our human perception. For example, in the following account from the Acts of the Apostles, where Paul, on his way to Rome by ship, encountered a storm:

“But when the fourteenth night had come and we were drifting in the Adriatic Sea, around midnight the sailors thought they were approaching land.”
Acts 27:27

In reality, it will probably have been the other way around: Not the land approached the ship, but the ship approached the land. For the perception of the people on the ship, however, the land appeared on the horizon, and came closer and closer. From a perception point of view, the statement was correct. However, from the objective side, the statement was wrong. Similar is the case with other biblical passages.

As we read, let’s imagine how the people who wrote down the words of the Bible saw things. The text tells the story. Assuming that there are some “hidden truths” contained within it, and that we must “search for the truth behind the words,” is just as far-fetched as the assumption that the words have a supernatural quality and must therefore always and everywhere be taken “literally.” If we first read the text as an account or a text written for other ordinary people, then we can listen to it, keeping in mind that figurative language is used time and again—language that we should not distort by taking it “literally.”

Furthermore, we should not infer beyond what is written, as it is said:

“So do not pass judgment before the time, until the Lord comes, who will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and reveal the intentions of the heart! And then each one will receive praise from God. But this, brothers, I have applied to myself and Apollos for your sake, so that you may learn from us not to go beyond what is written, so that you may not be puffed up in favor of one against the other.”
1 Cor. 4:5–6

Deepening

Questions for the conversation

Have you ever heard anything about imagery in the Bible?
Read Jotam’s fable(Ri 9:7-21) and discuss figurative language (What is figurative, what is literal? How did the audience understand it?)
When Paul writes, “Do not go beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:5–6), what did he mean by that?
Some people get confused when you talk about figurative language. There is a fear that the Bible is not reliable. Here it needs a differentiation. Share about how the reliability of the Bible and the theme of figurative language relate to each other.
Some people are fundamentally skeptical of the Bible and simply dismiss the entire Bible as figurative language. Of course, this frees them from any challenge posed by God’s Word—it reduces everything to legends and myths. Discuss why a clear distinction is necessary here as well.
Why is figurative language in the Bible an enrichment for Bible reading?

Reading tip

E.W. Bullinger, *Figures of Speech*
A standard work on figures of speech and figurative language in the Bible .
Available online or as a book.

This text was first published on November 1, 2014. It has been slightly revised and republished here.