The Arguments of Figurative and Contextual, In Regards to Jesus and Scripture

Matthew 22:41-46

"While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 'What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?'

'The son of David,' they replied.

He said to them, 'How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him "Lord"? For he says,

"The Lord said to my Lord:
    'Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
    under your feet.'"

If then David calls him "Lord," how can he be his son?' No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions."

It is interesting to me that when Jesus posed his testing question to the Pharisees, it was based off of a Psalm, a poem. Not only that, but not a single Pharisee brought up that the line may have been figurative in nature, not necessarily adhering to the strict definition of the word "Lord" which apparently could not be applied to one's own son/offspring. Nor did they bring up context as a factor, stating that this line was in a poem, and citing other examples of Psalms that might be taken figuratively. These were experts in Scripture and its nature, and they could not say a word in reply, despite looking for any possible argument to refute Jesus. If legal experts knew they could not use such arguments, it seems such arguments are known to be invalid by even those who study Scripture closely, but as Jesus pointed out in general, did not understand the core of it. If one might suggest here that Jesus knew their position and used an argument specifically because he knew they could not refute it, but that with a deeper understanding of Scripture, which they did not have, it would have allowed them to make such an argument, consider: would Jesus use an inherently flawed argument simply because his current opponent did not know that argument's weakness (in this case that it might accurately be taken as figurative/contextual)? Would Jesus not use a line of reasoning that would hold true eternally, even for readers thousands of years later, if his words were to never pass away? I believe this was not just for our benefit now, to demonstrate that skilled and learned debate opponents do not use such arguments when speaking of Scripture, but for the benefit of those he was debating, perhaps revealing lasting truth to them through his methods, even as he silenced them through their inability to respond.

John 10:34-36

"Jesus answered them, 'Is it not written in your Law, "I have said you are 'gods'"? If he called them "gods," to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, "I am God’s Son"?'"

Once more the audience offers no Scriptural rebuttal, they simply try to seize him. In addition to the the points in the first verse referenced- that claiming the language to be figurative, and claiming the term "gods" to be out of context are both invalid points- Jesus and The Bible highlight two additional fallacious arguments here. Jesus specifically says that Scripture cannot be set aside. If it could, then the audience could simply claim this verse, again from a Psalm, was not to be taken as part of The Law. Also, The Bible now includes quotation marks around the word gods, but my understanding is that this would have been added later, as Hebrew at the time did not possess such punctuation, and neither did Greek. So in the very process of translating the words themselves, quotation marks have been added to cast doubt on what was said (the apparent intention of quotation marks, by modern standards), when in reality this would not have been part of the original text or Jesus' message. So once more the very text of The Bible itself, through these quotation marks, has been altered over time, in an attempt to cast doubt on the foundation of Jesus' reasoning, and provide a false emphasis or tone on what he was saying. Translation errors in this verse seem to support Jesus' claim, rather than take away from it, if one fundamentally believes Jesus to be the Son of God, as Christians do. So once more Jesus spoke not just to address the crowd, but to address the reader millennia later, who would see the word gods in quotation marks, who would likely be taught by the church, if they ever inquired, that this term was figurative, but would at some point likely realize that these quotation marks would have been added after the fact by biblical translators who added their own opinion to the word by placing it in quotation marks. This would then act as a smoking gun to the entire position of claiming Scripture to be figurative.

So, if one takes a portion of Scripture to be strictly figurative, this is to say it is not literally true. Jesus seems to emphasize in both these instances, and others, that this approach is incorrect, not just through the words he says but through the lack of any logical response from those who vehemently oppose him. In a way this has me reconsidering my stance on Paul's words, but not in a way that most would understand immediately. It is clear that many modern interpretations of these words are not after Jesus' heart or words, but since they are guided by The Holy Spirit, would that mean that they must be true in some technical way that satisfies both literal truth and intention, in the same way I found in the vow in Judges 11 (Read: Get a Good Lawyer)? It seems one would either have to make the claim that these words were not guided by The Holy Spirit (which I am not of the mind to do at this time) or that some singular path must be taken to "rules lawyer" intention and letter, as I wrote of in "All Judgement Belongs To Jesus." I feel that Jesus would absolutely rules lawyer every line of Scripture until the letter and literal truth of it walks the line of love. If one must choose to discard one of these three: truth, popular interpretation, or love, what do you think Jesus would do? In the same way I examine these verses, I believe squarely after Jesus' heart. This is something I must ponder further, as there seems to be a way to reconcile these things yet, albeit more complicated than even I had previously considered. The gate is narrow indeed.