Studying Symbolism - How should we do it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Prince_Hal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Prince_Hal

Guest
I attended a class on Isaiah at a non-Catholic church :confused:the other day. The teachers were emphasising symbolism. However, I questioned some of their explanations since I thought they were way off in their interpretation. I received an email from the teachers, part of which reads:

“[Symbolism] …we have learned that the nature of symbolism teaches that there are many, many layers of understanding in the scriptures… our rule of thumb has always been that if a symbol or a word or a type helps us to see and understand the beauty of Savior and tells the truth about Him, then it is a true meaning that can be taught as another layer of symbolism. That is what we believe all scripture is for – to help reveal every aspect of the character and attributes of the Savior so that we will come to Him to be changed to be like Him. Anything that teaches us truth about Him is true. The Tola worm is a beautiful symbol of Christ that God gives us in nature. Who would think a worm could teach us about the Son of God? That is one true interpretation – there are others yet to explore.”

This seems a very dangerous approach to symbolism. Would any agree with me, or are these teachers correct? How should we study symbolism?

God bless you,

Hal.
 
In RCIA, a symbolism sheet is given out but the majority of symbols there are ancient and those used by the Early Church.

The primary one the instructor and our priest discuss is the fish symbol or ICHTHUS because early Christians identified their secret meeting places with this symbol and in "Greek Ichthus is the for fish (ΙΧΘΥΣ). The initials of the word Ichthus are also used as a Christian acronym of the following Greek words:

I=Jesus
Ch=Christ
Th=Theou (God’s)
U=Uios (Son)
S=Soter (Savior)

Using the Ichthus acronym IChThUS means “Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Savior”."

The Tola worm? I haven’t heard of that.

I’ve seen at our local protestant denomination bookstore how at Easter catepillars & butterflies are used to signify the Resurrection of Christ with children. Which I like, in that it gets away from boiled & colored eggs.
 
Barbkw said:
In RCIA, a symbolism sheet is given out but the majority of symbols there are ancient and those used by the Early Church.

The primary one the instructor and our priest discuss is the fish symbol or ICHTHUS because early Christians identified their secret meeting places with this symbol and in "Greek Ichthus is the for fish (ΙΧΘΥΣ). The initials of the word Ichthus are also used as a Christian acronym of the following Greek words:

I=Jesus
Ch=Christ
Th=Theou (God’s)
U=Uios (Son)
S=Soter (Savior)

Using the Ichthus acronym IChThUS means “Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Savior”."

…
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. Do you know where I can get hold of a copy of the symbolism sheet for RCIA?
 
Prince_Hal said:
“[Symbolism] …we have learned that the nature of symbolism teaches that there are many, many layers of understanding in the scriptures… our rule of thumb has always been that if a symbol or a word or a type helps us to see and understand the beauty of Savior and tells the truth about Him, then it is a true meaning that can be taught as another layer of symbolism. That is what we believe all scripture is for – to help reveal every aspect of the character and attributes of the Savior so that we will come to Him to be changed to be like Him. **Anything that teaches us truth about Him is true. ** The Tola worm is a beautiful symbol of Christ that God gives us in nature. Who would think a worm could teach us about the Son of God? That is one true interpretation – there are others yet to explore.”
Click to expand...
The bolded text is the piece that disturbs me the most. It seems that anything is correct if it promotes faith in Christ, whether it is accurate or not. It seems akin to seeing fluffy bunnies in cloud formations.

How do we approach symbolism in scripture. The second poster gave a great example - the Church Fathers. Does anyone know of any article written on symbolism and how to avoid the ludicrous? Or am I wrong and anything that promotes Christ is good?

Any help is deeply appreciated.

Hal.
 
Prince_Hal said:
The bolded text is the piece that disturbs me the most. It seems that anything is correct if it promotes faith in Christ, whether it is accurate or not. It seems akin to seeing fluffy bunnies in cloud formations.

How do we approach symbolism in scripture. The second poster gave a great example - the Church Fathers. Does anyone know of any article written on symbolism and how to avoid the ludicrous? Or am I wrong and anything that promotes Christ is good?

Any help is deeply appreciated.

Hal.
Click to expand...
There is so much sybolism in scripture and the church that all we need to do is follow what the great church fathers taught all through the centuries. I would say that you could look at anything in scripture or the church and seek the symbolic meaning but you ought to check your answer to what these churchman say about it. You will have to do some research on it. An example of what you don’t want to do, for example, would be to attribute some meaning to something in the Book of Revelation that’s incorrect. This could throw everything off in your understanding. If you get some Catholic Commentaries on scripture or, for example, if you are studying one of the books of the bible, get a book on that and these books will bring out some of the true meanings of the different symbols. I don’t think it’s healthy to teach a meaning without giving a source for this meaning. This is why we have the church - to guide us.
 
Thank you everyone for your posts. I was directed towards Pope Paul VI’s Dei Verbum. Superb!!

However, I am still confused by one thing:

Can scripture symbolism mean anything to anyone, so long as it deepens faith in Christ? Or, did the sacred writer inspired by the Holy Spirit mean one or many things, and to interpret something beyond those meanings is incorrect?

Agreed, the difficulty is in interpreting what the sacred writer meant, and In suppose the scripture could mean things that he was unaware of, only The Holy Spirit.

Any thoughts?

Hal.
 
Perhaps I should give an example.

In this Bible class that I went to, the teacher quoted Isaiah 41:14:

“Fear not, O worm Jacob, O maggot Israel…” (NAB)

She then said that the word for “worm” in Hebrew was “tola”. The tola worm is white, but when crushed gives a deep red blood that is used as dye. The temple curtain in Jerusalem was red, died with the blood of the tola worm, and therefore this was a symbol of Christ.

So, I replied to the teacher that okay, tola worm may be a symbol of Christ, but not in its use in this verse. The teacher replied that as Jacob was a prophet and a prophet is a symbol of Christ, then Christ was described here as a worm, and therefore the symbolism was true.

It is a tenuous link to say the least. But it increased her faith in Christ and therefore was a true interpretation of the symbolism contained in that scripture.

Surely this is incorrect? I know there are other and far more plausible interpretations of scripture, e.g. tola = red, Jacob (Israel) was red with sin; a worm is lowly and in the dirt = Israel through her sins had brought herself low.

BUT, could the teacher’s tenuous link be an acceptable interpretation? Is it the nature of scripture to be able to mean almost anything to anyone, so long as it teaches faith in Christ?

God bless,

Hal. :confused::confused:
 
In sensus plenior, There is a rule derived from the riddle of Samson:

If the shadow doesn’t look like Christ, it isn’t Christ. This is the opposite of what they are claiming.

sensusplenior.net/?page_id=379

It is derived from the riddle of his answer “You would not have known the riddle had you not plowed with my heifer”. You plow the earthly or literal with the sacrifice, Christ. The method is similar to eisogesis except you don’t put in what you want, you always put in Christ as the answer to the riddle. It is the basis for Christocentric interpretation.

However, since all creation testifies of God (Rom 18ff) and since God has spoken in diverse manners, but now speaks through his son… Then it is plausible that there are intended pictures of Christ in all of creation, just as there are in all of scripture.

Something that causes you to meditate upon the Lord and give him thanks, has to be from God. It is unlikely that mere mortals will think of something cleverly about creation, that God hasn’t already thought.

So one would not build doctrine on hidden pictures in nature since they are not as clear as the Word, but there is certainly no harm in meditating upon the Lord through them and giving him thanks.

The passage in question uses the worm as an adjective for Jacob. The supplanted or usurper. It is a reference to Christ as the second man who gets the inheritance rather than the first man, Adam. “Fear not, you scarlet second Adam” This verse was surely a comfort to Jesus as he faced the cross. Scarlet is the color of sin. “Though your sins be as scarlet” and refers to Christ bearing our sin. He abhorred the thought so much that it was a continual temptation before him to do something in order to avoid it, but ultimately he said, “Nevertheless, not my will…”

I am really wanting to find out where they got their methods. Please PM me who they are and how I might contact them. Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top