Denny,

Sorry you are still confused. [Linked Image]

The example you gave from Mal 4:2 is what I would consider "clear" and Calvin's comments accurate re: a "metaphor" because of the CONTEXT.... i.e., again, the Scripture is self-interpretive. How? because the "sun of righteousness" is said to be "Elijah" and from the N.T. we know that this coming Elijah spoken of in Malachi is the Lord Christ. One doesn't have to impose their own allegorical/metaphorical ideas upon the phrase "sun of righteousness" by gathering up alleged "similarities" to conclude this is true. All one needs to do is see the Scripture's own inspired words and reference to come to the true understanding of the text.

Coming full circle.... as I tried to explain to Joe, there is not ONE SINGLE reference or allusion to be found anywhere in the Bible re: Noah's Ark being a "type of Christ". I even provided the passage where Noah's Ark is referenced (cf. 1Pet 3:20, 21), but it is the water that is called a "likeness" and not the Ark and that likeness is in regard to baptism and not Christ.

If in this matter I am going to err, I would much prefer to err on the side of caution rather than on the side of imposing, injecting and/or misinterpreting God's Word due to an over-active zeal to find Christ, or whatever it might be in alleged "similarities". It might result in some preacher's notoriety as his audience/readers sit in awe at his marvelous "insights" into Scripture, but it doesn't mean his conclusions are correct. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]