Thanks very much for your comment. I appreciate your concern that we do not dismiss or ignore metaphors that can give deeper insight into and appreciation for the cross. Joel Green speaks of a “kaleidoscope” of metaphors that together provide a more complete understanding. I also like the idea of different “facets” providing us unique views of the meaning of Jesus’ death. To simply dismiss one metaphor, especially one that has impacted many other believers, may mean that we miss an insight that would strengthen our faith.

That said, we also need to recognize that a metaphor is not the reality, but a means to comprehend the reality. If one metaphor, due to the a priori assumptions of the listener, raises questions or objections that distract from the purpose of the metaphor (which is to connect the listener to the reality), then a different metaphor is required. The variety of worldview and cultural grids that exist in the world make it imperative for cross-cultural workers to identify those metaphors that resonate with their listeners so that they can appreciate the reality. An insistence to stick with a metaphor that causes misunderstandings (as with the legal metaphor I used which communicated a message that God was less than merciful), will quickly lead to a rejection of the message.

This is not to deny that the legal metaphor does have resonance in some contexts, nor that even in a Sindhi context it will not add to a believer’s appreciation of the cross and, down the road, would be worthy of consideration. However, the variety of biblical metaphors does lend support to the contextual approach of discovering a metaphor of the cross which communicates the message in a way that makes sense to the listeners. I would not want to “pit the merits” of the metaphors against each other in an absolute sense, but I am advocating a critical and discriminating use of metaphors in a contextual sense.

Again, thanks for reading and responding.

Blessings,
Mark