"Allegorical" and "Spiritual" Hermeneutics

[Covenanter]

We all start with grammatical-historical - how else can we begin to understand what we read? But why then is interpretation necessary?

So, for you preterists on the BB: "Spiritual" and "allegorical" are synonyms for the same method. When you interpret other than literally you are interpreting "spiritually" or "allegorically." Thus you are not interpreting according to natural, God given (cf universal grammar), normal hermeneutics. You are using a method that can mean anything--thus the very wide variety of preterist positions. Simply admit that you do not interpret prophecy literally (however you may interpret the Sermon on the Mount and other important Scripture), and go on from there.

When we read of David's troubles in the Psalms, should we leave them with David, or read them as Messianic Psalms?

When we read of prophecies concerning Israel, should we read them as restoring the Davidic, earthly kingdom centred on Jerusalem, ruled in person by the Messiah; i.e. referring to the return from exile & rebuilding the temple, as a preparation for Messiah to come, all centred on national Israel? Prophecy we are still waiting for, & which will be fulfilled temporarily in a millennium after Messiah returns?

Or is it valid to interpret them typically as referring to the coming of Messiah, - God incarnate in David's line - fulfilling all the types & sacrifices as the suffering Servant, & establishing a spiritual kingdom in the hearts & lives of his redeemed people, both Jew & Gentile - all families on earth - while expecting a final coming in glory to establish his ultimate Kingdom in the NH&NE?

I'm guided by Jesus' teaching in the Gospels & the Apostolic preaching & letters.

The New Covenant writings take precedence over, & interpret the Old Covenant writings in the Law & Prophets.

 

[Aaron]

Hank, are you sure you are not conflating metaphorical and allegorical?

An allegory is simply an extended metaphor.

 

[Aaron]

Gal 4:22-24 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; ​

the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

 

[Aaron]

1Co 9:9

For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?

 

[Aaron]

Aren't the initiatory rite into fellowship and the central, regularly observed rite of our communion allegorical?

 

[Aaron]

Gal 4:22-24 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; ​

the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

I might add that Paul goes further regarding Judaism: Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

But wait! Don't cast them out yet, we must live a thousand years under their rule. It says so in Revelation!

 

[Covenanter]

I have this strange idea that the book of Revelation is within the Bible, to be understood by reference to other New Covenant Scriptures.

 

[Aaron]

I have this strange idea that the book of Revelation is within the Bible, to be understood by reference to other New Covenant Scriptures.

Don't be ridiculous. That prophecy wasn't given when Paul penned Galatians, so we have to impose it on his writings. Paul only thought Ishmael represented Sinai. But now we know the temple, the Levitical priesthood and the offerings must be restored.

I just wonder where they will house Jesus's white horse and who will have the dubious honor of scooping its poop.

And will Jesus go on regular horse rides? And will they be on land or in the air? Both, maybe?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

An allegory is simply an extended metaphor.

My dictionary says an allegory is 'a narrative description of a subject under guise of another having similarities to it.' The most famous allegory is Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress.

If one was interpreting the parable of the Good Samaritan allegorically
The road from Jericho to Jerusalem would be the road of life.
The robbers would be one's sins.
The Priest and the Levite would be the law.
The G.S. would be the evangelist.
The oil and wine would be the Gospel.
The donkey would be the Bible.
The inn would be the local church.
The Innkeeper would be the Pastor
The two pence would be for the upkeep of the church.

In a literal interpretation, we should all go out of our way to help one another. The application would undoubtedly be that if only the man had been carrying a gun with him he could have shot the robbers.

The proper interpretation IMO is that Jesus is teaching the lawyer that he doesn't keep the very law that he quoted (v.27), and nor do we. Therefore we need a Saviour.

 

[thatbrian]

I have this strange idea that the book of Revelation is within the Bible, to be understood by reference to other New Covenant Scriptures.

You mean ignoring the 500 OT references?

 

[Covenanter]

You mean ignoring the 500 OT references?

Of course not. But it is not stand alone prophecy.

 

[John of Japan]

The best book about language from a Christian, theological standpoint is In the Beginning Was the Word, by Vern Poythress. He bases his theology of linguistics on the fact that God Himself is part of a language community--the trinity. he writes, "God controls and specifies the meaning of 'go' in English. He controls and specifies the meaning of each word--not only in English but in Hindi, Vietnamese, Italian, and every other language, living or dead. He also controls the original splitting apart of the distinct languages of the world, as the acounts of Babel shows (Gen. 11:1-9)" (pp. 39-40).

Now, if God has hidden His meanings of Scripture somehow "spiritually," so that the average guy in the pew could not understand it, He would not be communicating with us like the trinity communicates--with perfect understanding. The allegorical method makes one use one's imagination to interpret Scriptures. That is not how God created language.

How do we give the Gospel? Clearly and plainly. God wants everyone to understand Scripture, not just an elite few who know how to "spiritualize." He wants all believers to be able to plainly understand the walk with Christ. Furthermore, He wants prophecy to glorify Christ. Now how can it do that if no one can understand it literally? How can we know that prophecy has been fulfilled if we don't understand it plainly? (Cf the supposed coming of Christ in AD 70, something that no one saw or recorded. How could that glorify God?)

Luke 24:25--"Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken." How can we believe if we can't understand literally?

 

[John of Japan]

God wants us to easily understand the words of Scripture, not have to struggle. "Authorial intention is supremely important if we are dealing with the Bible, and with God as its author. Then, if we are to submit to God, we must listen to him and avoid imposing our own ideas on the text. We must find out his meanings" (Poythress, 174).

When I was studying Japanese in the two year curriculum of the Tokyo School of the Japanese Language, they put me for a time in a class with a bunch of Chinese, who already knew all of the Chinese characters. I had to work very hard to keep up, learning all of the characters they already knew. But what was the goal of all of that? To be able to speak Japanese clearly and plainly, using the right words and syntax. Why would God, then, be less direct than my secular Japanese teachers, hiding His meanings from all except the spiritually elite? (Are there two classes of Christians, the guy in the pew who just knows literal meanings, and the spiritually elite who know how to interpret spiritually, getting to the hidden meaning?)

 

[John of Japan]

We all start with grammatical-historical - how else can we begin to understand what we read? But why then is interpretation necessary?

"Interpretation" in hermeneutics, is simply aiming at understanding the meaning of the text. Poythress (op cit, 173-174) points out that the goal of interpretation ought to be finding out the author's original intention. This is interpretation, not some wild effort to "spiritualize" the text, ignoring the clear linguistic meaning.

When we read of David's troubles in the Psalms, should we leave them with David, or read them as Messianic Psalms?

This is a very broad statement, unanswerable as it is. There are 150 Psalms, most of them Davidic. Some are prophetic, some are not.

When we read of prophecies concerning Israel, should we read them as restoring the Davidic, earthly kingdom centred on Jerusalem, ruled in person by the Messiah; i.e. referring to the return from exile & rebuilding the temple, as a preparation for Messiah to come, all centred on national Israel? Prophecy we are still waiting for, & which will be fulfilled temporarily in a millennium after Messiah returns?

Absolutely, yes, the kingdom prophecies refer to a literal, earthly kingdom. That is how a Jew of the day would have interpreted those prophecies, and thus is the intent of the authors, both human and divine.

Or is it valid to interpret them typically as referring to the coming of Messiah, - God incarnate in David's line - fulfilling all the types & sacrifices as the suffering Servant, & establishing a spiritual kingdom in the hearts & lives of his redeemed people, both Jew & Gentile - all families on earth - while expecting a final coming in glory to establish his ultimate Kingdom in the NH&NE?

Nope, that's not typology ("typically" interpreting), that's allegorical interpretation. Typology is taking an historical event and making it a metaphor.

I'm guided by Jesus' teaching in the Gospels & the Apostolic preaching & letters.

No, you are not, because Jesus and the apostles never, ever interpreted prophecy allegorically.

The New Covenant writings take precedence over, & interpret the Old Covenant writings in the Law & Prophets.

No they don't. You have absolutely no Scriptural basis for interpreting this way. The NT is concealed in the OT, and the OT is revealed in the NT. They are both equally important.

I have a great book that shows every single OT quote in the NT, complete with the original languages: Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, by Gleason Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, and another on the subject, The Uses of the Old Testament in the New, by Walter Kaiser. I challenge you to deepen your study of this important subject by studying these or similar books.

 

[HankD]

Using the general term of "symbolism" then - IMO our theology has mainly to do with our view of the meaning of "symbolisms" in the bible.

The best illustration is the meaning given to the 1000 year reign of Christ in revelation 20.

is it literal or symbolism?

Symbolism of what? The usual answer is "a long undefined amount of time'.

HankD

 

[agedman]

Is is not true that there is more then allegory or metaphor in the Scriptures?

There is also, metonymy, substituting a word as a representative for.

When one uses the term "Lord's supper" is that not the use of metonymy?

The study of typology (objects of the OT that are symbols or representative figures of what is realized in the NT) is fascinating.

Has anyone listed the use of figures of speech, and see which was more commonly used by the ancients?

In English, the two words - like, as - indicate the use of a simile
For example: I call my wife "Love" - metaphor
"Her love is like a red, red rose" - simile

In English, a longer story in which contains hidden meaning and messages is an allegory.
For example: The most published book after the Bible is "Pilgrims Progress." It is an allegory, a story with hidden meanings and messages in the characters and story line.

Is it the same in the language of the ancients?

Are their grammatical indicators, and story lines that were indicated as such within the text of the ancients?

Perhaps as is in other languages, the elements of figures of speech are both indicated and not indicated but still well known to those who are familiar with the language.

A Vietnamese friend struggles to understand English idioms. When she heard, "It is raining cats and dogs," she actually looked out to see if the animals were falling from the sky and were hurt.

Perhaps, in the effort for "different" some trip over figures of speech in a language they are too unfamiliar to recognize, and the typical translation causes a stumbling that the ancients would laugh about?

 

[HankD]

Is is not true that there is more then allegory or metaphor in the Scriptures?

yes that is why i use the generic term of symbolism.

e.g.
John 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

It is left up to the reader as to the meaning of the symbolic language of "light" and "darkness".


HankD

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Using the general term of "symbolism" then - IMO our theology has mainly to do with our view of the meaning of "symbolisms" in the bible.

The best illustration is the meaning given to the 1000 year reign of Christ in revelation 20.

is it literal or symbolism?

Symbolism of what? The usual answer is "a long undefined amount of time'.

HankD

This is very helpful. Is 1,000 usually interpreted literally or otherwise? Let's take a look:

Psalm 50:10. 'For every beast of the forest is Mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills.' There are more than 1,000 hills in the world; do the cattle on the 1,001st not belong to God?
Psalm 90:4. 'For a thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday when it is past and like a watch in the night.' Would 1,001 years or 5,000 years be any different? [Compare 2 Peter 3:8]
Psalm 105:8. 'He remembers His covenant forever; the word which He commanded for a thousand generations.' Well, which is it? Does He remember it forever or for 1,000 generations?

There are a few more, but these should serve. A thousand means, almost everywhere it appears in Scripture, 'all that there are' and so it should be interpreted in Rev. 20. I don't know whether anyone wants to call that a 'spiritual' interpretation; to me it's common sense.

I believe all numbers in Revelation should be interpreted symbolically. It's full of 4s, 7s, 10s and 12s. Where are the 5s, 8s, 11s and 13s?

 

[TCassidy]

The best illustration is the meaning given to the 1000 year reign of Christ in revelation 20.

is it literal or symbolism?

This is where the hermeneutical principle of "shareability" comes in.

If there were two guys of the same culture as John reading over John's shoulders as he penned the words of Revelation 20 what would they understand the word "χιλια" to mean? When the word is transliterated it reads "Chilia." As you know, I am an Historic Chiliast. I believe in the thousand (chilia) year reign of Christ on Earth.

It seems more than just a bit confusing (perhaps even dishonest) to assign that word a meaning that neither John, the two guys reading over his shoulder, or I understand the word to mean.

I am "Pre-millennial." I am not "Pre-a long long time" - ial.

 

[HankD]

This is where the hermeneutical principle of "shareability" comes in.

If there were two guys of the same culture as John reading over John's shoulders as he penned the words of Revelation 20 what would they understand the word "χιλια" to mean? When the word is transliterated it reads "Chilia." As you know, I am an Historic Chiliast. I believe in the thousand (chilia) year reign of Christ on Earth.

It seems more than just a bit confusing (perhaps even dishonest) to assign that word a meaning that neither John, the two guys reading over his shoulder, or I understand the word to mean.

I am "Pre-millennial." I am not "Pre-a long long time" - ial.

I agree 100%

HankD