Seventy Weeks Prophecy, no Gap, but a Solid Promise

[kyredneck]

....It is lovely how you just pick and choose scriptures from entirely different contextual applications and then weave them together to invent a doctrine.

Just comparing scripture with scripture and using your very own rule of interpretation.

The context in Zechariah is about the destruction of the house of David not about building it up, about the gathering of gentile nations against it to destroy it not about gathering gentiles for salvation.

The Church has been attacked and persecuted many times throughout history. She has also experienced seasons of refreshing and periods of revival down through the ages.

Galatians 4:26 is evidently located in heaven which cannot be destroyed whereas Jerusalem in Zeckariah can be destroyed.

No, it the same Jerusalem as is here, the Church, the Israel of God:

22 but ye are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable hosts of angels,
23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
24 and to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaketh better than that of Abel. Heb 12

Your problem is that just because similar terms are used does not mean the context is speaking about the same thing.

I don't know what people would do around here without you tirelessly telling them what their problem is.

Joel 2 is applied to the A.D. 70 destruction but Peter stops in the middle of verse 32 because its final application is the end of the world.

????

32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of Jehovah shall be delivered; for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those that escape, as Jehovah hath said, and among the remnant those whom Jehovah doth call. Joel 2

Those believing at Pentecost were 'saving themselves from that crooked generation' and escaping the wrath that was soon to come upon it.

The first and second comings were often found in a single text without any gap placed between them in the Old Testament.

Well, 'you guys' certainly have restored 'the gap', haven't you?

You fella's just don't get that, and so you take an application and finalize it when Scripture has sometimes multiple applications before the ultimate and final one.

And I suppose we fellas need fellas like you to explain all these 'multiple applications' to us, right?

 

[The Biblicist]

Just comparing scripture with scripture and using your very own rule of interpretation.

No, you are not applying that principle of interpretation. You are demanding the spiritualization of such texts.

The Church has been attacked and persecuted many times throughout history. She has also experienced seasons of refreshing and periods of revival down through the ages.

Zechariah does not say "church" nor does it speak of Jerusalem in heaven as Galatians 4:24 explicitly states "IS ABOVE" but explicitly states the Jerusalem in Zecharian is ON EARTH and the object of attack by armies ON EARTH.

No, it the same Jerusalem as is here, the Church, the Israel of God:

What part of "WHICH IS ABOVE" in Galatians 4:24 do you not understand. Hebrews 12:22 says "HEAVENLY" Jerusalem not EARTHLY Jerusalem whereas, Zechariah clearly describes an EARTHLY Jerusalem.

The saints are only "enrolled" in heaven they are not IN heaven!

22 but ye are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable hosts of angels,
23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
24 and to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaketh better than that of Abel. Heb 12

I don't know what people would do around here without you tirelessly telling them what their problem is.

Your "problem" is so obvious to any Bible student who is objective in their approach to scripture and who follows common sense rules of interpetation. You don't compare scripture to scripture you go in with a wrecking ball and completely destroy scripture, ignore obvious contextual distinctions. But how else could you defend your theory???

32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of Jehovah shall be delivered; for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those that escape, as Jehovah hath said, and among the remnant those whom Jehovah doth call. Joel 2

Those believing at Pentecost were 'saving themselves from that crooked generation' and escaping the wrath that was soon to come upon it.

JOel 2:32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.

Acts 2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

The underlined portion in Joel 2:32 is not quoted by Peter but Peter stops in the middle of the verse BECAUSE anyone that continues to read Joel (remember there were no chapter and verse divisions in the original) can easily see there is a final application of this text at the end of the world, as the same celestial and earthly signs are repeated shortly afterwards concerning a BATTLE and DESTRUCTION:

Joel 3:1 ¶ For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem,
2 I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land........14 Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision: for the day of the LORD is near in the valley of decision.
15 The sun and the moon shall be darkened, and the stars shall withdraw their shining.
16 The LORD also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; and the heavens and the earth shall shake: but the LORD will be the hope of his people, and the strength of the children of Israel.

Notice this occurs AFTER A.D. 70 as they have already been "scattered among the nations." Hence, verse 15 cannot refer to A.D. 70.

Well, 'you guys' certainly have restored 'the gap', haven't you?

Don't have to "restore" what is already there. Just have to point it out to those who want to ignore what is there.

And I suppose we fellas need fellas like you to explain all these 'multiple applications' to us, right?

Explain it we do, but opening blind eyes to recognize and see it is above my pay grade.

 

[kyredneck]

No, you are not applying that principle of interpretation.

"When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning UNLESS the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise."

Did you not notice how I framed my question with 'in light of'?

The new is in the old concealed, the old is in the new revealed.

You are demanding the spiritualization of such texts.

So you take everything in Zech 12 as literal? Literal house of David and their wives, literal house of Nathan and their wives, literal house of Levi and wives, literal Shimeites , etc.,etc.?

Zechariah does not say "church" nor does it speak of Jerusalem in heaven as Galatians 4:24 explicitly states "IS ABOVE" but explicitly states the Jerusalem in Zecharian is ON EARTH and the object of attack by armies ON EARTH.

So is it heretical for me if I don't take this to literally mean present modern day earthly Jerusalem?

What part of "WHICH IS ABOVE" in Galatians 4:24 do you not understand. Hebrews 12:22 says "HEAVENLY" Jerusalem not EARTHLY Jerusalem whereas, Zechariah clearly describes an EARTHLY Jerusalem.

The saints are only "enrolled" in heaven they are not IN heaven!

22 but ye are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable hosts of angels,
23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
24 and to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaketh better than that of Abel. Heb 12

Which part of "ye are come unto" do you not understand?

Your "problem" is so obvious to any Bible student who is objective in their approach to scripture and who follows common sense rules of interpetation. You don't compare scripture to scripture you go in with a wrecking ball and completely destroy scripture, ignore obvious contextual distinctions. But how else could you defend your theory???

There you go again running that nasty little mouth.

JOel 2:32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.

Acts 2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

The underlined portion in Joel 2:32 is not quoted by Peter but Peter stops in the middle of the verse BECAUSE anyone that continues to read Joel (remember there were no chapter and verse divisions in the original) can easily see there is a final application of this text at the end of the world, as the same celestial and earthly signs are repeated shortly afterwards concerning a BATTLE and DESTRUCTION:

Joel 3:1 ¶ For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem,
2 I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land........14 Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision: for the day of the LORD is near in the valley of decision.
15 The sun and the moon shall be darkened, and the stars shall withdraw their shining.
16 The LORD also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; and the heavens and the earth shall shake: but the LORD will be the hope of his people, and the strength of the children of Israel.

Notice this occurs AFTER A.D. 70 as they have already been "scattered among the nations." Hence, verse 15 cannot refer to A.D. 70.

I almost feel sorry for you with your bondage to the letter. What a dead, dry, barren, parched place that must be. Who is this that the prophet Isaiah is referring to here? (hint, check out Gal 4:24-28):

1 Sing, O barren, she hath not borne! Break forth with singing, and cry aloud, She hath not brought forth! For more are the sons of the desolate, Than the sons of the married one, said Jehovah.
2 Enlarge the place of thy tent, And the curtains of thy tabernacles they stretch out, Restrain not -- lengthen thy cords, And thy pins make strong.
3 For right and left thou breakest forth, And thy seed doth nations possess,
4 And desolate cities they cause to be inhabited. Fear not, for thou art not ashamed, Nor blush, for thou art not confounded, For the shame of thy youth thou forgettest, And the reproach of thy widowhood Thou dost not remember any more.
5 For thy Maker is thy husband, Jehovah of Hosts is His name, And thy Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel, `God of all the earth,` He is called.
6 For, as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, Called thee hath Jehovah, Even a youthful wife when she is refused, said thy God.
7 In a small moment I have forsaken thee, And in great mercies I do gather thee,
8 In overflowing wrath I hid my face for a moment from thee, And in kindness age-during I have loved thee, Said thy Redeemer -- Jehovah!
9 For, the waters of Noah is this to Me, In that I have sworn -- the waters of Noah Do not pass again over the earth -- So I have sworn, Wrath is not upon thee, Nor rebuke against thee.
10 For the mountains depart, and the hills remove, And My kindness from thee departeth not, And the covenant of My peace removeth not, Said hath thy loving one -- Jehovah.
11 O afflicted, storm-tossed, not comforted, Lo, I am laying with cement thy stones, And have founded thee with sapphires,
12 And have made of agate thy pinnacles, And thy gates of carbuncle stones, And all thy border of stones of delight,
13 And all thy sons are taught of Jehovah, And abundant is the peace of thy sons.
14 In righteousness thou establishest thyself, Be far from oppression, for thou fearest not, And from ruin, for it cometh not near unto thee.
15 Lo, he doth diligently assemble without My desire, Who hath assembled near thee? By thee he falleth!
16 Lo, I -- I have prepared an artizan, Blowing on a fire of coals, And bringing out an instrument for his work, And I have prepared a destroyer to destroy.
17 No weapon formed against thee prospereth, And every tongue rising against thee, In judgment thou condemnest. This is the inheritance of the servants of Jehovah, And their righteousness from me, an affirmation of Jehovah! Isa 54

 

[The Biblicist]

"When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning UNLESS the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise."

Did you not notice how I framed my question with 'in light of'?

The new is in the old concealed, the old is in the new revealed.

Again, your related passages have significant differences which you merely ignore.

So you take everything in Zech 12 as literal? Literal house of David and their wives, literal house of Nathan and their wives, literal house of Levi and wives, literal Shimeites , etc.,etc.?

Do you take everything in Genesis 1 as literal or do you spiritualize that away simply because 2 Cor. 4:6 applies Genesis 1:3 to salvation???? This is the kind of rationalization and application you follow which would demand the complete spiritualization of Genesis 1 simply due to "an" application in another text, which you would then classify as a "related passage."

So is it heretical for me if I don't take this to literally mean present modern day earthly Jerusalem?

It is an interpretational error for certain.

Which part of "ye are come unto" do you not understand?

Again, notice your misapplication of contextual facts. It is in comparison to Israel coming before God, heaven and angels at Mount Sinai. Does that mean they were even with God or in heaven? No! We come before God, heaven and angels when we assemble in the congregation as angels and God are present (1 Cor. 11:10). Does that men we are IN heaven? No! Does it mean that our congregation is IN heaven? No! Jerusalem in in heaven in Hebrews 12:22-23 not on earth as is the "SPIRITS OF JUST MEN MADE PERFECT."

There you go again running that nasty little mouth.

Truth hurts doesn't it?

I almost feel sorry for you with your bondage to the letter. What a dead, dry, barren, parched place that must be. Who is this that the prophet Isaiah is referring to here? (hint, check out Gal 4:24-28):

1 Sing, O barren, she hath not borne! Break forth with singing, and cry aloud, She hath not brought forth! For more are the sons of the desolate, Than the sons of the married one, said Jehovah.
2 Enlarge the place of thy tent, And the curtains of thy tabernacles they stretch out, Restrain not -- lengthen thy cords, And thy pins make strong.
3 For right and left thou breakest forth, And thy seed doth nations possess,
4 And desolate cities they cause to be inhabited. Fear not, for thou art not ashamed, Nor blush, for thou art not confounded, For the shame of thy youth thou forgettest, And the reproach of thy widowhood Thou dost not remember any more.
5 For thy Maker is thy husband, Jehovah of Hosts is His name, And thy Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel, `God of all the earth,` He is called.
6 For, as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, Called thee hath Jehovah, Even a youthful wife when she is refused, said thy God.
7 In a small moment I have forsaken thee, And in great mercies I do gather thee,
8 In overflowing wrath I hid my face for a moment from thee, And in kindness age-during I have loved thee, Said thy Redeemer -- Jehovah!
9 For, the waters of Noah is this to Me, In that I have sworn -- the waters of Noah Do not pass again over the earth -- So I have sworn, Wrath is not upon thee, Nor rebuke against thee.
10 For the mountains depart, and the hills remove, And My kindness from thee departeth not, And the covenant of My peace removeth not, Said hath thy loving one -- Jehovah.
11 O afflicted, storm-tossed, not comforted, Lo, I am laying with cement thy stones, And have founded thee with sapphires,
12 And have made of agate thy pinnacles, And thy gates of carbuncle stones, And all thy border of stones of delight,
13 And all thy sons are taught of Jehovah, And abundant is the peace of thy sons.
14 In righteousness thou establishest thyself, Be far from oppression, for thou fearest not, And from ruin, for it cometh not near unto thee.
15 Lo, he doth diligently assemble without My desire, Who hath assembled near thee? By thee he falleth!
16 Lo, I -- I have prepared an artizan, Blowing on a fire of coals, And bringing out an instrument for his work, And I have prepared a destroyer to destroy.
17 No weapon formed against thee prospereth, And every tongue rising against thee, In judgment thou condemnest. This is the inheritance of the servants of Jehovah, And their righteousness from me, an affirmation of Jehovah! Isa 54

You simply don't get it! A mere application does not mean fulfillment! Remember, Genesis 1:3 is applied to salvation in 2 Cor. 4:6. According to your rationale and principle of intepretation we should not literalize Genesis 1;3 but spiritualize it as really meaning salvation since it is evidently applied to salvation in 2 Cor. 4:6. THIS KIND OF INTERPRETATION CHARACTERIZES your false theory.

 

[OldRegular]

This is so true! The charismatic movement is a perfect example of this type of interpretation gone amuck! They see demons behind every bush or angels, and simply jerk a text out of context and make it mean whatever they want it to mean based upon some kind of spiritualization or experience, vision or dream.

Isin't that what pre-trib-dispensationalists do to Daniel 9: 26, 27; John 5:28, 29 and others too numerous to mention; all because of Irving and Darby!

 

[asterisktom]

I am not addressing this merely to Tony, but to all on this forum. Tony simply presented the accusation that the "golden rule of interpetation" is a "man made" standard when it is in fact Biblically based and common sense based. It is Biblical based as Paul told the Corinthians that the purpose of language is to communicate not to confuse:

1Co 14:9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

Paul also wrote:

"our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. (2 Cor.)"

He also wrote:

"These things are allegorically understood". (Gal)


The Jews had a long history of following Cooper's man-made dictum, with disastrous results. Their Messianic expectations were right along those lones. The disciples, too, many times had to be corrected from their literal blinders.

The Bible is full of spiritual, metaphorical language. To ignore this is to throw away a major key of understanding.

Again the rule states:

"When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning UNLESS the facts of the immediate context, studied in thelight of related passages and axiomatic and fundemental truths, indicate clearly otherwise."

Language is designed to be a vehicle of communication rather than a mechanism for confusion. Communication is impossible apart from this common sense rule of interpretation. Again communication is IMPOSSIBLE if this rule is ignored.

Yet, somehow, communication was possible when Christ again and again spoke in metaphorically language ("I am the door", "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees", and so on).

The disciples at first made the same mistake you are making. But they moved on to a more mature understanding of God's Word.

 

[The Biblicist]

Paul also wrote:

"our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. (2 Cor.)"

You obviously do not understand this text as you are jerking it out of context and applying to something that has absolutely no relationship to the text. Paul is not speaking about hermeneutics but about the internal nature of the New Covenant versus the Jewish application of the Old Covenant which is purely external in nature.

He also wrote:

"These things are allegorically understood". (Gal)

And how do you understand and interpret these words? "spiritually"? If spiritually than perhaps "allegorically" means "literal" or etc.? You are demonstrating the absolute nonsense of your approach to scripture! You demand this statement must be taken literal in order to defend your NON-LITERAL hermeneutic - oxymornonic!

 

[DHK]

Paul also wrote:

"our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. (2 Cor.)"

Our sufficiency is from God. Who here is going to argue with that?
--"Not of the letter but of the Spirit"
What is the context? Why do you pull a verse out of context?
Paul is addressing the Corinthians who have been attacked by false teachers, teachers that have been preaching a false gospel (no doubt the same Judaizers that have been confronted elsewhere), and that Paul is defending himself at the beginning of this same chapter.

With the gospel is great clarity and plainness of speech. It gives life.

[FONT=&quot]2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
[/FONT]
--Not so with the message of the false teachers:
[FONT=&quot]2 Corinthians 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
--There is one gospel, a gospel of the Holy Spirit, a gospel that gives life.
So why the unwarranted comparison??
[/FONT]

He also wrote:

"These things are allegorically understood". (Gal)

Another reference (note specific reference not given), jerked out of context as if to support supposed position.

The Jews had a long history of following Cooper's man-made dictum, with disastrous results. Their Messianic expectations were right along those lones. The disciples, too, many times had to be corrected from their literal blinders.

The Bible is full of spiritual, metaphorical language. To ignore this is to throw away a major key of understanding.

To plead ignorance to the recognition of a metaphor or a simile is to plead ignorance to literature and simple literary devices. Most people (except the RCC) knows what a metaphor is. When Jesus said "take this and eat, it is my flesh" the RCC will not recognize it as a metaphor. Most others will. Just as Jesus said: I am the door, I am the vine, you are the branches, etc. (Do you look like a branch?) That is the nature of a metaphor, and they are not hard to recognize.

Yet, somehow, communication was possible when Christ again and again spoke in metaphorically language ("I am the door", "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees", and so on).

The disciples at first made the same mistake you are making. But they moved on to a more mature understanding of God's Word.

When the disciples didn't understand Jesus they went back to him and asked him: "What do you mean..."
Secondly, after the ascension, "The Holy Spirit brought back to remembrance all things whatsoever I have taught you," so that they could right them down for us in Scripture.
Third, again after the resurrection, many of the things that he said were made clear to them. For example:
[FONT=&quot]John 2:20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.[/FONT]
Fourth, it seemed as it they were slow learners at times (not quick like you)

[FONT=&quot]Luke 24:13 And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs.
14 And they talked together of all these things which had happened.
15 And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.[/FONT]
--60 furlongs = 7 1/2 miles.

[FONT=&quot]Luke 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
28 And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further.[/FONT]
--There were no metaphors here. It was plain talk. He went through all the Scriptures expounding each one to them during that long walk. Still they did not recognize him.
They were slow learners.
Hindsight is better than foresight. You might be a bit harsh on the disciples.

 

[asterisktom]

Another reference (note specific reference not given), jerked out of context as if to support supposed position. ...
You might be a bit harsh on the disciples.

Just a short note for now (I am between teaching classes):

I wrote just a little this morning because I didn't have much time. Also, I assumed (wrongly?) that if I just wrote "Gal." that it would jog the memory of readers, or they could just find it themselves in that short book.

You insinuate - as you often do with me - that I was being devious. No, just economical in typing. Forgive me that great sin. [Yes, that is sarcasm]

On second thought, I may or may not respond to the rest of your post. This might give you a chance to comment on my silence.

 

[DHK]

Just a short note for now (I am between teaching classes):

I wrote just a little this morning because I didn't have much time. Also, I assumed (wrongly?) that if I just wrote "Gal." that it would jog the memory of readers, or they could just find it themselves in that short book.

You insinuate - as you often do with me - that I was being devious. No, just economical in typing. Forgive me that great sin. [Yes, that is sarcasm]

On second thought, I may or may not respond to the rest of your post. This might give you a chance to comment on my silence.

It is interesting that you responded to the one verse I chose not to expound on because I didn't have the time.
You are not the only one that teaches. My classes are just starting.
This will be my last post for a while.

 

[asterisktom]

It is interesting that you responded to the one verse I chose not to expound on because I didn't have the time.
You are not the only one that teaches. My classes are just starting.
This will be my last post for a while.

OK. Hopefully I will respond to your other points later.

I hope your classes will be good.

 

[DHK]

OK. Hopefully I will respond to your other points later.

I hope your classes will be good.

Classes were great! I have some time to look up Gal.4:24 and respond to it.

[FONT=&quot]Galatians 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.[/FONT]

First, it is the only time the word "allegory" is used in the NT.
And second, it is not to be used as an excuse or reason for a different method of interpretation. I believe that A.T. Robertson has some good advice on this word and topic.

Which things contain an allegory (hatina estin allêgoroumena). Literally, "Which things are allegorized" (periphrastic present passive indicative of allêgoreô). Late word (Strabo, Plutarch, Philo, Josephus, ecclesiastical writers), only here in N.T. The ancient writers used ainittomai to speak in riddles. It is compounded of allo, another, and agoreuô, to speak, and so means speaking something else than what the language means, what Philo, the past-master in the use of allegory, calls the deeper spiritual sense. Paul does not deny the actual historical narrative, but he simply uses it in an allegorical sense to illustrate his point for the benefit of his readers who are tempted to go under the burden of the law. He puts a secondary meaning on the narrative just as he uses tupikôs in 1Co 10:11 of the narrative. We need not press unduly the difference between allegory and type, for each is used in a variety of ways. The allegory in one sense is a speaking parable like Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, the Prodigal Son in Lu 15:1ff., the Good Shepherd in Joh 10:1ff. But allegory was also used by Philo and by Paul here for a secret meaning not obvious at first, one not in the mind of the writer, like our illustration which throws light on the point. Paul was familiar with this rabbinical method of exegesis (Rabbi Akiba, for instance, who found a mystical sense in every hook and crook of the Hebrew letters) and makes skilful use of that knowledge here. Christian preachers in Alexandria early fell victims to Philo's allegorical method and carried it to excess without regard to the plain sense of the narrative. That startling style of preaching survives yet to the discredit of sound preaching. Please observe that Paul says here that he is using allegory, not ordinary interpretation. It is not necessary to say that Paul intended his readers to believe that this allegory was designed by the narrative. He illustrates his point by it. For these are (hautai gar eisin). Allegorically interpreted, he means. From Mount Sinai (apo orous Sinâ). Spoken from Mount Sinai. Bearing (gennôsa). Present active participle of gennaô, to beget of the male (Mt 1:1-16), more rarely as here to bear of the female (Lu 1:13,57). Which is Hagar (hêtis estin Hagar). Allegorically interpreted.

Please note from the above quote:
Christian preachers in Alexandria early fell victims to Philo's allegorical method and carried it to excess without regard to the plain sense of the narrative. That startling style of preaching survives yet to the discredit of sound preaching.
--This is not an excuse for an allegorical style of preaching.

So, where sound sense makes good sense...
The literal method of interpretation is demanded by scripture unless otherwise indicated.
We recognize literary devices such as metaphors and similes.
We also recognize anthropomorphisms such as "The Lord will hide you under his wings," when we know that God is spirit, and a "Spirit" has no wings.
The Bible uses many literary devices. As a general rule it does not use allegory, or intend for the reader to allegorize the Word.