The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

Didn't know bots could open new threads...must be a great AI...lol.

I think that some of the recent discussions on this board have highlighted the importance of what Michael is saying .... we cannot just interpret to suit ourselves .... nor can we allegorise willy nilly either because at that point who is to say who is right and who is wrong.!

Perhaps most of us (unless we are doing serious study) would not go into quite such detail .... but I have found that knowing the social background of both the writer and the intended recipient, as well as the reason for writing and the type of writing (psalm, narrative, letter etc) helps me to understand what is actually being said. As opposed to what I think (or I want to think) is being said.!

Of course, the Holy Spirit stands behind the text .... they wrote what He wanted written for the people of God to use in different times and places, and the Holy Spirit also stands behind our interpretation. But this usually does not take the place of effort on our part. The more I read, the harder I work to understand (using all the wisdom with which God has gifted His church) .... the more I do understand.

in Christ

Dinah

PS .... it is a clever bot!

a note on allegorizing...while it has been in use for a long time, it is no substitute for grammatical-historical. Allegory is good for applications perhaps, or illustration of a particular point (Like Paul did with the Hagar and Sarah allegory) but for doctrine...IMO it is safer to stay with the grammatical-historical method...the gospels and acts are narrative. The epistles are didactic and the book of Revelation is largely apocalyptic-symbolic... and as far as I know the example of Sarah and Hagar representing the two Jerusalems is the only example of allegory we have...unless I'm wrong...and if I am please correct me.

The Reign of Christ and the Great White Throne (Rev 20:1-15) By: J. Hampton Keathley, III , Th.M.

Reasons for the Literal Interpretation

(1) Definition of the "literal" method: This is the method that gives to each word the same exact basic meaning it would have in normal, ordinary, customary usage whether in writing or speaking or thinking. This method is called the grammatical-historical method because it is based on contextual, grammatical, lexical, and historical considerations.

(2) Definition of "allegorical" or "spiritual" method: It is that method of interpreting a text or passage of Scripture that regards the literal sense as merely the vehicle for a secondary, more spiritual, and more profound sense. "In this method the historical import is either denied or ignored and the emphasis is placed entirely on a secondary sense so that the original words or events have little or no significance."226

Pentecost quotes Charles T. Fritsch who says, "According to this method the literal and historical sense of Scripture is completely ignored, and every word and event is made an allegory of some kind either to escape theological difficulties or to maintain certain peculiar views ."227

Paul teaches us that the Old Testament Scripture and God's dealing with Israel do have spiritual analogies for the Christian life (1 Cor. 10:6, 11-12). Scripture is full of such analogies and types, but their significance is based on the literal historicity of the event whether past or future. It is never a means to deny its literal meaning or fulfillment.

(3) The danger of the allegorical or spiritual method: Pentecost cogently points to three great dangers:

First, he warns, that "it does not really interpret Scripture." In other words, it goes beyond all well-defined principles and laws of interpretation and leaves one open to the unlimited scope of one's own fancy. It yields no true interpretation, though it may possibly illustrate certain valuable truths.

A second danger is that in the allegorical method "the basic authority in interpretation ceases to be the Scriptures, but the mind of the interpreter. The interpretation may then be twisted by the interpreter's doctrinal positions, the authority of the church to which the interpreter adheres, his social or educational background, or a host of other factors."228

Finally Pentecost says, "a third great danger in the allegorical method is that one is left without any means by which the conclusions of the interpreter may be tested."229

The point is simply this. Scripture abounds in allegories, whether in the form of types, symbols, or parables. Paul explains such an allegory in Galatians 4:21-23. These are accepted and legitimate ways to teach and communicate spiritual truth. However, there is a great deal of difference between such use of allegories and allegorical interpretation. In one you have the illustration and application of spiritual truth based on literal interpretation and historical fact. In the other, you have disregard for the literal meaning and historical fact based on the literal method of interpretation and in its place an allegory is set up based on the interpreter's own fancy.

(4) Evidences for the literal interpretation. In defense of the literal approach it may be argued:

a. The literal method of interpretation is the usual practice in interpretation of literature. When we read a book, essay, or poem we presume the sense is literal. This is the only conceivable method of communication.

b. All secondary meanings of documents depend upon the previous meaning of these documents, namely, upon their literal interpretation. Parables, types, allegories, symbols, and figures of speech (metaphors, similes, hyperboles) presume that the words have a more primitive reference than the sense in which they are used.

c. A large part of the Bible makes adequate and significant sense when literally interpreted. Of course the literal interpretation of Scripture does not blindly rule out figures of speech, symbols, allegories, and types. The literal meaning of a figure of speech is its proper meaning. "Ephraim is a cake not turned" (Hosea 7:8) means that Ephraim is "half-baked."

d. The literal method is the necessary check upon the imagination of men. To rest one's theology on the secondary stratum of the possible meanings of Scripture is not interpretation but imagination . The only sure way to know God's word is to anchor interpretation in literal exegesis.230

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1508

I came across the following .... which I agree with also, especially as I have particularly noticed the danger he speaks of .... that in the allegorical method, our own mind and imagination are the bottom line ... which as I have become more and more acquainted with my own inherent sinfulness and capacity for self-deception, makes me distinctly nervous ..

Rene

I know that the Allegorical method has been practised by the church on and off almost from the beginning .... but ....

I have thought about this over quite a few years, and the conclusion I came up with was that while it may be useful during private devotions, yet I would not base any teaching or doctrine upon this method.

I came across the following .... which I agree with also, especially as I have particularly noticed the danger he speaks of .... that in the allegorical method, our own mind and imagination are the bottom line ... which as I have become more and more acquainted with my own inherent sinfulness and capacity for self-deception, makes me distinctly nervous ..

This thread is for discussion of the article Theological Fallacies: Coherence Fallacy by Michael Patton.