To interpret the Bible, in either the Dispensational or any other way, requires some spiritualization. But I've noticed that in some conversations on this subject with Dispensationalists - they like to say that to be Amillennial, you must allegorize scripture.
To the best of my understanding, to allegorize means that you take the passage to have a meaning that can be applied to life by using all the elements as symbols, making the symbols to mean whatever seems right to you.
But to spiritualize is to see the elements in a story or in instructions given (e.g. the building of the Tabernacle, the ritual of circumcision) and apply spiritual meaning as interpreted by the New Testament.
That is typically the answer I give to those that accuse me of allegorizing, but I'm not real comfortable with that answer or that it's getting the point across to them. Does anyone have a concise answer that makes it clear that non-dispensationalists are not resorting to allegory?
Allegorical vs. Spiritual Interpretations
-
AaronBDisney
- Posts: 98
- Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 12:13 am
Re: Allegorical vs. Spiritual Interpretations
That is typically the answer I give to those that accuse me of allegorizing, but I'm not real comfortable with that answer or that it's getting the point across to them. Does anyone have a concise answer that makes it clear that non-dispensationalists are not resorting to allegory?
Jesus said his words are "spirit and life" and if his words are really spirit do we receive understanding in our brain or our spirit? I think we first hear his words in our spirit and then our mind goes to work sorting it out and processing it therefore it seems to me that allegorizing is the primary method Jesus uses. He mostly spoke in parables which is why his disciples often did'nt understand him, yet we try to process his words in our western literal minds because our culture values literalism because it seems more precise and measurable, but it's really not the way Jesus usually communicated.
Jesus said his words are "spirit and life" and if his words are really spirit do we receive understanding in our brain or our spirit? I think we first hear his words in our spirit and then our mind goes to work sorting it out and processing it therefore it seems to me that allegorizing is the primary method Jesus uses. He mostly spoke in parables which is why his disciples often did'nt understand him, yet we try to process his words in our western literal minds because our culture values literalism because it seems more precise and measurable, but it's really not the way Jesus usually communicated.
Re: Allegorical vs. Spiritual Interpretations
I'm reminded of an earlier discussion we had on my Open Theism thread, Aaron. Where we were saying (something like, how Calvinists 'debate', as in), "Calvinist presuppositions are true. Therefore, Arminianism is false."Hi AaronBDisney! You wrote:To interpret the Bible, in either the Dispensational or any other way, requires some spiritualization. But I've noticed that in some conversations on this subject with Dispensationalists - they like to say that to be Amillennial, you must allegorize scripture.
To the best of my understanding, to allegorize means that you take the passage to have a meaning that can be applied to life by using all the elements as symbols, making the symbols to mean whatever seems right to you.
But to spiritualize is to see the elements in a story or in instructions given (e.g. the building of the Tabernacle, the ritual of circumcision) and apply spiritual meaning as interpreted by the New Testament.
That is typically the answer I give to those that accuse me of allegorizing, but I'm not real comfortable with that answer or that it's getting the point across to them. Does anyone have a concise answer that makes it clear that non-dispensationalists are not resorting to allegory?
The Dispensationalists you've encountered are essentially saying something similiar (in that/like), "The Literalist presupposition and method of interpretation is correct. Therefore, alleghorical interpretation is false."
With both the Calvinists and Dispensationalists in these examples, their arguments are very weak, (if existent at all).
===================
Steve (Gregg) hasn't replied here. But what he would (likely) say is what I'll say.
To wit ---
If the (original) authors' intentions were alleghorical and/or meant to portray a 'spiritualized meaning' (though I don't especially like this latter terminology); then an alleghorical interpretation is warranted, since this conveys the authorial intention/ real meaning of a given text. In other words, what the text says (in these cases) is literally alleghorical. And, thus, to read the text in a literalistic sense (in these cases) would be mistaken and would lead to incorrect conclusions.
[The] actual authorial intention and meaning is the key, imo!
Thanks,
-
AaronBDisney
- Posts: 98
- Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 12:13 am
Re: Allegorical vs. Spiritual Interpretations
Thank you guys for your helpful comments. I do see that some of the Bible is to be interpreted literally, some figuratively, some spiritually. The problem I've had is explaining the difference between spiritualization and allegorizing scripture. I do think there's a difference.
On the one hand, to allegorize is to take a story or instruction and apply a meaning to each element and derive a lesson from it. To spiritualize is to reinterperet the meaning of physical realities into spiritual realities. For example, the Jews had to cut off their foreskins. This was to remove the flesh literally. But under the new covenant - we cut off the fleshly desires and remove that which hinders us from a relationship with the Lord. This, as I understand it, is not exactly allegorization, but spiritualization, but I see an element of allegory in it as well.
I'm not sure that there's a lot of scripture that is valued only because of allegorization alone. If there is allegory, it is because a spiritual meaning is applied to it.
People generally think that non-dispensationalists simply allegorize most of the Bible and make it a big subjective mess. I think that the key is the clarity given to the New Testament authors. So I don't like to be known as an allegorizer, but as a spiritualizer. I'm just having trouble separating the bone and marrow of the definitions of the two is all.
On the one hand, to allegorize is to take a story or instruction and apply a meaning to each element and derive a lesson from it. To spiritualize is to reinterperet the meaning of physical realities into spiritual realities. For example, the Jews had to cut off their foreskins. This was to remove the flesh literally. But under the new covenant - we cut off the fleshly desires and remove that which hinders us from a relationship with the Lord. This, as I understand it, is not exactly allegorization, but spiritualization, but I see an element of allegory in it as well.
I'm not sure that there's a lot of scripture that is valued only because of allegorization alone. If there is allegory, it is because a spiritual meaning is applied to it.
People generally think that non-dispensationalists simply allegorize most of the Bible and make it a big subjective mess. I think that the key is the clarity given to the New Testament authors. So I don't like to be known as an allegorizer, but as a spiritualizer. I'm just having trouble separating the bone and marrow of the definitions of the two is all.
Last edited by AaronBDisney on Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Allegorical vs. Spiritual Interpretations
I paste below my response to Norman Geisler on the subject of allegorizing scripture:
Geisler wrote:
Tenth, [Steve Gregg] wrongly argues that several possible literal interpretations of a passages, as futurists have of some texts, is justification for preterists taking different allegorical interpretations of these literal events. This is an insightful example of a false analogy.
My response:
I sought no such justification. I was simply turning my esteemed critic’s argument back on himself. He seemed to imply that the diversity of opinions among preterists indicates the invalidity of the general position. I merely pointed out that there is an even higher degree of disagreement among dispensationalists. I was not seeking a “justification” for using an “allegorical interpretation.” I was saying that what Dr. Geisler thinks disqualifies preterism (i.e., differences of opinions among its advocates) would equally disqualify dispensationalism. However, I don’t think that either view is disqualified by the variety of opinions held among its advocates. If one view or another is to be disqualified, it must be on the basis of scriptural exegesis.
As a sidebar: neither I, nor any modern amillennialist or preterist, ever employ what can properly be called an “allegorical” interpretation of any passage in order to establish our eschatology. Dispensationalists (apparently perpetuating this mistake by merely quoting each other) have continually referred to the approach of amillennialists as the “allegorizing” hermenteutic, known to be characteristic of Origen’s writings (whom they decry as unorthodox).
I should have thought they would be better informed. “Allegorizing” is a specific approach to scriptural stories that was taken by many rabbis, by Philo, and (in the Christian movement) by members of the Alexandrian School, like Origen. This approach actually bears no resemblance to any method followed by any modern evangelical scholar in establishing doctrine.
Dispensationalists are so committed to asserting their loyalty to a “literal” hermeneutic, that they apparently have not familiarized themselves with the variety of ways in which a passage can be taken non-literally. The allegorical method was certainly one non-literal approach among many, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with preterist or amillennial methodologies.
When we read that a sower sowed seeds, and then learn that the story was not about literal seeds, but that seeds were symbolic of the word of God being preached, we are interpreting the story non-literally. But this is not the allegorical method. It is parable—a different non-literal way of speaking, commonly employed by the prophets and by Jesus.
When we read, in Revelation, that the whole world worships an animal having seven heads and ten horns, which eventually makes war against a Lamb, and then we later learn that the animal is not an animal at all, nor are the heads really heads but mountains, nor are the horns really horns, but kings, nor is the Lamb actually a literal lamb—we realize that we are again reading non-literal material, and will err if we interpret literally. But this is neither allegory nor parable, but apocalyptic symbolism.
Yet another form of non-literal interpretation, legitimized by it appearance in the writings of the New Testament, is “typological” interpretation. The recollection of Israel’s exodus from Egypt (in Hosea 11:1) is seen, by Matthew, as “fulfilled” in the coming of the infant Jesus out of Egypt—apparently recognizing Israel’s experience as a “type” of the Messiah’s. There is no way that this can be said to be a “literal” interpretation of Hosea 11:1. It is typological.
When we read, in Isaiah, that God will lay in Zion a foundation stone, and then we read, in 1 Peter 2:6, that this is not referring to a stone at all, but that it refers to Jesus, and the “Zion” of which He is “the foundation” is not the literal mountain in Israel, but is the church—again we find we are dealing with non-literal language and should interpret non-literally. This, however, is not a case of parable, allegory or apocalyptic, but the stone and Zion are understood “spiritually.” Thus we are expected to “spiritualize” the passage, as did the New Testament writers:
“But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem…to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven…” (Hebrews 12:22-23)
"Allegorizing" is an entirely different method from those surveyed above. In many cases, the allegorist sees, in a simple story, many seemingly unrelated and unwarranted philosophical correspondences. Some examples of the kind of allegorization practiced by some Jewish teachers of Jesus’ day are given in the Jewish Encyclopedia:
"Men versed in natural philosophy explain the history of Abraham and Sarah in an allegorical manner with no inconsiderable ingenuity and propriety. The man here [Abraham] is a symbolical expression for the virtuous mind, and by his wife is meant virtue, for the name of his wife is Sarah ["princess"], because there is nothing more royal or more worthy of regal preeminence than virtue" ("De Abrahamo," xx. 8; ed. Mangey, ii. 15).
“[Josephus’] symbolical exposition of the Tabernacle with its utensils, and of the high priest's vestments ("Ant." iii. 7, § 7), and his interpretation that the Holy of Holies means the heavens, the showbread means the twelve months, and the candlestick means the seven planets, resemble Philo, but are merely resemblances. Similar explanations are repeatedly given by the Midrash…”
“The following is an illustration [of Philo’s allegorizations] from Genesis: ‘God planted a garden in Eden [Gen. ii. 5 et seq.]: that means God implants terrestrial virtue in the human race. The tree of life is that specific virtue which some people call goodness. The river that 'went out of Eden' is also generic goodness. Its four heads are the cardinal virtues; 'Pheison' is derived from the Greek ???????? (I abstain) and means 'prudence'; and, being an illustrious virtue, it is said 'to compass the whole land of Havilah where there is gold.'" The name "Gihon" means "chest" (see Gen. R. on the passage) and stands for courage, and it compasses Ethiopia, or humiliation. Tigris is "temperance"; the name is connected with a tiger because it resolutely opposes desire. Euphrates means "fertility" (Hebrew parah; see Gen. R.) and stands for "justice." In this way the patriarchs, however, are allegorized away into mere abstractions ("De Allegoriis Legum," i. 19 et seq.; ed. Mangey, i. 56 et seq.).”
(above examples from http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... 6&letter=A)
Some ancient Christian writers—notably those of the Alexandrian School, like Origen—also employed a similar allegorizing method. However, no modern biblical exegete follows such a method, to my knowledge.
Milder forms of allegorizing were not unknown among the apostolic writings. Paul allegorized the story of Ishmael and Isaac—making their mothers to represent the two covenants, and the boys to represent the unbelieving Jews and the Christians, respectively (Galatians 4:22-31). He also took the law of not muzzling the ox and applied it allegorically to the rights of ministers, as though this were its primary meaning in the original law (1 Cor.9:9-10/ 1 Tim.5:17-18). He seems also to allegorize the law that forbids plowing with an ox and an ass together, when he writes: “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers” (2 Cor.6:14). However, these cases did not follow such an arbitrary approach as did Philo and Origen. Paul’s practice simply saw a spiritual principle in the Old Testament example, and applied the same principle to New Testament truth.
Preterists and amillennialists, as well as dispensationalists, take many things non-literally, but I have never encountered an example of allegorizing in any of their theological polemics. Dispensationalists are fond of linking the amillennialists’ hermeneutics to “the allegorizing method of the non-orthodox Origen.” In continually making this association, dispensationalists demonstrate either their lack of familiarity with the hermeneutics of the evangelical amillennialist, or unfamiliarity with those of Origen—probably both.
Geisler wrote:
Tenth, [Steve Gregg] wrongly argues that several possible literal interpretations of a passages, as futurists have of some texts, is justification for preterists taking different allegorical interpretations of these literal events. This is an insightful example of a false analogy.
My response:
I sought no such justification. I was simply turning my esteemed critic’s argument back on himself. He seemed to imply that the diversity of opinions among preterists indicates the invalidity of the general position. I merely pointed out that there is an even higher degree of disagreement among dispensationalists. I was not seeking a “justification” for using an “allegorical interpretation.” I was saying that what Dr. Geisler thinks disqualifies preterism (i.e., differences of opinions among its advocates) would equally disqualify dispensationalism. However, I don’t think that either view is disqualified by the variety of opinions held among its advocates. If one view or another is to be disqualified, it must be on the basis of scriptural exegesis.
As a sidebar: neither I, nor any modern amillennialist or preterist, ever employ what can properly be called an “allegorical” interpretation of any passage in order to establish our eschatology. Dispensationalists (apparently perpetuating this mistake by merely quoting each other) have continually referred to the approach of amillennialists as the “allegorizing” hermenteutic, known to be characteristic of Origen’s writings (whom they decry as unorthodox).
I should have thought they would be better informed. “Allegorizing” is a specific approach to scriptural stories that was taken by many rabbis, by Philo, and (in the Christian movement) by members of the Alexandrian School, like Origen. This approach actually bears no resemblance to any method followed by any modern evangelical scholar in establishing doctrine.
Dispensationalists are so committed to asserting their loyalty to a “literal” hermeneutic, that they apparently have not familiarized themselves with the variety of ways in which a passage can be taken non-literally. The allegorical method was certainly one non-literal approach among many, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with preterist or amillennial methodologies.
When we read that a sower sowed seeds, and then learn that the story was not about literal seeds, but that seeds were symbolic of the word of God being preached, we are interpreting the story non-literally. But this is not the allegorical method. It is parable—a different non-literal way of speaking, commonly employed by the prophets and by Jesus.
When we read, in Revelation, that the whole world worships an animal having seven heads and ten horns, which eventually makes war against a Lamb, and then we later learn that the animal is not an animal at all, nor are the heads really heads but mountains, nor are the horns really horns, but kings, nor is the Lamb actually a literal lamb—we realize that we are again reading non-literal material, and will err if we interpret literally. But this is neither allegory nor parable, but apocalyptic symbolism.
Yet another form of non-literal interpretation, legitimized by it appearance in the writings of the New Testament, is “typological” interpretation. The recollection of Israel’s exodus from Egypt (in Hosea 11:1) is seen, by Matthew, as “fulfilled” in the coming of the infant Jesus out of Egypt—apparently recognizing Israel’s experience as a “type” of the Messiah’s. There is no way that this can be said to be a “literal” interpretation of Hosea 11:1. It is typological.
When we read, in Isaiah, that God will lay in Zion a foundation stone, and then we read, in 1 Peter 2:6, that this is not referring to a stone at all, but that it refers to Jesus, and the “Zion” of which He is “the foundation” is not the literal mountain in Israel, but is the church—again we find we are dealing with non-literal language and should interpret non-literally. This, however, is not a case of parable, allegory or apocalyptic, but the stone and Zion are understood “spiritually.” Thus we are expected to “spiritualize” the passage, as did the New Testament writers:
“But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem…to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven…” (Hebrews 12:22-23)
"Allegorizing" is an entirely different method from those surveyed above. In many cases, the allegorist sees, in a simple story, many seemingly unrelated and unwarranted philosophical correspondences. Some examples of the kind of allegorization practiced by some Jewish teachers of Jesus’ day are given in the Jewish Encyclopedia:
"Men versed in natural philosophy explain the history of Abraham and Sarah in an allegorical manner with no inconsiderable ingenuity and propriety. The man here [Abraham] is a symbolical expression for the virtuous mind, and by his wife is meant virtue, for the name of his wife is Sarah ["princess"], because there is nothing more royal or more worthy of regal preeminence than virtue" ("De Abrahamo," xx. 8; ed. Mangey, ii. 15).
“[Josephus’] symbolical exposition of the Tabernacle with its utensils, and of the high priest's vestments ("Ant." iii. 7, § 7), and his interpretation that the Holy of Holies means the heavens, the showbread means the twelve months, and the candlestick means the seven planets, resemble Philo, but are merely resemblances. Similar explanations are repeatedly given by the Midrash…”
“The following is an illustration [of Philo’s allegorizations] from Genesis: ‘God planted a garden in Eden [Gen. ii. 5 et seq.]: that means God implants terrestrial virtue in the human race. The tree of life is that specific virtue which some people call goodness. The river that 'went out of Eden' is also generic goodness. Its four heads are the cardinal virtues; 'Pheison' is derived from the Greek ???????? (I abstain) and means 'prudence'; and, being an illustrious virtue, it is said 'to compass the whole land of Havilah where there is gold.'" The name "Gihon" means "chest" (see Gen. R. on the passage) and stands for courage, and it compasses Ethiopia, or humiliation. Tigris is "temperance"; the name is connected with a tiger because it resolutely opposes desire. Euphrates means "fertility" (Hebrew parah; see Gen. R.) and stands for "justice." In this way the patriarchs, however, are allegorized away into mere abstractions ("De Allegoriis Legum," i. 19 et seq.; ed. Mangey, i. 56 et seq.).”
(above examples from http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... 6&letter=A)
Some ancient Christian writers—notably those of the Alexandrian School, like Origen—also employed a similar allegorizing method. However, no modern biblical exegete follows such a method, to my knowledge.
Milder forms of allegorizing were not unknown among the apostolic writings. Paul allegorized the story of Ishmael and Isaac—making their mothers to represent the two covenants, and the boys to represent the unbelieving Jews and the Christians, respectively (Galatians 4:22-31). He also took the law of not muzzling the ox and applied it allegorically to the rights of ministers, as though this were its primary meaning in the original law (1 Cor.9:9-10/ 1 Tim.5:17-18). He seems also to allegorize the law that forbids plowing with an ox and an ass together, when he writes: “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers” (2 Cor.6:14). However, these cases did not follow such an arbitrary approach as did Philo and Origen. Paul’s practice simply saw a spiritual principle in the Old Testament example, and applied the same principle to New Testament truth.
Preterists and amillennialists, as well as dispensationalists, take many things non-literally, but I have never encountered an example of allegorizing in any of their theological polemics. Dispensationalists are fond of linking the amillennialists’ hermeneutics to “the allegorizing method of the non-orthodox Origen.” In continually making this association, dispensationalists demonstrate either their lack of familiarity with the hermeneutics of the evangelical amillennialist, or unfamiliarity with those of Origen—probably both.
-
AaronBDisney
- Posts: 98
- Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 12:13 am
Re: Allegorical vs. Spiritual Interpretations
Thanks, Steve. That cleared a lot of things up. I'll re-read that later to familiarize myself with these points and apply them in future conversations.
-
FreeIndeed
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 11:13 pm
Re: Allegorical vs. Spiritual Interpretations
Dan 12:9And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.
What's happening right now is the words Dan 12:9 are being unsealed. The folks at the Threshing Floor have put together some great studies based on understanding the Metaphoric Language and the Spiritual Overlay.
1 Cor 10: 11Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
http://threshingfloor-radio.com/index.p ... or-part-1/
http://threshingfloor-radio.com/index.p ... or-part-2/
http://threshingfloor-radio.com/index.p ... spiritual/
To sum it up. What happened to Physical Israel is now about to happen to Spiritual Israel (The Church)
The Physical Temple was destroyed were not a stone was left upon another
Now the Spiritual Temple is about to be destroyed where a Spiritual Stone will not be left upon another.
The Apostate Church is built on the Foundation of the Love of Money. The coming Global Economic Meltdown will take the Corporate Church with it.
That's why Scripture says. "Come out of Her"
For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. Rev 19: 3 & 4
Scripture desscribes this metaphorically with the Wedding at Cana being the sealing of the Remnant which is happening right now. The Remnant have "come out of her". What happens next. Jesus deals with the Moneychangers
(The Serpents) in the Temple. As soon as the Sealing of the Remnant is complete, the trumpet will sound and the wrath of God ( The Great Tribulation) will comense. During the Tribulation the Multitude will wake up to the Apostasy and the fact that Christian Zionism is the Beast which they had been wondering after and they will be brought through the fire. (Zech 13)
Chris
http://www.thirdgreatawakening.org
What's happening right now is the words Dan 12:9 are being unsealed. The folks at the Threshing Floor have put together some great studies based on understanding the Metaphoric Language and the Spiritual Overlay.
1 Cor 10: 11Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
http://threshingfloor-radio.com/index.p ... or-part-1/
http://threshingfloor-radio.com/index.p ... or-part-2/
http://threshingfloor-radio.com/index.p ... spiritual/
To sum it up. What happened to Physical Israel is now about to happen to Spiritual Israel (The Church)
The Physical Temple was destroyed were not a stone was left upon another
Now the Spiritual Temple is about to be destroyed where a Spiritual Stone will not be left upon another.
The Apostate Church is built on the Foundation of the Love of Money. The coming Global Economic Meltdown will take the Corporate Church with it.
That's why Scripture says. "Come out of Her"
For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. Rev 19: 3 & 4
Scripture desscribes this metaphorically with the Wedding at Cana being the sealing of the Remnant which is happening right now. The Remnant have "come out of her". What happens next. Jesus deals with the Moneychangers
(The Serpents) in the Temple. As soon as the Sealing of the Remnant is complete, the trumpet will sound and the wrath of God ( The Great Tribulation) will comense. During the Tribulation the Multitude will wake up to the Apostasy and the fact that Christian Zionism is the Beast which they had been wondering after and they will be brought through the fire. (Zech 13)
Chris
http://www.thirdgreatawakening.org