# The allegorical hermeneutic



## AV1611 (Apr 20, 2007)

What do you make of the allegorical hermeneutic and (partial) preterist idealism?


----------



## Civbert (Apr 20, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> What do you make of the allegorical hermeneutic and (partial) preterist idealism?


Not much. You?

P.S. I need coffee.


----------



## AV1611 (Apr 20, 2007)

Civbert said:


> Not much. You?



Only just come across it. I would affirm partial preterism and that the vast majority of NT prophesy has been fulfilled save Christ's second physical coming, judgment and the eternal state. I have also moved to a far more allegorical hermeneutic than I used to hold.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Apr 20, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> I have also moved to a far more allegorical hermeneutic than I used to hold.



If you don't mind me asking, why?


----------



## AV1611 (Apr 21, 2007)

Barnpreacher said:


> If you don't mind me asking, why?



Because it is clear that Scripture contains allegories:

*Gal 4:24 * "Which things are an allegory"


----------



## Barnpreacher (Apr 21, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> Because it is clear that Scripture contains allegories:
> 
> *Gal 4:24 * "Which things are an allegory"



I understand that. One can believe that the Bible contains allegories without holding to an allegorical hermeneutic.


----------



## Archlute (Apr 21, 2007)

One of the central issues in this debate is whether or not we are to take up the apostles' hermeneutic when interpreting the Scriptures. Greg Beale makes a good case for this position in the collection of essays, which he also edited, entitled _The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New_; specifically essay#22 found in part 7. Although not arguing for allegory in the sense of Origen's use of Scripture, Beale would agree with those of us who say that the interpretation of the OT Scriptures in a heavily typological manner regarding Christ and the Church, should indeed be emulated. There are some other good essays in there by Roger Nicole, Vern Poythress, et al, as well as counterpoints within each section addressed. It's a good read for thinking about some of these things, and one that I would highly recommend.


----------



## non dignus (Apr 21, 2007)

Christ taught in parables. I shall bow to it.
That isn't to say everything is allegorical. 
I am very edified by how allegory glues all scripture together as an organic whole. It is the way scripture confirms itself. 

Revelation is indeed idealistic as shown by the stark black and white demarcation of good and evil. Notice the lack of gray middle in the drama. The characters are either totally good or totally evil, harkening back to the covenant or works in the original Genesis story.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Apr 21, 2007)

Archlute said:


> Although not arguing for allegory in the sense of Origen's use of Scripture, Beale would agree with those of us who say that the interpretation of the OT Scriptures in a heavily typological manner regarding Christ and the Church, should indeed be emulated.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 21, 2007)

The history of hermeneutics should be studied by every would-be exegete. Most good, Reformed seminaries today teach the same method, with only slight variations. This method was a return to interpretation _anchored_ in the plain text of Scripture, when the Protestant Reformation leaders sought the true balance-point once again.

The main failure of medieval exegesis was the desire to get "behind" the text that was there. Following Augustin and Origen before him, the church developed a hermeneutic that corresponded closely to its sacramentalism--separation of substance and accidents.

But before we beat-up and berate the fathers and their students, we do need the judgment of charity. No one is completely able to free himself from the blindness of his own era. The development of the allegorical method came from the unlearned application of the apostolic handling of the Old Testament Scriptures. In other words,, subsequent generations were trying to do what their teachers had done, but making mistakes--mistakes that (providentially) were magnified over time.

And the Antiocheans leaned toward over-emphasizing the literal--to the _exclusion_ of a Christo-centric understanding of the text. The extremes of this method have found new echoes in 19th century rational approaches, as well as 20th century moralistic approaches (or outright repudiation of preaching the Old Testament, and sometimes even NT history, usually some form of dispensationism). One may as well acknowledge that the R-H "side" made valid criticisms of even much Reformed preaching of the late 20th century.

Don't misunderstand me, please. I have seen with my own eyes absolutely astonishing (and truly egregious) allegorization of texts by 21st century _Reformed_ exegetes--extreme R-H men who are plainly returning to Alexandria, because they are very dissatisfied with the scenery in Antioch.

We want neither Alexandria nor Antioch. We can avoid going to either place by attending to the apostle's themselves.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Apr 21, 2007)

Would most Reformed theologians subscribe to the teaching of Berkhof on this subject?


----------



## Founded on the Rock (Apr 21, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> The history of hermeneutics should be studied by every would-be exegete. Most good, Reformed seminaries today teach the same method, with only slight variations. This method was a return to interpretation _anchored_ in the plain text of Scripture, when the Protestant Reformation leaders sought the true balance-point once again.
> 
> The main failure of medieval exegesis was the desire to get "behind" the text that was there. Following Augustin and Origen before him, the church developed a hermeneutic that corresponded closely to its sacramentalism--separation of substance and accidents.
> 
> ...




 
And "The Write Doctrine From the Wrong Text?" is a GREAT book. I think anyone who wants to learn hermeneutics should read that books.


----------



## bookslover (Apr 21, 2007)

Archlute said:


> One of the central issues in this debate is whether or not we are to take up the apostles' hermeneutic when interpreting the Scriptures. Greg Beale makes a good case for this position in the collection of essays, which he also edited, entitled _The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New_; specifically essay#22 found in part 7. Although not arguing for allegory in the sense of Origen's use of Scripture, Beale would agree with those of us who say that the interpretation of the OT Scriptures in a heavily typological manner regarding Christ and the Church, should indeed be emulated. There are some other good essays in there by Roger Nicole, Vern Poythress, et al, as well as counterpoints within each section addressed. It's a good read for thinking about some of these things, and one that I would highly recommend.



But typology and allegory are not the same thing. I'm also not sure how far one should go with a heavy typologizing of the Old Testament. I don't think one should go farther than the New Testament does with this.


----------



## bookslover (Apr 21, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> The history of hermeneutics should be studied by every would-be exegete. Most good, Reformed seminaries today teach the same method, with only slight variations. This method was a return to interpretation _anchored_ in the plain text of Scripture, when the Protestant Reformation leaders sought the true balance-point once again.
> 
> The main failure of medieval exegesis was the desire to get "behind" the text that was there. Following Augustin and Origen before him, the church developed a hermeneutic that corresponded closely to its sacramentalism--separation of substance and accidents.
> 
> ...



Amen, brother. The last thing the Church needs is a return to Origen-style allegory. It was enough of a disaster the first time around. Let's not overturn the Reformers' efforts in freeing us from all that.


----------



## DTK (Apr 22, 2007)

For Calvin’s instruction and warning against the allegorical method in the use of Scripture, see his _Institutes_, II.5.19; III.4.4,5 and his Commentary on Galatians 4:22-26, where he requires “the natural and obvious meaning.” Cf. also his comments on Genesis 2:8; Isaiah 33:18; Jeremiah 31:24; Daniel 8:20-25; 10:6.

DTK


----------



## Archlute (Apr 22, 2007)

bookslover said:


> But typology and allegory are not the same thing. I'm also not sure how far one should go with a heavy typologizing of the Old Testament. I don't think one should go farther than the New Testament does with this.



If you'll notice, I made a distinction between allegory as it is found in Scripture, and allegory a la Origen/Philo. Philonic allegory is not the same as what Paul engages in in Galatians 4. F.F. Bruce, in his NIGTC commentary on Galatians, agrees that Paul's use of 'allegoreo' here is basically what we understand as typology. So in that sense, allegory and typology _are_ the same thing. It is a matter of discerning the word's differing meanings between the two contexts. 

When we hear 'allegory' we automatically import all of the badness with which we have associated early and medieval church allegorizing, but to do that with Paul here is to import a meaning into the word that he himself did not seem to give it. However, if it could be proven that Paul's allegorizing was identical to that towards which we have become averse (and I don't think that it can), then we would be in the wrong for not engaging in it, and would be condemning the apostle's hermeneutic based on our own human tradition from the reformation. This is a passage that must be squarely dealt with, whereas most Protestant interpreters ignore it, or explain it away with "Well, Paul was an apostle, so he could do that sort of thing...". That is not necessary to do if one realizes that Paul is using the term to describe a typological interpretation.

I'd differ with you on the right of an interpreter to typologize the OT. When I say heavy typologizing, I mean that which is opposed to the typologizing that is influenced by dispensationalism. The kind that basically says the only valid typology in the NT are the passages that we find quoted therein. It restricts typology to those passages alone. By heavy typologizing, I mean that we are able to observe _apostolic interpretive principles_, and apply them to the whole of the OT. For what it's worth, the NT goes a lot further in its typology than most ministers do in their interpretation of the OT. 

You're not advocating the limited Dispensational approach when you say that we should go no farther than the NT does are you?

Edited to add: You should read this last statement with a "naughty, naughty" finger wagging smiley, as one made between brothers.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Apr 22, 2007)

non dignus said:


> Christ taught in parables. I shall bow to it.
> That isn't to say everything is allegorical.
> .



Are not parables and allegories two distinct things?


----------



## non dignus (Apr 22, 2007)

JonathanHunt said:


> Are not parables and allegories two distinct things?



I'm in over my head here, but I would say parables are within the category of allegory. Obviously we interpret them allegorically, but germane to the discussion is that we know it is OK to do so.

Some definitions would be in order from those who are trained. I've heard that types always correspond to anti-types (most often Christ), while the more broad category of allegory pertains to how we experience the world, or work out our own salvation.

A moderate allegorical method is invaluable.


----------



## bookslover (Apr 23, 2007)

Archlute said:


> You're not advocating the limited Dispensational approach when you say that we should go no farther than the NT does are you?
> 
> Edited to add: You should read this last statement with a "naughty, naughty" finger wagging smiley, as one made between brothers.



I'd never heard the "no typology further than the NT does it" approach associated with the Dispensationalists before. Since we believe that the Bible interprets itself, I've naturally assumed that when the NT interprets the OT, those are the interpretations we are bound to accept. If we start attempting to un-typologize (is that a word?) the OT on our own - well, that's where we can potentially get ourselves into trouble, no? I think Deuteronomy 29:29 is an important hermeneutical principle, especially in these kinds of cases.

You know, I think we need a "naughty naughty" finger-wagging smiley. Could come in handy...


----------



## bookslover (Apr 23, 2007)

DTK said:


> For Calvin’s instruction and warning against the allegorical method in the use of Scripture, see his _Institutes_, II.5.19; III.4.4,5 and his Commentary on Galatians 4:22-26, where he requires “the natural and obvious meaning.” Cf. also his comments on Genesis 2:8; Isaiah 33:18; Jeremiah 31:24; Daniel 8:20-25; 10:6.
> 
> DTK



Just picking one of these, as an example of Calvin's opinion on allegorizing:

Calvin at Genesis 2:8: _We must, however, entirely reject the allegories of Origen, and of others like him, which Satan, with the deepest subtlety, has endeavored to introduce into the Church, for the purpose of rendering the doctine of Scripture ambiguous and destitute of all certainty and firmness. It may be, indeed, that some, impelled by a supposed necessity, have resorted to an allegorical sense, because they never found in the world such a place as is described by Moses; but we see that the greater part, through a foolish affectation of subtleties, have been too much addicted to allegories. As it concerns the present passage, they speculate in vain, and to no purpose, by departing from the literal sense. For Moses has no other design than to teach man that he was formed by God, with this condition, that he should have dominion over the earth, from which he might gather fruit, and thus learn by daily experience that the world was subject unto him. What advantage is it to fly in the air, and to leave the earth, where God has given proof of His benevolence towards the human race? But someone may say, to interpret this of celestial bliss is more skillful. I answer, since the eternal inheritance of man is in heaven, it is truly right that we should tend thither; yet we must fix our foot on earth long enough to enable us to consider the abode which God requires men to use for a time. _


----------



## Archlute (Apr 23, 2007)

bookslover said:


> I'd never heard the "no typology further than the NT does it" approach associated with the Dispensationalists before. Since we believe that the Bible interprets itself, I've naturally assumed that when the NT interprets the OT, those are the interpretations we are bound to accept. If we start attempting to un-typologize (is that a word?) the OT on our own - well, that's where we can potentially get ourselves into trouble, no? I think Deuteronomy 29:29 is an important hermeneutical principle, especially in these kinds of cases.
> 
> You know, I think we need a "naughty naughty" finger-wagging smiley. Could come in handy...




Well, that was my association, since my most emphatic exposure to that principle was at a dispensational seminary. It resulted in not being able to write sermons on Christ an His work from the Psalter, unless one could find that portion of the Scriptures to be already taken up and expounded in the NT somewhere. So, one would not be able to preach a sermon on Christ and the final judgment from the 101st Psalm, nor upon the justifying righteousness of Christ and the redemption of His people as the King of Glory found in the 24th Psalm. I found it a rather dry and unconvincing way to approach the Psalms for the edification of the Church and the evangelization of the unbeliever. This method of typological interpretation can be found among many Puritan and earlier Reformed sermons. 

I fully agree with you that we are bound to agree with the NT interpretations of the OT, but I would go further and say that we should also feel free to interpret the OT with the principles that we see in those examples. That is the position that I have found to be predominantly voiced here at WSC, and the one that I am in agreement with. You really should try picking up the Beale volume sometime, as it has essays espousing and explaining that position, but also others that you may find more agreeable to your own on the matter.


----------



## bookslover (Apr 23, 2007)

Archlute said:


> You really should try picking up the Beale volume sometime, as it has essays espousing and explaining that position, but also others that you may find more agreeable to your own on the matter.



But Beale's an amil  ! If I read him, I might get swayed away from the refreshing palm breezes and plump ripe fruits of the historic premil position to the hot desert wastes and sand-filled camel breath of the amil position. 'Tis too big a risk...


----------



## Founded on the Rock (Apr 23, 2007)

bookslover said:


> But Beale's an amil  ! If I read him, I might get swayed away from the refreshing palm breezes and plump ripe fruits of the historic premil position to the hot desert wastes and sand-filled camel breath of the amil position. 'Tis too big a risk...



hahaha... I went to the Revelation Conference with Beale, the guy is stellar. You should pick up his new HUGE commentary on Revelation... if I were not a poor college student I would buy it. I was impressed with him in "The Right Doctrine From the Wrong Text". He is a sharp scholar who does his research.


----------

