[Drake]

HI Unreg,

Thanks for your response. Your base note appeared as an extreme position on taking the Bible LITERALLY (emphasis yours). Yet, since we agree that the woman in Revelation 12 is not a literal woman but a sign and Matthew 5 29-30 is not to be taken literally but must be interpreted in context then I think you must not hold an extreme view on "LITERALLY ". Obviously, as you point out, the Lord is not literally a hen.

Which takes us to the other end of your scale: Allegory

First I will agree with you. Allegory can be misused. It may be used in such a way to convey things that are not really biblical truths. And so when allegory such as typological allegory is used it must be validated by the rest of scripture. So the Bible must interpret itself. However allegory is used extensively in the Bible. Jesus's parables are allegorical. Paul uses allegory. God uses allegory. Allegory in and of itself is neither good nor bad. It is a method to communicate deeper truths in a simple format. Not every truth is easy to understand literally or logically. God uses the means of communication that man uses and that includes allegory.

Therefore the argument about the allegory used in any Bible teaching is not whether allegory was used but whether it was properly used in the context and framework of that particular teaching in the Bible. Your argument and your scale seem to suggest that allegory should not be used unless an allegory is specifically mentioned in the Bible. But there is no prohibition in the Bible about using allegory and in fact it appears to be encouraged. I think if we were as Christians to take an extreme view of not using allegory in our understanding the Bible or in our explanation of the Bible we would be limiting the Holy Spirit's ability to unveil many deeper truths in the Bible.

For instance, John the Baptist said "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world". John was specifically conveying to his audience that Jesus was not a literal lamb but the lamb of the sin offering. Having set the precedent that Jesus was the Old Testament sin offering it is reasonable to extend that revelation to Jesus as all the offerings. He is not just a sin offering, but he is also the burnt offering, the peace offering, the wave offering Etc. So we can also look throughout the Gospel of John and see the Lord presenting himself in various circumstances as all the offerings. Now if you were to look literally at the text in the Gospel of John, for instance, you would not necessarily see it say something like "behold the peace offering of God." That is where the eyes of our heart need to be enlightened by the speaking of the Holy Spirit to show us where in the scripture we may see the deeper truths below the literal text. And if that is in alignment with the rest of scripture then it is useful and proper allegory.

We can also see similar typological pictures regarding the church. The apostles used the temple in the Old Testament to describe the dwelling place of God in the church and it's building. They used the priesthood to describe the universal priesthood of the believers. Or the story of Adam and Eve are used as a picture of the relationship between Christ and the church. Or concerning the coming Kingdom we see in allegory in Jude where the pseudepigrapha non-canon Book of Enoch is used to convey the deeper truths of the Lord's establishment of the physical kingdom of God on earth. Typological allegory is used throughout Scripture.

I am not advocating only allegory or allegory as a standalone method of interpretation. However I am refuting the notion that allegory has no place in interpreting deeper truths below the literal text. Allegory is color in a coloring book. Sometimes it is needed to bring out those deeper truths or to explain them. Your broadbrush approach to dismissing typological allegory is unfounded and your reason for disregarding it, though commendable, is misplaced.

Drake