Quote:
Originally Posted by kisstheson
Allegorizing is "the interpretive practice of turning into allegory what was not intended to be allegory." I find that to be a very helpful definition because it simultaneously allows an allegorical interpretation of portions of Scripture which were originally written as allegories while it also causes me to be cautious about allegorizing the historical accounts and the plain teachings recorded in the Bible.
There is the one lone use of the Greek word for "allegory" in Galatians 4:24, so the point seems to be that allegorizing historical passages and plain teachings should be kept to a minimum.
|
Yes, I saw this definition but I am not a fan of it. First, who decides what was and was not intended to be an allegory? If I was the one that said that Hagar was an allegory of the Old Covenant OBW would have been all over me saying that is conjecture, yet Paul said it, and it is now part of the NT. So what I would say is that the allegory has to be consistent with the plain word. We know from the word we have two covenants, and we know from various places that these covenants are compared to a covenant God has with his people as a husband would have with his bride. So although the reference in Galatians is quite remarkable, it is very much consistent with the plain word of God. So to my mind I don't feel anyone has the authority to say what was and was not intended to be an allegory. But you do have the authority to say what is and is not supported by the truth.
Also, you can say that Paul's limited use of this approach suggests that we also should use it sparingly. But that is a conjecture. What is fact is that Paul's use of this approach and its subsequent canonization gives this approach credibility.
Personally, I think that when you try to allegorize it forces you to look at many passages, teachings, etc. You have to look at each verse, consider it, try to put together a puzzle, and maybe realize your approach is not working, so lets try something new. So to me the process is really quite beneficial in helping you read the word and perhaps get a different view. You need to realize that 90% of what you do will need to be discarded, but 100% of the time spent is profitable. When I was younger I did this a lot, as I have aged I have lost my interest in doing this.
For example, what about the 12 precious stones in the NJ? Do you think that they might be allegorical and shed light on the concept of Christians being transformed into the image and glory of God? I remember when I had only been in the LRC for about 2 years I asked a professor at Rice this, I gave him the list of the 12 stones and asked him what he could tell me about the way in which they were metamorphosed / formed. His response was that this list "covered the entire gamut of the way in which precious stones form". He was not a Christian, and I don't think he recognized the list, but I found that to be a very interesting comment. So I did a very detailed study of the precious stones, I think at one point I wrote a 30 page report on them (could have been longer, I don't really remember) that was given to WL.
I will say this, some of the things I learned about these stones really blew me away. I don't want to get off track, but Emerald is considered the most valuable and beautiful of all the precious stones, next to an emerald in the NJ is a Sardonyx, a semiprecious stone that looks like an oreo cookie (a layer of white sandwiched between two layers of black onyx). When I first looked at that stone I laughed, how could this stone stand next to an Emerald. Well it took some searching but I discovered how that stone was able to stand. Now that study was all allegory, but I treasure it. Another stone, Chrysolite, was at one point my favorite stone. It is the only stone in the NJ that suffers heat and pressure on the same scale as a diamond, but it has a secret. So when I was in Irving on the stone crew I put the sign of Chrysolite on all of our planters.