Against LSM's Allegorizing

Originally Posted by Igzy

We should only attempt to find allegorical meaning in things that are plainly meant to be allegorical, such as parables, symbolic language and visions, like those in Ezekiel and Revelation. When Jesus said, "Don't put new wine in old wineskins" he wasn't just talking about the care of alcoholic beverages. He was clearly painting a picture that needed to be interpreted. But to allegorize the story of the good Samaritan--whose meaning is plainly the face value of the story, that is to be compassionate and caring--is just to go around the bend.

Igzy, According to your 1st sentence, Paul was wrong in Galatians 4 to allegorize Sarah, Hagar, Mount Sinai and Jerusalem. You also are condemning much of the book of Hebrews, chs 4, 7, 9-10, at least.

Nigel makes many good points. I especially like his pt#6, "Redundant". But these scholars who say that the meaning of all scripture is limited to what the author and his audience at that time understood are totally extra-Biblical and very wrong based on the New Testament explanation of the Old.

-Steve Miller
Detroit
www.voiceInWilderness.info

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Igzy, According to your 1st sentence, Paul was wrong in Galatians 4 to allegorize Sarah, Hagar, Mount Sinai and Jerusalem. You also are condemning much of the book of Hebrews, chs 4, 7, 9-10, at least.

Actually, it was to Abraham that the promise (a covenant) was made. As Abraham and Sarah are "one flesh" it is reasonable to assert that the covenant is also to her. So it is not as much allegory to speak of the son of Sarah and the son of Hagar in this manner. Almost more literal than we might initially think.

And one statement in one context does not override all exceptions. It is clear that Jesus and some of the other NT writers used the OT allegorically in places. It was not stated that there are no allegories. Just that it is not open season to allegorize everything. And thatt is all tha Igzy said.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

As Abraham and Sarah are "one flesh" it is reasonable to assert that the covenant is also to her. So it is not as much allegory to speak of the son of Sarah and the son of Hagar in this manner. Almost more literal than we might initially think.

Actually, "Jewishness" is passed down from the mother. So in a literal sense, the covenant is passed from Sarah, and not Hagar or Abraham ...

But maybe if Abraham had kept his missile in his tunic, and not have gone into Hagar, the WTC would still be standing ... literally speakin ....

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by awareness

Actually, "Jewishness" is passed down from the mother. So in a literal sense, the covenant is passed from Sarah, and not Hagar or Abraham ...

Jewishness is not passed on from mother. That is a rabbinical fabrication not in
the Bible.
-Steve Miller
Detroit
www.voiceInWilderness.info

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Jewishness is not passed on from mother. That is a rabbinical fabrication not in
the Bible.
-Steve Miller
Detroit
www.voiceInWilderness.info

Welcome to the forum, Steve!

Where anything you post can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion.

Btw, great testimony about being jailed for passing out gospel tracts.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Actually, it was to Abraham that the promise (a covenant) was made. As Abraham and Sarah are "one flesh" it is reasonable to assert that the covenant is also to her. So it is not as much allegory to speak of the son of Sarah and the son of Hagar in this manner. Almost more literal than we might initially think.

You see, now you are getting the hang of allegorizing.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Igzy, According to your 1st sentence, Paul was wrong in Galatians 4 to allegorize Sarah, Hagar, Mount Sinai and Jerusalem. You also are condemning much of the book of Hebrews, chs 4, 7, 9-10, at least.

Nigel makes many good points. I especially like his pt#6, "Redundant". But these scholars who say that the meaning of all scripture is limited to what the author and his audience at that time understood are totally extra-Biblical and very wrong based on the New Testament explanation of the Old.

-Steve Miller
Detroit
www.voiceInWilderness.info

Steve,

We have had some discussions concerning the limits of proper Biblical allegorizing. Obviously LSM's extreme views on "total" allegorizing enabled them to justify attacks on former members and entire LC's, claiming their "leprous house needed to be torn down for replastering." These extreme exclusive views could thus condone all manners of unrighteousness, violating scores of plain Bible instruction. The other extreme of "zero" allegorizing was first taken by Protestant reformers in the aftermath of the dark ages. Rome could use the Bible to say anything they wanted. The fact that the reformers went to the other extreme was according to the leading of the Spirit.

Tomes has provided a few good guidelines concerning healthy allegorizing, citing several examples, but still many questions are unanswered. Many in the LC's have a history of just looking to the footnotes to see "what the verse 'really' means." Thus they miss the obvious message of the author, like the example of the Good Samaritan, and overly rely on WL's interpretations, thus completely missing the Lord's plain instruction to love your neighbor. The quarantine of TC and others highlights these dangers all too well.