Against LSM's Allegorizing

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

According to Tomes interpretation of the biblical text should lead to only one valid meaning—that intended by the author...

1st, the author of our faith is Jesus Christ, and we call it the word of God for a reason. So, since God spoke through man this criteria (of what the human author intended) creates too much of a restriction to be able to prove that the human author intended a certain meaning. Instead, I would argue that we need to use Peter's criteria that no verse is of its own interpretation, and that any revelation from the word of God needs to be supported by other verses in the word of God.

2nd, Igzy pointed out that the revelation is unfolding, even as Paul said, in ways that the OT saints had never seen.

3rd, the Holy word is complete. As Igzy said, no one is to add to or take away from this word. No one can justify their teaching as something entirely new to be added to the Bible or to trump the Bible. Even Jesus didn't come to annul but to fulfill.

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

1st, the author of our faith is Jesus Christ, and we call it the word of God for a reason. So, since God spoke through man this criteria (of what the human author intended) creates too much of a restriction to be able to prove that the human author intended a certain meaning. Instead, I would argue that we need to use Peter's criteria that no verse is of its own interpretation, and that any revelation from the word of God needs to be supported by other verses in the word of God.

2nd, Igzy pointed out that the revelation is unfolding, even as Paul said, in ways that the OT saints had never seen.

3rd, the Holy word is complete. As Igzy said, no one is to add to or take away from this word. No one can justify their teaching as something entirely new to be added to the Bible or to trump the Bible. Even Jesus didn't come to annul but to fulfill.

Good points, dear brother ZNPaaneah. It is also good to keep in mind that dear brother Paul was a very deep dude under a heavenly vision. From what I can see, Paul is using the title "Christ" in Galatians 3:16 to refer to Christ as both Head and Body. Paul is certainly known in his letters to think of Christ in this "composite" or "corporate" way. A lot of the verses surrounding Galatians 3:16 speak of Christ as spiritually united with His believers:

"In order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles" (Gal. 3:14a)

"For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." (Gal. 3:27)

"For you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28b)

"And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise." (Gal. 3:29)

That last verse, Galatians 3:29, makes me think that Paul is thinking of a "composite" or "corporate" seed of Abraham. This seed is the man Jesus Christ along with His Body, those who belong to Him, all of whom are joint heirs with Jesus Christ.

Interestingly, in Gal. 4:25 the single woman Hagar is used to represent the city of Jerusalem, which is certainly a "composite" entity.

[zeek]

1st, the author of our faith is Jesus Christ, and we call it the word of God for a reason. So, since God spoke through man this criteria (of what the human author intended) creates too much of a restriction to be able to prove that the human author intended a certain meaning.

I was just quoting Tomes. If God is the author, then by Tomes' definition, there is only one valid meaning of the biblical text--that intended by God.

Instead, I would argue that we need to use Peter's criteria that no verse is of its own interpretation, and that any revelation from the word of God needs to be supported by other verses in the word of God.

Well then, if Paul allegorized in the Bible, it's OK by that criteria.

2nd, Igzy pointed out that the revelation is unfolding, even as Paul said, in ways that the OT saints had never seen.

Is that an argument against interpreting the Hebrew Bible according to the intentions of the "OT saints?" So then you disagree with Tomes?

3rd, the Holy word is complete. As Igzy said, no one is to add to or take away from this word. No one can justify their teaching as something entirely new to be added to the Bible or to trump the Bible. Even Jesus didn't come to annul but to fulfill.

Right. Did someone suggest that? I think it would be pointless to add to it since it has already been posited. Of course, there are disputes among Christians about what books should be included in the Bible that we have inherited along with it. So Christians don't necessarily agree on what addition or subtraction to it would entail.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

I was just quoting Tomes. If God is the author, then by Tomes' definition, there is only one valid meaning of the biblical text--that intended by God.



Well then, if Paul allegorized in the Bible, it's OK by that criteria.



Is that an argument against interpreting the Hebrew Bible according to the intentions of the "OT saints?" So then you disagree with Tomes?



Right. Did someone suggest that? I think it would be pointless to add to it since it has already been posited. Of course, there are disputes among Christians about what books should be included in the Bible that we have inherited along with it. So Christians don't necessarily agree on what addition or subtraction to it would entail.

I would say that I do not agree with the article. I do agree that there is an issue with much of WL interpretation. But I am using the word issue, not problem. I think OBW is much more strident than I am on WL and would characterize much of his interpretation as error where I would say that I take issue with it.

What I strongly disagree with is the solution. I think it is completely unworkable to say that "things not intended to be allegorized should not be allegorized". To quote the immortal George Bush, who is "the decider" as to what was intended to be allegorized and what wasn't.

Also, to quote OBW, you should not say something is there in the word that isn't there. I find nothing in the word that says we should "limit" our allegorizing. Now if you want to use Paul's limited use of this as an example to imitate I can understand that and appreciate that. But you are not basing your teaching on Paul's teaching, only on what you perceive to be his example which is based on very limited data (I expect that the letters of Paul are no more representative of his speaking and growth in life as anyone else's would be).

I think the key principle was provided by Peter, no verse is of its own interpretation.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Also, to quote OBW, you should not say something is there in the word that isn't there. I find nothing in the word that says we should "limit" our allegorizing.

I have to presume that you are not saying that you use a literal interpretation of the whole of scripture to evidence that you don't have to use a literal interpretation of any of scripture. (Couldn't resist that one ) But it is true that scripture does not provide a stated limit to allegorizing. Actually, besides having some allegory revealed as such by certain writers, it makes no statement about it at all that I am aware of.

What I have been trying to say (and I think you get) is that loosely allegorizing almost anything can give hints, indications, even reasonable fillers. But the certainty as to meaning is always fuzzy unless the one providing the allegory gives its clear interpretation. And using allegory to create teachings that are not otherwise contained in scripture is quite troublesome. It seems to me that from what I can recall, the existing allegories, while creating impressions that clarify what is already directly said, do not break new ground. For example, the reference to Hagar and Sarah do not cause there to be something teachable that was not already there. There was a covenant. The child born to Hagar was not of the covenant. This is not really news. And using it to underscore something already on the table being discussed is the purpose for which it was mentioned. It was not used to state something about the present that was not already said and pretty well established.

But to do as Lee did and take many different passages and create meaning that is not there for the purpose of creating teaching that is not otherwise given anywhere directly is a problem. Lee was constantly reading into scripture and declaring it to have come out of scripture. In other words representing eisegesis as exegesis.

When we had our little back and forth concerning Jesse, I considered it to be somewhere in between these extremes, although more toward the side of what I consider safe allegorizing. (I know. Hard to tell at the time.) My only real complaint there was the appearance of a need to say that Jesse definitely did any specific thing when there is no record of it. Suggest away all day long and all is well. I'm sure that there will be times that it seems I don't apply my own "rules" very evenly. What you are missing is the labyrinth of stuff through which I view things. (In other words, my colored glasses that I constantly try to say I do not have.)

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

But to do as Lee did and take many different passages and create meaning that is not there for the purpose of creating teaching that is not otherwise given anywhere directly is a problem. Lee was constantly reading into scripture and declaring it to have come out of scripture. In other words representing eisegesis as exegesis.

I would agree that WL did not use this approach in moderation, and as a result you could argue that he abused this approach. But I don't find that as justification to condemn the use of this approach.

I know that some of the abuses (either by WL or the BBs) involve creating meanings that are offensive and perhaps clearly not true. But the literalists are the ones that would have refused Ruth an entrance into the nation of Israel based on her being a Moabitess. So I feel that abusive teachings can come from both literalists and allegorizers.

If this was an easy road to walk the Lord wouldn't have said it is a narrow way and that few there be that find it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

When we had our little back and forth concerning Jesse, I considered it to be somewhere in between these extremes, although more toward the side of what I consider safe allegorizing. (I know. Hard to tell at the time.) My only real complaint there was the appearance of a need to say that Jesse definitely did any specific thing when there is no record of it. Suggest away all day long and all is well. I'm sure that there will be times that it seems I don't apply my own "rules" very evenly. What you are missing is the labyrinth of stuff through which I view things. (In other words, my colored glasses that I constantly try to say I do not have.)

I came to the conclusion, that to be very precise about it, the two chapters in 1Samuel do not say that Jesse "trained" David.

They say that Samuel would find the next king from among Jesse's sons. I interpret that to mean that David was "the product" of Jesse. And David says "I am the son of Jesse" which I interpret the same way.

I believe that Saul and Abner's interest in who David's father is can be considered as equivalent to asking "Where did he come from?" But according to the letter of the word you do not have to understand that to mean anything more than biologic offspring.

I also think that the term Father includes the charge that "Fathers are to teach their children". This may not apply to all fathers, but it should certainly be understood of Jesse based on 16:1.

I also believe that the commandment "honor your father and mother that it may be well with you" is a law in much the same way that we have laws of nature or science. The fact that it was well with David, is to my mind, evidence or a direct result, of his honoring his father and mother.

I think from the book of Proverbs it can be said that this commandment to honor your father and mother carries with it the meaning to honor the teaching and training that they gave you.

I think David's refusal to use Saul's armor because he had not tested it first is a window into his training process, but I do agree that this does not specifically state that Jesse trained David. I don't agree that it implies that David was untrained. I feel that this statement by David proves he has learned key principles that he adheres to but it doesn't prove that Jesse was the one that taught these principles to him. Adhering to key principles regarding warfare is one kind of training. I believe the statement also proves that David had tested his sling prior to going into this battle and that also is part of training.

I think that Saul's referral to Goliath as a man of war from his youth meant that Goliath is trained as a warrior and that David was not. David's response that he had killed a bear and a lion is a response to Saul saying he has not trained for war. But again the implication that it was Jesse who oversaw this training is conjecture.

I think that David's playing the musical instrument and being nationally famous is one example of training, and that it is very reasonable to assume that Jesse was partly responsible for his learning this instrument. But it is not stated, it is merely a reasonable and logical assumption.

I think that the Psalms David wrote are evidence of a well educated man. Likewise his success as a King and a warrior are also evidence of a well educated man. And of course, his skill at playing a musical instrument is clearly evidence of a well educated man. Since he was a shepherd that was charged with tending the flock I assume that David was home schooled, but again, this is not stated. Still, I find any other idea almost implausible.

I consider, based on the record concerning Abraham passing on his faith to his children, and according to the NT record of the faith in Timothy's grandmother being passed on to him, and according to the keen interest in the genealogy of David from Boaz, Ruth, down to Jesse that David is an example of the faith of his parents and grandparents dwelling first in them and now in him. But this is never stated directly concerning David and Jesse, only that this principle is a Biblical principle and one that God and the apostle's consider. This may add a shade of meaning and importance to 16:1.

However, I do find it interesting that the Bible does not state unequivocally that Jesse trained David, even though I feel the weight of evidence is very compelling.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

However, I do find it interesting that the Bible does not state unequivocally that Jesse trained David, even though I feel the weight of evidence is very compelling.

I understand you. And it would be difficult to suggest that Jesse had no part in David's training.

But once you get to specific things, and at specific points in what was then David's somewhat young life, I consider the certainty greatly reduced.

I know that I always thought that the account of how Saul's armor did not fit him indicated how small he was. But I was not thinking about the fact that Saul was described as standing a head above almost everyone. It wouldn't have fit very many people — even the future king.

But David was somewhat young. If he was the youngest among several and not the only one left at home, then I suspect that he was generally below expected fighting age. And therefore the amount of training in fighting would probably not be very certain.

Not saying he couldn't have been well trained. But there is no evidence of it.

This is how I am thinking of the account I can read. I do not give the same meaning to identifying yourself as Jesse's son as you do. It seemed almost commonplace, therefore not able to convey anything more than heritage as a certainty.

I will comment directly on one of your points that I have ignored before. When you get into the notion of honoring your father and mother, you are bringing an "A causes B" concept into play but using it in reverse. Can't remember the fancy name for it. Honoring your father and mother means it will be well with you — according to the promise. But the fact that something goes well with you does not evidence the honoring of the father or mother. And even if you are honoring your father and/or mother, that does not convey any knowledge about what they taught you.

And, once again, since David gave the honor (the credit) for the killing of the bear and the lion, and ultimately of Goliath, to God, then there is nothing bringing his father into the picture (even if he did teach him something about the ways to face such tough opponents). That is not a dishonor to Jesse. It is a giving of the rightful honor to God.

I do not find the notion that David was other than "home schooled" as being implausible. That is, if you mean that home schooled means that his mother and/or father were the primary educators. If Jesse were of significance in the community, he probably could have someone help in that department. More like private school.

I'm not trying to say that this is the correct analysis. You suggested such a lack of plausibility when I have reason to think it quite plausible. Neither of us are clearly right. And that has always been my point.

Then you get to faith, and I would have to agree. In a world in which you are mostly with your family, if your parents don't have faith, it would be hard for you to arrive at any kind of serious faith. So that one is probably more than plausible. Even today when we are around so many other people, the presence, or lack of, faith in our parents or other very close relatives is often a significant factor in arriving at your own faith.

I noted this weekend when my son visited from Washington that there is much of the intangibles of our family dynamic of faith, morality, etc., that is deep in him. He has not had the same kind of drive to find a Christian fellowship since moving to the Portland area (although he has finally done so). But when something came up about Rob Bell's Love Wins, he expressed no doubt in the truth of the Bible in the issues surrounding that book. Never heard it from his own mouth before. And he didn't need to impress us or anything.

It is not a certainty, but if you see someone with strong faith, there is usually strong faith close by in the family, typically one or two generations before.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I will comment directly on one of your points that I have ignored before. When you get into the notion of honoring your father and mother, you are bringing an "A causes B" concept into play but using it in reverse. Can't remember the fancy name for it. Honoring your father and mother means it will be well with you — according to the promise. But the fact that something goes well with you does not evidence the honoring of the father or mother. And even if you are honoring your father and/or mother, that does not convey any knowledge about what they taught you.

Suppose I was a hitting coach on a MLB team. I might say there are a couple of key principles to follow in order to hit well. Now is the fact that some player on that team hits a home run evidence that he is following those principles? No. Likewise, if David killed Goliath with one lucky shot that also would not be evidence of following certain key principles.

But I am looking at David's entire life, not just Goliath. For example, consider Tiger Woods. At one point it was considered a lock that he would break Jack Nickelaus record. But when you look at Tiger Wood's whole life (at least to this point) it becomes clear that success in life is not merely a matter of talent but also of character. I would wager that his recent troubles actually began when he stopped honoring his father and mother's teaching. I think the same thing can be said of Mike Tyson if you consider that Gus D'amato was his "father" (I understand he was an orphan, but Gus was a father figure to him).

Going back to the baseball analogy, all the great hitters followed key principles, that is why they became key principles. In the Hall of Fame of faith David plays a very prominent role, and one of the key principles of faith is that you "honor your father and mother that it may be well with you". Therefore, I feel it does apply. The question is not "does everyone who hits a home run follow key principles of hitting?", no the question is "are all the immortal great hitters in the hall of fame those that followed the key principles of good hitting?" To me, the answer is yes. (Now I know you are going to want to wax lyrical about Derrick Jeter, and how all these Yankee hitters are doing so well under the Yankees hitting coach, but lets try to keep this on topic).

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I do agree that there is an issue with much of WL interpretation. But I am using the word issue, not problem. What I strongly disagree with is the solution. I think it is completely unworkable to say that "things not intended to be allegorized should not be allegorized".

I agree with with some of this.

I almost view allegorizing as a "privilege" and not a "right" of ministers and expositors. Once the minister crosses the line and uses his allegories for self-serving purposes, then his "privileges" are removed and even his "acceptable" allegories are suspect. This is why the Reformers took their extreme position. With Romanism gone wild, every single allegory was discarded and the Spirit of God demanded a literal translation of every verse as a way to purge the leaven of centuries of abuse.

Paul was a called and proven Apostle. Thus he had "privileges" in expounding scripture which obviously others do not have. None of his allegories ever damaged the church. By making himself the one unique MOTA, the "acting God," and even "today's Paul," WL attempted to usurp Apostolic privileges which were not rightfully his.

There is no doubt that WL and the Blendeds have abused their "privileges." They have now allegorized the "right to destroy churches," based on obscure renderings of Levitical leprosy. Because of their careless, abusive, self-serving ways, all of their allegories are now suspect. Every LSM book is suspect. At this point, it's almost impossible to develop acceptable guidelines for allegorizing which everyone would agree with. Nigel's article proposed the strictest guidelines, returning to the days of the Reformers, because of his background with LSM, and witnessing first hand their back-stabbing hypocrisy in Toronto.

[zeek]

What I strongly disagree with is the solution. I think it is completely unworkable to say that "things not intended to be allegorized should not be allegorized".

I agree and made the same argument below.

Also, to quote OBW, you should not say something is there in the word that isn't there. I find nothing in the word that says we should "limit" our allegorizing.

True

Now if you want to use Paul's limited use of this as an example to imitate I can understand that and appreciate that. But you are not basing your teaching on Paul's teaching, only on what you perceive to be his example which is based on very limited data (I expect that the letters of Paul are no more representative of his speaking and growth in life as anyone else's would be).

I think Paul allegorized extensively, moreso if one considers typology to be a kind of allegory as I do.

I think the key principle was provided by Peter, no verse is of its own interpretation.

I don't know what that means.