A glaring example is George Geftakys' claim that Jesus' words "I thirst", which he uttered on the cross, have two meanings. One, the literal, is that Jesus was thirsty. The other, which is the "spiritual" meaning is that in worship we "have the privelege of meeting God's need."
This example does not logically prove that Scripture sometimes does not have a meaning beyond the literal. We have already seen Paul's use of allegory in both the matter of the physical creation and the lives of Sarah and Hagar.
The proper question for someone who adduces an interpretation such as the above is to inquire on what basis it is they have done so. This I believe was the most serious failure of the leadership around Geftakys. His teaching that we somehow met God's need in worship was blasphemy and clearly heretical (to say nothing of pagan in its orgins).
It is truly unfortunate that some of you, just because there were no men of stature around George with the courage to challenge him when he spouted this sort of hogwash, seem intent to let this miserable failure operate as a basis for being critical of those who understand that the Word of God is infinite in its scope and significance, like its Author. George's perversion and misapplication of what he read by some godly men is hardly a basis to impugn all that they taught.
When we know all there is to know about Christ, we will know all there is to know about Scripture...seems pretty obvious does it not?
Verne
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. Verne,
FYI the allegorical method of interpretation which you ascribe to has its origins in the Alexandrian theological tradition. It was brought into Christianity by men like Clement of Alexandria and Origen. They learned it BTW from their studies of Platonic philosophy, which they saw as useful in explaining Christianity.
They learned their method of interpretation from a Jewish Platonist philosopher known to history as Philo of Alexandria. (Hmmmmm
)
He used it to interpret the OT in ways compatible with Platonism.
The problem with the method is that there is no way to verify an allegorical interpretation. For example, where in scripture can one find verification that anyone understood Jesus' words about taking up the cross in the deeper life sense taught by GG, (and a whole bunch of other folks.)
What has always happened is that churches relied on spiritual authority to establish an interpretation as correct. The Roman Catholics adopted it because it allowed them to say the Bible meant what they wished it to. Peter was the rock, Mary was the queen of heaven, etc.
Among Protestants authority is placed in confessions and denominational authorities, or in low church situations such as Baptists and Plymouth Bretheren, in the dominant brothers, or whoever is percieved as "spiritually advanced".
Heretics like the Gnostics adopted it, since it allowed them to claim that the scriptures had a "higher", "spiritually discerned" meaning that the unenlightened could not understand.
In the early church the theological school of Antioch rejected the allegorical method and insisted that the literal sense of the scriptures was the only true sense. Their ideas lost out eventually, but were re-emphasised by the reformers during the 16th century.
Now, Alexandria has made a comeback through Pietism, and is widely practiced by many evangelicals.
But not this one.
Blessings,
Thomas of Antioch.
The historical lesson is interesting. It seems to me that a consideration of any basis for allegorical teaching in Scripture has to begin with the apostle Paul Tom. That is the basis on which we should consider its merits, not whether the Alexandrian teachers thought it was a great idea. Scripture itself is our ultimate authority is it not?
The evangelical understanding of the cross in the life of the believer is not nearly as mystical as you would have us believe Tom. Who cares about labels, "deeper life" or otherwise?
There is not an instructed Christian who will not affirm that the teaching simply has to do with learning to say "no" to one's own carnal inclinations. Where is the mysticism in that I ask you?
Heretics like the Gnostics adopted it, since it allowed them to claim that the scriptures had a "higher", "spiritually discerned" meaning that the unenlightened could not understand
Just becasue the Gnostics said this means it was not true? Tell this to the Scribes and Pharisees reading the OT in the the time of the Lord's advent. Is it possible that there is much we still do not apprehend in the New Covenant?
We really ought not to flatter ourselves so my friend.
The problem with the method is that there is no way to verify an allegorical interpretation.
In this I must admit you have made a critical point and I think is what lies at the heart of our discussion.
How would one know if an allegorical interpretation is reasonable?
The first point is that Scripture itself does this so we know as an interpretive method it is entirely legitimate.
I would argiue that the same Spirit of God that gave Paul or Peter particular insight into what the Scripture was saying can do the same for godly men today.
When I hear something presented that I do not understand or cannot immediately
verify from Scripture, the first question I ask is does it
contradict Scripture.
If it does not, I keep an open mind.
You seem to be of the opinion that you are justified in dismissing it as a possibility at that point.
There is much that you and I do not know about Scripture and I am certain that there are many poeple who know more than both of us put together.
I trust that I will always be teachable.
I remember the first time I heard someone talk about the fact that Paul is teaching in 1 Cor 10:11 that we should
expect to see the types alluded to by Paul on the contemporary scene, I was a bit sceptical, I knew or understood little about Biblical typolgy.
I am now convinced that you simply
cannot rightly interpret the Word of God and its absolute relevance to what we see happening among professing Christians today unless you have a solid grasp of what the Bible teaches regarding biblical types.
How would I explain that?
Frankly if you reject the idea of Biblical typology, explanation is pointless. Ultimately, the believer has to trust the Spirit of God tolead him into all truth, not just the apostles. There is much that we know to be true, and which the Bible says absolutely nothing about, for example, that both the weak and strong atomic forces are orders of magnitude stronger that the gravitational force!
Verne
p.s Clement and his pupil Origen were not without their problems. Both of these fellows were proponents of Unrestricted Universalism, clearly contrary to the plain teaching of the Word of God.
p.p.s I was going to mention how the seven great lives of Genesis reflect the seven days of the creation work but I just remembered that that is not your cup of tea...
