Allegory
This is an excerpt from the paper...
To allegorize is to speak on a subject by speaking about something else. There are thus two problems in an allegory. The first is that the hearer will not understand that one is really speaking of something else. The second is that the hearer will not perceive a connection between the actual subject and the something else. Aesop probably had more problems with people misunderstanding his fables than with people believing he actually had talked to these animals and heard the frogs tell of when they demanded a king or saw the grasshopper, fiddle in hand, begging sustenance from an ant. On the other hand, Biblical allegories are for the most part understood to be allegories, but they often are also actual events. The reader is likely to place the Bible's allegories into the same category as Aesop's and deny the historicity of the Biblical event as much as he denies the historicity of a group of mice trying to bell a cat. Doing this, however, is as foolish as denying that Isaac and Ishmael were ever born to a man named Abraham (despite the fact that all Jews and all Moslems attest that this happened) simply because Paul uses the two lads as an allegory in Galatians 4:21-31. Denying the historicity of the allegory is really denying that an omnipotent and omniscient God superintended the events in the Old Testament, which the Old Testament clearly claims is what happened. Exodus 7:3 states specifically that God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that His signs and wonders would be
. . .
er, all the elements of the Passover, from it being "the beginning of months" to those eating it being dressed as pilgrims, to the blood being applied to the door in the shape of a cross, all had meaning pointing to what God would be doing later through Jesus Christ. We have nothing about Jesus Christ being done hurriedly or in error, but rather that "in the fulness of time" (Galatians 4:4) Jesus was born.
The fourth reading, from the epistle of Barnabas, gives a curiously spurious interpretation of the meaning of the culinary prohibitions in the Mosaic Law. The author recognizes their symbolism, but through false stories about nature obtains a false interpretation. He does correctly state that the cloven hoof prescription indicates how the believer is to walk: separated. But even there, the animal that chews the cud represents how the believer is to thoughtfully "chew" on the word of God.
The author here, more than the other three, seems to belie the original intent of the original author, who was God (or Moses.) The initial purpose of dietary laws was to be a witness to the surrounding nation, a "peculiar people" as Peter (1 Peter 2:9) called the church. The food regulations were to go in hand with the Sabbath, feast days,
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Testament Testament, Obviously God, Epistle Barnabas, NIV NASB, , Feast Passover, God Moses, Paul Galatians, Sinai Peninsula, Moses God, bible knowledge commentary, walvoord john roy, john roy zuck, rule biblical, roy zuck, books 1986, victor books, wheaton il, il victor, john roy, wheaton il victor, roy zuck ed, bible knowledge, biblical allegories, red sea,
Approximate Word count = 3107
Approximate Pages = 12 (250 words per page)
|