Another questions is by what standards do we consider something metaphor or allegory or type or literal?
For instance, Rev. 20, speaking of the 1000 year kingdom, does not identify this as allegory or metaphor. Where Paul writes in Galatians of Hagar and Sarah, of the Jerusalem below, and the heavenly Jerusalem, he not only shows the equivalencies, but explains the meaning.
So in this example, I see the 1000 years as literal, and the Galatians passage as allegory. That's because I look for the text itself to show when something is a symbol, and what that symbol means.
There appeared another great sign, a red dragon . . . then later in the chapter, the dragon, that ancient serpent, the devil, Satan. The symbol is both identified and defined.
Someone else will determine that something is a symbol without the text explicitly stating that, and will determine what that symbol means, again with the text explicity stating it. This determination is made based on necessity, that if this isn't actually speaking of a literal 1000 year kingdom, then we need to find what it IS speaking of. So it must be a symbol, and we need to find the meaning.
Everyone has the line they draw between these two positions, or styles of interpretation. I find that the more literal interpretation, the more pre-mil, pre-trib, dispensational someone will be. Other positions require less literal interpretation.
To be clear . . . these are simply my observations.
Much love!
