Truth about antichrist

[Ridgerunner]

[SIZE=medium]1 John 2:18[/SIZE] Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
[SIZE=medium]1 John 2:22[/SIZE] Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also].
[SIZE=medium]1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=medium]In the KJV the word antichrist is not selectively capitalized, and there was no upper/lower case in the original Greek. Clearly, from the verses above, antichrist is a SPIRIT, or THE spirit, that lives in the heart of anybody that denies that denies that Jesus is the Son of God, or denies that Jesus Christ IS come in the flesh, or denies that Jesus is the Christ (anointed one). Every person that denies the Son, does not have the Father and is antichrist, and also is an antichrist. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Since there are billions of antichrists - and no shortage from John's day forward - it would seem there may not be a single "the" antichrist from John's day forward. An individual antichrist can only be just ANOTHER antichrist.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=medium]The following verse is sometimes understood to suggest an individual past or future "Antichrist", but Scripture shows us how to understand this verse perfectly:[/SIZE]


[SIZE=medium]1 John 2:18[/SIZE] Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.


[SIZE=medium]How could the above verse make any sense if the first use of the term antichrist were supposed to be an individual person as "The" "Antichrist", when six words later we learn there are many antichrists? This is the only verse of those above that is generally construed to indicate a single individual as such. Let's develop our understanding by looking to another verse that also uses the term antichrist in a singular fashion:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=medium]You can see the singular "that", "spirit", "it" in this sentence and singular "antichrist", just like the singular "antichrist" in 1 John 2:18. The translators gave us a little extra push in 1 John 4:3 by inserting the word [spirit] a second time, further clarifying that the spirit of antichrist is this singular entity. Now look at how this makes the "little children" verse make perfect sense if, when you get to the first use of term antichrist, you understand it as THE SPIRIT OF antichrist:[/SIZE]


[SIZE=medium]John 2:18[/SIZE] Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.


[SIZE=medium]Finally look also at how beautifully parallel these two verse snippets are:[/SIZE]


[SIZE=medium]"ye have heard that antichrist shall come"[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]"ye have heard that it should come"[/SIZE]


[SIZE=medium]THE FRUIT[/SIZE]


[SIZE=medium]Look at the fruit of misunderstanding. Some say "The" "Antichrist" was Nero. Perhaps suggesting "he" is over and done with. Futurists are looking for some future individual "Antichrist" of the silver screen yet to come. Others you can find on the Internet, of which there is no shortage, proffer guesses from the leader of Spain, to the Pope, to Ronald Reagan.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Meanwhile there are 1.5 billion antichrists in Islam alone. This doesn't even count the atheist neighbor down your block where your kids go to hang out. The Church has been deceived into looking in the wrong place. Has the Church's looking for some individual "Antichrist", past or present, also made it look like so much buffoonery to those outside of the Church? [/SIZE]


[SIZE=medium]It is human nature to want to believe in concepts such as "The" "Antichrist". What kid didn't take a flying leap to get into bed, so that what ever was under the bed wouldn't grab their ankles? Without the allure of a boogeyman Hollywood would go broke and the majority fiction novelists would be homeless.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=medium]But here is how Satan succeeded the most through this concept. The term antichrist has been removed from the Christian vocabulary except when used to describe some individual boogeyman. Who would casually refer to the atheist that lives down the block as an antichrist, yet wouldn't this be correct? How much more soul searching might that individual do if we did?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]A term that should be a normal part of Christian vocabulary has been stolen by the enemy. Just ask the guy next to you in Church next Sunday "what is the antichrist?" to get an idea of how this term is understood in the Church.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=medium]Consider also that God likely had John write so much later than the others so that he could address the myriad of heresies that had already infiltrated the Church, even in John's day. Consider all of the "overcommeth"ing of Revelation Chapters 2 and 3. The above verses in effect saying "you've heard that antichrist is coming, but it's already here!". Even if there had been such a concept of a single antichrist in the Church, consider the wording: "ye have heard". Perhaps like "ye have heard that toads give people warts", but that doesn't mean that it's true. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Consider a similar verse:[/SIZE]


[SIZE=medium]Matthew 5:43-44 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]"The folly of interpreters has been to foretell times and things by this prophecy [Revelation], as if God designed to make them prophets. By this rashness they have not only exposed themselves, but brought the prophecy also into contempt. The design of God was much otherwise. He gave this and the prophecies of the Old Testament, not to gratify men's curiosities by enabling them to foreknow things, but that after they were fulfilled they might be interpreted by the event, and his own providence, not the interpreters', be then manifested thereby to the world. For the event of things predicted many ages before will then be a convincing argument that the world is governed by Providence." - Sir Isaac Newton[/SIZE]


[SIZE=medium]2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.[/SIZE]

 

[afaithfulone4u]

Anti-Christ means Opposes-The Word. Christ is the Word and the Word is The Truth. When we test a spirit of a man, we speak scripture and see if the man does one of several things. If they openly accept to hear and feed upon the Word as if a hunger or thirst for it (TRUE CHRISTIAN) for the LOVE TRUTH.
OR
They argue that the Word of God is not even truth, or tell you to shut up, or gets angry at you for talking about the Word of God, avoids talking to you about the Word, FALLS ASLEEP or acts so bored out of their minds.... That is how you can tell if they have Christ living in their flesh Or NOT! For only by the Spirit can one say that Jesus is Lord of their life and MEAN IT. All others are faking it.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

You make some good points ridgerunner ..... I think the problem started years ago when we (somebody) began to blend the Beast into The Antichrist and generically interchange them to be one and the same.

The beast certainly will be ant-christ , and maybe The Antichrist (singular) .... but like you say ..... there are billions of other antichrist people as well.

The more we see active Islam , the more we see how anti they are ..... they even go so far as to have a sign in their holiest site (Mecca) saying God has no Son.

Doesn't get much clearer than that.

 

[veteran]

The OP is just following the line of many theological seminarians today that aren't able to think for theirselves when reading that part of God's Word, but just keep pushing the organizational system line doctrines by rote.

Apostle John was reminding them how they had already heard that "antichrist" would come in the first part of 1 John 2:18. In the latter part of that verse he revealed something new to them, i.e., that there were already "many antichrists" already here at work. Thus the first "antichrist" is singular tense, and the latter "many antichrists" is plural tense.

For anyone that has actually studied the NT warnings of a coming 'pseudochristos' ("false Christs" of Matt.24 and Mark 13), Apostle Paul's warning about it in 2 Thess.2:3-4, and our Lord's warning through John later in Rev.13:11 forward, then they should be able to fathom just what "antichrist" John was talking about in the first part of the 1 John 2:18 verse.

Because the 2 Thess.2 "strong delusion" event for the end is about the coming of a false messiah that's going to set himself up in Jerusalem in place of God, that's why the "many antichrists" like to confuse people about the coming of the literal antichrist entity which is the actual NT Scripture line as written.

 

[teamventure]

Anti-Christ means Opposes-The Word. Christ is the Word and the Word is The Truth. When we test a spirit of a man, we speak scripture and see if the man does one of several things. If they openly accept to hear and feed upon the Word as if a hunger or thirst for it (TRUE CHRISTIAN) for the LOVE TRUTH.
OR
They argue that the Word of God is not even truth, or tell you to shut up, or gets angry at you for talking about the Word of God, avoids talking to you about the Word, FALLS ASLEEP or acts so bored out of their minds.... That is how you can tell if they have Christ living in their flesh Or NOT! For only by the Spirit can one say that Jesus is Lord of their life and MEAN IT. All others are faking it.

great insight afaithfulone4u

 

[musterion]

I don't know about anyone else but while I'm convinced there will be a final ("the") antichrist, everyone who opposes the Gospel of Christ is also antichrist. They all work for the same boss, and sadly that includes more people within professing Christendom than it excludes.

So as far as definitions go, I really don't see the problem here.

 

[veteran]

I don't know about anyone else but while I'm convinced there will be a final ("the") antichrist, everyone who opposes the Gospel of Christ is also antichrist. They all work for the same boss, and sadly that includes more people within professing Christendom than it excludes.

So as far as definitions go, I really don't see the problem here.

Good that you see it that way, because that's how the Scriptures actually portray the idea. So why do 'some' in the Church steer clear of teaching it according as it is written?

It's because of the "crept in unawares" that God allows to exist among us to test us, to see if we will listen to Him, or not (Jude 1).

There's only two sides in the spiritual battle. Satan's servants began creeping in among God's people early on in Bible history (see Judges 2 & 3; Joshua 9, etc.). This was why God told the children of Israel to not take wives of the pagan Canaanites. It's why God was angry with Solomon for taking pagan wives, because God said they would turn His people's hearts away from Him to do false worship instead. Paganism is an abomination to God, and it includes the practice of abominations.

Personally, I have never... heard this topic preached in many of today's Churches. Most brethren are completely ignorant of its history, and that's why they don't really understand who are the "many antichrists" and the "mystery of iniquity" that the Apostles preached. Instead, there's more Churches today that allow pagan shows and services right among their congregations as some kind of cultural enlightenment program.

 

[Pilgrimer]

Ridgerunner, you see then from the responses to your post how you can show someone exactly what the Scripture actually teaches about a subject, which refutes popular man-made doctrines, but some will simply reject what the Scripture teaches or twist it to mean something it doesn't. That's how error creeps into the church, by obstinate men and women who prefer their pet doctrines over Scriptural truth.

This "last days madness" has so possessed the minds of western evangelicals that it will take a generation to bring them back to the truth of the Gospel, if at all.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, Pilgrimer.

Ridgerunner, you see then from the responses to your post how you can show someone exactly what the Scripture actually teaches about a subject, which refutes popular man-made doctrines, but some will simply reject what the Scripture teaches or twist it to mean something it doesn't. That's how error creeps into the church, by obstinate men and women who prefer their pet doctrines over Scriptural truth.

This "last days madness" has so possessed the minds of western evangelicals that it will take a generation to bring them back to the truth of the Gospel, if at all.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

I respectfully disagree with you. I believe that the "last days madness," as you call it, are the baby steps of getting back to the original teachings of the Master and His disciples in the first century, discarding the errors of the Nicolaitans (a church hierarchy) and allegorism that arose in the second and third centuries!

Whereas there may yet be errors in the teaching, they need to be corrected WITHOUT throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

 

[Pilgrimer]

Shalom, Pilgrimer.


I respectfully disagree with you. I believe that the "last days madness," as you call it, are the baby steps of getting back to the original teachings of the Master and His disciples in the first century, discarding the errors of the Nicolaitans (a church hierarchy) and allegorism that arose in the second and third centuries!

Whereas there may yet be errors in the teaching, they need to be corrected WITHOUT throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

Oh my achi, wherever did you get the idea that Biblical allegory arose in the second and third century? A parable is a simple allegory and Jesus used them exhaustively in teaching about the Kingdom of Heaven. I won’t even mention Paul’s use of allegory in contrasting New Covenant Jews vs. Old Covenant Jews. But Jesus too used allegory. He taught that Jonah being three days in the belly of the fish was an allegory for the three days and nights of his passion. The story of the manna from heaven was an allegory for his body being the bread of life. Passover is an allegory, as well as every other festival of the calendar. The history of the Jewish people in their journeying through the wilderness and entering the promised land is a beautiful allegory of the church journeying through the wilderness of this world until the day we cross that chilly Jordan and go home.

The Bible is filled with allegory, in all its varied forms, not only in terms of events, but of people and places and things. The Temple and its courts and furnishings and vessels of ministry are all types and figures that teach us about heavenly things. The land of Israel and its times and seasons also have so very much to teach us about the spiritual blessings we enjoy in Christ.

Don’t let men who can’t see past their own noses rob you of the riches of wisdom and understanding that all these earthly things were given to teach. Allegories and parables are simply a means of using every day people and items and events to convey often deep and profound spiritual truths. Why, what do you suppose Moses saw up in the mount that was so glorious that it lit up his face so that when the people saw him they ran away in fear! He wasn't shown the earthly tabernacle/temple, beautiful as they were they never made people's faces shine just to look upon them! He was shown the temple and courts of Heaven itself, and told to pattern the earthly according to what he had seen. Even the Pharisees, literalists as they were, recognized that the Temple and its courts symbolized the very courts of heaven!

The types and figures and shadows didn't end at the door of the sanctuary, nor are they limited to lambs and bulls and goats. The old earthly Jerusalem foreshadowed the Heavenly Jerusalem; the land of Israel itself symbolized the kingdom of Heaven; the times and seasons of the land speak to us of the times and seasons of Messiah; and every breath of Moses and the Prophets whispers of things unseen, things uncreated, things eternal.

Open your heart and mind achi, to the Spirit of God, and through these humble figures of dust and clay, and through the simple lives and events of the Bible, He will show you reflections of heaven!

Shalom u’vracha,
Pilgrimer

 

[[email protected]]

"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."
- 2 Tim 4:3

Submitted for the reader's consideration.
and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

 

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, Pilgrimer.

Oh my achi, wherever did you get the idea that Biblical allegory arose in the second and third century? A parable is a simple allegory and Jesus used them exhaustively in teaching about the Kingdom of Heaven. I won’t even mention Paul’s use of allegory in contrasting New Covenant Jews vs. Old Covenant Jews. But Jesus too used allegory. He taught that Jonah being three days in the belly of the fish was an allegory for the three days and nights of his passion. The story of the manna from heaven was an allegory for his body being the bread of life. Passover is an allegory, as well as every other festival of the calendar. The history of the Jewish people in their journeying through the wilderness and entering the promised land is a beautiful allegory of the church journeying through the wilderness of this world until the day we cross that chilly Jordan and go home.

The Bible is filled with allegory, in all its varied forms, not only in terms of events, but of people and places and things. The Temple and its courts and furnishings and vessels of ministry are all types and figures that teach us about heavenly things. The land of Israel and its times and seasons also have so very much to teach us about the spiritual blessings we enjoy in Christ.

Don’t let men who can’t see past their own noses rob you of the riches of wisdom and understanding that all these earthly things were given to teach. Allegories and parables are simply a means of using every day people and items and events to convey often deep and profound spiritual truths. Why, what do you suppose Moses saw up in the mount that was so glorious that it lit up his face so that when the people saw him they ran away in fear! He wasn't shown the earthly tabernacle/temple, beautiful as they were they never made people's faces shine just to look upon them! He was shown the temple and courts of Heaven itself, and told to pattern the earthly according to what he had seen. Even the Pharisees, literalists as they were, recognized that the Temple and its courts symbolized the very courts of heaven!

The types and figures and shadows didn't end at the door of the sanctuary, nor are they limited to lambs and bulls and goats. The old earthly Jerusalem foreshadowed the Heavenly Jerusalem; the land of Israel itself symbolized the kingdom of Heaven; the times and seasons of the land speak to us of the times and seasons of Messiah; and every breath of Moses and the Prophets whispers of things unseen, things uncreated, things eternal.

Open your heart and mind achi, to the Spirit of God, and through these humble figures of dust and clay, and through the simple lives and events of the Bible, He will show you reflections of heaven!

Shalom u’vracha,
Pilgrimer

You've misunderstood. I didn't say that allegory arose in the 2nd and 3rd centuries; I said that allegorISM arose in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. I'm talking about the allegorical method of interpreting the Scriptures as opposed to the natural, grammatical, historical method of interpreting the Scriptures - the same way that ANY work of literature should be interpreted!

Allegories and figures of speech, metaphors and similes are all part of the natural way that people talk and write, but they should NOT be taken out of their various contexts and applied throughout Scripture as though all of God's Word hinged upon those allegories! THAT'S the flaw! I would suggest that you and others like you take a good look at a book called Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A Textbook of Hermeneutics by Bernard Ramm (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI,1970).

He noted on page 24, that the ...

Allegorical interpretation believes that beneath the letter (rheetee) or the obvious (phanera) is the real meaning (huponoia) of the passage. Allegory is defined by some as an extended metaphor. There is the literary allegory which is intentionally constructed by the author to tell a message under historical form. Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress is such a one and such allegories occur in Scripture, too. If the writer states that he is writing al allegory and gives us the cue, or if the cue is very obvious (as in an allegorical political satire), the problem of interpretation is not too difficult. But if we presume that the document has a secret meaning (hyponoia) and there are no cues concerning the hidden meaning, interpretation is difficult. In fact, the basic problem is to determine if the passage has such a meaning at all. The further problem arises whether the secret meaning was in the mind of the original writer or something found there by the interpreter. If there are no cues, hints, connections, or other associations which indicate that the record is an allegory, and what the allegory intends to teach, we are on very uncertain grounds.

Later, he showed that the Greek Allegorism had spread to Alexandria, Egypt, "where there was a great Jewish population and eventually a large Christian population." He then went into the Jewish Allegorism that arose there in such persons as Philo (20 B.C. - 54 A.D.).

From these introductions to allegorism, persons came on the scene who introduced the allegorical method to the believers who lived in Alexandria at the time: On page 31, he said that Clement of Alexandria (150 - 215 A.D.)...

...found five possible meanings to a passage of Scripture. (i) The historical sense of Scripture, i.e., taking a story in the Old Testament as an actual event in history; (ii) the doctrinal sense of Scripture, i.e., the obvious moral, religious, and theological teachings of the Bible; (iii) the prophetic sense of Scripture including predictive prophecy and typology; (iv) the philosophical sense which follows the Stoics with their cosmic and psychological meaning (which sees meanings in natural objects and historical persons); and (v) a mystical sense (deeper moral, spiritual and religious truth symbolized by events or persons).

Then, Origen (184/5 - 253/4 A.D.) came on the scene. He said on pages 32-33 that he...

... had an apologetic motivation to be sure. He wanted to escape the crudities of lay people who were literalists to the point of taking everything symbolic or metaphorical or poetic literally. He was motivated to show that the New Testament does have its roots in the Old and so reply to the Jews. He wished to eliminate what were absurdities or contradictions in Scripture and make Scripture acceptable to the philosophically minded. His approach can be summed up as follows:
(i). The literal meaning of the Scripture is the preliminary level of Scripture. It is the "body," not the "soul" (moral sense) nor the "spirit" (allegorical sense) of the Bible. The literal sense is the meaning of Scripture for the layman. Actually we perhaps should say "letterism" rather than literalism for reasons we pointed out in the previous paragraph.
Further, the literal sense would leave us in Judaism. If we were to take the Old Testament in a strict literal sense we would believe and practice exactly as the Jews. We escape Judaism by spiritualizing the Old Testament.
Again, the literal in Scripture is the sign of the mysteries and images of things divine. It is to provoke us to a deeper and more spiritual study of the Bible. History, for example, is to be taken symbolically. Origen has a Platonic view of history which he reinterprets by means of Christian theology. The symbolization of history does not deny the actual historicity of the story.
(ii). To understand the Bible we must have grace given to us by Christ. Christ is the inner principle of Scripture and only those with the Spirit of Christ can understand Scripture.
(iii.) The true exegesis is the spiritual exegesis of the Bible. "The Bible is one vast allegory, a tremendous sacrament in which every detail is symbolic," writes Danielou of Origen's fundamental thesis. The Bible is a spiritual book, and its meaning is found only by spiritualizing it. Even the New Testament has elements in it which cannot be taken literally, and so must be spiritualized. In many cases this means nothing more than that a figure of speech has no literal meaning.
Origen's spiritual exegesis is a mixture of the typological and the allegorical. Danielou knows that the allegorical method was greatly abused, and is not in high regard among scholars. He seeks to rescue Origen from the charge of being an allegorist by insisting that he has basically a typological exegesis. That Origen allegorized Danielou does not deny. That his theory was much better than his practice he strongly affirms. But he does object to classifying Origen as an allegorist. Danielou believes that Origen has the correct Christian principle of interpretation, but that Origen poorly practiced it, and that subsequent scholarship misrepresents him.
(iv). Origen believed that the Old is the preparation for the New. This implies two further assertions: (a) If the Old is the preparation of the New, the New is in the Old in a concealed manner, and it is the function of the Christian exegete to bring it to the surface. This is typological exegesis and is based on the fundamental harmony of the Old and New Testaments. (b) If the New fulfills the Old, the Old is now superseded. There is continuity and divergence in the relationship between the New and the Old. Continuity means that the new is like the Old and therefore the Old is capable of typological interpretation. There is divergence between the New and the Old, and this means the Old is now out of date.

Then, Jerome (347 - 420 A.D.) latched onto these ideas in his teachings, despite trying to adhere to the historical sense, although leaning in practice to the typological sense. And his contemporary, Augustine (354 - 430 A.D.), ran with these ideas in his teachings.

Anti-Semitism ran high during these centuries as leaders in the "Church" labored under the assumption that "the literal sense would leave us in Judaism," as Origen suggested. However, they labored under a false assumption. While it is true that the literal sense would lead us BACK to Hebraism - our Hebrew roots, as Michael Rood would say, it does NOT have to "leave us in Judaism!"

By the way, the account of Yonah is NOT an allegory! It is literal account of real events that happened to one of God's prophets who was sent to Nin'veh in modern day Iraq.

Yeshua`s usage of the account was merely a comparison: Yonah : belly of fish for 3 days & 3 nights :: Yeshua` : belly of ground for 3 days & 3 nights.

And, that's as far as it goes! The real issue I have with all this allegorical method of the interpretation of Scripture is this: WHO DECIDES what is allegory and what is not? Where does it stop?! Furthermore, such subjectivism can lead to MANY different interpretations, as many interpretations as their are interpreters! It's too subjective and does NOT lend itself to the objective revelation of God through His prophets!

Whether one wants to admit it or not, the subjective allegorical rendering of the Scriptures, which is said to be "God's Word, is to place one's allegorical interpretation ABOVE the objective meaning God, through His prophets, intended to get across to their audience is tantamount to "humanistic idolatry!" "Worshipping the creature above the Creator." When a man can't just LISTEN and ABSORB what God is saying to him without INSERTING what he himself THINKS God means, then he is guilty of eisegesis - reading INTO the Scriptures what he hopes to see there - instead of exegesis - getting OUT of the Scriptures what GOD wants him to understand.

 

[Pilgrimer]

I understand you perfectly. You object to any allegorical understanding of Scripture and consider it to be ... what did you call it? ... "humanistic idolatry."



But you are struggling under the same misconceptions that so many other hyper-literalists do, you assume that an allegorical view of the Scripture somehow denies the literal/historical meaning. That's simply not true. An true allegory is a literal/historical event that conveys a symbolic meaning, such as Jesus' use of the historical account of Jonah as an allegory for his own sufferings. A story that is not an actual historical event but is a fictional account that conveys a symbolic meaning is a parable, which you adamantly object to, and yet Jesus used parables constantly in teaching about the Kingdom of Heaven.



And the Apostle Paul, when he said that Abraham having two sons, the one by a bondwoman and the other by a freewoman, and the older son being cast out and disinherited and the younger son being made the heir was an allegory of those Jews under the Old Covenant being cast out and the Jews under the New Covenant inheriting the promises, he was in no way denying the literal and historical reality of the events, he was simply pointing out that the literal and historical event had a meaning beyond the immediate context of history, that it was a "lesson" to be learned about whom among the children of Abraham God has made the heirs.



And when I referred to the Passover as an allegory, it means the historical event and it's subsequent historical observance had symbolic meaning.



And the most obvious example is all those sacrifices and offerings. They were most certainly real, but if they were not also symbolic then what exactly do you think it means that Jesus "fulfilled" them?



Maybe you should put away the books of men and let the Gospel be your light.



In Christ,

Pilgrimer

 

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, Pilgrimer.

I understand you perfectly. You object to any allegorical understanding of Scripture and consider it to be ... what did you call it? ... "humanistic idolatry."



But you are struggling under the same misconceptions that so many other hyper-literalists do, you assume that an allegorical view of the Scripture somehow denies the literal/historical meaning. That's simply not true. An true allegory is a literal/historical event that conveys a symbolic meaning, such as Jesus' use of the historical account of Jonah as an allegory for his own sufferings. A story that is not an actual historical event but is a fictional account that conveys a symbolic meaning is a parable, which you adamantly object to, and yet Jesus used parables constantly in teaching about the Kingdom of Heaven.



And the Apostle Paul, when he said that Abraham having two sons, the one by a bondwoman and the other by a freewoman, and the older son being cast out and disinherited and the younger son being made the heir was an allegory of those Jews under the Old Covenant being cast out and the Jews under the New Covenant inheriting the promises, he was in no way denying the literal and historical reality of the events, he was simply pointing out that the literal and historical event had a meaning beyond the immediate context of history, that it was a "lesson" to be learned about whom among the children of Abraham God has made the heirs.



And when I referred to the Passover as an allegory, it means the historical event and it's subsequent historical observance had symbolic meaning.



And the most obvious example is all those sacrifices and offerings. They were most certainly real, but if they were not also symbolic then what exactly do you think it means that Jesus "fulfilled" them?



Maybe you should put away the books of men and let the Gospel be your light.



In Christ,

Pilgrimer

Well, I find this entirely illuminating. You say, "A true allegory is a literal/historical event that conveys a symbolic meaning, such as Jesus' use of the historical account of Jonah as an allegory for his own sufferings. A story that is not an actual historical event but is a fictional account that conveys a symbolic meaning is a parable...." Isn't that precisely what I'm talking about?

Who are YOU to say that the historical account of Yonah is a "fictional account?" I suppose you think that other such miraculous events are also "fictional?" Just because YOU can't accept them or explain them doesn't mean that they didn't actually happen!

What's the matter? Don't you have a God who's big enough to perform miracles?

I'm sorry, but I'll stick to the grammatical, HISTORICAL view of the Scriptures.

 

[Pilgrimer]

Who are YOU to say that the historical account of Yonah is a "fictional account?"

What I said was: "A true allegory is a literal/historical event that conveys a symbolic meaning, such as Jesus' use of the historical account of Jonah ..."

Every other example I used were also historical events, as I pointed out.

Might I suggest that sometimes reading a little more slowly can help comprehension.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[veteran]

Shalom, Pilgrimer.


You've misunderstood. I didn't say that allegory arose in the 2nd and 3rd centuries; I said that allegorISM arose in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. I'm talking about the allegorical method of interpreting the Scriptures as opposed to the natural, grammatical, historical method of interpreting the Scriptures - the same way that ANY work of literature should be interpreted!

Allegories and figures of speech, metaphors and similes are all part of the natural way that people talk and write, but they should NOT be taken out of their various contexts and applied throughout Scripture as though all of God's Word hinged upon those allegories! THAT'S the flaw! I would suggest that you and others like you take a good look at a book called Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A Textbook of Hermeneutics by Bernard Ramm (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI,1970).

He noted on page 24, that the ...


Later, he showed that the Greek Allegorism had spread to Alexandria, Egypt, "where there was a great Jewish population and eventually a large Christian population." He then went into the Jewish Allegorism that arose there in such persons as Philo (20 B.C. - 54 A.D.).

From these introductions to allegorism, persons came on the scene who introduced the allegorical method to the believers who lived in Alexandria at the time: On page 31, he said that Clement of Alexandria (150 - 215 A.D.)...


Then, Origen (184/5 - 253/4 A.D.) came on the scene. He said on pages 32-33 that he...


Then, Jerome (347 - 420 A.D.) latched onto these ideas in his teachings, despite trying to adhere to the historical sense, although leaning in practice to the typological sense. And his contemporary, Augustine (354 - 430 A.D.), ran with these ideas in his teachings.

Anti-Semitism ran high during these centuries as leaders in the "Church" labored under the assumption that "the literal sense would leave us in Judaism," as Origen suggested. However, they labored under a false assumption. While it is true that the literal sense would lead us BACK to Hebraism - our Hebrew roots, as Michael Rood would say, it does NOT have to "leave us in Judaism!"

By the way, the account of Yonah is NOT an allegory! It is literal account of real events that happened to one of God's prophets who was sent to Nin'veh in modern day Iraq.

Yeshua`s usage of the account was merely a comparison: Yonah : belly of fish for 3 days & 3 nights :: Yeshua` : belly of ground for 3 days & 3 nights.

And, that's as far as it goes! The real issue I have with all this allegorical method of the interpretation of Scripture is this: WHO DECIDES what is allegory and what is not? Where does it stop?! Furthermore, such subjectivism can lead to MANY different interpretations, as many interpretations as their are interpreters! It's too subjective and does NOT lend itself to the objective revelation of God through His prophets!

Whether one wants to admit it or not, the subjective allegorical rendering of the Scriptures, which is said to be "God's Word, is to place one's allegorical interpretation ABOVE the objective meaning God, through His prophets, intended to get across to their audience is tantamount to "humanistic idolatry!" "Worshipping the creature above the Creator." When a man can't just LISTEN and ABSORB what God is saying to him without INSERTING what he himself THINKS God means, then he is guilty of eisegesis - reading INTO the Scriptures what he hopes to see there - instead of exegesis - getting OUT of the Scriptures what GOD wants him to understand.

Very well covered and I concur completely.

One could actually go a lot deeper into the history of mystical allegory as used by the pagans in their temples and so-called "mystery schools", a practice they claimed was in order to impart hidden secret mysteries that had been kept from the profane and unitiated. Thus came forth the philosophical confusion that Apostle Paul himself addressed among the Greek Epicureans in Athens (Acts 17).