Jump to content
Online Baptist

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)

(I was recently asked about what the overall theme of Esther was, beyond the general story and the subject or the historical background. My friend was wanting to know if there was a good commentary that clearly laid out the Allegorical/Types found in Esther. Its clear from reading the story that it holds more than just what is found on the surface but many commentaries do not go beyond a surface reading except to venture the fact that God orchestrated their salvation from behind the scenes. Those that did venture in to the allegorical tended to very odd or speculative ways that were not consistent with scripture, so I could not recommend even mentioning them and their theories. So I wrote my friend the overview as I understood it and I would like to submit it to the group to consider as well, to add to or clarify, or correct the interpretation. I wrote the following....:)

As I understand it, the allegory (God's spiritual principles being taught behind the physical actions and events of the bible stories) of Esther typifies the the end times events as it relates to the Jewish people/Israel and the rise of Christ and Israel back to prominence with God through obedience to His immutable Word. The allegory does not negate or excuse the flaws and practical applications of the story but is meant to show God's purpose behind making it part of scripture. In this we see many allusions to end times. There is much more in the details than this but the main characters represent:

King Ahasuerus: Represents God in his sovereignty over all the land.

King's Command/Word: Shows the Immutability God's word. It doesn't change and stands forever.

King's Ring: Represents the power of the kings word given to another to operate in the king's place.

The seven chamberlains: Represent the seven Spirits of God which are before His throne. They go forth to do the king's bidding and care for the King's concubines and for the Queen.

The seven princes/Wise men: Represent the Seven angels of the church. They go forth to all the land proclaiming the Kings word and gathering out of it the virgins for the king.

Queen Vashti: Represents Unbelieving Israel which refused to obey the King's command and to whom all the worlds wives (The nations of the world) looked to and were to emulate.

Queen Esther: Represents Believing Israel chosen from the virgins to replace unbelieving Israel.

Mordecai: Represents Christ who adopted Ester, raised her up, in his own house, and to whom she obeyed in all things, even after being made queen. He also initiated the persecution of the Jews by not submitting to Haman's authority.

The virgins: Represents all saved individuals gathered by the angels of the churches from all nations.

Haman: Represents the anti-Christ who rises to power in the end times and is given authority over the whole world by God but attempts to persecute Christ and those who keep his commandments because Christ refuses to submit/bow to his Authority.

Haman's ten sons/ those who follow Haman's Commands: The ten nations and wicked of revelation

In general the events go like this, Israel is living in God's land but refuses to live by her covenant with God nor to hear God's Word, so she is divorced and is removed from her position as queen, the King's wife. God then turns to the whole world looking for a queen who pleases and listens to Him. From the world He receives many chaste virgins into his household. From among those virgins he receives a believing Israel who is obedient to Christ and He makes her Queen. After all the virgins are received into the house of God, and the queen is established on earth (but not yet with her faith reveled), the Anti-Christ is given power by God over the world (Anti-Christ enters the temple), to whom all but Christ submits. In this refusal, Christ initiates the tribulation of the Jews and the Anti-Christ usurps his God given power to persecute and make war with them. Christ then, with believing Israel, seeks God's help in saving the Jews and removing the Anti-Christ from power. In this the Jews consolidate with Israel and submit to Christ and God casts out the Anti-Christ, his ten sons and gives His power over the world to Christ.

In all this it is noted that God's command are immutable and come with repercussions for obeying or disobeying them and how you use that principle can help or harm. Vashi directly defied the king's command and received swift judgment. Esther obeyed and sought petitions from the King and was rewarded. Haman tried to use his words in place of the Kings Words, for his own benefit and for evil and then was destroyed by his own words. Mordecai was obedient to the Kings word but not to Haman's substitute and therefor brought suffering for a time but then was rewarded for his faithfulness to the true word.

Edited by John Young
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)

My conviction is that with preaching the bible we need to be extremely careful to remain exegetical and I am committed to the literal, grammatical, historical approach to the scriptures. I do believe that every text has timeless truths that span across dispensations even though not every single thing in a text will apply. (Such as certain Mosaic Laws that does not apply to us today), I also recognize that there can be different applications of texts. I do think we have to be careful even in application though., One person said that “more heresy is preached in application than in Bible exegesis”. 

Now, Charles Ryrie in his Systematic Theology has an excellent section in Bibliology about Interpretation of the Bible. 

Of course he mentions the different systems such as the Allegorical, Literal and Semi Allegorical. He of course advocates for the Literal Hermaneutic, he gives a few reasons:

1. The Need for Objectivity “If one does not apply normal interpretation, then objectivity is lost to the extent that he does not use it consistently. Switching the hermeneutic base from literal to allegorical or to semi allegorical… inevitably results in different, inconsistent, and often contradictory interpretations.” 

2. The example of the Bible. “The prophecies of the first advent of Christ were all fulfilled literally. This obvious but extremely significant fact argues for the validity and the use of literal hermeneutics in all of biblical interpretation... It is said that over 300 such prophecies concerning the first coming of Christ were literally fulfilled…”

Ryrie does go on to acknowledge that “some prophecies of the Old Testament are given a typical fulfillment in the New, and certain of those prophecies are cited by non literalists as biblical sanction for a nonliteral hermeneutic… However, of the approximately twenty four prophecies which the New Testament gives typical fulfillment, only seven are cited as examples of nonliteral hermeneutic (and of course not all agree that these seven prove this)…remember, however, that we are not just comparing seven out of a total of twenty four, but seven out of a total of hundreds, for almost all Old Testament prophecies are clearly fulfilled literally in the New Testament..”

Now, I think most relevant discussion however for us is what Ryrie says later in his section on Objections to Normal Hermeneutics: 

“The most frequent objection by Evangelicals to normal interpretation points out that since the New Testament uses the Old Testament in a non literal sense we also may interpret Old Testament Prophecies (about the millennium for example) in a non literal sense. Or to put it more simply: since the New Testament spiritualizes the Old Testament, so can we… The rule is that they [New Testament Authors] interpreted the Old Testament plainly, exceptions are rare and typological”

Now, the point Ryrie makes next I think is spot on:

“The crux of the matter is this: can we as interpreters follow the example of the biblical writers in these rare exceptional uses of the Old Testament that seem to be non literal? Of course the answer is yes, if we want to. But if we do, we do so without apostolic authority, only with personal authority, and comparatively, that is not much authority. Any and all uses of the Old Testament that the New Testament writers made were made under divine inspiration and were therefore done properly and authoritatively. If we depart from the plain sense of the text we do so improperly without such authority. What the biblical writers wrote was infallible; the work of all interpreters is fallible.” 

My opinion and practice for myself is that, I want to be as safe as possible when preaching and interpreting the Bible, so I want to always give priority to the literal hermeneutic. I believe it is safe to avoid spiritualizing passages in the Bible.

Edited by Jordan Kurecki
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

The crux of the matter is this: can we as interpreters follow the example of the biblical writers in these rare exceptional uses of the Old Testament that seem to be non literal? Of course the answer is yes, if we want to. But if we do, we do so without apostolic authority, only with personal authority, and comparatively, that is not much authority. Any and all uses of the Old Testament that the New Testament writers made were made under divine inspiration and were therefore done properly and authoritatively. If we depart from the plain sense of the text we do so improperly without such authority. What the biblical writers wrote was infallible; the work of all interpreters is fallible.” 

My opinion and practice for myself is that, I want to be as safe as possible when preaching and interpreting the Bible, so I want to always give priority to the literal hermeneutic. I believe it is safe to avoid spiritualizing passages in the Bible.

I would have to disagree with this understanding of biblical allegory and Spiritualizing passages, as if they were disconnected from the reality of the text and only discernible by limited divine sanction or special Apostolic authority (such limited revelation of a passage are claimed by false prophets for their own teaching and not of God or the Apostles). The apostles rested on the authority of the Old Testament Scripture as understood to prove their doctrine. If the method used by the Apostles was not true from a "proper method" then it would be a private interpretation with no authority whatsoever. (2 Peter 1:20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.)

Certainly there is abuse of any study method and many methods that have no basis in scripture. However, Proper Biblical Allegory (as used by scripture, and not the eisegetical methods falsely so called by the same name) is discernible and work in harmony with the "literal, grammatical, historical" application. Its not something that works disconnected from the story or reality, but rather, like the parables of Christ, are used to show timeless and prophetic Spiritual truths that are ever present in reality with us and also with the literal text and are discernible. Paul used the advanced teaching method as well. Knowing that Abraham is the father of faith Paul showed us the spiritual truths God placed within the story of Abraham's life to teach us about faith. So too the writer of Hebrews drew out many great truths by using the same method. The Spiritual truths under-girding our reality were and are always present but not always readily discernible to those not able to properly discern from scripture its truths.

Hebrews 5:11-14 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. 12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. 13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. 14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Scripture is very mathematical in nature and the literal story and events are like addition and subtraction, multiplication and division. Its very easy to grasp what we can plainly see. However, to advance your understanding in math, one needs to learn algebra, geometry, calculus, physics, etc. which require going beyond the visual basics into advanced usage and understanding.

Basic math deals with what is visually present. Advanced math deals with how to use the basics to: find and make sense of missing or partial information (Algebra), How to use numbers/parts to make sense of the whole (Geometry), How to use numbers to calculate where objects in space and time are going to end up (Calculus), How those objects work together (Physics), etc.  

Allegory in a similar way is going beyond the surface reading of an individual text and by using spirituals truths found oust side the particular text, to draw from it the divine principles and purposes that are there but merely not observable without first having a strong grasp of the whole of scripture and its "advanced mathematical principles" of hard spiritual discernments.

Errors in basic math can lead to great errors in advance equations, that does not mean advanced equations should be thrown out or that they should not be studied but rather our errors should be corrected. So too, as basic errors of our theology can lead to great errors in use of Allegory, but that does not mean the Biblical Allegorical method is thrown out but rather the errors in our understanding of the method are to be corrected to get the proper result.

I understand the fear many have in going beyond basics, as they feel safe and comfortable there, but advanced methods should not be feared as in the end they will give the faithful great truths and will guard them against shallow and false eisegetical doctrine, if done properly. Peter himself praised the method Paul used when he said: 

2 Peter 3:15-18...even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.... 

The method taught properly will not lead to new private secret doctrines that go contrary to plain scripture but rather will teach us about Christ and support and strengthen the clear spiritual doctrinal truths under-girding the story. 

Psalm 40:7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Luke 24:25-27 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: 26 ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? 27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Revelation 19:10...for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Edited by John Young
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 7/22/2020 at 1:36 AM, John Young said:

King Ahasuerus: Represents God in his sovereignty over all the land.

King's Command/Word: Shows the Immutability God's word. It doesn't change and stands forever.

King's Ring: Represents the power of the kings word given to another to operate in the king's place.

Queen Vashti: Represents Unbelieving Israel which refused to obey the King's command and to whom all the worlds wives (The nations of the world) looked to and were to emulate.

Queen Esther: Represents Believing Israel chosen from the virgins to replace unbelieving Israel.

Mordecai: Represents Christ who adopted Ester, raised her up, in his own house, and to whom she obeyed in all things, even after being made queen. He also initiated the persecution of the Jews by not submitting to Haman's authority.

Haman: Represents the anti-Christ who rises to power in the end times and is given authority over the whole world by God but attempts to persecute Christ and those who keep his commandments because Christ refuses to submit/bow to his Authority.

Does the heart of the Lord God ever become "merry with wine?" (See Esther 1:10)
Does the Lord God proclaim His commandment unto His people while He is "merry with wine?" (See Esther 1:10-11)
Does the Lord God cast aside Israel, such that their "royal estate" is permanently given unto another? (See Esther 1:19)
Does Jesus Christ ever instruct faithful Israel to hide their character from the Lord God? (See Esther 2:15-20)
Does the Lord God promote, advance, and set the antichrist above all other authorities? (See Esther 3:1)
Does the Lord God give commandment that all others should bow down and reverence the antichrist? (See Esther 3:2)
Does Jesus Christ ever disobey any of the Lord God's commandments? (See Esther 3:2-4)
Does the Lord God ever give the antichrist His ring of authority to operate in the Lord God's place? (See Esther 3:10)
Does the Lord God ever grant the antichrist His own authority to persecute the Israelites? (See Esther 3:9-15)
Does the Lord God ever sit down in unity with the antichrist? (See Esther 3:15)
Does Israel ever invite and have attend both the Lord God and the antichrist to a joint banquet? (See Esther 5:4-8)
Does the Lord God ever take counsel from the antichrist on how to honor Jesus Christ? (See Esther 6:1-10)
Does the Lord God ever instruct and employ the antichrist to administer Jesus Christ's honor? (See Esther 6:10-11)
Does the Lord God exalt Jesus Christ to highest authority AFTER removing the antichrist from that position, which He the Lord God had first given to the antichrist? (See Esther 9:7-15)

With all due respect Brother Young,

As for myself, the claim that King Ahasuerus represents the Lord my God, the Lord God of heaven and earth, is quite offensive to me, even unto the concern that it is outright blasphemy.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

II Chronicles- Israel Destroyed

Ezra- Israel Returns to Land

Nehemiah- Israel Rebuilds Temple (despite resistance from Geshem the Arabian)

Esther- The King Replaces a Gentile Bride with a Jewish Bride

Job- Israel Suffers 42 months (42 Chapters in Job with his "captivity turned" and his children resurrected in chapter 42).

This, of course, is all typology (shadow of things to come). There's the historical aspects of those books also.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, SureWord said:

Esther- The King Replaces a Gentile Bride with a Jewish Bride

I have heard the "Gentile bride" theory before, as referring to the "rebellious church" being taken away in the rapture but I don't think it fits, as the church is not just gentile but both gentile and Jewish and Christ and the church is marked by faith. I think the focus on being a "faithless bride" being Unbelieving Israel who is later replaced by a "faithful bride", the believing Israel of Revelation 12, makes more sense.

 

1 hour ago, SureWord said:

This, of course, is all typology (shadow of things to come). There's the historical aspects of those books also.

I agree.

Edited by John Young
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
Posted (edited)

I agree the church is both Jew and Gentile (yet in Christ there's neither) but we are in the times of the Gentiles and the church is mostly made up of such. 

I don't believe types always have to fit perfectly. The sheep is called a "she" in Isaiah 53:7 though referring to Jesus Christ.

Your suggestion that it has to do with the "faithless bride" of Israel is an interesting thought and it could be that also.

Edited by SureWord
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Does the heart of the Lord God ever become "merry with wine?" (See Esther 1:10) Obviously God, as a Spirit does not drink wine and cannot make his heart merry with it but he allowed mankind to be made merry with it and even for Israel to be merry with it (Ecc 9:7, 1 Kings 4:20). Christ (God in the flesh) drank wine and gave it to others, At a marriage (John 2:10), At the last supper (Mark 14:23), at people's homes and in general (Matthew 11:19), so wine is not all that offensive. Joseph, a type of Christ, gave his brother's wine and they made their hearts merry (Gen 34:34). Boaz, a type of Christ, drank and made his heart merry (Ruth 3:7). So its clear types can still make their heart merry with wine and still be a type. It is not a far stretch to use the sovereignty of a king and his unchangeable royal decrees to be a type of God's sovereignty and unchangeable word, even if that king drank wine and was happy because of it. Garnted there is strong reasons not to be duncken or event to have any wine because of the harm which can come from such a state but the practice of being merry from wine is not so abominable to God that he can't use people as types to show his divine nature and will.

Does the Lord God proclaim His commandment unto His people while He is "merry with wine?" (See Esther 1:10-11) Christ did make proclamations at feasts and gave his followers drink (John 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

Does the Lord God cast aside Israel, such that their "royal estate" is permanently given unto another? (See Esther 1:19) Yes. Unbelieving Israel died in the wilderness and their believing children took their place. (Deut 1:39-40, Heb 13:18), Unbelieving Spiritual generation of Israel is sent to hell while Believing generation of Israel received the inheritance in the revelation week. 

Does Jesus Christ ever instruct faithful Israel to hide their character from the Lord God? (See Esther 2:15-20) Obviously the advice was given to Esther, not specifically for the king but as a general advice fro her safety. The concept of hiding ones ordained purpose until the proper time to be reveled is not unknown in scripture and it is not wrong to do so when instructed by God/Christ. Even Christ instructed his followers not to reveal that he was the Christ until the proper time. (Matthew 16:20) God even instructed his prophets at time to conceal their identity or reveal their true purpose (1 Kings 20:38, 1 Samuel 16:2). In revelation believing Israel, though sealed in chap 7 will have to flee and hid themselves in the wilderness until chap 14.

Does the Lord God promote, advance, and set the antichrist above all other authorities? (See Esther 3:1) Yes he allows the devil to do it (see Job!). Revelation 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

Does the Lord God give commandment that all others should bow down and reverence the antichrist? (See Esther 3:2) You misunderstand the commandment. Jews were not to bow to any man and they were already given special dispensations and protections, by the unchanging law, from such decrees that had to be respected (Daniel 3:29, 6:26-28, etc) which is why Haman did not simply have him executed on the spot. In revelation only unbelievers will believe the lie to reverence the anti-Christ but Christ and his followers will not because they hold to the higher commands(2 Thess 2:8-12).

Does Jesus Christ ever disobey any of the Lord God's commandments? (See Esther 3:2-4) This is an obvious NO and neither did Mordecai in not bowing as he did. He transgressed the command to bow because the law from the king also said he as a Jew did not have to bow. While the Anti-Christ will have power over all that are not saved, he will not have power over Christ and will make war with the Saints who follow Christ because they will not bow.

Does the Lord God ever give the antichrist His ring of authority to operate in the Lord God's place? (See Esther 3:10) Yes. He is given power from God, through the devil, to do what he does.

Does the Lord God ever grant the antichrist His own authority to persecute the Israelites? (See Esther 3:9-15) The only way an Israelite Saint can be persecuted is if the power is given to the oppressor from God. John 19:11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

Does the Lord God ever sit down in unity with the antichrist? (See Esther 3:15) Again see Job! Just because the devil is in opposition to the will of God, it does not mean God doesn't or cannot work with and use the devil and his "vessels of wrath" to fulfill his divine purpose (Romans 9:21-24).

Does Israel ever invite and have attend both the Lord God and the antichrist to a joint banquet? (See Esther 5:4-8) Yes. There's even a winepress (Revelation 14:10;19)

Does the Lord God ever take counsel from the antichrist on how to honor Jesus Christ? (See Esther 6:1-10) Not directly. In the type what Haman desired to be treated as the King, Mordecai got. The point is to show how the Anti-Christ wanted to be honored as God but that honor was not given to him by God but rather to Christ who deserved it.

Does the Lord God ever instruct and employ the antichrist to administer Jesus Christ's honor? (See Esther 6:10-11) God divinely created and is directing all things to honor Christ, including the Anti-Christ. (1 Corinthians 1:16 for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:)

Does the Lord God exalt Jesus Christ to highest authority AFTER removing the antichrist from that position, which He the Lord God had first given to the antichrist? (See Esther 9:7-15) In taking over authority of the physical kingdom on earth, Yes. (2 Thessalonians 2:8)

In my opening post I presented what I believe they represent and for what reasons. The bible deals with spiritual things and applies them to physical types/figures/pictures so that mankind can understand. Those physical types are never a perfect representation of the spiritual and are not meant to be. However, in your questions you flip the application and you are applying the physical limits onto the spiritual and then disregarding both because the physical does not measure up to your expectations. That is not how allegory works and is an errant application in my opinion. 

16 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

With all due respect Brother Young,

As for myself, the claim that King Ahasuerus represents the Lord my God, the Lord God of heaven and earth, is quite offensive to me, even unto the concern that it is outright blasphemy.

I respect you and I am open to a productive conversation as a brother and welcome your biblical insight and help in learning about the Spiritual pictures in the book of Esther but I have no interest in a confrontational interaction with you. I enjoy learning about these things an have no interest in forcing you to interact with this study with anything other than an edifying spirit.

So, if you are offended by Allegory for some reason, or the study of flawed figures representing, in a small part, our LORD's divine nature, or simply by something in my own personality, then you should not take part in the study.

Edited by John Young
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, John Young said:

The bible deals with spiritual things and applies them to physical types/figures/pictures so that mankind can understand.

The Bible does sometimes do that by the writers who wrote by inspiration. No biblical writer though ever says that Esther is any kind of allegory. 

I don’t understand this hermeneutic that tries to see spiritual connections and figures in every historical account of the Bible. 

How is what you are doing any different then me saying Noah having 3 sons represents the trinity? Just because you happen to see some similarities doesn’t mean God intended for all the historical accounts to be allegorized. 

Esther is a story about God providentially working to preserve his people thus fulfilling his promises and covenant with them. That is the point of Esther, I see no basis in scripture to somehow think that God intended for any portion of that story to be allegorized. 
 

I also dont understand the often made conflation of “spiritual” with “allegorical” as if something being allegorical is somehow equivalent to spiritual. 

Edited by Jordan Kurecki
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)
On 7/24/2020 at 2:54 AM, John Young said:

In my opening post I presented what I believe they represent and for what reasons. The bible deals with spiritual things and applies them to physical types/figures/pictures so that mankind can understand. Those physical types are never a perfect representation of the spiritual and are not meant to be. However, in your questions you flip the application and you are applying the physical limits onto the spiritual and then disregarding both because the physical does not measure up to your expectations. That is not how allegory works and is an errant application in my opinion. 

Brother Young,

In your second posting of this thread discussion, you presented the following definition and counself for "allegorical study" --
 

On 7/23/2020 at 4:15 AM, John Young said:

Allegory in a similar way is going beyond the surface reading of an individual text and by using spirituals truths found oust side the particular text, to draw from it the divine principles and purposes that are there but merely not observable without first having a strong grasp of the whole of scripture and its "advanced mathematical principles" of hard spiritual discernments.

Errors in basic math can lead to great errors in advance equations, that does not mean advanced equations should be thrown out or that they should not be studied but rather our errors should be corrected. So too, as basic errors of our theology can lead to great errors in use of Allegory, but that does not mean the Biblical Allegorical method is thrown out but rather the errors in our understanding of the method are to be corrected to get the proper result.

So then, for an "allegorical study" to be valid according to your above definition (your first above quoted paragraph), it MUST stand in union with "truths found outside the particular text" in relation to "the whole of Scripture and its 'advanced mathematical principles' of hard spiritual discernments."  Since this "allegorical method" of Bible study formulates an "allegorical narrative" that is not directly specified by the inspiration of God the Holy (in contrast to some Holy Spirit revealed allegories), the only means by which we can discern the validity of a given "allegorical study" is to compare it with details of truth that are "found outside the particular text" and that ARE specifically inspired by God the Holy Spirit.  Now, although I myself do not believe that the Book of Esther should be studied allegorically at all, my primary contention in this discussion is that your above allegorical understanding is faulty in relation to "truths found outside the particular text."  Even so, in your above counsel (your second above quoted paragraph), you indicate that "the errors in our understanding of the method are to be corrected to get the proper result."  

Let us then take up one case wherein I believe that your understanding of the method in relation to the Book of Esther is at fault.  Let us take up your allegorical interpretation concerning King Ahasuerus and concerning the King's Ring, as follows:
 

On 7/22/2020 at 1:36 AM, John Young said:

King Ahasuerus: Represents God in his sovereignty over all the land.

King's Ring: Represents the power of the kings word given to another to operate in the king's place.

At this point let us accept that the King's Ring (that would be King Ahasuerus' Ring) does represent the power of King Ahasuerus' word given to another to operate in the king's place.  So then, if King Ahasuerus himself "represents God in His sovereignty over all the land," then King Ahasuerus' Ring would represent God's own Word given to another to operate in God's own place.  So then, doctrinally we may ask whether God the Father, the Lord God of heaven and earth, has ever given the authority of His own Word unto another in order that that other one might operate in the Lord God's OWN place?  The doctrinal answer of the New Testament is -- Yes, God the Father, the Lord God of heaven and earth, has indeed given the authority of His own Word unto God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, in order that the Lord Jesus Christ might operate in God the Father's OWN place.  According to the doctrine of the New Testament, this was done when God the Father exalted God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, to sit at God the Father's own right hand (as per such passages as Ephesians 1:19-23, Philippians 2:9-11, Hebrews 1:1-4, etc.).  Furthermore, according to the doctrine of the New Testament, this "ring of divine authority" has never and will never be taken from God the Son in order to be given unto another.  This is the "truth found outside the particular text."

However, within the Book of Esther King Ahasuerus gives his ring of authority unto two different individuals at two different times throughout the historical account.  If your "allegorical viewpoint" that King Ahasuerus represents the Lord God Himself in His sovereign rule, then we must find "truths outside the particular text" of the Book of Esther wherein the Lord God Himself has or will give His OWN divine authority unto TWO different individuals at TWO different times in order for those two individuals respectively to operate IN GOD'S OWN PLACE.  Yet in the doctrine of the New Testament, I do NOT find any such thing to be the case.  I find ONLY that the Lord God Himself has given His OWN divine authority unto ONE individual, that being the Lord Jesus Christ, at the Lord Jesus Christ's exaltation unto "the right hand of the Majesty on high."  Thus already your "allegorical viewpoint" appears to be invalid.

So then, within the Book of Esther who are the two different individuals unto whom King Ahasuerus grants his ring of authority?  First, in Esther 3:7-15 that ring of authority is granted unto Haman, whom your "allegorical viewpoint" defines as representing "the anti-Christ who rises to power in the end times and is given authority over the whole world by God but attempts to persecute Christ and those who keep his commandments because Christ refuses to submit/bow to his Authority."  Second, in Esther 8:7-17 that ring of authority is granted unto Mordecai, whom your "allegorical viewpoint" defines as representing "Christ who adopted Esther, raised her up, in his own house, and to whom she obeyed in all things, even after being made queen. He also initiated the persecution of the Jews by not submitting to Haman's authority."  Yet this viewpoint contains a number of errors that are not in union with "truth found outside the particular text" of the Book of Esther.  

In the first place, God the Father gave His OWN ring of absolute divine authority unto the Lord Jesus Christ, when He exalted the Lord Jesus Christ unto His own right hand.  Even so, according to New Testament doctrine this occurred (by this point in time) thousands of years BEFORE the antichrist's very existence on the earth.

In the second place, NO passage of Scripture indicates that God the Father Himself, the Lord God of heaven and earth, will give unto the antichrist HIS (GOD'S) OWN DIVINE authority to operate in GOD'S VERY OWN PLACE.  (Indeed, from my perspective such an idea is outright blasphemy.)  (Note: For such to occur God the Father would have to take this "ring" (name above every name) of divine authority away from the Lord Jesus Christ, and give it unto the antichrist when he comes on the scene of history.)  In fact, in Revelation 13:2 God's own Word, as inspired and precisely revealed by God the Holy Spirit Himself, specifically indicates who gives the antichrist (Haman in your "allegorical viewpoint") his power, saying, "And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of lion: AND THE DRAGON [who is the devil according to Revelation 12:9] GAVE HIM HIS POWER, AND HIS SEAT, AND GREAT AUTHORITY."

In the third place, according to New Testament doctrine when the antichrist comes to power, the Lord Jesus Christ will still be seated in heaven at the right hand of God, with a name above every name, that at His name every knee should bow according to God the Father's commandment.  Even so, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself will not ever be in any position to have to refuse to submit/bow unto the antichrist's authority, because the Lord Jesus Christ will never at any time be under the antichrist's authority.

Now, I can agree that when a Biblical allegory is presented, all of the details concerning the "allegorical players" may not have a valid representation in relation to truth.  However, when a Biblical allegory is presented, God the Holy Spirit only specifies those parts of the allegory that are representative.  On the other hand, your opening post provides an indication that the entire Book of Esther (all 10 chapters thereof) stands as one cohesive allegory.  (Note: Even the Holy Spirit Himself never indicates through inspiration that a Biblical allegory covers an entire book of the Bible.)  If this is so as you claim, then all of its parts must actually represent "truth found outside the particular text" of the Book of Esther.  I am contending that your "allegorical viewpoint" for the Book of Esther does NOT actually represent "truth found outside the particular text," but actually contradicts that truth.

On 7/24/2020 at 2:54 AM, John Young said:

I respect you and I am open to a productive conversation as a brother and welcome your biblical insight and help in learning about the Spiritual pictures in the book of Esther but I have no interest in a confrontational interaction with you. I enjoy learning about these things an have no interest in forcing you to interact with this study with anything other than an edifying spirit.

So, if you are offended by Allegory for some reason, or the study of flawed figures representing, in a small part, our LORD's divine nature, or simply by something in my own personality, then you should not take part in the study.

Now, it is true that I am offended by man-made/human-conjecture allegory as a method of Bible study; for I believe that it does not "rightly divide God's Word of truth."  I believe that it attempts to create revelation by "reading between the lines" rather than simply understand the revelation of truth that God the Holy Spirit has personally inspired.  However, as I expressed above, I am offended in a far greater manner that you have made King Ahasuerus and his authority as equivalent to the Lord God Himself and to His divine authority.  From my perspective the behavior of King Ahasuerus in the historical account does NOT at all match the Biblical realities and revelations concerning God the Father's character or behavior in the "end times."  (Note: My offense had nothing whatsoever to do with your own personality, but only with the doctrine that you are presenting in this thread discussion.)  On the other hand, you have requested that I "should not take part in the study."  Thus having now expressed my contention, I shall refrain from engaging further unless I am compelled to do so.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
grammar
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

Paul taught allegory from the OT. As long as it doesn't go against sound doctrine but rather supports it I don't see a problem with it. The whole book of Hebrews reveals how things in the OT are shadow of things to come. Paul clearly taught Mt. Sinai as an allegory. Of course, this doesn't mean books like Esther weren't literal books historically relevant to their time with lessons for us today. But there's no doubt a pattern in those books representative of times to come.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Young,

In your second posting of this thread discussion, you presented the following definition and counself for "allegorical study" --
 

So then, for an "allegorical study" to be valid according to your above definition (your first above quoted paragraph), it MUST stand in union with "truths found outside the particular text" in relation to "the whole of Scripture and its 'advanced mathematical principles' of hard spiritual discernments."  Since this "allegorical method" of Bible study formulates an "allegorical narrative" that is not directly specified by the inspiration of God the Holy (in contrast to some Holy Spirit revealed allegories), the only means by which we can discern the validity of a given "allegorical study" is to compare it with details of truth that are "found outside the particular text" and that ARE specifically inspired by God the Holy Spirit.  Now, although I myself do not believe that the Book of Esther should be studied allegorically at all, my primary contention in this discussion is that your above allegorical understanding is faulty in relation to "truths found outside the particular text."  Even so, in your above counsel (your second above quoted paragraph), you indicate that "the errors in our understanding of the method are to be corrected to get the proper result."  

Let us then take up one case wherein I believe that your understanding of the method in relation to the Book of Esther is at fault.  Let us take up your allegorical interpretation concerning King Ahasuerus and concerning the King's Ring, as follows:
 

At this point let us accept that the King's Ring (that would be King Ahasuerus' Ring) does represent the power of King Ahasuerus' word given to another to operate in the king's place.  So then, if King Ahasuerus himself "represents god in His sovereignty over all the land," then the King Ahasuerus' Ring would represent God's own Word given to another to operate in God's own place.  So then, doctrinally we may ask whether God the Father, the Lord God of heaven and earth, has ever given the authority of His own Word unto another in order that that other one might operate in the Lord God's OWN place?  The doctrinal answer on the New Testament is -- Yes, God the Father, the Lord God of heaven and earth, has indeed given the authority of His own Word unto God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, in order that the Lord Jesus Christ might operate in God the Father's OWN place.  According to the doctrine of the New Testament, this was done when God the Father exalted God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, to sit at God the Father's own right hand (as per such passages as Ephesians 1:19-23, Philippians 2:9-11, Hebrews 1:1-4, etc.).  Furthermore, according to the doctrine of the New Testament, this "ring of divine authority" has never and will never be taken from God the Son in order to be given unto another.  This is the "truth found outside the particular text."

However, within the Book of Esther King Ahasuerus gives his ring of authority unto two different individuals at two different times throughout the historical account.  If your "allegorical viewpoint" that King Ahasuerus represents the Lord God Himself in His sovereign rule, then we must find "truths outside the particular text" of the Book of Esther wherein the Lord God Himself has or will give His OWN divine authority unto TWO different individuals at TWO different times in order for those two individuals respectively to operate IN GOD'S OWN PLACE.  Yet in the doctrine of the New Testament, I do NOT find any such thing to be the case.  I find ONLY that the Lord God Himself has given His OWN divine authority unto ONE individual, that being the Lord Jesus Christ, at the Lord Jesus Christ's exaltation unto "the right of the Majesty on high."  Thus already your "allegorical viewpoint" appears to be invalid.

So then, within the Book of Esther who are the two different individuals unto whom King Ahasuerus grants his ring of authority?  First, in Esther 3:7-15 that ring of authority is granted unto Haman, whom your "allegorical viewpoint" defines as representing "the anti-Christ who rises to power in the end times and is given authority over the whole world by God but attempts to persecute Christ and those who keep his commandments because Christ refuses to submit/bow to his Authority."  Second, in Esther 8:7-17 that ring of authority is granted unto Mordecai, whom your "allegorical viewpoint" defines as representing "Christ who adopted Ester, raised her up, in his own house, and to whom she obeyed in all things, even after being made queen. He also initiated the persecution of the Jews by not submitting to Haman's authority."  Yet this viewpoint contains a number of errors that are not in union with "truth found outside the particular text" of the Book of Esther.  

In the first place, God the Father gave His OWN ring of absolute divine authority unto the Lord Jesus Christ, when He exalted the Lord Jesus Christ unto His own right hand.  Even so, according to New Testament doctrine this occurred (by this point in time) thousands of years BEFORE the antichrist's very existence on the earth.

In the second place, NO passage of Scripture indicates that God the Father Himself, the Lord God of heaven and earth, will give unto the antichrist HIS (GOD'S) OWN DIVINE authority to operate in GOD'S VERY OWN PLACE.  (Indeed, from my perspective such an idea is outright blasphemy.)  (Note: For such to occur God the Father would have to take this "ring" (name above every name) of divine authority away from the Lord Jesus Christ, and give it unto the antichrist when he comes on the scene of history.)  In fact, Revelation 13:2 God's own Word, as inspired and precisely revealed by God the Holy Spirit Himself, specifically indicates who gives the antichrist (Haman in your "allegorical viewpoint") his power, saying, "And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of lion: AND THE DRAGON (who is the devil according to Revelation 12:9) GAVE HIM HIS POWER, AND HIS SEAT, AND GREAT AUTHORITY."

In the third place, according to New Testament doctrine when the antichrist comes to power, the Lord Jesus Christ will still be seated in heaven at the right hand of God, with a name above every name, that at His name every knee should bow according to God the Father's commandment.  Even so, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself will not ever be in any position to have to refuse to submit/bow unto the antichrist's authority, because the Lord Jesus Christ will never at any time be under the antichrist's authority.

Now, I can agree that when a Biblical allegory is presented, all of the details concerning the "allegorical players" may not have a valid representation in relation to truth.  However, when a Biblical allegory is presented, God the Holy Spirit only specifies those parts of the allegory that are representative.  On the other hand, your opening post provides an indication that the entire Book of Esther (all 10 chapters thereof) stands as one cohesive allegory.  (Note: Even the Holy Spirit Himself never indicates through inspiration that a Biblical allegory covers an entire book of the Bible.)  If this is so as you claim, then all of its parts must actually represent "truth found outside the particular text" of the Book of Esther.  I am contending that your "allegorical viewpoint" for the Book of Esther does NOT actually represent "truth found outside the particular text," but actually contradicts that truth.

Now, it is true that I am offended by man-made/human-conjecture allegory as a method of Bible study; for I believe that it does not "rightly divide God's Word of truth."  I believe that it attempts to create revelation by "reading between the lines" rather than simply understand the revelation of truth that God the Holy Spirit has personally inspired.  However, as I expressed above, I am offended in a far greater manner that you have made King Ahasuerus and his authority as equivalent to the Lord God Himself and to His divine authority.  From my perspective the behavior of King Ahasuerus in the historical account does NOT at all match the Biblical realities and revelations concerning God the Father's character or behavior in the "end times."  (Note: My offense had nothing whatsoever to do with your own personality, but only with the doctrine that you are presenting in this thread discussion.)  On the other hand, you have requested that I "should not take part in the study."  Thus having now expressed my contention, I shall refrain for engaging further unless I am compelled to do so.

Cyrus was a heathen King yet called God's anointed.

And you be assured that God will give to the Antichrist the divine authority to do what he does. It may not be authority to occupy God's throne in heaven but he'll get God's authority to rule here on Earth.

Ezekiel 28:14

Isaiah 45:1

 

Edited by SureWord
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, SureWord said:

Paul taught allegory from the OT. As long as it doesn't go against sound doctrine but rather supports it I don't see a problem with it. The whole book of Hebrews reveals how things in the OT are shadow of things to come. Paul clearly taught Mt. Sinai as an allegory. Of course, this doesn't mean books like Esther weren't literal books historically relevant to their time with lessons for us today. But there's no doubt a pattern in those books representative of times to come.

And so, I am compelled (by one who specifically engaged me) . . .

Indeed, Paul DID teach allegory from the Old Testament Scriptures - UNDER THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.  Indeed, the Book of Hebrews DOES reveal that some things in the Old Testament Scriptures are a shadow of things to come - UNDER THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.  So then, when YOU teach an allegory out of the Old Testament Scriptures, which is not somewhere specified as such within the Holy Scriptures, are you also doing so UNDER THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT?  If you are not so inspired by the Holy Spirit, then under whose inspiration and authority are you doing so?

Is there a problem with it?  Yes indeed, there is for the following reasons --

1.  When you indicate something as an allegory that is not so designated by Holy Spirit inspiration, then you exalt your own authority to the level of the divine and exalt yourself as a standard of truth.

2.  When you exalt yourself in this manner, you teach the ideas of man as the doctrines of God, which is clearly revealed in God's Word, not as an acceptably good thing, but as a spiritually bad thing.

3.  When you engage in such a practice, you influence your followers by your example to handle the Scriptures in a false manner; and you do so unto the spiritual destruction of yourself and your followers.

(Note: This warning is indeed edificational; for Biblical warning against false teaching is indeed "good to the use of edifying.")

17 hours ago, SureWord said:

But there's no doubt a pattern in those books representative of times to come.

I declare unto to you that for some of us there most certainly is a great deal of "doubt" about this.  As for myself, there is so much "doubt" about it that I express outright DENIAL of it.

Allow me to ask specifically about this matter of "the allegory of Esther" -- Can you provide a single verse or statement of inspired Scripture, wherein Holy Spirit inspiration teaches or indicates that the Book of Esther specifically is an allegory for anything?

If you can, then I would be compelled to engage in some level of reconsidering.  On the other hand, if you cannot, then I would further ask -- By what authority am I required to accept any teaching whatsoever concerning this so-called allegory?  Or, by what authority can you accuse me of sinful behavior when I contend against the teaching of this so-called allegory?

17 hours ago, SureWord said:

Cyrus was a heathen King yet called God's anointed.

Isaiah 45:1

Indeed, this is true and is DIRECTLY revealed by THE INSPIRATION OF GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT.  However, by that same teaching of Holy Spirit inspired Scripture, we learn that this divine anointing was for one specific purpose, NOT as an authorization for all of Cyrus' behavior and activities.  Furthermore, we learn that it was for one specific RIGHTEOUS purpose, NOT as an authorization for any sinfully wicked behavior whatsoever at all.

17 hours ago, SureWord said:

And you be assured that God will give to the Antichrist the divine authority to do what he does. It may not be authority to occupy God's throne in heaven but he'll get God's authority to rule here on Earth.

Ezekiel 28:14

No, I cannot be assured of any such thing.  Rather, I will firmly contend that the above statement is Biblically and blasphemously false teaching concerning the all-holy, all-righteous character of the Lord our God.  It is a subtle way of teaching that what the Lord our God ALLOWS is equivalent to what the Lord our God AUTHORIZES by His own divine authority, and thereby makes the Lord our God out to be the author of sinful wickedness.  When the antichrist will oppose and exalt himself "above all that is called God, or that is worshipped," when he will set himself in the very temple of God, claiming himself to be very God, and compelling all of the world to worship him as God, he most certainly will NOT be authorized to do so by the divine authority of God.  Such behavior is sinful wickedness and unrighteous blasphemy; and the Lord our God, the one true God of the Bible, the all-holy, all-righteous Lord God of heaven and earth, does NOT ever authorize sinful wickedness and unrighteousness by His divine authority. GOD FORBID!!!  The antichrist by character is ANTI-God and ANTI-Christ; he is NOT authorized by God against Christ (which is what the so-called allegory of Esther is presented as teaching).  In fact, God's OWN Word declares unto us that the antichrist, "the son of perdition," comes "after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders," NOT after the authorization of God. 

(Note: It is interesting that instead of taking a direct statement of God's Word on the matter, you allegorize yet another passage of Scripture in order to support your original assertion; and so the practice of allegorization just continues to grow and grow in its falsehood.  For Ezekiel 28:14 is NOT about the antichrist and never even has an application to the antichrist, since the antichrist never will be an "anointed cherub" and never will be perfect in his ways from his creation.)

 

Now then, having responded to that which compelled, I declare yet again -- I shall refrain from engaging further unless I am compelled to do so.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)
STRONGS NT 238: ἀλληγορέω

ἀλληγορέω-ῶ: (present passive participle ἀλληγοροὺμενος); i.e., ἄλλο μὲν ἀγορεύωἄλλο δὲ νοέω, "aliud verbis, aliud sensu ostendo" (Quintilian instt. 8, 6, 44), to speak allegorically or in a figureGalatians 4:24 (Philo, Josephus, Plutarch, and grammatical writers; [cf. Meyer on Galatians, the passage cited].) ~ https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G238&t=KJV

 

AL'LEGORYnoun [Gr. other, to speak, a forum, an oration.]

A figurative sentence or discourse, in which the principal subject is described by another subject resembling it in its properties and circumstances. The principal subject is thus kept out of view, and we are left to collect the intentions of the writer or speaker, by the resemblance of the secondary to the primary subject. allegory is in words that hieroglyphics are in painting. We have a fine example of an allegory in the eightieth Psalm, in which God's chosen people are represented by a vineyard. The distinction in scripture between a parable and an allegory is said to be that a parable is a supposed history, and an allegory a figurative description of real facts. An allegory is called a continued metaphor. The following line in Virgil is an example of an allegory

Claudite jam rivos, pueri, sat prata biberunt.

Stop the currents, young men, the meadows have drank sufficiently; that is let your music cease, our ears have been sufficiently delighted. ~ http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Allegory

ALLEGOR'ICAL, adjective In the manner of allegory; figurative; describing by resemblances. ~ http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Allegoric

FIG'UREnoun fig'ur. [Latin figura, from figo, to fix or set. See Feign.]

1. The form of any thing as expressed by the outline or terminating extremities. Flowers have exquisite figures. A triangle is a figure of three sides. A square is a figure of four equal sides and equal angles.

2. Shape; form; person; as a lady of elegant figure

A good figure or person, in man or woman, gives credit at first sight to the choice of either.

3. Distinguished appearance; eminence; distinction; remarkable character. Ames made a figure in Congress; Hamilton, in the cabinet.

4. Appearance of any kind; as an ill figure; a mean figure

5. Magnificence; splendor; as, to live in figure and indulgence.

6. A statue; an image; that which is formed in resemblance of something else; as the figure of a man in plaster.

7. Representation in painting; the lines and colors which represent an animal, particularly a person; as the principal figures of a picture; a subordinate figure

8. In manufactures, a design or representation wrought on damask, velvet and other stuffs.

9. In logic, the order or disposition of the middle term in a syllogism with the parts of the question.

10. In arithmetic, a character denoting a number; as 2. 7. 9.

11. In astrology, the horoscope; the diagram of the aspects of the astrological houses.

12. In theology, type; representative.

Who was the figure of him that was to come. Romans 5:14.

13. In rhetoric, a mode of speaking or writing in which words are deflected from their ordinary signification, or a mode more beautiful and emphatical than the ordinary way of expressing the sense; the language of the imagination and passions; as, knowledge is the light of the mind; the soul mounts on the wings of faith; youth is the morning of life. In strictness, the change of a word is a trope, and any affection of a sentence a figure; but these terms are often confounded.

14. In grammar, any deviation from the rules of analogy or syntax.

15. In dancing, the several steps which the dancer makes in order and cadence, considered as they form certain figures on the floor.

FIG'UREverb transitive fig'ur.

1. To form or mold into any determinate shape.

Accept this goblet, rough with figured gold.

2. To show by a corporeal resemblance, as in picture or statuary.

3. To cover or adorn with figures or images; to mark with figures; to form figures in by art; as, to figure velvet or muslin.

4. To diversify; to variegate with adventitious forms of matter.

5. To represent by a typical or figurative resemblance.

The matter of the sacraments figureth their end.

6. To imagine; to image in the mind.

7. To prefigure; to foreshow.

8. To form figuratively; to use in a sense not literal; as figured expressions. [Little used.]

9. To note by characters.

As though a crystal glass the figured hours are seen.

10. In music, to pass several notes for one; to form runnings or variations.

FIG'UREverb intransitive To make a figure; to be distinguished. The envoy figured at the court of St. Cloud.

Edited by John Young
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)

To say allegory is only privately available to the apostles or select few would imply private interpretation of those passages. Which scripture makes very clear is not how biblical interpretation works. Allegory does not mean random private opinion applied to the text, like many seem to think. A simpler form of allegory would be when scripture uses feeding the ox treading the corn to convey a biblical principle which not only applies to the Ox in the passage but to all living Creature and in particular humans. Paul uses this same basic interpretation principle to show the SPIRITUAL covenants at work in the lives of Ishmael and Isaac and applies it to us today. Allegorical principles are discernible. I believe the same spiritual principles at work in the Book of Esther in that time are the same for the Jewish people in the end times.

2 Peter 1:20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. [Meaning what interpretation of scripture is available for them is available for us]

1 Corinthians 9:7-10 7 Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? [Biblical principle: People should get paid for the work they do] 8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? [The law does not directly say it but gives the principle allegorically] 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. [Principle in allegory] Doth God take care for oxen? [Yes but the law was not for oxen to learn but rather for man to apply the lean principle to all things, man and animal alike] 10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. [the literal was only about oxen but the spiritual principle for all was represented in allegory.]

To deny allegory would be to deny mankind the privilege afforded to oxen, simply because the text didn't expressly state  "mankind". It also would equally make no sense to reject all allegory unless someone who claimed divine inspiration gave express private interpretation (contrary to clear scripture) that it would be okay to give it to mankind as well.

Edited by John Young
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)

Brother Young,

Is your above response directed partially toward my contentions, such that I may present a further response?  Or, do you wish that I should continue to refrain from engaging the discussion (unless directly engaged and compelled to do so)?

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)

Galatians 4:21-31 21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? [the literal law was a servant's covenant binding them to God] 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid [a subservient roll made to Abraham], the other by a freewoman [an equal, freely bound in marriage]. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh [subject to bondage with no privileges]; but he of the freewoman was by promise [by faith in the privileges promised before marriage]. 24 Which things are an allegory [represents a spiritual principle that transcends that particular picture and can be applied to others]: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, [where the servant's covenant was made with God] which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia [Both person and mount represent the same type of principle/covenant], and answereth to Jerusalem are subject to which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. [the Servant covenant is subject to the Free covenant, Israel is servant to Christ,] 27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. [Notice here, true to form and proper allegory, he now applies the principle present in each text, yet transcendent of the text, and applies it to us] 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. [just like then the spiritual covenants apply to us] 30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. [just as the spiritual principle and spiritual problem carried over to us, so to the same spiritual solution]

In these examples, we see allegory in scripture is not some unique private interpretation, with unknowable revelation methods, only for a select few divinely inspired, relying only on apostolic authority. Rather Interpretation of spiritual principles through proper Biblical Allegory is available to all of us who are led of the Spirit. When Christ and the Apostles used an OT verse or example they did not say "just take my word for it nor did they say you'll only get this fom my special acsess to the Spirit. They did say all the scripture was Spiritually discerned, meaning the lost couldn't understand the spiritual principles of the text, but for bible believers they said "search the scriptures"! (See Matthew 13:10-15, and Acts 17:11-12)

Edited by John Young
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 7/27/2020 at 10:20 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Is your above response directed partially toward my contentions, such that I may present a further response?  Or, do you wish that I should continue to refrain from engaging the discussion (unless directly engaged and compelled to do so)?

I welcome your insight and if you feel that it is a subject you want to discuss and improve upon then I have no problem with you continuing but not to contentions or offences. As I said before I like learning about these things not fighting about them. I realize we don't see eye to eye on the subject but I think we can move on in spite of that. My comments on the topic will be general because that is what I'd like to discuss and not necessarily the person who presented them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

So from these passages we can see biblical allegory (the spiritual principles under-girding the text) is available and discernible to the average and common believer if they set their mind to know them through the leading of the Holy Ghost. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)

An other example of allegory, similar to the allegorical method used with Esther above, is the comparison between The "Cross of Christ" and the "Cross" of Israel's camp in the wilderness. In this, two literal things are compared and contrasted, to draw out the Spiritual principles common to them both. The two literal objects are not the same physical thing but they, both together, can present a better view of the spiritual. Brother James Melton has a Facebook post that illustrates it in the following way:

No photo description available.


THE BIGGEST CROSS EVER

Numbers 2:1-34: What first appears to be only a long list of names and numbers turns out to be a rather impressive picture of the cross of Christ. In all, there were twelve tribes consisting of 603,550 soldiers prepared for battle. In relation to the tabernacle, three tribes camped to the east, three to the west, three to the north, and three to the south. The totals are as follows:

East Encampment - 31% - 186,400
Judah – 74,600
Issachar – 54,400
Zebulun – 57,400

West Encampment - 18% - 108,100
Ephraim – 40,500
Manasseh – 32,200
Benjamin – 35,400

North Encampment – 26% - 157,600
Dan – 62,700
Asher – 41,500
Napthelai – 53,400

South Encampment – 25% - 151,450
Rueben – 46,500
Simeon – 59,300
Gad – 45,650

What’s interesting is how the numbers of soldiers in these four divisions form the shape of a cross. Beginning at the east and looking westward, the longest division formed the leg of the cross, consisting of 31% of the soldiers. The upper extension of the cross was formed by the smallest division on the west, where 18% of the soldiers camped. Then the horizontal beam of the cross was formed by the southern and northern encampments, with 25% to the south and 26% to the north. The tabernacle, picturing Christ, was right in the middle. So, looking down from heaven, the Father saw a continual reminder of His own Son’s sacrifice on Calvary. Baalim also saw this in Numbers 23:9-10 when he refused to curse Israel, though he didn't have a clue what he was seeing. You might say ole' Baalim was "looking forward to the cross." 😉
-----------------------------------------------------------------

7 And he took up his parable, and saidBalak the king of Moab hath brought me from Aram, out of the mountains of the east, saying, Come, curse me Jacob, and come, defy Israel. 8 How shall I curse, whom God hath not cursed? or how shall I defy, whom the Lord hath not defied? 9 For from the top of the rocks I see him, and from the hills I behold him: lo, the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations. 10 Who can count the dust of Jacob, and the number of the fourth part of Israel? Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his!

Edited by John Young
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Another one of Paul's allegories, uses a variant of this method when contrasting Adam and Christ. The below image also from Bro. Melton illustrates it this way:

 Image may contain: text that says 'THE LAST ADAM made first man Adam living soul; the a quickening spirit." Son FIRST ADAM God that failed LAST ADAM Son of sin Broughtforth death sin His disobedience produced sinners life Brought suffering Brought His obedience produced life Brought Brought deliverance Begot physical children Sinned for bride Came earth Begot spiritual children His bride Died God's image Came Brought curse heaven Restored animal kingdom image Sinned in garden Redeemed animal kingdom Sinned ata tree Triumphed garden grave Paid for sin on Still the generations Adam." Arose grave 5:1) of the generation (Mat. 1:1) www.biblebaptistpublications.org www.facebook.com/james.melton.3194'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By Bro. Richard Norman
      We're doing a study on Revelation in our Wednesday night study and while talking about the 4 of the 7 churches listed in Ch. 2, one of the congregants asked if there was a specific reason the churches were separated into 2 chapters. I reminded her that when John wrote this, he didn't list chapter and verse, but that these were added later on. She kept questioning and raised a thoughtful question. Is there any significance to the order due to geography? If you look at a map, see attached, there is order (Ephesus to Laodicea in a Clockwise circle.) Does anyone know if there was significance to the order or are we looking for meaning where there isn't meaning intended?
      TIA,
      Bro. Richard

    • By MountainChristian
      “Commandments of God”
      This phrase only appears three times in the Authorized King James Version.
      The first time this phrase is used it was Apostle Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians. “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.”- 1Corinthians 7:19. How can Paul say keeping the commandments of God and not include circumcision?
      Let's do a little background work. Jehovah told Abraham to start the tradition of circumcision in Genesis 17, “And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.” Later in the Law Jehovah told Moses it was one of the commandments, in Leviticus 12:3, “And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.”
      So we see it was part of God's commandments in the Law, but was those commandments replaced by God?
      In the book of John 14:15 we see Jesus telling us to keep his commandments. “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” In John 14:21 Jesus said, “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.” Again in John 15:10 Jesus said, “If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.”
      How do we know what commandments Jesus gave us to follow? Acts 1:1-4 “The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.” 1 Corinthians 14:37 “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.” 1 Thessalonians 4:2 “For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus.”
      We see the phrase repeated the last two times by John in Revelation 12:17 “And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” Revelation 14:12 “Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.”
      The 1st time the phase appears Paul is telling us it's not the Law or Torah. The Apostles was Jewish and they taught and kept the commandments of Jesus as God. Jesus even told us he fulfilled the Father's and we should keep his commandments. In the Revelation verses John tells us the men are Christians but over and over men say those are Law commandments. So why do some writers of Christian/Jewish Eschatology say the verses in Revelation mean the Law or Torah? My Sunday school teacher has given me some books on eschatology but none of them explain their reasoning. He is on vacation so I thought I would ask you guys and gals.
    • By The Ohio Patriot
      I posted a few days ago in my status that I am currently studying the Book of Revelation for college, as well as preparing to teach this in my Sunday School class.  A few seemed interested in this topic so I am starting a thread to possibly discuss this.  I am several weeks into this study for college and this week will be my first week teaching this in Sunday School.  I teach the Berean Class, for adults, digging deeper into scripture. 
       
      I am posting this in the IFB area, and this forum is not open to you if you are not Independent Fundamental Baptist.  I do not mind disagreements or differences of opinions, but since I starting this forum, and I laying a few ground rules up front, I will not expect nor tolerate any arguing or abusive language towards other forum users.  If this happens and it is within my capability I will remove the offending parties from this topic.
       
      I would like in this thread to ask questions and put forth thoughts that are in either my college class and/or my Sunday School class.  In this way I will learn more, and also may find issues with items that I am teaching.  Hopefully, we will all learn something by pooling the hundreds (thousands perhaps if Jerry is included ) of years of biblical knowledge that is contained in the people present.  Any information that I present will only occur once I have completed that portion of the college class.  I don't want to be accused of having you kind folks helping me do my homework.    The course of this discussion will of course touch on many other prophetic books of scripture.
       
      A couple of points to remember. For my college class as well as for Sunday School the text book that is being used is The Book of Revelation by Clarence Larkin.  There may be things in this book that you or I personally do not agree with, however at least for college I have to formulate my answer according to that text.  Having this text book in not necessary for the use of this topic.  The book is however available on the web it was printed in 1919 I believe.  If this sounds interesting and you would like me to move forward with this topic let me know.
       
      The Book of Revelation - Clarence Larkin
       
      Edited to correct grammar and add link
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 25 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×
×
  • Create New...