The Allegorical Method

0:02 Looking at our world from a theological perspective. This is the Theology Central podcast, making Theology Central. I want to leave the word good out of this again. See I'm back to saying I can't use the word good, So I'm not going to say good evening. I'm just going to say welcome. And you know it started off so simple, right, Hey, when is an ax not an ax? And when is Israel not Israel? And when is land not land? I mean, those are very innocent questions, right, very simple. When is an axe not an ax? When is Israel not Israel?

0:44 And when is land not land? Very simple questions, right, And it has everything to do with biblical hermoneutics, everything to do with how we interpret the Bible. So I threw out those questions, and I was ready to have these questions answered because we were going to listen to someone doing a series on how to study the Bible explain to us the allegorical method of Bible study, or the I should state it this way, the allegorical method of Bible interpretation, not necessarily Bible study, but Bible interpretation, because study is more observational than it is being interpretation. Okay, but so we thought Okay, in my mind, it's very simple.

1:28 Let's listen to the allegorical method be explained. We'll take those principles, and then we'll look back at a passage that we've been struggling with and maybe we'll find some answers. And by the end, we didn't find answers. We found, I hate to say it, almost a complete misrepresentation of the allegorical method, which is kind of frustrating for me because I don't agree with the allegorical method, but now I'm here, I'm almost defending the allegorical method because of the accusations being made that anyone who holds to the allegorical method of Biblical interpretation they do it on purpose because they want to basically corrupt the text and they want to make it say what they want it to say, like almost as if they're evil, And I'm like, whoa, because someone has a different hermonudic than you, they're evil and you're going to go after their intent. I mean, it was crazy. So there's nothing good about now having to come back live on the air and try to turn this into something positive. So I'm not going to start with good evening. I'm not going to start With that, I'm just going to say welcome. I will tell you this.

2:40 It is Thursday, October seventeenth, twenty twenty four. It is currently eight thirty five pm Central Time, and I am coming to you live from the Theology Central Studio located right here in Abilene, Texas. Now I would be I mean, there is major baseball playoffs going on the Yankees just one and extra innings, and the Dodgers are playing, So I mean I would rather possibly be doing that, right would I mean? It's new music night. I would rather be maybe getting ready to what new music is going to drop. I would rather be reading. There's a lot of things I would rather be doing. But I feel like I have to be here to try to make something good out of out what turned so so negative.

3:26 And I hate I hate when a broadcast ends in a very negative way. I really do. I know. People think, well, you do sermon reviews, you want it to be negative. No, I don't. I do sermon reviews because I listened to sermons, and so I typically review what I've not listened to so that we can listen to it together and hopefully have a positive and uplifting experience. Oh but that did not work. So let me put this all together. Let me explain why we are here. Are you ready? That's very simple, It's very easy. I just ied to review a sermon that the text of that sermon was Second King's Chapter six, verses one through seven. And as soon as I saw the title, the title had something about don't lose your axe head or something along that line, don't lose your axe or something about that. But it definitely used the idea of the ax belonging to us, belonging to you, the axe has something to do with us, right, And immediately when I saw the title had ax or axe head in the title, and me I knew that, okay, taking the axe head, it's applying it to me. And if it's talking about an axe, it's almost I can almost predict the text is going to be Second King's Chapter six. Well, it turns out the sermon was on Second King's Chapter six, and it was very much proven that they decided to take the ax and make it all about us, and they basically just obliterated the historical narrative. Basically,

4:56 what they did is Second King's Chapter six is a story about a lost axehead, and the axehead represents, now, can't It just kept representing different things. They never would just settle on one thing. It represents our fellowship, It represents our effectiveness in doing God's work. It uh, it represents our passion and our zeal for God. They just kept adding to it. And even though, well, the axehead and the story is borrowed, they didn't. Then they tried to explain the borrowed, but only explained the borrow It just became maddening. But what was so frustrating is clearly what was being utilized is they were taking a text very much a historical narrative and immediately going with this represents this, and this represents this, and this represents this, which is very akin to, very similar to what we would refer to as the allegorical method of Biblical interpretation. Now, the church that was preaching it, I can guarantee you would say they are opposed to the allegorical method. They reject the allegorical method. But there they were utilizing at least some of the principles, some of the ideas in their preaching. And so sometimes the allegorical method is disguised as being something well, I'm not you know, I'm not using the allegorical method. I'm just saying, well, this represents this, and this represents this. Well, if this represents this and this represents this, then what are you doing. You can

6:28 change the wording, but you're saying that what it appears to be it actually is something else, which is very similar to the allegorical method. So let me read Second Kings Chapter six, verses one through seven. We've read this now countless times. We're gonna just do a little. I don't know how long I'm going. I'm gonna go until I feel like my brain can can relax for the rest of the evening. That's what I'm hoping to do, all right, this is from my own mental health. Are you ready? Second King's chapter six, starting in verse one, and the sons of the prophets said, unto Elisha, behold now, the place where we dwell with THEE is too straight for us. It's too small, it's too cramped, it's too crowded.

7:10 We need more space. First two, let us go, we pray thee unto Jordan, and take thence every man a beam, and let us make us a place there where we may dwell. And he answered, go ye, all right, this place is too crowded. We need more room. We want to go here, and we want to build a bigger place. Fine, you can go. And one said, be content, I pray thee and go with thy servants. And he answered, I will go. So they asked Elisha to come along with them. So he went with them verse four. And when they came to the Jordan, they cut down wood. But as one was felling a beam, his axehead, or let me read this correctly. But as one was felling a beam, the axe head fell into the water. And he cried.

7:57 And I said, alas, master, for it was borrowed. And the men of God said, where fell it? And he shoot him the place? And he cut down a stick and cast it in thither, and the iron did swim. Therefore said he take it upon thee, and he put on his hand, and he put out his hand, and he took it. Seven verses. Seven verses that have been used in thousands upon thousands upon thousands upon thousands upon thousands of hours of preachy, where sermon after sermon takes this text and goes full blown allegorical, even if they don't want to say it's allegorical, because all of a sudden Well, the work represents this, the wood represents this, the axe head represents this. Losing the axe head represents this, The water represents this. Putting the stick in the water represents this. The ox head floating represents this. And they just just throw in what it represents. Do they justify that it represents this. No, maybe they'll throw out a couple of cross references, and then everyone sitting in the congregation, everyone's sitting in the pews, are like, Wow, this is awesome. Wow, this represents this, This represents it. That's good preaching, pastor.

9:16 I've never seen that in the text, and you've never seen it in the text because it's not in the text. It's being imposed on the text. It may preach good, it may be interesting, it may be fascinating, it may be spiritual uplifting for you, but it's not as anything. It doesn't have anything to do with the actual text. So we reviewed a sermon that again just went crazy with it and say this represents this, this represents this. There was no justification, there was no explanation, just dogmatically asserted this is what it represents. And basically, if you disagreed with that, basically you were wrong, was the attitude.

9:58 Then we listened to a sermon that was like, well, they took it much more literal, and they gave us a sense of hope. Right. Well, then today I saw a message that's part of a series on how to study the Bible, and it was about the allegorical method. So my thought was, let's listen to it. They'll explain the allegorical method, and we'll take those principles and we'll show you how those principles are. What people are doing with Second Kings chapter six, even though they say they don't use the allegorical method, how that it would be fascinating, how that it would be interesting, how that it would be beneficial, And then that just turned into insanity. Their description of the allegorical method, on one hand, was somewhat correct when they were reading from a book, but then when they started trying to talk about it, they clearly don't understand what the allegorical method is. Next thing, you know, it's a rant against Calvinism and that Calvinism uses the allegorical method because they don't go with the word all meaning all, even though the word that has nothing to do with the allegorical method. That's about the meaning of a word, linguistics and the textual context and definition of work.

11:03 And then the next thing, you know, Calvinists gets their messages from the clouds and from the what is any It was just insane, and so I was I've just been frustrated all day. So here's what we're going to do. We're going to do a little work on Second Kings Chapter six, and a little work well, well, actually we're going to do everything is going to be a discussion about the allegorical method of Bible interpretation, right, but will utilize Second King six at least at the beginning. All right, Now, here's what I want to say. Every single Christian, every single Christian, has to accept and acknowledge this reality. You may not like it, it may make you uncomfortable, but it is a fact two thousand years of church history and Christians at this very moment still do not agree on how to interpret the Bible. Forget all of the different interpretations, forget the fact that we don't agree on anything philologically, doctrinally, and it's just it's just it's spiritual anarchy.

12:17 Everyone just interprets the text that's right in their own eyes. But the reality is we don't even agree on which method of hermeneutics, which system of hermautics we should even utilize. And even those who say they agree on the system, people will violate the system whenever they want. They'll say, we do not agree with the allegorical method, and then the next minute they're using the allegorical method. As we see with Second Kings chapter six, over and over and over and over door and I can go to other passages this when Jesus is on in the boat and the storm comes, right, how do how does pastors interpret that? Well, oh, this is I know, it's about Jesus and the boat and there's a storm, but the storms represent the troubles and trials in life, and the boat represents our life and we're going across the ocean. And the next thing you know, they just kind of go full blown allegorical and everyone, everyone in the pew is sitting in the pew will be like, amen, oh that was so great.

13:11 Jesus is in the boat with me during what are you talking about? That has nothing to do with that? And I could give you example after example where people do these crazy things. David killing Goliath is how do we slay the giants in our lives. I mean, it's just it's just a free for all. People read the Bible and just make up things, and that's what happens. So we just got to be willing to acknowledge that fact that Christians don't even agree on how to interpret the Bible, and they don't agree on any interpretation. But here's the frustration. Even though we don't agree on how to interpret the Bible, even though they're very little agreement and actual interpreting the Bible, everyone thinks that they're right.

14:00 Everyone thinks their interpretation is right, and everyone else's interpretation is wrong. It's like, I interpret the Bible this way, therefore I'm right, you're wrong, and so everyone thinks they're right in their own eyes. It's an absolute free for all. It's chaos, it's anarchy. And all you have to do to really grasp how bad the problem can be is just listen to countless sermons. Sometimes you'll listen to countless sermons and just like I just don't understand just listening to the sermons and reading things about Second Kings chapter six, verses one through seven, I don't even know. I have no clue what's going on. I have no clue, and I know that makes us uncomfortable, But we have to be willing to acknowledge that. He said, well, what should we do with that information? Probably should humble us, Probably should make us a little maybe a little bit more cautious.

14:55 And being so arrogant and judgmental and condemning and being so dogmatic that we have found the corner on truth right now. At the same time, you have to you got to argue for how you believe the text reads. You have to argue for interpretation. But I think some things we can be pretty dogmatic about. But I think, but I even then, though, we have to be willing, no matter how dogmatic we are at any given moment, we have to be willing at any given moment to change our position and to rethink it and to reconsider it, and to continue to try to find the truth. Right now, let's do this. When I see Second Kings chapter six, verses one through seven, and we start talking about all of the different interpretive methods and systems used to understand Second Kings chapter six, verses one through seven, I am transported back to when I was a student at the Family Radio School, of the Bible. Harold Camping was in charge. Now, if you know anything about Harold Camping, I mean to say this as nice as I can. He lost his ever living mind. Next thing you know, he's predicting that the world was going to end in nineteen ninety four.

16:11 Then he said the church age was over. Everyone has to leave their local church. If you stay in your local church, you've taken the mark of the beast. And it just got more and more bizarre and it got crazy. Now ultimately he had a stroke. He kind of repented to some level, apologized for a lot of the wrong predictions that he gave, and he ultimately passed away. And then Family Radio has now kind of transformed and well you can go see what Family Radio is today. But I was there during all of this. Now, before he started kind of losing his mind, it was very much a school that very much taught basically reformed theology. But he had a very specific system of hermeneutics when it comes to interpreting the Bible. And you really could trace if you wanted to see where his idea comes from, really goes back to origin, if we go back into early church history origin, and it also if you pick up the Catholic Catechism, or if you look up some of the documents put out by popes on biblical interpretation.

17:14 I had to write a paper on one of the documents that they released when I was working on a degree in Catholic theology. It sounds very similar to what would be presented even in the Catholic Church, right, that there was a system, and that basic system of hermeneutics was very present even within the Reformed world if we go back into church history. But Harold Camping's interpretation of Second Kings chapter six, verses one through seven, in a book known as First Principles of Bible Study follows his broader hermeneutical approach, which emphasizes multiple levels of meaning within scripture.

17:55 Multiple levels of meaning within scripture. Now that's key that you see scripture and you see the passage, but there's multiple levels of meaning. Here's level one, here's level two, here's level three, here's level four. Right, just giving you different numbers. They're just but there's multiple levels. Now. Some people like that idea, right because they can say, oh, you're a young Christian, or you're not as spiritual as I have. I have found level number four. Right, I have found level number five because I've really studied it in depth. Right, you see how this could lead to a little bit of spiritual pride. But okay, all right, this is very important. Harold Camping often focused on a typo logical or allegorical reading of biblical events. Did you hear that typological or allegorical? Now a lot of Christians love the idea of typology. Oh now, they say, They will say, I don't do the allegorical method, I just do typology. Well, I know those can be separated, but they're very much more linked together than I'll think a lot of people want to argue. I know people will say, no, no, you're not being accurate. I understand that you can draw a distinction. But when you go to the Bible and say well, this is a type of this, and this is a type of this, and this is a type of this, what you're saying is, well, the Bible has one level of meaning, it's a historical narrative, but there's

19:26 another level of meaning because it serves as a type. This represents this, and this represents this. Now, at times, is typology used in the Bible? I will say yes, you know when typology is being used. When you read something in the Old Testament and then you go to the New Testament and they take that story and they apply it to something else. They take the Passover and apply it to Christ. Well, now I've got a textual reason for now going back to the Old Testament saying, hmm, when I study the Passover, this is a type of Christ, because the New Testament tells me so. If the New Testament tells you this represents this, then you have a scriptural basis for understanding it from a typo, logical, or maybe even an allegorical way. But if the Bible does not tell you that it represents this and represents this, then it's just your own imagination or something you read someone saying somewhere in some commentary. That does not make it true. Just because it may seem to work, just because it's interesting, just because it makes everyone loves your sermon, does not mean it's a type. It's a type when the Bible shows you it's a type. If the Bible doesn't show you it's a type, you know what you can say. You could do this. You know I was reading this text and I know it's a historical narrative.

20:52 But I found some things interesting. Let's say if we were looking at Second Kings chapter six. We'll go back to Second King chapter six. You know, I found it interesting that it says that these men were in a straight that to dwell with the is too straight for us. Well, you know, the word straight is used this way, this way, this way, this way. I wonder if there's some kind of connection here, Like now you're using other scripture to try to maybe make an argument. Right, Well, you know it says that there were chopping down wood, or it says that the acts, well, the axe is used this many times and this to Now if you can draw some kind of textual but there you cannot be dogmatic.

21:33 What you can say is I just found this interesting that this and this, even though there's no textual basis for connecting them, it does seem kind of interesting. That's see, that's okay, that's Bible study. That's studying. That's doing odd. You're just making an observation. Hey, this word used here, it's used here. I think there's a possible connection. I don't know. But see that's different is when pastors are like, this person represents Christ and this represents Christ and this represents and you got nothing. He got literally zero in the New Testament that makes any of those connections or any claim. Well, then Howard who gave you the right to make that connection? Now? Harold Camping was famous for this.

22:18 It was typo logical, it was allegorical. So you could read anything and he'd be like, we'll see that represents this. Now. The one thing I will say about Harold Camping, and I think I can say this dogmatically, not only being a student and the school I probably listened and read everything the man. I probably listened to everything the man every taught and read every book he ever wrote. He typically tried to at least offer some scriptural justification. He would try to offer some and it would sound really good, right, it would sound really good. Now. The reason it would sound really good and I didn't understand this immediately at the time, but it would sound really good because he would only go to cross references that seemed to fit right.

22:59 He'd be like, hey, you see this, well over here, it's used this way. See that fits perfectly. But if you would just take the time to look up every reference to that particular thing, you'd be like, but it's also used thirteen other ways, so you ignored the other thirteen. You ignored twelve of them to pick this one and say, see there's a correlation. It sounds good, it preaches good, but that's just you picking and choosing versus that seemed to fit well. Ocean represents hell. We'll see this scripture here, see it works. But if we look up water or ocean, does it always mean that you see? It can become very very very very questionable. And you would have to be someone who looked up every reference to every single thing. Now, sometimes I thought Herold Camping brought out very interesting points.

23:50 There's times he did not, but it was very much typological or allegorical, And I think sometimes typeology or typological and allegorical are more related than people would like to admit. They want to separate them, saying I don't use allegory, I use typology, and I see what it really represents. Again, if you don't have the New Testament telling you it represents it, you're just making it up, or you're getting it from a book, or you're getting it from a sermon, and you're just not telling people where you got it from. And Second Kings, Chapter six verses one through seven. Harold Camping interpreted the floating axehead as a symbolic lesson about salvation and God's intervention in the believer's life. So Harold Camping will second King's chapter six. So basically it was something like this, No, I'm paraphrasing. It was something like this.

24:47 We try our best to work our way to salvation. We try to we're going to keep the law. We're gonna be good people. But if you try to work and you try to keep the law, you know, the only thing that's going to happen is we're going to be broken by the law. Something is going to break. You know why, because we cannot keep the law of God perfectly because we are sinners. We are sinners by nature, and we fell God internally, externally and thought word. Indeed, we're going to fell God. So while we're working, that's the cutting down the trees. Sooner or later we'll break ourself on the law. There's the axe head. It comes loose, it falls into the water. The water represents hell, and we sink in a sense, down to hell in our sin.

25:32 We have died. We die in our sin. But the stick put in the water that's Jesus Christ dying on the cross, and by his death beryl resurrection. We are resurrected to life and we're taken out of the grave, We're taken out of hell, and we are now used for God's glory. That's a very simplistic way of understanding it. Now, according to one source that described it, it described it this way. He saw Now, this is how one source describes Harold Camping's interpretation. I just went from my memory because I remember having to write a paper on this. He saw the lost axehead as representing humanity's lost spiritual condition, particularly due to sin Elisha's miraculous recovery of the axehead, is viewed as a symbol of God's power to restore what was lost spiritually. This could refer to the regeneration and salvation offered by Christ and Camping's framework, the passage is not just about a physical miracle, but also illustrates deeper spiritual truths regarding redemption and restoration. Now, this goes with Camping's idea that there were multiple levels. You had the historical level, and you had all but you always had this one level that basically you see the gospel in every passage. Like, you can take any passage and you can make it about the Gospel. You can make it about sinnersjudgment, Hell and salvation, and you could just

27:03 read it into any passage. Now, see that sounds so spiritual. You can get everyone in church to say amen to that. Oh, the Gospel is on every page. Amen. But that sounds so good. And you may even make it sound good, and it may even sound like it works. Here's the problem. You're imposing it on the text. Unless there's somewhere in the Bible that interprets that text as being about the Gospel or picturing salvation, you're just imposing it. Camping's broader principle in his book, Stretch stresses that scripture often contains multiple layers of meaning, and he applies this to many narratives, including this one. He suggests that events in the Old Testament often prefigure spiritual realities under the New Covenant. However, his method off of interpretation has been critiqued for being overly all agoor goal and speculative. Is speculative. It's allegorical and speculative. What does that mean. It's it's speculation. You're just speculative. That's I guess that's the right that's the right way to say it. It's speculative. Okay, I'm sorry, can't speak correct. It's allegorical and speculative. It's you're you're you're just speculating. You're just guessing, and speculative is not the way to do hermoneutics. You don't just go to the text and it's it's it's kind of you're just it's speculative. You're just kind of guessing. You're just kind of reading and making it up. Now, you can make

28:34 it sound good. The the better look, the more authoritative the Bible teacher can be, the more interesting he can present it, the more creative he can be, and how he structures it, he can he can have people on the edge of their seat and he can be and people will be like, I have never seen this before. Wow, this is awesome. Yeah, it's awesome. Speculative, it's imaginary, it's made up. It's being placed on the text. It may sound good, but sounding good is not the way we judge the teaching on the Bible. It's based off what the text says. But again, allegorical and speculative critics argue that while there may be spiritual lessons in the text.

29:24 It is important to anchor interpretations in the historical and immediate context of the passage. Let me read it again. It is important to anchor the interpretations in the historical and immediate context of the passage. Your interpretation must be anchored in the historical and immediate context, not the quote unquote spiritual, speculative and imaginary historical. It must be there and context. That's what it must be anchored too. Now here's the problem. When you anchor it to the history and the context, it may not be as fun to preach.

30:07 It may not be as exciting. I mean, what's more exciting? Ooh, Second Kings, Chapter six. Guys, I know you've read this a million times, but you know what you've missed so much because it's deeper than what you thought. You thought. It's just a story about a guy who lost an ax head that he borrowed, and he was upset because he lost this thing that's very valuable, and then through this miracle, he gets it back and he saved the day. No, no, no, this is a picture of salvation. And everybody's like ooh, now it sounds spiritual, sounds godly, but it's allegorical and speculative unless you've got some good cross referencing that would lend credence to it. Harold Camping's interpretation of Second Kings focuses on a deeper spiritual meaning and often use this typology.

31:08 If you look at basically how he would approach this, he would do it this way. When it comes to typology and allegory, Camping often drew from passages that reflected themes of redemption and restorations, such as Luke Chapter fifteen, verses four through seven, parables of the Lost Sheep, likely to symbolize how God seeks and restores what is lost, similar to how the axehead was restored. So what he would do. He would go to these parables where God seeks to save that which is lost, and the axe head was lost. See see see how they fit who the axe head was lost? Wait, now, let's go to the New Testament. Jesus comes to seek and to save that which has lost. There's the lost coin, there's the loss of you know sheep, there's the loss this, there's the los see see And everybody's like, oh, yes see see he did cross referencing. He did ross referencing. It has to be true. That's just randomly connecting passages together.

32:06 That's not cross referencing. Has to have there has to be an actual connection. You just don't be like, well, the lost an axe head, so that applies to that connects to any verse in the Bible that talks about something being lost. And because there's these other passages about him seeking and saving what is lost, then we're just gonna immediately connect it to a lost axe head just because the idea of being lost is said. Now. See, you can be tempted to do that, I understand, but there's no actual textual basis for doing so. Romans five, eight through ten. This could represent the restoration of sinners through God's grace, reflecting the recovery of the axe head. So then he would go to Romans five.

32:46 If you go to Romans five. Here, God, I'm gonna mark this. I'm gonna mark second King six. If you go to Romans five. But God commended his love towards us that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us much more than being now justified by his blood, We shall be saved from the wrath through him. For if when we were enemies. We were reconciled to God by the death of his son. Much more being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. Jesus died while we were sinners. Well, we were lost, we were dead, we were submerged under the wrath of God. He died for us, and that's the stick being put in the water. Then he may say something like Ezekiel thirty six twenty six. The promise of God giving a new heart and a new spirit might be connected allegorically to the restoration and a spiritual sins. Now, again, what do you do when they go to Ezekiel thirty six.

33:40 We've talked about this a million times. Now, Israel isn't Israel, and land isn't land. So but you go there and you just grab it, and then I'll go back to Second King's chapter six and you just start connecting things. Now, the reason this is so effective in preaching is because the people sitting in the pew you're camping, would you know, have you turned to all these passages? So you're turning this passage and you're turning to this passage. There was no showmanship under Camping's teaching, kind of very monotone. He wasn't dramatic, but so you just felt like, I'm getting the Bible. You're not getting some you know, big show and movie clips and a drama, and you know, a concert is just this older gentleman in a very monotone voice, and you're going from scripture to scripture to scripture to scripture to scripture to scripture to scripture. By the time he's done, you've probably looked at forty cross references and you're like, wow, we studied the Bible. How you just randomly connected dots. So he would use typology and allegory.

34:49 He would go to the symbolism of water. He did this constantly. Water often symbolizes chaos, death, or judgment, and Biblical typology see this is what see it fell into the water. Well, this is chaos, this is death, this is judgment. He would quote things like Isaiah forty three to two. This speaks of passing through waters but not being overwhelmed, which might serve to support the idea of God's intervention and life threatening or troubling situations. Exodus fourteen twenty one through thirty one, The crossing of the Red Sea another instance where God miraculously controls water to save his people might be paralleled in this miraculous retrieval of the axe head. So water is used. Here is judgment because it drowned. You got a Genesis six. How did God judge the world a flood? How did he destroy the Egyptian army? Water? And so he may go water is chaos, water is judgment, water is hell. Well, we submerge into this chaos, this death, this judgment, but we are redeemed by Jesus Christ, redeeming what is lost. He may go to John chapter six thirty nine through forty.

35:55 Jesus refers to not losing anything that the Father has given him, which could be metaphorically linked the restoration of the lost axe head. Camping typically viewed such passages as hidden meanings that point to spiritual truths about salvation, restoration, or divine intervention. And that's how someone would use the type of topological allegorical allegorical. It's subjective, it's it's it's so it can sound so spiritual, though, and we have to be on the lookout for that type of thing in preaching. We have to be. And so what was so frustrating is when you're listening to a series on how to study the Bible, and they're going to tell you about the allegorical method, and they just turned into a rant about Calvinism. And then they just accuse people using the allegorical method of basically, you know, doing it on purpose and they have evil intent. Look, I don't believe Camping had evil intent with his methodology. I don't.

37:00 I believe he was flawed. I believe he was wrong. It sounded good, it sounded godly. I definitely got into it to a certain degree. But it also is rooted very much in church history, going back to origin, and it became the dominant interpretive method and having different levels of meaning. I mean, that was common throughout all of church history. It's still very present. Even if I open up the Catholic Catechism and look on sections in the Catechism about how to interpret the Bible, those same layers are there. It is common in church history. Camping was very much rooted in Church history in his hermeneutical method.

37:42 Others strongly disagree with that method. But the point is is, I don't think anyone has al terror or motives or evil is working for Satan. It's just they're approaching the scripture one way and this person is approaching scripture the other way. Now, on one hand, that drives me crazy, because we should all approach it the same way. And let me make it very clear, Camping's approach was fascinating to listen to. Every time he would teach, I'd be like, Okay, where are we going? All right? Ooh, this is gonna be fine. Okay, all right, So and so I'd have my notes down. This represents this, this represents this, This represents this, this represents this, this represents this, and I'd be like, how is he seeing this? How will I ever be able to teach this way? This is crazy, This is fascinating, this is awesome. I'm like, I'm gonna save every one of these notes and use it constantly.

38:36 And it showed up in my preaching early on. But at some point I had to go, hmm, this just isn't working. This is just problematic. Now, typological, allegorical, very much, very subjective, right, very much linked together. So let's do this. Let's just and I'm not going to go too long here. I just wanted to get the how Camping would have handled it right, and and people would could criticize camping, but then do you criticize the other sermon that we listened to where the acts had represented fellowship or power or this or that, Like it just became and guess what, and campings and and camp and and and no matter which way you go, it's all just very subjective. That's the thing. It's subjective. It's it's it's just not based on anything other than the person's own imagination. If you're going to condemn one, you're going to condemn the other.

39:39 To me, any approach that goes to a text like Second King's chapter six, and it's just start saying this represents this, and this represents this. You've got to give me something solid for your reasoning other than I was looking at a philological discussion board and they were arguing about Second King Chapter six, and many will like, well the reformers said it this way, and basically argued, well, if the reformer said it that way, that's the way we should go, and which that kind of makes a magisterial a magisterial argument, right that they're right and we just have to follow them. And so someone I wish I would have copied it just gave this like utterly ridiculous interpretation, just saying this represents this, and this represents this, and it was like totally absurd and well people you know, basically criticize it. And he was like, well, why is my well, because it's not. The reformers didn't think this way or these It doesn't matter. If everyone could just go to the text and make it say whatever they wanted to say, how can you say my absurd way is wrong? That's the point it becomes subjective. It becomes just a free for all. The typological very much connected to the allegorical. You're just going to passage going well, this represents this. Now people will do the same with Joseph.

40:59 Joseph's is a type of Christ. It preaches good. You can make that dogmatic assertion unless you've got something in the New Testament that tells you that what can you do? You can say, well, if you look at some things about Joseph, there is some similarities to the life of Christ. Here's what we find. Now, that's just doing observation. I am observing similarities. You're not saying it's a type. You're not saying it's a picture. You're like, have you ever noticed these similarities. That's observational study. That's perfectly Okay, Hey, did you notice this and this? Do you see this correlation? Do you? Or do you see this connection? Do you see the similarity? Now, you're not making a dogmatic assertion.

41:46 Sometimes it's just completely made up. So let's at least consider a definition for the allegorical method, all right, The allegorical method of biblical interpretation as a way of understanding scripture by looking for deeper symbolic meanings beyond the literal or historical sense of the text. So they would say, you have the literal, historical meaning, but below it, there's something deeper, there's something spiritual, and you've got to find it. You've got to dig. And when you find it, it's amazing. See that sounds so spiritual, right, that sounds so awesome.

42:30 In this method, various elements of the Bible story or the Biblical stories, such as characters, events, or places, are seen as representing broader spiritual truths or theological concepts often connected to Christ or the Church or aspects of the Christian faith. So I want you to hear that again. When you take this approach, what do you have? You have a character, you can have a character like Joseph or someone in the Bible. You can have an event right like David killing Goliath or the parting of the Red Sea. Example. You could have a place, oh, this place, and then the next thing, you know, you say, this represents this spiritual truth, this pollological concept, or represents Christ, or represents the Church, or it represents aspects of the Christian faith. Now preachers love doing this. Now again, if I got something in the New Testament that draws the correlation, draws the connection, then you are free to go crazy with it. Right, And you know what I'm saying is you're now given freedom. But if you go to the New Testament, you're like man, that's never even mentioned. There's no correlation, there's no connection. Then that means how about slow down. This approach suggests that many passages in scripture, especially in the Old Testament, contain hidden spiritual lessons or typological meanings that go beyond their straightforardaras or doctrinal content.

44:01 The goal is to uncover these deeper meanings, which are believed to convey timeless truths about God, salvation, and the Christian life. See the good stuff is hidden. Now see this sounds good when you're teaching on how to study the Bible. Oh you really want to drive this home, right, because you're trying to convince everyone they need to study the Bible. So what do you do? You show them? You see this text? What do you think it means? Everybody's like, well, I don't know. It just means that, Oh you missed it. See you didn't realize that the axead represents, you know, someone trying to serve God by keeping the law. And then the axe head comes off because we can't keep the law. And then they fall into the water, which is judgment, is death, is chaos, it's the wrath of God. But then the stick represents Christ. And then everyone to be sitting there going wow, and you're like, yeah, that's why you need to learn to study the Bible, because you can just read it and see the surface. But the truth, the good stuff, lies underneath the surface. So you've got to learn how to find the deep meaning. See that's very good to use when you're trying to convince everyone that they need to listen to you teach them how to study the Bible. It sounds good. For example, some who may use the allegorical interpretation, the Garden of Eden symbolizes the human soul and its relationship with God. Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt is an allegory for Christ's leading humanity out of sin. The Promised Land is

45:32 a symbol of Heaven or the final state of the redeemed, allegory that can thus turn a concrete historical event or figure into a symbol of a greater spiritual reality. This method has been used by influential Christian thinkers, particularly in the Alexandrian tradition, and was systematized with approaches like the fourfold sense of scripture, literal, allegorical, moral, and anagog gogical in the mid and Medieval theology. So though, and we can get into that fourfold sense literal, allegorical, moral, and anagogical, and we could explain what anagogical is, and we could get into all of that, and I and look, that's straight out of my hermoneutics class from Catholic from a Catholic school, from a Catholic university, when I'm working on a DeGrand Catholic theology. But it also is very much a part of camping system, very much going all the way back to origin and throughout much of church history. Now, I could go through the entire history here. I could go through the entire history.

46:41 And I have it all right here. But what do we do I want to go? I think I'll stop there. I think I'll stop there because I want to get to the principles and instructions of exactly how to do the allegorical and we will we will get to that. Maybe tomorrow, we'll get to that. Maybe tomorrow, maybe the weekend. I need to do some of this at church, is what I need to do. But I just wanted you to see that the the typological typological allegorical is very subjective. I think we can all agree with that, and I just want to try to show you that you may go to a church that does not believe in the allegorical method. They would condemn it all day, but just wait to see how it shows up in sermon after sermon after sermon after sermon after sermon, and he's just like, well wait, this, this is this, and this, how are you getting that?

47:45 And the real And they'll say they'll say, no, no, no, I'm just using application. Well you're but you're still taking the text that's about this and you're making it about this, you're adding meaning there, And they'll say, and you can play all the semantics. What I'm not using allegory or allegorical method or I'm not using typology. I'm just applying it. Well, applying it is what is the lesson in the text? Now, how does that apply to me? It's not going to the text saying well, Jesus in the boat is Jesus in our life. The storm represents trial and trouble, ocean represents us. Selling across the ocean represents our life. Like no, that's when it gets all just crazy. People do the same thing with parables. You start trying to make every little part of the parable represent this and represent that. Now, if the parable is interpreted and says this represents this and this represents this, then okay, now you have a biblical reason to say it's interprets that. Many cases we'll go beyond what the Bible actually says. And remember, for a parable, the idea is there's one major lesson. It's not what everything represents. It's about what the lesson is.

48:54 And sometimes we'll lose the lesson because we're trying to make everything interpret everything, and it just becomes problematic When we open the Bible. The best thing to do is understand it as literal as we can based off the genre of literature that we are reading. Unless we are given some clear clue that waits, something else may be going on here and I can understand. And second King six, you may be tempted to go, hmm, something else is going on here that seems like a weird text. But is it? Because it's been just a doesn't it fall into a narrative of miracles and it's just another one?

49:37 You say, well, this miracle doesn't really compare to the others. Maybe that's the point, right, But what we need something deeper in most cases, But someone who uses the allegorical as someone who does don't used the allegorical, we can't judge the intent of the heart as they're doing it to be deceptive, deceitful, simply because they want the Bible to say what they want it to say. We can all make the Bible say what we want it to say, no matter what method or hermoneutical method we utilize. That's because we're sinners. We all have a tendency to do that.

50:22 Different hermeneutical systems are there because that's typically the way people have been taught. That's the system they were raised in, that's the system they were saved in. That's the system they were taught. What we have to come to the conclusion is, Wow, nobody agrees on which system. I think everyone's desire, at least to some level, is to try to understand the Bible and your understanding of the Bible. If you already have the understanding, you typically are going to chose the hermonutics that agree with that understanding. Correct.

51:03 A lot of times you're told this is what the Bible means before you're taught hermeneutics. Think about your Christian life. You weren't taught hermeneutics. First. You were taught this, this, this means this, this is this, this is what you believe. You were taught everything to believe and what passages mean way before you were ever taught which hermeneutical method helped your church arrive at that conclusion. You were taught the conclusion, and then maybe later on you were taught the method. Well, you were taught the method after you're already told this is what it means. So now obviously you're not going to question the method because the method agrees with everything that you've been taught. I mean, you rarely become a Christian, Like, okay, before we tell you what anything means in the Bible, We're not going to tell you one thing until you learn hermeneutics. Here are the different hermeneutical systems. Here's the one we utilize, and this is the one we think is right. Now we're going to tell you what everything means. No, you're not. You're just told what's everything means, and then you're taught the system that will lead you to that conclusion, because a different hermoneutical system will not lead you to the same conclusion. So in some ways, it's kind of like, you know, it's a little bit the game is rigged. Hey, this is what the Bible means. Oh, and this is this is the way you interpret the Bible, which will just happen. I know it's going to be shocking. That's going to lead you to that conclusion that's kind of messed up, all right. I don't know if that offered

52:41 any help, but it just showed you how Camping handled it a little bit about how to actually define it. Just remember, if I go back to it, typically, especially if we go back to the early Church, that there was like this four levels, right, the literal, the allegorical, the moral, and the anagogical. And the anagogical basically deals with eschatology. When you look at it from an at the anagogical level, you're looking for what does this mean for the future. Think of it that way, right, and if I'm if I'm remembering the word correctly, that's how it's pronounced anagogical. Sometimes you may. Call it estological or eschatology or just future literal, allegorical moral.

53:27 Typically you go literal moral, allegorical, anagogical, I think is typically the way it's broken down. If I remember literal, sometimes literal be historical. But just know that in the allegorical method there's multiple levels of meaning. Even if you go typology, you're doing the same thing. Hey, there's the literal historical meaning, right, it's it's this city, but the city represents this, this, this, this, this, there's a deeper level. That's great if you've got some clear scriptural justification for it.

54:09 But just remember just because someone is in a city, right and that city is talked about this way, you still got to be careful how you draw the you connect the dots. Scripturally, people will connect dots and it's kind of like, how are you connecting that? It looks like, you know, when you see in a movie some crazy conspiratorial person down in the basement, you know, and they got the big thing on the wall with all the strings drawn to this and this and all these news articles. And sometimes it's how Christians, I think, do hermonidicts. Oh look, look this connects here, and this connects here and this connects here. And it's like, I know, you think cross referencing is great, but you're just randomly cross referencing things with no real justification for the cross reference. All right, fifty four minutes. I don't know if any of that's beneficial.

55:02 I don't know. I don't even know if it made my mind feel better, But I know this, what we just did was a far better discussion of the allegorical method than what I got so frustrated reviewing earlier. And I don't say that, and I'm not trying to be negative, but I'm just saying, we've actually now got into we got an example of the allegorical method with Second King six and how Harold Camping handled it right, We literally got an example of it and how he used scripture to try to justify it. Right, And at the same time, we're not just making an accusation that he was evil and just wanted No I disagree, I think he was wrong.

55:42 You don't have to just start making accusations of someone's motives at whom you've never you don't even know, and that's just so oh, I can't stand that in Christianity sometimes. And what's weird is I'm opposed to the allegorical method, but I found myself having to try to defend the allegorical method because it was being misrepresented. That's that's a weird place to be, right, But you know what, we should always be willing to defend any system that's being misrepresented, because Christianity should not be about misrepresenting, bearing false witness and making false accusations. If I hear someone saying whacked out things about Satanists, which around this time of year, you'll hear somebody saying crazy things about Satanism and Satanists, and it'll be like, what form of Satanism are you even talking about? You're talking about Anton LaVey, the Church of Satan because you don't you obviously never read the Satanic Bible written by Anton Lave Because you've made nine hundred false assumptions and accusations. You're bearing false witness. That's wrong.

56:44 So then I find myself in the weird case of defending Satanism. But I don't care if it's Mormonism, Islam, Satanism, Atheism. If it's being misrepresented and we're bearing false witness and we're making false accusations and we're and we're judging motives which whom which we cannot, then someone's got to speak up and go no, no, no, no, no no no. I disagree with these guys, but I'm going to defend them in this case because you're not being fair. And I hope someone would do that for me, and I would do that for you. Even Look, I hate charismatic theology with every ounce of my being. I loathe charismatic theology.

57:25 But if someone's misrepresenting it, I hope I would try to defend it. As much as I hate it. I hate. I probably hate charismatic I know I do. I hate charismatic theology more than I hate Satanism, all right, because Satanism is well the Anton LaVey form is atheistic. It's just basically a form of atheism where you basically are worshiping yourself. Well, as much as I disagree with it, charismatic theology I think is just is well yeah, oh man, I could go all day on that, but again you would want to correctly. Same thing with why did I pursue a degree in Catholic theology because I got tired of hearing so called non Catholics criticized Catholicism, demonstrating they have no idea what they're referring to, misrepresenting it. And then at the same time, when they preach about salvation, they almost preach a Catholic understanding of an infused righteous salvation versus an imputed righteousness, while they yet claim they believe in imputed righteousness, yet then judge imputed righteousness based off action. You can't judge imputed righteousness off action. And it's like, no, you're more Catholic than Catholics, and yet you criticize Catholicism. Go figure, Even though I disagree with Catholicism, I won't defend it if it's being misrepresented. So I don't agree with the allegorical method, but I'm not going to impugne their character and say they're doing it because they're evil and they just want.

58:45 To corrupt scripture. I think Carol Camping was wrong. I think he did a lot of damage. I mean, he told people to leave their churches and if they stayed, they would be taking the mark of the beast. I mean, I completely condemn that, But I believe he thought in his mind, based off his crazy allegorical interpretation of the Book of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, that he was onto something. His harmoneudic was wrong and it led to our wrong conclusion that I think was very harmful in damaging. I think he thought he was just studying the Bible. He was just trying to figure it out. And it just shows you that the Bible is somewhat dangerous, even though we don't want to admit that, because you can start trying your best to understand it. Next thing, you know, you're believing some something that you know, like, how did you end up there? You could argue that Camping was just trying to be very maybe consistent with this allegorical typological system. Now, others may use a little bit of typology and a little bit of allegory. But see they don't go very far with it. They just use it at certain times and then abandon it in other times. Right, so they'll be like second King six, they'll go four full blown

1:00:15 typology and allegorical, but then a next you know this passage, they'll go much more literal. Okay, that's just being a little bit more inconsistent. Well, what happens if you go all in with a allegorical typological Well then well, camping, you could say, just went too far. Well okay, but going too far isn't because you have some evil motive. It just means you're taking a system and well, I don't know how you ended up there, but I mean that can happen to any of us. Right, all right, that hopefully that ended much more positive than the last one. The last one was such a disaster. But all right, there we go. We'll continue to talk about the allegorical method, we'll do a little bit more work. All of this.

1:01:02 You may hear all of this repeated on Sunday is what you may hear a lot of this repeated on Sunday in a sermon form. I don't know, I just there's a lot of get a lot of frustration dealing with some of these issues. All right, thanks for listening. Everyone, have a great evening, and let's go Dodgers. All right, just joking because I'm going to go check the baseball game right now. All right, everyone, have a great night. God bless