• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • Christian Forums is looking to bring on new moderators to the CF Staff Team! If you have been an active member of CF for at least three months with 200 posts during that time, you're eligible to apply! This is a great way to give back to CF and keep the forums running smoothly! If you're interested, you can submit your application here!

Old Testament Allegory

Ishraqiyun

Fanning the Divine Spark
Mar 22, 2011
4,882
169
Montsalvat
✟28,535.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
"You should know that the first book of Moses consists entirely of spiritual allegories. He who wants to know what such stories mean must figure in himself the old and the new man, and compare Christ and Adam (in him) with each other. He will then understand all that; but without this he will see merely a story for children: it being, however, so full of secrets, that no man could describe them all, from his childhood up to old age, even if he had come into the world with a full Comprehension of them.”
Jacob Boehme.

What do people make of this assertion? It seems in the early days of the Christian faith some people (Marcion for example) went so far as to reject the Old Testament as being unworthy of God. If taken literally the text was almost impossible to integrate with the picture of God given by the NT. Maybe this was because they lacked the proper hermeneutic to understand the Old Testament?

Franz Hartmann in his book ” Jacob Boehme , Personal Christianity a Science”explains it this way:

“Each individual man is a little world in itself, containing the types of everything that exists in the Macrocosm. A man may be regarded as being a whole kingdom full of many peoples and personalities.. Within himself is Moses and the Israelites, the Sadducees and the Pharisees, the patriarchs and the kingdom of heaven and hell. Thus the events described in the Bible, and looked upon by the pious as being things of a past history, are actually descriptions of eternal processes taking place in the constitution of man”
 
Last edited:

Ishraqiyun

Fanning the Divine Spark
Mar 22, 2011
4,882
169
Montsalvat
✟28,535.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
These three books by Arthur Versluis are probably the best place to start if you want to get into Boehme:



Wisdom's Children: A Christian Esoteric Tradition


Theosophia: Hidden Dimensions of Christianity

Wisdom's Book: The Sophia Anthology


These books are good as well but probably shouldn't be the first ones you read:
Science, Meaning, & Evolution: The Cosmology of Jacob Boehme



Gnostic Apocalypse: Jacob's Boehme's Haunted Narrative


With the exception of the Way to Christ Boehmes works can be really hard to understand. I still get really confused lol. He used basically every esoteric language from Alchemy to Kabbalah that he had available to explain his revelations. I would read these before you tackle his writings.

 
Upvote 0

Yarddog

Senior Contributor
Site Supporter
Jun 25, 2008
16,522
4,044
Louisville, Ky
✟975,629.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
"You should know that the first book of Moses consists entirely of spiritual allegories. He who wants to know what such stories mean must figure in himself the old and the new man, and compare Christ and Adam (in him) with each other. He will then understand all that; but without this he will see merely a story for children: it being, however, so full of secrets, that no man could describe them all, from his childhood up to old age, even if he had come into the world with a full Comprehension of them.”
Jacob Boehme.

What do people make of this assertion? It seems in the early days of the Christian faith some people (Marcion for example) went so far as to reject the Old Testament as being unworthy of God. If taken literally the text was almost impossible to integrate with the picture of God given by the NT. Maybe this was because they lacked the proper hermeneutic to understand the Old Testament?

Franz Hartmann in his book ” Jacob Boehme , Personal Christianity a Science”explains it this way:

“Each individual man is a little world in itself, containing the types of everything that exists in the Macrocosm. A man may be regarded as being a whole kingdom full of many peoples and personalities.. Within himself is Moses and the Israelites, the Sadducees and the Pharisees, the patriarchs and the kingdom of heaven and hell. Thus the events described in the Bible, and looked upon by the pious as being things of a past history, are actually descriptions of eternal processes taking place in the constitution of man”
I would agree with Genesis being full of allegories, as other, books are as well. Even talking the Bible as a whole, many can see their spiritual evolution played out in the transition from the Old to the New. His quotes are quite interesting.
 
Upvote 0

Ishraqiyun

Fanning the Divine Spark
Mar 22, 2011
4,882
169
Montsalvat
✟28,535.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
A little off topic but here some of Angelus Silesius' poetry:


"Go out and God comes in; die and you live in God;
Be not, it will be He, be still, God's plan is wrought.

Nothing raises you up as does annihilation;
the more brought low you are, the more divinization."

Should I my final goal and primal source discover,
I must myself in God and God in me recover
Becoming what He is: a shine within His shine,
A Word within His Word, by God be made divine...

The Virgin I must be and bring God forth from me,
Should ever I be granted divine felicity"
 
Upvote 0

Ishraqiyun

Fanning the Divine Spark
Mar 22, 2011
4,882
169
Montsalvat
✟28,535.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
A friend of mine just gave me a book "Origen, Spirit and Fire" and all I can says is WOW. Origen was able to discern the deep hidden mysteries of the Scripture. Either he was instructed in this by Clement of Alexandria or he was taught directly by the Holy Spirit. I'm surprised at how much he is willing to put in print. Often the early church fathers would only write about the outer aspects of the faith. Clement of Alexandria said that certain teachings are only given by word of mouth for example. Origen seems willing to express a little more in writing. I would have loved to sit at his feet and gone to his classes.
 
Upvote 0

file13

A wild boar has entered in the vineyard
Mar 17, 2010
1,443
178
Dallas, TX
✟24,952.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
The problem with allowing us to have an "abort button" is that there's no clearly defined guidelines as to when we can hit it. In other words, if we're allowed to declare one part of Scripture "allegorical," why not another? I mean, why Genesis but not the Gospels? I mean, why not make Jesus into a hero myth about a nice hippie who taught everyone to be excellent to each other and who just wanted his rug back?

But this idea of hitting the "allegory button" isn't simply an argument based on a slippery slope. If we allow an abort button, we must also clearly define when we can push the button, otherwise we have no basis for objective truth.

This is why evangelicals reject allegorical interpretation in general. Sure, different interpretations can be useful for spiritual plumbing of a text (i.e. as the Western church used to say the "historical or literal, allegorical, topological or moral, and analogical" meanings--litteralis allegoricus tropologicus anagogicus), but this should only be done after it's "normal" meaning is understood and never for determining sound doctrine. I.e. it's fine to read a psalm and come up with some allegorical understanding for your personal place in life as it relates to you personally if you've already understood the historical/literal meaning, but when it comes to doctrine, you just can't do that if you accept objective truth.

And that's the crux of the matter, do we believe in objective truth or not? If so, how do we know truth if anyone at any time can hit the "allegory" button on anything? It's a question of the inspiration of Scriptures which will color our entire relationship with God.
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,550
28,589
74
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,300.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Old Testament Allegory

Anyone know the equivalent hebrew word that is used in Galatian 4:24? Thanks

Galatian 4:24 which any/s is an allegory/allhgoroumena <238> (5746).
For these are the two Covenants, one indeed from mount Sinai into servitude generating, who-any is Hagar

238. allegoreo al-lay-gor-eh'-o from 243 and agoreo (to harangue (compare 58)); to allegorize:--be an allegory (the Greek word itself).

Allegory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Etymology

First attested in English 1382, the word allegory comes from Latin allegoria, the latinisation of the Greek &#7936;&#955;&#955;&#951;&#947;&#959;&#961;&#943;&#945; (allegoria), "veiled language, figurative",[1] from &#7940;&#955;&#955;&#959;&#962; (allos), "another, different"[2] + &#7936;&#947;&#959;&#961;&#949;&#973;&#969; (agoreuo), "to harangue, to speak in the assembly"[3] and that from &#7936;&#947;&#959;&#961;&#940; (agora), "assembly".[4]
 
Upvote 0

file13

A wild boar has entered in the vineyard
Mar 17, 2010
1,443
178
Dallas, TX
✟24,952.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Galatian 4:24 which any/s is an allegory/allhgoroumena <238> (5746).
For these are the two Covenants, one indeed from mount Sinai into servitude generating, who-any is Hagar

238. allegoreo al-lay-gor-eh'-o from 243 and agoreo (to harangue (compare 58)); to allegorize:--be an allegory (the Greek word itself).

You'll notice brother that I did not argue that allegory is always out of line. In fact I suggested just the contrary, that allegory can be useful, but only after we have clearly understood the historical and literal expression (which is why I appealed to the 'Dumb Ox').

What Paul is doing here in Galatians is exactly what I described. Paul clearly accepts the literal reality of Sarah and Hagar, that they were real women (as opposed to simply symbols) and that they were both woman "married" to Abraham, and that they both had children, and that one was cast away by Abraham. Paul accepts that these are all literal facts as he does that Adam and Eve were real people (as did Christ Himself). It is only after accepting this point that he draws on this situation as an allegory. Again, this is exactly the hermeneutical process that I was referring to. We can appeal to allegories, make analogies, and perhaps even find a moral message within Scripture which we never noticed--God's sneaky that way. But we can only realistically do so after we clearly understand it's literal and historical meaning, which is it's normal sense.

For example, when Scripture says, "Thou shalt not steal" can we really justify that when God says this, what he actually means is that it's ok to steal someone's car in some cases (especially if you're on a weed run and you're just borrowing it for awhile and will bring it back quickly...because there's like this allegory about this mouse who like totally was like so obsessed with HIS cheese that he forgot to share his cheese!)? :thumbsup:

You've got a great sense of humor brother so I hope you smell what I'm stepping in here. ;)
 
Upvote 0

martymonster

Veteran
Dec 15, 2006
3,435
938
✟202,095.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
"You should know that the first book of Moses consists entirely of spiritual allegories. He who wants to know what such stories mean must figure in himself the old and the new man, and compare Christ and Adam (in him) with each other. He will then understand all that; but without this he will see merely a story for children: it being, however, so full of secrets, that no man could describe them all, from his childhood up to old age, even if he had come into the world with a full Comprehension of them.”
Jacob Boehme.

What do people make of this assertion? It seems in the early days of the Christian faith some people (Marcion for example) went so far as to reject the Old Testament as being unworthy of God. If taken literally the text was almost impossible to integrate with the picture of God given by the NT. Maybe this was because they lacked the proper hermeneutic to understand the Old Testament?

Franz Hartmann in his book ” Jacob Boehme , Personal Christianity a Science”explains it this way:

“Each individual man is a little world in itself, containing the types of everything that exists in the Macrocosm. A man may be regarded as being a whole kingdom full of many peoples and personalities.. Within himself is Moses and the Israelites, the Sadducees and the Pharisees, the patriarchs and the kingdom of heaven and hell. Thus the events described in the Bible, and looked upon by the pious as being things of a past history, are actually descriptions of eternal processes taking place in the constitution of man”



Hi there Ishraqiyun, this is My kind of thread!

Jacob is sort of right when He says that the first book of Moses is all allegories.
I assume though that He thinks they are just allegories and never really happened.
Is that correct?

The truth of the matter is that the everything in the old testament really happened and it is all an allegory.
Actually I would call it a parable on account the Jesus taught in parables and He never changes.

The Bible is a bunch of parables that really happened and it was written by the master play write.
The people that those things happened to were the actors on a stage that they couldn't see with a script they didn't understand.

Here's what Paul had to say about it.


1Co 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.


The things that happened to those in the old testament happened so that We could understand who Christ really is.

Jacob is unfortunately wrong about merely being about to compare Adam to Christ to arrive at an understanding about what these things mean.

Christ is the only on Who hold the understanding of what these things mean and it is He Who must open our eyes to see and our ears to hear.
Hear is a couple of parables that describes exactly these to things.


Mar 8:22 And he cometh to Bethsaida; and they bring a blind man unto him, and besought him to touch him.
Mar 8:23 And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought.
Mar 8:24 And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees, walking.
Mar 8:25 After that he put his hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored, and saw every man clearly.


Mar 7:32 And they bring unto him one that was deaf, and had an impediment in his speech; and they beseech him to put his hand upon him.
Mar 7:33 And he took him aside from the multitude, and put his fingers into his ears, and he spit, and touched his tongue;
Mar 7:34 And looking up to heaven, he sighed, and saith unto him, Ephphatha, that is, Be opened.
Mar 7:35 And straightway his ears were opened, and the string of his tongue was loosed, and he spake plain.


Put these accounts together with ones like this then You start to understand.


Luk 7:22 Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached.


In this example a blind man is only a parable of us because We are blind and need to have our eyes opened by the only person who is able to open the seals on this very difficult book.


Rev 5:1 And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals.
Rev 5:2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?
Rev 5:3 And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.
Rev 5:4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.
Rev 5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.



We can read this book a million times and speak Hebrew and Greek fluently and it won't help us one bit because We a flesh and the book is spiritual and the flesh and the spirit a opposites.


1Co 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
1Co 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1Co 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
1Co 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.



It seems incomprehensible to the vast majority that the Bible is giant series of parables, but Christ has always taught in parables and that is the way it will be until He speaks to us plainly of the Father.


Joh 16:25 These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Ishraqiyun
Upvote 0

Ishraqiyun

Fanning the Divine Spark
Mar 22, 2011
4,882
169
Montsalvat
✟28,535.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The problem with allowing us to have an "abort button" i
It's not an abort button. It is the Holy Spirit guiding Christians into the "deep things of God". If that wasn't required then atheists would understand the Bible as well as Christians. This why only those with "ear to hear" can understand the Scripture. To others its a closed book and all they can do is obtain the most outward meanings.

If we allow an abort button, we must also clearly define when we can push the button, otherwise we have no basis for objective truth.
Whenever God gives us or others illumination.

And that's the crux of the matter, do we believe in objective truth or not?
I believe the truth is a Person and not an object. God isn't an object. The truth is gained through personal communion and not through the studying of an "object".
 
Upvote 0

Ishraqiyun

Fanning the Divine Spark
Mar 22, 2011
4,882
169
Montsalvat
✟28,535.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I assume though that He thinks they are just allegories and never really happened.
Is that correct?

I'm not sure about Jakob Boehme. I know Origen thought that some of them were real histories recorded because they also have spiritual and inward significance and that others never happened in the historical sense and were more like parables.
 
Upvote 0

Look Up

"What is unseen is eternal"
Jul 16, 2010
928
175
✟16,230.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
I would argue that Noah is a kind of Adam. That is because the text of Genesis gives a number of clues linking the two. That in itself, however, does not necessarily imply that one was a mere symbol or representation of the other without separate existence. At least Jesus appears to have regarded both as separate persons, each in his own right.

One could further argue that when Jacob left the land promised to Abraham for Padan Aram, his vision of the heavenly staircase occured at the border, signifying something heavenly about the Promised Land. But when Abraham went to live in the Negev, is that event necessarily representative of something greater than the event itself? Perhaps. All we are lacking is contextual clues.

One may then have a mystical experience leading the mystic to believe by secret knowledge, for example, that Abraham's travel to the Negev signified Jesus' pursuit, as the Good Shepherd, of the lost sheep or that it foreshadowed the curse upon the tribes of Israel at Kadesh Barnea to wander 40 years in the wilderness or that it meant that God wants the mystic to go on a certain trip.

Perhaps. The trouble comes that such mystical hermeneutics leaves one to question the value of language itself. Or if all the books of Moses are complete allegory (contrary apparently to what Jesus thought), at what points do symbols correspond with things symbolized? Why not a regression of symbols symbolizing other symbols? And on what basis does the reader interpret the relationship between the symbol and thing symbolized? If only the mystic knows, what is the point of using language with the non-mystic?

Granted, the text of Scripture itself gives examples of misunderstanding based either on faulty information or spiritual darkness (or willful blindness). But from the vantage point of the text, the misunderstanding itself is understood and plain.

Of course the "if the shoe fits" application is that we ourselves may have our own blindness, such as to the nature of God or to his demands upon our behavior and belief.

Allegory there may be and is. Misunderstanding there is. The hope of the church is in careful evaluation of what the text says and in the grace of the Spirit that guides her into a shared meaning of the text. And if Jesus is the Son of God and His word is the word of His Father, our hope is that the meaning of Scripture is truth: unique, unchanging, and universal truth.
 
Upvote 0

Ishraqiyun

Fanning the Divine Spark
Mar 22, 2011
4,882
169
Montsalvat
✟28,535.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Worrying about whether the truth of the bible is literal or allegory is a red herring. Truth is truth. Genesis is literal - just not historical.
True but the question still remains as to the best methods of inquiry into the truths pointed to in the Bible. Origen tended to speak of three major "levels" of exegesis corresponding roughly to the body, soul , and spirit of scripture. Literal, moral, and spiritual. The spiritual meaning is often found through allegory and anagogy (detecting allusions to heaven and the eschaton) guided by the Holy Spirit.

Origen writes:

Very many mistakes have been made because the right method of examining the holy texts has not been discovered by the greater number of readers... because it is their habit to follow the bare letter...

Scripture interweaves the imaginary with the historical, sometimes introducing what what is utterly impossible, sometimes what is possible but never occurred.. [The Word] has done the same with the Gospels and the writings of the Apostles; for not even they are purely historical, incidents which never occurred being interwove in the "corporeal" sense...

And who is so silly as to image that God, like a husbandman, planted a garden in Eden eastward, and put in it a tree of life which could be seen and felt... And if God is said to walking the garden in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that any one will doubt that these passages, by means of seeming history, through the incidents that never occurred, figuratively reveal certain mysteries.
 
Upvote 0

file13

A wild boar has entered in the vineyard
Mar 17, 2010
1,443
178
Dallas, TX
✟24,952.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
It's not an abort button. It is the Holy Spirit guiding Christians into the "deep things of God". If that wasn't required then atheists would understand the Bible as well as Christians. This why only those with "ear to hear" can understand the Scripture. To others its a closed book and all they can do is obtain the most outward meanings.

I understand your POV, but what I'm trying to do is show that the type of hermeneutic you're advocating here can lead to utter chaos if it's not kept within reasonable limits (like what St. Thomas suggests). My analogy of the abort button has to do with what priority you give to allegorical interpretations. If you give an allegorical interpretation the authority to determine one's doctrine, how can you know you're not arbitrarily "hitting the abort button" on any given passage of Scripture which you may not like? In other words if you don't like when Christ this in a parable says:
But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.
(Luke 19:27 ESV)
How do you know it's valid to say, for example, that "by slaughter, what is really being said here is that one will be placed in a purgative time out until one does accept Christ's rule over them...which itself really means that they'll learn to be excellent to each other and eventually everyone will be reconciled to God." Do I sound like Rob Bell here? ;)

You see, if we allow allegory to take the drivers seat in interpretation, how do we know we're not deceiving ourselves and actually twisting Scripture in whatever we "feel" like it should mean? If you appeal to the Holy Spirit, we then have to ask how one knows the Spirit is guiding one?

Whenever God gives us or others illumination.

As I just said, how do we know when God's guiding us or that others are illumined? This is what I was getting at and the problems with allowing allegory to be given the front seat when it comes to interpretation. How can we judge if any allegory is inspired or not given the wildly subjective nature of the practice?

I believe the truth is a Person and not an object. God isn't an object. The truth is gained through personal communion and not through the studying of an "object".

Huh? :confused: I think you missed my point entirely. I was contrasting objective truth against subjective truth. Objective truth says that torturing babies for fun is always wrong. Subjective truth allows one to say anything about torturing babies because there is no "objective" or absolute right or wrong associated with the act; it's all relative. E.g. If you like it then why not? If you've got the power, why not use it if you enjoy it?

The reason I'm asking this is because this question has a direct bearing on one's view of the inspiration of Scripture and thus one's hermeneutic.
 
Upvote 0

Ishraqiyun

Fanning the Divine Spark
Mar 22, 2011
4,882
169
Montsalvat
✟28,535.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I understand your POV, but what I'm trying to do is show that the type of hermeneutic you're advocating here can lead to utter chaos if it's not kept within reasonable limits (like what St. Thomas suggests). My analogy of the abort button has to do with what priority you give to allegorical interpretations. If you give an allegorical interpretation the authority to determine one's doctrine, how can you know you're not arbitrarily "hitting the abort button" on any given passage of Scripture which you may not like? In other words if you don't like when Christ this in a parable says:
I can also understand what you are getting at here. Adhering to the primacy of the "literal" understanding doesn't really give a surer footing though imo. How many denominations out there understand the Bible "literally" yet still come to conflicting conclusions on a variety of issues?

As I just said, how do we know when God's guiding us or that others are illumined?
A very legitimate question. Also a very hard question to properly answer. It involves things that are not easily described or communicated. I certainly recognize that human fallibility can still creep in. That a person could think they are being lead by the Spirit when that really isn't the case.

Fallibility can't be ruled out through a use of the literal hermenutic either though. I guess we have to pray, live the Christian life, search the Scripture earnestly , meditate on it, compare our understanding with that of Christians who went before us, and hope that the Lord will guide us. Without Divine guidance reading the Bible would be pointless anyway.

Huh?
confused.gif
I think you missed my point entirely. I was contrasting objective truth against subjective truth. Objective truth says that torturing babies for fun is always wrong. Subjective truth allows one to say anything about torturing babies because there is no "objective" or absolute right or wrong associated with the act; it's all relative. E.g. If you like it then why not? If you've got the power, why not use it if you enjoy it?
Sorry. I guess it wasn't that great of an answer. I've been reading some Christian existentialist writers and "objective" tends to have negative connotations for them. I've found their critique of "objectivism" very persuasive. I tend to view truth as Personal. Christ is truth and he is person. He relates to you and I as person and not object.

I'm sure what you were asking was if there is an intended meaning for every verse. My answer would be "yes". Some of these meanings can be universally applied to any Christian and some might be more personal.
 
Upvote 0

martymonster

Veteran
Dec 15, 2006
3,435
938
✟202,095.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Hi Ishraqiyun

If You are interested in understanding a bit more about this understanding of the old testament parables then there is a writter called Andrew Jukes who has a few books on the subject.
He died over a hundred years ago but He did have very good insight into the many symbols in the old testament.

Anyway, if Your interested Here is the link to the download of His collected works.

TLC - Download File, "Collected Works of Andrew Jukes"
 
Upvote 0