To allegorize or interpret away the Scriptures that God intends to be taken literally is a reflection of what one really feels about the Word of God. The Pharisees were allegorizers of the Scriptures, and as a result, they were not only incapable of recognizing the truth of the Word of God standing right in front of them, but they also led the campaign to get rid of Him.
I agree. And to ignore clear instances of the New Testament instructing us by clearly "allegorizing" passages from the OT is, in fact, attempting to correct the Holy Spirit by saying "NO, you must interpret this LITERALLY." I prefer to let the bible itself teach me how to interpret it, as I think the Holy Spirit is more reliable as a teacher than Lewis Sperry Chafer.
As an addendum, the Pharisees did not, in fact, allegorize scripture. That was the Saducees, who were the "liberals" of the day. The Pharisees were quite the literalists. What that tells us is that no hermeneutic will safeguard against heresy, which is an issue of the heart. I belong to a denomination which is extremely heavy on orthodoxy. This is a good thing, as it goes. However, orthodoxy and attentiveness to strict theological precision will not warranty against a lapse into heresy. Again, that is the realm of the heart.
Figurative truth is just as true as literal truth. It does not imply a lack of respect for the scriptures to interpret obviously figurative language figuratively. For instance there are many references to "The Lamb" in the Revelation. Are we to take that as figurative language, or are we to worship an actual four legged animal?
Despite the obvious and necessary overall message of final victory, there are some things hard to understand about the book of Revelation. But it was simple and plain to the people it was addressed to, the early Christians of the seven churches of Asia. It was addressed to them, not to us. I wouldn't worry about fitting a 1st Century message into the 21st Century.