Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All

$5.00

Introduction

Allegory, as both a literary device and an interpretive method, has sparked significant debate in Christian theology. While allegorical devices appear in Scripture, the practice of interpreting Scripture allegorically introduces significant risks. This article explores the distinctions between allegory as a literary device, allegorizing as an interpretive method, and the importance of adhering to the Historical-Grammatical method of biblical interpretation.

Understanding Allegory in Scripture

Allegory, in its proper sense, uses symbolic representations to convey immaterial truths. For example, Israel is portrayed as a vine in Psalm 80:8-9: “You brought a vine out of Egypt; you drove out the nations and planted it. You cleared the ground for it; it took deep root and filled the land.” Here, the vine symbolizes Israel, illustrating the nation’s dependence on Jehovah and His providence.

Similarly, Jesus refers to himself as the Good Shepherd in John 10:11-16: “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep… I am the good shepherd; I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father, and I lay down my life for the sheep.” This imagery conveys Jesus’ sacrificial love and intimate relationship with his followers.

In both examples, the allegory is explicit and readily understood in its cultural context. However, it is critical to differentiate this use of allegory from the interpretive method known as allegorizing.

The Danger of Allegorizing Scripture

Allegorizing Scripture seeks to find hidden meanings in the text that go beyond its plain, literal sense. This approach often reflects the interpreter’s subjective opinions rather than the intent of the original author.

The Greek Roots of Allegorizing
Allegorizing originated in ancient Greece, where philosophers such as Philo attempted to reconcile Greek mythology with philosophical ideals. Philo applied this method to Scripture, interpreting passages like Genesis 3:21, where Jehovah made garments of skins for Adam and Eve, as symbolic of the human body. Philo stated: “The real meaning, then, the garment of skins is a figurative expression for the natural skin, that is to say, our body.”

Similarly, Philo allegorized the geographical details of Genesis 2:10-14, claiming that the four rivers of Eden represent virtues: prudence, sobriety, fortitude, and justice. These interpretations impose meanings onto the text that are unsupported by its context or historical background.
Historical Rejection of Allegorizing
During the early centuries of Christianity, figures such as Origen, Jerome, and Augustine popularized allegorical interpretation, often blending it with Greek philosophy. However, this approach was later rejected by Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin, who emphasized the plain meaning of Scripture.

The Reformers understood that allegorizing undermines the authority of Scripture by making its meaning dependent on the interpreter’s imagination. As Calvin noted: “It is the first business of an interpreter to let his author say what he does say, instead of attributing to him what we think he ought to say.”

Biblical Examples of Allegory

Scripture itself occasionally uses allegory, but only under the guidance of divine inspiration. The apostle Paul employs allegory in Galatians 4:24-26: “Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.”

Paul’s allegory compares Hagar and Sarah to two covenants: the Mosaic covenant, which brings bondage, and the new covenant in Christ, which brings freedom. This interpretation is legitimate because it is inspired by the Holy Spirit. However, it should not be retroactively applied to Genesis as though the original author intended this meaning.

The Historical-Grammatical Method and the Limits of Allegory

The Historical-Grammatical method of interpretation focuses on understanding the text as its original audience would have understood it. This approach prioritizes the literal meaning of Scripture, taking into account its historical, cultural, and linguistic context.

Objective vs. Subjective Interpretation
Allegorical interpretation is inherently subjective, relying on the interpreter’s opinions and feelings. By contrast, the Historical-Grammatical method seeks an objective understanding based on verifiable facts. This distinction underscores why allegorical interpretation is unsuitable for modern Bible study.

As Paul reminds Timothy, Scripture is “breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). The clarity and authority of Scripture are best preserved when its plain meaning is emphasized.
The Role of the Holy Spirit
While inspired writers such as Paul were guided by the Holy Spirit to employ allegory, Christians today do not have the same inspiration. Instead, the Spirit guides believers through the Spirit-inspired Word of God. John 14:26 affirms that the Spirit would teach the apostles “all things” and bring to their remembrance all that Jesus said. This promise, however, applies specifically to the apostles, not to all Christians.

Understanding Scripture requires diligent study and adherence to its plain meaning, as exemplified by the Bereans who “examined the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so” (Acts 17:11).

The Theological Risks of Allegorical Interpretation

The subjective nature of allegorical interpretation allows interpreters to impose their own ideas onto the text, often distorting its original meaning. This approach has led to theological errors, such as the denial of the historical reality of Adam and Eve.

The Historical Adam
Some allegorists claim that Adam and Eve are fictional characters, representing humanity as a whole. This view undermines the biblical teaching on sin and redemption. Paul explicitly affirms the historicity of Adam in Romans 5:12-19, stating that “just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.”

The Historical-Grammatical method safeguards against such errors by affirming the plain meaning of Scripture.
The Authority of Scripture
Allegorical interpretation often elevates human opinion above the authority of God’s Word. As Isaiah 55:8-9 declares: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares Jehovah. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

Faithful interpretation recognizes the sufficiency and clarity of Scripture, allowing it to speak for itself.

Conclusion

While allegory has a legitimate place as a literary device in Scripture, its use as an interpretive method poses significant risks. Allegorical interpretation often reflects the interpreter’s subjective opinions rather than the inspired meaning of the text. By adhering to the Historical-Grammatical method, Christians can uphold the authority and clarity of Scripture, faithfully understanding and applying its teachings.

You May Also Enjoy

How Are We to Understand the New Testament Author’s Use of the Old Testament? [Full Article]

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).