Tom Shepherd
Allegory uses a story as an extended metaphor to refer to spiritual truths outside the literal meaning of the text. One of the key words in this definition is uses. Allegory uses a story as a means to an end. It takes the story as a medium for expressing an idea entirely outside any literal his-torical meaning. In contrast, typology finds the fount of its meaning in the historical and sees a parallel in a later historical event. Allegory makes the story become a mere shell for the meaning poured into it. Allegory uses the story for its own purposes.
It does not matter whether the story used is historical or fictional, the concept of allegory always is to go beyond history to a higher meaning unconnected historically with the original story. As G. W. H. Lampe states in Essays on Typology: “Allegory differs radically from the kind of typology which rests upon the perception of actual historical fulfillment. The reason for this great difference is simply that allegory takes no account of history.”2
The story itself is not the center of attention, it is only a vehicle for expressing the higher spiritual reality. The focus resides in the interpret-er’s method rather than in the story itself. Thus, allegory is inherently an interpreter-focused genre rather than a textually focused genre. As Eta Linnemann notes,
An allegory cannot therefore be understood unless one knows not only the allegorical narrative but also the state of affairs to which it refers.
Anyone who does not have this key can read the words, but the deeper meaning is hidden from him. Allegories therefore may serve to transmit encoded information, which is only intelligible to the initiated.3
At this point it is useful to differentiate between allegory and allegorization. Allegory is the literary genre noted above that uses a story to impart a meaning outside of the literal meaning of the story itself. Allegorization is the process whereby texts that are clearly not allegorical in nature are taken to be allegories and new meanings derived from them, meanings which clearly were not part of the original intent of the author.4
The problem of allegorization is twofold—first, something not original to the text is read into it, and second, it can be difficult to apply an appropriate control for the process. The goal of exegesis is to understand and to explain what the original author sought to convey. Reading into a text something that was not the author’s intent is inappropriate for biblical interpretation.5 The second difficulty of finding an appropriate control for the process only exacerbates the problem via flights of fancy and principles of interpretation that can take the Bible captive to ideas opposed to even the most central teachings of the Word of God.
Some preachers use allegorization and thus give credence to this method that imposes meanings upon the text of Scripture rather than bringing out the meaning of the text. The three gifts of the magi—gold, frankincense, and myrrh—are allegorized into justification, sanctification, and glorification, The four anchors cast out from the boat that Paul was in on his way to Rome (Acts 27:29) are allegorized as salvation, the church, the home, and the family. The parable of the Good Samaritan becomes an allegory about humanity’s fall and restoration in the Gospel, with the beaten man being Adam, the robbers being the devil and his angels, the priest and Levite being the priesthood and the ministry of the OT, the good Samaritan being Christ, the donkey the incarnation, and the inn the Church.6
These are classic cases of allegorization. The text is used to teach some idea totally outside the original meaning and a non-historical meaning is imposed on the text by the interpreter. Rather than allowing the Word of God to use us, we turn it around and use it for our own purposes. This may seem innocent enough in pointing to foundational concepts of Scripture, or it may actually give the appearance of demonstrating a deeper spiritual meaning of Scripture, but the danger lies in an interpretive method that has few controls and that moves the point of focus from the intent of the original author to the interpreter’s concerns. This method really has no place in the pulpit. The Scriptures are full of truth! We need not use a method that undermines the authority of Scripture.
Do the Scriptures contain allegories as defined above? It is true that the Scriptures are full of metaphors. “You are the light of the world” (Matt 5:14), “The LORD is my shepherd” (Ps 23:1), “You are a garden spring, A well of fresh water, And streams flowing from Lebanon” (Song 4:15). But while the Scriptures are full of metaphors, they are not full of allegories. In the Bible metaphoric language usually comes in short bursts, even single words that color and enhance understanding within a literal context. It is much rarer to have an entire story that is metaphoric, and rarer still for the biblical writers to take a story and use it in the typical pattern of allegorization.
Galatians 4:21-31 is one of the clearest examples of allegory in Scripture. The apostle Paul writes in verses 21-26
Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother.
In verse 24 when Paul says “allegorically,” the term he uses is allegoroumena. This term can mean either “to speak or write allegorically,” or “to explain or interpret allegorically.”7 If the former is the case, then Paul is saying that Moses in Genesis wrote the story down as an allegory. If the latter is the case, then Paul is saying that he himself, in the first century A.D., is interpreting the passage allegorically; that is, he is doing allegorization. It appears that the second option is what is taking place since the apostle uses a passive form of the verb allēgoreō; that is to say, the story is “being interpreted allegorically.”8
But if this is the case, it seems our earlier rejection of allegorization needs to be re-examined. If the inspired apostle uses the method, is it inappropriate for today’s preacher? One answer is that the very fact of Paul’s inspiration places him in a different category from those of us who are not inspired and authorized by the Spirit to be such direct spokesmen and spokeswomen for God. We must be more cautious in our approach, lest we misapply and misinterpret Holy Writ. But such an answer does not satisfy completely, for it seems to separate us from the very process of explaining Scripture that the inspired text illustrates.
A more nuanced approach is to note more carefully just what type of allegorization the apostle uses and the probable setting in which he puts it to use. R. P. C. Hanson notes,
It seems reasonable to conclude, then that St Paul was quite ready to use allegory, … but that he employed this allegory [in Gal. 4] in a Palestinian rather than an Alexandrian tradition, and that in practice the bent of his thought lay so much towards typology rather than what we should strictly call allegory that he had in the course of his extant letters few occasions to indulge in allegory. His motives for using it were, as far as we can discover, far from being those of the Alexandrians, and especially Philo, who wanted by allegory to avoid the necessity of taking historical narrative seriously; Paul on the contrary used allegory as an aid to typology, a method of interpreting the Old Testament, which, however fanciful some of its forms may be, does at least regard history as something meaningful. It is significant that there is no typology in Philo whereas Paul is full of it.9
The important point we garner from Hanson is that Paul’s allegorization was of a type distinct from that of Philo, (and later Origen). Paul’s type of allegorization takes into account the historical situation, but here with a quite unusual twist, for he identifies the Sinai covenant with Hagar. This seems to be completely counterintuitive to the historical fact that the Jewish people were descendants of Sarah, not children of Hagar.
Here, the special situation under which Paul is writing comes into play. F. F. Bruce elaborates,
In the present ‘allegory’, however, there is a forcible inversion of the analogy which is unparalleled elsewhere in Paul. Whereas in other typological passages the OT account is left intact, the argument here is up against the historical fact that Isaac was the ancestor of the Jews, whereas Ishmael’s descendants were Gentiles. This unique clash between type and antitype demands an explanation, and a highly probable explanation has been put forward by C. K. Barrett … namely, that the incident of the two sons of Abraham had been adduced by Paul’s opponents in Galatia in support of their case, and that Paul felt obliged to refute their argument by inverting it and showing that the incident, properly understood, supported the gospel of free grace, with its antithesis between flesh and spirit.10
Thus, although Paul is employing allegorization, it is not of the type carried out by Philo or by allegorists in the Christian Church at a later time. The argument of Paul remains connected to history, but he makes a twist in the application of the stories of the two women in order to counter the argument of his opponents who may very well have been using the same stories to support their own viewpoint. Paul uses their own argument against them, illustrating that the true children of Abraham and Sarah are those who believe in righteousness by faith.
In summary we can say that allegory is rare in Scripture. It does occasionally appear, as in some of the parables of Jesus. But these parables are followed by the explanation of their metaphoric meaning. Paul does use allegory or allegorization rarely, but when he uses an allegory it stays connected to history. The use of allegorization today as a method to bring out a deeper, more spiritual sense of Scripture is unwarranted.
1. Determine That the Text is an Allegory—Most texts in the Bible are historical and should be taken literally, not allegorically. There are a few instances of allegory in Scripture. In most cases they are either identified as such or contain the clear markings of an allegory—a narrative with meanings attached to most of the elements of the story, as in the parable of Sower.
2. Look for Interpretive Clues in the Context—Often within the text of the allegory itself are indicators of linkages to the real world. Sometimes an interpretation is given within the same context that serves as a control on meaning (e.g., the parable of the Sower).
3. Confirm That the Interpretation is Consistent with the Themes and Theology of the Writer—Once an interpretation is determined for an allegory, it needs to be checked for consistency with the themes and theology of the writer and with the entire tenor of Scripture. This serves as a control over interpretations of allegory that can lead away from the writer’s intentions.
4. Avoid Allegorization—This method of interpretation takes Scripture hostage to our own sense of what the higher spiritual truths are that extend beyond the literal, historical meaning of Scripture. By indulging in this method, we move people away from the historical and the plain meaning of the Bible and encourage them to take its historical message less seriously.