An Analysis of Allegorical Interpretation in Hermeneutics

Gordon Lynn Vogel

Introduction to Theology Dr. Tim Crutcher March 14, 2012

Many passages in Scripture can be interpreted in more than one way. Deciding the proper way to interpret scripture is often a daunting task. When looking at a passage of Scripture, Biblical interpreters tend to default to one of two hermeneutical styles: Literal or Allegorical. What I hope to accomplish with this paper is to briefly describe hermeneutics and specifically a component of hermeneutics called allegorical interpretation; discuss why, when, and how allegorical interpretation is and has been used; and analyze examples of what I deem to be good and bad uses of allegorical interpretation, as well as the consequences and implications thereof. Hermeneutics can be defined as "the science of interpretation, esp. of Scripture" (hermeneutics). It is described as a science because over the years, people have developed a systematic method of interpretation that can be applied to any given passage. This method has many different components, including textual criticism, historical context, translation, and exegesis, all being brought to bear on how one interprets Scripture. However, just as often as hermeneutics is described as a science, it is spoken of as an art. This is because, as stated above, Scripture can be interpreted in different ways by different people. It is very obvious when looking at the early church fathers that they held Scripture to be of highest regard. Some have gone so far as to say that anything that men can know can be learned from the Bible. "Whatever there is in the Sacred Scriptures, whatever the human tongue can speak and the understanding of mortals can accept is contained in this volume." (Ramsey 24) Although not every realm of human thought is contained in the Bible (take electricity, for example), there is contained in this "volume" every idea and thought that man requires to maintain a relationship with God. If this is the case, we must be able to be both rigid in our application of tried and true methods, but flexible enough to know that there might be more to a passage than our initial interpretation. This is where an allegorical interpretation comes into play. Allegory can be defined as "a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms; figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another" (allegory). Essentially, what many theologians (notably several early church fathers) have recognized is that there can be at least two layers, or levels, of Scripture. The first is a very obvious layer, which is contained in the words of the text. This "literal" layer contains the information one might get with a cursory reading of a passage. For example, the story of Abraham and Sarah is taken to be literal in that these two people were actual, historical figures. The second layer is an allegorical or figurative layer. To take a scene from the previous example, Abraham was told by God to go and sacrifice his son, Isaac. Abraham gets as far as raising the knife for a fatal blow before God stops him and tells him to substitute an animal for Isaac. While this can very likely be translated literally, as an historical event, there is a deeper meaning behind it. Abraham did not withhold his son, just as God did not withhold sacrificing His son, Jesus, for the world. Interpretation is something that the human mind does instinctively. The need for a systematic process of interpretation is made obvious simply by the number of denominations in the world. Far too often, disagreements over the interpretation of one passage or another have generated strife and dissention, culminating in separation and quite regularly the start of a new denomination. The study and application of hermeneutics seeks to objectively understand what is in the Bible. However, when interpreting a passage of Scripture, the most obvious interpretation may not be what the author originally intended to convey. This was often the case with the parables of Jesus. When Christ gathered his disciples around Himself and began talking about a farmer throwing seed, His objective

wasn't to teach people about farming. His parable was intended to teach a divine principle. In order to see past the first, or "literal" interpretation, we need to employ a "figurative" or allegorical interpretative process. Fortunately for us, Jesus tended to provide the figurative meaning behind his parables to those few who were interested enough in His teaching to stick around after his lessons. Allegorical interpretation is frequently looked to when the literal interpretation doesn't appear to agree with a logical conclusion, or with an already stated fact. For example, when it is said that God "came down" from heaven, we immediately, although not necessarily consciously, recognize that God doesn't actually move. If we understand that if God is omnipresent, He is simply already there, and doesn't actually have to make a motion. Biblical authors seem to use these anthropomorphisms to highlight what God is paying attention to, or interject dramatic emphasis. However, "God's character and nature are to be preserved at all costs." (Corley 62) Therefore, in order to utilize this method properly in hermeneutics, we need to establish a series of rules to follow when considering an allegorical interpretation. First, treating a passage as an allegory should be resorted to when a passage does not make sense literally, or when a literal interpretation would contradict a previously established doctrine. Second, allegorical interpretations should maintain or support the original purpose of the passage without contradicting a previously established doctrine. Third, once we have established that a passage should be translated allegorically, we must not presumptuously treat things as symbols. God is a logical being and has revealed Himself to us in the Scriptures. Therefore a given Scripture cannot truly contradict any other passage of Scripture. Said passage also has a purpose, and we may not change that purpose or assign symbolic meanings to it on a whim. With these rules in place, let us look at a few examples of the use of allegorical interpretation by the church father Augustine. The first example given is Augustine's interpretation of the cursing of the fig tree by Jesus in Mark 11:12-24. The second example given is Augustines commentary on the parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:30-35. These interpretations are judged as either "good" or "bad" based on the rule set provided above. Augustine tackles the scene of Christ cursing the fig tree from an experiential stance. First, he asks two questions regarding Jesus looking to the tree for fruit, saying "Does this imply that Christ knew less than what every peasant could easily discern? Surely not."(Oden 189-59) and "Could the tree reasonably be faulted for its fruitlessness? No." Because of the Scriptural fact that Christ made the fig tree, and the experiential fact that every decent farmer knew that it was not fig season, it does not follow that Christ would not have known the time for figs. So, Augustine turns to an allegorical explanation. Augustine suggests that Jesus was looking for something more from the tree than simply something to eat. He suggests that the tree was representative of the people who had the Law (leaves) but did not have any good works to show for it (fruit). Because we have a scene that would seem to contradict good sense, Augustine turns to a allegorical interpretation. He maintains the intent of the scene itself, which is to show that those who fail to produce the "fruit" of having been given God's law are cursed people. He maintains consistent symbolism, in that fruit is regularly used as a synonym for works throughout the Bible. This interpretation doesn't appear to contradict any other scriptures, so in its entirety, it is a good use of this method. Augustine's interpretation of the parable of the Good Samaritan provides another non-literal explanation for a parable of Jesus. I believe his commentary on this parable is worth quoting in full.

A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho; Adam himself is meant; Jerusalem is the heavenly city of peace, from whose blessedness Adam fell; Jericho means the moon, and signifies our mortality, because it is born, waxes, wanes, an dies. Thieves are the devil and his angels. Who stripped him, namely; of his immortality; and beat him, by persuading him to sin; and left him half-dead, because in so far as man can understand and know God, he lives, but in so far as he is wasted and oppressed by sin, he is dead; he is therefore called half-dead. The priest and the Levite who saw him and passed by, signify the priesthood and ministry of the Old Testament which could profit nothing for salvation. Samaritan means Guardian, and therefore the Lord Himself is signified by this name. The binding of the wounds is the restraint of sin. Oil is the comfort of good hope; wine the exhortation to work with fervent spirit. The beast is the flesh in which He deigned to come to us. The being set upon the beast is belief in the incarnation of Christ. The inn is the Church, where travelers returning to their heavenly country are refreshed after pilgrimage. The morrow is after the resurrection of the Lord. The two pence are either the two precepts of love, or the promise of this life and of that which is to come. The innkeeper is the Apostle (Paul). The supererogatory payment is either his counsel of celibacy, or the fact that he worked with his own hands lest he should be a burden to any of the weaker brethren when the Gospel was new, though it was lawful for him to live by the gospel(Dodd 1-2)

Augustine references many different Biblical truths, to be sure. But can we say that this is a good application of this method? I would say no for two reasons. First, it would appear that the purpose of this parable is to teach a certain man how he was to act out his life in relation to other people. If one is to interpret this parable allegorically to the extent that Augustine does, I fear that it undermines the parable's primary purpose. Second, I believe Augustine's interpretation relies far too heavily on assumption. Nowhere else in the Bible is a Samaritan used to represent Jesus. Nowhere else is an innkeeper used to represent Paul, nor a denarius to represent a precept of love. So then, the undermining of the purpose of the parable, and the reliance on unprecedented interpretations, lead me to the conclusion that this is not a valid interpretation. Having provided both a good and a bad example of allegorical interpretations of Scripture, we can begin to look at some of interpreting a passage allegorically. Two distinct inferences can be drawn from what has been said to this point. First, there is a proper method to interpreting Scripture. I believe that this is true because God has said in His word that He desires men to be wise, to gain wisdom, and to come to a full knowledge of the truth. If God is absolute truth, and He wants mankind to come to know of Him, and He has allegedly revealed Himself to us, then He naturally will provide one or more ways to acquire that knowledge. Second and opposite the first, is that there are certainly wrong methods to interpreting Scripture. When an allegorical interpretation of a passage of Scripture blatantly contradicts another known truth, within or outside of Scripture, it is a wrong interpretation. If an allegorical interpretation disregards the originally intended purpose of the passage, it is one that is, at the very least, lacking. "Once the author's intended meaning, as expressed through his words and syntax, was abandoned, there remained to regulative principle to govern exegesis." (Virkler 53) I find it necessary to include here that any given passage of Scripture may have more than one application. Obviously, the epistles were written with a purpose toward the original recipients. However, at the same time we are capable of drawing those truths from the text and applying them to our daily lives. We often utilize both methods of interpretation when doing this, and the aforementioned rules still apply. This also includes using Biblical passages as examples. Assuming that

one is attempting to convey a Biblical truth, if one is capable of using a passage as an example to communicate that truth, even if the passage had nothing to do with that truth you are attempting to communicate, it is acceptable. Throughout this discussion, we have looked at allegorical interpretation and its role in hermeneutics. We have explained what hermeneutics is. We have suggested rules to follow when interpreting allegorically. We have given examples of the use of allegorical interpretation, and why these interpretations are judged as either good or bad. We have also discussed the implications of the good and bad uses of this method. In conclusion, it is my hope that I have provided a sound analysis of allegorical interpretation in hermeneutics.

Works Cited "allegory." Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 24 Feb. 2012. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/allegory>. "hermeneutics." Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition. HarperCollins Publishers. 24 Feb. 2012. <Dictionary.comhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hermeneutics>. Corley, Bruce, Steve Lemke, and Grant Lovejoy. Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting Scripture. 2, illustrated. B&H Publishing Group, 2002. 62. Web. Dodd, Charles. The parables of the kingdom. Revised. Scribner, 1961. 1-2. Web. Oden, Thomas C., and Christopher A. Hall. Mark Volume 2 of The Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Thomas C. Oden. 2. InterVarsity Press, 1998. 158-59. Print. Ramsey, Boniface. Beginning to read the fathers. Paulist Press, 1985. 24. Web. Virkler, Henrey A., and Karelynne Ayayo. Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation. 2, illustrated. Baker Academic, 2007. 53. Web.