What is wrong with the allegorical interpretation method?

Answer

The allegorical (or spiritualizing) method of interpretation was prominent in the church for about 1,000 years until it was displaced during the Reformation. The Reformers sought the “plain meaning” of Scripture.

Allegorical interpretation seeks a deeper, spiritual meaning within the text. While not necessarily denying that the text has a literal meaning or that the historical incidents reported are true, allegorical interpreters will search for a deeper symbolic meaning. Some examples may be helpful:

The Song of Solomon is often interpreted allegorically as referring to the love that Christ has for the church.

In the Scofield Reference Bible, C. I. Scofield interprets Genesis 1:16 allegorically. While not denying the plain meaning of the verse regarding creation, he finds a deeper spiritual (he calls it typological) meaning. The greater light/sun is Christ, and the lesser light/moon is the church, reflecting the light of Christ, and the stars are individual believers.

In his Portraits of Christ in Genesis, M. R. DeHaan says that Adam is a type of Christ because Adam was put to sleep, his side was opened—he was wounded and his blood was shed—and from that wound his bride was taken. In the same way, Christ died, had His side pierced, and from that ordeal His Bride, the church, is produced. Just as Adam said that Eve was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh «And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. », (Genesis 2:23), so the church is the body, flesh, and bone of Christ see Ephesians 5:30.

Perhaps the most famous instance of allegorical interpretation is Origen’s explanation of the Parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10. In the allegorical view, the man who is robbed is Adam, JerJerusalem is paradise, and Jericho is the world. The priest represents the Law, and the Levites represent the Prophets. The Samaritan symbolizes Christ. The donkey signifies Christ’s physical body, which carries the burden of the wounded man (representing his sins), and the inn represents the Church. The Samaritan’s pledge to return symbolizes the second coming of Christ.

It is important to acknowledge that allegory is a beautiful and valid literary device. John Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress was crafted as an allegory of the Christian journey. In this narrative, nearly every action and character is meant to convey a deeper, spiritual significance. To interpret Bunyan’s tale literally would be to miss its essence entirely.

In reality, there is little distinction between allegorical, typological, and symbolic interpretation. They all seek a deeper understanding beyond a surface-level reading of the Bible’s text. However, these approaches should not be seen as conflicting with “literal interpretation,” as every interpreter acknowledges that certain passages of the Bible are meant to be understood symbolically, typologically, or allegorically. For example, Ecclesiastes 12:1–7 describes a crumbling house, but it is an allegory for the effects of aging and time on the human body. All Christians would concur that the Old Testament sacrifices symbolize the ultimate sacrifice of Christ. When Jesus declares, “I am the vine, and you are the branches” «I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. », (John 15:5), no one expects literal leaves and grapes to sprout from their limbs. Even those who advocate for a literal interpretation of the book of Revelation still anticipate “the Beast” to be a man, not an actual animal as seen in Revelation 13:4.

Insisting on a literal interpretation for a passage of Scripture that was meant to be understood symbolicallyMiss the meaning of the text. For instance, at the Last Supper Jesus says of the bread and wine, “This is my body. . . . This is my blood” (Luke 22:19-20). Jesus’ hearers in the room were partaking of a Passover meal in which every item on the menu was interpreted symbolically. For them to suddenly think that Jesus was speaking literally regarding these two elements is completely foreign to the context. Metaphor is a recognized literary device in use today and in the time of Christ. Jesus could have just as easily said, “This represents my body and my blood,” but in the context of the Passover, such directness was not necessary.

The problem with the allegorical method of interpretation is that it seeks to find an allegorical interpretation for every passage of Scripture, regardless of whether or not it is intended to be understood in that way. Interpreters who allegorize can be very creative, with no control based on the text itself. It becomes easy to read one’s own beliefs into the allegory and then think that they have scriptural support.

There will always be some disagreement about whether certain texts are to be taken literally or figuratively and to what degree, as evidenced by disagreements over the book of Revelation, even among those who have high regard for Scripture. For a text to be interpreted allegorically or figuratively, there needs to be justification in the text itself or something in the cultural background of the original readers that would have led them to understand the text symbolically. The goal of every interpreter who has a high view of Scripture is to discover the intended meaning of the text. If the intended meaning is simply the literal communication of a historical fact or the straightforward explanation of a theological truth, then that is the inspired meaning. If the intended meaning is allegorical/typological/symbolic/figurative, then the interpreter should find some justification for it in the text.The text and the culture of the original hearers/readers.