What is allegorical interpretation and should we use it?
Question 1038
Throughout church history, Christians have debated how to read the Bible. One approach that has attracted both devoted followers and sharp critics is allegorical interpretation. What exactly is this method? Where did it come from? And should we be using it today when we open our Bibles? These are important questions, because how we interpret Scripture determines what we believe Scripture teaches.
Defining Allegorical Interpretation
An allegory is a story where the characters, events, and details represent something else entirely. Think of John Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress, where a man named Christian travels to the Celestial City. The story works on two levels: the surface narrative about a journey, and the deeper meaning about the Christian life. Everyone understands that Bunyan wrote an allegory. The characters are meant to symbolise spiritual realities.
Allegorical interpretation takes this concept and applies it to texts that were not necessarily written as allegories. It looks beneath the surface meaning of a passage to find a “deeper” or “spiritual” meaning that may have little connection to what the words actually say. The historical events described become mere shells containing hidden spiritual truths.
For example, an allegorical interpreter might read the account of Israel crossing the Red Sea and say that the sea represents baptism, Pharaoh represents Satan, Egypt represents the world, and the wilderness represents the Christian life of sanctification. The actual historical event fades into the background; what matters is the spiritual meaning extracted from it.
The Historical Origins of Allegorical Interpretation
Allegorical interpretation did not originate with Christians. It developed among Greek philosophers who were embarrassed by the crude behaviour of their gods in Homer’s epics. Rather than reject these revered texts, they reinterpreted them. The stories about Zeus and Hera fighting were not really about divine domestic disputes; they represented cosmic principles in conflict. Allegory allowed them to retain the texts whilst emptying them of their offensive content.
Jewish interpreters in Alexandria, particularly Philo (c. 20 BC – AD 50), adopted this method for the Old Testament. Philo was deeply influenced by Platonic philosophy, which distinguished between the material world of appearances and the higher world of true spiritual reality. He applied this framework to Scripture. The literal meaning was for simple minds; educated readers should seek the spiritual meaning beneath.
This approach entered Christianity primarily through the Alexandrian school, especially Origen (c. 185-254). Origen taught that Scripture has three levels of meaning: literal (the body), moral (the soul), and spiritual (the spirit). The spiritual meaning was highest and most important. This method dominated much medieval interpretation, where elaborate spiritual meanings were extracted from every detail of the text.
The medieval church eventually developed a fourfold sense of Scripture. The literal sense told you what happened. The allegorical sense told you what to believe (doctrine). The moral or tropological sense told you how to behave (ethics). The anagogical sense pointed to future heavenly realities (eschatology). A famous Latin rhyme summarised it: Littera gesta docet, quid credas allegoria, moralis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia (“The letter teaches facts, allegory what you believe, the moral what you do, anagogy where you’re headed”).
Problems with Allegorical Interpretation
The fundamental problem with allegorical interpretation is that it has no controls. How do you know what the “deeper meaning” is? Different interpreters find completely different allegorical meanings in the same text. Augustine saw the four rivers of Eden as the four Gospels. Someone else might see them as four virtues. A third interpreter might find four stages of spiritual development. Who decides which allegory is correct?
Without objective criteria, the text means whatever the interpreter wants it to mean. The authority shifts from Scripture to the interpreter. You are no longer asking “What did God say?” but “What spiritual meaning can I find here?” The Bible becomes a wax nose that can be shaped to fit any theology.
Allegorical interpretation also tends to downgrade the importance of history. If the crossing of the Red Sea is primarily about spiritual truths symbolised by the event, does it matter whether it actually happened? Some allegorists would say no. But Christianity is a historical faith. If Christ was not literally raised from the dead, Paul says, our faith is in vain (1 Corinthians 15:14). The events matter, not just the meanings we extract from them.
Furthermore, allegorical interpretation was often used to avoid difficult texts or to read later theology back into earlier Scripture. If a passage seemed morally troubling or theologically inconvenient, allegorising it made the problem disappear. This is not faithful interpretation; it is avoidance dressed up as sophistication.
What About Allegory in Scripture Itself?
Here is where we must be careful. Paul himself uses the word “allegory” in Galatians 4:24, speaking of Sarah and Hagar. Does this justify allegorical interpretation as a method?
Look closely at what Paul does. He explicitly tells us he is drawing an analogy: “Now this may be interpreted allegorically” (Galatians 4:24). He does not deny the historical reality of Sarah and Hagar. He takes a real historical situation and draws out theological parallels that were built into the original events by divine design. Sarah represents the covenant of promise; Hagar represents the covenant of law. These women really existed. Their stories really happened. But God intended their stories to illustrate larger truths about how He works.
This is different from the allegorical method that ignores or minimises historical meaning. Paul is not saying “forget what actually happened and find hidden meanings.” He is saying “what actually happened carries theological significance that we can now see more clearly in light of Christ.”
Similarly, when the author of Hebrews discusses Melchizedek (Hebrews 7), he draws typological connections between this mysterious priest-king and Jesus. But he does not deny that Melchizedek was a real person. The historical reality provides the foundation for the theological application.
The Reformation Recovery
The Protestant Reformers largely rejected allegorical interpretation in favour of the literal or grammatical-historical method. Luther was especially fierce in his criticism: “Allegories are empty speculations and as it were the scum of Holy Scripture.” He had used allegory in his early career but came to see it as a distortion of God’s Word.
Calvin was more measured but equally committed to the plain sense of Scripture. He insisted that interpreters must first establish what the text actually says before making any application. The meaning is found in the words, grammar, and historical context, not in creative spiritual interpretations imposed from outside.
This commitment to the plain meaning of Scripture was revolutionary. It meant that ordinary believers could read the Bible and understand it. They did not need allegorical experts to reveal hidden meanings. The Reformation principle of the clarity of Scripture (perspicuity) depends on literal interpretation. If the Bible’s true meaning is hidden beneath layers of allegory, how can we say it is clear?
Should We Use Allegorical Interpretation Today?
The short answer is: not as a primary method, and with great caution if at all.
We should recognise genuine allegory when it appears in Scripture. Jesus’ parables often work allegorically, and He sometimes explains the allegory Himself (Matthew 13:18-23, 36-43). Ezekiel’s vision of the valley of dry bones (Ezekiel 37) is explained as representing Israel’s restoration. When the text signals allegory, we interpret accordingly.
We should also recognise typology, which is similar to but distinct from allegory. Types are historical persons, events, or institutions that God designed to foreshadow later realities. Adam is a type of Christ (Romans 5:14). The Passover lamb is a type of Christ (1 Corinthians 5:7). The tabernacle is a type of heavenly realities (Hebrews 8:5). Typology respects the historical reality of the original while recognising its forward-pointing significance.
But we should not impose allegorical meanings on texts that do not call for them. When we read about David fighting Goliath, the primary meaning is that David trusted God and defeated the giant. We may draw applications about facing our own “giants,” but we should not allegorise every detail. The five stones do not represent five spiritual disciplines. Goliath’s height does not symbolise the magnitude of our sins. That sort of interpretation makes the Bible say whatever we want.
Conclusion
Allegorical interpretation has a long history in the church, but it is a method fraught with dangers. It lacks objective controls, minimises historical reality, shifts authority from text to interpreter, and was often used to avoid rather than understand Scripture. The Reformers were right to recover the primacy of literal interpretation.
This does not mean we read Scripture flatly, ignoring poetry, symbolism, or typology. It means we let the text guide us to its meaning rather than imposing meanings upon it. We ask what the author intended to communicate to his original audience. We trust that God spoke clearly and can be understood. And we approach His Word with humility, ready to hear what He actually said rather than what we wish He had said.
“Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.” 2 Timothy 2:15
Bibliography
- Dockery, David S. Biblical Interpretation Then and Now. Baker, 1992.
- Grant, Robert M. and David Tracy. A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible. 2nd ed. Fortress Press, 1984.
- Kaiser, Walter C. Toward an Exegetical Theology. Baker, 1981.
- Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Biblical Interpretation. 3rd ed. Baker, 1970.
- Trigg, Joseph W. Origen. Routledge, 1998.
- Zuck, Roy B. Basic Bible Interpretation. Victor Books, 1991.
