What is wrong with the allegorical interpretation method?

The third interpretation of these chapters is the allegorical, which spiritualizes everything, and claims that the Christian Church, its earthly glory and blessing, is symbolically described by the prophet. This is the weakest of all and yet the most accepted. But this theory gives no exposition of the text, is vague and abounds in fanciful applications, while the greater part of this vision is left unexplained even in its allegorical meaning, for it evidently has no such meaning at all.

But this is allegory; and it is decided by many, even in the face of Scripture itself, that allegorizing is but fancy, pure and simple, — specious and alluring, but dangerous, and to be shunned! It is certain that Paul says of parts of Abraham's history, "which things are an allegory." It is certain that one book of Scripture is either "allegory" or a love-song. On the other hand, it is most certain that there has been a profanation of allegory on the part of many, from Origen to the present time, which has roused many against all allegorical interpretation. They "concluded," says Calvin, "that the literal sense was too mean and poor, and that under the outward bark of the letter there lurked deeper mysteries, which cannot be extracted but by beating out allegories. God visited this profanation by a just judgment, when He suffered the pure meaning of Scripture to be buried under false interpretations. I acknowledge that Scripture is a most rich and inexhaustible fountain of all wisdom; but I deny that its, fertility consists in the various meanings which any man at his pleasure may assign. Let us know, then, that the true meaning of Scripture is the natural and obvious meaning; and let us embrace and abide by it resolutely."

To which Schaff adds: "This style of interpretation is not exposition, but imposition: the meaning is not read out, but read in. History, the grammar, and the dictionary, are the proper aids in Bible study; not the subjective imagination."*

Yet he has to admit that "the apostle Paul himself gives instances of the sacred allegory, although his use of it is so exceptional and so restrained that it does not countenance it as a method!"

There is no comment in the New Testament more important for determining the just meaning of Old Testament prophecy. The allegorical school of ancients from Origen down to the moderns of our own day are in this far from the truth of God. Indeed it is as a system mere trifling and its root unbelief, as its dogmatic effect is to shake confidence in the plain written word, and its practical result is not only to deprive the ancient people of God of their hope, but to lower and obscure our own by substituting the earthly position of Israel (confused and spoiled by a so-called spiritualism) for separation to and union with Christ in heaven, the true place of the Christian and of the church. It will astonish some of my readers to learn that Origen, undoubtedly one of the ablest and most learned of the early Greek fathers, speaks of Zion as representing the Father in this very connection! Others may be more sober; but they understood the truth no better than he, if they did not commit themselves to such wild flights of fancy. If some might have hoped better things of Theodoret, like Chrysostom, I am forced to prove how precarious is the teaching which, after saying truly that the Jews will believe, on the conclusion of the work spoken of among the Gentiles, tells us that "all Israel" means those who believe whether of Jews or of Gentiles. Even this meagre expectation of blessing at the end for Israel is boldly denied by Jerome (Comm. Esai. xi.), who will have all to be understood of the first advent!

Christendom has suffered for centuries from the insistence by some of a title to interpret Scripture, with disastrous consequences to the individual and to the Church of God: meanings have been read into, and out of, large portions of the Word of God which the terms of Scripture themselves, in the passages concerned, do not authorise or clearly express.

Hence, the servant's responsibility in ministry is to enforce, and spiritually apply, according to the measure of his own discernment, the language in which the divine mind is expressed, a course which both vindicates the accuracy of inspiration and relieves the servant from any possible charge of arbitrary interpretation of the Word of God.

As to any consecutive meaning in these names, certain people have made something out of them; but I think nothing of this and the like spinning of webs out of the imagination. We must look for scriptural warrant, at least for the principle and this is lacking here.

We have glanced at a small amount of the printed matter put out by this mystical school, and what have we found? Novel teachings are put out, which overthrow what has previously been taught as the Word of God — and the more they bear this character, the more eagerly they seem to be welcomed — and then Scripture is searched in the vain effort to find something to support them. That something is usually thought to be found as fancy and reasoning come into play. Is this the way we should handle the Word of God? Are we to expound our “spiritual impressions,” and then twist Scripture to support them? Our answer to this question is an emphatic — NO.

1887 379 It is, no doubt, mischievous to pursue types too far, and calculated to weaken our estimate of the literal and historical value of scripture. Still we know from the scripture itself that many parts are to be applied most usefully in an allegorical sense, such as Paul's use of the histories of Hagar and of Melchisedek. Some passages are distinctly stated by the inspired writers to be typical, and in others the typical character is so obvious as to need no further warrant for its adoption. If we have a complicated lock, and only one key opens it, that is the proper key: if we have a cypher manuscript and only one system interprets it and lays all its fumbled letters into intelligible words, that is the true system: if we find passages in the lives of the patriarchs which are all opened and gleaming with light when we apply to them the principles of Christ, then we are justified in using them as types. Where there is evidence of such a design they do not come thus by chance.

(3) We now come to the time of David's manifestation as the deliverer of Israel, the one who alone can meet their need in the day of distress. As a history it is a simple but glorious lesson of faith, and of what it can achieve with no help but that of God; as a type it is a deep and instructive parable of the wondrous salvation which Christ has wrought for His people. It is such an one as by no means carries its meaning upon its face. There are difficulties in it which seem always to have hindered the satisfactory exposition of what has been generally felt must be in it by those who believe at all in any rightful allegorization of these histories. There is a mingling together of different lines of truth which easily becomes entanglement if we do not discern with care. And the remedy for this will be found, not in simply picking out what seems consistent with the meaning we have given it, and dismissing the rest as belonging to the necessary faultiness of such allegoric method, a kind of reasoning which must be the reproach and ruin of the method itself, if it is to be accepted, — but on the contrary, in a fair and full induction of all the facts. While we may not be able to see meaning everywhere, we must not turn away from unwelcome difficulties or accept what is really contradictory to the evidence as a whole.

"But," it will be asked, "do you mean that every name of every person in the Bible has a significance?" There can be but one answer to this. It certainly has a literal meaning which a careful study of the derivation of the word will supply, and what has been said will justify us in expressing the belief that every word has a spiritual significance which will require only care, faith, patience and diligence to ascertain.

We would say here, as has been remarked in other connections, that undue prominence must not be given to this department of Bible study. We shrink from the crude attempts at explanations of intricate or obscure passages given by those who are not well grounded in divine truth. Such efforts both cramp the one who attempts them and bring into reproach a very delightful, refreshing and important department of Bible knowledge. Let all things be kept in their proper place and proportion. We must not surfeit either ourselves or others with a mass of questionable matter, gleaned from partial study.

334 But we will return to our Essays. Mr. Jowett, after speaking of the gospels, says, "If words have more than one meaning, they may have any meaning." This may sound wise, but it is most perfect trash. I take an example. When Christ died, it is said the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and then the resurrection of the saints after His resurrection and their appearing in the city is noted. Now this rending of the veil has one meaning. It is the history of the fact, and means only that. Now, I say, such an assertion is as senseless and foolish as it can possibly be. The rending is ascribed to Christ's death, followed by resurrection of dead saints. The veil was the sign that God was hidden and could not be approached; now by Christ's death He could be. The whole mighty change of dispensation was marked in it, and the full power of redemption in Christ's death. These senses are indeed ascribed to it in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Hebrews 9 and Hebrews 10. But they are evident. The talking of one meaning is simple folly, and if I speak of the uncertainty of interpretation, which of course is not infallible, am I to choose the judgment of an interpreter who has proved himself incapable of interpreting anything by embracing an evidently false and inapplicable principle, or of one who has a right one, though of course I must watch his use of it?