The Case for Allegorical Interpretation

Allegorical Interpretation is a method of interpretation which start from an assumption that Scripture has several layers of meaning. Basically, the allegorist proponent believe that Scripture has two basic layers, the vivid and the obscure. For them, allegorical interpretation is a necessary methods of reading, to unfolds the deeper dimension of the meaning, particularly spiritual, the obscure. David Dawson define in  his book Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria simply,

"Allegoria is basically to say something other that what one seems to say". 

Regarding the method, Philo and Origen were the champion and Alexandrian School in late second to third century hold unto to this heremenutics dearly. The method itself flourished since the time of classical Greece, pre-Socratic Era and has influenced many philosophers and thinker there after especially at the time of Alexandrian empire rule for Alexandria was the primary city of the Roman Empire, rich in knowledge and wisdom. According to Origen, to be able to exposed the deeper meaning of the text through allegory, is a sign of spiritual maturity of an interpreter. More than that, in order that the text can be claimed as divine text, the text need to have an allegorical meaning in every words attested. The prove that the Scripture is inspired is the fact that we can allegorized it, to discover the spiritual meaning underneath the text. Although this method was popular back then by the Alexandrian patristics, today this method is seen by some as radical and problematic, as it akin to post-modern interpretation spirit, everything goes. Umberto Eco says, the interpretation of allegorical hermeneutics posit an "unlimited semiosis." Which mean, meaning in text is very open without any boundaries.  

How to validate the appropriate interpretation of the deeper meaning assumed by the allegorist and what is the boundary in allegorical interpretation, are always be the major issues circulating. Take for instance Philo, he himself interpret the river that flows in Genesis 2:10-14 as portrayal of Platonic Virtues, prudence, self-control, courage and justice. Base on his interpretation, can we says that the river in Genesis 2 portray four main psychological Character traits instead? (Sanguine, Melancholic, Choleric, phlegmatic). Or cannot we? As the result of the alleged vagueness of allegory interpretation, Theodore of Mopsuestia had claimed in the past that allegory was very speculative and imaginative. He even warned every interpreter to distinguished carefully between allegory and typology for he himself favor the former. If that so, the questions yet to be explored, are there any good values we can draw from this method? should we dismissed allegorical interpretation all together? 

Apparently, allegory had some defenders in recent day. People like Andrew Louth argued that we need to retrieve back the hermeneutical legacy of the Father, to return back to allegory interpretation. Why so? Is it done because of a mere respect?No. In his essay Return to Allegory, Louth argue that allegory is not a superfluous method. There is a misunderstanding regarding allegorical interpretation, that is to say that this method is a way to find what the text does not infers or refers at all. Luther was the one who says that allegorization is a method that try to run from the literal and obvious meaning of the text, and it is unacceptable. For people like Louth, It is a "dishonest" claimed toward allegorical interpretation. Andew Louth expressed the common response toward allegory, "If you interpret a text by allegorizing it, you seem to be saying that it means something which it patently does not. It is irrelevant, arbitrary: by allegory, it is said, you can make any text mean anything you like."

It might be true for people like Philo, who marry closely the Scipture and Philosophy. Or people like W. Vitcher that has been criticized by Von Rad for being too "allegorical" but still, Philo or Vitcher is not a brush that we should use to paint all the Patristics who were in favor with the allegorical interpretation. Moreover for Louth, the dismissal of allegory interpretation nowadays come more or less as the result of the reformed principle, Sola Scriptura which has been valued strongly to the aim of objective interpretation of Scriptural text, which according to people like Gadamer it's impossible since everyone always brought their own horizon in every process of interpretation. Romanticism make the dismissal even worst, as friedrich Schleiermacher believes that we as interpreter can know the meaning of text better than the writer. In other words, we can be more objective than the writer so to speak!

 Defending the allegorical method further, Hendri Lubac argues that Christianity is not the Religion of the book but of the Word. Scripture is living, active and very dynamics yet unique and personal. Thus, to exercise an allegory to a text is a way of declaring that we are actually affirming the mysterium nature of the text and wanted to discern it passionately.The meaning of the text is deep and complex, so it never just intended to be read literally only, or the primacy is owned by the literal.  Furthermore, allegory interpretation is not an easy-random-way kind of method to deal with difficult passage of the Sacred text ("If you cannot understand the text  you read, just allegorized it!").

In fact, allegorical interpretation has a certain rule. It does not diminished the significance of literal meaning as Luther once claimed. Origen himself always asked, "what is the grammatical or literal sense of the text? What's the historical reality of the texts are trying to convey?" Only after initiating the first, he can go further to the second, the spiritual meaning of the text.  Many people has failed to see this nuance in Origen. Origen himself says that literal meaning has edifying value because of it simplicity and it contained the important history to be known. To dig deeper to the Spiritual sense of the text, it is not done by injecting our imagination, but the literal and spiritual need at least to be corresponded with each other. And for Origen, one of the main focus of the allegorical interpretation is Christ. Commenting Origen, David S. Dockery says, "The allegorical approach was an extension of the church’s christological interpretation, for the deeper meaning that Origen sought was christocentric. For Origen, Christ was the center of history and the key to understanding the Old Testament...The spiritual meaning of Scripture in turn provided the principles and methods that should govern the believers between Christ’s appearance in the New Testament and his second coming."

Yet, up to this point some might asked, if the rule of allegory is located in Christ, what's the difference between typology and allegory? According to James Barr, we cannot make a sharp distinction between allegory and typology. He even argued that the New Testament writers seems also not aware the distinction of both. Therefore, there are no basic distinctions between them are to be said. 

Personally, I disagree with Barr. Although they are very close, they are not the same. Typology is a interpretative framework to bring close connection between the Old Testament and New Testament theme or event to the very person of Christ. Typology mainly is related to prophecy or something that was claimed again by Jesus or New Testament writer for instance, John 3 expound Christ as the Silver Bronze snake in the Old Testament. Whereas the allegory is to bring a generalization principles toward event or theme that somehow resonates to Christ and His work. Take for instance the story of Rahab who saves the Israelite in the book of Joshua. This narrative is been seen as an allegorization of Blood and Cross of Christ that saves. Well, some people might then argue that here, typology is better han allegory because typology seems to have it warrant and better affirmed connection, but not as clear for the case of allegory. However, at least we can conclude that in general, the allegorical heremenutics also value the literal meaning of the text (Literal meaning is equally important), and its is not a method that try to inject anything or everything outside of the Biblical world or language to the text of Scripture (Except people like Philo and some minor others) but primarily of Christ, and His work. 

We also should never deny that allegorical interpretation strongly affirmed the sacred and divine nature of Scripture, a thing which often diminished by modern interpreter who favor the historical method of interpretation. If the proper use of allegory is still a matter of ongoing debate at least, we are now aware the the heart behind the method is devotional and chronologically nuanced. Although it is bit too much, for allegorist seems to treat most of the text with various genre as if they are all like Pilgrim Progress of John Bunyan.But still, at the end of the day, If indeed Augustine is true regarding this matter, bringing our human limitation, Hermenutics of love should triumph and hence, any interpretations (Including the allegorical) that foster the love toward God and Man in the community of faith should also be appreciated, and not quickly to be abolished without an attempt to give any reasons for the abolition. perhaps, there are some truth about the allegorical interpretation that is beyond our capacity to judge.