Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four Part Five
Allegorical Interpretation, the Historical Deviation Point
Allegorical interpretation boldly marks the point of deviation from the path of biblical truth in the history of the church. When God inspired the words and the books of scripture, they meant what He meant in the verbal, plenary inspiration of them. That meaning did not and does not change. If and when change occurs anyway, this arises from some other outside source, not God, bringing its contrasting thinking and feelings to the text. By doing so, it supplants the Word of God and overrules it with its opinion.
Rather than handing a whole other book to people than the Bible, allegorical interpretation takes the same book and so changes the meaning, that it becomes in fact a different book. The allegorical interpreter can wear the mantle of the Bible, while offering his own thoughts and feelings instead. Rather than God then being the authority, the interpreter becomes the authority.
Parallel With Progressive Loose Construction
One of the present Supreme Court justices of the United States, Ketanji Brown Jackson, went on a recent book tour and did interviews to promote the book.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson reflected on her role on the Supreme Court during an event in Louisiana over the weekend, saying she enjoyed making her opinion known through court cases.
“I just feel that I have a wonderful opportunity to tell people in my opinions how I feel about the issues, and that’s what I try to do,” Jackson said.
Jackson, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, made the remarks during a sit-down with ABC News on stage during the Essence Festival of Culture in New Orleans as part of a tour for her book, “Lovely One.”
When someone uses an allegorical interpretation of the text of scripture, he might not say, like Brown, “I have the wonderful opportunity to tell people how I feel,” but it opens the door to do just that. Someone can say, and form the precedent for dealing with scripture, “This is what I feel this passage means,” opting for something that reads his own opinion into the text. He could call it a “deeper spiritual meaning,” as if it is superior to a literal, grammatical-historical, plain-meaning understanding of the words of God.
Hijacking a Text to Make It Your Own
In the history of interpreting another document, the United States Constitution, schools of interpretation developed, one called strict construction and the other, loose construction. The former looked for the original understanding, how the audience would have understood those words in the day of its writing. Then the latter would see the constitution as a living document, where they could breathe into it new meaning. The latter of course avails the interpreter a highly subjective, inventive and novel interpretation based upon a method that belies all the tenets of obvious definition and rules of language.
Reading into the text is a great modern or perhaps better, postmodern, means of hijacking the Bible and making it your own. This imitates the postmodern spirit of “your truth is your truth.” The postmoderns say, language is power, so the interpreter takes the reign over language to get what he wants with the words. This tactic is not new.
Contrasting with Plain Meaning
In a literal or historical-grammatical approach, interpretation prioritizes the text’s plain sense, considering the author’s intent, historical context, grammar, and cultural background. This anchors meaning in objective elements like word definitions, syntax, and verifiable facts. Allegorization treats elements of the text (for example, characters, events, or objects) as symbols or metaphors representing abstract concepts, often without clear textual warrant.
Without the constraint of literal meaning, readers can selectively ignore or downplay parts of the text that don’t align with their views. For instance, if a text describes a concrete event (like a historical battle), a reader might allegorize it as a “spiritual warfare” within the soul, infusing it with personal experiences of inner conflict. This shifts control from the text’s fixed content to the reader’s imagination or emotional state, allowing desires (e.g., a need for personal relevance) to redefine the narrative.
Origen’s tripartite layers, the deepest being spiritualization, mirror the progressive view of a “living” Constitution that evolves through implied meanings and societal context. Augustine’s emphasis on love as an interpretive key parallels progressive applications of constitutional values like equality to current problems, ensuring the text promotes human flourishing rather than stagnation.
Literal interpretations can be tested against evidence, such as linguistics, providing objective checks. Allegorical or spiritual ones are harder to disprove because they claim “deeper” layers inaccessible to scrutiny.
Convenient Instrument of Power
Allegorization became a convenient tool for the power of the Roman Empire to exert itself over citizens with the imprimatur of divine authority. The adherents could take the text of scripture and use it as a pretext for the abuses of catholicism. It also became precedent for future contrivance of new doctrine, pawned off as deeper meaning. The clergy elevate their own authority with the illusion that God works through their minds and feelings with a supernatural ability not available to the laity. Esoteric interpretation and mysticism lends an air of credibility and then invincibility.
Leaders assert there are hidden, symbolic, or allegorical depths (the “esoteric” level) that reveal divine secrets, ultimate truths, or paths to enlightenment. This contrasts with a straightforward reading, where the text is meant for clear communication. Such methods are subjective and non-verifiable, allowing leaders to invent interpretations that align with their agendas without objective scrutiny.
Captivation of Followers and Tool for Control
By framing hidden meanings as a “deeper spirituality,” leaders create an aura of mystery that captivates followers. This illusion suggests that ordinary believers lack the spiritual maturity, initiation, or divine favor to access these truths on their own, fostering a sense of inadequacy and reliance on the hierarchy. Critiques argue this turns plain truths into convoluted “mysteries” to deceive, as opposed to genuine revelation which is freely available.
Esoteric claims make interpretations immune to challenge, dismissing dissenters as uninitiated or lacking spiritual depth. This stifles critical thinking and perpetuates the system, as seen in critiques of groups blending occultism with Christianity, where hidden knowledge pursuits lead to deception. In broader terms, it contrasts with biblical calls for plain speech and accessible revelation, highlighting how the illusion serves power rather than truth. Allegorical interpretation exploits human longing for deeper meaning, turning it into a tool for control.