Reformed allegorical interpretation of the Bible

[nwink]

What is the basis for the allegorical interpretation of the Bible seen in the works of many of the Puritans and other Reformed theologians/pastors? Often when I read a work by Spurgeon or one of the Puritans and they interpret some passage allegorically, I'm sure many readers today might think, "Well, that's nice, but that's not what the passage is really referring to" and I then wonder what the author would say if he was there to explain the basis for his allegorical interpretation.

As Protestants, we do adhere primarily to historical-grammatical interpretation of the Bible...and I'm not at all ruling out allegorical interpretation...I'm just curious what the Biblical/hermeneutical basis is for interpreting passages allegorically. And how far is too far for allegorizing?

 

[py3ak]

Do you have an example of allegorical exegesis from Spurgeon or the Puritans? People use "allegory" in different ways, often despectively and often loosely, so it's always helpful to see a concrete instance of what people consider allegory before engaging any questions about it.

 

[nwink]

Do you have an example of allegorical exegesis from Spurgeon or the Puritans? People use "allegory" in different ways, often despectively and often loosely, so it's always helpful to see a concrete instance of what people consider allegory before engaging any questions about it.

Ruben, I remember reading Spurgeon's "Morning and Evening" for a month or so last year, and he allegorized a lot of passages. I don't know if those were valid applications or not...hence my question on PB to understand if allegorizing is a valid Biblical interpretative method. I found an example of what I mean below:

Evening, January 4

“And Joseph knew his brethren, but they knew not him.”
Genesis 42:8

This morning our desires went forth for growth in our acquaintance with the Lord Jesus; it may be well tonight to consider a kindred topic, namely, our heavenly Joseph's knowledge of us. This was most blessedly perfect long before we had the slightest knowledge of him. “His eyes beheld our substance, yet being imperfect, and in his book all our members were written, when as yet there was none of them.” Before we had a being in the world we had a being in his heart. When we were enemies to him, he knew us, our misery, our madness, and our wickedness. When we wept bitterly in despairing repentance, and viewed him only as a judge and a ruler, he viewed us as his brethren well beloved, and his bowels yearned towards us. He never mistook his chosen, but always beheld them as objects of his infinite affection. “The Lord knoweth them that are his,” is as true of the prodigals who are feeding swine as of the children who sit at the table.

But, alas! we knew not our royal Brother, and out of this ignorance grew a host of sins. We withheld our hearts from him, and allowed him no entrance to our love. We mistrusted him, and gave no credit to his words. We rebelled against him, and paid him no loving homage. The Sun of Righteousness shone forth, and we could not see him. Heaven came down to earth, and earth perceived it not. Let God be praised, those days are over with us; yet even now it is but little that we know of Jesus compared with what he knows of us. We have but begun to study him, but he knoweth us altogether. It is a blessed circumstance that the ignorance is not on his side, for then it would be a hopeless case for us. He will not say to us, “I never knew you,” but he will confess our names in the day of his appearing, and meanwhile will manifest himself to us as he doth not unto the world.

Are you sure that they're interpreting it allegorically, or are they simply making an allegorical application? There's a huge difference.

Josh, good point. Could you provide an example of these both (allegorical interpretation and allegorical application)? (Would the above quoted Spurgeon by an allegorical application?) One specific question I've had is on the Song of Songs -- there's a lot of work by the Puritans on that, and it seems to all be allegorical about Christ. Is the justification of this interpretation that all the Scriptures speak of Christ?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The Puritans (specifically Wm Ames, in The Marrow of Theology) believed that "the sense of Scripture is not manifold, but one." They generally believed there was one true meaning for every place in Scripture, the plainest and most honest meaning of the words.

That meaning could have many applications. Also, it should be recognized that the single meaning might contain a "double-entendre"--such as when a single term carries some serious freight. The important thing would be to ask (if such a reading presented itself to the interpreter) whether it was likely that the human author so intended his words to be taken.

The history of interpretation is not an easy study, either. Certainly not the kind of black-and-white dichotomy between the "literalists" and the "allegorists" that is sometimes made out to be. The reason for the popularity of allegory was this: it came to be supposed that the spiritual meaning was platonically separated from the textual housing. But the beginnings of "allegory" was in the apostolic preaching that did, in fact, find Christ at the center of Scripture's message from start to finish. The reason that the literalist school of Antioch came eventually to be condemned was that in its terminal form, it fell into a proto-rationalism. The church came to believe there was danger from that school of reading Christ "out of" the OT.

Biblical ignorance, generally, and unfamiliarity with original languages specifically, among even the best-educated clergy, led to this divorce of the text from the richness embedded in the words themselves, as well as from the Christological emphasis of the whole. Strictly speaking, allegorical interpretation and preaching inserts, imports, superimposes whatever "spiritual" notions the preacher fancies into, onto, or upon the text. TYPOLOGY, on the other hand, maintains an awareness of the Promise, that God has magnified above all his Name.

 

[py3ak]

Nathan, I wouldn't consider the extract you provided from Spurgeon a true instance of allegory, for several reasons. It's not an interpretation of the text, but a devotional meditation upon it, in the first place. Second, he puts distance between the text and his meditation on it by using the phrase "our heavenly Joseph"; this also suggests a rationale for springboarding from the text in this way. Elsewhere Spurgeon has remarked that Jesus is the true Joseph, taken from the pit to be the ruler of all. In his view, Joseph's life was intended by God to be an adumbration of Christ's. But a type is not the same as an allegory. That said, while the text does provide a convenient basis for Spurgeon's observations from experience, I'm not sure that in this instance it's a legitimat example of typology, because the presence of a type in an overall transaction doesn't warrant using every detail as typical - such as Joseph's retiring into another room to weep and wash his face, or eating at a separate table.

 

[ADKing]

This is a huge question. I respond only to issues regarding the Song of Solomon. It is helpful to recognize that there is a difference between interpreting a text that is written in the form of allegory (the reformed understanding of the Song of Solomon) and interpreting non allegorical texts allegorically (denied in this case).

One of the most helpful presentations on this is in James Durham's commentary on the Song of Solomon. It is found online in its entirety here: Clavis Cantici: A Key Usefull Here is an excerpt

It may be asked then, When are we to account a place of Scripture Allegorick, and are we to seek out some other meaning, than what at first appeareth? Ans.

First, When the literal proper meaning looketh absurd like, or is empty, and nothing to edification; as when it is said, we must eat Christ's flesh, whereby believing is expressed: And so, these Scriptures that do command to pluck out the right eye, cut off the right hand, take up our cross, &c. All which, if literally understood, were absurd and ridiculous; and therefore, the mistaking of such Scriptures, hath occasioned many errors, as that of the Anthropomorphists, attributing Members, to wit, Head, Hands, Feet, &c., to God; and Passions, yea, Infirmities, as Anger, Repenting, &c. because the Scripture speaking of God, after the manner of Men, doth Allegorically attribute to him, Eyes, Hands, Wrath, &c.

2. These places of Scripture are to be accounted Allegorick, which reach not the Scope of Edification, intended by them if literally understood; as when Christ hath spoken of Sowing, the disciples thought, that some more was intended than at first appeared; for, his aim could not be to discourse of Husbandry to them: So gathers the Apostle an Allegory from these words, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the Ox, that treadeth out the Corn. And so also, that and the like Precepts, discharging the Jews, the sowing their Fields with divers Grains, &c. Which though they be not wholly Allegorick, but have in the letter their own truth, yet, somewhat in these beyond what appears, was aimed at by the Spirit; for, saith the Apostle, Doth God care for Oxen? that is, that Precept hath a further Scope, 1 Cor. 9.9,10.

3. When a Literal Sense would obtrude some falsity on the Scripture, then such a Scripture is to be understood Allegorically; as when Christ said, Destroy this Temple, and I will build it up in three days; it is not to be understood of the Material House, or Jewish Temple, because then Christ's Word would not have had its accomplishment; but Allegorically of His Body; So, when Christ saith, Except a Man eat his flesh, he shall not live, John 6.53. It cannot be understood Literally, seeing all who have obtained Life, did never eat His Flesh in a carnal bodily way.

4. Any Scripture is to be accounted Allegorical, when the Literal Sense agreeth not with other Scriptures, and is not repugnant to the Analogy of Faith, or Rules of Right Manners: As, when we are commanded to heap Coals of Fire upon the Head of our Enemy. Now, it were against the command of not avenging our selves, if Literally and Properly understood: It must therefore signifie some other thing.

5. When a Literal Sense answereth not the present Scope of the Speaker, and the Speaker would be thought impertinent, if his words were properly taken, then it would seem necessary to expound it as an Allegory; So, Matth. 3.10. When John is pressing Repentance, he saith, The Ax is laid to the Root of the Tree, &c. And at that Parable of Christs, Luke 13.7. speaking of the Husbandman that spared his Tree three years. If these places were only properly understood, they would not inforce Repentance, which is aimed at; they must therefore be expounded, as having something more in them, of a deeper reach, which may conduce to that Scope.

Durham is by far more worthy to read, but if you are interested I did preach on this issue some months back: Restored Sinners Singing the Most Excellent Song | Sermon Series | Trinity Reformed Church