Allegorical Interpretation – What Does This Mean?

Rule #5: Look for the Intended Meaning

Encore Post: In the Middle Ages, the most popular way of understanding a Bible passage was to look for four meanings in the text — the one that author intended for his readers to find there and other, “deeper” meanings. The problem Martin Luther and the Lutheran reformers found with this method is it allowed a person to find anything they wish in the Bible. So they insisted a principle summed up in the sentence: sensus literalis unus est — “there is one intended meaning [in each passage].”

What they observed is that God used human beings, using human language to speak to his people. To understand what God wants us to believe, then, we find that original message, paying attention to the words, sentences, paragraphs, grammar and figures of speech the author uses. We look the kind of literature it is (is it intended as history? Poetry? Is it a letter? A sermon? What were the customs of that time and place?) Most of the time we do this out of habit. When we do serious study of a passage, however, a good study Bible is very helpful with these efforts.

When most Christians talk about interpreting the Bible literally, they do not mean that we should always take it at face value. It means to understand it according to the words — what the author intended it to say to his readers. So, no one thinks that, when Isaiah said, “the trees clapped their hands” (Isaiah 55:12) that cedars grew limbs to clap. They understand it to be poetry to describe how they move in the wind. When we read the Bible, then, we understand what it says as normal speech when the book it is written in is a letter or a history. We understand it figuratively when the kind of literature it is poetry, parable or similar kinds of writing.

So, this rule tells us to work to find the meaning the author intended to send. It is that message that God wants us to hear and believe. We assume that the passage has only one of these meanings, unless the text tells us otherwise.

Rev. Robert E. Smith
Fort Wayne, Indiana

Rule #1 |Rule #2| Rule #3 | Rule #4 | Blog Post Series

Digging into the Old Testament: The Theological Schools of Alexandria and Antioch

Encore Post: You might remember the Ebionites and those who followed Marcion from earlier posts. In this post I want to introduce the two theological schools that ruled the day and effectively have left marks on the way we interpret the Bible still today.

But why are they called schools? Don’t think of them so much as buildings but the way of thinking. The first is Alexandria. The other is Antioch. Both cities were centers of Christian thought. Paul and other apostles spent time in Antioch, and Alexandria was known throughout the world as another great center of learning.

So what was the difference between Antioch and Alexandria? Well, let’s look at Alexandria first. Alexandria was the melting pot of cultures. Greek philosophy was alive and well. Many theologians, Origen, for example, had a background in philosophy. If you were to read Origen’s writings that we have at our disposal you would see him interpreting the text not just literally but also philosophically or in an allegorical fashion. Words meant more than just the literal word for him and others that came after him in the Alexandria School. Now this is not always a bad thing, but we need to always be careful to always consider the literal text.

Antioch and the theologians there were of a different style. They interpreted scripture in a literal, historical sense. Antioch generally steered clear of the allegorical approach to interpreting Scripture. That being said, they did not always have a lot of opportunities to find Christ in the Old Testament.

Both schools had men fall of either side of the the proverbial horse. Origen allowed his mind to go too far. Some men in Antioch did not go far enough to find Christ in the text, and questioned some of the Old Testament’s use for the Christian. Again, we should be looking back to what Jesus says. The Scriptures are all about him. He fulfills what was said in the Law, Prophets, and Psalms. If we keep that in mind, we ought to be able to see Christ not only in the New Testament but also the Old.

Rev. Jacob Hercamp
St. Peter’s Lutheran Church
La Grange, MO

The Four Ways of Interpreting Scripture

Encore Post: Pastor Smith has spoken a little about the four fold sense of interpreting Scripture. The Alexandrian theologians (at least some of them) followed this four fold sense method. Antioch held just to the literal or historical sense.

Those four are: Literal, Allegorical, Tropological, and the Anagogical senses. Below, I will try to explain them. I hope it proves to be a helpful primer. I do not believe I have a full grasp on each of these senses, but again I hope this gives some idea as to how the senses of interpretation were used to “get deeper into the meaning.”

The literal or historical sense is applicable to both a historical event and literary text. The literal sense is emphasized insofar as it historically grounds subsequent spiritual interpretation. Every subsequent sense was supposed to be connected then to the literal sense.

The allegorical sense then is used after the literal sense. The allegorical sense has been argued to go all the way back to St. Paul, even Jesus uses allegory in some of this parables. The allegorical sense of Scripture has been understood as referring to the mysteries of Christ and the Church as prefigured in Scripture. So then in the allegorical sense the object of allegory is properly Christ and the Church. Another principal of the allegorical sense in light of the Old Testament is that the object of allegory in reference of the Old Testament is a reality in the future.

The tropological sense applies a Scriptural text to the moral life. This sense, historically, has been a contributing factor for Christian anthropology and spirituality. The tropological and allegorical senses are united because while the allegorical sense refers to Christ and Church, the tropological sense refers to the individual members of the Body of Christ.

Finally the analogical sense is the eschatological sense of Scripture that looks forward to the consummation of everything in Christ at his final coming. In light of this we can kinda begin to see how these senses work all together. For instance, the anagogical sense represents the fulfillment of allegorical sense.

This was all supposed to find Christ, but more often than not, theologians went much further afield. This is why Luther was very weary of it. The medieval Church came up with some fanciful interpretations that had absolutely nothing to do with Christ.

Rev. Jacob Hercamp
St. Peter’s Lutheran Church
La Grange, MO