|
Problems with Allegorical Interpretations of Prophecy |
|||||||
|
The first and most important question that must be asked when interpreting Bible prophecy is, “What are your rules of interpretation?” “What are your hermeneutics?” Is your objective to determine what the author was meaning to say? There is no question that authors of Scripture would sometimes use symbolism. John the Baptist called Christ the “Lamb of God.” John was not saying that Christ is literally an animal. Jesus spoke in parables, and it was clear that he was doing so. But what if the natural reading of an author’s words reads like it could easily be literal? What if, given the culture and time of the author, it would be hard to believe that the author was saying anything other than it’s “historical and grammatical” interpretation? Do we have the license to say that the author’s words are “figurative,” and do not say what the author himself would have understood? Consider the words of Zechariah 14. Verse one begins with a statement of victory in battle:
Then we have a description of Jerusalem being attacked by “all nations.” The women are being raped. Jerusalem is falling. Yet, at the last moment, the feet of God stand on the Mount of Olives (Zech. 14:4), and there is victory. Zechariah goes on to describe this victory. In verses 12-15, we read of the panic that the Lord strikes into the invading armies. We read of their eyes rotting in their sockets and their tongues rotting in their mouths. And we read of all the wealth that is collected from all the nations who attacked Jerusalem. Yet, this passage is often attributed to 70 AD, when Jerusalem was surrounded by Rome, and Jerusalem was destroyed. There was no military victory for Jerusalem. There was only defeat. There was no gathering of plunder from the nations that attacked Jerusalem. So how can anyone reasonably apply Zechariah 14 to 70 AD? It’s done by the use of allegorical interpretation. Did Zechariah himself believe this battle would end in defeat or in victory? There is no question that Zechariah himself was doing his best to describe a victory for Jerusalem. But allegorical interpretation is used to reverse this victory and basically say that Zechariah’s was using “figurative language,” and that the actual fulfillment was the opposite of what he literally was saying. Using allegorical interpretation, how do they deal with this victory? They would simply say this gathering of plunder is representative of the victories the church would have during the centuries that followed 70 AD. By calling upon allegorical interpretation and “figurative language,” there is always some way to make the words say what you want them to say. But anyone who is truly honest in wanting to know what Zachariah himself would have understood, would never apply this prophecy to 70 AD. So why do otherwise conservative Bible scholars reverse the meaning of Scripture like this? It’s because they have problems fitting this apparently literal prophecy with the book of Hebrews. The book of Hebrews teaches that Christ was the one sacrifice, and that animal sacrifice is no longer needed nor wanted by God. Everything that the book of Hebrews says, as understood by that author, is true. And the literal interpretation of Zechariah 14 is that all the nations will be forced to worship at the Feast of Tabernacles (verses 16-19) after Christ returns. That Old Testament feast included animal sacrifice. It was a part of the old covenant. But is this reason to effectively reverse the intended meaning of Zechariah, as he understood it? Such apparent contradiction is not a reason to reverse the interpretation of Scripture. Such apparent contradiction is only a sign that we should reexamine our understanding of what all authors of Scripture meant to say. Harmony can be found in Scripture without, in effect, changing the meaning of Scripture. The History of Allegorical Interpretation It may be helpful to examine some of the history of allegorical interpretation. Until the time of Constantine, Alexandria was second only to Rome in the Roman Empire. Alexandria was named after Alexander the Great, and it was known for it’s great library, and for all it’s high learning, philosophy, and Greek culture. The allegorical interpretation of Bible Scripture dates back to Alexandria. Philo (15 BC – 50 AD) was Jewish (not Christian) and lived in Alexandria, along with many other Jews. Philo learned about allegorical interpretation from the Greeks, who did this in order to make their ancient Greek myths be more relevant to their everyday lives. Philo wanted to prove, through allegorical interpretation, that Jewish culture was not inferior to Greek culture. So Philo interpreted Moses as a philosopher who was the source of all later philosophy. Allegorical interpretation made the ancient Greek myths seem important to their culture. Philo wanted to find this same deep level of interpretation in the writings of Moses. Scripture started to have meaning well beyond the simple historical accounts of Moses. |
New Wine for the End Times
|
||||||
|
Around A.D. 200, Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD) followed Philo's lead. He taught that God gave the Law to the Jews and that God gave philosophy to the Greeks. Both were for the purpose of leading people to Christ. God’s Word (Logos) was the source of both. This fit right in with the Doctrine of Logos, which was a Greek doctrine. The Logos is that which accounts for the design in the Creation. In this Greek doctrine, the Logos is the source of all knowledge, especially about religion. John was probably influenced with this Greek doctrine when he wrote John 1:1. Clement taught that the Logos was Jesus before becoming a man, and that the Logos is the Son of God. The Holy Spirit attracts men to Christ when they seek true knowledge. Such knowledge was the true gnosis. This is not to be confused with the false gnosis of the heretics, which claimed secret knowledge, and did not stay with the knowledge given by the Scriptures. The Doctrine of Logos gave Clement a tool to unite Christianity with Greek philosophy. Clement believed that the truth in Scripture is often hidden, and could only be found by the use of allegorical interpretation. But this was the deeper meaning (gnosis). Clement did not deny the literal, historical meaning of what the authors of Scripture had said. But the emphasis was on allegorical interpretation to find "spiritual" knowledge (gnosis). | (NIV John 1:1-5) In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. | ||||||
|
When the persecutions of Emperor Septimius Severus came, Clement left Alexandria. A young boy, Origen (185-254), wanted to join his father and be martyred during these persecutions. But his mother hid his clothes so that he would have had to go out naked. Thus he did not join the martyrs. After Clement left Alexandria, his work was given to the young scholar, who for the next thirty years ran the school at Alexandria. Origen was one of the most influential men of the early church. He developed Philo and Clement’s methods of allegorical interpretation. He believed there are three levels of allegorical interpretation, which corresponded to three aspects of man. These were the literal, moral, and spiritual meanings and corresponded to the body, soul, and spirit of a man. The body was the least important, and the spirit was the most important. If an author of Scripture, such as Moses, was writing about a literal historical event, then the literal event is least important, just as the body is least important. The soul (psyche) and the spirit (pneuma) are two different things in the Greek. The moral meaning of a Scripture corresponded to the soul (psyche) of a man. The spiritual meaning of a Scripture corresponded to the spirit (pneuma) of man. And these meanings could only be discovered by the use of allegorical interpretation. Even the historical Jesus was less important than as the Logos of Christ available for believers in the church and in the sacraments. Some Old Testament Scripture is obviously shadows of Jesus. Origen found shadows of Jesus all through the Old Testament, not just in the more obvious Messianic prophecies. New Testament text symbolized the sanctification of the soul, or the church, and showed the progress in our journey to the Kingdom of Heaven. While others devalued the Old Testament as being Jewish, Origen held it to be the inspired world of God. But the valued truth within was not about the Jews and ancient Israel. It was spiritual knowledge. This helped the church in wanting to keep the Old Testament as Scripture, because the followers of Marcion wanted to reject it. So without allegorical interpretation, the early church might have rejected the Old Testament entirely as being God's word. Rather than defending each story, Origen could just say they had not read deeply enough to see the true meaning (knowledge). The problem, here, is that the early church had doubts about the Old Testament being God’s Word (Logos), without error. They didn’t like what was being said. So instead of changing their views to conform to God’s Word, they used allegorical interpretation to alter the literal meaning that was intended by the authors. There is nothing wrong with allegorical interpretation in and of itself. Paul used allegorical interpretation in Gal. 4:21-31. Similar to allegory is typology, which is to use an early story or character as a “type” that shadows a later person. The writer of Hebrews uses typology in his discussion of Melchizedek. He brings out a lot of meaning that is not evident in the original account beginning with Genesis 14:18. But apparently the author of Hebrews found this meaning. Matthew uses allegorical interpretation in Matt. 2:14-15 when he quotes, “Out of Egypt I called my son,” from Hosea 11:1. Hosea was clearly talking about the nation of Israel being called out of Egypt, which was an historical event, not a future prophecy. But the Messiah comes from Israel, and you can argue that Christ’s name is Israel. Therefore this is an allegorical interpretation. There is nothing wrong with allegorical interpretation in and of itself. I also think there is truth and value to the idea that Jesus is the Logos. I don’t doubt that John used the Greek Doctrine of Logos in making his point. And I do believe that God’s Word has deeper meaning (gnosis) that can be discovered with allegorical interpretation. I think Clement may have been right about the three levels of allegorical interpretation. And I have no doubt that Origen was right about the Old Testament being full of shadows of Christ. I think it may be possible to find shadows of Christ in every Old Testament story. The Scripture is the Logos, and Christ is everywhere in the Logos. But when these methods of allegorical interpretation in any way take away from, or deny, the literal meaning that was intended by the author, then we have crossed the line into error. | |||||||
|
Let’s go back and think about why we believe that Scripture is God’s Word. 2nd Tim. 3:16 says that all Scripture is God-breathed. Each book of Scripture has the writing style and personality of the author. Some authors were better educated than others, and the writing reflects it. There is even embarrassing grammatical errors in Scripture. So men wrote Scripture. And yet the Holy Spirit revealed the doctrines and truths they wrote. The Holy Spirit prevented them from making doctrinal errors. And each author understood those doctrines. He had to understand them in order to write them down. | (NIV 2nd Timothy 3:16) All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. | ||||||
|
At the same time, I believe the God is powerful enough for Scripture to have deeper meanings that we can find of which the authors themselves were not aware. Hosea may not have been specifically thinking about the coming Messiah when he wrote, “Out of Egypt I called my son” (Hosea 11:1). Yet the fact that Israel was called out of Egypt, and yet remained sinful, was something that Hosea clearly understood. The Holy Spirit gave Hosea this truth and he wrote it down with his words. But later Matthew was lead by the Holy Spirit to use these words in a little different way (Matt. 2:14-15). This in no way denies the truth that Hosea understood. We cannot use allegorical interpretation to deny the truth as understood by the authors of Scripture, because the Holy Spirit gave them this understanding. So Hebrews and Zechariah 14 are in harmony. The Holy Spirit inspired the authors of both, and the
authors of both understood what they wrote. Philip B. Brown
|
Overcome sin, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!
