THE ABRAHAM, ISAAC, AND JACOB OF ALLEGORICAL BIBLE READING Allegory is language that says one thing and means either something MORE than what it says or something OTHER than what it says. --- Theologian R.A. Norris, in his article on Allegory in THE WESTMINSTER HANDBOOK TO ORIGEN. If Jesus was the fatherly Abraham of Allegorical Exegesis on the road to Emmaus, then Paul was clearly the Isaac of allegory in his many epistles, while Origen was the Jacob of allegory through his voluminous writings. JESUS AS THE ABRAHAM OF ALLEGORY Jesus frequently allegorized the Old Testament. Using key imagery from Old Testament passages which were ONLY seen as literal, He would then usurp their literal meaning into an allegorical application toward Himself. He referred to Himself as the Temple of God (John 2:19-22), the true manna from heaven (John 6:50), Jacobs supernatural ladder (John 1:51), the sign of Jonah (Matthew 12:38-40), the great shepherd of Psalm 23 (John 10:11), etc. God revealed Himself as the great I Am In Exodus 3 with Moses at the Burning Bush. Jesus refers to Himself as the I Am on at least eight separate occasions, thus now personifying the Burning Bush allegory. In each of those eight occasions, the wording in the original Greek is the same. Jesus refers to Himself not simply as I am but literally as I, I Am. The phrase could be legitimately translated as I and I alone or I and no one else. The words He chose are emphatic. Jesus again and again routed Old Testament passages as allegorical prophecies pointing to Him. But these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. John 20:31 “But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets may be fulfilled. Matt. 26:56 Now He said to them, These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled. Luke 24:44 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John (the Baptist). Matthew 11:13 Jesus in the above passages clearly says that ALL the Old Testament prophesies about Him. What? The entire Old Testament is to be primarily read as a series of prophecies about Jesus? How can that be? Sure we have all heard there are a few prophetic passages in the Books of the Prophets which speak of a coming Messiah. But ALL the prophetic writings? And not only them, but ALL the Books of the Law? All of these Old Testament books were purely prophetic toward Jesus? How can such a thing be? The Law --also known as the Torah, the Pentateuch, and the Books of Moses-- are the five books in the Bible which nearly all Jews and Christians read SOLELY as historical and literal truth. How can these books be called prophetic? Their context is not prophetic, but entirely historical in that they claim on their face to take us from the creation of the world up and through the death of Moses. They dont claim in their face to be prophetic. They dont literally mention Jesus by name. The word messiah appears nowhere in the Law, much less any literal promises of the coming kingdom of the Son of God. Now there are certainly several passages where the Lord promises Israel a blessed future, one in which all the nations will be blessed by the seed of Abraham. And some passages can certainly, in retrospect, be applicable to Jesus knowing what we now know. But to say the main thrust of the ENTIRE LAW prophesied about Jesus is mind-blowing. Modern day Jewish scholars take these same passages and apply them to the nation of Israel. There can be only one explanation. We are NOT reading these Old Testament Bible passages the right way unless and until we read them as allegorical prophecy. To read them properly is to see in WHAT sense they are specifically ALLEGORIZING to us something about Jesus. All the Old Testament is primarily to be read as an allegorical PROPHECY of the coming life, deity, nature, character, sacrifice, death, resurrection, and victorious glorification of Jesus. But the allegory doesnt stop there. The Old Testament also prophesies as of the ascended Jesus eventual INDWELLING of all of us through the Pentecostal outpouring of His Holy Spirit. To read it allegorically is NOT to deny it lacks historical It is a heroic movie trailer of His It is to read that way through the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Now, lets go back and look at where Jesus demonstrated this very dynamic to the Disciples. On the road to Emmaus, Jesus told the two disciples And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, He (Christ) INTERPRETED to them in ALL THE SCRIPTURES the things concerning himself....And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. And they said one to another, Was not our heart burning within us, while he spake to us in the way, while he opened to us the scriptures? Luke 24:26-27, 31-32. Now, we know that Jesus is LITERALLY nowhere explictly to be found by name in the Old Testament. But, ALLEGORICALLY, He is everywhere to be found. Do you see? Jesus allegorized the Scriptures to these two highly blessed disciples. And their hearts burned within them as they finally understood the true import of the Old Testament. PAUL AS THE ISSAC OF ALLEGORY For those who advocate allegorical reading, the apostle Paul is the key. He continually did it. When he cited Old Testament Scriptures, he always expanded them to either mean something MORE or something OTHER than what they literally said. Paul both approved and modeled the allegorical reading of the Old Testament for us. In 1 Cor. 14:21, Paul took an Old Testament passage which on its face had nothing to do with New Testament tongues (Is. 28:11-12), and transformed, enhanced and enriched it to make it a prophetic passage for the spiritual gift of tongues. Paul did the same thing by excavating the concept of circumcision from an empty and meaningless ritual to a spiritual transformation of the heart. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. 1 Cor. 7:19. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. Gal. 5:6. But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. Rom. 2:29. Paul, who I believe authored Hebrews, also elevated animal sacrifices from being useless rituals under the “letter of the law” to a wonderful prophetic image of Christ’s perfect sacrifice once and for all for sins. Heb. 10:1-10. Paul also transformed the Sabbath from a “letter of the law” weekly ritual to an ongoing lifestyle state of being. Heb. 4:1-11. Peter and Paul both renovated Old Testament dietary laws by integrating faith and thanksgiving into the true spiritual diet. (Acts. 11:5-10; Rom. 14:1-23; 1 Tim. 4:3-4). Peter did the same thing in taking Joel 2:28-29 and excavating, renovating and elevating it to prophesy the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. It is beyond dispute that the Old Testament scholars of their day would have accused Paul and Peter (and the other New Testament writers) of butchering and misusing scriptures. They didn’t see that the Old Testament scriptures needed to be transformed, enhanced and enriched. They failed to understand the key to Old Testament translation Jesus gave us in Matt. 11:13. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. In other words, the Old Testament scriptures are all prophetic seeds waiting to be activated by New Covenant anointing. Without the anointing, Old Testament scriptures are dark and mysterious when read “by the letter.” But when we add the water of the New Covenant Spirit and the light of Jesus, these hard seeds break open and sprout prophetic life. Paul used the term allegory, (Galatians 4:24) like many other Church Fathers, to describe a particular scripture in which one thing is said but another is intended. The text taken literally does have meaning, but there is also another meaning, which is the more important one. The discovery of the allegorical meaning can also be described as removing the veil (2 Corinthians 3:16), for which Holy Spirit illumination is required. Remember, as you read the passages below, remember this key point. It is NOT that the LITERAL reading of the Old Testament NEVER has ANY historical value or moral truth, for it does. But the literal reading is NOT spiritual. Modern day Jews know the literal Old Testament passages far better than most Christians, but they still are oblivious to what the verses spiritually mean with regard to the coming Kingdom of Jesus. Their eyes remain blind to Jesus, despite the fact Jesus said the entire Old Testament spoke of Him. Other key passages on allegorical reading are included below: Galatians 4:21-31 (The allegorical reading of the Old Testament here is both modeled and approved by Paul, as he completely reinterprets the meaning of the story of Abraham, Isaac, Hagar and Ishmael to refer rather to the current relationship between Old and New Covenants). 1 Corinthians 10:1-11( Paul allegorizes the whole Exodus journey of Israel as a type of the Christian walk, reading it non-literally in other words). 2 Corinthians 3:6-18 (Paul here says we are to be ministers of the New Covenant, not of the letter, for the LETTER KILLS, but of the Spirit, for the Spirit gives life, and that Moses, as a symbol of Old Testament understanding, veiled the true meaning of OT Scripture by reading it with blind literalism). Hebrews 8:1-5 (The voluminous OT passages about the tabernacle and priesthood and sacrifices are all shadows of heavenly things rather than literal realities on earth). Hebrews 10:1 (Here, we see the law itself is to be read allegorically: the law, having a shadow of good things to come, and NOT the very image of the things). Colossians 2:17 (The OT festivals, holy days and dietary laws are all called shadows of the body of Christ to come, again not the literal thing itself but a prophetic shadow of the Kingdom of God). Matthew 11:13 (ALL the OT law and prophets prophesied until John the Baptist, the clear implication being that the OT is one big prophetic allegory of Christ to come). Luke 11:27 (ALL the OT Scriptures, when properly read, speak ONLY of Christ). This allegorical approach is also called “Pneumatic (Spiritual) Exegesis” and essentially means “Spiritual Reading.” Consider the young Martin Luther on this point in stating that the Bible “cannot be mastered by study or talent . . .you must rely solely on the influx of the Spirit.” Only later in his life did Luther change to “literal” exegesis in order to more effectively refute and condemn his enemies. This mistake changed the course of his life and greatly harmed his anointing. I certainly grant you that Spiritual Exegesis can be dangerously wrong if the man doing it isn’t Spiritual, or if the man doing it doesn’t love and revere and carefully study the Scriptures. This explains why many who claim to use Spiritual Exegesis are really engaging in flights of fancy and imagination rather than truly hearing God Himself illuminate the Scriptures in a coherent way. But, just because some may abuse and misuse this principle doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Actually, the greatest truths are often surrounded by the greatest abuses. This is Satan’s way of keeping us from truth he doesn’t want us to hear. Beloved, reading the Scriptures by the Spirit of God is the only way to fly. Embrace the risk and responsibility of it and you won’t fail. I propose that all Bible readers need to learn and employ Spiritual Exegesis in excavating, elevating and renovating the Bible from the letter into the Spirit. The result will be a fulfillment of God’s goodness in the reading of any and all Scripture. The Bible will come alive and pulsate with the goodness of God. No longer will Scriptures be the “Paper Pope” whom we serve in the oldness of the letter. Scriptures instead will be inspired impressions left by the actual and living Word of God - - the Lord Jesus. These impressions will help us remember and recognize our own indwelling inspiration. Scriptures will be the diving board from which we dive into the fullness of God. To keep the diving board flexible, we must remove all husks of brittle and dry “opinions” which we have wrongly projected onto both God and Scripture and which have prevented us from “springing” into the bottomless depths of God’s goodness. Wherefore, in the Old Testament there is a veiling of the New, and in the New Testament a revealing of the Old. According to that veiling, carnal men, understanding things in a carnal fashion, have been under the dominion, both then and now, of a penal fear. On the other hand, spiritual men... have a spiritual understanding and have been made free through love which they have been gifted. Saint Augustine (On Catechizing the Uninstructed 4:8; NPNF 1/3:287). Certainly allegorical reading can be fraught with danger if the one doing it is NOT being led by the Holy Spirit. My response to this criticism is merely this --then BE led by the Spirit. Origen believed allegories must be spiritually sound to be successful. They must resonate with Apostolic faith and follow the established models set by the apostle Paul and other established exegetes. Scripture must interpret Scripture, etymological meanings considered, and humility applied. ORIGEN THE JACOB OF ALLEGORY Origen, in his fourth book On First Principles, explains his theory concerning biblical exegesis. Allegorizing Scripture, according to Origen, is based on the realization of its divinely inspired character (Origen, On First Principles IV.I.passim). The unity of the Bible is predicated on its divine nature. The one God speaks through many different men with one providential voice. Any apparent contradictions within the text reflect problems of human understanding or hints toward an allegorical subtext rather than any real inconsistency in the divine word (Origen, On First Principles IV.I.7; ibid. IV.II.9). For Christianity however, this unity extends FROM the New Testament light TO the Old Testament shadow. (ibid. IV.I.6).1 Origen’s allegorical usages of Scriptural passages to illuminate quite separate and contextually distinct meanings parallels a primary method of rabbinic exegesis as found in the later 5th century Bereshit Rabba. However, Origen’s use of this technique heavily favors the employment of the New Testament to illuminate the old in keeping with his view that the divine quality and spiritual character of the law of Moses came to light only with the coming of Jesus (Origen, On First Principles IV.I.6). One of my favorite Origen scholars and theologians, H. D. Lubac. Henri de Lubac was a French Jesuit priest who became a Cardinal of the Catholic Church, and is considered to be one of the most influential theologians of the 20th century. In an excellent review of Lubacs incredible thought on Origens allegorical reading, Marcellino D’Ambrosio, Ph.D., of the Crossroads Initiative, in his article entitled The Spiritual Sense of Scripture, gives the the following assessment: Some critical exegetes even expressed the opinion that ancient spiritual exegesis was a kind of pedagogue or temporary substitute for scientific exegesis. Its historical role was to preserve the Bible within a very pure and very exalted sphere of ideas and sentiments, until minds reached sufficient maturity to be able to understand the past and to be given the direct explanation of the texts. Others seemed to assume that the ancient distinction between literal and spiritual senses can be entirely attributed to ignorance in the field of science; hence the conviction expressed by a few scientific exegetes that the progress made in their particular discipline has shattered the traditional distinction in its very principle. De Lubac frankly thinks that such ideas smack of “a modern self-sufficiency” and a-priori thinking. While he is ready to grant that ancient commentaries obviously contained outmoded elements — to tell the truth, a lot of trash — he staunchly maintains that not everything about the ancient expositors can be explained simply by the fact that they lived in a pre-critical age. Beneath exegetical procedures which seem so strange to us today, de Lubac argued, we find a deeply pondered theology which retains a permanent value and lies not only at the heart of all Christian exegesis, but at the heart of Christian faith itself. Speaking elsewhere of the traditional commentators, de Lubac likewise affirms that a sacred element lies at the heart of their exegesis, an element which is one of the treasures of the faith. Considered in its doctrinal foundations rather than in its implementation, ancient exegesis for de Lubac touches upon the substance and rhythm of the Christian mystery and thus must be perpetually retained by the Christian community. Thus, de Lubac sees the ancient doctrine of the dual meaning of Scripture — spiritual as well as literal — as a non-negotiable part of the Christian patrimony. Indeed, he says, it is an inalienable datum of tradition. In support of this contention, de Lubac recalls that allegorical or spiritual interpretation of the Old Testament is precisely the usual exegetical practice of the New Testament authors themselves. For him, it is axiomatic that the exegesis of all Christian generations will have to conserve as an absolute norm the exegesis of the first generation. He also points to the fact that such has been the unanimous teaching of the Fathers and Doctors from the first centuries of the Church down to the present day and has been recently confirmed by the very papal documents which legitimized and mandated the development of scientific exegesis within the Catholic Church. He quotes Pope Leo XIII who, speaking of the allegorical or figurative sense of Scripture, affirms that this method of interpretation has been received by the Church from the apostles and has been approved by her own practice, as the liturgy attests. Pope Pius XII, observes de Lubac, says much the same thing in Divino Afflante Spiritu. And in Dei Verbum, the Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, de Lubac sees many aspects of the traditional hermeneutic endorsed as necessary for biblical interpretation today: In two consecutive paragraphs devoted to scriptural interpretation, what, really, does the third chapter of Dei Verbum, on divine revelation, say if not that we must first, by purely scientific study, determine as best we can the intention of each of the human authors and that only then, in order to better grasp the meaning, should we read it and interpret it as a whole in the light of the same Spirit who caused it to be written? When the sixth chapter advised us to study the Holy Fathers, those of the East as well as those of the West, so as to obtain this increased understanding, does this not indicate that there must still be profit to be derived from a study of the exegetical tradition which stemmed from the Fathers. In his proposal that we maintain and relish proper Spiritual Exegesis, aka allegorical reading, Lubac describes it this way: Naturally our spiritual exegesis—on the supposition that it be revived—will remain christological, purely christological, and it will not overlook any of Christs dimensions any more than it did in the past. Its course will be directly contrary to the one taken by an unenlightened science with consequences which were, on many an occasion, lamentably destructive. It will make a definite effort to remain open, on all occasions, to the wondrous depth of the divine words which filled St. Augustine with awe and love. We will be different in this respect alone that we will be more painstaking in our endeavor to avoid ever giving occasion for the impression that the foundations of our exegesis have been weakened by deficiences of criticism. This preoccupation will force us quite often to give up the procedure of the ancients and the reasons which, in their mind, justified it, even though we remain faithful to their fundamental principles. We will imitate their habitual modesty rather than their methodology. Although we will give as much attention as they did themselves to the Mystery which is signified in history, we will give more, perhaps, to the historicity of the figure; or, at least, we will be more aware of the way of proceeding which is imposed on us by an accurate knowledge of that historicity. And in this way we will make a real effort to unite our modern historical sense to that profound sense of history which their spiritual exegesis could draw from the text. HISTOIRE ET ESPRIT, page 432. This, it can be persuasively argued that the glory of allegory has been A, if not THE, primary way exegetes have interpreted the Old Testament Scripture throughout church history. Theologian Greg Boyd, in his recent blog review of a new book entitled The Hermeneutics of the Apostolic Proclamation by Matthew Bates (Baylor University Press, 2012), summarizes Bates foundational assertion as follows: that for ancient people in general, and for Paul and the authors of the New Testament in particular, it was generally accepted that the most important part of Scripture was not its surface, or literal meaning, but rather what was underneath in the depth of the text. They looked for the voice behind the voice and the divine res (things) beneath the verba (words) of Scripture.... The heart of Bates’ book is his claim that one of the central ways that Paul and other authors of the NT as well as ancient Jews, ancient pagans and early church fathers went about discerning the divinely intended meaning of their sacred texts was through prosopological exegesis. The word prosopological comes from the Greek work prosopon, which originally meant face, countenance or mask, though in the latter part of the Hellenistic era it came to refer to the whole character of a person, especially in theatrical or literary contexts (192-93). Prosopological exegesis therefore concerns the proper identification of [the] speakers and addressees in a text that is considered sacred (203). More specifically, it refers to the widespread ancient practice of explaining perceived problems in a sacred text or rendering a sacred text more relevant to a contemporary audience by positing a different speaker and/or addressee than the text itself supplies (183, cf. 218). According to Bates, one of the passages that reflect this conviction most clearly in Paul is 2 Corinthians 3:1-4:6 (161-81). In this passage Paul finds incredible significance in the episode where the Israelites placed a veil over Moses to conceal the glory that radiated from his face when he came down from Mount Sinai (3:7, 13; cf. Ex. 34:29-30). Among other things, Bates’ argues that Paul is construing this veil to be a hermeneutical veil that continues to blind unbelievers to the true meaning and true glory that is contained in the text of Scripture (3:14-15; 169-75). Unbelievers can of course still understand the syntax and grammar of Scripture – the letter of Scripture (3:6). But so long as a veil remains — which means, so long as their minds are hardened (3:14) — these unbelievers are unable to penetrate beyond the verba to the divinely intended res of Scripture to discern its divinely intended meaning and thus its true glory (173, 175). This is in essence what Paul means when he says the letter kills while the Spirit gives life (3:6). For Paul, Bates argues, the letter kills when it is not accompanied by an understanding of the deeper divine intent behind the letter (333). Jesus was making essentially the same point when he taught that Scripture is devoid of life unless the person reading it discerns how it is ultimately about him (Jn. 5:39-45). For Paul, it is only when a person turns to the Lord that this hermeneutical veil gets removed, thereby allowing believers to penetrate beyond the surface meaning of the text (the verba) to its divine intended substance (the res of Scripture, 181). This doesn’t mean that the letter of Scripture is unimportant for Paul, nor that it should become unimportant for us. It merely means that we should read the letter with the understanding that it contains clues…that allow [us] to penetrate through it to God’s divinely intended meaning (181). As was true of others in his social world, Paul regarded the divinely planted internal meaning of the scriptures (the res) to have priority over the linguistic or narrative sequence (verba) (331). Beyond the relative merits of Bates’ proposal, it seems to me that his work, combined with the work of a multitude of other scholars, has significant implications for the way Christians today should approach the OT. Prior to the 17th and 18th century, the Church read Scripture through the lens of the rule of faith (regula fidei) and therefore with the understanding that the divine author of Scripture could intend meanings that went beyond, if not at times against, the original meaning intended by the human authors. And it was always assumed (though not always consistently practiced) that the central meaning of all Scripture is Jesus Christ, since Jesus himself taught us to read it this way (Jn. 5:39-45; Lk 24: 25-27, 32, 44-47). This is clearly in line with the probing way Paul and other NT authors approached the OT. They reflect very little concern with adhering to the original meaning of passages while demonstrating a willingness to go to remarkably creative extremes to discern Christ in Scripture. With the advent of the historical-critical approach to Scripture in the 17th and 18th centuries, however, this “pre-critical” way of reading Scripture came to be largely disparaged, first in the academy and eventually in the Church. What’s most interesting today is that, while a host of scholars after Barth, and especially over the last twenty years, have been arguing for a return to the Church’s traditional way of reading Scripture, evangelicals have by and large been the most resistant to this. While evangelicals by and large reject the biblical criticism that accompanies the historical-critical approach to Scripture, they have been the most vocal defenders of the historical-critical assumption that the original meaning of a passage is the only truly legitimate meaning a passage can have. A concern that drives many evangelicals is that Scripture will be transformed into a proverbial wax nose that can be made to mean anything we want if we depart from the original intended meaning as the primary focus of our exegesis. This is a valid concern in the face of radical post-modern approaches that completely do away with the quest for the author’s original intended meaning. I thus agree that we should ever cut the tether with authorial intent. At the same time, in light of the precedent set by Paul and the NT as a whole regarding the creative extremes they were willing to go to disclose how Scripture points to Christ, I can’t see how we can accept the historical –critical noose that restricts all legitimate meaning to the author’s original intended meaning. I concur with Daniel Teier who astutely notes that it seems odd to suggest that we can receive the doctrines of the apostles without accepting the legitimacy of the scriptural hermeneutics by which they developed and defended that teaching. To say that we should read Scripture looking beyond the surface meaning of the texts is not to transform Scripture into a wax nose by allowing people to read into Scripture whatever subjective preferences they wish. The traditional way of reading of Scripture was not an undisciplined reading: it was simply not a reading that was restricted to the surface meaning of passages. While willing to go beyond the author’s original meaning, the traditional way of reading Scripture was nevertheless governed by the conviction that our reading must always be submitted to the divine author of Scripture, the Holy Spirit, and to the community of all who confess Christ. Related to this, the traditional way of reading Scripture was also governed by the Church’s rule of faith and, especially in the early post-apostolic and Reformation periods, by the conviction that all Scripture bears witness to Christ. That is, whatever surplus of meaning (sensus plenoir) interpreters found in Scripture had to be consistent with the foundational ecumenical creeds and with the revelation of God in Christ. Sounds like a plan to me!
Posted on: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 14:12:48 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015