It is wise to take great care in examining allegories; it is important that the exegesis and hermeneutical evaluations of the text must insure that the original intent and plain meaning are considered. However, Scripture is the living Word of God; it is the collection of books that has ever existed, or ever will exist, that allows the Holy Spirit to reveal deeper things of God as the maturity of a Christian progresses. Often, the mature Christian is taught these deeper things through the allegorizing of the text.
The first apostles used allegory to express the more excellent Jesus Christ that surpasses all other prophets, priests and kings that came before Him as revealed in the Old Testament. The Old Testament typical figure of Christ, however, is always a sinful person, while Christ alone is the Son of God, sinless in nature. So, the use of allegory does not suggest equal nature, but rather a pattern, that when examined closely, can bring Christians closer in their relationship and knowledge of Christ.
That Christ is superior to the Old Testament typological comparisons is found throughout the New Testament: Romans 5:17 shows Christ brings more grace than Adam, Hebrews 9:11 shows Christ is a greater tabernacle and Hebrews 9:14 shows Christ as a better sacrifice. John the Baptist contrasts new wine with the old wine (Matt 9:17, Luke 5:37-38) and there a great deal of many new things brought by Christ (2 Cor 3:6; Heb 8:7, 13; Heb 12:24, 2 Cor 5:7; Eph. 4:22-24; Col 3:9-10; Luke 5:36; Rev. 2:17, 3:12).
In my opinion, the New Testament encourages allegorical comparisons through the multitude of comparisons of Christ to the accounts of the old things written in the Old Testament. But, allegorical and typological comparisons must not be speculative in their nature. It seems to me that there is a fine line in exegesis; while the New Testament challenges scholars to connect the dots to allegorical comparisons, great damage can occur if great care is not taken. It seems very probable that deviation from the original meaning of Scripture with allegorical representation without solid foundational support will lead to false interpretation and teaching of God’s Word. How far that line extends for good exegesis is not expressed fully in our textbook up to this point in our study, though the history of hermeneutics shows it scattered throughout the exegesis process.1
The most interesting historical account discussed in the textbook concerning allegorical interpretation occurs, as you mentioned, in the Middle Ages. It was one part of four (Literal, Allegorical, Moral, Anagogical) and preformed the task as doctrinal statement of Scripture.2
I take it to mean that a preacher would read Scripture, and then tell the audience what it meant by creating allegoric connections that could be understood by non-scholars. That is the only way I could figure out how allegorical could be related to doctrinal; if you have a better way of connecting allegories to doctrine, I sure would appreciate your insight!
I feel overwhelmed even trying to discuss this subject with such a back-and-forth historical account of allegory use confusing me at every turn. Philosophically, I discovered in my research that there are two different types of allegory called the Mimetic and Ludic Principles; one reflects the correspondences of text, while the other represents the drama within our own minds that makes a connection.3 If these two principles are in fact legitimate (which my educational level at this point can neither confirm nor deny), then representing the Mimetic Allegory that derives specifically from the text would be more acceptable than Ludic Allegory that derives
specifically from our minds in our own imaginations. And, further research showed me that there is a significant movement among those of Eastern Orthodox doctrine to restore the evaluation of literary allegories of Scripture, with the view that it is a genuine Christian practice of necessity that emphasizes relationship and process in modern day worldviews.4
Whether that crosses fully over to Protestant practices, I’m not certain. But, the way you presented it and the way I understand it seem safe: Don’t interpret Scripture past the point past the words that it reflects specifically; there should be no subjective allegorical or typological advanced past the original meaning and Truth of the Scripture.
Crossan, John Dominic. "A Metamodel for Polyvalent Narration." Semia 9, (1977).
Ford, Mary. "Towards the Restoration of Allegory: Christolgy, Epistemology and Narrative Structure." St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 34, no. 2 (1990).
Klein, William W., Craig L. Blomberg, Robert L. Hubbard. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2004.
1 William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, Robert L. Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2004), 23‐62.
2 Ibid., 43.
3 John Dominic Crossan, ʺA Metamodel for Polyvalent Narration,ʺ Semia 9, (1977).
4 Mary Ford, ʺTowards the Restoration of Allegory: Christolgy, Epistemology and Narrative Structure,ʺ St. Vladimirʹs Theological Quarterly 34, no. 2 (1990): 161‐195.