Non-Biblical Allegories in Reformed Theology and Their Implications
Non-Biblical Allegories in Reformed Theology
Reformed theology has historically approached allegorical interpretation with caution, particularly when it comes to non-biblical allegories. John Calvin, a foundational figure in Reformed thought, critiqued the excessive use of allegory in biblical interpretation, especially as practiced by Origen [1]. Calvin argued that while Paul uses allegory in Galatians 4:24, this does not justify indiscriminately applying allegorical interpretations to all scripture [1].
The use of allegory in biblical interpretation is nuanced within Reformed theology. On one hand, Reformed interpreters like Calvin acknowledge the presence and legitimacy of allegory in certain biblical contexts. For instance, Calvin recognizes Paul's allegorical treatment of Sarah and Hagar in Galatians 4 as a valid interpretive method [1]. On the other hand, they warn against the abuse of allegory, as seen in Origen's practice of forcing allegorical meanings onto scripture, which Calvin believed corrupted the simplicity and certainty of scripture [3].
Reformed theologians and biblical commentators have generally been cautious in their use of allegory, preferring to ground their interpretations in the literal or plain sense of scripture. For example, when discussing Romans 7:2-3, Tyndale House notes that Paul's use of an illustration from marriage law is not an allegory where every element has a theological counterpart, but rather a straightforward application of a principle [2]. Similarly, John Gill, in his commentary on Galatians 4:23, understands Paul's allegory as a continued metaphor that effectively conveys deeper spiritual truths [4].
The implications of this cautious approach to allegory are significant. By prioritizing the literal sense and being wary of unwarranted allegorical interpretations, Reformed theology emphasizes the clarity and reliability of scripture. This approach is reflected in the way commentators handle passages that might be seen as allegorical. For instance, in discussing Ezekiel 44:10, Gill interprets the passage in the context of the historical and spiritual condition of the Levites, illustrating a more grounded, historical approach to interpretation [5].
Moreover, the Reformed tradition's stance on allegory influences its understanding of doctrine and practice. By focusing on the plain meaning of scripture, Reformed theology seeks to maintain a direct connection between biblical text and Christian doctrine. This is evident in the way Calvin and other commentators engage with scripture, seeking to derive doctrine and practice from the clear teaching of the text rather than from speculative or overly allegorical interpretations.
The contrast between Reformed theology's approach to allegory and other traditions is notable. While some traditions have historically embraced allegorical interpretation more freely, Reformed theology's caution reflects its commitment to the authority and clarity of scripture. This commitment is not to the exclusion of deeper, spiritual interpretations, but rather seeks to ground such interpretations in the solid foundation of the biblical text.
Sources
- CCEL (Reformed) “Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, Vol. 1 (Gen 1-23), section 25.13: But because I have before declared, that this history is more profoundly considered by Paul, the sum of it is here briefly to be collected. In the first place, he says, that what is here read, was written allegorically: not that he wishes all histories, indiscriminately to be tortured to an allegorical sense, as Origin does; who by hunting everywhere for allegories, corrupts the whole Scripture; and others, too eagerly emulating his example, have extracted smoke out of light. And not only has the simplicity of Scripture been viti”
- Romans (Protestant academic) “Tyndale House on Romans 7:2: 7:2-3 These verses are not an allegory, in which every element of the story has a theological counterpart. Paul simply cites an illustration to make two basic points: Death can release a person from obligation to the law, and freedom from one relationship can allow a person to establish a new one. Paul applies the illustration in 7:4.”
- CCEL (Reformed) “Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, Vol. 1 (Gen 1-23), section 6.17: not have been placed opposite to Judea, towards the east. We must, however, entirely reject the allegories of Origin, and of others like him, which Satan, with the deepest subtlety, has endeavored to introduce into the Church, for the purpose of rendering the doctrine of Scripture ambiguous and destitute of all certainty and firmness. It may be, indeed, that some, impelled by a supposed necessity, have resorted to an allegorical sense, because they never found in the world such a place as is described by Moses: but we see that the”
- Galatians (Baptist/Reformed) “John Gill on Galatians 4:23: Which things are an allegory,.... Or "are allegorized": so Sarah and Hagar were allegorized by Philo the Jew (p), before they were by the apostle. Sarah he makes to signify virtue, and Hagar the whole circle of arts and sciences, which are, or should be, an handmaid to virtue; but these things respecting Hagar and Sarah, the bondwoman and the free, and their several offspring, are much better allegorized by the apostle here. An allegory is a way of speaking in which one thing is expressed by another, and is a continued metaphor; and the apostle's meaning is, that t”
- Ezekiel (Baptist/Reformed) “John Gill on Ezekiel 44:10: And the Levites that are gone away far from me,.... These Levites were priests, as appears from Eze 44:13, who professed themselves Gospel preachers, ministers of the reformed churches; but departed from the reformation principles; erred from the faith; and either mixed it with the doctrines of men, or wholly dropped, concealed, or dissembled it; departed from the word of God, as the rule of faith and practice; and set up their own reason as their guide in matters of religion; were gone off from the pure worship of God and his ordinances, and entirely neglected the ”