CLAIM: In its root meaning, the word “allegory” means “to say something else.”^[1] This method of interpretation “seeks to discern a hidden meaning in a given story or text, a meaning that may be entirely divorced from the historical referent alluded to in the narrative itself.”^[2] For example of allegory, in John Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress, we read about various characters and places that clearly refer to a deeper meaning (e.g. Pliable, Faithful, Hopeful, Giant Despair, Doubting-Castle, Hill Difficulty, City Beautiful, etc.).

Sound biblical interpreters reject the allegorical method for interpreting historical texts, claiming that it is clearly contrary to proper hermeneutics. However, Paul says that his interpretation of the OT is “allegorically speaking” (Gal. 4:24). If Paul could interpret the OT allegorically, then does this imply that we should do the same?

RESPONSE: A number of observations can be made, regarding Paul’s handling of the OT.

First, Paul notes his use of allegory. He goes out of his way to state that this is an allegory (almost as though this was not a common way of interpreting the OT!). Indeed, if the allegorical method was so common to Paul, why did he feel the need to mention it? In fact, this is the only use of this Greek word (allēgoreō) in the entire NT.

Second, Paul’s observations are not truly allegorical. An allegory reads something into the text that isn’t really there. However, Paul’s observations are not truly allegorical in this way. Here, Paul is illustrating what happened to Abraham, when he tried to get God’s blessing through works—rather than through faith. Paul is observing that dealing with God’s promises in the flesh (through works) is always bad. This was true in Abraham’s time, and it is still true today. Therefore, Paul isn’t reading anything into the text. Instead, he is pulling principles from the text that still apply today. As Timothy George writes, “What [Paul] here called allegory might be better termed typology: a narrative from Old Testament history interpreted in terms of new covenant realities.”^[3] George also classifies this as an “analogy,” rather than a modern-day “allegory.”

Third, Paul could be responding to a common hermeneutical practice in Judaism at the time. In the first century AD, the allegorical interpretation was popular among Philo of Alexandria. We are speculating to some degree, but Paul might be referring to “allegory” to use the interpretive method of the Judaizers against them.

^[1] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 338.

^[2] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 338.

^[3] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 340.