Allegorical Method

o This method flourished during the first century church.

o Allegorical interpretation had its origin in ingenious etymological explanations of the names given to the
deities and began to resolve the tension between myth, on the one hand, and science and philosophy, on
the other, and to protect the tradition against satirical attacks. The treatment of an ancient tradition
(generally narrative in form) whereby one ignores its literal meaning and discovers new, hidden meanings
in each term of the tradition. [“Allegory,” IDB, Vol. I, 82]
o It is a continued comparison by representation or implication. It is a figure of speech that involves
change, and that affects the application of a word or phrase with regards to the sense of that word or
phrase. One class of Rhetoricians declare that it is a continued metaphor: and another class declare that it
is not. But, as is often the case under such circumstances, neither is quite correct, because both have a
part of the truth and put it for the whole. Neither of the contending parties takes into consideration the
existence of hypocatastasis. And this fact accounts for the confusion, not only with regard to allegory, but
also with regard to metaphor. (FSUB, p. 748)
o To understand allegory requires understanding three other figures of speech (FOS): simile, metaphor, and
hypocatastasis. All three FOS including allegory are based on comparison. The simile is comparison by
resemblance—the comparison is stated; the metaphor is comparison by representation—the comparison
is substituted; and, the hypocatastasis is comparison by implication—the comparison is implied. Thus,
allegory is a continuation of the latter two, metaphor or hypocatastasis; while the parable (q.v.) is a
continuation of the simile. (FSUB, p. 748)
o The allegory, therefore, is of two kinds ; one in which it is continued metaphor (as in Ps. xxiii.), where the
two things are both mentioned (Jehovah, and the Shepherd's care), and what is asserted belongs to the
principal object ; the other, in which it is continued hypocatastasis (Ps. lxxx. 8-15), where only one thing is
mentioned (the vine), and what is asserted belongs properly to the secondary object; viz., to Israel. Israel
whom it really refers, is not mentioned, but only implied. (FSUB, p. 748)
o Philo Judaeus (20B.C.—40A.D.), who was a devout Jew, made use of allegory to blend and harmonize two
worldviews together, his own, the Jewish’s and that of the Greek’s.
o Another well-known philosopher who made use of allegory is Augustine. His allegorical interpretation of
the parable of the Good Samaritan. In the first phrase, "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to
Jericho;" Augustine equates "a certain man" with Adam, "Jerusalem" with the heavenly city of peace from
which Adam was expelled, and “Jericho" with the moon, the symbol of man's mortality. [“Allegory,” IDB,
Vol. I, 82]
o Another way to describe allegory is by way of the word fuse or fusing together. The Greek and Roman
mythological writers made use of this literary device to describe dual (and perhaps multiple) realities by
fusing at least two different beings together; it is where beings are half human and half animal or half is
one kind of animal and the other half is another kind. The Apostle Paul made use of it when he tried to
fuse history with religious practices in explaining a theology about Christ outside of its literal or common
historical sense, Galatians 4.24f.