Are the Stories in the Old Testament Just Allegory?

I recently had a discussion with a fellow Christian who doesn’t believe that many of the events in the Old Testament are literal, historical fact.  He believes that the Bible is the true, inspired, word of God but that many of the far-fetched stories in the Bible are intended to be allegory or parable and not to be interpreted literally.  He asked, “Jesus often spoke in parables, why is it so wrong to approach stories in the Old Testament from this perspective?”.  Here are my thoughts on this issue.

There are many problems with this view.  One major problem is that it sees what is not in the text instead of what is in the text.  Allegorization and spiritualization open the door to subjectivism and uncontrolled speculation. It gives emphasis to the hidden, secret and imported meaning. Through allegorical method anyone can prove any argument in any way, because there is no objective control for the interpreter. He is seeking after the “hidden” and “spiritual” meaning of the text.

It reduces the Scripture to what seems reasonable to the interpreter. One is left without any objective means by which the conclusions of the interpreter may be tested. This results in us creating God in our image.  The emphasis is placed on a secondary sense or spiritual sense of the passage, so that the original words have no or little literal sense.  In the allegorical method of interpretation, the basic authority ceases to be the Scriptures, and becomes the mind of the interpreter.

The “literal” meaning of a word is the basic, customary designation of that word. To interpret literally means nothing more than interpreting a word in terms of its normal, usual designation. It exercises a control over subjective interpretation and spiritualizing trends. This method is the only safe check on the imaginations of man. The literal method grounds interpretation in fact. It is extremely important to know that the greater part of the Bible makes adequate sense when interpreted literally.

Only on such a basis can the average individual actually understand or interpret the Scriptures for themselves.  We must keep in mind that the Bible presents God’s plan of salvation for all mankind, not just to the intelligent, well educated people trained in how to find the hidden meaning in text.

“The teaching of your word gives light, so even the simple can understand.” ~ Psalm 119:130

To believe that we are to look, not for the plain meaning of the text, but beyond it to try to find a hidden meaning, is to require a level of competence and intelligence that is beyond many.  A PhD in literature or a doctorate in ancient Hebrew customs is not needed to read, understand, and interpret the Bible.  It is written to be clear to all peoples in every generation.  We are wrong to come at it in a way that does not take the face value of what is written and instead looks to read meanings into it that aren’t plainly there.

When the Bible says something happened, it simply means it happened.  If it says an event occurred at a specific place and time to a specific individual, it is incorrect to assume that it didn’t and to try to read in a hidden symbolism and meaning instead of interpreting this as a description of a historical reality.

This is not to imply that events in the Bible were not orchestrated by God for the purpose of teaching lessons.  Of course they were.  For example, the Israelites are provided manna from heaven to sustain them.  They could only take what they needed for each day.  This is to teach them and us the importance on relaying on God’s word, everyday.

“He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your ancestors had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD.” ~ Deut 8:3

Here, we see God using a REAL event to teach them (and us).  The Bible then even explains the lesson we are supposed to learn from it.  This is not allegory but illustration.  It is a visual aid, an object lesson.  It is pointing to a real, concrete object, person, or event and explaining an additional meaning behind it.  This is totally different than inventing a story for the sole purpose of teaching a lesson.  These object lessons are often referred to as “types”.  We see them everywhere in the Old Testament.  In every case, they are real, tangible people, objects, or events that serve the additional purpose of pointing towards something or someone else.  Here are some examples just from the book of Exodus alone:

• God raises up a “type”, a deliver (Moses), to redeem His people from slavery and bondage in Egypt.  This points towards the day when the great deliver, Jesus the Christ, will come redeem His people from slavery and bondage to sin and death.
• In Egypt, He finally brought His people out of captivity by the death of the first born sons of all the Egyptians.  This real event is a type that points towards how God would sacrifice His firstborn son for us.
• For the Israelites, death “passed over” their first born sons because of the blood of the spotless lamb that was spread over their door posts.  These types (the blood of the lamb and the act of passing over) were real life object lessons meant to teach the Israelites about the blood of the perfect lamb, Jesus Christ, that would be shed on their behalf, so that God’s wrath would “pass them over”.
• God told the nation of Israel to set up the Passover as a yearly observance so that they would never forget this lesson.  God uses this yearly reminder of the real event of the Passover as a type foretelling of the eventual sacrifice of Jesus. God even drives this point home by having the death of Jesus on the cross occur during the Passover celebration.  His death occurred at the very hour the Passover lamb was traditionally slain!
• During the Passover meal unleavened bread (without yeast) is broken and shared with all.  This concrete, physical, object lesson is to show that the body of Jesus Christ (pure with no sin) would be broken for us.  The wine was a type, pointing to the blood of the lamb spread over the door posts, indeed the blood of the perfect lamb, Jesus Christ shed for us.

The awareness of what kind of literature we are reading is essential to a correct understanding of the text. A correct genre judgment should be made to ensure correct understanding. A parable, for example, should not be treated like a chronicle, nor should poetry be interpreted as though it were a straightforward narrative. Each passage has its own genre, and the interpreter should be cognizant of the specific kind of literature it is as he attempts to interpret it. Without genre recognition an interpreter can be misled in his understanding of the passage. For example, when the prophet speaks of “trees clapping their hands” (Isa. 55:12) one could assume a kind of animism unless he recognized that this is poetry and not prose.

Some, for instance, take Adam to be a myth, whereas in Scripture he is clearly and conclusively presented as a real person. Many take Jonah to be an allegory, however, he is clearly presented as a historical person and is so referred to by Christ Himself (Mat. 12:40-42). This is an appropriate warning not to use genre criticism as a cloak for rejecting the truth of Scripture.

Parables allegories, symbols, types, figures of speech, etc. are frequently used in the Bible, but an adherence to the literal method of interpretation makes it clear when this is occurring.  These are colorful vehicles for presenting literal truth. In many cases, the Bible even immediately explains its own symbolism.  For example, take Galatians 4:21-31.  Paul points out that a literal event (the birth of Abraham’s sons) symbolized a spiritual reality.  This is another example of a “type”.  Paul is not using an allegorical method of interpretation. He was only explaining an actual event that has allegorical meaning.

The Bible is very clear about when it uses allegory.  In all of the incidents the allegorical imagery is not provided by the biblical authors, but from God Himself. All God requests of the authors is to faithfully record the literal realities of what they were told or saw.  Examples of this include the book or Revelation and the writings of many of the Old Testament Prophets.  The human authors were shown a vision.  In the book of Revelation, John sees a vision of Heaven and faithfully records the strange things he actually witnessed.  Are many of them allegorical? Certainly.  However, John is not told to make that determination.  He is just instructed to write down what he sees.

Therefore, what we have recorded is the literal event that occurred that contains an allegory.  Why is this an important distinction?  Simple, we never see a biblical author testifying that something happened that didn’t actually happen.  You will see them testifying that this really happened and (in some cases) that they have no idea what it means, but never stating that an event occurred that is actually fiction, just to make a point.

Another Old Testament example of allegory is Ezekiel 16.  In this passage God speaks comparing the Nation of Israel to an infant who is discarded in a field and found wallowing in blood.  Israel is then compared to an unfaithful wife who becomes a prostitute by running after other gods.  It is clear here that the genre is allegory.  There is no mistaking it.  It should be noted that no proper names are given.  There are no people indentified by name, no description of ancestry or lineage, and no reference to actual times.  It is very clear that this takes the same form as Jesus’ parables.   Jesus frequently refers to people in His parables, not as real individuals, but as characters in a story.  Examples would be, the widow, the ten virgins, the prodigal son, the Good Samaritan, the sower of seeds, etc.  He doesn’t assign them names or imply they are real people at all.  It is a clear example of a story invented BY GOD to illustrate a point (an allegory).

As I mentioned above, Jesus did this frequently.  He would make statements like, “Everyone who hears these words will be like a wise man who built his house on a rock…”, etc.  It was always immediately apparent to the disciples and those around when Jesus was speaking in parable, yet they held to the reality of the history in the Hebrew Scriptures.  The Jews were very able to tell the difference.  I think it is clearly apparent today as well.

Christ, apostles and the NT writers all followed the plain, literal, normal meaning of words. That was their normative methodology for reading the Scriptures. One of the strongest evidences for the literal method is the use the New Testament makes of the Old Testament. When the Old is used in the New, it is used only in a literal sense. Matthew, in His Gospel, has used numerous Old Testament quotations. All these passages are interpreted Messianically (Christologically) as literally referring to the life, ministry and death of Christ.

The best commentary (and guide) for interpreting the Old Testament is the New Testament.  Almost one tenth of the New Testament consists of Old Testament quotations. The prophecies which were fulfilled in the first coming of Christ were fulfilled literally. The apostles used the Old Testament extensively in their Gospel sermons. They were not trying to find allegorical, hidden, spiritual, or secondary meanings in the Old Testament texts. They simply brought out the plain meaning of the texts and applied it literally to Christ and His redemptive work.

While interpreting Isaiah 53, Peter uses a literal method (1 Peter 2.22-25). The writer of Hebrews made extensive use of the Old Testament (including events, people, objects, rituals, types, stories, etc.) in a literal sense, applying them to the person and work of Christ. All the New Testament writers gave their readers the plain, primary sense of the text. They used and interpreted the Old Testament in its historical, grammatical and literal contexts.

Some of the most extreme events in the Old Testament (and most frequently questioned) are the very events Jesus Himself attested to while He was here on the earth.  Many have questioned the story of Jonah. However, while Jesus was speaking about His immanent death and resurrection, Jesus affirmed the reality of Jonah.

“For as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish for three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights.” ~ Matthew 12:40

This is a direct comparison between two literal, historical events.  If the resurrection is to be taken as historically factual, and if it was to be represented by Jonah’s three days in the stomach of the huge fish, then it follows that the type itself must have been historically factual–regardless of modern skepticism.  This is further confirmed by Matthew 12:41

“The people of Nineveh will stand up against this generation on judgment day and condemn it, for they repented of their sins at the preaching of Jonah. Now someone greater than Jonah is here—but you refuse to repent.”

Archer sums this point up well. . .

“Jesus implies that the inhabitants of Nineveh actually did respond Jonah’s stern warning and denunciation with self-abasing humility and fear–precisely as recorded in Jonah 3 . . . This means Jesus did not take that book to be a mere piece of fiction or allegory, as some would-be Evangelicals have suggested.  Adherence to such a view is tantamount to a rejection of Christ’s inerrancy and therefore His deity.” (Archer, The Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties)

There is certainly reason to believe that such an event is possible, even without the intervention of God that certainly occurred in the biblical account of Jonah.  To be fair, the Bible never actually says “whale”, just great fish.  In fact, a man being swallowed by a fish and surviving after several days has actually been documented, twice (in addition to Jonah)!  If you would like more info you can read this:  http://reasonableanswers.org/52-Is-Jonah-a-big-fish-story.html

What is more is that the Jewish historian Josephus testified that Jonah was an actual person.  He did not believe Jonah or the description of him in the Hebrew Scriptures to be allegorical.  Josephus wrote…

“In the fifteenth year of the reign of Amaziah, Jeroboam the son of Joash reigned over Israel in Samaria forty years.”…”Jeroboam made an expedition against the Syrians, and overran all their country, as Jonah had foretold.  Now I cannot but think it necessary for me, who have promised to give an accurate account of our affairs, to describe the actions of this prophet, so far as I have found them written down in the Hebrew books.”

He then proceeds to retell the account of Jonah in the Bible.  Notice this first century historian talking about Jonah as an actual person. The logical conclusion is Josephus, a Jewish historian considered Jonah to be an actual person in history and not an allegory.  More on the reality of the person Jonah can be found here: http://reasonableanswers.org/51-Is-Jonah-a-big-fish-story.html.

Further, we now know through archeology that Nineveh was a REAL place and that it was indeed a large city at the time of Jonah (as stated in the Biblical account).  It was discovered by archeologists in the 1800’s.  Before this, only the Bible mentioned this city.  Once again, spot checked; results…spot on!

In addition to Jonah, many question the biblical account of Noah and the Ark, saying it is merely allegorical.  However, here again, we see Jesus personally showing us how to interpret Old Testament stories such as this…as factual events.

“As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark;  and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.” ~ Matthew 24:37-39

Jesus is predicting what will happen in the future historical event that was foreshadowed in the type, the historical Old Testament event.  He must, therefore, have regarded the flood as literal history, just as it was recorded in Genesis.

In fact, we there is substantial evidence that not only shows this story to be possible but probable.  Including petrified and fossilized sea life being found on top of the highest mountains (even Everest).  For more on this ready here: http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingtool/pointstoponderabouttheflood.shtml

Much of the discussion over allegorical vs. historical interpretation of the Old Testament commonly centers on the biblical account of creation.  Many believe the biblical account to be a myth; however no evidence to contradict the account in the Bible (other than to site evolutionary theory) is ever offered.  Some Christians believe in Jesus and accept him as God but see these Old Testament stories as just that, stories.  As I have shown earlier, you cannot accept the testimony of the disciples about Jesus and then disregard their testimony about the things Jesus taught.  These people are therefore left with this dilemma: Jesus and the rest of the New Testament authors spoke of Adam and Eve as real people and quoted the creation account from Genesis, stating it to be a real description of God working in the world.  Jesus commented about Adam and Eve saying:

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them [Adam and Eve] male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?” ~ Matthew 19:4-5

Regardless of modern scientific theory, Jesus believed that Adam and Eve were literal, historical personalities.  In the passage above He is directly quoting the creation account in Genesis.  This is again confirmed in the Epistles.  Paul testified in Gal 1:12 to have received his doctrine directly from the risen Christ.  He then clearly states in 1 Timothy 2:13-14:

“For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.”

The context of the verse above is very important.  Paul is making an argument about the leadership role of the husband. His appeal is to the order and events of creation.  The real and historical facts are VERY relevant and important to his argument.  The point at issue in this passage is the man’s leadership responsibility in the home and in the church; the historicity of Genesis 3 is presupposed.  If the account in Genesis 3 is not factual, his argument is not tenable.  If his theological argument is not tenable, then what are we to make of his claim to have received his theology from the risen Lord?  This is a slippery slope.

It should be noted that the account of Adam is further referred to in Romans 5:12-21 where the contrast is drawn between the disobedience of Adam, who plunged human race into sin, and the obedience of Christ, who brought redemption to all who believe.  How can we assume the reality of the one event and discount the other as a myth?  The passage is very clear on this point.  The Greek says the Adam is a “typos” (type) of Him (Christ) who was to come.  This word, typos, means that he was a physical representation of something else.  It is the same way that the bread and wine are “types” (real, physical objects), that represent the broken body and blood of Christ.  Archer says,

“No one can lay honest claim to loyal adherence to the doctrinal infallibility of Scripture and leave open the possibility of a mythical or legendary Adam, as the single ancestor of the human race.  This highly doctrinal passage in Romans 5 (which serves as the basis for the doctrine of original sin) presupposes that Genesis 2-3 contains literal, factual history.” (Archer, The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties)

In addition to Jonah, the flood, and the creation account, Jesus also discusses other seemingly amazing Old Testament stories, every time handling them as though they were true and factual events.  Jesus talks plainly about the miraculous destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire from heaven (Matthew 10:15, 11:23-24, Luke 10:12, 17:29).  He describes the reality of the two million plus Israelites surviving on manna from heaven for forty years in the desert (John 6:49).  One must assume Jesus did not see the stories in the Old Testament as myth or allegory.  Further, it is clear that all the New Testament authors are in agreement on this point.

“We are brought to the conclusion that there was one uniform method commonly adopted by all the New Testament writers in interpreting and applying the Hebrew Scriptures. It is as if they had all been to one school and had studied under one master. But was it to the Rabbinical school to which they had been? Was it to Gamaliel, or to Hillel, or to any other Rabbinical leader that they were indebted? All attainable knowledge of the mode of teaching current in that time gives the negative to the suggestion. The Lord Jesus Christ, and no other, was the original source of the method. In this sense, as in many others, He had come as a light into the world” (R. E. Girdlestone, The Grammar of Prophecy, 86).

It is noteworthy that the allegorical interpretation method was never used by Christ or the apostles. How Jesus Christ interpreted the Scriptures, and how the New Testament views and interprets the Old, is indeed, a normative methodology for us to follow. Since Jesus is God incarnate, whatever He affirms has divine authority. Hence, whatever He taught about the Bible is the last word on the topic.

“It is safe to say that in no recorded utterance of Jesus Himself, or any of His inspired apostles, is there even the slightest suggestion that inaccuracy in matters of history or science ever occurs in the Old Testament.” (Archer, The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties)

Certainly, to claim that the majority of events depicted in the Old Testament are allegory requires much defense, since it flies in the face of how Christ Himself interpreted the Scripture.  The burden of proof here clearly rests on the one arguing against the literal interpretation of the Scriptures.  This is why I continually ask who hold this view what proof or evidence can they offer that refutes the accounts in Scripture?  Even so, there is certainly supporting evidence that the literal interpretation of the events depicted in the Bible is correct. More on that Point in another post.