Allegory – Problem or Solution? – 4.21-31 – Part I

Allegory is a serious hermeneutical problem. And this is from the beginning of the history of Christian interpretation. After all, a method that seems devoid of method or foundations is bound to be a problem. At least for historicist hermeneutics.

Paul concludes the previous section (4:20) by saying that he is “perplexed about you”, an expression that contains a high degree of discouragement. It seems that he has great doubts about his power of persuasion. Even the relational argument developed in 4.12-20 seems to have no effect. What to do? Use biblical allegory. For Paul, at least, it is the last and most important argument to be used. If we remember that he is concluding Probation, the moment in the letter when he tries to prove his position with the use of various arguments, it is surprising, at least to us Christian interpreters, that he has reserved the allegory for the end.

There is no space for in-depth discussions of the allegory in this post, but there is a basic question that we can address.

Historicist hermeneutics/exegesis presupposes the premise that biblical texts must testify to the reality of the events they describe. From this point of view, narrative texts refer the reader to the historical facts that are their foundation. And argumentative texts refer the reader to the historical context that produces the relationship between sender and recipient. Therefore, texts are always and indissolubly linked to the facts to which they bear witness.

Given this theoretical stance, any proposal that sees the text transcend the role of witness is seen negatively. The text must be a servant of history. If not, it becomes dangerous, as it opens up to uncontrollable meanings, as historicist hermeneutics would say. That is why the allegorical interpretation so present in the first centuries of Christianity was denied, mainly by the Protestant Reformation and by contemporary fundamentalist circles.

Is this concern with the liberation of meaning from biblical texts healthy? Perhaps, but the problem is inadequate or at least limiting the conception of text that such a perspective contains. After all, all text transcends. No text ends in itself. Every text is a starting point. And even historicists must agree with this statement. After all, for them, biblical texts are a starting point for historical reconstruction. This means that, for historicist hermeneutics, the text also transcends. The problem is that it is a limited and closed opening. The text leaves itself to immediately become a vassal of reconstructions, hypothetical, by the way, of historical facts.

Every text, from a pragmatic point of view, is unfinished. It brings proposals of meanings linked to its author. But understanding, which involves more than first sense, is open to the reader. This is more than a normal aspect of literary texts. Every reader, during and after reading, reflects on the meaning(s). The degree of approximation to what the author intended depends on numerous factors. Of course, the reader can reach conclusions that are different from what the text presents. But, in general, all reading presents a relationship between text and the constituent aspects of the reader's world that influence its understanding.

Therefore, when we read a work, we are thrown by it into several levels of reflection. In other words, the text transcends itself. And it's good that it is. The biblical text does not escape this process. As we read the Bible, we are also thrown forward, not backward, in search of reflections that make sense to us.

I say all this so that we understand that the allegory widely practiced in the beginnings of Christianity, and Galatians by Paul is part of this process of relationship between readers and texts. With the allegory, the interpreter asks himself about the expansion and deepening of the meaning of several texts. Is the text linked only to the past? Does it only concern narratives of events that occurred with this or that biblical man or woman? Not. Narratives are bridges to connect meanings and experiences.

I conclude by recalling that the allegory does not deny the historical aspect of the biblical text. We are not faced with an option: either the historical sense or the allegorical sense. This aporia is not true. Again, allegory transcends the historical sense but does not deny it.