Calvin and allegory

Calvin and allegory April 4, 2007

Calvin is harsher on allegorical interpretation than almost anyone, yet he is all in favor of typology. David, Zedekiah, Joseph, Aaron, Samson, Joshua, Zerubbabel, Cyrus and others are types of Christ.

It is no easy task to discover where he draws the line between allegory and typology, though. At times, the difference has to do with the degree of detail: “All the ancient figures were sure testimonies of God’s grace and of eternal salvation, and thus Christ was represented in them . . . . Yet it by no means follows from hence that there were mysteries hidden in all their details, since some, with mistaken acuteness, pass over no point, however trifling, without an allegorical exposition.”


Like this on Passover, maybe? “ . . . the celestial perfection and purity of Christ was shown forth by this visible perfection of the lamb, or kid . . . the side-posts and lintel should be sprinkled with blood, by this sign He plainly taught them, that the sacrifice would profit none but those who were stained and marked with Christ’s blood; for this sprinkling was equivalent to their bearing each one the mark of His blood upon their forehead.” No, that can’t be allegory, because it’s Calvin writing that.

Maybe this, on priestly garments? “This robe was above the oblong coat between that and the ephod, and from its lower edge hung the bells and pomegranates alternately. Although there was no smell in the pomegranates, yet ths figure suggested this to the eyes, as if God required in that garment a sweet smell as well as a sound; and surely we who stink through the foulness of our sins are only a sweet smell unto God as being covered with the garment of Christ. But God would have the bells give a sound, because the garment of Christ does not procure favor for us except by the sound of the Gospel, which diffuses the sweet savor of the Head among all the members.” Nope; that’s Calvin too.

On this passage, however, Calvin catches himself, and pauses to point out that his interpretation is not “too subtle or far-fetched” since “the similitude of the smell and the sound naturally leads us to the honoring of grace and to the preaching of the gospel.” MOreover, he warns that it would be “puerile” to find a mystery in “every hook and look.” To be sure, “no part were without a mystical meaning,” yet since we can’t be sure of our interpretations, we are better off not indulging “frivolous conjectures.”

This might well seem like special pleading: Calvin can find spiritual significance in the text when he pleases, and then condemn the allegorists for finding too much spiritual meaning in too many details. And I think Calvin is guilty of this.

There is, however, a real difference between what Calvin’s doing and what the condemned allegorists do. Saying that the pomegranates imply an aroma is speculative (and probably wrong), but it’s a speculation that arises from the properties of pomegranates. Saying that the five boards of the tabernacle represent the five books of Moses, or that the teeth of the beloved in the Song of Songs represent the priests of the church, seem more like a-contextual interpretations that don’t arise from the text or from the properties of the things being compared.

But this perhaps points to a deeper difference: Augustine’s claim that the teeth of the beloved are the ministers of the church is rooted in his prior commitment to a Christological interpretation of the Song. If the beloved is the bride of Christ, then her enumerated body parts must be some part of the church. Calvin also interprets the Old Testament Christologically, but he is reluctant to push that global hermeneutical commitment into specific details. The beloved might be the bride of Christ; but for Calvin her teeth are just teeth.


Browse Our Archives