Allegorical interpretation may appear rich, imaginative, or spiritually profound—but when applied without clear biblical support, it leads to serious theological and interpretive errors. These methods often bypass grammar, history, genre, authorial intent, and audience relevance, which are essential for honoring what God actually communicated.
When these controls are ignored, the result is spiritual impotence, interpretive chaos, and theological confusion—which can ultimately undermine the authority and effectiveness of Scripture itself.
🧠 Logical Fallacies
Illegitimate Totality Transfer
This fallacy assumes that a word or concept carries every possible meaning it has—all at once—into a single instance, even if the context clearly favors just one.
🧾 Examples:
- The Greek word ‹ σῴζω › (sōzō) can mean to heal, rescue, deliver, or preserve. Some teachers read all of those definitions into every occurrence—so a verse about being saved from enemies is assumed to also mean spiritual salvation, physical healing, and emotional restoration simultaneously.
- The Hebrew word ‹ רוּחַ › (ruach) can mean wind, breath, or spirit. Illegitimate totality transfer would interpret a passage where physical wind is clearly the subject as also referring to the Holy Spirit and to human breath, simply because the word can mean all three.
- In some circles, the word “anointing” is loaded with meanings—empowerment, favor, healing, authority, spiritual gifting. When a text mentions anointing oil or someone being anointed, all these meanings are simultaneously assumed to be in play, regardless of the original usage.
⛓️💥 The issue is that this fallacy overloads words with every possible nuance, ignoring context and authorial intent. It treats biblical language like a mystical thesaurus, rather than carefully discerning which meaning is active based on grammar, genre, and audience understanding.
Illegitimate Identity Transfer
This occurs when a meaning from one context is imposed onto another, unrelated context—especially when equating distinct groups or concepts across time.
🧾 Examples:
- Interpreting every reference to Israel in Old Testament prophecy as referring to the modern Church—a common theme in Replacement Theology and Covenant Theology circles.
- Assuming that the Greek word ‹ σῴζω › (sōzō) always refers to eternal salvation from sin, even in passages about physical healing or deliverance.
- Equating the temple in Haggai 2 with the human body or church age revival, even though the historical context is a literal Second Temple rebuild.
⛓️💥 The issue is that this rewrites the Bible’s redemptive narrative, often hijacking Israel’s promises, confusing spiritual and national categories, and creating contradictions between texts that were never meant to be merged.
Esoteric Fallacy
This fallacy assumes that Scripture contains hidden spiritual codes that can only be unlocked through special insight, revelation, or intuition—not plain reading.
🧾 Examples:
- Some Charismatic teachers claim that Song of Songs is a “manual for divine union” or contains secret steps to spiritual ecstasy.
- Popular mystical teachers reinterpret passages like Ezekiel’s wheel visions as symbols of astral travel or prophetic portals.
- Numerologists within fringe Christian movements assign symbolic meanings to every name and number, treating Scripture like a spiritual cipher.
⛓️💥 The issue is that this bypasses the text’s actual meaning and imports Gnostic tendencies—privileging personal experience over public revelation. It makes Scripture inaccessible and unpredictable, undermining trust in God’s word as clear and sufficient.
Deductive Fallacy
This fallacy occurs when interpretation begins with the reader’s personal experiences, emotions, or expectations, and deduces meaning from those, rather than uncovering the author’s original intent. In doing so, it replaces exegesis (drawing meaning from the text) with eisegesis (reading meaning into the text). Scripture becomes filtered through a subjective lens, shaped by the reader’s worldview, psychology, or desires.
🧾 Examples:
- Teaching that David and Goliath is primarily about “facing your fears” or “slaying your anxiety,” rather than God delivering Israel through His anointed servant.
- Using Jeremiah 29:11 (“I know the plans I have for you…”) as a universal promise of personal prosperity or career fulfillment, while ignoring its original context of God’s covenantal discipline during Israel’s exile.
- Interpreting the calming of the storm in Mark 4 as symbolic of “finding inner peace,” rather than a historical event revealing Jesus’ divine authority over creation.
⛓️💥 The issue is that this turns Scripture into therapeutic inspiration rather than divine revelation. It domesticates the Bible—removing judgment, theology, and narrative history—and replaces it with individualized spirituality.
🧪 Unfalsifiability
No Way to Test Competing Allegorical Claims
One of the greatest dangers of allegorical interpretation is that it cannot be objectively tested. Without anchoring in grammar, context, and authorial intent, multiple contradictory interpretations can all seem “plausible”—but none can be confirmed.
🧾 Examples:
- The Ark of the Covenant is said to represent Christ’s heart… or Mary’s womb… or the human soul… or the church… depending on the teacher.
- In medieval exegesis, Jerusalem might mean heaven, the Church, the human mind, or the heart of Mary—all from the same verse.
- Some modern prophetic movements reinterpret every earthquake or eclipse as a coded divine message, often contradicting one another.
⛓️💥 The issue is that without a standard for evaluation, these interpretations become impossible to verify or falsify. They rely on the interpreter’s imagination, not the inspired author’s meaning. This opens the door to doctrinal chaos, where every spiritual-sounding idea becomes equally valid.
Encourages a Subjective Truth Philosophy
Unsanctioned allegory often aligns with postmodern relativism, where truth is personal, fluid, and emotional, rather than objective and fixed.
In effect, Scripture becomes a spiritual Rorschach test: people find in it what they already believe, want, or fear.
🧾 Examples:
- Prosperity preachers allegorize Old Testament blessings (like land, wealth, or crops) into promises of modern financial gain, regardless of covenantal context.
- Liberal theologians reinterpret miracles as poetic metaphors for inner psychological healing, denying the supernatural altogether.
- Some deconstructionist readers use allegory to reinterpret sin and judgment as outdated symbols of “inward conflict” or “trauma.”
⛓️💥 The issue is that this collapses the difference between God’s truth and personal truth. The Bible becomes a tool of affirmation, not correction—unable to convict, guide, or save.
Undermines the Bible’s Transformative Power
If the meaning of a passage is endlessly subjective, mystical, or symbolic, then Scripture loses its ability to transform minds, correct error, or form conviction.
- We can’t confidently apply its message if we don’t know what it actually says.
- We can’t defend doctrine if every interpretation is valid.
- We can’t submit to God’s word if its meaning is just a moving target.
⛓️💥 The issue is that the Bible becomes drifting, shapeless, and spiritually useless.
✅ The Alternative: Literary-Grammatical-Historical Interpretation
The faithful interpreter does not invent new meanings but seeks to discover what God actually said—to real people, in real history, through real language.
This means honoring eleven essential layers of interpretive context:
- Thematic
- Structural
- Literary
- Environmental
- Immediate
- Correlative
- Cultural
- Grammatical
- Historical
- Theological
- Narrative
When we interpret Scripture on its own terms—using clarity, consistency, and humility—the Bible becomes exactly what it claims to be:
“(…) breathed out by God (…) profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” —2 Timothy 3:16–17
Addendum: A Note on Personal Application
Is the Bible, then, depersonalized or insufficient to have deep personal significance for us as individuals? Certainly not! Personal application is vital—but it must come in the right order.
We should ask, “What does this passage mean to me?”—but only after we have first answered the primary question: “What does this text mean?”
Many shortcomings of allegorical interpretation stem from a premature individualization of the text. When we approach Scripture with ourselves as the starting point, we risk importing our own desires, assumptions, or needs into the text rather than letting the text speak on its own terms. We may end up reshaping God’s word into something we want it to say, rather than allowing our minds to be transformed by God’s word.
The proper sequence of application is crucial:
- Discover what the text meant to the original audience. (Original application)
- Draw out the timeless truths that God intended. (Universal application)
- Then, and only then, determine how those truths apply directly to us. (Personal application)
This approach preserves both the objective meaning of Scripture and its powerful personal relevance, ensuring that we are shaped by the text instead of reshaping it. More on this stage later…
