I had known that Origen interpreted the Psalms allegorically, but the following passage still caught me by surprise.

In this [figurative] way, therefore, I think the marriages of the elders are interpreted more fittingly; in this way the unions entered by the patriarchs in the now final weakened age are understood nobly…And indeed the Scripture designates the progress of the Saints figuratively by marriages. Whence also you can, if you wish, be a husband of marriages of this kind. For example, if you freely practice hospitality, you will appear to have taken her as your wife. If you add to this care of the poor, you will appear to have obtained a second wife…Thence it is that Scripture recounts that some of the patriarchs had many wives at the same time.

This is an allegorical interpretation of Scripture. Key elements are re-interpreted to represent something else. How (you may ask) is this “something else” determined? Ah! That is the power of allegorical interpretation. It places no constraints on your interpretation of Scripture. You are not required to heed any cues that Scripture provides. Do you cringe at the notion of polygamy, then imagine that these “wives” were something good, virtuous even.

Origen continues with his evaluation of Elkanah’s “virtues.”

That just man Elkanah in the Scriptures is reported to have had two wives at the same time, one of whom was called Peninnah, the other Hannah, that is, “conversion” and “grace.” And first, indeed, he is said to have had sons by Peninnah, that is, of conversion, and later by Hannah, that is, of grace.

These passages comes from Homilies in Genesis 11.2. It is a sermon! We do not hold sermons to the same standard that we would –say…a commentary. We cannot blame Origen for his inclusion in the Ancient Christian Commentary, nor can we fault the editors for lifting passages out of context. That is the purpose of this commentary series. Nevertheless Origen serves us as an example of why we cannot rely on allegorical interpretation.

Consider the example above and then remember the rivalries between Sarah and Hagar, Leah and Rachel, Peninnah and Hannah. I would expect virtues to be complementary. Patience does not conflict with brotherly-love. Hospitality does not bicker with care of the poor. Origen’s sermon may have some value, but interpreting wives as virtues cannot help you interpret other passages of Scripture. Take Solomon for instance. He is described as the most wise man rather than as the most virtuous man.

The allegorical method quickly fails to contribute to a greater understanding of Scripture. Today we prefer the historical-grammatical method of interpretation. The term indicates that Scripture describes actual historical events using normal rules of grammar. This approach to Scripture allows Scripture to define boundaries for accurate interpretation. This is not a scientific method, but it enables us to understand Scripture in a consistent and repeatable way. Seeking authorial intent through the historical-grammatical method allows us to build on past studies. Our understanding of Scripture grows in depth of insight and breadth of understanding as we remain faithful to the text.