When the evangelist announced his text -- Genesis 24:63-64 -- I was intrigued at the uncommon prospect of hearing a revival sermon preached from the first book of the Bible. But as I listened to the Scripture, my curiosity changed to wonderment: "And Isaac went out to meditate in the field at the eventide: and he lifted up his eyes, and saw, and, behold, the camels were coming. And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she lighted off the camel."

Though poetic and picturesque, the brief narrative seemed homiletically unpromising. How could anyone find a message -- evangelistic or otherwise -- in these isolated verses?

I didn't wonder long. For without elaborating on his interpretation, the preacher explained that Isaac symbolized Christ; Rebekah, the church; and the camel, whose physical characteristics would be the focus of his message, represented the grace of God. Then he delivered a seven-point exposition based on an allegorical interpretation as classic as any I've ever heard.

The camel's nose, he said, can detect water from far away and lead its rider to drink. The spiritual lesson, he added, is that God's grace can lead us to spiritual water. He similarly interpreted and applied six more of the camel's characteristics, none of which was mentioned in the text. (See the accompanying sermon outline.)

As the preacher's message illustrates, allegorical interpretation seeks some implicit, symbolic meaning hidden in the explicit, literal meaning of Scripture.

Allegorists consider this perceived "deeper" or "spiritual" meaning to be more profound and therefore more desirable than a text's literal interpretation. Nevertheless, scholars and other critics generally have objected to allegorical interpretation for at least three reasons:

- Fundamentally, there is no reason to believe God regularly invests Scripture with more than one meaning.

The normal interpretation of literature is inherently literal. If we can't trust words to mean what they say, then writing ceases to be a useful means of communication. Only when Scripture itself indicates a text is other than literal should we interpret it non-literally.

For instance, nothing in Genesis 24 indicates Isaac, Rebekah or the camels represent anything other than themselves, so the narrative should be taken literally. On the other hand, in John 15:1, Jesus clearly was speaking metaphorically when He said, "I am the true vine ..." and His words should be interpreted as such.

It is true that in Galatians 4:21ff. the Apostle Paul interpreted the Genesis account of Sarah and Hagar allegorically even though the Old Testament text nowhere indicates that story is allegorical. But Paul received his interpretation from the Holy Spirit as he wrote a New Testament letter. We don't have his inspired prerogative.

Since the Bible never suggests it regularly has more than one meaning, additional interpretations should not be assumed.

- The allegorical method obscures the true meaning and legitimate application of Scripture.