What was the Alexandrian School?

from the old testament

• The reality is that most of Scripture presents everything as straightforward without hidden meanings (though the meaning in some passages is clearly uncertain or symbolic). This makes it difficult to support the original Alexandrian school approach from Scripture, as it was built on philosophical arguments rather than Scripture. The commands were treated as being to be obeyed to the letter (Deuteronomy 4:2; Proverbs 30:5–6), and the historical accounts were read as actual history.
• Some modern interpretations, such as Christocentric ones, follow Alexandrian logic but focus on finding Jesus in every passage. Other modern interpretations influenced by Alexandrian thought, known as sensus plenior, are not so flagrant in their search for hidden meaning. Rather, they argue that because God knew more than the original author, He had a more expansive meaning in mind, sometimes even contrary to the author’s intended meaning. They thus seek deeper meanings by applying New Testament theology to the Old Testament. Much like the Alexandrian School, these views all require a degree of speculation about the deeper, hidden meaning of the Old Testament.

from the new testament

• Though largely built on philosophy, the Alexandrian School had certain “proof texts” that permitted their pervasive allegorical readings: 1 Corinthians 2:6–10 (Spirit reveals hidden wisdom), 2 Corinthians 3:6 (Spirit, not letter, gives life), and Galatians 4:21–24 (Paul’s allegorical use of Abraham’s story). However, in context, these passages don’t teach an interpretive approach. Certainly, the Spirit must help believers understand Scripture, and allegory is not completely foreign to Scripture. But the fact that there are spiritual matters doesn’t mean that an unbounded search for spiritual meaning in every passage accurately handles Scripture (2 Timothy 2:15).

implications for today

The Alexandrian School’s spiritual reading of text, though not always helpful, often revealed a genuine desire to grow spiritually. Where it “went off the rails” was when guardrails were removed and interpreters began importing subjective interpretations. It also undermined historical narratives, as they were often the most affected by spiritualization to make something apparently spiritually unprofitable, such as Abraham standing under a tree (Genesis 18:8), into something with spiritual benefit.

Over-spiritualization remains a problem today. The areas where you must be particularly cautious include Gnostic-type interpretations, such as finding hidden meanings in word counts or letter order. Also, some approaches, like the Christocentric interpretation, can damage Old Testament texts when one starts looking for references to Jesus or the cross in every detail, such as treating Rahab’s scarlet thread (Joshua 2:18) as a picture of Christ’s blood because both were red. The historical realities become overshadowed by unforeseen meanings.

Though not everyone has been careful, spiritualization of the text has benefited Christian studies generally. While sensus plenior, the assumption that God had a fuller meaning in mind discovered through later revelation, often goes too far into speculation, such approaches have helpfully uncovered intentional connections between testaments otherwise missed. In that sense, they have helped to show the forest that was lost when only looking at the trees. Additionally, when sensus plenior approaches start with a literal, historical-grammatical hermeneutic, even spiritualized interpretations can remain grounded in the text.

Thus, we must be careful not to be completely dismissive of brothers and sisters in Christ who use a more spiritualized hermeneutic. We can disagree with over-spiritualization while agreeing in the gospel. Also, studies on both sides of the interpretive divide benefit when the other side challenges their assumptions.