Understanding the Gospel of John

Symbolism, allegory, and parallelism can often bleed into each other. They overlap in concept, enough to make distinguishing them necessary rather than trivial and automatic. The differentiations are the difference between almonds and cyanide: crucial and requiring a bit of thought, when both are possibilities. Today, let’s consider what each one is, taking John 18:15-17,25-27 as our example text.

Definitions

Parallelism, in the broad sense we’re using it today, is the simplest of the three and necessarily the most ubiquitous. The relationship here is ‘A and B both say/ mean/ include C.’ Such parallelism can be intentional, as with literary foils (which typically use the fact that they both say C to bring relevance to their difference in another are) or the structural parallel between Mark’s accounts of the trials of John and Jesus. Often, however, parallelism in narratives is a result of a confluence native to reality. Because stories deal with people, certain patterns keep showing up, and if two narratives use the same pattern, adding their own twists and attaching it to other patterns in their own way, a parallelism emerges between the alike parts.

Symbolism is not merely a parallel between A and B. Symbolism is when the narrative uses the relationship (one of at least partial correspondence/ parallelism) to communicate something else: ‘A relates to B in a way which implies C.’ A alone need not actually contain C; it merely needs to reference B, eliciting the understanding of C. Parallels between A and B are crucial to the symbolism, as they connect the two, but C is communicated only by both together. (Parallelism and symbolism can co-exist; a relationship between A and B can indicate C while both parts of that relationship individually indicate C as well. But that is a case of simultaneity, not of the two devices being the same.)

Alternately, symbolism can use A to mean B. Once again, this differs from parallelism. For today, though, we’ll call that ‘allegory,’ instead of symbolism. Allegory uses the parallelism to connect A to B; in pure allegory, A is almost entirely eclipsed by B.

Peter’s Denials

I recently heard an interpretation of John 18:15-17,25-27 which posited that Peter, in his triple denial, was a symbol of the first Adam, being contrasted with the second Adam, Christ. This interpretation isn’t supported by the text, though. As we’ll see, it takes parallelism and tries to use it as allegory (or perhaps symbolism).

The truth of the interpretation is the best place to start. Peter does have a resemblance to the first Adam: both are sinners. Both deny God’s authority at a crucial moment. Both are eventually reproved by God. Further, both commit their sins in relationship with another: Adam sins by not leading Eve aright, and Peter sins by bearing false witness against his neighbor (by denying the gospel by which his hearers might be saved (Mark 1:15)). In a sense, even, both consent to another’s sin, giving in rather than taking proper dominion over His world. This resemblance, however, is a parallelism. We could draw the substance of each side of the parallel in full without reference to the other half. The narrative does not require us to look through Peter to the first Adam in order to understand Peter.

Yes, understanding Adam provides context to Peter, but if that were enough to constitute symbolism, then Peter would literally be symbolic of every other part of Scripture here, including God. The author is not drawing a symbolic relationship. The relationship between Peter and Adam is not mentioned in the text or even hinted at (unless the idea of sin itself is construed as a reference, or the presence of Christ, whom John never terms ‘the second Adam,’ as that is a Pauline image (1 Cor. 15:45)). The relationship between Peter and Adam is not the method of conveying the author’s meaning. John leaves that to the narrative in relation to its own literal events.

Nor is the text an allegory. John does not treat this narrative as if Peter were a token standing in for somebody else. Peter is not a cypher for Adam. Peter sins in the way of Adam because he is Adam’s son, yes, and thus in a way like to Adam (for all sin is ultimately alike (Jam. 2:8-10)). But it is specifically Peter’s sin which matters here; Adam never comes into the author’s direct concern, except by the implications for systematic theology (and, again, if that sufficed for allegory, everything would be allegory. The term would then be useless, being applicable to everything.). Peter’s sin is the narrative’s point, its focus, not what that sin corresponds to, and we are to learn from the example Peter, not from Peter-as-Adam.

Proper hermeneutics requires recognizing these different modes of communication and interpreting according to their nature, respecting the author’s intent rather than imposing symbolism, parallelism, or allegory on a text which wasn’t intended to contain it.

God bless.