Difference between Typological and Alegorical Interpretation

Status
Not open for further replies.

SebastianClinciuJJ

Puritan Board Freshman
Greetings in the Lord, brothers and sisters!

In the Reformed hermeneutical tradition there seems to be a fine distinction between the Typological interpretation and the Alegorical interpretation, a distinction that I find hard to see.

Can someone explain this distinction, pointing out the differences between them?
 
Allegorical interpretation takes a superficial similarity between the text and some non-historically-related phenomenon (at least, in the text) and makes a connection between the two things. An example: the sachet of myrrh between the two breasts in Song of Songs is Jesus Christ in between the OT and the NT. Typology, in contrast, operates on a solely historical basis. An earlier pattern foreshadows a later pattern, with BOTH ends firmly rooted in the history of redemption. To put it another way, allegory makes a connection with one end being in the Scripture, while the other end is "in the air" (and is arbitrary). Typology, however, makes a connection between two texts of Scripture that show God's repeating patterns of redemption, and is indicated by various ways in the text itself.
 
Biblical typology cannot be cut off from the prophetic character of Scripture. Typology is prophecy, which rule then puts to shame the greater part of "allegorical" interpretation entirely.

By prophecy, we do not mean prophecy of things or events that then pass out of and beyond Scripture; as if prophecy of church history, or history in general, especially of the time since the days of the NT. We mean prophecy that is centered on Christ.

Christ is the fulfillment of the OT. Jesus taught his disciples (built upon the best of their prior preparation) to see him as the fulfillment of all OT expectation. Lk.24:27 gives an instance of Jesus' teaching his disciples, which a combination of v31 ("their eyes were opened") and the new hindsight of these two upon the finished work of Christ, suddenly made all that he had taught them for three years about being the Hope (v21) of Israel come into focus.

For an example of prior preparation and expectation, consider the calling of Nathanael, Jn.1:46-51; wherein Jesus offers new clarity and insight into Nathanael's private meditations on the Scripture (and persuades him to follow him thereafter).

I personally consider "allegorical" interpretation to be a deformity of proper typological interpretation. It's prominence parallels the second-and-third generation losses of the church, the declension in both doctrine and capability that almost immediately upon the passing of the Apostle's generation befell the church. Persecution was a natural factor, as was being partly cut off from the Jewish/Hebrew root in the OT. It is not that the Gk translation of the OT was little use or had negative impact; but that a generation of Gentiles soon sprang up who lost the small-but-valuable leadership from the synagogue-converts, people (like Nathanael, or Apollos, etc.) who had been steeped in the OT Scriptures already for decades when the NT age was beginning.

The fact that the early church was led of the Spirit to preserve the doctrines of God, of Christ, and Scripture primarily is a testimony to their faithfulness; and I do not think we should dwell overmuch on their failures toward allegory. One thing I believe they feared (as they turned to allegory) was losing a Christ-centered interpretation of Scripture as a whole. I interpret the later condemnation of the "Antiochean" school--the literalists--as more demonstration of the same fear.

To put it in the best light: the allegorists feared the (radical) literalists were in danger of severing the OT from Christ--something that actually did happen in the 18th Century by the Rationalist school. Rationalist influence is unfortunately still with us not only where we expect it in the modernist camp, but also among the fundamentalist camp who operate (often without awareness) according to a "history of religions" paradigm.

Allegorical interpretation simply offers up "meanings" for elements in the text that sound spiritual to the speaker and his hearers. In reality, these are just made up, and there is no inherent reason why Augustin's allegorical proposals respecting the silver and gold wings of the dove (Ps.68:13) should be admired, or disfavored for the sake of Bernard's alternative.

Allegory is still with us, even if it isn't always recognized as such. Probably 90% of modern "evangelical" preaching is allegorical, and closer to 100% of the "charismatic" is. The way you can tell is fairly simple: Are they preaching the text with reference to Christ, or with reference to the audience? I heard a very famous preacher preach Mt.26:39, "And he went a little further..." as a message for college students to stick out the semester, and the year, and ultimately get their degree. It was a message on human perseverance--not the P in TULIP. That's a form of allegorical interpretation, and perverting the sense of God's Word.

Likewise, when a preacher takes Jdg.16:28, Samson's prayer, snips this part: "O Lord God, remember me, I pray thee, and strengthen me, I pray thee, only this once, O God," and advises his audience to pray this! adding the promise that God will surely answer in like manner--if only you meet the same conditions Samson did--that's also allegorical preaching, and a lot worse.

Allegorical interpretation, no matter whether it's the Ancient/Medieval kind or a more modern kind, knows no constraints on its fancy. It's main concern is the religious feeling of the speaker and/or the audience. It is a game of correspondences, with the text of Scripture filtered through the imaginations of the speaker who is "in tune" with the felt needs of those who are listening. "Does this correspondence resonate in some way with them?" is the key inquiry.

Contrast that with typology, that aims at connecting the text with Jesus (who told us it's primarily about him), by way of fulfillment in the case of the OT; or as reflective of his personal, teaching mediated through the NT writers, about himself and his kingdom. Faithful preaching connects hearers with Jesus, and through him to the text.
 
Allegory moves vertically; typology moves horizontally. Allegory often cinches the argument by appealing to Platonic forms. Typology by historical realities.

Though, sometimes the distinction is quite fluid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top