Typology vs. Allegory

In response to my post about the literal interpretation of Scripture, my friend Dani posted this question:

Would you then say that the allegorical approach is invalid? Is it an un-Reformed way of looking at the Bible? Don't we say that "The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed?

I thought this was such an awesome question, that it gets its own post.

There is a distinction between interpreting the Old Testament typologically and interpreting it allegorically. Typology is essentially God's use of symbolism and foreshadowing in the Old Testament to prepare the people of ancient Israel (and us) for the coming of His Son, Jesus.

Living in the world after the Incarnation, we have the benefit of hindsight when looking at the Old Testament, so we can often identify where He has used these devices. For example, when we see the coming of Christ prefigured in the Old Testament, either directly through prophecy or indirectly through the pattern of someone's (e.g., King David's) behavior, that is typology. When we see New Testament symbolism in the physical layout of the Tabernacle/Temple, that is typology.

If one interprets the Scriptures allegorically, one decides that the Scriptures (Old Testament and New Testament) are essentially a giant parable in which one can assign arbitrary symbolic meanings to the text. By making this decision, one leaves the realm where one can derive true meanings from Scripture about who God is, who we are, or how we should behave. For example, if I were to decide "the temple" represents my (purely hypothetical) mistress, and that the "high priest" represents me, the Day of Atonement would take on a very different meaning and application.

All of the Reformers (and St. Augustine and modern evangelicals) have embraced typological interpretation, but have had issues with allegorical interpretations. They have embraced typology for a couple of reasons: first, the New Testament often interprets the Old Testament typologically. If we were to reject typology out of hand, we would have to reject significant portions of the New Testament. Second, typological interpretations grow naturally out of the text.

Correct typological interpretations should

• Flow naturally from the text as written
• Conform to the overall message of Scripture
• Enhance your sense of wonder at God's sovereignty, power, and love

By contrast allegorical interpretations

• Assign arbitrary or contrived values to symbols
• Do not support or are contrary to the overall message of Scripture
• Serve the ends of the person doing the interpreting

All of the "Scriptural" support for practices the to which Reformers objected came out of the allegorical house of cards which Medieval interpreters had build up around the Scriptures.

The difference between typology and allegory is the difference between understanding and misunderstanding the author's intent. Authors use devices like symbolism and foreshadowing to enrich what they write. Correctly understanding the way the author uses these devices enhances our understanding of the text and our experience when reading. When Elwin Ransom recalls upon meeting him again how much he disliked Dick Devine in school, it builds the reader's sense of dread and anticipation. When Devine drugs and kidnaps him the reader experiences the sense of an expectation fulfilled. Similarly, when God promises a King to reign forever on the throne of David, it builds the reader's sense of joyful anticipation for the coming Messiah. When Jesus is born of the line of David, the reader rejoices in God's promise fulfilled (or he should!).

God is the ultimate author of both history (Psalm 139:16) and Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16). In ancient times, He sovereignly arranged the lives of men and nations to prepare the world for the coming of His Son. In the Scriptures of the Old Testament, He uses foreshadowing to tell us about the unfolding of His plan.