You may have read my previous post entitled, Are “Authorial Intent” and “Christ-Centered” Mutually Exclusive? (if not, you may want to do so before continuing, although it’s not necessary).
But this post prompts the question, if we are to preach Christ in all of Scripture (that is, preach Christotelically; see my previous post Christ in the Old Testament: Christocentric or Christotelic Hermeneutic?), are we allegorizing? If Christ is not at all present in a text, then are we spiritualizing the text by preaching Christ?
I have had enough experience with a certain school of interpretation to realize that many people answer this question in the affirmative–unfortunately. It has appeared to me, however, that part of their reason for doing so was a fundamental misunderstanding, a confusion of typology and allegory.[1] So, let me try to spell out some of the basic, introductory differences between typology and allegory.
In general, I will be using Graeme Goldsworthy’s comments in According to Plan[2] as my discussion partner here.[3]
Literalism
First, let’s lay some background by describing what Goldsworthy calls “literalism.” “Literalism involves the very serious error of not listening to what the New Testament says about fulfillment. It assumes that the fulfillment must correspond exactly to the form of the promise.” Now, if you say, “I don’t interpret the Bible literally” around most people, they’ll mistake you for a liberal. Let me assure you, (whether or not I or you agree with everything he concludes) Goldsworthy is not proposing that we don’t take the Bible seriously, take it at face value (“literal,” in this sense of the word[4]), and throw out our grammatical-historical hermeneutic. No. He’s criticizing an ultra-literalistic hermeneutic (e.g., probably that of dispensationalism) that emphasizes an exact correspondence between the original promise and its fulfillment and thereby fails to recognize the literal complementary nature of subsequent revelation, the literal progressive developments and trajectories within revelation (e.g., typology), and consequently, literal fulfillments in the New Testament that often don’t correspond exactly to the original promise. In other words, this ultra-literalism is inconsistent in how it implements the reality of progressive revelation to its hermeneutical conclusions.[5] This sense of “literal interpretation” Goldsworthy rejects.
Allegory
Second, he describes allegory. “Allegory assumes that history is worthless as history. … [Unlike typology] the allegorist was not interested in the historical facts at all, but only in the supposed hidden meaning behind them.” The goal of allegory is to find spiritual and/or moral meanings that are beyond that outside the text itself. Unlike typology, allegory has no controls except for the imagination (or maybe better, presuppositions and philosophy) of the interpreter.
Typology
Finally, typology. Typology as a hermeneutical principle recognizes “Old Testament salvation historical realities or ‘types’ (persons, events, institutions) which God has specifically designed to correspond to, and predictively prefigure, their intensified antitypical fulfillment aspects (inaugurated and consummated) in New Testament salvation history.”
Typology recognizes that “the historical promises are the first stages of progressively revealed truths,” and that “the historical fulfillments correspond to and develop the promises” (Goldsworthy). Therefore, unlike the subjective nature of allegory, typology is rooted in the revelation, its progressive development, and redemptive-history which corresponds to that development. So unlike allegory, typology sees history as meaningful. Typology is rooted in historical realities. It sees the literal meaning of the text, but its also anticipatory and predictive in nature (not mere analogies), having a developed, fuller meaning (sensus plenior) of the original reality as informed by progressive revelation and redemptive history.
Concerning this fuller meaning (sensus plenior), Michael D. Williams notes that we avoid allegory “not by denying the reality of the fuller sense [sensus plenior] but by insisting that the fuller sense be established only as an extension of the original sense and solely on the basis of subsequent biblical revelation.” This fuller meaning then is “a fuller sense of what is already present, not an entirely other sense, as one finds in allegorical interpretation. While it is fair to see an oak within an acorn, it is not fait to see a cow within an acorn.”
The authenticity of typology as a hermeneutical endeavor is rooted in several things:
- God’s unchanging character. His previous actions and institutions reveal something of His unchanging character as it relates to future actions and institutions, etc.
- God’s sovereignty, omniscience (all-knowing, including the future), and providence. God’s nature guarantees that God-designed types will be fulfilled by their antitypes. His providence over history means that history is revelatory to some extent.
- Progressive revelation. Types involve repetition and experience a ratcheting up across redemptive history which creates anticipation for an ultimate antitype.
- The unity of Scripture. There is a foundational continuity to all of Scripture so that typological connections are possible and not arbitrary analogies.
- The way the New Testament interprets the Old Testament. Adhering to Sola Scriptura, it only makes sense that we learn our hermeneutic from Scripture itself, namely, the way Christ and His apostles interpreted Scripture.
That’s my humble attempt to explain these things as one who is in the process of learning about these things myself. Nonetheless, I hope that this clarifies some misconceptions and confusions.
Notes
[1] Notice I say, “part of their reason for doing so.” To explain, by writing this post I am not trying to imply that typology is the only way one can preach or read their Bibles Christotelically, canonically, or Biblical theologically. I’m addressing typology, however, because it is one of the main ways.
[2] Graeme Goldsworthy, According to Plan: The Unfolding Revelation of God in the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1991). All Goldsworthy quotations are specifically from chapter 6, “The Bible is the Divine-Human Word,” of this book.
[3] I am using Goldsworthy as my discussion partner and building off the insights and work of others in this post largely because I am not at all an expert in this area; and I do not claim to be so. Therefore, I write this post as one who is “in process” in learning about these issues. I surely cannot answer all of the difficult questions related to these things.
[4] Goldsworthy actually makes a distinction between “literal” and “literalism.” He accepts the former and rejects the latter.
[5]. In my opinion, this inconsistency in regard to the hermeneutical understanding and application of progressive revelation is one of the foundational problems with dispensationalism.
For more on this critique of an ultra-literal hermeneutic, see my previous post, “Meet Mr. Complementary Hermeneutic”.
[6] Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 103.
[7] Michael D. Williams, Far as the Curse Is Found: The Covenant Story of Redemption (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2005), 81-82.
Thanks Kirk.
A couple of things I appreciate:
1. Your differentiation between typology and analogy. 2. Your qualification of sensus plenior. Though I would rarely appeal to sensus plenior as an explanation of the NT’s use of the OT, it was nice to see that you have put some brakes on it by suggesting “the fuller sense be established only as an extension of the original sense and solely on the basis of subsequent biblical revelation.”
A suggestion and question:
It may prove helpful to demonstrate an example of typology so that people can see it working in the biblical texts. Unless your intended audience is only the academics, those who are straining at terms would be benefited by an example: Matthew’s use of Hosea’s “out of Egypt” passage, for instance.
Question: Do you think that typology in some way goes against a dispensational understanding of Scripture? I believe there are many dispys who would account for some discontinuity in promise/fulfillment passages. They’d be hard-pressed not to. So to caricature all dispensationalists as those who are requiring EXACT fulfillment is to negate not a few of them who are a little more flexible in their understanding. You probably know better than I do how that there are all kinds of views between the poles.
The way that I understand fulfillment as it pertains to typology is this: “NT persons, events, and institutions sometimes fulfill OT persons, events, and institutions; they repeat the OT situation at a deeper, climactic level.” (Moo, Naselli) The way that Christ (for example) “filled out” the OT types was in an unexpected way inasmuch as he did so much MORE than expected. The burden of proof in my mind as far as the Kingdom is concerned is to show how a spiritualized Kingdom can be thought of as “more” than what Israel and Christ’s disciples expected. To me, not having a literal fulfillment of a place for the nation of Israel in the future seems to do LESS than what was expected. Hope that makes sense. I don’t necessarily consider myself a dispensationalist (especially in the classic sense), but a non-literal fulfillment of the promises given to Abraham and his descendants after him seems to be an exegetical stretch. This is all fairly new to my understanding as well, so it’s good for me to think these things out on this kind of platform. Thanks for your patience.
-Aaron
LikeLike
Thanks for your comment.
I’m definitely open to suggestions and criticisms. As I noted, I am posting this as one “in process.” After my post yesterday, I felt that it would be helpful to introduce these related matters; yet, at the same time, I don’t feel entirely adequate to do so at this point in my educational journey. So, I appreciate your gracious response.
Although I would not claim to be a scholarly expert on dispensationalism, I feel comfortable claiming that I have a firm grasp of what dispensationalism proposes, generally speaking. I say “generally speaking” because dispensationalism is broad and has many different flavors, some quite different than others (as you noted). In light of this understanding of dispensationalism (i.e., diverse), I was not trying “to caricature all dispensationalists as those who are requiring EXACT fulfillment”; and I don’t think I did. To make any broad brush statement about dispensationalism as a whole… well, is to broad brush, and will be inaccurate at some level–recognized. But nonetheless, I feel as though my understanding of dispensationalism is adequate enough to make these (at some level inaccurate) broad brush statements which are accurate at the “broad brush” level.
With that said, I do think that due to dispensationalism’s presuppositions and framework, dispensationalism lacks an ability to see the fundamental continuity of Scripture that I think is there. Sure, they can trace the story (in terms of fact) from Genesis to Revelation, do OT and NT survey, and provide their seven dispensations (or 5, or 3, or however many). But I think their framework prohibits them from doing Biblical theology well, from putting together the metanarrative of Scripture, from seeing the Bible’s unified “Big Picture” of redemptive history. (For example, although my previous post–http://127project.net/ministry/preaching/are-authorial-intent-and-christ-centered-mutually-exclusive–does not say this explicitly, I believe it is addressing issues that pop up within dispensational circles as a result of their dispensational framework. This is my most significant problem with dispensationalism on a personal level.) Not being able to do Biblical theology well, involves not being able to recognize typology that I think is genuinely there in Scripture. Again, I think this is due to dispensationalism’s framework, a framework built largely on discontinuity to the exclusion of continuity that I think is Biblical and needed for Biblical theology.
If you press me further on this (my above paragraph), I’m not sure how much further I could defend it, to be entirely honest. These observations are more inductive than deductive (although I did just make attempts to identify the systemic error behind the others, which is somewhat deductive I suppose). So, take them or leave them.
Regarding your final paragraph, if I understand you properly, I think I would agree with you. See my previous post–http://127project.net/theology/biblicaltheology/meet-mr-complementary-hermeneutic–describing what is called a “complementary hermeneutic.” I will admit, Goldsworthy does make me a bit uncomfortable at times. Subsequent revelation often forces use to be non-literalistic in the sense that we understand that promises have been further developed; or as you said, the fulfillment is more than what was expected, but not less. This is the progressive dispensational “complementary hermeneutic.” It’s rooted in an proper understanding of progressive revelation. But one area that it doesn’t address is promises made through genres that aren’t intended to be taken literally (e.g., apocalyptic) or promises made in archetypal language that isn’t intended to have a literal fulfillment in terms of exact correspondance (e.g., Ezekiel’s temple vision). This is an area where progressive dispensationalists don’t seem to have gone far enough.
Hope that helps clarify.
LikeLike
Thanks for the response, Kirk!
Yeah, i suppose i should’ve done some clarifying as well: I’m not really arguing for a traditional understanding of Dispensationalism. Quite frankly, i can’t recall what the 7 dispensations even are at the moment, which attests to the fact that i don’t hold to them. Overall, it at least seems that both sides are willing to notice more continuity (for dispensational theologians) or discontinuity (for covenant theologians) than they were willing to in the past, which i think is appropriate. Carson is a good example of that in his article in mystery and fulfillment in Justification and Variagated Nomism, Vol. 2.
I also agree to an extent that apocalyptic literature isn’t intended to be taken literally, but there seems to need to be a check to such a statement. Said simply, i’m not convinced that such a genre requires an anti-literal interpretation, as in, we must find a non-literal way of interpreting it. I guess that’s where the burden of proof lies with me, but i hope to have a better understanding of both sides in the future. Peace.
LikeLike
Thanks for your comment.
Regarding apocalyptic genre, namely Revelation, allow me to clarify.
I would argue that the burden of proof is actually held by those who want to take apocalyptic literally, given its genre. The book of Revelation is by far not the only apocalyptic piece of literature we have to go off of to figure out how the genre worked, e.g., the second temple judaism writings of the apocrypha and even some apocalyptic portions in the OT. From these we can learn much of how to interpret apocalyptic. It wasn’t intended to be taken literally. Therefore, the burden of proof rests with the dispensationalists on this one.
I would be careful not to assume that any interpretation other than a literal one holds the burden of proof. This thinking makes the assumption that literal is the default interpretation and anything else is possible but first needs to be proven. Instead, I think we should pay attention to genre (understand the genre as providing our “default” if you will) and rhetorical devices (e.g., metaphors). This is all a part of taking literature seriously and naturally. Most of the time, this will require literal interpretation (e.g., with law, historical narrative, epistles). But, in the case of apocalyptic, I think the burden of proof would lie with the case for a literal interpretation (e.g., “Seeing into the future, John was trying his very best to describe a literal helicopter; but of course he didn’t know what a helicopter was, so he described it as locust”).
So when I say that we shouldn’t take apocalyptic literally, I don’t mean that we shouldn’t take it seriously or that the symbols don’t speak of literal realities. I am arguing that when John says, for instance, that Jesus has a sword coming out of His mouth that we don’t think Jesus literally has a sword coming out of His mouth, or, when John talks about locust that he was trying to describe helicopters. That’s absolutely silly and not appropriate to the genre. What I’m saying is that the genre heavily employs symbols and we should interpret it in light of this.
Also important, and often neglected in dispensational interpretations, is understanding the book’s 1st century context and the audience. This historical context, as well as OT background and Second Temple Judaism, helps to inform our understand the symbols.
Those are my thoughts. Hopefully that helps clarify things.
LikeLike
I tell you what. Eventually I’ll post a lecture series by D.A. Carson on the book of Revelation that’s quite helpful.
LikeLike
This will probably be my last response because i’m sure we both have better things to do. 🙂
You said, “I would be careful not to assume that any interpretation other than a literal one holds the burden of proof.” I agree. In fact, i wasn’t exactly arguing that an other-than-literal interpretation holds the burden of proof. What i said was, ” I’m not convinced that such a genre requires an ANTI-literal interpretation, as in, we MUST find a NON-literal way of interpreting it.”
Here’s what i’m getting at: just as i think it is irresponsible to “find” literal interpretations of things such as locusts being helicopters because everything MUST be taken literally, so on the other extreme, i’m simply suggesting that one must not feel the need to “find” a metaphorical meaning in such a text. 2nd Temple Judaism, though certainly helpful in understanding how a passage was understood, was often “too good” at finding “meaning” in texts in general, where the result was a spiritualizing of every text. Augustine too had a bad habit of spiritualizing texts (his interpretation of the “sheep” in Song of Solomon, for instance). Sometimes sheep are sheep and locusts are locusts.
Oddly enough, over-literalizing a passage can look as idiotic as over spiritualizing it. And i’m not suggesting that a guy like you would have a tendency to over spiritualize a text. I was just simply calling for a balanced approach. I really don’t think i’m saying (or at least thinking) anything significantly different than what you are, though we may be coming at it from different perspectives. Again, there’s so much that i still need to learn when it comes to hermeneutics.
As a final thought, if i correctly understand your background, i do believe that it is important for men who have grown up in a certain vein of (whatever you want to call it) to not be reactionary. For example, just because someone holds to a more dispensational understanding of Scripture (and again, i’m not really talking about myself) doesn’t mean, “oh, you must believe that the locusts are helicopters.” Historically, many dispys have believed some rather ridiculous stuff, but i personally have met several who are much more balanced in their approach to Scripture. It would be unfair of me to automatically group them in with the weird ones before giving them a genuine hearing. I hope that helps you understand my intent a little. Thanks man.
LikeLike
Thanks for your comment.
I think you’re right. I think we probably agree concerning literal interpretation. We just seem to be cautioning against two different extremes. So, I agree with you concerning the extreme you are cautioning us against. I was merely arguing that apocalyptic lends and asks to be read in terms of its symbols, which I think you recognize.
If this helps clarify, I did not grow up either in Fundamentalism or its coordinating dispensationalism, but I have had significant contact with both for the past 5 years approximately. Once I obtained a sufficient understanding to realize what dispensationalism was, I rejected it. This was about three years after having been exposed to it. Prior to this exposure, I had never heard the term, although I was familiar with the Left Behind series 🙂
Now, I hope I am not reactionary. My goal is to simply be Biblical, which sounds cliche; but I imagine its true for all of us (i.e., conservative Christians).
I appreciate dispensationalism in some respects. I appreciate how it has brought up some important issues that needed rethinking and questions that needed to be seriously considered (e.g., by the classical Reformed tradition). I appreciate its influence in this regard. I also appreciate dispensationalism for the sense in which its hermeneutic is what I consider highly. It genuinely seeks to be careful and not be presumptuous. I have learned from this and am grateful. It causes one to asks questions one might not ask otherwise (e.g., Why should I conclude Christ is currently reigning and the kingdom has been inaugurated? Is there Biblical reasoning for this? Etc.)
However, I have serious, serious problems with classical and traditional/revised dispensationalism. And although many think such differences may be minor and insignificant, I understand how these matters affect how one interprets, preaches, lives out, etc. the entirety of scripture. The culmination of errors ultimately rooted in the system and its theological and hermeneutical presuppositions strikes me as horrendous. With that said, regarding progressive dispensationalism, my differences/disagreements are much more minor and less significant. (In fact, I am not entirely sure if “dispensational” is the best term for some who call themselves “progressive dispensationalists.”) For example, the church in which I serve probably best fits within this camp–progressive–(at the present time at least) and this doesn’t cause any problems. So, in sum, I do recognize the diversity within so-called “dispensationalism.” I strongly disagree with historic dispensationalism but have very minor differences with so-called “progressive dispensationalists.”
Hey @[562941170:2048:Aaron], thanks for conversing with me on such interestering and important matters! It’s been fun and quite helpful.
LikeLike
[…] I will be publishing a post entitled The Difference Between Typology and Allegory. Look for […]
LikeLike
The best book I ever read on biblical typology was Through New Eyes by James Jordan. It will completely change how you read the Bible. Highly recommend.
LikeLike