Allegory and Typology

This is a paper I wrote for a class on Biblical Interpretation, which compares the biblical interpretation methods of typology and allegory, which were quite prominent within the early church.

Introduction

Within our contemporary world, there are a plethora of methodologies to choose from when interpreting the Scriptures. This was not the case within the early church, however, who utilized only a handful of interpretational methods such as literal interpretation, eschatological interpretation, allegorical interpretation, and typology. In consideration of how many significant pieces of theology have been produced by the early church, which have influenced the theology of the church for the past two millennia, it maintains that a worthwhile endeavor is the careful examination of the methodologies that would have influenced the early church fathers in their interpretation and theology. In pursuit of this endeavor, this paper will seek to elucidate the interpretational elements of allegorical and typological interpretation, while also examining some of the different factors that influenced their use. The paper will conclude with an evaluation of both methods, and which should be preferred in a ministry context. 

Interpretational Elements of Allegory

            Before the New Testament was written, allegory was already a dominant form of thought within Hellenistic philosophy, and can be observed within writers such as Homer, as a “way of interpreting the world as an ambivalent image of a higher reality” and as the “means by which a hidden connection between two levels of reality is indicated and expounded.”[1] For interpreters of Scripture within the early church, an allegorical view of Scripture observed a twofold meaning within the text. Like a human being, it had a body, which is its literal sense, and it had a soul, which is the spiritual meaning behind the text.[2]

            Two of the most influential early church thinkers to use allegory were Clement of Alexandria and his successor, Origen.[3] For Clement, interpretation was a fourfold process. Within his discussion of the theory of true dialectic, Clement explains this process of fourfold interpretation against the backdrop of the covenant given by Moses to Israel.

The Mosaic philosophy gives the literal facts, or history, and the application of ethics to practice it; it accounts for the practice of sacrifice, which involves, as he asserted rightly, a sort of physical science, in that it demands a considerable practical study of anatomy, of physiology and related subjects; and it glorifies visions-mystical or specifically spiritual experiences. It is possible but not necessary to see here the four-fold interpretation: literal, or historical; the ethical, moral, or tropological; the allegorical (for matters which are unseen, or relate to belief in the unseen, which is sometimes mystic); the spiritual, leading to the highest or hoping for it, the anagogical (which is sometimes mystic).[4]

            Within Clement’s view on this interpretation of the Mosaic covenant, allegory can be observed as the third “stage” of the interpretation process. It is important to observe how Clement states that the allegorical is “sometimes mystic”, which connects the allegorical and the spiritual. This correlation between allegorical and the spiritual is an important feature within the early church writers understanding of allegorical interpretation because, as Origen argues, they believed that the Holy Spirit had implanted spiritual meaning into the text of Scripture, and only one led by the Spirit can understand its true meaning.[5] However, this postulation elicits a question; how can one know if they are being led by the Spirit while interpreting a text? For Gregory of Nyssa, he distinguished between his own ability to use reason while interpreting a text, and those who can search out the depths by the Spirit, such as the Apostle Paul who “knows how to speak divine mysteries of the Spirit” (1 Cor. 14:2). Gregory considered himself to have a certain degree of divine guidance in interpretation, but nevertheless distinguished himself from those who would consider themselves able to search out the depths of the meaning of the text by the Spirit.[6] This reveals a potential pitfall within allegorical interpretation, since it does not limit itself to the confines of the literal meaning of the text, which leaves it susceptible to committing eisegesis while the interpreter imposes their own “deeper meaning” into the text which was potentially never the intention of the original author. This pitfall will be considered further in my evaluation of allegory.

            To further understand how the interpretational elements of allegory function in practice, it is helpful to view allegory in action. One of the most famous allegorical interpretations from the early church writers is Augustine’s interpretation of the parable of the good Samaritan. The parable is as follows.

A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. So likewise, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, “Take care of him, and whatever you spend, I will repay you when I come back.”[7]

In Augustine’s allegorical interpretation, the traveller is Adam, or humanity, Jerusalem represents heaven, and Jericho represents mortality. The thieves are Satan and the fallen angels, who have stripped Adam of his immortality.[8]The Levite and the priest are representative of the Old Testament and its ritual dispensation. The Samaritan is Jesus Christ, who by binding the man’s wounds, is the empowerment that Jesus gives believers to resist sin, and the healing oil and wine are meant to signify good hope and the exhortation to fervent striving.[9] Augustine views the beaten man being placed on the beast as representative of how the penitent rely upon Christ’s incarnation, and through which they are brought to the “inn”, which is representative of the church. The “next day” is Jesus speaking of a new era which has arrived because of the resurrection and the two coins given to the innkeeper are the two commandments to love God and neighbor. Lastly, Augustine considered the innkeeper to be the Apostle Paul because the assurance of future reimbursement causes one to reflect on Paul’s limitless self-offering to the church.[10] By interpreting the text this way, Augustine is essentially interpreting the parable as “an ambivalent image of a higher reality”[11] and, as Origen would argue,[12] it was the Holy Spirit who showed him the “hidden connection between two levels of reality is indicated and expounded.”[13] This example vividly portrays how allegory’s interpretational elements can be used to unveil a “spiritual” or “mystical” meaning that goes far beyond any literal exposition of the text.

Interpretational Elements of Typology

Within the New Testament and early church writers, a good working definition for typology is that it refers to “the historical correspondences in the Bible between certain Old Testament persons, events, or things (types) and the similar New Testament persons, events, or things (antitypes) which they prefigure.”[14] The most crucial component of typology is that the type has to have been an actual, historical person, event or thing in order for the antitype to be valid.[15] It is important to distinguish typology from allegory and prophecy because the lines between these methods can often be blurred. Typology is different from allegory in that allegory finds an interpretation of Scripture which is over and above the literal meaning, whereas typology is rooted in history, depends on history and is faithful to it.[16] Typology reads a meaning into the text which is foreign, but does not introduce a foreign principle into the text, it interprets the OT within the confines of its literal context and then uses this draw parallels between the dealings of God with men in Christ.[17]Typology can be distinguished from prophecy in that prophecy looks for a fact that will constitute its fulfillment whereas typology discovers how a fact from the past and the present resemble each other so that contemplation on their connection deepens ones understanding of both facts.[18] However, there is some debate surrounding whether or not the fulfillment of prophecy falls under the umbrella of typology. Within the writings of Irenaeus, an early church writer, he considered the Old Testament to be prophetic in nature and saw the divorce of the prophetic from typology as being improper, since typology is essentially prophetic.[19]

            A salient example of typology, which helps to further elucidate typology in practice, can be seen within the Exodus of the Israelites/Moses which is a type of Jesus within the beginning of Matthew. Within Matthew, Jesus is described as having come out of Egypt, just as the Israelites came out of Egypt. Jesus’ first public appearance is his baptism, and then he undergoes a forty day fast. Israel went through the Red Sea and was “baptized”, before then being stranded in the wilderness for forty years. Moses also spent forty days up on the mountain with Yahweh. Jesus then delivers the sermon on the mount, like how Moses delivered the law to Israel after being on Mt. Sinai. Jesus’ sermon on the Mount is the New Law. It can be observed, therefore, that Matthew is drawing upon Moses and the Exodus as the principal Old Testament figures from which he constructs his typology.[20] In this way, typology is shown to draw parallels between the historical facts that occurred in the Exodus account, and the historical facts of Jesus actions, thus “deepening our understanding”[21] of both the Exodus, and the actions and words of Jesus from his birth leading up to the sermon on the mount. This reveals how typological interpretation functions in practice.

Factors Influencing the Use of Allegory and Typology

            A huge factor that influenced the growth of allegory within the early church was that it was the chosen method for interpretation amidst the Alexandrian center of learning which possessed a lot of prestige.[22] Alexandria adopted this method because it had been the exegetical method of Philo, a renowned Alexandrian Jewish scholar and it was also used by neo-Platonic philosophers. It is thought that the teachers at Alexandria would have used this method to gain credibility for their interpretations among their non-Christian peers.[23]Since Hellenistic philosophy had already been using allegory,[24] it is possible that the Alexandrian use of allegory could have served evangelistic purposes towards the Greek thinkers within their geographical area. The influence of the Apostle Paul also greatly influenced the use of allegory, as Paul utilizes allegory on multiple occasions within his writings, and Origen was convinced that Paul was an “allegorist.”[25] These factors would have been influential in the growth and continued use of allegory within the early church fathers.

            The primary factor that caused the increased usage of typology within the New Testament and the early church was the necessity for these writers to show a continuity between the Old and New Testament. The problem was that some scholars during this time were rejecting the Old Testament. An example of one of these scholars was Marcion, who held a very literal reading of the Old Testament, which caused him to reject it.[26] On the opposite end of the spectrum, the Gnostics were interpreting Scripture solely with allegory, which was also causing problems. Typology served as a middle ground which treated the people and events of the Old Testament as types of Christ and his Church, which “preserved both the historical reality of the Old Testament, and the greater perfection of the New Testament”.[27] In this way, typology served as a “bridge” between the Old Testament and the Christ.[28]

My Evaluation of Allegory and Typology

            Allegory, within the right hands, can be incredibly powerful. The Apostle Paul used allegory in an insightful way to convey theological truths that have been enriching the lives of believers for the past two millennium. Similarly, Augustine’s interpretation of the parable of the good Samaritan is a powerful depiction of what Christ has done for humanity in redeeming us and providing us with a temporary home in the church, which will house us until Jesus comes once again. To use a more present example, Henri Nouwen used allegory in a masterful way in his book The Return of the Prodigal Son, which he wrote after years of reflecting on Rembrandt’s painting on the parable. This book, which was very allegorical, has been incredibly encouraging and empowering for my own faith. With this established, I believe it is still prudent to be cautious with allegory, because it wanders outside of the confines of literal exegesis, which can leave this method susceptible to eisegesis. In the case of the Gnostics[29], a strictly allegorical method was incredibly detrimental to their understanding of the Gospel message and led them to be heretics. I believe this serves as a warning to be wary of a diet of Scriptural interpretation that is solely allegorical. I would use allegory within ministry, but I believe it should only ever be a supplemental form of interpretation and should be used with caution.

            Typology is an amazing interpretational method. In a way, it is like allegory minus the downside of potential committing eisegesis. Aside from its ability to connect the Old and New Testaments, typology inspires worship because it reveals the omnipotence and omniscience of God to shape history in such a way as to allow it to form a sort of penultimate leading up to the denouement, which prepares the reader of the Old Testament for the climactic event of Scripture and history as a whole, by foreshadowing the sending of Jesus Christ and the work He accomplished through His life, death and resurrection. There is really no downside to using the typological method because it takes the literal interpretation of an Old Testament text and then directly connects it to something within the New Testament, which eliminates the risk of eisegesis that is prevalent with allegorical interpretation. In this way, I believe that typology is a better method of interpretation than allegory and I would use this much more often than I would allegory within a ministry context.

Conclusion

            Both allegory and typology were used as interpretational methods within the New Testament and the early church. Allegory finds a deeper “spiritual” meaning within Scripture that is not present within a more literal reading of the text. Within the right hands, allegory can be a powerful interpretational method, but it can also run the risk of eisegesis and should therefore only ever be used in supplementary manner while taking the back seat to other forms of interpretation. Typology was used frequently by New Testament and early church writers to show continuity between the Old and New Testaments. Typology is a stronger form of interpretation because it creates a connection between the literal facts of events that occurred in the Old and New Testament, without reading new information into the text as allegory does. Overall, both methods can reveal the kingdom of God in powerful ways in a ministry setting, but allegory should be used with caution.

Notes

[1] Bostock, Gerald. “Allegory and the Interpretation of the Bible in Origen.” Literature and Theology, 1987, 39.

[2] Klein, William W.; Blomberg, Craig L.; Hubbard, Jr., Robert L... Introduction to Biblical Interpretation: 3rd Edition Zondervan Academic. Kindle Edition, 84.

[3] Ibid, 84.

[4] Knowlton, E. C. “Notes on Early Allegory.” The Journal of English and Germanic Philology 29, no. 2, 1930, 167.

[5] Heine, Ronald E. “Gregory of Nyssa’s Apology for Allegory.” Vigiliae Christianae 38, no. 4, 1984, 361.

[6] Ibid, 364.

[7] Luke 10:30-35, ESV.

[8] Clark, Patrick Mahaney. “Reversing the Ethical Perspective: What the Allegorical Interpretation of the Good Samaritan Parable Can Still Teach Us.” Theology Today 71, no. 3, 2014, 304.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Bostock, “Interpretation of the Bible in Origen”, 39.

[12] Heine, “Gregory’s Apology for Allegory”, 361.

[13] Bostock, “Interpretation of the Bible in Origen”, 39.

[14] Reiter, Robert E. “On Biblical Typology and the Interpretation of Literature.” College English 30, no. 7, 1969, 563.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid, 566.

[17] Van Maaren, John. "The Adam-Christ typology in Paul and its development in the early church fathers." Tyndale Bulletin 64, no. 2, 2013, 277.

[18] Reiter, “Biblical Typology”, 566.

[19] Van der Lof, Laurens J. “Ireneaus and Augustine’s Use of Typology.” Augustiniana 48, 1998, 109.

[20] Reiter, “Biblical Typology”, 564-565.

[21] Ibid, 566.

[22] Klein, Biblical Interpretation, 84.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Bostock, “Allegory and Origen” 39.

[25] Heine, “Gregory’s Apology for Allegory”, 360.

[26] Reiter, “Biblical Typology”, 564-565.

[27]Ibid.

[28] Attard, Stefan M. “The Multifaceted Reception of the Torah by Early Church Fathers.” Religions 14, no. 7, 2023, 10.

[29] Reiter, “Biblical Typology”, 564-565.

References

Attard, Stefan M. “The Multifaceted Reception of the Torah by Early Church Fathers.” Religions 14, no. 7, 2023.

Bostock, Gerald. “Allegory and the Interpretation of the Bible in Origen.” Literature and Theology, 1987.

Clark, Patrick Mahaney. “Reversing the Ethical Perspective: What the Allegorical Interpretation of the Good Samaritan Parable Can Still Teach Us.” Theology Today 71, no. 3, 2014.

Heine, Ronald E. “Gregory of Nyssa’s Apology for Allegory.” Vigiliae Christianae 38, no. 4, 1984.

Klein, William W.; Blomberg, Craig L.; Hubbard, Jr., Robert L... Introduction to Biblical Interpretation: 3rd Edition Zondervan Academic. Kindle Edition.

Knowlton, E. C. “Notes on Early Allegory.” The Journal of English and Germanic Philology 29, no. 2, 1930.

Reiter, Robert E. “On Biblical Typology and the Interpretation of Literature.” College English 30, no. 7, 1969.

Van der Lof, Laurens J. “Ireneaus and Augustine’s Use of Typology.” Augustiniana 48, 1998.

VanMaaren, John. "The Adam-Christ typology in Paul and its development in the early church fathers." Tyndale Bulletin 64, no. 2, 2013.