I always wonder who and how many people are reading these things.

I’ve been thinking recently on this with respect to the inference for design. What William Dembski did was to look at examples of obvious intentional events and extrapolate the principles that differentiated these events with accidental ones. He concluded there were three, namely (1) contingency, (2) small probability and (3) specifiability. These are initial thoughts only, as I haven’t had much brain space to think on it, and with other things on my mind.

If my understanding is correct, another obvious example of types is in the book of Hosea. Here God is directly instructing Hosea on how to behave and live in order to provide a living analogy of what God is like. The redeeming aspect of Christ and the wayward nature of humanity is shown in the act of Hosea buying back his unfaithful wife Gomer.

It is very interesting that God would arrange living analogies of his character via orchestrating events in history. Possibly mirrored by us in simpler ways when we arrange events in our children’s lives to teach them some aspect of right and wrong.

I cannot think of any way for the NT authors to have discovered typological allegorical meanings, other than redemption, revelation and the cleansing of the spirit. I once was blind but now I see. A personal revelation of Christ, like Saul becoming Paul, appears mandatory. It is akin to submitting to Christ and discovering that the whole bible just came alive. You cannot put it down. What used to be tedious and incomprehensible is instantly clear and full of meaning. I know this is not exactly what you were asking for. It is more in line with, how does a person who is already transformed identify typological truths? And I have no idea other than drawing closer to Christ. The better you know the giver of life, the clearer the analogies will be.

Extrapolating out from the NT is such a risk wrought business. I am reminded of when Peter had the vision of the unclean animals in a sheet and God directed him to eat. It was horrific to Peter to even comprehend such an “anti-God” action. This was going against the very core of who God is! Such an event could appear to Peter as an extrapolation from his bible (OT). Though actually, it was cracking the image of God that Peter had built up in his mind and life. Something we all can use; destruction of an extremely subtle form of idolatry.

There does not appear to be any other way to describe God, other than through the use of metaphor. Allegory, tropology, and anagogy give us glimpses and impact our minds. Yet I agree that a literal expression of these pictures is necessary to confirm their validity. My immediate apologies for having been of no help in your search for hermeneutical principles to uncover allegorical meaning.

Since before Augustine and all through the medieval period people interpreted scripture on four levels; the literary (on the surface), the tropicogical (moral), the allegorical and the anagogical.

I first came across this method of interpretation during Harry Potter research. I’ve written two articles on why I think, inline with such scholars as John Granger, that Harry Potter is written from within a Christian worldview. He mentioned everyone viewed scripture, even the whole world, on these four levels. Being familiar with this some authors, including John Milton who wrote Paradise Lost, intentionally wrote on these four levels, as does J.K. Rowling in the tradition of the Inklings.

One of things I was looking forward to was to find out how one interprets scripture on the analogical and anagogical level. And so on Monday, I was one part surprised and two parts disappointed to hear just don’t do it.

Now obviously there is allegorical meaning in scripture. For one there are parables. But more importantly the New Testament authors discovered in the Old Testament types or models, particularly of Christ – and not just in the poetic genre. Paul for instance speaks of the child of the flesh (Ishmael) and the child of the promise (Isaac, the spirit). Jesus mentions types of himself that include Jonah, while in the big fish.

On clarification from Jacqui Lloyd, and as I understand it, she thinks that typology is distinguished from the allegorical interpretation by only one criteria, namely, legitimacy. What legitimizes the a type? Explicit reference to it mentioned in the NT.

This seems to me very limited. It stretches credulity that Jesus and the NT authors could have discovered and mentioned all the OT types that are there. It doesn’t seem to square with numerology. And the NT authors off-hand and casual way of mentioning these type seems to presume readers are familiar enough with OT stories to do the interpretation work themselves.

Which makes what Luther said in 1515 particularly interesting.

“In the Scriptures no allegory, tropology, or anagogy is valid, unless that same truth is explicitly stated literally somewhere else. Otherwise, Scripture would become a laughing matter.”

I think this is right. It provides an excellent principle for interpreting on all of three non-literary levels. In other words, all allegory is permissible if the meaning is explicitly stated on the literary level. This protects against off-the-wall readings. There are other two other principles I can think of, namely the law of first-mention and consistency of use throughout the whole of scripture.

So what do you think?

Are there other hermeneutical principles you can think to discover the intended allegorical meaning?

Is there always an allegorical meaning?

What was the hermeneutic the NT authors used to discover allegorical meaning?

Can our typological dictionary be extended beyond what was explicitly stated by the NT?

Can we legitimately extrapolate outwards from what is explicitly stated in the NT?

Apart from Christ, are truth revealed in the NT that are hidden in the OT?

The final stretch, as is usually the case, was a bit rushed and so the standard of the writing – specifically the analysis – is a bit poor. The essay was only supposed to be 1500 words so the historical review is simplistic, and much of the contemporary development in typological interpretation is missing. Specific Hermeneutical principles used are also absent from the body text and footnotes, rendering the argument slightly superficial. I hope one day to complete those sections, but probably won’t get opportunity to finish for a long time.

The following is the appendix B1 from Chuck Missler, Cosmic Codes (Minnesota; Koinonia House, 1999), 397-8.

Examples discussed in Cosmic Codes:
Abrahams’s offering of Isaac
Eleazar’s gathering of a bride from Isaac
Boaz, Naomi and Ruth
Enoch, Noah and family
The Book of Joshua as a model of the Book of Revelation
Rock, stone as idiomatic types
The coats of skins for Adam and Eve
The various feasts of Moses

Individuals as types of Christ:
Adam, in his headship over a new creation: (Gen. 1:28; Rom 5:17-19; 1Co. 15:22, 45, 47; Heb. 2:7-9)
Noah, in his saving life: (Gen. 6:13-14, 17-18; 1Pe 3:18-22)
Melchizidek, as both king and a priest: (Gen 14:18-20; Psa. 110:4; Heb. 5-8)
Moses’ prophetic ministry: (Deut. 18:15-18; Heb. 3:5, 6)
Joshua, in his victorious life: (Jos. 1:3, 5-6, 8-9; John 10:17-18; 19-30)
David, as king: (2Sa. 7:1-17; Mark 11:10; Rev. 5:5; 22:16)
Elijah, as His forerunner: (Isa. 40:3-4; Mat. 17:11-12)
Jonah, in his resurrection: (Jon. 1:17; Mat. 12:40; 16:4; Luk. 11:20)
Jeremiah, in his sorrows: (Jer. 3:20; 5:1-5; 8:20-22; 9:1; 10:19; 11:20)
Daniel, in his acceptance by the Father: (Dan. 9:23; 10:11, 19; Mat 3:17; 17:5)
Ezekiel, in his parables: (Eze. 17:2; 20:49; Mat 13:3)
Joseph: (see section B2)
Isaac, as a type of Israel: (see section B3)

Other Events:
Manna: (Exo. 16:14:22)
Ark and the Flood: (Gen 6-8; 1Pet. 3:18:22)
Passage through the Red Sea: (Exo. 14; 1Co. 10:1, 2)
The offerings of Leviticus 1-5
Hagar and Sarah, as law and grace: (Gal. 4:23, 30, 31)

Types of Antichrist include:
Nimrod, builder of Babylon (Gen 10-11); Rev 17:18)
Pharoh and Egypt (Exo. 1:8-22; Rev 12)
Nebuchadnezzar, forced worship of his
image, the fiery furnace (Dan. 3:1-7; Rev. 13:15)
Antiochus Epiphanes (Dan. 11:21-35; Mat 24:15)

Consistent idiomatic uses:
Leaven of sin; Brass of judgement; Silver of blood, etc.

An exhaustive listing is virtually impossible.

The Marshian school regarded the following as types with direct sanction in the Bible. The following list is taken from Patrick Fairbairn, The Typology of Scripture, 5th Ed. (London; Oliphants, 1953), 21-22.

1. Persons
Adam: Rom. 5:11-12
Melchizadek: Heb. 7
Sarah and Hagar, Ishmael and Isaac, and by implication Abraham: Gal. 4:22-35
Moses: Gal. 3:19; Act. 3:22-26
Jonah: Mat. 7:40
David: Eze 37:24; Luk 1:32, etc.
Solomon: 2Sa. 7
Zerubbabel and Joshua: Zec. 3, 4; Hag. 2:23

2. Transactions or events
The preservation of Noah and his family on the ark: 1Pe. 3:20
The redemption from Egypt and its Passover-memorial: Luk. 22:15-16; 1Co. 5:7
the exodus Mat. 2:15
the passage through the Red Sea
the giving of manna
Moses’ veiling of his face while the law read
the water from from the mitten rock
the serpent lifted up for healing in the wilderness
and others concerning the Israelites there: 1Co. 10; John 3:14; 5:33; Rev. 2:18

3. Others
The tabernacle, with furniture and services: Heb.; Col.