Typology, Symbolism & the Language of Imagery

"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made." - Romans 1:20a

I sat down to write about the biblical feasts. Eight days later, and lots of writing and re-writing, I realized the topic was so embedded in and spread out across scripture, that it needed some kind of introduction; it needed a separate article to explain biblical typology and symbolism so as not to spend half the topic explaining how I arrived at my conclusions. And so, this is that introduction.

Photo by Brett Jordan on Unsplash

Nearly all Bible scholars will agree to the presence of types in scripture to a greater or lesser degree. However, there is a brand of theologian that takes the study of typology incredibly seriously when coming to the text of scripture and exegetes based on this method as much as he does more literal methods. One name we could give such a system of study is “interpretive maximalism,” coined by David Chilton. The two main points of this method say that a) every detail written in scripture is important and b) everything in the Old Testament points to Christ.

At first glance, this method of biblical interpretation could be misconstrued as being guilty of this same mistake the Pharisees made inserting their own interpretations into the biblical text. And understandably so, since the interpretation of symbolism and spiritual meaning requires reading between the lines for things not plainly stated. However, it is not the same (nor is it heretical). Symbolism, typology, and a proper interpretation of them, are of paramount importance when we come to the scriptures.

This does not mean we throw away or ignore a linear and literal reading of scripture, but that we may come to find deeper meaning in a symbolic sense on top of what we already know in a literal sense.

Of course, there are rules and anchors for this method of reading scripture. Otherwise, one may float off rudderless into allegories with no biblical backing and make scripture mean whatever is convenient or desirable to the reader.

To elaborate more on this, I’m going to be quoting from James B. Jordan’s book Through New Eyes, which I commend to you for your biblical studies arsenal. Right beside your historical-grammatical study tools.

A Biblical view of the world

How do we view the world? Do we look at the patterns we see in nature as arbitrarily placed? As a general revelation of God’s power to create? Or do we look deeper? I personally had always read Romans 1:20 with a very general mindset.

“For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.” - Romans 1:20a

Oh, yeah, of course, nature speaks of God, so people ought to know God is real because of the order of things, yep. But I did not realize that, quite literally, all things testify. All created things tell the story of Christ and his work and his kingdom. After all, Christ himself preached in parables that were rooted in the illustrations inherent in creation and our interactions with created things.

This is the relationship between the Word and the world. We look at creation and then the world and, those of us who have “been given the secret of the kingdom of God” (Mark 4:11)—that is to say, we have been born again in Christ—we see that creation reveals what is written. And vice versa! When we read the Word, we look up and realize everything around us speaks of what is written. In this way, scripture tells us how to view the world.

“The Bible is concerned to give us a basic worldview model and begins with it right away. The first chapter of Genesis tells us about the design of the world, as it came from the hand of the Designer.” - Through New Eyes, pg. 9-10

Genesis: Literal or Symbolic?

Many want to read Genesis as if it were a historical account and scientific classification of how things came to be, only reading it in a literal sense. While it is true that it documents how things came to be and describes what we see around us from the beginning to the present day, a purely literal view of Genesis 1 is deficient to express its full design. And we do this beautiful account a disservice when we read it in merely an “Answers in Genesis” fashion.

“From time to time in the history of the Church, the interpretation of Genesis has been obscured by a tendency to read it in terms of current science. Bringing a scientific worldview to Genesis 1 has resulted in two errors. One is to take the chapter literally but try to interpret what it says in terms of scientific categories. This tendency appears in the Hexameron of St. Basil the Great (330-79). Basil takes Genesis 1 as it stands, but constantly tries to integrate it with the ‘earth, air, fire, water’ science of his day. The opposite tendency appears in St. Augustine’s Literal Meaning of Genesis. Since Genesis 1 does not always seem to square with the scientific (and philosophical) understanding of the world, Augustine tends to take it allegorically. Both approaches have modern advocates, though the science has changed.” - Through New Eyes, pg. 10

While some read Genesis like a textbook, others fly off into allegory without rooting their symbolism in scripture. Both approaches have correct aspects and pitfalls.

Genesis 1 is rich with symbolism and typology. Our rudimentary “vocabulary,” so to speak, is laid out for us in the first few chapters of Genesis, our vocabulary for reading the rest of scripture. As a friend once put it, “I feel like the rest of the Bible is a commentary on the first three chapters of Genesis.” When it comes to symbolism, she was correct in her assessment. This vocabulary that we are introduced to in Genesis 1-3 is developed, unpacked and defined from then on, from Genesis 4 to Revelation 22.

Does this mean we leave behind the plain reading of the text? Certainly not! That is where we lose our grip on orthodoxy. For a literal creation is there right outside our windows matching exactly what is described in Genesis 1. To deny that in favor of a purely symbolic reading is to rob scripture in the opposite sense: to rob it of the lessons it wants to teach us using the concrete things right in front of us. As Jordan puts it using another example:

“Shall we deny the physical resurrection of Christ just because we have come to understand its theological meaning? We dare not pit the historical aspect against the theological aspect.” - Through New Eyes, pg. 11

It is safe to say the creation account should be read not as one or the other, but as both literal and symbolic.

The language of pictures

Jordan goes on to explain the illustrative language of Genesis:

“Genesis 1 is written in terms of visual appearances, not in terms of scientific analysis. Genesis 1 speaks of ‘lights’ in the sky, not of ‘sun and moon.’… The language of appearance accomplishes two things in Genesis 1. First, it gives a true description of the world as it is. It is not merely poetic to call the sun a ‘great light,’ for the sun is a great light… At the same time, however, the language of visual appearance in Genesis 1 serves to establish a visual grid, a worldview. By writing in terms of visual appearance, the Bible sets up categories of visual imagery. Unfortunately, modern readers often have trouble with this. We who live in the post-Gutenberg information age are unfamiliar with visual imagery. We are word-oriented, not picture-oriented. The Bible, however, is a pre-Gutenberg information source; while it does not contain drawings, it is full of important visual descriptions and imagery. This visual imagery is one of the primary ways the Bible presents its worldview. There is nothing to indicate that Genesis 1 is merely symbolic. At the same time, however, by using the language of visual appearance, Genesis 1 sets up a worldview grid that is used later on in Scripture for symbolic purposes.” - Through New Eyes, pg. 12

Unfortunately, living in Western civilization, the style of writing that uses literary devices to make a point is mostly lost on us. We read everything in a linear fashion. We write everything in a linear fashion. We aren’t familiar with the idea of studying literature unless we are trained in ancient writings and used to studying them. We think in words, not in pictures. We think chronologically, not topologically.

“Modern literature is not written the same way as ancient literature, and this presents a problem for Bible students. George Mendenhall has written, 

‘Ancient thought is associational, not ‘scientific,’ and therefore tends to create the maximum of relationships between experience, language, and art, not the minimum which is so characteristic of modern over-specialization.’

…Before the modern era, and before Gutenberg, there were few books. The few men who wrote books wrote them very carefully. As a result, ancient writings, including the Bible, are very tightly and precisely written. Every word has its place…

Ancient and medieval literature abounds in numerical symbolism, large parallel structures, intricate chiastic devices, astral allusions, sweeping metaphors, topological parallels, and symbolism in general. Modern literature, whether fiction or non-fiction, is almost always written in a straight line. You don’t have to go back and forth in such books to unpack allusions or get ‘hidden’ messages. In other words, you don’t have to study such books in a literary fashion. You just read them and get the message. Ancient and medieval literature, however, must be studied.”

- Through New Eyes, pg. 13-14

The letter + the spirit

So if there is a legitimate way to read the symbolism laid out in scripture, where did the Pharisees go wrong with their interpretations and how do we read the symbolism of scripture correctly?

As I said in my post Modern Pharisees, the pharisees and sadducees were guilty of arriving at the same legalistic end by different means, one deriving a set of deficient doctrine from a strict adherence to the letter of the law, one deriving a set of erroneous doctrine from the addition of false spiritual revelation. Both focused on a righteousness they perceived as being achievable in by these laws and the will of man. And that’s where they went wrong.

It wasn’t the Sadducees taking the scripture at face value that was wrong. It was taking the scripture at face value without accounting for the spiritual symbolism.

It wasn’t the Pharisees interpreting the symbolism of scripture to derive a deeper meaning that was wrong. It was interpreting the symbolism of scripture without grounding it in what God had plainly revealed about himself.

It seems to me if they had just put their heads together, they would have had a better shot at hearing and understanding what Christ came teaching: the kingdom and commandments of God instead of the kingdom of this world and the doctrines of men. Then again, we know that no amount of head knowledge reveals God to us, for it must be a revelation of the Spirit if one is to ever know God. And that, for sure, is one thing the rabbinical order lacked. They did not have the Holy Spirit to teach them; no one did in the Old Covenant. They groped for the meaning of shadows that have been revealed to us who live in the light of the New Covenant and are indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

Rules for interpreting symbolism

Nevertheless, when we do come to the plain text of scripture, we must not take it so literally as to dismiss a spiritual meaning as the Sadducees did. And in seeking to deepen our understanding of its symbolism, there are rules we must consider to keep us from straying into doctrines of our own making as the Pharisees did.

Jordan outlines six rules when studying the symbols and imagery of scripture to keep us anchored to that biblical worldview that scripture would have us hold:

“First of all, Biblical symbolism and imagery is not a code. The Bible does not use a symbol when a literal statement will do… If John in Revelation 13 had wanted to say Nero, he would have said Nero. Instead, he said ‘beast.’ By using the symbol ‘beast,’ he was not just giving a code for Nero, he was bringing to mind a whole series of Biblical associations: the beast in the Garden, Adam clothes in skins of beasts, Nebuchadnezzar turned into a beast (Daniel 4), the beasts in Daniel’s visions, the human beasts who rioted against Paul at Ephesus (1 Corinthians 15:32; Acts 19), etc. By associating the beast with the number 666, he alluded to the dimensions of Nebuchadnezzar’s idol (Daniel 3:1), to Solomon’s fall into sin (1 Kings 10:14), and more.

Second, Biblical symbols do not exist in isolation. Symbols have meaning within a set of symbolic relations, or within a symbol system. This means that symbols have to be interpreted within the ‘symbolic design’ in which they are located. Within such a symbolic design symbols function as part of a ‘network of relationships.’ In the Bible, the entire symbolic world is one organized and unified worldview, a worldview that actually takes its rise in the first chapters of Genesis. The symbolic meanings and associations of earth, sea, rocks, stars, plants, animals, serpents, trees, fruit, and all else are set out in these chapters. The rest of the Bible simply unpacks their meanings.

Third, in coming to understand Biblical symbolism, we may receive some clues from other ancient literature, but we must always have clear-cut Biblical indication for any symbol or image we think we have found. We don’t want to read the modern secular worldview into the Bible, but we don’t want to read the corrupt worldview of Near-Eastern paganism into it either…

 Fourth, the heritage of the Church in systematic theology and in the history of exegesis is always a check on wild speculation…

Fifth, Biblical symbolism must be interpreted in terms of Biblical presuppositions and philosophy. In the early Church, the school of Alexandria became notorious for allegorical and symbolic exegesis; but their problem did not lie in the fact that they studied Biblical imagery. The problem was that they were trying to squeeze Biblical teachings into the categories of Platonic philosophy of type and allegory; we do not need to borrow anything from Plato.

Finally, since so little work has been done in this area until recently, the student of Biblical imagery must be alert to the work of other scholars. Exegesis must never be done in a vacuum. - Through New Eyes, pg.15-17

To close, I’ll add a rule of my own:

The Bible is the revelation of God.

The Bible is not about us, it’s not primarily concerned with application, and it’s not fundamentally a “road map for living.” The words of scripture are God’s revealing of himself to us. His words are where we see Christ and how we see him. And well we may if we have been given eyes to see and ears to hear. And we will be changed when we see him there.

We see him at first glance, and then we go deeper and find him still in all the rich imagery of his Word. And the deeper we go, we find that he goes on forever. We will be delighted to find that life began when he opened our eyes to see Christ at that first glance and yet, we will never quite get our arms around all that he is.

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

- Revelation 22:13