The following material is based on the books:
1. George Eldon Ladd A Theology of the New Testament
2. Carl B. Gibbs Principles of Biblical Interpretation
3. Henry A. Virkler Hermeneutics: Principles and Process of Biblical Interpretation
4. Understanding the Bible (published by ICI)
5. Vitaly Tkachuk Methods and Principles of Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures (in Russian)

Interpretation of Parables

There are many disagreements regarding interpretations of parables. I will present the principles of interpretation of parables used by the majority of conservative evangelical theologians since I prefer their approach as the most matching the normal interpretation of the Bible.

The main principles of interpreting parables:
1. In parables, the truth is recounted in earthly actions or events that were well known to most people.
2. Parables always contain a spiritual lesson.
3. There is always an analogy between the spiritual lesson and its earthly illustration.
4. Both the spiritual lesson and its illustration should be correctly interpreted.
5. Parables are not allegories. In an allegory, every detail is controlled by the author and the author can give a symbolic meaning to every detail. A parable is a story from daily living. The author does not invent this story and does not invent all the details. The details are often not important. The parable has one main idea and contains one truth, not many truths. So, in every parable we should seek for this main truth.
6. Interpreting parables, it is important to consider the prerequisites, the event, and the application. Prerequisites are the circumstances when the parable was told. Sometimes parables are preceded by the problems or event that Jesus was talking about in His parable. Parables are often followed by the way they should be applied. Sometimes Jesus explained His parables. So, try to find the explanation given by Jesus.
7. Parables in the Gospels are about Christ and the Kingdom of God.
8. Interpreting parables, it is important to consider the place and time of their origin.
9. Often biblical culture (symbols, daily life, and so on) gives a key to understanding parables.
10. Compare the teaching you found in the parable with the full context of the Holy Scripture. No doctrine should be based on a parable. Doctrines should be taken from clear biblical texts, and parables should serve only as illustrations of them.

The last principle is also important because parables are often used for twisting the Bible that takes place in abusive churches and cults. Their leaders use their own interpretations of parables in order to make the Bible speak what they want.

Interpretation of Allegories

In the Bible, there are some allegories. This, however, does not mean that the Bible is an allegory. Usually, in the biblical context, it is clear that this is an allegory.

The differences between parables and allegories:
1. Parables are enlarged comparisons. Allegories are enlarged metaphors.
2. In parables, the narrative and the interpretation are separated. In allegories, they are mixed.
3. Parables have one main thought, the details are valuable only if they are related to the main thought. Allegories have many comparisons and they are not always related to the main idea. So, all the details in allegories are important.
4. Characters of parables are real. Characters of allegories may be somewhat fantastic.

If the Bible contains an allegory, its interpretation is usually given in the text, for example, Proverbs 5:15-19; John 15:1-10; 1 Corinthian 3:1-5; Ephesians 6:10-17). So, the main principle of interpretation of allegories is to read them carefully to find out explanation of each detail. It is also important to notice the context of the allegory: when, who, and why said this allegory.

Interpretation of Types

The Bible does contain some types. When the Bible clearly indicates that a certain thing is a type, all the theologians agree that this thing should be considered a type. When the Bible does not contain these indications, some theologians still try to find types. However, most evangelical theologians are against that. They say that if the Bible contains a type, it clearly indicates that it is a type. Otherwise, the texts should not be considered as types. I agree with that. The fact that the Bible contains types does not mean that everything in the Bible should be interpreted typologically. If the Bible does not indicate clearly that a certain thing is a type of another thing (antitype), typological interpretation cannot be objective and will depend on the person who interprets the Bible. Typological interpretation is often used by leaders of abusive churches and cults in order to make the Bible speak what they want.

The main characteristics of types:
1. There should be some point of similarity or analogy between the type and antitype. However, they may have many differences. For example, Adam is a type of Christ: "Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come" (Romans 5:14). However, the Scripture speaks more about the differences between them than on the similarity (Romans 5:14-19).
2. There should be an evidence that the type was set by God to present what it illustrates. A similarity can be considered a type if there is some evidence of God's proof of that type.
3. A type should illustrate something in the future. Antitypes in the New Testament unveils the truths more fully than types in the Old Testament.
So, something can be considered a type if there is a similarity between a type and an antitype, a proof that the type was set by God, and an antitype in future.

The kinds of types:
1. Persons as types illustrate some important principles or truth of redemption with their life. For example, Adam is a type of Christ (Romans 5:14).
2. Events as types have analogies with some later events. For example, Paul used the condemnation of Israel as a type to warn Christians about unfaithfulness (1 Corinthians 10:1-11).
3. Ordinances as types illustrate later events in the history of salvation. For example, Sabbath was a type of the believers' eternal rest (Hebrews 4:1-11).
4. Ministries as types include Moses' ministry who being a prophet (Deuteronomy 18:15) is a type of Christ, Melchizedek's ministry (Hebrews 5:6) which is a type of Christ's eternal high priest ministry, and David's ministry of a king.
5. Actions as types. For example, Isaiah walked naked and barefooted as an illustration that Assyria would soon take the captives from Egypt and Ethiopia naked and barefooted (Isaiah 20:2-4).

Principles of interpretation of types:
1. Every type is interpreted in the same way in the Old Testament and the New Testament context. A type has only one interpretation and its interpretation is applied in a higher level. A type in the Old Testament has only one meaning which was implied by the author. So, the original meaning is not lost. However, types were used by God in a higher meaning as symbols of something else. An antitype is a realization of the original meaning of the type in a higher level.
2. When the New Testament give an interpretation of a type, we should use only this interpretation.If the New Testament gives two or three analogies between a type and an antitype, the interpreter should not invent more types, using every detail as a type.
3. Types should not be based on such weak analogies as color, number, ore shape.
4. A doctrine should not be based on a type. A type can serve only an illustration of a doctrine.

Interpretation of Symbols

The differences between types and symbols:
1. A type always implies something in the future. A symbol is not determined by time.
2. A type always something actual - a person, a place, an event, or a commandment. A symbol can be invented.
3. A type may include several symbols.
4. A type is always concrete. A symbol is abstract.
5. A type always has some similarity with the antitype. A symbol may not have a similarity with the thing it represents.

Principles of interpretation of symbols:
1. Usually, there is only one comparison. Context should serve a measure of the only possible meaning of the symbol.
2. Try to find the explanation of the meaning of the symbol in the context. The Bible is the only interpreter of its symbols. If the author uses a symbol, it is implied that he will explain its meaning in the nearest context or that you know its meaning already from other texts.
3. There are no universal symbols in the Bible. The same word can be used as different symbols and in its literal meaning. It depends on the context.
4. If the author does not imply a symbol, then, there is no symbol there.