Introduction
First thing's first: I can't believe my blog is already a year old! Thanks to those who have been here from the beginning and to those who may have only started following recently. I really hope you've had fun--I know I have--and I hope for many more years on here if the Lord tarries!
For this anniversary, I thought I'd write on something I'm pretty passionate about: typology. Some theologians in the exegetical field--the field dedicated to interpreting the scriptural texts--will distinguish between uses of the scriptures, and various saints have given their own lists. Generally, I favor Thomas Aquinas' division: historical (often called literal), anagogical, moral (called "tropological" by the pretentious), and typological (or allegorical). The historical use is the plain reading of a scriptural story, the anagogical is the use of one piece of scripture to explain another, the moral is a use of the passage to show your audience what they should or shouldn't do, and the allegorical is using that passage as a figure to foreshadow and then confess a later scriptural event or teaching. For an example of how these methods shake out, the historical reading of Numbers 21:4-9 is that the Lord cursed Israel with deadly snakes for grumbling and He had Moses put a bronze serpent on a pole so that if they looked at it they wouldn't die. The anagogical use would be using it to explain how all images were not forbidden by Exodus 20:4 but only idolatrous ones. The tropological use would be that we ought not grumble against the Lord lest we face punishment and that we ought to trust in the Lord's mercy even in difficult times. The allegorical use, which Christ puts forth in John 3:14-15, is that the snake lifted up on a pole represents Christ lifted up on the cross and all who look to Him for salvation will be healed.
Quite a few of my blog posts have involved me using the typological method to look at various symbols in scriptures: donkeys, the triumphal entry, the days of creation, the Hindu gods, Ethiopia (still one of my favorites), Nebuchadnezzar, and the cornucopia (and this is not an exhaustive list). However, there is a strong stream in modern exegesis that avoids my methods like the plague. Some are merely conservative with what they will acknowledge as types within scripture, but others will go so far as to say that we can claim a passage is typological only if another piece of scripture says so. To be perfectly clear, this is far from the historical view. Read any patristic work and you will see plentiful use of the typological method, my favorite example being Epistle of Barnabas from the collection of the apostolic fathers, in which the author spends much of his letter making typological connections between the levitical laws and the Gospel. I'm not entirely sure of the historical reason why it fell out of fashion, but one of my friends suggested it could be a conservative reaction against the liberal sects that wish to make certain historical truths into purely allegorical ones. As a result, the reactionary conservative responds by overemphasizing the historical meaning to the neglect of the allegorical. Of course, the fear of the overly-allegorical liberal is founded, since we have seen folks like that throughout history, the most infamous being Origen. However, the response of the fathers was not to reject allegory but rather to hold onto the good things that Origen taught while rejecting the excesses. This is what I wish to do: have a robust view of the symbolism holy writ is chock-full of while grounding it in the truth of the historical meaning. To defend this view, I will appeal to the three universals of truth, goodness and beauty. In proving the truth of the method, I will simply establish that it is a valid way to read the scriptures, and in goodness and beauty, I will then point to the reasons why one would want to read a given text that way.
Truth
The first and, in my view, most important thing to prove is that the typological method is a true understanding of scripture. This will at least silence my opponents concerning the validity of the interpretation, whether or not they think it is a helpful method. There are a few passages which show the principle behind it.
'Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. ' Colossians 2:16-17
The apostle repeats this same sentiment in Hebrews 8:5 and 10:1, which talk about how the Mosaic Law was a series of foreshadowings concerning Christ. This passage, however, is a little more interesting. While in the Hebrews passages they are connected to the existing prophecy about Christ's priesthood, I find this one a bit more interesting because it is not really based on such. Rather, it takes the images of the Israelite ritual acts and finds the fulfillment in our Lord Christ. The food and drink passages are largely exposited throughout the aforementioned Epistle of Barnabas, whether or not (likely not) Paul was referencing it here. The festivals all do relate to Christ in some way, with the day of atonement being referenced as Christological in Hebrews 9:23-10:4, the passover during the crucifixion account, the feast of tabernacles during the triumphal entry, and the feast of firstfruits in 1 Cor. 15:10, Rom. 8:23, 11:16, James 1:18, 2 Thess. 2:13. The thing that I find especially interesting about the feast of firstfruits is that this involves a multifaceted type. 1 Cor. 15:10 refers to the firstfruits as Christ, Rom. 8:23 as the Holy Ghost, Rom. 11:16 as the Jews, and Jas. 1:18 and 2 Thess. 2:13 as the Church. Thus, we see that the same image can have multiple meanings without an issue for the Holy Spirit, and in some cases this is even within the same book! This may sound like some wacky postmodern nonsense, but it is actually grounded in the power of God. Side note: this is why I prefer to call the first use of the scriptures the "historical" sense rather than the "literal." As Aquinas rightly points out, a literal meaning typically refers to that meaning which the author intends. However, "since the author of Holy Writ is God, Who by one act comprehends all things by His intellect, it is not unfitting...if, even according to the literal sense, one word in Holy Writ should have several senses." This same point is expounded upon in St. Augustine's Confessions,
“Thus, when one shall say, "He [Moses] meant as I do," and another, "Nay, but as I do," I suppose that I am speaking more religiously when I say, "Why not rather as both, if both be true?" And if there be a third truth, or a fourth, and if any one seek any truth altogether different in those words, why may not he be believed to have seen all these, through whom one God has tempered the Holy Scriptures to the senses of many, about to see therein things true but different?" (12.30.41)
Thus, since God can mean many different things by the same words, we see that the historical, anagogical, moral, and typological sense are all "literal."
The next relevant passage is as follows:
"Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end. But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit." (2 Corinthians 3:12-18)
I find this one fascinating because it functions as a kind of meta-typology, using a type (Moses and the veil) to describe how the Christians and jews each relate to the scriptures. While the Jew may see merely stories, morals, or laws, the Christian sees our Lord's cross on every page, beholding the glory of the Word made flesh.
This section has gotten very long, so I'm going to quickly go through some types that the New Testament sees from the Old which I see as significant examples for my argument: Galatians 4:21-31, the story of Sarah and Hagar is, in the apostle's words, an "allegory"; 1 Corinthians 9:8-12, a Levitical law about the treatment of animals was written for our sake concerning the compensation of pastors; 1 Peter 3:21, where baptism is an "antitype" (the fulfillment of a type) to Noah's ark; 1 Corinthians 10:1-5, which connects the crossing of the Red Sea to baptism and the manna and water from the rock to the Eucharist; and the inexhaustible number of Christological types like Hebrews 7:1-3, Luke 11:29-32, and the aforementioned John 3:14-15. My reason for bringing these up are twofold. First, it's important to note that types are not always directed towards Christ, as I have heard some claim. Often they are towards the church, the sacraments, and many other important topics. The other thing to mention is that the scriptures do this constantly. I hesitated to give as many examples as I did, and I had plenty more in my notes because it is just so common. However, not every text is referenced typologically in the New Testament. In fact, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Zephaniah, Nahum, Ezra, Nehemiah, Obadiah, and Esther are not even referenced in the New Testament, though their canonicity is implied by Luke 11:51. Thus, not every text which may be typological is expounded upon, so if we are to read the rest of the scriptures well, we ought to read them the way Christ and the apostles did, imitating all of them (1 Cor. 11:1).
Goodness
The next thing to establish is the goodness of the practice, that is, its helpfulness for the Christian life. My point hinges on a few passages, the first one being 1 John 4:2-3:
"By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already."
When putting forth the methods for testing false and true teachers, the beloved disciple says to judge them by their fruits, akin to the Lord's test of the prophets in Deuteronomy 13:1-4. If the teaching points the hearers to Christ, then he is a good teacher, but if otherwise, then he is under the power of the spirit of antichrist. The Lord's brother has a similar description of "the wisdom from above," saying,
'But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. ' (James 3:17)
In this way, if we see a teaching that is in line with the methods of the apostles mentioned above and it leads to these wonderful fruits, like the love, joy, peace, etc. which is said to come only from the Spirit (Galatians 5:19-23), then how can it be anything but the "wisdom from above"?
This exact point is made by St. Cyprian of Carthage in his treatise On the Lord's Prayer, specifically concerning the fourth petition,
"As the prayer goes forward, we ask and say, 'Give us this day our daily bread.' And this may be understood both spiritually and literally, because either way of understanding it is rich in divine usefulness to our salvation. For Christ is the bread of life; and this bread does not belong to all men, but it is ours...But it may also be thus understood, that we who have renounced the world, and have cast away its riches and pomps in the faith of spiritual grace, should only ask for ourselves food and support" (18-19)
He actually differs from his near contemporaries Origen and Tertullian in this regard, who both tend to spiritualize the reference to daily bread and reject and temporal interpretation. Cyprian, however, argues that both can be true, since "either way of understanding it is rich in divine usefulness to our salvation." This is incredibly instructive as an example for how we ought to view typology and spiritual interpretations.
Beauty
My final point is to establish the beauty that this doctrine brings to the table as well as warning against the excesses that such beauty may lead to. The biggest point is that it leads us to wonder at the glory of the inspired scriptures. St. Ephrem the Syrian wonder's at paradise, singing,
"Who is capable of gazing upon the Garden's splendor, seeing how glorious it is in all its design, how glorious it is in all its proportions, how spacious for those who dwell there, howe radiant with its abodes?" (Hymn 2 on Paradise, v. 8)
St. Ambrose of Milan also meditates on the perfection of the proportions of Noah's ark and its relation to the beauty of the soul. Even in the modern day, we have hymns like "How Great Thou Art" in which those singing marvel at the wonder of God by seeing what He has created. In a similar way, we too can find the glorious harmony within the scriptures and cry out with St. Paul, "Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God!" (Rom. 11:33) St. Gregory the Great does this exact thing in his work on the Morals of Job, saying,
"[holy writ] goes beyond all forms of knowledge and teaching even by the mere manner of its style of speaking, because in one and the same thread of discourse, while it relates the text, it declares a mystery, and has the art so to tell the past, that merely by that alone it knows how to announce the future, and the order of telling remaining unaltered, is instructed by the very self-same forms of speech at once to describe things done before, and to tell things destined to be done" (20.1).
With all that said, there is a danger that one may be led by the beauty of typology to fall into excess in various ways. For one thing, you may reject the clear meaning of the text for some spiritual interpretation. This was the path taken by some ancient theologians like Origen and Clement of Alexandria and much of modern liberal theology. Another error you may fall into is simply one of emphasis, where you become so obsessed with biblical symbols that you neglect the teachings they are meant to signify.
The final error to warn the typologist against is using his allegorical arguments in theological debates. For example, my friend and I in debates about prayer to the saints have discussed the story of Bathsheba and Adonijah in 2 Kings 2:13-25. In the story, Adonijah goes to Bathsheba to ask for her to ask Solomon if Adonijah can marry one of David's concubines, which Solomon inherited after his father's death and his own ascent to the throne. His rationale is that "he [Solomon] will not refuse you [Bathsheba]" (v. 17). She agrees to ask and goes to Solomon telling him not to refuse her, after which Solomon says he won't refuse her. Then after she gives the request, Solomon is enraged and has Adonijah killed. I bring up this passage to make the point that the only one we see in the scriptures invoke the king's mother is killed for his audacity, a typological point against those who invoke Mary to get to Christ. The counterpoint is to look at the wedding at Cana as a fulfillment of that scene, with Bathsheba asking for something wicked but Mary asking for something righteous and the Lord granting Mary's request. We could both move on to debate which is a more or less fitting view of the scene, but the problem is that both of us are looking at the same scene and seeing opposite themes, which may happen sometimes. In addition, sometimes one may make a typological argument for a doctrine that is neither confessed nor condemned in the scriptures. For example, I love seeing Ezekiel 44:2, which describes none going in or out of the gate that the Lord goes through, as a symbolic prophecy of semper virgo. However, if I were debating someone on the practice, I would never use that as a linchpin for my scriptural argument, as it may not be saying anything about Mary whatsoever, since the doctrine is never explicitly confirmed anywhere else. The final and most disastrous is to use typology to confess heresy. For example, Arius the Heresiarch took Wisdom in Proverbs 8:22 as a reference to Christ, who he said must have been "created" (as the LXX says). As a result, he took the Son to be a created thing rather than consubstantial with the Father. In this way, he errantly used typology to argue for a denial of our Lord's true divinity.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the typological method of reading the scriptures is validated by its apostolic use and advocacy, shown to be good by the fruits it bears, and is a beautiful way to see the wonder of our God in the harmony of the scriptural themes and confession.
Comentarios