What is "Biblical Typology "and is it biblical to use it as a method for interpreting the Bible? Typology is defined as a
"Branch of biblical interpretation in which an element found in the OT
prefigures one found in the NT."[1] Dr.
Warren Gage makes the point that the primary task of theology is typology.[2] He
shows that the New Testament writers along with Jesus himself understood the
Old Testament to contain typology.[3]
Jesus, speaking with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, showed them that
the Old Testament spoke of his life and sufferings.[4] He
also says to his disciples on another occasion "'These are my words that I
spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in
the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.' Then he
opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, 'Thus it is
written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the
dead...'"[5]
So we have ample evidence pointing
to the fact that the New Testament authors all saw typology as an acceptable
method for understanding the Old Testament. Some of the merits of this method are, as already pointed out, that Jesus taught this along with Paul and other New Testament writers. See for example Paul's discussion of Hagar and Sarah in Galatians 4:21-31.
This method of hermeneutics helps us
to see God as being in control. He is pointing us to Christ throughout the Old
Testament. One example given by Dr. Gage is found in Genesis chapter two with
the creation of Eve. Dr. Gage shows us how Adam is a type of Christ and Eve is
a type of the church.[6]
When God was ready to make Eve, he has Adam sleep a sleep likened to death.
This is before sin, so Adam is innocent. He wounds Adam in the side to give
life to his bride. Adam awakes and is brought to a garden where he sees his
wife and calls her Eve. Jesus is innocent and he sleeps the sleep of death on
the cross. He is then wounded in the side and by his wounds the church is given
life. He awakes in the garden where he meets Mary, the one who, symbolically,
represents the church, and calls here woman. Here we see a picture of Christ and his bride at the very beginning of human history. That points to the fact that God is in control and Jesus' sacrifice is the pinnacle of all human history. I can see clearly that God is in control and not a passive watcher of history. The crucifixion was planned and purposed by God from eternity past and if we have eyes to see, we will see Christ and his suffering proclaimed all over the Old Testament.
But, one of the problems with this method is that if we aren't careful we will find Jesus in even the most minute and remote places. Joshua E. Williams in a blog post says this, "One of the dangers to avoid is finding Christ under every rock or tree in the Old Testament. This type of mistake is often found in allegorical treatments of Old Testament passages."[7] An example of this is found in the classic hymn "Rose of Sharron"[8] where Jesus is said to be the rose of Sharron which is taken from the Song of Solomon 2:1. The problem is that the woman is called a "rose of Sharon" in that passage and not the husband. Another hymn that takes typology too far is "The lily of the valley"[9] that says "He's (speaking of Jesus) the lily of the valley...". Again the problem with that statement is that, that phrase "lily of the valley" comes from the Song of Solomon 2:1 and again is speaking of the woman. This kind of hermeneutic can lead to all kinds of wild speculative theology.
Often what is taught in conservative circles today is the historical-grammatical method of biblical hermeneutics . This method "is a 'literal' method of interpretation. It seeks to understand what the original author intended to convey and how the original audience understood that message."[10] This method has many benefits, one is that it keeps the exegete grounded in the historical setting of the text. As was noted above, one of the dangers associated with the typological method of hermeneutics is that it can often lead to wild speculations. Simply saying "this reminds me of something in the New Testament" can be grounds for seeing typology by some.
While reading Dr. Gage's book "Joseph and Judah" I came across this statement "Our goal in this study is to help to recover something that has largely been lost, by learning to read the Bible not only as a scientist, but also as an art lover. We recognize, of course, that both the scientist and the art lover have much to offer us. The best artists are technically precise, and the best scientists must be gifted with an artist’s imagination."[11] The point he is trying to make is that we have often read the bible from the point of view of the scientist (Historical-Grammatical-Literal method) while neglecting the art lover's view (Typological, Allegorical method). I completely agree with Dr. Gage's overall point that we need both aspects to more fully understand the scriptures.
[1]
Walter A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel, Baker
Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), 2109.
[2] Dr. Gage. CC502, Lesson 38.
[3] Dr. Gage. OT602, Lesson 5.
[4] ESV. Luke 24:27
[5] ESV. Luke
24:44–47
[7] Christ in the
Old Testament. by Joshua E. Williams. Accessed on 4-4-14. The blog of Joshua E.
Williams. http://joshuaewilliams.wordpress.com/2010/09/06/christ%c2%a0in%c2%a0old%c2%a0testament/
[8] Guirey, Ida A. Jesus, Rose of Sharon, 1921.
[9] Fry, Charles W. Lily of the valley, 1881.
[10] Examining The
Grammatical-Historical Hermeneutic. September 7, 2011. Accessed on 4-4-14. http://www.armchair-theology.net/bible-study/examining-the-grammatical-historical-hermeneutic/
[11]
Warren Austin Gage and Christopher D. Barber, The Story of Joseph and Judah (Ft. Lauderdale, FL: St. Andrews
House, 2005), 8.
