>The use of typology in biblical interpretation has been a common method employed by many Christian writers to mine the hidden truths of the Bible. Typology can be defined as the correspondence between Old Testament and New Testament events that explains the work of God in the Old Testament as type of what God was accomplishing in the life and ministry of Christ. Typology is based on the belief that people and events in the Old Testament find their true meaning in the events of the New Testament.

Those who adopt typology as a valid method of interpretation believe that what God did in the lives of some persons and in some events in the Old Testament is the valid key to understand what God did in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ and in the ministry of the early church.

The validity of typology as an exegetical tool has been raised by Pauline Viviano, Associate Professor of Theology at Loyola University Chicago, in her review of Peter Leithart’s commentary on 1 & 2 Kings, Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2006). Viviano raises several issues about the typological interpretation of 1 and 2 Kings. The following is an excerpt of Viviano’s comments:

Of the many criticisms of the work of biblical scholars the one I have most recently been “attacked” with is that we are not theological enough, so it was with some eagerness that I agreed to review a theological commentary on 1 & 2 Kings. My eagerness was diminished somewhat when I discovered that the commentators for this series were chosen for “their expertise in using the Christian doctrinal tradition” and not for their “historical or philological expertise.” But I was willing to enter into the “world of the text” and see how “doctrine provides structure and cogency to scriptural interpretation.”

The author’s preferred method of interpretation was to treat the people and events of the books of Kings typologically. Typology was a method of interpretation much in vogue among the early Church Fathers. In typology the events and people of the Old Testament are thought to foreshadow or prefigure what is fulfilled with the coming of the Messiah. The events and people of the Old Testament become “types” of the events and people in the New Testament. The typology of the early Church Fathers was grounded in philosophical and hermeneutical assumptions drawn from the Hellenistic philosophies of the time which were heavily influenced by Platonism. In their worldview typology made sense and over the centuries extreme typologies were forgotten and the Church was left with the more sensible typologies that we continue to find in liturgy and are artistically rendered in stained glass windows. Can we “resurrect” typological interpretation and by means of it find a theologically satisfying understanding of the Bible today? After reading this commentary on Kings I would have to answer with a resounding “no!”

The author was able to find the most amazing “types;” they are literally on every page of the commentary. Among the most puzzling is Jehu as a type of Christ. You remember Jehu, don’t you? He was the general of Israel’s army who led a coup in which he butchered the previous dynasty and burned to death the worshippers of Baal whom he had locked in their temple. If you couldn’t find the similarity to Christ here, you are not alone; I couldn’t find it either. My favorite quote from the book is “Moses is Elijah is John; Joshua is Elisha is Jesus. Yet also, Moses is Elijah is Jesus, and Joshua is Elisha is the church.” If you can unpack this quote for me, please do so; it just makes me giggle. It was clear after the first few pages of this commentary that every number “3” in the books of Kings was going to be taken as a foreshadowing of the Resurrection; every body of water, a reference to Baptism; and every anointing, messianic. The story of Elisha and the floating ax head is seen as a type of both Resurrection and Baptism! I have many more examples, but I think my point has been made: this “resurrected” form of typological exegesis is just plain silly.

Read Viviano’s comments in its entirety by clicking here.

I tend to agree with Viviano’s comments. In the name of typology, commentators of the biblical text have found Christ where Christ should not be found. Sometimes, even a bad translation of the biblical text allows for a typological interpretation of the text, as I have demonstrated in my post on the sacrifice of Isaac in Genesis 22:8. Interpreters must be very careful not to interject their own preconceived ideas into the text. This form of interpretation is not exegesis; it is eisegesis.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Eisegesis, Exegesis, Hermeneutics, Interpretation, Pauline Viviano, Peter Leithart, Typology