>In a previous post, I addressed the issue of the use of typology in biblical interpretation. The issue was 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).

In another post, I mentioned that Peter J. Leithart, in response to Viviano’s criticism, wrote a blog defending his use of typology in his commentary on 1 & Kings.

In this ongoing discussion between Pauline Viviano and Peter Leithart on the use of typology, Viviano has written a blog in response to Leithart’s comments. The following is an excerpt of Viviano’s response to Leithart’s comments:

Once I “discover” that putting garments on the ground before Jehu bears a similarity to the people putting garments on the ground before Jesus on Palm Sunday, must I conclude that Jehu is a type of Christ? Is that all it takes? Is the brutality of Jehu simply to be disregarded or do I also apply that to Christ in some clever fashion? But even if I accept that this one sentence correspondence between the Old Testament and the New makes Jehu a type of Christ, then what have I learned? Does it draw me into a deeper understanding of who God is and what God is about? Does it inspire me to become a more loving human being?

The early Christians read the Old Testament through the lens of the Jesus event. I have no problem with that. We all read the text through some lens. Some today try to understand the biblical text from within its historical context (Historical Critical Method) or from within its literary context (New Literary Criticism; Rhetorical Criticism). Others interpret the biblical text privileging the position of the poor (Liberation criticism); others focus on gender issues (Feminist criticism). These methods and others are different and valid ways to approach the biblical text. What I object to is the notion that reading typologically, or any approach in search of the spiritual sense of the text, IS the theological reading of the text and what contemporary biblical scholars do is not theological. I find what contemporary biblical scholars are doing to be profoundly theological. Maybe the problem is that some just don’t like the theological insights that we have gained from contemporary biblical interpretation and want to return to those “good old days” of the early Church Fathers ignoring entirely that not only has the world changed, but also that “the good old days” weren’t all that good.

Read Viviano’s comments here.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

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