And here is the second repost requested. ****WHAT IS THE GLORY OF ALLEGORY? (PART ONE) The hardest day of my mental life was when I took the Bar Exam. I had taken all the standard Bar Review courses, but they did me no good. I just didnt get it. I fully expected to fail. It wasnt until a friend of mine shared with me dozens of OLD Bar Exams (along with the answer keys) that my perspective changed. As I took the tests over and over, my intuition started kicking in. I saw the KIND of answers they were looking for. As this soaked in, I got more and more comfortable because I had perceived the pattern of analysis they were using to form the questions. I think Old Testament reading needs to be done the same way. Instead of using principles of Bible study, we just need to see HOW other spiritual men read the Bible-- Paul, Peter, Jesus, Origen, Augustine, C. S. Lewis, and others. As we do this, we will start to intuit higher, better and deeper meanings. In this day of frequent Bible bashing, I am frequently asked how to read Gods goodness into the Old Testament. Well, heeerrrree it is! Everything you need to know about HOW to read the Old Testament is explained here, not so much by sharing principles, but rather by sharing how other spiritual men in the past have read the Scriptures. Pleas take some time with this. I promise it will be worth it. If we are to recover something of the spiritual interpretation of the Bible of the early Church, we must approach the problem both with greater profundity and with greater liberty (p. 394). Henri D. Lubac, HISTOIRE ET ESPRIT. Do you want to have fun reading the Old Testament with fresh eyes? Then learn to read the Old Testament the same way the Church Fathers did, the same way Paul did, the same way Peter did, the same way Jesus did. If so, you must first understand the GLORY OF ALLEGORY. What is the glory of allegory? The early Alexandrian Church believed that the primary way to read Scripture was non-literal. The greatest Biblical scholar of these Church Fathers was the 3rd Century martyr Origen. He, following the Apostle Pauls lead, wrote that the key to rightly understanding the Old Testament was to read it ALLEGORICALLY rather than LITERALLY. These church fathers would no doubt agree with Karl Barths sentiment that he loved the Old Testament far too much to just read it literally. Ignorant assertions about God appear to be nothing else but this: that Scripture is not understood in its spiritual sense, but is interpreted according to the bare letter. Origen, On First Principles 4:2.1-2, 4. So, what is the spiritual sense of Scripture of which Origen spoke above? Basically, it is the belief that every Scripture carries an ALLEGORY, or symbolic meaning, about Christ and Christian realities. Origen used the following words interchangeably, but they all refer to the same basic dynamic of ALLEGORY: symbol, sign, type, figure, riddle, shadow. So lets start there. What exactly IS an allegory? Here is the best definition I have found. Allegory is language that says one thing and means either something MORE than what it says or something OTHER than what it says. --- Theologian R.A. Norris, in his article on Allegory in THE WESTMINSTER HANDBOOK TO ORIGEN. It is not that the Old Testament carries NO literal or historical value. BUT, the literal/historical value is NOT the PRIMARY purpose for which we are to read Scripture. Sometime the meaning the Lord wants gleaned is MORE than what the literal text says. And sometimes the preferred meaning is OTHER than what the literal text says. Rather, the MOST essential value Old Testament Scripture carries is allegorical. Origen believed that the LITERAL reading of Scripture carries historical, immediate, at hand and obvious meanings, but that these are not the vital and valuable truths the Lord wants us to glean. Origen believed Old Testament Scriptures contained higher truth (aletheia) that had to be culled out by an ascending (anago) allegorical reading up and away from the literal meaning and toward the spiritual meaning (pneumatikos). Does the Bible itself, on its face, tell us it is to be read allegorically? Does the New Testament tell us the Old Testament is to be spiritualized and reverse-engineered from its literal physical form into a greater symbolic and non-literal meaning? Oh yes. Paul was clear that the Old Testament literal events were prophetic pre-figures, or types, of a later New Testament reality revealed in and through Jesus Christ who fills all things. Paul frequently established this divine dynamic. He wrote that Biblical revelations occur FIRST in the natural (the Old Testament), the truer and deeper meanings of which are THEN unveiled in the Spiritual (the New Testament). 1 Corinthians 15:46. Lets look at some examples. Literal foreskin-circumcision in the Old becomes spiritual heart-circumcision in the New (Romans 2:29). Keeping the literal-Sabbath in the Old becomes instead a spiritual-Sabbath of abiding in divine rest in the New (Hebrews 4:4-11). The Law written on literal-tablets of stone in the Old becomes the Law of Christs love written on the spiritual-tablets of our heart in the New (2 Corinthians 3:3-9). The Israelites literal-baptism of walking through the waters of the Red Sea in the Old becomes a type of our spiritual-baptism in the Red Sea of Jesus saving blood in the New (1 Corinthians 10:1-6). The literal-temple in the Old becomes the spiritual-temple of our living bodies in the New (1 Corinthians 3:16-17). And the list goes on and on. Do you see? First in the natural, then in the spiritual. FIRST in the Old Testament figure, THEN in the New Testament fulfillment. FIRST in the externalized Law and the Prophets, THEN in the internalized in the Kingdom of God within us. FIRST the shadow in the Old, THEN the substance in the New. FIRST the type in the Old, THEN the anti-type (or real deal) in the New. All the above comes from reading the Old Testament ALLEGORICALLY. Now, lets go back and look at where Jesus demonstrated this very dynamic to the Disciples. On the road to Emmaus, Jesus told the two disciples And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, He (Christ) INTERPRETED to them in ALL THE SCRIPTURES the things concerning himself....And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. And they said one to another, Was not our heart burning within us, while he spake to us in the way, while he opened to us the scriptures? Luke 24:26-27, 31-32. Now, we know that Jesus is LITERALLY nowhere to be found by name in the Old Testament. But, ALLEGORICALLY, He is everywhere to be found. Do you see? Jesus allegorized the Scriptures to these two highly blessed disciples. And their hearts burned within them as they finally understood the true import of the Old Testament. So too should our hearts burn as we likewise yield to Jesus explanations of Old Testament Scripture. (To be continued......) WHAT IS THE GLORY OF ALLEGORY? (PART TWO) Allegory is language that says one thing and means either something MORE than what it says or something OTHER than what it says. --- Theologian R.A. Norris, in his article on Allegory in THE WESTMINSTER HANDBOOK TO ORIGEN. There are several words used in the Greek New Testament to denote what we have just defined as an allegory. First, there is the term tupos (the basis of our English word “type”). Though this word is variously employed in the New Testament, it is certainly used in the allegorical sense in Romans 5:14 where Paul declares that Adam “is a figure (tupos) of him that was to come”, i.e., Christ. Second, there is the word skia, rendered “shadow. In Colossians 2:17, certain elements of the Mosaic system are said to be “a shadow of the things to come” (cf. Hebrews 8:5; 10:1). Third, there is the term hupodeigma, translated “copy,” and used in conjunction with “shadow” in Hebrews 8:5 (cf. Hebrews 9:23). Fourth, the Greek word parabole (compare our English, “parable”) is found in Hebrews 9:9, where certain elements of the tabernacle are “a figure for the present time” (cf. 11:19). Finally, the use of antitupon, rendered “figures” (KJV) or “pattern” (ASV) in Hebrews 9:24, and “like figure” (KJV) or “true likeness” (ASV) in 1 Peter 3:21. This word, as used in the New Testament, denotes “that which corresponds to” the type; it is the reality which the Old Testament passages allegorically points. A number of Old Testament personages serve as PARTIAL shadows, figures and types of New Testament realities. Here are just a few that should get you salivating. Wayne Jackson has sagely noted 7 basic types of Old Testament allegories. 7 TYPES OF ALLEGORIES 1) Allegorical Persons Adam and Eve are a type of Christ and the church. From Adams rib came his bride. 1 Timothy 2:13-14. From Christs pierced rib pours forth His spirit-bride, the church. Paul unveiled this great allegorical mystery when he revealed that AS Eve was TO Adam, so IS the church TO Christ. Ephesians 5:23-33. Adam also becomes BOTH an allegory of contrast and comparison to Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 and 45-48 where Adam is described as a living soul IN WHOM all die, whereas Christ is a life-quickening spirit IN WHOM all are made alive. Paul picks up this same theme in Romans when he states that Adam introduced sin into the world, whereas through Christ system of righteousness was made available for mankind (Romans 5:19). The mysterious Melchizedek and King David were both allegorical types of Christ as priest and Christ as earthly king. Melchizedek, who was both King of Salem and a High Priest of God—at the same time (Genesis 14:18-20)—was an allegorical type of Christ. David also both wore a kingly crown and famously ate the shewbread reserved only for priests. These two Old Testament types reveal the dual nature of Jesus NOW serving as our King and High Priest. Jesus, at his ascension, began to reign on David’s throne and to SIMULTANEOUSLY function as our high priest (cf. Psalm 110:4; Zechariah 6:12, 13; Hebrews 5:5-10; 6:20; 7:1-17). Moses, in his symbolic role of prophet, leader and mediator for Jehovah’s people, was typical of the Lord Jesus who functions in a similar, though more exalted, capacity (cf. Deuteronomy 18:15; Acts 3:22; 1 Corinthians 10:2; Galatians 3:27; 3:19; 1 Timothy 2:5). Moses also has many parallel events in his life that points to his pre-figuring Jesus. Both Moses and Jesus survive the killing of all male children. Both Moses and Jesus are exiles in a foreign land until an evil king dies. Both Moses and Jesus return from the foreign land to rescue their people. Both Moses and Jesus lead their people on an Exodus journey. Both Moses and Jesus fast for forty days. Both Moses and Jesus are transfigured. Both Moses and Jesus are raised by men who are not their blood fathers. Both Moses and Jesus are misunderstood by their family. Both Moses and Jesus intercede for the sins of their people. Both Moses and Jesus are willing to die for the sins of their people. Both Moses and Jesus commission a successor/successors. 2) Allegorical Places Several prominent places emphasized in the Old Testament appear to have a typical significance. Egypt represents a state of bondage such as holds the sinner prior to his conversion (Galatians 4:2; Romans 6:17; 1 Corinthians 10:lff); Jerusalem or Zion typifies the church and finally heaven (cf. Galatians 4:25, 26; Hebrews 12:22; Revelation 21:2); and Babylon, which held God’s people captive in the Old Testament, pictures the condition of an apostate church that has departed from the simplicity of the New Testament pattern (Revelation 11:8; 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2ff). 3) Allegorical Things Certain Old Testament objects preview New Testament truths. For example, Jacob’s ladder, with the angels ascending and descending upon it (Genesis 28:12), apparently pictured Christ (cf. John 1:51), who provides both communication from the Father (John 1:18; Hebrews 1:1-2) and access to heaven (John 14:6). The brazen serpent, lifted up in the wilderness, through which the people found physical healing (Numbers 21:8) was a type of the lifted-up Christ (John 3:14; 12:32), through whom spiritual healing comes (Isaiah 53:5). As indicated earlier, the tabernacle and many of its features were typical of the present time (cf. Hebrews 9:8-9). As the tabernacle was designed to be a “house of God,” and since he is “Lord of heaven and earth” (Acts 17:24), it was proper that the tabernacle be composed of two compartments—one representing God’s heavenly dwelling place and the other his earthly dwelling place. Accordingly, the most holy place of the tabernacle represented heaven (Hebrews 6:19, 20; 9:8, 24), while the holy place was a type of the church (Acts 15:16, 17; 1 Corinthians 3:16; 1 Timothy 3:15). 4) Allegorical Events Several Old Testament events seem to represent things to come. The creation of light on the first day of Earth’s history (Genesis 1:3) suggests the coming brilliant illumination of the gospel of Christ (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:6). The flood of Noah’s day (Genesis 6-8) typified the sudden destruction of the world yet to come at the end (Matthew 24:37-39). The miraculous water from the rock in the wilderness (Exodus 17:6) was a preview of the life-sustaining water provided by our Lord (John 4:14; 1 Corinthians 10:4). The manna from heaven in the wilderness (Exodus 16:14-16) was a type of that spiritual bread who came down from heaven to nourish humanity (John 6:32). The deliverance of Noah’s family from a corrupted world, by means of “water,” prefigured our salvation, through baptism, from the power of darkness into the kingdom of Christ (cf. 1 Peter 3:20-21; Colossians 1:13). 5) Allegorical Offices There were three offices in the Old Testament characterized by an anointing. Prophets (1 Kings 19:16), priests (Exodus 28:41), and kings (1 Samuel 10:1) were anointed in anticipation of the coming of the anointed one (cf. Daniel 9:25, 26) who is prophet (Acts 3:22), priest (Hebrews 3:1), and king (Revelation 17:14). We too, as Christians, have an anointing from God (2 Corinthians 1:21) and we function as prophets (not miraculously, but simply as “forth speakers” of the word of God—cf. 1 Corinthians 11:4, 5), priests, and kings (cf. 1 Peter 2:9; Revelation 1:6). The anointings of the Old Testament thus prefigured both the work of Christ and our service to him. 6) Allegorical Actions Certain ceremonial actions of the Old Testament system typified the atoning work of the Messiah. For instance, on the annual Jewish day of atonement, amidst numerous other rituals, the high priest presented two goats before the door of the tabernacle. After the casting of lots upon these animals, one was sacrificed as a “sin-offering” and the other was “set alive before Jehovah” (Leviticus 16:9, 10). The blood of the slain goat was taken into the most holy place where it was sprinkled upon the mercy seat. This, of course, was typical of the sacrificial death of Christ (Hebrews 9:11, 12). The high priest then took the living goat, laid hands upon him and confessed over him all the iniquities of the people. Subsequently, by an appointed servant, the animal was led away into the wilderness (Leviticus 16:21, 22). The two goats were, so to speak, two sides of the same coin; both constituted the solitary offering of Christ. The one signified his death and the atoning effect of his blood, the other his resurrection (cf. Romans 4:25) and the complete removal of our sins (cf. Isaiah 53:4, 6; John 1:29). Note also the similar ceremony in connection with the cleansing of the leper (Leviticus 14:4-7). Two birds were selected; one was killed, and the other was dipped in its blood and let loose alive. 7) Allegorical Institutions Many institutions of the Old Testament era were prophetic shadows of good things to come. The Passover, for instance, with its spotless lamb (Exodus 12:5) which was slain “between the two evenings” (12:6 ASVfn), i.e., between three and five P.M., without any bones being broken (12:46). It was a type of the death of Jesus (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:7), who was without spot or blemish (1 Peter 1:19), who died at about three P.M. (Matthew 27:46), and who had none of his bones broken (John 19:33ff). The feast of the firstfruits (Leviticus 23:10), i.e., Pentecost, was a celebration in which the initial produce of the harvest was offered to God as a token of the full crop to follow. This ritual typified: (1) the early influx of the Jews into the church of Christ (Romans 11:16); and, (2) the resurrection of the Lord Jesus as God’s pledge of the general resurrection to ultimately come (1 Corinthians 15:20, 23). The feast of the tabernacles was instituted to commemorate Israel’s sojourn in the wilderness (Leviticus 23:43). But it was also designed to remind us that we are but sojourners on this earth (1 Peter 2:11), and that someday we will lay aside this earthly tabernacle (2 Corinthians 5:1; 2 Peter 1:13, 14) for a more permanent abiding place (cf. Hebrews 11:9-13). There are numerous other Old Testament types which cannot be discussed in the scope of this brief study. We can see from this limited survey what a thrilling area of biblical investigation this can be. Yes, it must be approached with judicious caution, but abuses should not deter the careful student from exploring such rich material. God intended for us to learn valuable lessons from Bible typology. Note Paul’s statement after discussing the experiences of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai: “Now these things were our examples tupoi, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted” (1 Corinthians 10:6; cf. 10:11). (To be continued.....). WHAT IS THE GLORY OF ALLEGORY? (PART THREE) The primary way we are to read the Old Testament is allegorically. Most of the early Church fathers read it that way-- Justin Martyr, Clement, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and Augustine. Remember our working definition of ALLEGORY: Allegory is language that says one thing and means either something MORE than what it says or something OTHER than what it says. --- Theologian R.A. Norris, in his article on Allegory in THE WESTMINSTER HANDBOOK TO ORIGEN. For those who advocate allegorical reading, the apostle Paul is the key. He continually did it. When he cited Old Testament Scriptures, he always expanded them to either mean something MORE or something OTHER than what they literally said. Paul both approved and modeled the allegorical reading of the Old Testament for us. In 1 Cor. 14:21, Paul took an Old Testament passage which on its face had nothing to do with New Testament tongues (Is. 28:11-12), and transformed, enhanced and enriched it to make it a prophetic passage for the spiritual gift of tongues. Paul did the same thing by excavating the concept of circumcision from an empty and meaningless ritual to a spiritual transformation of the heart. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. 1 Cor. 7:19. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. Gal. 5:6. But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. Rom. 2:29. Paul, who I believe authored Hebrews, also elevated animal sacrifices from being useless rituals under the “letter of the law” to a wonderful prophetic image of Christ’s perfect sacrifice once and for all for sins. Heb. 10:1-10. Paul also transformed the Sabbath from a “letter of the law” weekly ritual to an ongoing lifestyle state of being. Heb. 4:1-11. Peter and Paul both renovated Old Testament dietary laws by integrating faith and thanksgiving into the true spiritual diet. (Acts. 11:5-10; Rom. 14:1-23; 1 Tim. 4:3-4). Peter did the same thing in taking Joel 2:28-29 and excavating, renovating and elevating it to prophesy the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. It is beyond dispute that the Old Testament scholars of their day would have accused Paul and Peter (and the other New Testament writers) of butchering and misusing scriptures. They didn’t see that the Old Testament scriptures needed to be transformed, enhanced and enriched. They failed to understand the key to Old Testament translation Jesus gave us in Matt. 11:13. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. In other words, the Old Testament scriptures are all prophetic seeds waiting to be activated by New Covenant anointing. Without the anointing, Old Testament scriptures are dark and mysterious when read “by the letter.” But when we add the water of the New Covenant Spirit and the light of Jesus, these hard seeds break open and sprout prophetic life. Paul used the term allegory, (Galatians 4:24) like many other Church Fathers, to describe a particular scripture in which one thing is said but another is intended. The text taken literally does have meaning, but there is also another meaning, which is the more important one. The discovery of the allegorical meaning can also be described as removing the veil (2 Corinthians 3:16), for which Holy Spirit illumination is required. Remember, as you read the passages below, remember this key point. It is NOT that the LITERAL reading of the Old Testament NEVER has ANY historical value or moral truth, for it does. But the literal reading is NOT spiritual. Modern day Jews know the literal Old Testament passages far better than most Christians, but they still are oblivious to what the verses spiritually mean with regard to the coming Kingdom of Jesus. Their eyes remain blind to Jesus, despite the fact Jesus said the entire Old Testament spoke of Him. Other key passages on allegorical reading are included below: Galatians 4:21-31 (The allegorical reading of the Old Testament here is both modeled and approved by Paul, as he completely reinterprets the meaning of the story of Abraham, Isaac, Hagar and Ishmael to refer rather to the current relationship between Old and New Covenants). 1 Corinthians 10:1-11( Paul allegorizes the whole Exodus journey of Israel as a type of the Christian walk, reading it non-literally in other words). 2 Corinthians 3:6-18 (Paul here says we are to be ministers of the New Covenant, not of the letter, for the LETTER KILLS, but of the Spirit, for the Spirit gives life, and that Moses, as a symbol of Old Testament understanding, veiled the true meaning of OT Scripture by reading it with blind literalism). Hebrews 8:1-5 (The voluminous OT passages about the tabernacle and priesthood and sacrifices are all shadows of heavenly things rather than literal realities on earth). Hebrews 10:1 (Here, we see the law itself is to be read allegorically: the law, having a shadow of good things to come, and NOT the very image of the things). Colossians 2:17 (The OT festivals, holy days and dietary laws are all called shadows of the body of Christ to come, again not the literal thing itself but a prophetic shadow of the Kingdom of God). Matthew 11:13 (ALL the OT law and prophets prophesied until John the Baptist, the clear implication being that the OT is one big prophetic allegory of Christ to come). Luke 11:27 (ALL the OT Scriptures, when properly read, speak ONLY of Christ). This allegorical approach is also called “Pneumatic (Spiritual) Exegesis” and essentially means “Spiritual Reading.” Consider the young Martin Luther on this point in stating that the Bible “cannot be mastered by study or talent . . .you must rely solely on the influx of the Spirit.” Only later in his life did Luther change to “literal” exegesis in order to more effectively refute and condemn his enemies. This mistake changed the course of his life and greatly harmed his anointing. I certainly grant you that Spiritual Exegesis can be dangerously wrong if the man doing it isn’t Spiritual, or if the man doing it doesn’t love and revere and carefully study the Scriptures. This explains why many who claim to use Spiritual Exegesis are really engaging in flights of fancy and imagination rather than truly hearing God Himself illuminate the Scriptures in a coherent way. But, just because some may abuse and misuse this principle doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Actually, the greatest truths are often surrounded by the greatest abuses. This is Satan’s way of keeping us from truth he doesn’t want us to hear. Beloved, reading the Scriptures by the Spirit of God is the only way to fly. Embrace the risk and responsibility of it and you won’t fail. I propose that all Bible readers need to learn and employ Spiritual Exegesis in excavating, elevating and renovating the Bible from the letter into the Spirit. The result will be a fulfillment of God’s goodness in the reading of any and all Scripture. The Bible will come alive and pulsate with the goodness of God. No longer will Scriptures be the “Paper Pope” whom we serve in the oldness of the letter. Scriptures instead will be inspired impressions left by the actual and living Word of God - - the Lord Jesus. These impressions will help us remember and recognize our own indwelling inspiration. Scriptures will be the diving board from which we dive into the fullness of God. To keep the diving board flexible, we must remove all husks of brittle and dry “opinions” which we have wrongly projected onto both God and Scripture and which have prevented us from “springing” into the bottomless depths of God’s goodness. Wherefore, in the Old Testament there is a veiling of the New, and in the New Testament a revealing of the Old. According to that veiling, carnal men, understanding things in a carnal fashion, have been under the dominion, both then and now, of a penal fear. On the other hand, spiritual men... have a spiritual understanding and have been made free through love which they have been gifted. Saint Augustine (On Catechizing the Uninstructed 4:8; NPNF 1/3:287). Certainly allegorical reading can be fraught with danger if the one doing it is NOT being led by the Holy Spirit. My response to this criticism is merely this --then BE led by the Spirit. Origen believed allegories must be spiritually sound to be successful. They must resonate with Apostolic faith and follow the established models set by the apostle Paul and other established exegetes. Scripture must interpret Scripture, etymological meanings considered, and humility applied. This is doable! (To be continued....) WHAT IS THE GLORY OF ALLEGORY? (PART FOUR) Allegory is language that says one thing and means either something MORE than what it says or something OTHER than what it says. --- Theologian R.A. Norris, in his article on Allegory in THE WESTMINSTER HANDBOOK TO ORIGEN. If the apostle Jesus was the Abraham of Allegorical Exegesis on the road to Emmaeus , then Paul was clearly the Isaac of allegory in his many epistles, while Origen was the Jacob of allegory through his voluminous writings. One of my favorite Origen scholars and theologians, H. D. Lubac. Henri de Lubac was a French Jesuit priest who became a Cardinal of the Catholic Church, and is considered to be one of the most influential theologians of the 20th century. In an excellent review of Lubacs incredible thought on allegorical reading, Marcellino D’Ambrosio, Ph.D., of the Crossroads Initiative, in his article entitled The Spiritual Sense of Scripture, gives the the following assessment: Some critical exegetes even expressed the opinion that ancient spiritual exegesis was a kind of pedagogue or temporary substitute for scientific exegesis. Its historical role was to preserve the Bible within a very pure and very exalted sphere of ideas and sentiments, until minds reached sufficient maturity to be able to understand the past and to be given the direct explanation of the texts. Others seemed to assume that the ancient distinction between literal and spiritual senses can be entirely attributed to ignorance in the field of science; hence the conviction expressed by a few scientific exegetes that the progress made in their particular discipline has shattered the traditional distinction in its very principle. De Lubac frankly thinks that such ideas smack of “a modern self-sufficiency” and a-priori thinking. While he is ready to grant that ancient commentaries obviously contained outmoded elements — to tell the truth, a lot of trash — he staunchly maintains that not everything about the ancient expositors can be explained simply by the fact that they lived in a pre-critical age. Beneath exegetical procedures which seem so strange to us today, de Lubac argued, we find a deeply pondered theology which retains a permanent value and lies not only at the heart of all Christian exegesis, but at the heart of Christian faith itself. Speaking elsewhere of the traditional commentators, de Lubac likewise affirms that a sacred element lies at the heart of their exegesis, an element which is one of the treasures of the faith. Considered in its doctrinal foundations rather than in its implementation, ancient exegesis for de Lubac touches upon the substance and rhythm of the Christian mystery and thus must be perpetually retained by the Christian community. Thus, de Lubac sees the ancient doctrine of the dual meaning of Scripture — spiritual as well as literal — as a non-negotiable part of the Christian patrimony. Indeed, he says, it is an inalienable datum of tradition. In support of this contention, de Lubac recalls that allegorical or spiritual interpretation of the Old Testament is precisely the usual exegetical practice of the New Testament authors themselves. For him, it is axiomatic that the exegesis of all Christian generations will have to conserve as an absolute norm the exegesis of the first generation. He also points to the fact that such has been the unanimous teaching of the Fathers and Doctors from the first centuries of the Church down to the present day and has been recently confirmed by the very papal documents which legitimized and mandated the development of scientific exegesis within the Catholic Church. He quotes Pope Leo XIII who, speaking of the allegorical or figurative sense of Scripture, affirms that this method of interpretation has been received by the Church from the apostles and has been approved by her own practice, as the liturgy attests. Pope Pius XII, observes de Lubac, says much the same thing in Divino Afflante Spiritu. And in Dei Verbum, the Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, de Lubac sees many aspects of the traditional hermeneutic endorsed as necessary for biblical interpretation today: In two consecutive paragraphs devoted to scriptural interpretation, what, really, does the third chapter of Dei Verbum, on divine revelation, say if not that we must first, by purely scientific study, determine as best we can the intention of each of the human authors and that only then, in order to better grasp the meaning, should we read it and interpret it as a whole in the light of the same Spirit who caused it to be written? When the sixth chapter advised us to study the Holy Fathers, those of the East as well as those of the West, so as to obtain this increased understanding, does this not indicate that there must still be profit to be derived from a study of the exegetical tradition which stemmed from the Fathers. In his proposal that we maintain and relish proper Spiritual Exegesis, aka allegorical reading, Lubac describes it this way: Naturally our spiritual exegesis—on the supposition that it be revived—will remain christological, purely christological, and it will not overlook any of Christs dimensions any more than it did in the past. Its course will be directly contrary to the one taken by an unenlightened science with consequences which were, on many an occasion, lamentably destructive. It will make a definite effort to remain open, on all occasions, to the wondrous depth of the divine words which filled St. Augustine with awe and love. We will be different in this respect alone that we will be more painstaking in our endeavor to avoid ever giving occasion for the impression that the foundations of our exegesis have been weakened by deficiences of criticism. This preoccupation will force us quite often to give up the procedure of the ancients and the reasons which, in their mind, justified it, even though we remain faithful to their fundamental principles. We will imitate their habitual modesty rather than their methodology. Although we will give as much attention as they did themselves to the Mystery which is signified in history, we will give more, perhaps, to the historicity of the figure; or, at least, we will be more aware of the way of proceeding which is imposed on us by an accurate knowledge of that historicity. And in this way we will make a real effort to unite our modern historical sense to that profound sense of history which their spiritual exegesis could draw from the text. HISTOIRE ET ESPRIT, page 432. This, it can be persuasively argued that the glory of allegory has been A, if not THE, primary way exegetes have interpreted the Old Testament Scripture throughout church history. Theologian Greg Boyd, in his recent blog review of a new book entitled The Hermeneutics of the Apostolic Proclamation by Matthew Bates (Baylor University Press, 2012), summarizes Bates foundational assertion as follows: that for ancient people in general, and for Paul and the authors of the New Testament in particular, it was generally accepted that the most important part of Scripture was not its surface, or literal meaning, but rather what was underneath in the depth of the text. They looked for the voice behind the voice and the divine res (things) beneath the verba (words) of Scripture.... The heart of Bates’ book is his claim that one of the central ways that Paul and other authors of the NT as well as ancient Jews, ancient pagans and early church fathers went about discerning the divinely intended meaning of their sacred texts was through prosopological exegesis. The word prosopological comes from the Greek work prosopon, which originally meant face, countenance or mask, though in the latter part of the Hellenistic era it came to refer to the whole character of a person, especially in theatrical or literary contexts (192-93). Prosopological exegesis therefore concerns the proper identification of [the] speakers and addressees in a text that is considered sacred (203). More specifically, it refers to the widespread ancient practice of explaining perceived problems in a sacred text or rendering a sacred text more relevant to a contemporary audience by positing a different speaker and/or addressee than the text itself supplies (183, cf. 218). According to Bates, one of the passages that reflect this conviction most clearly in Paul is 2 Corinthians 3:1-4:6 (161-81). In this passage Paul finds incredible significance in the episode where the Israelites placed a veil over Moses to conceal the glory that radiated from his face when he came down from Mount Sinai (3:7, 13; cf. Ex. 34:29-30). Among other things, Bates’ argues that Paul is construing this veil to be a hermeneutical veil that continues to blind unbelievers to the true meaning and true glory that is contained in the text of Scripture (3:14-15; 169-75). Unbelievers can of course still understand the syntax and grammar of Scripture – the letter of Scripture (3:6). But so long as a veil remains — which means, so long as their minds are hardened (3:14) — these unbelievers are unable to penetrate beyond the verba to the divinely intended res of Scripture to discern its divinely intended meaning and thus its true glory (173, 175). This is in essence what Paul means when he says the letter kills while the Spirit gives life (3:6). For Paul, Bates argues, the letter kills when it is not accompanied by an understanding of the deeper divine intent behind the letter (333). Jesus was making essentially the same point when he taught that Scripture is devoid of life unless the person reading it discerns how it is ultimately about him (Jn. 5:39-45). For Paul, it is only when a person turns to the Lord that this hermeneutical veil gets removed, thereby allowing believers to penetrate beyond the surface meaning of the text (the verba) to its divine intended substance (the res of Scripture, 181). This doesn’t mean that the letter of Scripture is unimportant for Paul, nor that it should become unimportant for us. It merely means that we should read the letter with the understanding that it contains clues…that allow [us] to penetrate through it to God’s divinely intended meaning (181). As was true of others in his social world, Paul regarded the divinely planted internal meaning of the scriptures (the res) to have priority over the linguistic or narrative sequence (verba) (331). Beyond the relative merits of Bates’ proposal, it seems to me that his work, combined with the work of a multitude of other scholars, has significant implications for the way Christians today should approach the OT. Prior to the 17th and 18th century, the Church read Scripture through the lens of the rule of faith (regula fidei) and therefore with the understanding that the divine author of Scripture could intend meanings that went beyond, if not at times against, the original meaning intended by the human authors. And it was always assumed (though not always consistently practiced) that the central meaning of all Scripture is Jesus Christ, since Jesus himself taught us to read it this way (Jn. 5:39-45; Lk 24: 25-27, 32, 44-47). This is clearly in line with the probing way Paul and other NT authors approached the OT. They reflect very little concern with adhering to the original meaning of passages while demonstrating a willingness to go to remarkably creative extremes to discern Christ in Scripture. With the advent of the historical-critical approach to Scripture in the 17th and 18th centuries, however, this “pre-critical” way of reading Scripture came to be largely disparaged, first in the academy and eventually in the Church. What’s most interesting today is that, while a host of scholars after Barth, and especially over the last twenty years, have been arguing for a return to the Church’s traditional way of reading Scripture, evangelicals have by and large been the most resistant to this. While evangelicals by and large reject the biblical criticism that accompanies the historical-critical approach to Scripture, they have been the most vocal defenders of the historical-critical assumption that the original meaning of a passage is the only truly legitimate meaning a passage can have. A concern that drives many evangelicals is that Scripture will be transformed into a proverbial wax nose that can be made to mean anything we want if we depart from the original intended meaning as the primary focus of our exegesis. This is a valid concern in the face of radical post-modern approaches that completely do away with the quest for the author’s original intended meaning. I thus agree that we should ever cut the tether with authorial intent. At the same time, in light of the precedent set by Paul and the NT as a whole regarding the creative extremes they were willing to go to disclose how Scripture points to Christ, I can’t see how we can accept the historical –critical noose that restricts all legitimate meaning to the author’s original intended meaning. I concur with Daniel Teier who astutely notes that it seems odd to suggest that we can receive the doctrines of the apostles without accepting the legitimacy of the scriptural hermeneutics by which they developed and defended that teaching. To say that we should read Scripture looking beyond the surface meaning of the texts is not to transform Scripture into a wax nose by allowing people to read into Scripture whatever subjective preferences they wish. The traditional way of reading of Scripture was not an undisciplined reading: it was simply not a reading that was restricted to the surface meaning of passages. While willing to go beyond the author’s original meaning, the traditional way of reading Scripture was nevertheless governed by the conviction that our reading must always be submitted to the divine author of Scripture, the Holy Spirit, and to the community of all who confess Christ. Related to this, the traditional way of reading Scripture was also governed by the Church’s rule of faith and, especially in the early post-apostolic and Reformation periods, by the conviction that all Scripture bears witness to Christ. That is, whatever surplus of meaning (sensus plenoir) interpreters found in Scripture had to be consistent with the foundational ecumenical creeds and with the revelation of God in Christ. Sounds like a plan to me!
Posted on: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 11:34:19 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015