THE “CLASSICAL” SOLUTIONS
1. This was the way of the early church fathers generally.61 They were not unaware of the problem felt by Marcion; they sensed that there
is a great deal in the Old Testament which on the surface seems to the Christian strange, if not trivial and morally offensive, and which in no way governs his practice. But their theological instincts were far too sound to permit them to cut loose from the Old Testament. So they got around the problem by recourse to allegory and typology (it is often difficult to draw a clear distinction between the two as the fathers used them). 62
“See Hamack, What IS Christianity, trans. T. B. Saunders (5th ed.; London: Ernest Berm, 1958). p. 46 et pus&n.
“ See Kraus, Geschichte . . . , pp. 392-94, for a clear statement of the point.
I1 There were differences, of course. The school of Antioch was far soberer in its use of Scripture than was the rival school of Alexandria; but it did not triumph. For the details see the general works mentioned in note 1, particularly that of Faxrar.
‘* Properly speaking, allegory refers to the finding of hidden, mystical meanings in the words of the text itself; typology refers to the finding in the events (or institutions, per- sons, etc.) described in the Old Testament text a deeper, hidden significance prefigurative
7 9
THE AUTHORITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
All gory was a method of interpretation widely used in the Greco-Roman world (for example, by the Stoics in interpreting the ancient myths in a manner rationally and morally acceptable to their contemporaries), as well as in Jewish circles (notably by Philo of Alexandria in interpreting the religion of the Jews to sophisticated people of his day). The church fathers-and that includes the overwhelming majority of them: Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Irenaeus, Ambrose, Augustine, and a host of others-took over the method and adapted it to their purposes.
It was generally believed that Scripture had various levels of meaning.
Origen popularized a threefold sense corresponding to the supposed trichotomy of man’s nature: body, soul, and spirit. There was a literal or corporeal sense (i.e., what the words in their plain meaning say), a moral or tropological sense (i.e., a sense figurative of the Christian soul, which thus gives edification and guidance for conduct), and a spiritual or mystical sense. Later, still a fourth sense was added: the anagogical or eschatological sense. Thus, to give a classical example, the word “Jerusalem” was under- stood in the Middle Ages as having four senses: literally it referred to the city of that name in Judah, tropologically to the faithful Christian soul, allegorically (mystically) to the church of Christ, and anagogically to the heavenly city of God which is our eternal home. It was possible, albeit not necessary, to understand the word in all four of these senses in a single text. But the tendency was to care far less for the literal meaning than for the spiritual ones, for the true meaning of the text is spiritual. Indeed, some Scripture-so it was held-cannot be interpreted literally, for it tells of things that are immoral and thus unworthy of God (adultery, incest, murder, etc.); and much Scripture is too primitive or too trivial, if taken literally, to be a fit vehicle of divine revelation (lengthy genealogies, rules for animal sacrifice, the dimensions of the tabernacle, etc.). Such passages yield their true meaning only if interpreted spiritually.
The result was a wholesale and uncontrolled allegorizing of Scripture, specifically the Old Testament. This did not confine itself to difficult or morally offenive passages, or to passages that tell of something that seems unnatural or improbable, or to places where Scripture contradicts, or seems
of New Testament events (or institutions, persons, etc.). J. Danielou, From Shudmus to Reality, trans. Dom Wulstan Hibberd (Westminster, Maryland: The Newman Press,
lY60), nttcmpts to distinguish between the two as the church fathers employed them. Un- doubtedly they used one as much as they did the other. But a great deal of what DaniClou rlassc~s as legitim.lte typology is so fanciful and so preoccupied with details that it might bettor bc regarded as allegory.
80
THE PROBLEM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT: THE “CLASSICAL” SOLUTIONS
to contradict, other Scripture; it extended itself almost everywhere. Scarcely a text but yielded hidden and unsuspected riches to the interpreter’s ingenuity. Examples could be multiplied .by the page, many of which became classics and were repeated in various forms by one church father after the other.68 Thus Moses seated in prayer, his arms outstretched and supported by his companions while Israel battled Amalek (Exod. 17:8-16), makes the sign of the cross of Christ, and it was by this sign that Amalek was overcome by Jesus (Joshua) through Moses (so Ep. Barnabas, Ter- tullian, Cyprian, Justin, et al.). So too the scarlet cord which the harlot Rahab let down from Jericho’s wall (Josh. 2; 6) signifies redemption through the blood of Christ (so I Clement, Justin, Irenaeus, Origen, et al.), while the three (sic) spies (so Irenaeus) were doubtless the three persons of the Trinity; Rahab herself (so Origen) is the church, which is made up of harlots and sinners. In like manner the flood story is a hidden prophecy of salvation in Christ (so, with variations, Tertullian, Cyprian, Chrysostom, et al.): the ark is the church and the hope it brings us (in Justin, it is the wood of the cross); Noah is Christ, the dove the Holy Spirit, and the olive branch the divine mercy (to which others of the fathers add yet further details).
These are but random examples. But they are quite typical and serve to illustrate the exotic jungle of fanciful interpretation into which patristic exegesis strayed. And such interpretations, the rule among the Greek and Latin fathers, remained the rule down through the Middle Ages. The great Aquinas, to be sure, advocated a somewhat saner approach. Although he accepted the theory of the four senses of Scripture and regarded the spiritual senses as useful for edification, he contended that they might not be used to prove points of doctrine; and this view found some official acceptance. 64 But the spate of fanciful interpretations continued to flow unchecked from pulpit and lecturer’s desk alike. The meanings that could
“It would be tedious and pointless to attempt detailed documentation of the following examples, so often do they crop up. The reader will find all of them, and many others besides, in Danielou, Front Shadows to Reality, with a generally sympathetic evaluation; and in Farrar, History of Interpretation, with an emphatically unsympathetic evaluation.
“ See Beryl Smalley, “The Bible in the Middle Ages,” in D. E. Nineham, ed., The Church’s Use of the Bible, Past and Present, pp. 60-61. This article (pp. 57-71) is an excel- lent summary of medieval exegesis. For a full and definitive treatment of the subject, see Smalley, The St& of the Bib& in the Middle Ages (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1952);
more recently and from a Roman Catholic
hale: Les quatre sens de I’Ecriture (Paris:point of view, Henri de Lubac, Ex&gBse tnkdi-
1964). Aubier, Vol. I, 1959; Vol. II:l, 1961; 11:2,
81
THE AUTHORITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
be got from Scripture were limited, one might justifiably feel, only by the interpreter’s ingenuity. Yet the Old Testament was saved for the church. So interpreted, it presented no problem at all, for it had become wholly a Christian book which in each of its texts propounded Christian truth, had one but the imagination to ferret it out.
2. We modems are inclined to smile at all this and perhaps to marvel that such fantastic interpretations (for so they seem to us) were ever taken seriously. Certainly we need no lecture to convince us that this is not the way to solve the problem of the Old Testament. It goes against our entire training and the Reformation tradition as well. Whatever their in- consistencies may have been (and they were on occasion inconsistent), both the great Reformers rejected allegory in principle-repeatedly and in the strongest language. In the preceding chapter both Luther and Calvin were quoted in their insistence that it is the duty of the interpreter to arrive at the plain sense of the text intended by its author. Similar quotations, in which they expressed their contempt of allegory, could be adduced almost at will. 66 Luther, whose vocabulary was by no means impoverished, is especially vivid. He declares that Origen’s allegories “are not worth so much dirt”; he calls allegory variously “the scum on Scripture,”
a “harlot” to seduce us, “a monkey-game,” something that turns Scripture into “a nose of wax” (i.e., that can be twisted into any shape desired), the means by which the Devil gets us on his pitchfork. He declares (in expounding Psalm 22) that Scripture is the garment of Christ and that allegory rends it into “rags and tatters.” “How,” he cries, “will you teach faith with certainty when you make the sense of Scripture uncertain?”
Calvin is equally stem. More than once (as at Gal. 4:21-26, quoted in the preceding chapter) he calls allegorical interpretations an invention of the Devil to undermine the authority of Scripture. Elsewhere he describes them as “puerile,” “farfetched,” and declares that one would do better to confess ignorance than to indulge in such “frivolous guesses.” The interpre- ter, he declares, must seek the plain sense, and if that is uncertain he should adopt the interpretation that best suits the context.
It is clear from this that allegorical interpretations have never had a
” We shall again not trouble with precise documentation of the following. The reader may collect these, and any number of others, from almost any treatment of the Re- formers. See, conveniently, Farrar, History of Interpretation, Ch. VI; Kemper Fullerton, Prophecy and Authority: A Study in the Histury of the Doctrine and Interpret&on of Scripture (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1919), Chs. VI and VII.
8 2
THE PROBLEM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT: THE “CLASSICAL” SOLUTIONS
legitimate place in the churches of the Reformation, although instances in plenty of preachers resorting to them could no doubt readily enough be found. The R fe ormers were quite right, as virtually every competent interpreter today would agree. One simply cannot in intellectual integrity interpret the Old Testament in this way or pretend that its texts actually intended such meanings. What is more, its place as authoritative Scripture cannot be defended so. After all, what real authority can the Old Testa- ment have in the church if its texts can have whatever meaning each individual is pleased to find in them? If the Old Testament is to be saved at all, it must be the Old Testament in its plain meaning.
But can the church then find no Christian meaning in the Old Testa- ment? The Reformers certainly were able to.66 Both Luther and Calvin, to be sure, insisted in principle that Scripture has but one sense, the plain or literal sense. But by this they did not mean precisely what most modem exegetes (who insist on the same thing) would mean. The modem exegete would understand the plair sense as the sense derived from the text by a philological study of it in the light of its historical situation: i.e., what its author intended to convey to those whom he addressed. The Re- formers would have meant that too, but they would have understood some- thing more by it. Is not the true author of Scripture the Holy Spirit? The plain sense of a text, then, includes the sense intended by the Holy Spirit, the prophetic sense (sensus literalis propheticus), its sense in the light of Scripture as a whole (i.e., Scripture is its own interpreter). And with this understanding of the literal sense the Reformers were able to find abundant Christian meaning in the Old Testament. Luther, giving large play to the polarity of law and gospel and to the pedagogical role of the former, searched the Old Testament for whatever “urges Christ”
(was Christurn treibet) and gave a profoundly christological interpretation of it. Calvin, viewing law and gospel in a rather complementary relation- ship, and with his massive conception of the sovereign and gracious pur- poses of God manifesting themselves in the history and institutions of Israel, which foreshadowed their fulfillment in Christ, left generous room for a typological or analogical interpretation of the Old Testament.
“On the Reformers’ use of the Old Testament see, for Luther, Bomkamm, Luther und das Alte Testument; for Calvin, H. H. Wolf, Die Einheit des Bundes: Dus Verhiiltnis von Altem und Neuem Testament bei Calvin (Neukirchen: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Erziehungsvereins, 1958). The reader will find a useful orientation to the Reformers’
hcrmeneutical principles in T. D. Parker, “A Comparison of Calvin and Luther on Gala- tians,” Interpret&on, XVII (1963), 61-75.
8 3
THE AUTHORITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
Christological and typological interpretations, therefore, traditionally occupied a respectable place in Protestant biblical interpretation (the former perhaps more in the Lutheran tradition, the latter more in the Calvinist; but one ought not to generalize), and they continued to do so at least into the nineteenth century. But such interpretations are hard to control, quick to lapse into subjectivism and even fantasy; and too frequently they did so lapse .67 Sober interpreters came, with justification, to fear them. With the rise of the scientific study of the Bible they fell almost completely from favor. It was generally felt that the exegete had the task solely of setting forth with all possible objectivity the plain, historical meaning of the text as its author intended it, and that to go beyond this would be a betrayal of exegetical integrity and therefore im- permissible. And this attitude has remained the dominant one among biblical scholars down to our own day.ba
3. But can the church rest content with interpreting the Old Testament merely in its historical meaning? If she does so, will not the Old Testament again be seen in its utter strangeness as the expression of an ancient religion not the same as our own? Will not much of it seem irrelevant, or at best of purely historical interest, to the Christian? And what, then, is to prevent the church from falling once more into the arms of Marcion? After all, the allegorists did recognize both the strangeness of the Old Testament in its literal sense and the fact that it is indispensable; and they did save it for the church. And if we reject their methods, must we not still find in the Old Testament a Christian meaning over and above its plain, historical meaning if the church is to retain it as a part of her canon of Scripture?
And, more, is not such a deeper, Christian meaning there to be found?
There are those who would answer such questions in the affirmative and accordingly insist upon the necessity of an interpretation of the Old Testament that goes beyond the literal sense.
That such sentiments should be expressed in Roman Catholic circles is
” For an excellent example of a nineteenth-century attempt to define the proper, as over against the improper, use of typology, see Patrick Fairbairn, The Typology of Scrip- ture. I understand that this was published in Edinburgh in 1857. It has been reissued b y Zondervan Publishing I-Iouse, Grand Rapids, Michigan, but without indication of the date either of original publication or reprinting.
“And not among “higher critics” only, at least where typology is concerned. My own teachers in biblical subjects, when a theological student, held the highest possible doctrine of Scripture and opposed the then-reigning criticism resolutely; but I cannot recall their making any explicit use of typology, or even discussing it as a possible hermeneutical method.
8 4
THE PROBLEM OP THE OLD TESTAMENT: THE “CLASSICAL” SOLUTIONS
perhaps not surprising, for Catholics (though their scholars today are as committed to grammatico-historical principles of exegesis as are their Protestant colleagues) have by tradition always been more hospitable to
“mystical” interpretations than have Protestants. Certain Catholic writers, indeed, have recently declared their sympathy with the fourfold sense as a means of bridging the gap between the Testaments and have found place for allegorical meanings, at least for purposes of edification.6s A still larger group of Catholic scholars holds that there is a sensus plenior in the Old Testament text, a fuller meaning intended by the Holy Spirit which lies within and behind the literal meaning (something not vastly different from the sensus liter&s propheticus as understood by the Refor- mers), and that this permits a Christian interpretation of the Old Testa- ment which is in no way arbitrary. The validity of the sensus plenior, and whether or not it need have been consciously understood by the human author, has occasioned considerable debate in Catholic publica- tions.60 Whatever one thinks of these things, they are evidence of a continued grappling with the problem of the Old Testament and the desire to accord it its rightful position in the church.
As for Protestants, although I know of no scholar who has advocated a return to the allegorizing of Scripture in the medieval sense, there have been not a few, especially on the continent of Europe and in Great Britain, who in one way or another would call us back to a christological, or a typological, interpretation of the Old Testament. Karl Barth has undoubtedly exerted a tremendous influence in this connection. It was this distinguished theologian who a generation ago initiated the revolt against the theological liberalism then dominant and the arid historicism in biblical interpretation that accompanied it, and whose career marked (I0 See especially the work of H. de Lubac, mentioned in note 54. Cf. also P. Grelot, Sens chre’tien de I’Ancien Testament (Toumai: Desclee et Cie., 1962); Grelot speaks (p. 216, n. 3) of the “intemperate allegorizing” of certain Catholic scholars and the
“excessive reaction” of others (names and titles listed in both cases). J. Danielou in From Shadmus to Reality favors typology rather than allegory; but some of the types he defends as legitimate are, in my view at least, indistinguishable from allegory.
” The literature is extensive, and I am by no means familiar with all of it. For a useful summary of the discussion, see R. E. Brown, “The Sensus Plenior in the Last Ten Years,”
CBQ, XXV (1963), 262-85. Brown defends the sensus plenior; see also, for example, J. Coppens, Les harmonies des deux Testaments (Toumai and Paris: Casterman, 1949);
P. Benoit, “La plenitude de sens des Livres Saints,” RB LXVII (1960), 161-96. For a contrary opinion, see the splendid articles of J. L. McKenzie, “The Significance of the Old Testament for Christian Faith in Roman Catholicism” in OTCF, pp. 102-14, and “Problems of Hermeneutics in Roman Catholic Exegesis,” JBL, LXXVII (1958), 197-204; see also B. Vawter, “The Fuller Sense: Some Considerations,” CBQ, XXVI (1964), 85-96.
8 5
THE AUTHORITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
a turning point in Protestant dogmatics. As is well known, Barth sees Christ as the true subject of the whole of the biblical revelation and the key to its proper understanding. His interpretation of Scripture-including the Old Testament-is, therefore, strongly christological and goes far beyond a grammatico-historical exegesis of the text. Whatever one says of this, Barth certainly reminded the church that it needs far more from its Bible than mere scholarly objectivity can give. And many of the church’s teachers agreed.
Among biblical scholars who have adopted a christological approach to the Old Testament, the name of Wilhelm Vischer stands out.61 Vischer stands in the Reformed tradition and is apparently quite close to Barth. But he also reaches back to Luther, whom he quotes repeatedly and whose christological interpretations he frequently adopts. Vischer has been the target of a great deal of criticism, even scornful criticism, not a little of which one feels to be unjust. He has again and again been called a typologist, or even an allegorist, and accused of all sorts of irresponsibility in his handling of the text. But this is, I believe, to misunderstand V&her’s intention, for he explicitly disclaims typology (to say nothing of’ allegory), affirms the validity of grammatic*historical principles of exegesis, and insists that the text is not to be spiritualized but must be interpreted in its plain meaning.62 But this plain meaning is to V&her, as to the Refor- mers, its meaning in the light of God’s intention as revealed in Jesus Christ. Vischer has, if I understand him at all, a preacher’s concern that the Old Testament be accorded its rightful place in the church’s procla- mation. For this purpose, he feels that a purely historical exegesis of the Old Testament is not enough, for that would leave the Old Testament a document of an ancient religion of little apparent relevance to the Chris- tian. The Bible, including the Old Testament, must be interpreted in the light of its true intention, its true theme. And that true theme is Christ;
“the Bible is the Holy Scripture only insofar as it speaks of Christ Iesus.” 6s But if Christ is the theme of the whole of Scripture, then
‘a See Das Christuszeugnis des Alten Testaments (Zollikon-Ziirich: Evangelischer Verlag, Vol. I, 7th ed., Vol. II: 1, 2nd ed., 1946). Vol. I of this work, trans. from the 3rd ed. (1936) is available in English as The Witness of the Old Testament to Christ, trans. A. B. Crah- tree (London: Lutterworth, 1949); citations from this volume will follow the English ed.
” Vischer’s principles are set forth in The Witness of the Old Testament to Christ, pp.
7-34. For a more recent, and perhaps even clearer, statement see his “La m&hode de l’ex&g&se biblique,” RThPh X (1960), 1 0 9 - 2 3 .
” Cf. The Witness of the OId Testmnent to Christ, I, 14.
8 6
THB PROBLEM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT: THE “CLASSICAL” SOLUTIONS an exegesis that examines each of its texts for what they have to say of him is the one that corresponds to its true intention. Vischer therefore reads the Old Testament for its witness to Christ. And he finds that it everywhere testifies of Christ-not in the sense, to be sure, that he is directly to be found in the Old Testament, but in the sense that the Old Testament in all its parts points to him and his crucifixion. Indeed Vischer says that the Old Testament has already told us what the Christ is; it remains only for the New to tell us who he is.64 If we do not understand what the Christ is as the Old Testament presents him, we shall never recognize and confess Jesus as the Christ.66
On the basis of these principles Vischer provides us with an interpreta- tion of the Old Testament that is fully christological. Many have found it disturbing. Not only does the Old Testament as a whole point to Christ and testify of Christ; in each smallest detail the Christian eye may see some witness to him. Thus the command, “Let there be light” (Gen.
1: 3), speaks to us of “the glory of God in the face of Christ” (II Cor. 4:6).
Indeed the whole chapter speaks of Christ, for he is the Word who was in the beginning with God (John 1: 1-5). 66 The sign of Cain (Gen. 4: 15) points to the cross and is renewed in the sign of the cross.67 Enoch is a sign and witness of the resurrection.68 The anthropomorphic language of Hos. 11 and Jer. 3 1: 18-20 points to the passion of the Son of man.sB The prophecy that Japheth would “dwell in the tents of Shem” pictures the church, which includes both Gentiles and Jews.‘O Speaking of the midnight Presence with whom Jacob wrestled at the ford of Jabbok (Gen. 32), Vischer asks who this person was; and he adopts Luther’s answer and says, “Jesus Christ is . . . the undeclared name of this man.” ‘I In Ehud’s sword, plunged into the fat belly of the Moabite king (Judg.
3: 12-30), V&her sees “the word of God . . . sharper than any two-edged sword” (Heb. 4: 12) unsheathed against God’s foes; he finds in the incident biblical justification of the right to assassinate tyrants.72 Com- menting upon Solomon’s judgment between the two women in I Kings 3,
” Ibid., I, 7.
@’ Ibid., I, 12, 26.
” Ibid., I, 44, 51.
” Ibid., I, 75-76.
*’ Ibid., I, 87-88.
” Ibid., I, 95-96.
” Ibid., I, 104-S.
‘I Ibid., I, 153.
‘* Ibid., II, 89.
87