Typology as Imago Dei

The parable or other analogy to spiritual truth appropriated from the world of nature or man, is not merely illustration, but also in some sort proof. It is not merely that these analogies assist to make the truth intelligible… Their power lies deeper than this, in the harmony unconsciously felt by all men, and which all deeper minds have delighted to trace, between the natural and the spiritual worlds, so that analogies from the first are felt to be something more than illustrations, happily but yet arbitrarily chosen… They belong to one another, the type and the thing typified, by an inward necessity; they were linked together long before the law of secret affinity.R. C. Trench, Notes on the Parables of our Lord 12-14

This reminds me of my previous curiosity around word-play. How is it that the Old Testament literature works so well? It is as if it were made for this.

And if it was made for the literary connections, is there any other sort of connection between the things used, the signs? Is there an inherent typological value? This is obviously the case with stones. They represent Israel, who represents mankind in a way, and mankind was made from the dust. Rocks are made from the dust as well, and thus they are a natural symbol.

The same works for fire.  Fire represents God in the Bible, but Hebrews tells us that God is fire.  John tells us that God is light.  Light and fire… well, I think you get the connection.

And of course, typology is a sort of proof for Calvinism.

And Another Thing

N T Wright really does need some more pre-Abraham theology.  He needs to talk about Adam and the fall just as much as Abraham.  Indeed, I think he could use a ton more Genesis altogether.

Covenant Membership

To say that righteousness means “covenant faithfulness” isn’t really too much of an issue. The issue comes when that definition is contrasted against “moral uprightness.” The two go together. If you are faithless, then you are immoral, or as they used to say, a sinner.

To say that justification means “to declare that one is a member of the covenant,” however, seems much less plausible. I can see where one might be going with this, but I don’t think it works. Covenant membership is ideally salvific, and the covenant cursings are more or less accidental. But, they do happen, and Paul talks about them, so mere membership isn’t justification. And of course, a good counter-example would be all the justified Gentiles in the Old Testament, though I do recognize the New Testament-specific nature of Pauline justification. As far as Paul is concerned, justification is new in that it was waiting on Jesus all along. Until Jesus it had not happened yet, and likewise, until a person is united to Jesus, it has not happened for them individually.

In fact, present justification is a promise of future deliverance, which is why it is by faith. You have to believe it. Even though you can’t see it, you have to hope that it will come to pass. You can beleive this because you know that God is who He says he is. He even showed you Himself in Christ.

Covenant membership is as salvific as the incarnation, which is to say, sorta but not all the way. Covenant membership is good, better than not having it that’s for sure, but it can still turn to cursing depending upon the individual’s faith or lack thereof.

The more and more I think about Michael Bird’s “post-NPP,” the more and more I think it’s basically half-OPP, which is a fun abbreviation. Indeed, though one certainly changes the specific exegesis, one really doesn’t lose anything of the “Old Perspective,” at least not as it is expressed by its best representatives.

Guidelines for Cultural Exegesis

Kevin Vanhoozer’s Everyday Theology is an interesting collections of essays which seek to address “cultural exegesis.” His students provide the main chapters, and Vanhoozer does the introduction and first chapter. The chapter titles are brilliant. My favorites are “Despair and Redemption: A Theological Account of Eminem” and “Fantasy Funerals and Other Designer Ways of Going Out in Style.”

Vanhoozer’s essay is, as usual, very helpful but in need of an editor. At the end of the chapter, he gives ten suggestions for going about this “cultural exegesis,” and I have attempted to simplify the wording, as I will be giving them out to my movie class.

On pgs.59-60 Vanhoozer (processed through me) lists:

1. Try to understand the work on its own terms before you critique it.
2. Ask what the work is doing (broader ramifications), as well as what it explicitly says.
3. Consider the tradition standing behind the work, the current context, and work’s proposal for the future.
4. Discover which interests are being served and whose interests are being served. Is there a bigger agenda going on?
5. Discern the worldview and/or “root metaphor” (overarching judgment) promoted by the work.
6. Be comprehensive in the cultural analysis. Try to understand the big picture and all of its facets.
7. Avoid reductionism.
8. Try to understand what the work says about humanity.
9. Try to discover the work’s “faith” or belief system.
10. Locate relevant biblical texts and principles that address the themes of the work.