Rev. Charles B. Kuthe

Pastor, Georgia Plain Baptist Church

Abstract:  

            Preaching is a difficult task that involves bridging the gap between an ancient text and the contemporary world.  This task, however, regardless of how difficult, does not necessitate an excessively allegorized approach to Scripture.  Typology, although not inherently illegitimate, can and has been abused as an intrinsic framework in contemporary hermeneutics, and thus has been presented as justifiable in many exegetical endeavors.  This has partially been done to search for continuity within the canon, yet has created a utilitarian approach to typology, thus imposing an unnatural framework on the Biblical canon.  This construction, in my opinion, has actually deconstructed the primary premise of God�s revealed word, authorial intent. The objective is not to refute the correlation of the biblical witness, but to suggest that the imposition of a typological framework can interfere and misrepresent authorial intent and interject exegetical subjectivity into the process, with few parameters or guidelines, leaving the preacher to offer mere suggestions about God�s Word rather than God�s actual word.  Typology and its potential deconstructive nature will inevitably relieve the preacher of his or her authority and present the Church with those offering postulations rather than the proclamation of God�s authoritative word.

Process of examination

            The concern about authorial intention and its misrepresentation is not a new discussion, but is currently on the forefront of the hermeneutical debate.  It has been approached, however, from many different perspectives and many suggestions have been made as to the way forward.  The purpose of this discussion is not to survey the literature, nor evaluate the historical dialogue on this issue.  The initial intention is to set the parameters of this discussion based on the foundation of the preacher�s authority, the original intention of the author.  Thus, the biblical author�s meaning, not just from the standpoint of contemporary application, but mainly from the historical and contextual framework of the authors setting and what the intentions were to the original audience, will govern much of the preliminary investigation.    This assertion is approached from the standpoint of locutions; illocution (the intention of the author) and perlocution (the goal to persuade or convince).   Next, the examination will focus on how the author informs our use of exegetical tools, especially in regard to typology, and what that means for contemporary hermeneutics.   The objective will be to show that much of the current discussion of typology creates a set of exegetical fallacies that hinder the preacher from remaining faithful to the intended purpose of the biblical passage.  Can typology open the door for an acontextual, ahistorical treatment of Scripture and interject relativity and subjectivity into the exegetical process?  Are there any given guidelines for the use of a typological approach to Scripture?  Are there texts that actually legitimately utilize prefigurement?  In order to answer these question we must begin with the elements of authorial intention that are most applicable to our discussion. 

Authorial intent and its basis for the preacher�s authority

            Discovering the author�s intention is precisely the debate that exists in modern biblical scholarship.  In an age of historical criticism, deconstruction, redaction, and interpretative subjectivity it is no surprise that the original authors have lost their voice and have been replaced by the voice or voices of individual interpreters.  Therefore, the primary question must be, what is meant by author�s intention?  Vanhoozer espouses the use of E.D. Hirsch�s view of authorial intention as the platform for beginning this discussion because of his work as a literary critic and �as the preeminent champion of the author and of objectivity in interpretation.�[1]  Hirsch is also a strong proponent of hermeneutical realism and consequently developed a strong case for the transferability of the original text and its voice for the contemporary world.  Having this as the origin of the discussion will allow us to define what is meant by authorial intention and further reinforce its place within the discussion of typology�s effect on the biblical writer and on his or her intentions.  Hirsch classifies meaning as that which the original writer attempts to convey via the writing.  Thus, exegesis is the search for the author�s intended meaning, which then remains transferable over time because the intended meaning is not subject to change, despite different sociological and cultural contexts.  Hirsch then approaches the concept of intentionality from a phenomenological perspective.  That is to say that when one speaks of intentionality they observe that the text was written with a distinctive and definable purpose and did not come into existence accidentally.  Taking this one step further, because texts have a definable purpose and intention they must be interpreted as such and free from an imposed framework that can remove them from their intended meaning and context.  As Vanhoozer notes, �An �intention� is the act by which consciousness aims at something.  Every intentional act of consciousness has an intentional object, that toward which consciousness aims.�[2]  This is where the concept of illocution and perlocution are especially applicable.  Literary critics have suggested that authors are cognizant of what they are writing and are writing for a specific purpose.  There is an aim and objective that writings seek to accomplish and this is solely governed by the author and liberated from the subjectivity imposed by external interpreters from different cultural pressures. As a result, both Hirsch and Vanhoozer would want us to understand the author�s intention by focusing on the object in which the author was conscious while writing, namely the specific event or God himself.  The meaning then is not misconstrued as a subjective cerebral action by either the author nor of the interpreter, but of the object itself.  The interpreter then is unable to reconstruct, or for that matter, deconstruct that text and place it into a mere scheme of possibilities, nor force it into an arbitrary framework.  As Vanhoozer suggests,

Hirsch wants to recover not langue (the language system), but parole (the way that language was used on a particular occasion).  Though the event of the author�s intending cannot be reproduced, its object can be.  Its reproducibility guarantees objectivity in meaning and in interpretation.  The meaning of a text �what it says and what it is about�is stabilized by the author�s intention.[3]

This delineation between the subjective and objective nature of authorial intention sets the basis for the authority the preacher has to communicate the Word of God.  It is precisely by discovering the parole that the interpreter has exposed the Word of God and then can translate that truth into the modern context.  According to Hirsch�s view, the author sets the parameters for the comprehension of the text he or she is writing.  Furthermore, the writer is aware of a certain goal the text is to accomplish.  Thus, the perlocution of the text is governed solely by the illocution of the writer, although each text or pericope is placed in a larger canon of Scripture.  What I am advocating here is that prior to understanding the role of the text in the wider context of the Bible, one must first understand the text in relation to its intended purpose and setting.  Once this discovery is made it then is further analyzed within the confines of its immediate context and works its way outward.  All of this, in my opinion, must be done prior to assuming or imposing a generated framework that can easily hinder the interpreter�s ability to find the inherent value in the text given by the author. 

Many have recognized the difficulty of finding an authoritative text in the age of historical criticism and proposed suggestions as to the way forward.  Jenson approaches this question from the standpoint of �what can be practiced outside the church and apart from faith?�[4] The search for the irreducible that governs all human endeavors outside the confines of faith presents an interesting dilemma to the discussion of typology.  The difficulty that is addressed is whether or not the text or the biblical account has any reliability outside the margins of faith.  This, according to Jenson is irreducibility the driving force behind any interpretative reality.  Faith plays its part in the sense that one holds to the notion that the text has something to say, not only for those in the community of faith, but those outside.  Jenson�s interest is with what effect a text has on an audience rather that the text itself.  This anthropocentric approach, in his search for the irreducible, only serves to distort the original ramifications of the passage by forcing the modern interpreter to find what the text means to them, rather than what the text means on its own.  Even within the realm of historical-criticism, however, there are those that recognize that the meanings of words should not be adapted based on theological predispositions.  James Barr suggests that the merit of historical criticism is that it functions to provide a system of checks and balances on the consequent history of textual interpretation by returning to the original significance regardless of whether or not the primary text has any relevance in contemporary society.   

Typology and its effect on Authorial Intent:

            In order to adequately begin a discussion on typology it is crucial to first understand what I mean by it and how it functions as an exegetical approach to Scripture.  David L. Baker defines typology as, �the study of types and the historical and theological correspondences between them; the basis of typology is God�s consistent activity in the history of his chosen people.�  Furthermore, Baker suggests a type is, �a biblical event, person, or institution which serves as an example or pattern for other events, persons, or institutions.�[5]  Using this as a working definition will assist in identifying the potential difficulties that are presented by using typology as a way to examine biblical history.  The concern is not that typology is entirely illegitimate, but that it is neither all- encompassing, nor the place to begin when investigating biblical history.  Approaching history, especially that of biblical history, from the standpoint of prefirgurement can easily lead to the fallacy that D.A. Carson identifies as, �arising from the omission of distanciation in the interpretative process.�[6]  This fallacy can be described as reading one�s own theological propensities into the text, rather than allowing the text to dictate one�s theology.  Prefigurement/typology can easily fit into this category when it is not determined by the text itself.  For example, one can easily see the comparison of Jesus Christ to the first Adam.  Thus, Adam served, in a general sense, as a prefigurement of the second Adam, Christ.  Where this quickly breaks down is when all we see in the exegesis of Genesis 1-3 is the Christological implications.  Moses� original intention could in no way have been able to consciously understand the messianic correlation of the account of God�s creative ability.  This is exactly where the difficulty lies.  What is our responsibility as expositors of God�s Word?  My contention is that in order to be faithful to the text, we have a responsibility to expose Moses� intentions prior to imposing the typological, or for that matter Christological, framework on the text.  The truths of the passages in question are transferable and have significant implication in a post-resurrection community.  Thus, on the exegetical level our primary responsibility is to discover what Moses was trying to communicate to the people of Israel , and then place that truth in the larger context of the canon.  On a hermeneutical level, the obligation of interpreters is to communicate that truth to an audience that is far removed from the culture and context of the original passage.  Typology, in that sense, is more of a hermeneutical tool than an exegetical one. 

            The complexity associated with this suggestion is that one could easily commit the opposite fallacy by performing what Carson calls, �the interpretations that ignore the Bible�s story-line.�[7]  I am not insinuating that one should remove any given pericope of Scripture from its context or from its relationship to the other parts of the Bible.  This fragmentary approach does severe injustice to the continuity of God�s revealed Word.  What I am proposing is that the continuity of the Bible is inherent within itself and testifies to its nature from the inside.  Hence, Scripture is free from an external framework or set of assumptions that try to demonstrate its continuity.  This is not to say that each individual interpreter comes to the text free from predispositions and assumptions, but that by being aware of those assumptions, as much as possible, will liberate him or her to allow the text to dictate those intentions rather that vise versa.  It seems that typology, especially in its overuse, places the proverbially cart before the horse.   

Possible Objections:

            I have attempted to discuss that in the realm of contemporary scholarship many have sought to approach the concept of authorial intention from many different angles: deconstruction (Derrida), reconstruction, historical-criticism (Barr, Jenson), typology, etc.  Each of these angles are wrought with their own assumption and presuppositions, but have offered a helpful critical eye on those who would seek to find a formative voice of the canon through the lenses of authorial intent.  I have borrowed from the work of E.D. Hirsch, who has exposed a definitive voice on the issues of intention.  The question then becomes, if authorial intent can be discovered and is formative, why is there such diversity in theological positions for those who would agree with Hirsch�s assessment?  Hirsch deals with this criticism by making a distinction between the meaning of the text and its significance.  He notes, �Meaning is internal to the text itself; �significance� describes the external relation a text�s meaning has to something else: �Significance is always meaning to, never meaning in.��[8]  According to this view the meaning of the text is transferable and unchanging, but its significance is infinite.  In all the exegetical endeavors, Hirsch would caution all interpreters away from dogmatism and towards charity when theological differences present themselves. 

            Another possible objection begs the question is typology actually a contemporary system that is imposed on the text or is it something that is original to Scripture?  What I mean to ask is, does the New Testament actually intentionally validates the typological approach as a way to look back on Old Testament history?  Baker assumes that this is the case and suggests that the New Testament validates the use of a typological framework as one looks at Old Testament history.  The difficulty with this view is its lack of parameters.  My contention is not that prefiqurement/typology exists, but that it is not the place to begin one�s exegetical endeavors as they look at Old Testament history.  It would be easy for a preacher to veer off course by looking for or discovering types, prior to the understanding of the original intention of the author.  It must be the author who sets the guidelines for interpretation and not the preacher. 

Concluding remarks

It is not about dissecting God from the standpoint of history, but rather allowing the God of history to speak on his own terms free from the confines of imposed allegory.    Thus, if there is no meaning in the text unless that text is subject to an external framework, Scripture ceases to define us and our world and we begin to define it.  Baker defines typology as a �way to look at history� which is precisely the reason for the present quandary in homiletics and hermeneutics.    Vanhoozer asserts that, �there is no criterion with which to distinguish valid from invalid interpretation other than that of the author�s intention.  Thus, while the author�s intention is no the only possible norm, it is for Hirsch the only practical norm for an academic discipline of interpretation.�[9]