OK, we have been talking about the fulfillment of the Jewish liturgical year and why it is not observed, which took us into the subject of typology/allegory. So what is typology/allegory? Well, first, there is a great debate as to whether there is any difference between typology and allegory. At best, it is a difference in degree. At worst, it is an attempt to not admit that the Early Church may have had a point when they used allegory for some of their interpretations.
So, what is typology? Well, one definition is:
Typology is a theological doctrine of theory of types and their antitypes found in Scripture. What is referred to as Medieval allegory actually began in the Early Church as a method for synthesizing the seeming discontinuities between the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and the Christian Bible (New Testament). While both testaments were studied and seen as equally inspired by God, the Old Testament contained discontinuities for Christians, for example, the Jewish kosher laws (see also Old Testament-Christian view of the Law). The Old Testament was therefore seen in places not as a literal account, but as an allegory, or foreshadowing, of the events of the New Testament, in particular how the events of the Old Testament related to the events of Christ’s life. The events of the Old Testament were seen as part of the story, a prefiguration, with the events of Christ’s life. The technical name for seeing the New Testament in the Old Testament is called typology. The doctrine is stated most succinctly by Paul in Colossians 2:16-17 – “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.” It also finds expression in the Epistle to the Hebrews.
There are actually quite a few examples of the apostles using typology as an interpretative method. We actually use typology all the time and simply call it Biblical interpretation. In fact, it is precisely because we simply call it Biblical interpretation that we miss the fact that we are using the same allegorical method of interpretation as the Early Church Fathers. [Note: I seriously disagree with the definition above in that the Antiochian School argued vehemently that the Old Testament was indeed a “literal” account, with two caveats. One caveat is that they knew the difference between the various types of literature and thus interpreted Scripture contextually. The second caveat is the account of the Creation. There was much debate among the Early Church Fathers as to whether it is a literal account or a poetic account.]
Have you ever talked about how the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham prefigured the sacrifice of the Son of God by his Father? Congratulations, you have used allegory. Have you ever read how Jesus said that as Jonah was in the belly of the whale for three days so would the the Son of Man? Well, Jesus was using allegory. Have you read the Book of Hebrews when it said that the Son of Man was like Melquisedec who came from nowhere, was a high priest to whom Abraham himself bowed down, and then disappeared from human history, and that He and all priests after him [like myself] are part of the order of Melquisedec? Congratulations, you are reading allegory. Now, there is a set of allegorical interpretations that have to do with the relationship of the Jewish liturgical year to the events of Christ’s life.
However, the question in Church history has to do with the limits of allegory. How far can you go with allegory without making Scriptures into a book that can be interpreted in any which way. [Yes, I understand the irony, both Protestants and post-modernists have shown clearly how one can interpret Scripture in any way one wishes, regardless of logical coherency or common sense.] Well, in Early Church history, two schools of theology developed, the Alexandrian School and the Antiochian School.
Basically, the major difference is that the Alexandrian school of theology set no limits on the use of allegory. That was the position that became predominant in the Church, and most definitely was adopted by the Roman Catholic Church. It was a position against which the Reformers over-reacted. The Antiochian school of theology was much closer to Protestantism in insisting that the allegorical interpretations had to have a clear relationship to the actual historical event portrayed. In fact, the Antiochian school insisted that the historical events had actually happened and that this must be the base of our interpretations. Nevertheless, the Antiochian school, to which I belong, was not purely Protestant either, in that it did not limit allegory to only the examples found in Scripture.
So, what does that have to do with the Jewish liturgical year and other parts of the Old Testament?
===MORE TO COME===
I love Typology. I do. Really. (I wrote a blog post called “Bible as Tarot” to show how much I do!)
Where I stumble: my mentor for the St Stephen’s program told me I could not do “eisogesis” when reading scripture. That I could not read in elements that were not there.
The Church’s use of eisogesis – called “allegory” and “typology” – is exactly the same as the Rabbinic tradition, but to different ends. Seems silly to say “you can’t use this method” when it is nearly the only method we’ve been using for 2000 years.
We do this. I’m ok with that.
I think Melquisedec is a Spanish spelling, but you are correct. Both sacrifices are mentioned in the Roman Canon, as types of the Eucharist (as it appears in itself or as one with sacrifice of the Cross)