1 & 2 Kings

Pauline Viviano has a bit of fun at my expense over on the America website(www.americamagazine.org/blogs/client). She’s “reviewing” my commentary on 1 & 2 Kings, but instead of actually discussing my book, she mocks typological interpretation and my use of it in particular. She knew what I was up to without reading more than a few pages: “It was clear after the first few pages of this commentary that every number ‘3’ in the books of Kings was going to be taken as a foreshadowing of the Resurrection; every body of water, a reference to Baptism; and every anointing, messianic.” Saves time for a reviewer to know what the book is about without having to read it.

I’d certainly be more worried by a favorable review from America , and at least I made Prof Vivano giggle. That’s what the commentary was about, of course – spreading glee and good cheer to every corner of Christendom.

A few of Viviano’s points are worth responding to.

Of typology in general, she writes, “The typology of the early Church Fathers was grounded in philosophical and hermeneutical assumptions drawn from the Hellenistic philosophies of the time which were heavily influenced by Platonism. In their worldview typology made sense and over the centuries extreme typologies were forgotten and the Church was left with the more sensible typologies that we continue to find in liturgy and are artistically rendered in stained glass windows.”

No doubt Hellenism had its influence on early church hermeneutics, but can after the last hundred years of study of patristic and medieval exegesis can anyone still accept this as an accurate summary of what the church fathers were after? Can anyone doubt that Paul read the Old Testament (at least, portions of it) “typologically”? As Viviano says, I have to answer with a resounding “NO!” Paul even uses the word “type” to describe what he finds in the Old Testament narrative (1 Corinthians 10). Can de Lubac’s work have had so little effect, on Catholic biblical scholars??

Of my suggestion that Jehu is a type of Christ, she writes, “Among the most puzzling is Jehu as a type of Christ. You remember Jehu, don’t you? He was the general of Israel’s army who led a coup in which he butchered the previous dynasty and burned to death the worshippers of Baal whom he had locked in their temple. If you couldn’t find the similarity to Christ here, you are not alone; I couldn’t find it either.”

She’s writing for a blog, so we don’t expect an argument; but, for anyone who didn’t notice, it’s worth pointing out that this isn’t one – an argument, that is. She takes what she believes to be the most un-Christlike actions of Jehu and then throws up her hands. But isn’t she even a wee bit intrigued by the fact that Jehu’s men lay their garments on the ground as they proclaim him king? Mightn’t this just possibly be a foreshadowing of some other king before whom a crowd of followers laid down their garments?

Of course not. It couldn’t possibly foreshadow Jesus’ entry to Jerusalem because that would assume that the Bible is one book telling a providentially guided story. And we know that’s not true. We know instead that “1-2 Kings are a part of the Deuteronomistic History (the name given to Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1-2 Samuel, and 1-2 Kings taken as a literary unit.) Viviano’s objection is not really to my hermeneutics; it’s to my theology.

It’s odd that Viviano focuses on the typological dimensions of my interpretations, since I spend the introductory chapter laying out a theological interpretation of the book that does not depend a whit on typologies she would find fanciful. And that theological interpretation is significantly different from her own. According to Viviano’s (very common) view, the Deuteronomistic history “has a distinctive theological perspective. The Deuteronomistic historian has a point which he relentlessly drives home: the destruction of the nation has resulted from its failure to worship YHWH and YHWH alone. It is a very narrow reading of the historical situation, but the concern of the historian is to insist upon fidelity to YHWH and to use history to make his point: the people of Israel must worship YHWH and YHWH alone.”

That’s one part of the message of Kings, but ultimately the book is set up to drive home a different point: A message about God’s faithfulness in the face of Israel’s faithlessness, a message of grace and renewal, a message of resurrection, a story about YHWH the father of Jesus. Oops; there I go again, back in that silly typological territory.