The Typology of David’s Rise to Power: Messianic Patterns in the Book of Samuel1 James M. Hamilton, Jr. This essay is dedicated to Professor E. Earle Ellis in gratitude for his many contributions to the study of the Bible, and especially for his clear statements on the subject of typology. aniel Treier has asserted that “the issue of how to identify ever more precisely those characteristics Dwe may read the Old Testament Christianly” that are peculiar to the biblical texts.”5 is “the most acute tension with which academic After briefly stating the significance of typol- biblical theology faces us.”2 This recent statement ogy and defining what it is, this presentation will reflects a long-standing question, as can be seen consider whether we are limited to the examples from the fact that the relation- of typological interpretation seen in the Old and James M. Hamilton, Jr. is Associate ship between the Old and New New Testaments,6 or whether, taking our cues Professor of Biblical Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Testaments is the major issue from those examples, we can build upon them. dealt with in Reventlow’s Prob- The theory that we can learn to interpret the Bible In addition to his role on the faculty, lems of Biblical Theology in the typologically from the authors of the New Testa- Dr. Hamilton also serves as preaching Twentieth Century.3 Progress ment and apply the method to passages they them- pastor at Kenwood Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky. Prior to his role at on this question will only be selves do not specifically address will then be tested Southern Seminary, Dr. Hamilton served made by those who embrace against the narratives of David’s rise to power in as Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies an interpretive method prac- the book of Samuel. at Southwestern Baptist Theological ticed by the biblical authors Seminary’s Houston campus. He is the author of dozens of articles and themselves as they interpreted TYPOLOGY: SIGNIFICANCE AND essays, as well as a number of books, earlier passages of Scripture: DEFINITION including God’s Indwelling Presence: The typology.4 As Francis Watson Ministry of the Holy Spirit in the Old and Significance New Testaments (B&H, 2006), God’s puts it, “What is proposed is Glory in Salvation through Judgment: not an anachronistic return to Understanding typology is significant because A Biblical Theology (Crossway, 2010), pre-critical exegesis but a radi- without it we cannot understand the New Tes- and Revelation: The Spirit Speaks to the calization of the modern theo- tament’s interpretation of the Old. If we do not Churches (Crossway, 2012). logical and exegetical concern understand the New Testament’s interpretation of 4 SBJT 16.2 (2012): 4-25. the Old, we could be led to false conclusions about with direct prediction.”14 But when he comes to the legitimacy of the hermeneutical moves made “Exegetical Procedures of Early Christians,” he by the authors of the New Testament. limits these to “literalist, midrashic, pesher, and Leonhard Goppelt referred to typology as allegorical.”15 This is a category mistake: since “the principal form of the NT’s interpretation of Longenecker does not recognize typology as a Scripture.”7 Similarly, Earle Ellis writes that “The kind of biblical theological interpretive procedure, NT’s understanding and exposition of the OT he wrongly labels typological interpretations as lies at the heart of its theology, and it is primarily pesher interpretations (more on this shortly).16 expressed within the framework of a typological His rejection of the abiding validity of the herme- interpretation.”8 And David Instone-Brewer states, neutical procedures employed by the authors of “Typology dominates the New Testament and, if the New Testament is thus called into question. messianic movements are an indication of popular If the task of typology is similar to the task of thought, it also dominated pre-70 CE Palestinian biblical theology—reflecting on the results of exe- Judaism …”9 Goppelt, Ellis, Instone-Brewer, and gesis, and thus exegeting the canon as opposed to others,10 thus indicate that typological interpreta- exegeting a particular passage—then it appears tion is central to understanding the New Testa- that when the biblical authors engage in typologi- ment’s appeal to the Old Testament. By contrast, cal interpretation they are in fact engaging in bibli- there is almost no treatment of typological inter- cal theological reflection. What Frei says regarding pretation in Richard Longenecker’s Biblical Exege- the “controversy between certain Deists and their sis in the Apostolic Period.11 orthodox opponents about the veracity of the asser- Typology is significant because it is used so tions made in the New Testament … that certain often in the New Testament, and this means Old Testament prophecies had been fulfilled in the that understanding this interpretive practice can New Testament story” remains true today: deliver us from wrong conclusions regarding what At stake [is] the correctness or incorrectness of the New Testament claims about the Old Testa- a later interpretation of the words of earlier texts. ment. As Earle Ellis has written, “Paul’s usage [of Did the earlier texts actually mean what at a later the OT] … is not arbitrary or against the literal stage they had been said to mean? … Were the sense if the typological usage be granted.”12 I have New Testament writers correct or not when they argued elsewhere that a typological reading of the used the Old Testament texts as evidence for the “fulfillment” passages in the first two chapters of New Testament’s own historical truth claims? Matthew alleviates the dissonance created when we try to read the passages Matthew quotes as pre- Definition dictive prophecies.13 Such a reading has implica- Historical Correspondence and Escalation tions not only for our understanding of the New Earle Ellis helpfully explains that “typology Testament, but also for how we understand the views the relationship of OT events to those in Old. It seems significant that one of the major the new dispensation … in terms of two princi- proponents of the view that apostolic interpretive ples, historical correspondence and escalation.” methods are not to be practiced today, Richard Michael Fishbane writes that “inner-biblical typol- Longenecker, does not recognize typology as an ogies constitute a literary-historical phenomenon interpretive method. Longenecker does discuss which isolates perceived correlations between spe- typology as a factor in “the concept of fulfillment cific events, persons, or places early in time with in the New Testament,” which, he writes, “has their later correspondents.” This basic definition more to do with ideas of ‘corporate solidarity’ of typology is generally agreed upon, with some and ‘typological correspondences in history’ than exceptions, but there are differences over whether 5 types are predictive and whether typology is an reflection on and correlation with other passages interpretive method. Our main interest will be when we engage in biblical theology or typological with the latter question, but we can briefly repre- thinking. What must be recognized, however, is sent the concerns of the former. that this correlation and reflection is still interpreta- tion. We are still doing exegesis. The difference is Retrospective or Prospective? that rather than exegeting a particular passage, we There is a dispute among those who read the are exegeting the canon. Biblical theology and typo- Bible typologically over whether types are only ret- logical interpretation, then, can be thought of as a rospective or whether they also function prospec- form of exegesis that gives itself to the broader con- tively, that is, predictively. On one side, R. T. France text, the canonical context, of the passage at hand. writes: “There is no indication in a type, as such, One sometimes hears the suggestion that “bib- of any forward reference; it is complete and intel- lical theology is ‘an old man’s game.’” The idea ligible in itself.” On the other side, G. K. Beale states seems to be that one will spend the greater part that “the πληρόω [fulfillment] formulas prefixed of one’s life exegeting individual passages in isola- to citations from formally non-prophetic OT pas- tion, and only when all that long work is done is sages in the gospels decisively argue against this.” In one in a position to make accurate correlations. between these two options, Grant Osborne writes, But if this is true, why not suggest that one should “It is likely that the solution lies in the middle. The spend the greater part of one’s life studying histori- OT authors and participants did not necessarily cal backgrounds, or textual criticism, or language, recognize any typological force in the original, but or lexicography, or syntax, or exegetical method, in the divine plan the early event did anticipate the and only once these approaches have been mas- later reality.” The fulfillment formulas do indicate tered, begin the work of exegesis as an old man? that the NT authors understand the Old Testament It seems better to grant that biblical theology types to be pointing forward, but Osborne is correct and typological interpretation have a rightful to point out that more needs to be said about how place in the hermeneutical spiral. This herme- and when these types would have been understood neutical spiral has so many tortuous turns that as pointing forward. Engaging this debate further is all interpreters—old or young—must hold their beyond the scope of this essay. What does concern conclusions with due humility. We not only can, us at present is whether typology should be under- we must engage in biblical theology and typologi- stood as an exegetical method or only as, in Longe- cal thinking as we do exegesis.