Imaginative Interpretation - 23
The reader cannot become the writer
Here is the temptation. Some bible readers (students) want to connect the dots where no writer seems to have ever made the connection. These readers find wonderful surprises on every page of Scripture. In their heads, they see things that even the writers never saw.
Some will explain that God is the ultimate WRITER and, therefore, He has placed in Scripture these nuggets or images of truth for us to find. Whereas, the individual authors of Scripture did not need to see the intricacies of the blanket they helped knit, for it was God’s blanket, (goes the argument) and the meaning of what they wrote may have been hidden from them.
But if the Word of God is not what the writers meant, then where does that leave us? If modern people can see things that were never intended or seen by biblical writers, then where did the modern person learn it?1
And so, the scarlet ribbon hung from out the harlot’s window in Jericho, they say, represents the blood of Jesus. And just as the red blood of Jesus provided salvation, so did scarlet ribbon save the household of the harlot. Therefore, they conclude, God meant the ribbon to be a type of the shed blood of Jesus Christ (the anti-type).
And so, God takes Eve, the mother of the living, from the side of sleeping Adam (type) just as God also took the sacraments for the life of the Church from the side of Jesus while he slept on the cross (the anti-type).2
Where does it end? When types, symbols, allegories and mystical meanings are introduced into the text by the reader, the reader is no longer limiting himself to interpretation, but instead has become the author. Hasn’t he? Remember, the reader must not put words into the mouths of the biblical authors.
Consider this warning from William Tyndale.
“Thou shalt understand, therefore, that the Scripture hath but one sense, which is the literal sense. And that literal sense is the root and ground of all, and the anchor that never faileth, whereunto if thou cleave, thou canst never err or go out of the way. And if thou leave the literal sense, thou canst not but go out of the way. Neverthelater, the Scripture useth proverbs, similitudes, riddles, or allegories, as all other speeches do; but that which the proverb, similitude, riddle, or allegory signifieth, is ever the literal sense, which thou must seek out diligently.”3
The biblical writers used language in varied figures of speech. Furthermore, God gave them insight as to symbols, types, and allegories. But they were the ones God inspired to deliver His Word to mankind. They gave us His Word. We don’t give the Word. We receive it and strive to understand it clearly in order to obey it.
1 There is a great danger that the interpreter practices a sort of mysticism. He comes up with things particular to himself, or a favorite author, or a cadre of friends. But, if he finds no support from any biblical writer, then the interpretation must be abandoned; no matter how excitingly it seems to support his views of God.
2 Types and Anti-types do play a role in Bible interpretation. I maintain that the biblically inspired writers knew when they were “building” with such tools and we are told of them by the writers of Scripture, not outside of them.
3 William Tyndale, The Obedience of a Christian Man (Parker ed., Doctrinal Teatises, 1928, 307-9. Taken from Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Moises Silva, Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1994) p. 270.
I would boil it down to this. I do not think that God speaks a different message from the message He gave the "prophet" (or writer of Scripture). He does not have a hidden meaning for you or me (the reader) that was not originally conveyed in the language and intention of the writer.
As Peter wrote in his second letter, "And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." - 2 Peter 1:19-21
The writer did not get to say whatever he wanted. He was required to write the things impressed upon him by the Holy Spirit. He did not have one message, while God had a different message. We will not find a hidden "God's message" that His Scripture writers did not intend. Scripture readers, centuries later, cannot come up with God's meaning apart from the inspired writer's intention.
Later in that same epistle, Peter refers to Paul's writings and says, "There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures." - 2 Peter 3:16
Even in this, the warning to the reader (or hearer) is to receive the Word of God the way Paul meant it. The things Paul was communicating were difficult to understand, but Paul was the one moved by God to write them. His letters were the Word of God. If a reader comes up with something Paul did not mean (the writer did not intend) then He must be straying from God's Word. Else, there is nothing to be sure of.
I would certainly consider some people, certain sacrifices, and particular events as TYPES of Jesus Christ (as in regard to his relationship to mankind or to His Heavenly Father and His Church and kingdom). However, I would only trust myself to recognize such a TYPE based upon it being expressed in the work of the biblical writers.
I might see many similarities between older covenant saints and the Lord Jesus, but I would not call them a TYPE. Similarities are helpful for application but not as an hermeneutical rule to be applied when interpreting Scripture.
I would be sympathetic to using the word "type" in lower case as if to say, "Noah was a type (a lot like) Jesus." But I don't think that is what you are suggesting. Is it?
Perhaps, Boaz is a TYPE of Christ. If so, I believe that in order to draw such a conclusion, one would be obligated to show that the writer of Ruth was trying to make the connection. Otherwise, some other Scriptural writer would have had to connect the dots for us. We as readers are not allowed to come up with any "Thus sayeth the Word of God," absent of human biblical authorial intention.