ROY ZUCK’S TYPOLOGICAL CRITERIA--TOO TIGHT!

Hermeneutically speaking, I do not agree with the cloistering six-fold criteria that Roy B. Zuck offers in Basic Bible Interpretation for determining an authentic type-antitype instance in the NT.  A root cause for this disagreement is bound-up in the differences between much broader theological perspectives and their respective hermeneutical presuppositions.  Zuck, for instance, holds tight to a classical dispensational hermeneutic, which de facto places emphasis on the discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments.  Those holding to covenant theology, however, will naturally see more continuity between the Testaments (or, covenants, dispensations, etc.).  So, Zuck has a presuppositional bias against seeing many intra-covenantal correspondences that a covenant theologian would easily recognize.  

More specifically, the six-fold criteria Zuck presents[1] are not satisfied in many of the types Zuck  believes are valid.[2]  Number 14 in the list, for instance, the grain offering, conjoins Lev. 2 and Heb. 10:8 as type and antitype.[3]  Zuck denies a typical relation between Adam and Christ,[4] yet affirms as valid the typical relation between the OT grain offering and Christ!  I would love to see the line of inference justifying the latter, and that in strict conformity with the six-fold criteria.  Zuck says that Paul’s clear statement that Adam was a typos of Christ (Rom 5:14; cf. 1 Cor 15) is not to be taken in the technical sense, but he never says why.  This seems quite arbitrary.[5]  The two criteria that make Zuck’s model difficult for me are his personally understood view of typological prefiguring as a sub-set of prophecy (“A type is a form of prophecy.”)[6] and the sixth criterion, which is “[types] must be designated in the New Testament.”[7]  Regarding the former, if “predictive” could rather be understood as paradigmatic, I could find it must easier to agree with Zuck.  Concerning the latter, that the NT must designate a type, we have already seen that even when it does (e.g., Rom 5:14), one can arbitrarily deny it by disputing the technical sense of the term, as Zuck does with Adam-Christ.  Moreover, this stricture prevents all non-apostolic readers from learning how to read the OT from the NT authors.  Why can the clear types found in the NT not serve us as exemplar hermeneutical frameworks for reading and interpreting the OT in light of Christ ourselves?  They do!

Zuck’s six-fold criteria is, I believe, too rigid, and so impoverishes the horizons offered by typological reading-intepretation.  Or, as Edmund Clowney put is, “To conclude that we can never see a type where the New Testament does not identify it is to confess hermeneutical bankruptcy.”[8]  Lastly, one need only look at the dates of Zuck’s working-stock sources to discern that he is not in conversation with the growing bulk of solid scholarship on the topic of typology and its limits and utility.[9]  Thankfully, today Zuck’s tight strictures are a minority view.[10] 

---

[1] Basic Bible Interpretation (Colorado Springs, Colorado : Victor 1991), 172—76, 179. 

[2] See his list of valid types, ibid., 179—80. 

[3] Ibid., 180.

[4] Ibid., 181.

[5] For some clear-headed examples of Adam-Second Adam typological interpretations, see, e.g., The Gaylin R. Schmeling, “Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament” as found at www.blts.edu/.../Typological%20Interpretation%20of%20Old%20Testament.pdf; Edmund P. Clowney, The Unfolding Mystery: Discovering Christ in the Old Testament.  P & R Publishing: New Jersey (1988); Gregory K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP, 2004). 

[6] Basic Bible, 173. 

[7] Ibid., 176, brackets added. 

[8] Preaching Christ in All the Scriptures (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books 2003), 31.

[9] Basic Bible, 174—75.

[10] Some examples might include the following, though there are many more.  Dale C. Allison, Jr., The New Moses: A Matthean Typology.  Fortress: Minneapolis, Minnesota (1993); G. W. H. Lampe and K. J. Woollcombe, Essays on Typology in Studies in Biblical Theology. SCM: London (1957); George Wesley Buchanan, Typology and the Gospel.  University Press of America: Lanham, Maryland (1987). 

The Lex Talion

There is in Scripture a principle of justice know by the old Latin term lex talionis. Roughly, this means a law or principle of retribution; that the punishment is commensurate to the crime committed. More specifically, it is associated with the five occurrences of the variously stated “eye for eye, tooth for tooth,” et cetera. Far from the modern critic’s appraisal that this law is indicative of our primitive, barbarous past, the lex talion insured that the penalty did not exceed that which the injurious act warranted.

This principle, I argue, is that which underlies all of God’s judgment on the children of men. It is not some mere, impersonal law knitted into the fabric of nature or the like, such as assumed in Eastern Mystic philosophies. Contrarily, the lex talion is part and parcel of the living God’s attribute of justice—perfect justice. And as one aspect of his holy nature, the lex talion is a reflection of his perfection.

We should not fail to look beyond the specificity of “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” to the rounded nature of the law in principled instances. For example, Paul’s warning, which has been engrafted into common English parlance, “Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap” (Gal 6:7), is based upon this same principle of God’s justice and judgment. Likewise, from beginning to end, there is the cautioning all throughout Scripture that God has, does and will judge and recompense every one according to their deeds or works.

This means, on the one hand, that God sees to it that the punishment will correspond qualitatively to the crime; that is, the degree of punishment will meet the offence. But it also means, on the other hand, that the kind of punishment one (individually or collectively) receives corresponds in similitude and likeness to the offence. As Paul said, “what” one sows is precisely also “that” which he reaps. Perhaps a couple of examples from Scripture would be helpful to elucidate this latter sense of the principle, the similitude or likeness of the punishment to the crime.

Think of the exodus story, Pharaoh’s war against Yahweh and his Seed, for instance. It opens with allusive statements of Israel, according to Yahweh’s promise (Gen 17:1f), as a corporate Adam, fulfilling Gen 1:28. “But the people of Israel were fruitful and increased greatly; they multiplied and grew exceedingly strong, so that the land was filled with them” (Ex 1:7). In response, Pharaoh and Egypt were terrified of Israel’s growing strength, and so Pharaoh tried first to “afflict them with heavy burdens.’ This foil, however, failed his purposes; Israel grew all the stronger under his oppressive hand (vv. 9—12). This is all too true to Israel’s surrogate name, Ephraim, meaning, “God has made me fruitful in the land of my affliction” (Gen 41:52). Just another felix culpa, a fortunate fall in Israel’s history.

Having seen that plan-A had not met the growing challenge, Pharaoh attempted to thwart the purposes of Yahweh with a plan-B—kill the firstborn of Israel (1:15ff). From here follows the terrors and horrors that Yahweh brought upon Pharaoh and Egypt with the first nine plagues. (Many understand each of the plagues to be a direct battle between the God of Israel and one of the many gods of the Egyptian pantheon, thus making each plague-judgment lex talionic in character: “You desire to worship and serve idols, then you’ll have more of them [through means of their imaged representatives, e.g., frogs] than you can handle.”). Each of these nine judgments, and the subsequent hardening of Pharaoh, is foreshadowing and anticipating one climactic judgment; one that would finally break Pharaoh’s relentless grip.

And what is that 10th and final judgment? Exactly what Pharaoh had decreed, only in recompense. Pharaoh’s evil plot was turned on his own head; he was clothed with his own devises as with a garment, to put it in psalteric terms. And so, the Destroyer came a snuffed the life of the firstborn of Egypt, just as Pharaoh had struggled to destroy the firstborn of Israel.

The section ends similar to how it began. The Egyptians are again in fear and dread of the people of Israel (12:33; cf. 1:12). Also again, the Egyptians burden the Israelites under heavy loads. This time, however, it was silver and gold jewelry and clothing, “Thus they spoiled the Egyptians” (12:35—36). God gave to Pharaoh just what he wanted, a dead son; the punishment was commensurate to the crime— in both quality and likeness.

Another case in point, in connection with the exodus, is that which lead to it. The patriarchs’ dealing treacherously with Joseph; and rather than kill him outright, they sell him into slavery in Egypt, “the land of his affliction.” We know how the rest goes.

Finally, we’ll look at a more experimental example of the lex talionis. There are numerous instances in Scripture were we find what one has called sensory organ malfunction language. This is usually, if not always, associated with idolatry. Perhaps this is nowhere more clearly stated than in Ps 115:4—8 (ESV), which reads,

Their idols are silver and gold,
the work of human hands.
They have mouths, but do not speak;
eyes, but they do not see.
They have ears, but do not hear;
noses, but do not smell.
They have hands, but do not feel;
feet, but do not walk;
and they do not make a sound in their throats.
Those who make them become like them;
so do all who trust them.

Anyone interested in witnessing this theme fleshed out would do well to consult Dr. Gregory Beale’s recent work We Become What We Worship. Beale does a biblical theology of idolatry in Scripture, especially the lex talionic nature of becoming like the idol so cherished by the worshipper; they, like the idol, become deaf, mute, lifeless and “worthless.”

We’ll stop here for today, but I wanted to share this much now so as to provide a paradigm for future posts that will rest upon and assume the general observations above. There are literally hundreds of demonstrations of this principle in Scripture (believe me, I’ve been accumulating a list for about two years now). Thus, if 1) the lex talion is a reflection of God moral character and his justice, and 2) the principle underlies so many of God’s dealings with men and nations in Scripture, then we’d do well to understand this theme as much as possible, and make applications in our interpretation and experience.

Blessings to you on this glorious Lord’s Day!