Typology

Tracing the Theme of “Egypt” in Hosea

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Eric Tully’s Advanced Hebrew Exegesis of Hosea course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Please note: I use the Hebrew Bible’s chapter and verse references below, which can at times be different than what one will find in our English translations.

Egypt is mentioned 13 times in the book of Hosea (2:17 [2:15]; 7:11, 16; 8:13; 9:3, 6; 11:1, 5, 11; 12:1, 10 [9], 14 [13]; 13:4), significantly more than any other prophetic book (Stuart, 17). This speaks to the importance of this theme within the book. Therefore, the interpreter does well to understand Hosea’s broader theology of Egypt while engaging particular “Egypt” references and allusions throughout the book.

In 2:17, YHWH speaks of a renewal of His relationship with Israel compared with their relationship at the glorious time of the Exodus. In 7:11 Hosea speaks of Israel’s leadership’s senseless, habitual behavior of fluttering between two foreign allies, Egypt and Assyria (see 2 Kgs 15:29; 16:5; 17:3-6) (McComiskey, 111). A handful of verses later, in 7:16, Hosea uses the previous time of Israel’s captivity in Egypt to depict her future captivity (presumably in Assyria; cf. 11:11). Hosea makes a similar redemptive-historical connection in 8:13, where he speaks of Israel “returning to Egypt.” He uses Israel’s captivity in Egypt as a prophetic paradigm (cf. Deut 28:68) for understanding her future captivity. Hosea does this again in 9:3, except this time he parallels Assyria—the actual location of Israel’s future exile—with Egypt—the redemptive-historical type. 9:6 depicts a reversal of salvation history. Israelites will flee to Egypt to escape destruction; but, instead of finding refuge, they will find their graves. In 11:1 Hosea recalls the days of Israel’s “youth” during which he was led out of Egypt in the Exodus. In 11:5 God reveals to the readers what they have come to suspect. Israel would not actually go to exile in Egypt (type), but in Assyria (antitype). Nonetheless, by equating Assyria with Egypt in 11:11, Hosea anticipates the return from Assyria as a new Exodus. Like one who tries to control the wind (Garrett, 235), Israel tries to control her fate by making treaties with Assyria and Egypt in 12:1 (2 Kgs 17:1-6). 12:10 associates YHWH with the events of the Exodus. YHWH is still the God of the Exodus (McComiskey, 206). 12:14 alludes to God’s use of Moses, a prophet, to lead the people out of Egypt. Finally, in 13:4 God again describes Himself as the God of the Exodus. It was in the Egyptian wilderness that God revealed Himself to Moses. It was in God’s saving acts in Egypt that He initially made Himself known to Israel.

After surveying this data, a few conclusions can be made. Note, Assyria is mentioned 9 times in the book. But, interestingly, all but three of these incidences occur parallel to Egypt (Stuart, 17). What this suggests, along with the use of “Egypt” throughout the book, is that Egypt serves as a metonymy for foreign captivity, namely in Assyria. Hosea is likely building on such usage of Egypt as found in Deut 28:68. In other words, Egypt can have a negative function, to serve as a model of Israel’s future captivity in Assyria. Nonetheless, in God’s past dealings with his people in Egypt, captivity led to redemption. Hence, Egypt also serves a positive function in Hosea, to reflect upon God’s saving activity in the Exodus. For Hosea, Egypt also signifies a pivotal moment in YHWH’s relationship with Israel. YHWH is the God “from Egypt.” It was there that He first revealed Himself to Israel. This moment in Israel’s history is painted as the epitome of YHWH’s relationship with Israel. In summary, Hosea uses Egypt as a redemptive-historical paradigm for God’s dealing with and relationship to Israel. For Hosea, history does not simply repeat itself. Redemptive history serves as the interpretive key for understanding God’s future dealings with His people.

In Pursuit of Responsible Typology

Kirk E. Miller

As I mentioned yesterday, there has been some discussion within dispensational circles lately about typology and analogical interpretation. In my post yesterday I shared my dissatisfaction and qualms with that view which seeks to remove typology from its typical central role in “doing” Biblical theology in favor of “putting one’s Bible together” by means of analogy. So because I understand typology as fundamental to the unity and promise-fulfillment structure of the Old and New Testaments as well as a central way the New Testament writers use the Old Testament to show its continuity with their message and the work of Christ, I’m in pursuit of something more than an analogical interpretation, that being typology.

But yes, if lacking good definition and hermeneutical safety-rails, typology can easily become something other than typology–imaginative, fanciful, interpretations; finding typology where typology is not really present and connecting dots where no dots are to be found.[1] But, while recognizing the possible “slippery-slope,” I don’t want to be fallacious and equate typology with the slope itself, as many seem to do (e.g., Mark Snoeberger). Typology done legitimately is legitimate, despite hermeneutically unfortunate and irresponsibility decisions that find refuge under the umbrella of typology.

Continue reading →

In Pursuit of Something More than an Analogical Interpretation

Kirk E. Miller 3 Comments

There has been some talk within dispensational circles lately about “Biblical theology[1] without typology” (see “Warrant for the Analogical Interpretation of Select Scriptures, Part I” and “Part II” by Mark Snoeberger). The following is a response to Snoeberger’s position.

For those unfamiliar to these issues, we might provide the follow basic definitions of analogical and typological interpretation. Analogical interpretation occurs when a biblical writer draws an analogy between and compares (or maybe contrasts?) a reality from previous revelation to a current reality. Typological interpretation is the interpretation of historical events, institutions, persons, things (type) recorded in previous revelation in terms of their prophetic correspodence to later realites (antitype). So for example, the Old Testament sacrifices anticipated and served as a type which was ultimately fulfilled in Christ, the ultimate sacrifice, the antitype.

Attempting to pinpoint the issue of debate

In fairness to Snoeberger, I want to represent his articles’ purpose accurately. It would seem that Snoeberger’s goal in these articles is to demonstrate that typology is not the only viable basis for valid biblical theology.[2] And he attempts to do so by demonstrating the warrant for an analogical New Testament (NT) use of the Old Testament (OT).[3]

Continue reading →

The New Testament’s Interpretation of the Old Testament–Hermeneutical Model or Inspired “Answer Key”

Kirk E. Miller 4 Comments

Edmund Clowney

In a lecture on Biblical theology,[1] Dr. Edmund Clowney states the following,

Now…I was taught that…you can’t find any type in the New Testament that’s not identified as a type in the New Testament. But…that’s certainly safe. You know, it’s like you got a book of math or something; and you can’t solve any problem if it’s not given in the back of the book. I mean, you know the answer’s right ’cause it’s in the back of the book; but you say [conclude], “you can’t work any of the problems yourself; you can only look in the back of the book.” It’s kind of a confession of hermeneutical bankruptcy from one perspective. It’s saying, “the New Testament writers can interpret these things; but we don’t have a clue on how they did it. If we knew how they did it, we could do it. But we don’t know how they did it, so we can’t do it. So to play safe, we won’t identify anything as a type if it’s not already identified as a type.” And see, my argument is that they [the New Testament authors] have taught us a lot by the way they identify types.

Continue reading →

The Difference Between Typology and Allegory

Kirk E. Miller 9 Comments

You may have read my previous post entitled, Are “Authorial Intent” and “Christ-Centered” Mutually Exclusive? (if not, you may want to do so before continuing, although it’s not necessary).

But this post prompts the question, if we are to preach Christ in all of Scripture (that is, preach Christotelically; see my previous post Christ in the Old Testament: Christocentric or Christotelic Hermeneutic?), are we allegorizing? If Christ is not at all present in a text, then are we spiritualizing the text by preaching Christ?

I have had enough experience with a certain school of interpretation to realize that many people answer this question in the affirmative–unfortunately. It has appeared to me, however, that part of their reason for doing so was a fundamental misunderstanding, a confusion of typology and allegory.[1] So, let me try to spell out some of the basic, introductory differences between typology and allegory.

Continue reading →