The Christians of Antioch did not favour this type of Alexandrian theology: they preferred to find the meaning in the text.įairbairn’s heroes of biblical interpretation are, of course, the Protestants. Even in the ancient world, it was felt to be rather artificial and valueless. I do not think that this sort of biblical analysis helps us very much today, but that is what allegory is. Then, having mastered philosophy (represented by Hagar giving birth to Ishmael), he can have children by divine wisdom (Sarah giving birth to Isaac) (p.6). As an allegory, this means that while the Christian only studies divine wisdom, one will never produce anything lasting, for that, one needs philosophy. An ancient writer, Clement of Alexandria, says that Abraham stands for the perfect Christian, Sarah for divine wisdom, and Hagar for philosophy or human wisdom. For example, Fairbairn refers to Abraham marrying Sarah and later Hagar because he had no children by Sarah (Genesis 11:31 and 16:3). Sometimes these allegories strike us as rather far-fetched. That is, one is the echo of the other, but both are historical. So we have two things, both of which are real, but which have the one meaning. Unlike Our Lord, who was narrating a tale which had not occurred, to tell us about what does happen, St Peter was saying here is that there really was an Ark which saved people from the flood, and that baptism really does work for our salvation. There is also an antitype which now saves us – baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ … (1 Peter 3:18-21) An excellent example comes from the First Epistle of St Peter, where we read, in the New KJV:įor Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God … when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. Typology is different according to Fairbairn because it does not tell two stories, it only tells one, but gives that one story two meanings. In other words, there are two senses here: the story of a man and his attempts to make a crop grow, and the inner meaning which Our Lord taught His apostles. He told a story about growing plants, but all the value of the story is because of what it tells about God, the Gospel, the human heart, and the devil. He gives an Old Testament example, but I think it would be fair to take the Parable of the Sower told by Our Lord. An “allegory,” says Fairbairn, is a story – whether true or fictional – told only to point to another story (2). There has been a lot of dispute over this issue, and personally I think that the distinction can be easily pushed too far. It is, therefore, no surprise that the book reflects the intensity of the period.įairbairn opens with a distinction between allegory and typology. The Free Church had been founded after the “Great Disruption” of 1843, which split the Church of Scotland. In 1845, Patrick Fairbairn, Professor of Divinity at the Free Church College, Glasgow, published a massive two-volume work, The Typology of Scripture Viewed in Connection with the Whole Series of Divine Dispensations.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |