Explaining the Symbols of the Cross
with Typological Exegesis
Many of the authors in this chapter
attempt to strengthen their explanations of cross veneration through biblical
exegesis. In this way, they appeal to biblical precedents, arguing that
pre-cursors of the cross or cross veneration can be located in the Old
Testament or that such examples function typologically. Typological exegesis of
the Bible was not uncommon among Christian communities and was certainly not
limited to ventures in finding examples of the cross in the Old Testament. For
example, Origen, the third-century Christian theologians, was well known for
his allegorical and typological readings of scripture. Though not limited to
Christian usage, the result for Christian exegetes was that many things in the
New Testament or elements of Christian doctrine could be located or foretold
via literal, allegorical or typological readings in the Old Testament. In like
manner, testimonia, collections of quotations from sources like the Old
Testament, were compiled and used to ground arguments in ancient text.
When it comes to our authors,
validating veneration of the cross meant giving their devotion precedents in ancient
monotheism. . . . for example, Leo III defends his claim that the cross
bestows honour upon Christ by appealing to scripture. Accordingly, he asserts
that in Isaiah 60:13, when the prophet Isaiah looks forward to the return of
the Jews from exile and the reconstruction of their temple, that the wood of
the cross is actually in mind: ‘The fir tree, the pine and the box together, to
render honourable the place of My sanctuary; and I will render glorious the
place of My feet’. Solomon, too, is made by Leo to speak of the wooden cross
when he writes, ‘Blessed be the wood by which justice is exercised’ (Wisdom
14:7; here referring to the refuge offered by a wooden vessel in a storm) and ‘It
is the tree of life for all those who embrace it, and who attach themselves solidly
to it as the Lord’ (Proverbs 3:18; here referring to wisdom personified). Each
of these passages has its own exegetical context, but they are made by Leo to
support his arguments for the wood from which crosses should be made. Overall, Christians
are simply following the example of their forebears when they venerate the
cross.
Bar Koni refers to Old Testament texts
concerning the Ark of the Covenant in is attempt to distinguish between the
wood of the cross that is not worshiped and the person for whom it stands who
is worshiped. The master in Bar Koni’s text asks the student, ‘tell me, do you
regard the Ark of the Covenant as God or as silent wood?’ When the student
responds that it was obviously just wood, the master asserts, ‘Joshua son of
Nun “fell on his face before the Ark of the Lord” (Joshua 7:6), did he not?’
The student agrees, so the master presses, ‘Is it the wood [that Joshua]
adored, or God?’ Of course, the student responds that Joshua was worshiping God
because he lived in the Ark of the Covenant. When the master asks if the
student means that God lived in the wood of the Ark, the student clarifies that
God did not live in the wood, but his nature was joined to it as a means for
showing the way he operated in the world. This clarification is then used by the
master to demonstrate the way that Christ is worshiped by venerating a wooden
cross and how this relationship is comparable and even more significant than
the relationship of the Ark and God’s presence. In all of this, the Ark of the
Covenant becomes, in Bar Koni’s exegesis, a type of the cross.
. . .
Bar far the most important and consistently
used example among these authors is Moses, Leo explains that Christians honour
the cross, having learned to do so from a command given by God to Moses. Here, Leo
refers to Exodus 28:36-8 and the golden plate (tsīts) that God directed
Moses to make as a priestly vestment. On it was engraved the phrase ‘holy to
Yahweh’ (qodesh layahweh)—though Leo claims that the vestment ‘bore the
image of a cross, as the Word of God who suffered for us in His human nature’.
The vestment was to be worn by Aaron on his forehead (on the front of his turban)
and signify that he was bearing the guilt of the Israelites so that their gifts
to God might be acceptable. For Leo, the golden plate prefigured the cross as a
symbol and its function as the locus of Christ’s vicarious atonement for
humanity. Perhaps this is why Leo offers the curious invention of the cross allegedly
inscribed on the plate (instead of the Hebrew phrase meaning ‘holy to Yahweh’).
Even more interesting, Leo claims that this is the source of the Christian tradition
of making the sign of the cross on their foreheads. Of course, Leo may have had
in mind an exegetical tradition similar to one attached to Ezekiel 9:4, 6. Here
the Hebrew letter tāv, at one time written with intersecting lines in
the shape of a cross (either a ‘+’ or reclining on its side as ‘x’), was put on
the foreheads of those who mourned the abominations committed in Jerusalem.
Like Tertullian or Origen in the third century, exegetes looking in the Old
Testament for types of the cross could find ready material in the passage for
their pursuit. In a similar way, perhaps, the sign of the cross is given Old
Testament precedent by Leo. (Charles Tieszen, Cross Veneration in the
Medieval Islamic World: Christian Identity and Practice Under Muslim Rule [The
Early and Medieval Islamic World; London: I. B. Tauris, 2017], 76-77, 79-80)
Further Reading:
Answering Fundamentalist Protestants and Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox on Images/Icons