To interpret typologically
Or not to interpret typologically...
That is the question
Background: This discussion is based on various
resources including a lecture by Dr S. Lewis Johnson (Lecture
on Leviticus - Mp3 file), theological
journal articles (Dr Donald Campbell, Stanley Gundry, various Bible handbooks
and Bible dictionaries and a study of Hermeneutics by Dr Stephen R Lewis (Hermeneutics
- Study of Interpretation of Scriptures - recommended - interesting
overview of the history of Bible interpretation - see page 22)
Robertson McQuilkin writes
that typology is...
a major category of prophecy. Types are
common in Scripture—and commonly misunderstood. People, rites and
ceremonies, acts and events, objects, offices (e.g., prophet, priest, and
king)—all are used in Scripture as types.... a type can be defined as a
"prophetic symbol." A symbol is something used to represent something
else; it is often a material object representing something immaterial....A
type, by definition, points to the future. It is usually an Old Testament
type prefiguring something about redemption in the New Testament.... A
type may be different in essence from the thing typified, as an ordinary
symbol, but it may be something similar or even the same. Animal sacrifice
and the sacrificial system were designed to foretell the sacrificial,
redemptive work of Christ. Death is similar in both the type and the thing
typified. Melchizedek and David are seen as types of Christ. Both the type
and the object typified are human beings. (Understanding
and Applying the Bible - Robertson McQuilkin -
Recommended Resource or
Wordsearch)
The doctrine of typology
seems to be largely neglected in the modern church either because of
ignorance or because of exposure to some proponents who have grossly
distorted this interpretative method. Some may have heard such fanciful
typological interpretations, that they automatically tend to shy away at
any mention of the word type or typology (this writer was
once in this group, primarily because of ignorance).
Smith agrees lamenting
that...
It is exceedingly unfortunate that
modern scholarship has succeeded in almost eliminating the investigation
and teaching of typology as a valid interpretive pursuit. So much
has been lost of the richness and practical illustrative value which I
believe God intends we should have through an understanding of types...
Typology is a bad word in many theological circles, but it is not
difficult to see that God has a use for it, even if we do not. It is easy
to see why many have reacted adversely to this field of biblical
interpretation, for one only needs to read some of the writings of the
past centuries to see the tendency to overreach in this obviously
fascinating use of figurative language. (Smith,
Bob: Basics of Bible Interpretation - see chapter on Allegories and Types)
The goal of this brief
overview is to (1) substantiate the validity of typological interpretation
and (2) to educate the reader so that he or she might be enabled to
perform a rewarding, Spirit illuminated
typological study of the Old and New Testaments. Anyone who has ever
studied the "types" in the various components of the Tabernacle (the door,
the altar, the laver of water, the bread of the presence, the light, etc)
knows how exciting this "type" (pun intended) of study can be.
To sum up, typology can
either be used or abused. It reminds one of the analogy of a powerful
river, which if allowed to overflow its bounds can create great havoc and
destruction. The same river when kept within bounds and allowed to flow
through a dam like the Hoover Dam creates great power which is useful and
productive. So too, typological study out of bounds is destructive but
kept in bounds can be very instructive. So, consider reading the following
notes with an open, Spirit controlled (Ac 17:11-note) mind.
S Lewis Johnson reminds us...
that from the NT there are many
pictures of our Lord Jesus in the OT. The writer of Hebrews begins the
tenth chapter by saying that...
the Law...has only a shadow of the good
things to come and not the very form of things, (and) can never by the
same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect
those who draw near. (He 10:1-note)
So according to this passage, the OT is
a kind of "picture book" in which the ministry of Jesus Christ is set
forth. The Apostle Paul in Colossians 2 makes reference to this same truth
when he mentions the Sabbath, etc,...
Therefore let no one act as your judge
in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a
Sabbath day--17 things which are a mere shadow (see
skia)
of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. (Col 2:16, 17-note)
By declaring "the substance belongs to
Christ" Paul means that all of these ancient ceremonial requirements of
the Levitical economy were designed to point forward to the reality of our
Lord Jesus Christ.
The writer of the epistle to the
Hebrews makes mention of this same idea more than once. In the eighth
chapter as well as the tenth chapter he says something that pertains to
this idea.
(Concerning the OT and the Priesthood)
who serve a copy (see
hupodeigma)
and shadow (see
skia)
of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about
to erect the tabernacle; for, "SEE," He says, "THAT YOU MAKE all things
ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN (or type =
tupos)
WHICH WAS SHOWN YOU ON THE MOUNTAIN." (He 8:5-note)
(The Tabernacle) is a symbol
(parabole [literally = a throwing beside] ~ our word parable) for the
present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which
cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience (He 9:9-note)
To sum up, the NT authors repeatedly
make the point that the OT is a true foreshadowing of the ministry of the
Lord Jesus. I do not hear a great deal of preaching today in which the
types are stressed... I do think it is important and is something to which
we ought to pay careful attention. It is part of "old fashioned" preaching
of the Word of God and it encourages us in our doctrines of inspiration
and atonement, as we see the way in which the Old Testament pictured the
coming of Christ long before He came.... Part of the preaching of the Word
of God involves laying a stress on Old Testament as a revelation of God
that points forward to the Lord Jesus.
Donald Campbell explained
that...
Many who depreciate and minimize
typology do so because of the firm conviction that it is an area that by
its very nature is vague and uncertain. Some feel that typology admits of
no definite or fixed rules that would give direction and restrain
conjecture. To the contrary, it is to be seen that guiding principles can
be established...
The history of the interpretation of
types is a record of action and reaction. Exaggeration and extravagance
ruled the field of typology for many centuries.
The early Church Fathers, with
the exception of those in the Syrian School at Antioch, were largely
devotees of the allegorical method for the interpretation of Scripture
(see
page 25 in Pdf on Hermeneutics).
This involved as a concomitant factor an extremism in typology. The same
criticism must be leveled at the scholasticism of the Middle Ages (see
pp 31-37).
The Reformation (see
pp 38ff), in the train of
the Syrian School, brought a reaction against allegorism in favor of the
literal interpretation of Scripture (note). The Reformers were conservative in
their typology although they did not give much attention to the
subject. (Campbell,
Donald K: The Interpretation of Types: Bibliotheca Sacra. Volume 112.
Issue 447. Page 250. 1955)
WHAT IS
TYPOLOGY?
Dr S Lewis Johnson
defines typology as
the study of spiritual correspondences
between persons, events and things within the historical framework of
revelation." (From his
Lecture on Leviticus 3 [Mp3]
- Dr Johnson's 12 part audio series
Typology in Leviticus is highly recommended if you are
struggling to understand the relevance of Leviticus to you as a NT
believer. You will be edified and blessed! If you are really serious I
would also recommend downloading Lesson 1 [click
to download 43 page Pdf including diagrams of Tabernacle and
depictions of each offering - burnt, grain, peace, sin, guilt] from
Precept Ministries, which will give you an excellent introduction to
Leviticus as Lesson 1 covers chapters 1-7. If you want more, get the book
and do the all 7 lessons.)
Moorehead (See
his full article in ISBE
below) explains that...
Types are pictures,
object-lessons, by which God taught His people concerning His grace and
saving power. The Mosaic system was a sort of kindergarten in which God's
people were trained in divine things, by which also they were led to look
for better things to come.
Frey writes that
Scripture types…are the emblems, which
were designed by God to represent and prefigure some great and good things
to come. (Frey, Joseph: The Scripture Types)
The modern version of Webster's
dictionary defines
typology as a doctrine which holds that things in Christian belief are
prefigured by things in the Old Testament.
The older version of Webster's
(1828) is more bibliocentric defining type as...
1. The mark of something; an emblem;
that which represents something else. Thy emblem, gracious queen, the
British rose. Type of sweet rule and gentle majesty.
2. A sign; a symbol; a figure of something to come; as, Abraham's
sacrifice and the paschal lamb, were types of Christ. To this word
is opposed antitype (see Gk
antitupon). Christ, in this case, is the antitype.
The 1828 Webster's has
defines antitype as...
A figure corresponding to another
figure; that of which the type is the pattern or representation. Thus the
paschal lamb, in scripture, is the type of which Christ is the
antitype. An antitype (see Gk
antitupon) then, is something which is formed
according to a model or pattern, and bearing strong features of
resemblance to it.
I like Bob Smith's definition
of type...
I see a type as being a
premeditated resemblance which God has built into the Bible and history to
illustrate and teach truth---to make it easier to grasp than if it were
only stated in prosaic and propositional terms. It is a kindness of God to
stir our minds and imagination by the use of types --to make an
unforgettable impress. I see it as God's way of "putting his brand on our
brain" so that we cannot escape the impact of truth. (Smith,
Bob: Basics of Bible Interpretation - see chapter on Allegories and Types)
Wick Broomall says...
A type is a shadow cast on the
pages of Old Testament history by a truth whose full embodiment or
antitype is found in the New Testament revelation (Baker's Dictionary
of Theology, p. 533)
Sylvester Burnham (read this
one slowly) says...
A type is a person, object, or
fact, really existing in some past time, which, because of a divine intent
based upon some actual resemblance to some other person, object, or fact,
showed what was to be, in some respect, the nature or the character of
this second person, object, or fact" (The Elements of Biblical
Hermeneutics, p. 4).
Donald K. Campbell writes
that...
A type is an Old Testament
institution, event, person, object, or ceremony which has reality and
purpose in Biblical history, but which also by divine design foreshadows
something yet to be revealed" (Campbell,
Donald K: The Interpretation of Types: Bibliotheca Sacra. Volume 112.
Issue 447. Page 250. 1955)
R. T. France writes that
typology is a
correspondence between New and Old
Testament events, based on a conviction of the unchanging character of the
principles of God's working, and a consequent understanding and
description of the New Testament event in terms of the Old Testament
model" (Jesus and the Old Testament, p.40).
Charles T. Fritsch
A type is an institution, historical
event or person, ordained by God, which effectively prefigures some truth
connected with Christianity" ("Biblical Typology" Bibliotheca Sacra 104
[April-June 1947]: 214)
Carl Harwood notes that...
A type is a person or thing in the
Bible which in the foreknowledge of God was designed to represent or
prefigure some person, thing, or event that should appear in the future
(Handbook of Bible Types and Symbols, p. 7).
Bernard Ramm writes that
typology is
the interpretation of the Old Testament
based on the fundamental theological unity of the two Testaments whereby
something in the Old shadows, prefigures, adumbrates something in the New"
(Protestant Biblical Interpretation, p. 223).
T. Norton Sterrett writes
that a type is
a divinely purposed, Old Testament
fore-shadowing of a New Testament spiritual reality (How to Understand
Your Bible, p. 107)
Stephen Lewis describes state
that a type is...
An Old Testament person, event, or
thing having historical reality and designed by God to prefigure
(foreshadow) in a preparatory way a real person, event, or thing so
designated in the New Testament and that corresponds to and fulfills the
type.
A biblical person, event, or thing
having historical reality, that pictures (is analogous to) some
corresponding spiritual truth in a natural and unforced way and is not
explicitly designated in the New Testament as a type. (Course on
Hermeneutics, Chafer Theological Seminary)
Typology describes the
situation when something done in the OT is brought to notice and is shown
to have signified something done or about to be done in the NT.
The typological relation between the
two Testaments was summed up in Augustine
In the OT the NT lies hidden; in the NT
the OT stands revealed.
(Paraphrase "The Old is the New
concealed, while the New is the Old revealed.")
Stated another way typology
is the study of Biblical comparisons made between persons, events, things
and institutions of one biblical period and those of another, most often
between the OT and the NT (there are also comparisons between persons,
events, etc in the Old Testament but these are less common).
Typology in Scripture serves
to demonstrate the unbroken continuity in God’s plan of redemptive history
between the Old and New Testaments, and this alone should encourage us in
our faith in God's Word of Truth and His trustworthy character (see note
1Thessalonians 5:24).
The New Bible Dictionary has
an interesting definition of typology describing it as...
A way of setting forth the biblical
history of salvation so that some of its earlier phases are seen as
anticipations of later phases, or some later phase as the recapitulation
or fulfilment of an earlier one... In the NT the Christian salvation is
presented as the climax of the mighty works of God, as the ‘antitype’ of
His ‘typical’ mighty works in the OT. (Wood, D. R. W. New Bible
Dictionary. InterVarsity Press)
The Baker Encyclopedia of the
Bible writes that typology as the...
Branch of biblical interpretation in
which an element found in the OT prefigures one found in the NT. The
initial one is called the type and the fulfillment is designated
the antitype (see Gk
antitupon). Either type or antitype may be a
person, thing, or event, but often the type is Messianic and frequently
refers to salvation. In working with types, the safest procedure is to
limit them to those expressly mentioned in the Bible (cf. 1 Cor 4:6). On
the other hand, it is argued that such an approach limits the legitimate
use of types, for some obvious types are not mentioned in the NT. Further,
the types given in the NT are examples which demonstrate how to find
others in the OT.
Some examples may serve to identify
some biblical types and antitypes: Jesus said to Nicodemus,
As Moses lifted up the serpent in the
wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up” (Jn 3:14; cf. Nu 21:9)
The Passover lamb (Ex 12:1-13, 49) is a
type of Christ (1Cor 5:7)
The rock from which Israel drank in the
wilderness (Ex 17:6) prefigures Christ (1Cor 10:3, 4).
The Book of Hebrews is replete with
examples of types which represent the Messiah. All of the
sacrifices ordained by the ritual law which God gave at Sinai typified
some aspect of the person and work of Jesus. The blood that was sprinkled
on the altar spoke of the blood of the One Who was slain once for all (Heb
9:12-22).
In biblical study a type differs
from allegory, which generally spiritualizes Bible history (Ed
note: for more discussion of allegory and related topics see
[i.] Art and Science of Interpretation;
[ii.] The Rise of Allegorical
Interpretation;
[iii.] Understanding Symbols and
Figures
and
[iv.] Understanding Numbers)
. In the early church this technique was carried to exaggerated lengths by
Origen and followed by others....
There are details which are singled out
as types. For example, in the directions for the celebration of the
Passover, it is said of the roasted lamb, “you shall not break a
bone of it” (Ex 12:46). This is repeated by the psalmist in Psalm
34:20 as a predictive prophecy. In the account of the crucifixion of Jesus
(John 19:31-36), the Jews requested that the legs of the victims be broken
to hasten their death so the bodies could be removed from the crosses
before the Sabbath. When the soldiers came to Jesus, they found that he
was already dead and did not break his legs. (more discussion of typology
including differentiation from illustration, parable, (Elwell, W. A., &
Beitzel, B. J. Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible. Page 2109. Grand Rapids,
Mich: Baker Book House. 1988) (Bolding added)
The type is the initial
person, event, thing or institution while the corresponding and later
person, event, thing or institution is called the antitype (copy,
counterpart, see Gk
antitupon). The Apostle Paul portrays Christ as the antitype
of Adam (the type) in Romans 5:12–21 writing...
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam
until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the
offense of Adam, who is a type of Him Who was to come. (Ro 5:14-note)
Comment: To summarize Romans 5:12-21, just as Adam the type
represented all mankind in the fall, so that when he sinned, all mankind
sinned, so too Christ the antitype, in His death, burial and
resurrection represented all mankind who are to be redeemed by grace
through faith in His finished work. All mankind is either in Adam or in
Christ [cf 1Co 15:22]. In Christ believers have access to a high
position and glorious privileges that we could never have had in Adam
[e.g., seated in Christ at the right hand of the Father! Ep 2:6-note]
WHAT ARE THE MAJOR
COMPONENTS OF TYPOLOGY?
The essential components of
typology include...
(1)
Correspondence - There is a
correspondence (agreement of things with one another) between the events of the OT and their fulfillment in the
NT. Stated another way, the type and the antitype (see Gk
antitupon) have a natural
correspondence or resemblance.
Example: The type, the Passover Lamb in
Exodus 12:3, 4, 5ff provided redemption by his blood corresponds with the
antitype, "Christ our
Passover" (1Co 5:7), by Whose blood we have been redeemed (1Pe 1:18,
19-notes).
(2) Historicity
(historical actuality or authenticity) - The types are historical and are
not allegorical
(symbolic representations) and speak of events which actually occurred in time
and space in the Old Testament. In short, typology deals with events that
are historically true and actually happened. To reiterate, typology should not
be confused with allegorical interpretation which assigns
so-called "deeper meanings" to biblical persons, events, things or
institutions. Donald Campbell emphasizes this distinction explaining that...
A type is based upon a
recognition of the literal meaning of a given text of Scripture. Springing
from that literal meaning, however, is a foreshadowing of someone or
something yet to come. The allegory minimizes and often destroys
the literal and historical, “the milk,” in favor of the secondary sense,
“the meat.” This method of interpretation is to be avoided at all costs.
(Ibid - emphasis in bold mine)
The actual history of the biblical
story is unimportant in allegorical interpretation whereas in typology the
history is essential. And thus the original historical event is
viewed as the type and the later corresponding event is the
antitype that parallels, fulfills and/or even transcends the type
(as Christ the antitype did Adam the type - see note above). (See Tony
Garland's helpful discussion on the
Rise of Allegorical Interpretation)
The historical context and grammatical
meaning of the Old Testament texts must to be sought out and adhered to
diligently or otherwise the OT events would have had no validity if they
had not actually happened. Typology seeks to interpret how
these historical texts foreshadowed the historical Christ.
(3) Predictiveness
-
This feature arises out of the fact that God works according to the
patterns that are revealed in the OT and they find their fulfillment in
the NT. It follows that the types of the Old Testament point forward
to their
ultimate fulfillment in the NT. Type is similar to prophecy in that
both point to the future, but the difference is seen in the form of
prediction. In addition prophecy is the more specific and may be used to
teach a doctrine, whereas a type should be employed to illustrate a
doctrine elsewhere taught.
In regard to the predictiveness
of typology Gundry adds that...
the essence of a type is that it is in
some sense predictive, every bit as predictive as a verbal utterance of
predictive prophecy. Typology was regarded as a species of
predictive prophecy. The correspondence (Ed note: the second major
criteria which needs to be fulfilled in order to warrant consideration of
a person, place, event, etc as a type) between type and antitype,
whatever the nature of that correspondence, was not a mere analogy nor an
artificially imposed scheme on the part of the writers of Scripture; the
Old Testament types were foreshadowings in a predictive
sense of Christ and His saving Person and work. Though the Old Testament
writers may have been unaware of these things, still God in His
inspiration of them intended this result. (Gundry,
Stanley: Typology as a Means of Interpretation: Past and Present. Journal of
the Evangelical Theological Society Volume 12:237, Fall, 1969) (Bolding added)
The Pocket Dictionary for Biblical
Studies gives us an excellent example of a historical,
corresponding, predictive type and antitype
writing that...
the sacrifice of Isaac, Abraham’s
“beloved son,” in Genesis 22 is picked up in the NT as a type of
Christ (the antitype),
God’s beloved Son given for all. God’s redemptive activity in the one
event comes to completion in the second (predictiveness).
Both occurrences are real and concrete (historicity),
but they transcend mere chronological or causal correspondence and
signify the ongoing redemptive activity of God in creation. (Patzia, A.
G., & Petrotta, A. J. Pocket Dictionary of Biblical Studies. Page 120.
Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press. 2002). (Comment: Note that
words in green
are my "editorial" comments. Notice also that the Genesis 22 event
completely satisfies all three major criteria of a type and thus
warrant its interpretation as a valid type, with the offering of Jesus by
the Father in John 3:16 serving as the antitype. Other NT verses
that one might reasonably consider as valid antitypes include Ro
5:10
[note]
and Ro 8:32
[note]),
cf Ro 5:8
[note],
1Jn 4:9,10)
IS
TYPOLOGICAL
INTERPRETATION JUSTIFIED?
The basic presuppositions
which justify the use of typology as an interpretative
method include...
(1) The OT history is divine
salvation history. The writer of Hebrews says that...
God, after He spoke long ago to the
fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last
days has spoken to us in His Son (He 1:1, 2 -notes)
In other words, God's revelation came
to man in various ways - dreams, vision, institutions (e.g., the
tabernacle, the priesthood) , by events (e.g., the Passover and the Exodus
from bondage in Egypt) and the events that followed (e.g., wilderness
wanderings) and led to Israel's entrance into the "promised land". In
short, the OT history is divine salvation history.
(2) The OT history is Christological
and all points forward to various facets (think of the facets of a
diamond) of the life and ministry of our
Lord Jesus Christ, not just His first coming but also His second
coming. The OT from Moses through the prophets constitutes a revelation of
the things that specifically point to and describe the Messiah.
One danger in interpretation of OT
types as pointing to Christ is to look for "hidden" meanings underlying
the primary and obvious meaning and when this happens typology shades into
allegory. This practice has in fact caused many to shy away altogether
from typological interpretation of the Old Testament, but that is akin to
proverbially "throwing the baby out with the bath water." Typology has a
valid place in hermeneutics (science or study of the methodological
principles of interpretation, in this context referring to the
Scriptures), but it must stay within well defined bounds, lest it become
fanciful and foolish. The shift from typology to allegorical
interpretation occurred in the first century AD and unfortunately
dominated the interpretative methods throughout the Middle Ages, unto the
time of the Reformation.
Gundry records that...
Calvin and Luther brought about a new
epoch in the typological interpretation of scripture with their return to
the literal sense and methodical exegesis of scripture. With
this renewed concern for the grammatico-historical sense came a new
appreciation of typology. A typology grounded in an appreciation of
the historical verities (cf "Historicity") precipitated a
distinction once more between the typological and allegorical, though
neither Calvin nor Luther worked out a system of typology of his own. But
through them typology had gained a new lease on life. But once again it
soon began to run wild in the fanciful production of far-fetched types.
(Ibid)
A popular question in Christian circles
has been "What would Jesus do?" which is a good question to ask of
typology. What saith the Scriptures?
In Luke 24, as the two believers
in Messiah were walking on the road to Emmaus discussing the events of
Jesus' crucifixion, the Lord appeared to them (but his identity was veiled
to them)...
And He said to them, "O foolish men and
slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! "Was it not
necessary for the Christ (the Messiah) to suffer these things (betrayal,
unjust trial, cruel crucifixion) and to enter into His
glory?" And beginning with Moses (the first 5 books of the OT, the
Pentateuch) and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things
concerning Himself in all the Scriptures. (Luke 24:25, 26, 27, cf "all
things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and
the Psalms" in Luke 24:44, cf also Peter's pronouncement in Acts 3:18
to the Jews at Pentecost - "the things which God announced beforehand
by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ should suffer, He has
thus fulfilled." See also notes on the phrase "according to the
Scriptures" in 1Co 15:3, 4-notes).
In John 3 as Jesus explained the
new birth to Nicodemus, He used a reference to the Old Testament to make
His point to the spiritually blind "teacher of Israel" (John 3:10)...
"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in
the wilderness (type), even so must the Son of Man be lifted up (antitype);
that whoever believes may in Him have eternal life." (John 3:14,15 compare
with Numbers 21:7, 8, 9)
In John 6 Jesus' followers after
having been served bread by the Lord, asked Him...
"What then (Jesus had just declared "This
is the work of God, that you believe in Him Whom He has sent.") do You
do for a sign, that we may see, and believe You? What work do You perform?
"Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, 'HE GAVE
THEM BREAD OUT OF HEAVEN TO EAT.'"
Jesus therefore said to them, "Truly,
truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of
heaven (type), but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out
of heaven (antitype). For the bread of God is that which comes down
out of heaven, and gives life to the world....I am the living bread (antitype)
that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he shall live
forever; and the bread also which I shall give for the life of the world
is My flesh." John 6:30, 31, 32, 33, 51 compare the "type" in Ex
16:4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,12, 13, 14, 15, cp. Nehemiah 9:15, Psalms 78:24,25)
(3) The OT history is pedagogical
(relating to, or befitting a teacher or education).
This means the the OT Scriptures were divinely planned and intended to
teach us certain truths today.
For whatever was written in earlier
times (refers to OT) was written for our instruction, that through perseverance and the
encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope (absolute assurance
that God will do God to us and for us in the future). (Ro 15:4-note)
And so we see that Paul clearly taught that the OT was
divinely planned not only to instruct the OT saints but NT
saints as well. (cf 1Co 10:6, 11).
(4) The OT history is partial and
incomplete. Peter alluded to this in his first letter recording that...
As to this salvation, the prophets who
prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful search and
inquiry, seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within
them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ (cf
prediction = "the type"; fulfillment = "the "antitype") and the
glories to follow. (1Pe 1:10, 11-note)
The OT prophets sought to know the times and
circumstances by which their prophecies would come to pass but their
knowledge was partial and incomplete. Peter then
explains that "these things...now have been announced to you through
those who preached the gospel to you (believers in the NT era) by the Holy Spirit" (1Pe
1:12-note).
In other words, these truths which were partial and incomplete in the OT
had now been revealed to saints in the NT. The OT clearly had a meaning in
its historical context but also had a "fore" meaning in light of NT
revelation.
It needs to be underscored that
typology is not an invitation to fanciful interpretations of the
truths in the OT. On the other hand, some teach that we should never
attempt to see things in the OT which are not there in a
historical-grammatical sense. There is clearly some truth in this caution
for we are not to attempt to see typology that has no support (no
historicity, correspondence or predictiveness). To do so would lead to
fanciful, potentially erroneous and harmful interpretation.
On the other hand, there is no validity
to the idea that we are not to interpret the OT in light of the NT. The NT
in fact was written in light of the foundational teaching in the OT. For
example, it would be very difficult to understand the Messianic promise in
Genesis 3:15 if we did not understand the rest of the Bible. But from the
perspective of NT revelation, when we look at the OT, we are able to
see things that we could not have seen without the light of revelation of
the NT. The truth of the OT is unchanged, but our ability to see the
different facets of that truth is changed.
MOOREHEAD'S EXCELLENT
SUMMARY OF TYPOLOGY
In the
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia William G. Moorehead has a balanced, well reasoned discussion
on typology noting that...
The Bible furnishes abundant evidence
of the presence of types and of typical instruction in the Sacred Word.
The New Testament attests this fact. It takes up a large number of persons
and things and events of former dispensations, and it treats them as
adumbrations (Ed note: vague foreshadowing) and prophecies of the future.
A generation ago a widespread
interest in the study of typology prevailed; latterly the interest has
largely subsided, chiefly because of the vagaries and extravagances which
attended its treatment on the part of not a few writers. Pressing the
typical teaching of Scripture so far as to imperil the historical validity
of God's word is both dangerous and certain to be followed by reaction and
neglect of the subject.
1. Definition of Type:
The word type is derived from a Greek
term
tupos, which occurs 16 times in the New Testament. It is variously
translated in the King James Version, e.g. twice "print" (Jn
20:25); twice "figure" (Acts 7:43;
Ro 5:14
[note]);
twice "pattern" (Titus 2:7
[note]; He 8:5
[note]);
once "fashion" (Acts 7:44); once "manner" (Acts 23:25); once "form"
(Ro 6:17
[note]); and 7 times
as example" (1Cor 10:6, 11,
Php 3:17
[note]; 1Th 1:7
[note]; 2Th 3:9; 1Ti
4:12; 1Pe 5:3
[note]).
It is clear from these texts that the
New Testament writers use the word type with some degree of
latitude; yet one general idea is common to all, namely, likeness.
A person, event or thing is so fashioned or
appointed as to resemble another; the one is made to answer to the other
in some essential feature; in some particulars the one matches the other.
The two are called type and antitype; and the link which binds them
together is the correspondence, the similarity, of the one with the
other...
Types are pictures,
object-lessons, by which God taught His people concerning His grace and
saving power. The Mosaic system was a sort of kindergarten in which God's
people were trained in divine things, by which also they were led to look
for better things to come.
An old writer thus expresses it:
"God in the types of the last
dispensation was teaching His children their letters. In this dispensation
He is teaching them to put the letters together, and they find that the
letters, arrange them as they will, spell Christ, and nothing but Christ."
In creation the Lord uses one thing for
many purposes. One simple instrument meets many ends. For how many ends
does water serve! And the atmosphere: it supplies the lungs, conveys
sound, diffuses odors, drives ships, supports fire, gives rain, fulfills
besides one knows not how many other purposes. And God's Word is like His
work, is His work, and, like creation, is inexhaustible. Whatever God
touches, be it a mighty sun or an insect's wing, a vast prophecy or a
little type, He perfects for the place and the purpose He has in mind.
2. Distinctive Features:
What are the distinctive features of a
type? A type, to be such in reality, must possess three well-defined
qualities.
(1) It must be a true picture of the person or the thing it
represents or prefigures. A type is a draft or sketch of some well-defined
feature of redemption, and therefore it must in some distinct way resemble
its antitype, e.g. Aaron as high priest is a rough figure of Christ the
Great High Priest, and the Day of Atonement in Israel (Leviticus 16:1ff) must be a true picture
of the atoning work of Christ.
(2) The type must be of divine
appointment. In its institution it is designed to bear a
likeness to the antitype. Both type and antitype are
preordained as constituent parts of the scheme of redemption. As centuries
sometimes lie between the type and its accomplishment in the antitype, of
course infinite wisdom alone can ordain the one to be the picture of the
other. Only God can make types.
(3) A type always prefigures
something future. A Scriptural type and predictive prophecy are
in substance the same, differing only in form. This fact distinguishes
between a symbol and a type. A symbol may represent a
thing of the present or of the past as well as of the future, e.g. the
symbols in the Lord's Supper. A type always looks to the future; an
element of prediction must necessarily be in it.
3. Classification of Types:
Another thing in the study of types
should be borne in mind, namely, that a thing in itself evil cannot be the
type of what is good and pure. It is somewhat difficult to give a
satisfactory classification of Biblical types, but broadly they may be
distributed under three heads:
(1) Personal types, by which are meant
those personages of Scripture whose lives and experiences illustrate some
principle or truth of redemption. Such are Adam, who is expressly
described as the "figure of him that was to come" (Ro 5:14-note), Melchizedek, Abraham,
Aaron, Joseph, Jonah, etc.
(2) Historical types, in which are included the
great historical events that under Providence became striking foreshadowings
of good things to come, e.g. the Deliverance from the Bondage of Egypt;
the Wilderness Journey; the Conquest of Canaan; the Call of Abraham;
Deliverances by the Judges, etc.
(3) Ritual types, such
as the Altar, the Offerings, the Priesthood, the Tabernacle and its
furniture. There are typical persons, places, times, things, actions, in
the Old Testament, and a reverent study of them leads into a thorough
acquaintance with the fullness and the blessedness of the Word of God (Ed
note: Amen!)
4. How Much of the Old Testament Is
Typical?:
How much of the Old Testament is to be
regarded as typical is a question not easily answered. Two
extremes, however, should be avoided.
First, The extravagance of some of
the early Fathers, as Origen, Ambrose, Jerome (revived in our time by
Andrew Jukes and his imitators). They sought for types, and of course
found them, in every incident and event, however trivial, recorded in
Scripture. Even the most simple and commonplace circumstance was thought
to conceal within itself the most recondite truth. Mystery and mysticism
were seen everywhere, in the cords and pins of the tabernacle, in the
yield of herds, in the death of one, in the marriage of another, even in
the number of fish caught by the disciples on the night the risen Saviour
appeared to them--how much some have tried to make of that number, 153!
The very serious objection to this method is, that it wrests Scripture out
of the sphere of the natural and the historical and locates
it in that of the arbitrary and the fanciful; it tends to destroy the
validity and trustworthiness of the record. (Ed note: And this
latter is the gravest potential danger, for if the Scriptures lose their
trustworthiness, our faith is affected. We don't lose our salvation but we
can become spiritually "weak" for "faith comes from hearing, and
hearing by the word of Christ." Ro 10:17-note)
Second, the undue contraction of the
typical element. "Professor Moses Stuart expresses this view as
follows: "Just so much of the Old Testament is to be accounted typical as
the New Testament affirms to be so, and no more." This opinion assumes
that the New Testament writers have exhausted the types of the Old
Testament, while the fact is that those found in the later Scripture are
but samples taken from the storehouse where many more are found. If they
are not, then nothing is more arbitrary than the New Testament use of
types, for there is nothing to distinguish them from a multitude of others
of the same class. Further, the view assumes that divine authority alone
can determine the reality and import of types--a view that applies with
equal force against prophecy.
This rule may be safely followed:
wherever the three characteristics of types are found which have been
already mentioned, there is the type.
Weighty are the words of one equally
eminent for his piety as for his learning:
"That the Old Testament is rich in
types, or rather forms in its totality one type, of the New Testament,
follows necessarily from the entirely unique position which belongs to
Christ as the center of the history of the world and of revelation. As we
constantly see the principle embodied in the vegetable and animal
kingdoms, that the higher species are already typified in a lower stage of
development, so do we find, in the domain of saving revelation, the
highest not only prepared for, but also shadowed forth, by that which
precedes in the lower spheres" (Van Oosterzee).
(Ed note: Gundry in his article
amplifies Moorehead's comments writing that...
Though the man whose name designates
this group was not the originator of this view, a group known as the
school of Bishop Marsh propagated the rule of thumb that a type is a type
only when the New Testament specifically designates it to he such. Since
this is a clear and precise formula, it has exercised a great influence on
conservative Protestant interpretation since the time of Marsh. However, a
more moderate school of thought pointed out that the New Testament
practically invites the interpreter to find additional types in Scripture.
Thus, this mediating school tried to resist the wild extravagances of the
Cocceian school (The Cocceian school of the mid-seventeenth century fell
into the irregularities of the ancient allegorists), but it still insisted
that the possibilities of a typological interpretative method were
certainly greater than Bishop Marsh bad suggested. Hence, the mediating
school suggested that there were two varieties of types:
1) innate types, or those
specifically declared to be types in the New Testament; and
2) inferred types, or those not
specifically designated in the New Testament but justified for their
existence by the nature of the New Testament materials on typology.
The most able systematizer and defender
of this approach has been Patrick Fairbairn, and he is supported by Terry
in his Biblical Hermeneutics. In present-day conservative Protestantism
(fundamentalism, evangelicalism, orthodoxy or whatever other term may be
regarded as descriptive) the above three approaches to typology continue
to co-exist. There are those who play the typological theme to the point
that it practically amounts to allegorical interpretation. In reaction to
these excesses, Bishop Marsh has many modern followers; but probably the
majority of modern conservative Protestants seek to maintain a mediating
position similar to that of Fairbairn and Terry. [Gundry,
Stanley: Typology as a Means of Interpretation: Past and Present. Journal of
the Evangelical Theological Society Volume 12:237, Fall, 1969])
LITERATURE REFERENCED BY MOOREHEAD
IN THE ISBE ARTICLE...
P. Fairbairn, Typology of Scripture, 2 volumes (Alternate
Source) - He holds to
the interpretative approach that the types include both those which are
designated in the Scriptures and also those that are implied.
Angus, The Bible Handbook;
Andrew Jukes, Law of Offerings in Leviticus
- He holds to the interpretative approach that the only valid types are
only those which are so designated in the Scriptures
Mather, Gospel of Old Testament, Explanation of
Types;
McEwen, Grace and Truth: Types and Figures of the
Old Testament;
Soltau, Tabernacle, Priesthood and Offerings.
Related Resource:
Type, Typology - Baker's Evangelical
Dictionary of Biblical Theology
