Types

The apostle Paul, and many of the other Biblical writers were quite fond of using types to interpret Old Testament prophecy. I was wondering if anybody out there knows where in the Old Testament the inspired writers based this method of interpretation on. Such as, what verses out there led them to say "I can interpret with these cool things called types."

Hi PTCI'm alittle suprised that you have not got a answer to this post. It has been said that if someone calls themself a teacher of God's Word and they don't know bible typology, don't listen to them. A picture is worth a 1000 words and that basicly what a type is. A word picture to look at and see truths. You are not to make doctrine out of them. They are meant to bring out deeper truths or confirm doctrine.I see types as a family lanugage. (one of many ways that God speak to His chrildren) Most friends and family speak with types. If a family member says something about uncle Joe, then anyone that knows uncle Joe will understand much more deeply what is being spoken of. If you don't know him then you will probably not understand much of what is being said.One more point about types is that they are OT pictures of NT truths. All true bible types point to Christ.This is a big but important subject. I believe that typology is only the beginning in learning to unlock the deeper truths hidden in God's Word. I would be glad to answer any question that you have.Take care, Mark

Mark,I agree with what you say. I'm a little shocked myself that I haven't had any feedback yet. I'm familar with bible types, and sometimes the Holy Spirit will show me when I read the OT, that something is a type. For example, I can remember a few years ago when I was reading the story of Abraham preparing Isaac for sacrifice, and it being said "God will provide the sacrifice." After I read this, I immediately believed that this somehow tied to Christ. I found out after a little while that other Christians have believed the same. However, if I had to explain to a unbelieving Jew why typology is a good method of interpretation, I'm afraid I couldn't show them such from the O.T Scriptures the validity of this method. Such recently occured to me, and I thought, that perhaps I should come across an unbelieving Jew one day, and wished to show them Christ through Types, they'd probably just look at me in bewilderment for using such a method. They might ask me what Biblical basis in the O.T. I have for such an interpretation, and I would not be able to answer.So, any insights you or others might have on the matter is greatly welcomed.

Hey PTCIf you were to speak about types to a Jewish person you would start by speaking about Midrash.If he or you don't know what this is then there will probably be little real knowledge pass. Kind of like the uncle Joe thing.I did a "study in types", inwhich I tell about Midrash, on another board. I will post (a new post) it here and we can go over it if you would like.Mark

Mark,I've had a bit of a flirtation with the Midrash, but not much more than that. I have "The Classic Midrash" on my book shelf, but have not been able to get around to reading it. I can't say I have much understanding of it, and if memory serves me correctly, the Midrash is simply a way of repackaging the stories of the (Old Testament) Scriptures for various purposes e.g. liturgical, modern application, etc.Correct me if I am wrong :) Please feel free to post your link and we can go over things.

With many preachers in my church background, "typology" was a very big deal. I think in many cases people "see" types that simply aren't there. As to the NT writers, it seems to me that the Holy Spirit showed them what was a true "type and shadow" of things to come in the OT. I think a very real danger in emphasizing typology is that it is in some cases too close to allegorizing scripture. I have no problem affirming the OT types that are clearly shown to be such in the NT, like the tabernacle, feasts, etc.

Exodus tells us that Moses made the tabernacle "according to the pattern which he saw on the mountain."This indicates that the tabernacle was a mirror or shadow of the things that Moses had been shown on the mountain rather than the real things in themselves. This shows that the real substance is not in the things (or practices) but in what was seen on the mountain. Since Moses was with God on the mountain, it is clear that he was seeing spiritual things. That is probably the quickest route to understanding the origin of types. There are other examples of this (for example, Ezekiel constantly uses "like" or "as" words indicating that his descriptions of his visions were similes for something of more substance -- again pointing to a spiritual application of his words), but this is probably the easiest.Hope that helps.

With many preachers in my church background, "typology" was a very big deal. ...I think a very real danger in emphasizing typology is that it is in some cases too close to allegorizing scripture.Indeed. And sometimes some people outright confuse a type with an allegory... though there are some parallel's. The most common confusion I've seen on the issue is when they quote Galatians, where Paul talks about Hagar and Sarah as an allegory, yet many confuse this as a type... and will even quote it as a type. The main difference between an allegory and a type is that a type is always a foreshadow of things to come through an object-lesson. Whereas an allegory doesn't point forward to anything, but rather, just has a symbolic meaning. The type always gives way to the "anti-type." The type can be fulfilled, the allegory cannot. That's not to say there isn't some parallel, for without a doubt, both have in common the concept of symbolism. Paul's example in Galatians was not to show a foreshadow (a type), but to simply show that those born according to the promises of God, they are children of freedom, whereas the others are children of slavery. He was speaking in purely symbolic terms, and not trying to show us a type.

This may be one that is well-known by many of you, but God actually just taught me about types this past week. In the book of Ruth, Boaz (kinsman-redeemer) redeems both Naomi/Mara (Israelite) and Ruth (Gentile). It's a type for Christ's redemption of both Jews and Gentiles. :-)And Abraham's near-sacrifice of Isaac was a type of God sacrificing Jesus on that same spot many years later. And we're familiar with Moses' holding up of the snake is Christ on the cross.Learn something new everyday. :-D Thanks be to God!!

Typeology, as best as I can tell, can be seen in the patterns and the customs of the time at wich a certain scripture was written. The message that was conveyed then is still valid today. The typeology is also a foreshadow. The Bible is a process of progressive revelation, so by its nature it's going to be filled with many foreshadowings. Gen. 3:15 is called the "Proto Evangeleon" or the first gospel. Here we are given the first prophecy of Christ. We are only given a small glimpse of what the messiah would do. Later writers would progressively give us more information about what Christ's life and ministry would be like on earth. From our position in Redemptive History, we can look back and see the types and shadows that the prophets were writing about as they unfolded in the life of Christ. We can also see how people responed to God in faith or lack of it and compare that to ourselves and how we respond in life.There is another type of interpretation called alleghory. One of the few problems I have with Augustine is his use and reliance on alleghory to interpret the scriptures. Alleghory can over-spiritualize the text and can give a person great liscense in how he/she derrives the meaning of a particular passage. Read Augustine's interpretation of the parable of the man on the road to Jericho for a good example of alleghory.I hope I haven't muddied the waters up too much on this subject.In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

typrs and shadows have to do with the overall shape of a thing. They are able to map outline. They are also 2 dimensional. Reality is always (at least) 3 dimensional.Imagine a figure of a man with a light behind him. As you approach him you encounter the shadow first. As you draw near you see colour and detail. Sometimes shadows can be frightening. We can only appreciate the shadow properly when we have met the reality.Many OT events can serve as types and shadows, but pictures are not the reality. Jesus used pictures (parables) because of hardheartedness. When things came into clear focus the disciples said 'now you're speaking plainly'.

A somewhat useful resource in biblical typology that I have is A Dictionary of Bible Types by Walter L. Wilson.I like the way the editor classifies the entries into three categories. Entries in class A are those explicitly identified as types by the scripture. Those in class B and C are classified based on the strength of biblical evidences.This is helpful because it raises awareness of the dangers of typology -- reading our own wishful thinking into the Word of God.As another poster pointed out, the Jews in the first century would be familiar to similar approaches to scripture, typically known midrash. However, it probably would not help to convince a Jew today in this way that the OT is tied to Christ. After all, typology is a method of understanding the OT in light of the NT.

The shadow or type expressed in Scripture exists no doubt. What I find problematic is that men, for instance, label the appearance of Christ in Old Testament Scripture, as a Christophany (sp). This term then defines a set of ideas which often dismiss the actual work that Christ was accomplishing in the Scripture which has been labeled as such. It dismisses man's responsiblity to recognize that Christ does not change, He has always been part of the Trinity. Thus man has denied Him throughout the generations. Likewise the work of the Holy Spirit has always existed and has never changed between God and man. Moses wrote, "And the Lord said, My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty." Genesis 6:3 After a hundred years passed the great flood came. What does it mean that God's Spirit strives with man? What does it mean when James writes, "Or do you think that the Scripture says in vain, "The Spirit who dwells in us yearns jealously?" What Old Testament Scripture is James refering too?Does salvation differ from the book of Genesis or Job to the book of Revelation? As Ravenhill preaches, "What are we save from. From hell? From lying? From stealing? What are we saved from?????God calls through His Holy Spirit, repent, turn back to me. God restores men's souls through the work of Christ.In ChristJeff

"After all, typology is a method of understanding the OT in light of the NT."Could it be both ways ?

joukos:"After all, typology is a method of understanding the OT in light of the NT."Could it be both ways ? Yes, I think it goes both ways, although in different sense.We must understand the NT in light of the OT, because the writings of the first century authors are saturated with OT concepts and allusions. The Gospel of John, for instance, is so full of OT allusions that without a proper understanding of the OT we could never fully appreciate. (e.g. References to the lamb that removes sin, manna, bronze serpent, God as the "I AM", etc.)The point that I was making in my previous posting is that we cannot expect those who did not have a NT perspective (such as Jews) to understand OT typology the way we do, unless faith opens the way. After all, they do not have the full revelation that we as NT believers have received.

joukos wrote: We must understand the NT in light of the OT, because the writings of the first century authors are saturated with OT concepts and allusions...The point that I was making in my previous posting is that we cannot expect...unless faith opens the way.Amen! Faith means to follow God, He will reveal Himself to us. I once said as a new believer, "I only need the NT, I have no interest in the OT. An old man spoke after me. He said that he lives in the OT. For there is where you find the mysteries of God. In never saw him again. But that night began a journey that now I say, I spend most of my time in the OT. There is where the mysteries of God are.Jesus spoke to the men on the road to Emmaus, "And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself...And they said to one another, "Did not our heart burn within us while He talked with us on the road, and while He opened the Scriptures to us.? Luke 24:27,32Everytime I hear someone say the OT is boring I know the condition of their spiritual lives.In ChristJeff

Jeff:Re: ChristophanyI need you to clarify why "Christophany" is a problematic term. As far as I could see, it literally means "the appearance of Christ to his disciples." Applied to the OT, it means "the appearance of Christ before His Incarnation." This definition, in my opinion, does not carry any implication that Christ was ever not part of the Triune God.Re: SpiritI am also a little puzzled here -Are you saying that James 4:5 is quoting Genesis 6:3? Frankly, I do not see the connection.(As for what James is referring to in 4:5, the IVP NT Commentaries on James says, "We would be helped in determining the meaning if a definite Old Testament origin could be identified, but there is no verse like the last half of 4:5. In the absence of a definite reference by which to establish the meaning, two major understandings have been proposed...," etc. Biblegateway.com)Nevertheless, references to the work of the Spirit of God are quite clear in the OT. It does seem though that there are no reference in the OT to the Spirit's indwelling within the believer (The OT emphasis seems to be on the Spirit's outpouring on individuals in order to empower them to accomplish specific tasks for God-- note that the Spirit departed from Saul after his kingship was rejected in 1 Samuel 16:14). Therefore, I think there are perhaps aspects of experiencing the Spirit that the NT believers enjoy to a fuller extent than the OT people of God. Jeff, I think in the overall picture, we have much agreement. I do not doubt that the Triune God co-existed from eternity to eternity, nor do I doubt that the Trinity worked throughout the OT. Indeed, I believe that Christ is the ultimate central theme of all of Scripture. And typology is one of the legitimate methods to draw out this connection between the OT and the NT -- Christ is the all in all. May glory be to him, for ever and ever.

joukos wrote: We must understand the NT in light of the OT, because the writings of the first century authors are saturated with OT concepts and allusions...The point that I was making in my previous posting is that we cannot expect...unless faith opens the way.Hey Jeff! I wrote that, not joukos! Agent001

Sorry brother. In Christ Jeff