Typology

[shadowhunter]

Hi,

M.R. DeHaan said, "You have never found the true interpretation of any passage of the Scripture until you have found in it somewhere a reference to the Lord Jesus Christ. If you search long enough you will find Him standing somewhere in the background, sometimes clear and unmistakable, sometimes faintly and dimly, but He is there."

I heard him say that when I was a new Christian. It has guided my studies through 26 years of ministry, and now I am being called a heretic for finding Christ in the Old Testament. I am looking for fellowship with people who do not think reading the Bible is dangerous.

An early mentor was RM and he had no problem with finding Christ. Is there a consensus here as to whether it is welcome or not. I would like to share the results of my studies.

Thanks.

 

[DerSchweik]

Hi bro! Welcome to CF and to the RM forum!

I'm not an expert in typology but you are welcome to post your thoughts here and if there is agreement or disagreement, I think you'll find members in this forum civil and accomodating - and well-prepared to discuss most any topic germaine to this forum.

Do read the Forum Specific Guidelines for posting here, just to make sure you understand where we are coming from and what sort of posts / threads / topics are or are not allowed ok? I think where topics in typology meld with RM views, there will be no issues. Where they may conflict (and don't know if that'll happen or not), it's best to either post in the "Formal Discussion / Teaching" subforum here (light debating) or perhaps to one of the main forums handling theological studies.

Any questions, just holler!

God bless!

 

[shadowhunter]

Thanks for the welcome.

I have posted probably a bit too much too fast over at:

http://christianforums.com/t7162421-sharing-a-gift.html

I know that my hermeneutic will appear strange at first. I just hope that rather than get knee jerk reactions, we can search the scriptures together to see what they say.

I have been a bi-vocational evangelist/pastor in Utah for 26 years. When I first started seeing the shadows, I did not know how I was seeing them. Now I can explain the method and even teach it.

The first question should be, do they exist or are they invention. If they exist, we should see what they say. If they are invention, then I want no part of them.

I must say at this point I am personally convinced that they exist, because I know my own part in them, and I know that I do not invent them. But I expect a great deal of skepticism from this crowd, and I would hope that you will demand that I prove them from the scripture.

And if you wish, I can take a different approach here than in the other thread. I can explain the hermeneutic in detail, and show that the hermeneutic itself is derived from the scriptures.

I do hope that you will not decide the issue, before hearing it. Thanks.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

Hi,

M.R. DeHaan said, "You have never found the true interpretation of any passage of the Scripture until you have found in it somewhere a reference to the Lord Jesus Christ. If you search long enough you will find Him standing somewhere in the background, sometimes clear and unmistakable, sometimes faintly and dimly, but He is there."

I heard him say that when I was a new Christian. It has guided my studies through 26 years of ministry, and now I am being called a heretic for finding Christ in the Old Testament. I am looking for fellowship with people who do not think reading the Bible is dangerous.

An early mentor was RM and he had no problem with finding Christ. Is there a consensus here as to whether it is welcome or not. I would like to share the results of my studies.

Thanks.

Hmmmm... Well, first of all, welcome!

Second, I have a hard time fathoming somebody being called a heretic for finding Christ in the Old Testament. Not every verse mentions Him by name, obviously, but the entirety of the OT points us to Jesus and our Messianic hope.

I'll probably converse more with you when I have a little more time - but I gotta run right now.

Welcome aboard!

 

[shadowhunter]

Thanks Parson,

'Tis a fact. Apparently, in a reaction against some colorful exegesis in the 60's and 70's, a bunch of popular Christian leaders gathered in Chicago and signed the Chicago statement on Biblical hermeneutics.

Although their intentions may have been good, the result is the beginning of the Chicago Inquisition. Instead of controlling what you must believe, by defining Biblical hermeneutics they control how you arrive at what you believe.
Article VII

WE AFFIRM that the meaning expressed in each biblical text is single, definite and fixed.

This article eliminates the possibility of double meaning such as the classic Christmas "virgin - young woman" debate. If you can't persuade the masses that it doesn't talk about the virgin birth by reason, then just legislate it away. The consequence is that fig leaf aprons are just fig leaf aprons and not representative of man's attempt to cover his own sin.

Their Bibles are dead now, and they wonder why their churches are. So they pump them up with entertainment. ( I am probably speaking too plainly for being a stranger here. Rather than reading this as an accusation, please read it as a statement of my own sinful attitudes towards others.)

The Chicago Inquisition has grown to the point that they merely ridicule and accuse rather than engage in conversation or debate. Many who hold paid positions in seminary, though they privately do not agree with the exaggerated implication of the statement are fearful of placing their names on anything that would question it.

A professor was removed from a seminary in Florida by trying to use verbiage in their confession to enforce the Chicago statement. He was teaching that passages in Revelation were figurative. The session had enough sense to reinstate him.

So now God has blessed me with the ability to not only see shadows beyond what Macintosh and Pink could imagine, but to justify them from scripture using a hermeneutic that was available in the first century.

I have been looking for the place that He would have me share them. He did not give them to me to bottle up somewhere. And at a time when many churches and pastors have accepted the Chicago statement, I am beginning to believe that God wants us to see his Son in the scriptures more than ever.

When I was a new Christian, I was mentored by a Church of Christ elder among others in Northern California. As we discussed the scriptures we would correlate them and compare them and tear them apart and put them back together, We would propose heresy and reject it on biblical grounds.

I have sought out this group because I expect a firm grounding in the scriptures and acceptance as per the forum creed... um .. just teasing.. Specific Guidelines.

Being just a Christian has permitted me to work with many from other groups, but has also made me sensitive to discerning the difference between scripture, and the construct we place upon it to correlate it all in our own minds. Constructs are OK as long as they don't become creeds themselves.

And you should know that I was formally asked to not be a part of the Church of Christ in Salt Lake City at 13th south in 1978 because I was willing to baptize a new believer somewhere other than the local authorized baptistry. They have since closed their doors. So I guess there are no more authorized baptistries here. So I borrow them from Baptists,and Nazarenes, and use the river, hot tubs and pools. And sometimes when there has been a prayer warrior involved in a salvation behind the scenes, I ask them to baptize the person God has saved, because their involvement with the person has been longer and more dedicated than mine.

Get that up front early so that if it is an issue I'll just go somewhere else to share.

 

[wmssid]

Hi,

M.R. DeHaan said, "You have never found the true interpretation of any passage of the Scripture until you have found in it somewhere a reference to the Lord Jesus Christ. If you search long enough you will find Him standing somewhere in the background, sometimes clear and unmistakable, sometimes faintly and dimly, but He is there."

I heard him say that when I was a new Christian. It has guided my studies through 26 years of ministry, and now I am being called a heretic for finding Christ in the Old Testament. I am looking for fellowship with people who do not think reading the Bible is dangerous.

An early mentor was RM and he had no problem with finding Christ. Is there a consensus here as to whether it is welcome or not. I would like to share the results of my studies.

Thanks.

1) Matthew Henry was a world reknown commentator who found Iesous in ever verse. And, he destroyed his credibility!

Esther and Song of Solomon are pagan literature, but he wrote:

"But, though the name of God be not in it, the finger of God is ..."; Introduction to Esther.

"It is a pastoral; the bride and bridegroom"; Introduction to Song of Solomon.

This remark was made after Mr. Henry confirmed the name of God is not in the book. It is "a gross example of inappropriate contentography."

F.F. Bruce, "The Canon of Scripture," mentioned that "many" Jews and Christians agreed that both books are not Scripture because neither book has a single name of God recorded in it.

So then, this is the condemnation that faces you with your bold staement that all verses refer to Christ. The destruction of Israel, in 721 BC, was not about Christ (Anointed, really). The destruction of Judah in 588 BC was not about "Anointed."

But here is what we have:

1Cor 10.4: "and all the same a spiritual Rock (Petras - fem.) following them; the Rock (Petra - fem,) was The Anointed (Christos)."

Anointed (masc,) = Rock (fem.)

This relates to Rock (Petros - masc.) = the Rock (Petra - fem,)

"Jonah" three days and three night in belly of the earth = type of -- the Son of the man (Adam) three d. & n. (Thursday, Friday, Saturday); Mt 12.40.

"Abomination of Daniel" (Dan 12.11; Judges 10.6) = type of -- invasion of Israel by Titus and the Roman legions; Mt 24.15.

"The Flood" (Gen 7.6; 2492 BC) = type -- of invasion of Israel by Titus; Mt 24.38-38.

The Vow of a Nazarite to separate himself (Num 6.3) = type -- of Iesous fasting 40 days and 40 nights; Mt 4.

See my thread: "Types in 6 Particular Resurrections."

wmssid

 

[shadowhunter]

1) Matthew Henry was a world reknown commentator who found Iesous in ever verse. And, he destroyed his credibility!

Matthew Henry used free-for-all allegory. He was sometimes good at it an sometimes not. He did not use the examples which the NT authors used to teach hermeneutics.

Esther and Song of Solomon are pagan literature, but he wrote:

We have nothing to discuss. Both are in fact scripture and have the same (every passage participates in a picture of Christ) as the rest of scriptures.

F.F. Bruce, "The Canon of Scripture," mentioned that "many" Jews and Christians agreed that both books are not Scripture because neither book has a single name of God recorded in it.

And F.F. Bruce is but one man with an opinion.

I will spend my time conversing with those who are willing to accept scripture as scripture as a starting point, and who do not merely parrot the arguments of extra-biblical authors as if they were apostles.

 

[A3M0N]

This is a zombie thread, back from the dead for sure! I don't have much to say about this topic, except that yes, Jesus is all throughout the OT. It points to Him.

But I do want to comment on this gem:

...I was formally asked to not be a part of the Church of Christ in Salt Lake City at 13th south in 1978 because I was willing to baptize a new believer somewhere other than the local authorized baptistry.

Really?! Wasn't the Ethiopian eunuch baptized in a roadside puddle (may take some liberty in that description, he was obviously immersed so it was deeper than a puddle, but you get my drift)! I don't read about any NT baptism taking place in an "authorized" body of water.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello shadowhunter.

You made the following statement.

This article eliminates the possibility of double meaning such as the classic Christmas "virgin - young woman" debate. If you can't persuade the masses that it doesn't talk about the virgin birth by reason, then just legislate it away.

There are two versions of the old testament in existence, the Septuagint and the Masoretic.
The Septuagint uses the Hebrew word for virgin, while the Masoretic text uses the Hebrew word
for young girl.

Many of the Jews in Jesus' day used the Septuagint as their Bible. Quite naturally, the early
Christians also used the Septuagint in their meetings and for personal reading; and many of
the New Testament apostles quoted it when they wrote the Gospels and Epistles in Greek.
(Biblestudytools.com)

Bible translations mostly use the Masoretic old testament unfortunately.[/QUOTE]

 

[shadowhunter]

This is a zombie thread, back from the dead for sure! I don't have much to say about this topic, except that yes, Jesus is all throughout the OT. It points to Him.

But I do want to comment on this gem:



Really?! Wasn't the Ethiopian eunuch baptized in a roadside puddle (may take some liberty in that description, he was obviously immersed so it was deeper than a puddle, but you get my drift)! I don't read about any NT baptism taking place in an "authorized" body of water.

On this we agree...