Biblical Typology

[Hentenza]

Hi All,

I wan to get your thoughts on this subject. Typology is a special kind of symbolism. (A symbol is something which represents something else.) We can define a type as a “prophetic symbol” because all types are representations of something yet future. More specifically, a type in scripture is a person or thing in the Old Testament which foreshadows a person or thing in the New Testament.

When we say that someone is a type of Christ, we are saying that a person in the Old Testament behaves in a way that corresponds to Jesus’ character or actions in the New Testament. When we say that something is “typical” of Christ, we are saying that an object or event in the Old Testament can be viewed as representative of some quality of Jesus.

Scripture itself identifies several Old Testament events as types of Christ’s redemption, including the tabernacle, the sacrificial system, and the Passover. The Old Testament tabernacle is identified as a type in Hebrews 9:8-9: “the first tabernacle . . . which was a figure for the time then present.” The high priest’s entrance into the holiest place once a year prefigured the mediation of Christ, our High Priest. Later, the veil of the tabernacle is said to be a type of Christ (Hebrews 10:19-20) in that His flesh was torn, (as the veil was when He was crucified) in order to provide entrance into God’s presence for those who are covered by His sacrifice.

The whole sacrificial system is seen as a type in Hebrews 9:19-26. The articles of the “first testament” were dedicated with the blood of sacrifice. These articles are called “the patterns of things in the heavens” and “figures of the true” (verses 23-24). This passage teaches that the Old Testament sacrifices typify Christ’s final sacrifice for the sins of the world. The Passover is also a type of Christ, according to 1 Corinthians 5:7, “Christ our passover is sacrificed for us.”

The differences between an illustration and a type are as follows. A type is always identified as such in the New Testament. Anyone finding correlations between an Old Testament story and the life of Christ is simply finding illustrations, not types. In other words, typology is determined by Scripture. The Holy Spirit inspired the use of types, so illustrations and analogies are the result of man’s study. For example, many people see parallels between Joseph (Genesis 37-45) and Jesus. The humiliation and subsequent glorification of Joseph seem to correspond to the death and resurrection of Christ. However, the New Testament never uses Joseph as a model of Christ, therefore, Joseph’s story is properly called an illustration, but not a type, of Christ.

So, what are you favorite Christ illustrations, analogies, or types? What are your views on Typology?

 

[JimfromOhio]

Typology literally means the study of types that interprets Old Testament events, persons, and ceremonies as signs which prefigured Christ's fulfillment and new covenant with the apostolic church.

The best description is this: Typology is a method of biblical interpretation whereby an element found in the Old Testament is seen to prefigure one found in the New Testament.

“a figure or ensample of something future and more or less prophetic, called the ‘Antitype’” (E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, p. 768).

“the preordained representative relation which certain persons, events, and institutions of the Old Testament bear to corresponding persons, events, and institutions in the New” (quoted in: Biblical Hermeneutics, p. 246).

“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).

I am usually very cautious in study of Bible types by discerning what is essential in the type and what is merely incidental.

Some examples are:
Adam was a type of Christ (Rom. 5:14).
Isaac was a type of Christ (Heb. 11:19).
The Passover was a type of Christ (1 Cor. 5:7).

 

[ReformedChapin]

I have a hard time with typology because of the speculative nature behind it's premise. I've heard that Noah's Ark is a type of Jesus because if protected Man from God's wrath. Although that itself might be valid, I don't see any logical reason why to deduce that. I don't see a hint of that in the OT and without proper hermeneutics it's easy to make scripture say anything. Hey, the liberals do it all the time and I'm weary to do it myself.

 

[Hentenza]

I have a hard time with typology because of the speculative nature behind it's premise. I've heard that Noah's Ark is a type of Jesus because if protected Man from God's wrath. Although that itself might be valid, I don't see any logical reason why to deduce that. I don't see a hint of that in the OT and without proper hermeneutics it's easy to make scripture say anything. Hey, the liberals do it all the time and I'm weary to do it myself.

Hey Julio,

But there are types for Christ that are supported by the writers of the NT. Most of these refer to messianic prophesy but others do not. What do you think?

 

[synger]

I read the title too fast. I thought it was "Topology" and was hoping to find a thread discussing the areas, divisions, cities, mountains, etc., of the Promised Land. I've been studying Samuel and Kings, and unless I have my Bible atlas right at hand I get SO confused!

Of course, as soon as I wrote this down, I realized I meant Topography. *sighs* Isn't language wonderful?

 

[ReformedChapin]

Hey Julio,

But there are types for Christ that are supported by the writers of the NT. Most of these refer to messianic prophesy but others do not. What do you think?

Before I post this, I would like it make it clear that I am NOT going liberal. I'm just making a truthful statement about the Gospel that shocked me when I first studied systematic theology.

The NT writers took passages of the OT out of context sometimes to make their point. I am not saying this is incorrect just odd.

 

[Criada]

Jonah.

 

[Hentenza]

Before I post this, I would like it make it clear that I am NOT going liberal. I'm just making a truthful statement about the Gospel that shocked me when I first studied systematic theology.

The NT writers took passages of the OT out of context sometimes to make their point. I am not saying this is incorrect just odd.

Thanks for the response Julio and no, you don't have to worry about anyone here accusing you of being liberal.

Could you cite some examples of some of the passages that you are referring to?

 

[psalms 91]

For me it is the feasts and the wedding and bride. I find all these extremely interesting and something that os pervasive in the Old and New.

 

[Hentenza]

For me it is the feasts and the wedding and bride. I find all these extremely interesting and something that os pervasive in the Old and New.

Hey Bill,

If you get a minute, could you expand your thought? I do find them interesting also and would like to hear your thoughts.

 

[Hentenza]

Jonah.

Hi Criada,

What part of Jonah? Could you expand?

 

[BelindaP]

Interesting topic. I'll need to give it some more thought and come back. Subscribing for now.

 

[Criada]

Luke 11:
29As the crowds increased, Jesus said, "This is a wicked generation. It asks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah. 30For as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, so also will the Son of Man be to this generation.

Jonah was inside the fish for three days - the same time that Jesus spent in the grave. Thus, the emergence of Jonah is a type of the resurection, and was used by Jesus to look forward to this.

Also -less sure about this bit - Jonah was a willing sacrifice - he volunteered to be thrown from the ship to save others. Though - it was for his own sin, which is where the parrallel falls down...

 

[synger]

After thinking about this more, I'd have to say that Isaac is perhaps the typology of Christ that currently resonates with me the most. (Hebrews 11)

It may be because I recently saw "The Bible: In the Beginning". It's not a very good film, really, but parts of it are pretty good, and the cast is stellar. George C. Scott played Abraham. I've seen the Abraham/Isaac story done before, of course. And I've read the passage many, many times, and heard it preached every three years (when it comes up in the lectionary).

But it really hit home to me, watching the movie this time, how much God must have hurt to sacrifice His Son... and yet He did it gladly, and would do it again. For me. For you. For all of His wonderfully, fearfully made humans. Throughout time.

Maybe it's because I'm a mother now, and I can't imagine willingly giving up my precious child. Like Isaac, Gem is a miracle child. She is likely to be the only one we have. I never thought I had a "mothering instinct" and tended to scoff at descriptions of women being "fierce as a she-bear" in protecting their children. Until I had Gem.

So the Isaac story, a typology of the Christ, resonates very strongly with me.