What is the value of a "type" or "Figure"

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by The Biblicist, Jun 19, 2012.

  1. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,084
    Likes Received:
    205
    Have you ever considered what is the value of a "type" or "figure"? Especially, types of salvation?

    The value of a type or figure is in its precise designed form that allows it to give expression to the truth it was conceived by God to convey.

    When the form of a type is altered, the the truth it was designed to express by that precise form is also altered, destroyed and thus perverted.

    A good example of this is Moses in the wilderness hitting the rock instead of speaking to it as commanded by God. For hitting it, instead of speaking to it, he was forbidden to enter the promised land. Why? He had altered the form of a type of Jesus Christ.

    Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 10:1-4 that the rock was Christ metaphorically or reprensentatively.

    Water from the rock was first obtained by the direct command of God to strike the rock. Water the second time was to be obtained by speaking to the rock not striking it. What is the typology? Christ was struck by God once for all so that we can obtain the water of life. He does not need to be recrucified again (Heb. 6:6) to meet our continuing needs. We need only to speak, ask and God promises to meet the needs of his children. Striking him again, altered the truth of that type and perverted the gospel of Jesus Christ by teaching that Christ must be recrucified over and over again to satisfy our needs. Hence, Moses was forbiddent to enter the promised land in keeping with his perversion of the gospel type as the promised land typified heaven. I am not saying Moses was LITERALLY lost but rather his prohibition to enter what typified heaven was in keeping with his perversion of the salvational type.

    Hence, the value of a type or figure is the correct form that gives expression to the intended truth the type was designed to convey. Altering the precise form, especially a salvational type is a serious matter as Moses found out by experience. When you alter the form of a salvational type you pervert the truth of the salvation which is a very serous error.


    However, another value of salvational types in the scriptures is that salvational types often are accompanied by the language of redemption in keeping with the truth they are designed to convey.

    For example, the sacrifices are explicitly called shadows or types by the writer of Hebrews (Heb. 10:1) and as types they could never literally obtain remission of sins (Heb. 10:4). What literally remitted sins was the antitype or the truth the sacrifice was designed to convey - faith in the redemptive work found in the person and work of Jesus Christ as our high Priest (Heb. 10:5-18) and this is clearly stated by Peter in Acts 10:43:

    "To him give ALL the prophets witness that whosoever BELIEVETH ON HIS NAME shall receive remission of sins." - Acts 10:43

    Hence, both type and antitype were found in the Old Testament scriptures just as Hebrews 4:2 specifically states:

    "For unto us was THE GOSPEL preached as well as unto them..."

    Nevertheless, the sacrificial type by design expressed the truths of the redemptive work of Jesus Christ and how the offerer would partake of Christ's sacrifice (by faith) and it was accompanied by redemptive language. In other words, the offerer was instructed to present the offering "for sin" or "for thy cleansing" even though the sacrifice being offered could "never" literally take away sin. However, the language of redemption was purposely associated with the type because of the truth the type was designed to express and the redemptive language had reference to the truth conveyed by the type rather than to anything inherent in the phyisical type itself. Literal remission of sins was always through faith in Jesus Christ (Acts 10:43).

    The Jews failed to distinguish between the type and the truth that the redemptive langauge actually applied to. This can be seen clearly in regard to the "sign" and "seal" of circumcison in Acts 15:1.

    The Jew interpreted "circumcision" exactly as many Christian denominations today interpet baptism. They interpreted it and its redemptive assocations sacramentally instead of figuratively in connection with the truth it was designed to convey. Hence, they demanded that circumcision was necessary to be LITERALLY saved. Hence, they made what God designed only as a type of salvation to be inclusive of salvation itself.

    The separation between the type and the langauge of redemption associated with the type but only applicable to the truth the type expressed is distinguished nowhere more clearly than by Christ in Luke 5:13-17:

    12 ΒΆ And it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy: who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
    13 And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will: be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him.
    14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.


    He was LITERALLY cleansed at the point of faith in Christ - v. 13

    However, he was instructed to go to the priest and bring the appointed offering "for thy cleansing."

    He was told to do this not to be LITERALLY cleansed but to be CEREMONIALLY cleansed or a cleansing in TYPE or FIGURE in order to provide "a testimony to them." Thus the offering was an external "sign" and "seal" of the cleansing he already literally obtained BEFORE he observed the right (Rom. 4:9-12).

    Here Christ defines what is the proper objective of salvational types "FOR A TESTIMONY UNTO THEM" by ceremonial type rather than obtaining literal cleansing.

    Here is the issue that divides Baptists from sacramentalists. Sacramentalists are committing the same interpretational error as the Jews did in regard to divine external ceremonial rites (sacrifices, circumcision, passover, etc.). They are interpreting the type with its redemptive language to be the literal means of conveying salvational grace to the observer. This was the first problem dealt with by the apostles in Acts 15 and this problem has been perpetuated by Rome.

    Baptism and the Lord's Supper are corresponding or "like figures" to Old Testament salvational types and therefore should expect to be accompanied by the langauge fitting the truth of the type "for remission of sins" "wash away thy sins" "the like figure whereunto baptism doth also now save us."

    God never used ordinances in the Old Testament to literally convey saving grace (Rom. 4:6-12) but conveyed it throug faith in the gospel of the coming Christ (Acts 10:43; Heb. 4:2; Acts 26:22-23; etc.) and does so today through faith in Christ who has already come.
     
    #1 The Biblicist, Jun 19, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 19, 2012
  2. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,007
    Likes Received:
    46
    Now, If only we could have our RCC friendsto read the Gospel of John as regarding bread of life, eating his flesh drinking his blood, and peter talking about a baptism that now saves us, in the light of what you just posted here!
     
  3. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,084
    Likes Received:
    205
    Yep, that is the challenge!

    If you have a objective mind it is easy to see as it is spelled out clearly in the overall context of scripture and explicitly in such texts as Acts 15; Rom. 4:9-12; Heb. 10:1-4; Lk. 5:12-15; 1 Pet. 3:21; etc.
     
  4. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    And Protestants who think "The trees of the field will clap their hands" is a prophecy of a coming miracle? Trees applauding Jesus?
     
  5. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,084
    Likes Received:
    205
    Allegorical methods are used in scripture to convey truths.
     
  6. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Most of the Bible is allegory, not history.
     
  7. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,007
    Likes Received:
    46
    most is historical, with also prophecy and other genres mixed in...

    regardless, still need to see and read the "plain and literal" meaning intended for the text!
     
  8. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,084
    Likes Received:
    205
    That must be proved by contextual analysis not merely assumed! Contextual analysis will disprove your theory.
     
  9. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,007
    Likes Received:
    46
    Much more historical/prophecy in it than Just allegorical!
     

Share This Page

Loading...