When a Type is not a Type

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by richard n koustas, Sep 18, 2006.

  1. richard n koustas

    richard n koustas
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2004
    Messages:
    443
    Likes Received:
    0
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but, there seems to be two viable schools of thoughts on when a type is a type and when it is not.

    One view is that an OT type is only a type if it is a specific analogy in the NT making a reference to the OT. Examples would be: Jonah (Luke 11:30), Solomon (Luke 11:31), the high priest (Heb 9), and Melchisedec (Heb. 7), as types of Christ; the wilderness journey being a type of the Christian life (1 Cor. 10), etc., etc. etc.

    The other view is much broader in scope. An OT type is a type as long as there is a specific antitype in the NT (with or without a specific OT analogy). Types in this group that are not in the first group would include: just about the entire lives of Joseph and Isaac as a type of Christ, the slave [in the law, Ex. 21:1-11] as a type of Christ, etc., etc.,

    I think that those that hold to the first view are really missing out...on a lot. What say ye?
     
  2. thjplgvp

    thjplgvp
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    978
    Likes Received:
    23
    Richard,

    I find that there are times when I say "this is a type" but use it as an illustration or analogy more so than a type. For instance I might use Jacob wrestling with Christ as type or illustration of the believer wrestling with the Spirit of God over doing the will of God.

    As long as there is a clear connection or line of thought drawn I believe either use is okay.

    Christ is called the second Adam but obviously Christ is without sin so does that make the first Adam a type of Christ? That would be a hard type to present. ;)

    thjplgvp
     
  3. canadyjd

    canadyjd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    3,896
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think folks in the second group are reading into scripture things that are not meant by God to be there. This causes a great deal of confusion as they attempt to integrate these unbiblical teachings into their theology.

    peace to you:praying:
     
  4. J. Jump

    J. Jump
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2004
    Messages:
    4,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen!

    All I can say is wow :(

    I can't remember who said this, but I think it is very accurate. If you can't find the teaching in OT type then it has not right to be in the NT. Everything in the NT is shedding even more Light and giving more detail to information that was already given in the OT.

    Christ told Nicodemus that he should have known the things Christ had been preaching as a teacher of the people. How could Christ say that? Because everything is in the OT, but Israel was spiritually blind to spiritual matters.

    And just like today it's not that people can't see per se, but they just really don't want to see. And if you don't want to see God's not going to bother showing you.

    You must believe that God is and He is a rewarder of those that diligently seek Him. Seek and you will find. Ask and it shall be given.

    If we truly want to know God He will reveal Himself to us, but we have to be ready to accept some things that really challenge tradition.

    I can't tell you how much more sense the Bible makes since coming into an understanding of the typical nature of Scripture, which doesn't end in the OT by the way. There are other types in the NT as well depicting things that will happen yet in the future.

    God's Word is simply AMAZING!
     
  5. richard n koustas

    richard n koustas
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2004
    Messages:
    443
    Likes Received:
    0
    Huh? I'm not sure what you mean, but let be explain by example.

    If you were a sunday school teacher and you asked your students the following questions:

    Who was placed with two prinsoners, one of the prisoners were saved and the other lost?

    or

    Who was sentenced to death unjustly, was put in a hole in the ground, a stone was put in front of the hole and sealed, and when the stone was rolled a way, the person was alive?

    or

    Who was offered up as a sacrifice, then disappears until comes to meet his bride?

    The answers could be a NT character (Jesus) or an OT character -- in order, Joseph, Daniel, Isaac. Without reading into scripture something that isn't there, aren't each of these OT characters a type of Christ?
     
  6. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,970
    Likes Received:
    128
    Roy Zuck has a chapter in his book, BASIC BIBLE INTERPRETATION, called “Testing the Types and Sensing the Symbols” (pp169-193).
    He provides six criterion for testing a type.

    1. Remsemblance – a resemblance, similarity or correspondence exists between the type and the antitype.
    2. Historical reality – Types were persons who lived, events that happened or things that were seen.
    3. Prefiguring – “a type has a predictive or foreshadowing element to it”
    4. Heightening – The antitype is greater than and superior to the type (ex. Christ over Melchizedek)
    5. Divine Design – Types are resembanances planned by God
    6. A type must be designated in the New Testament Scripture (controversial).

    Rob
     
    #6 Deacon, Sep 18, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 18, 2006
  7. richard n koustas

    richard n koustas
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2004
    Messages:
    443
    Likes Received:
    0
    number 6 would be the topic of this debate...

    i like Ada Habershon's definition better: [my paraphrase:] It is an OT type if there is an antitype in the NT. all else are merely illustrations.
     
    #7 richard n koustas, Sep 18, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 18, 2006
  8. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,970
    Likes Received:
    128
    Personally I agree with Zuck's definition.

    I don't think not identifying something as a type makes it any less illustrative in our study of Scripture. It's merely nomenclature, IMO.

    As you add more and more TYPES that are not specifically identified in the NT, you begin to play with allegorical interpretative methods.

    Rob
     
  9. J. Jump

    J. Jump
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2004
    Messages:
    4,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    This biggest problem with this is says who? The Bible does not say that, therefore this is not a directive from God as to how to interpret His Scripture, so I don't see how people can say this with any kind of authority. If God didn't place that limitation on His Own Scriptures then why should man place that on himself?

    I have a pretty good guess as to what the answer is, but that's probably for another thread :)
     
  10. richard n koustas

    richard n koustas
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2004
    Messages:
    443
    Likes Received:
    0
    take the 3 exampples i listed in post #5. in yoiur opinion, it is "merely nomenclature" that the answer to each question could be Jesus or an OT character?

    What about the slave in Exodus 21?

    If the [male] slave was not married when he started his service, but was given a
    wife (and the wife gives him children), at the end of 7 years of
    service, he has the option to go free (leaving behind his master, wife
    and children). But if he says he loves his master, wife and
    children, he would stay with them. As a sign of devotion, an ear
    piercing ceremony took place. His ear is pierced against the doorpost
    The piercing was an outward sign, a symbol to all that saw
    him, that he was devoted to his master and his wife.

    so, is this slave a type of Chirst, or not? Jesus was not married when he began His service. He did the will of His Father (like a slave to his master). He was given a bride (the church). He loves loves the Father (& the church). He was pierced.
     
  11. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are reaching on that one Richard. (streeeeeeetch)

    Especially since Jesus was not married DURING His service. And He was not peirced because He loved His master (God) but died for the church fulfilling the Fathers heart. He was obedient unto death, not that He died (peirced) for God and His (Jesus) wife (who does not exist yet - fully) due to devotion
     
  12. canadyjd

    canadyjd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    3,896
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exactly my point about reading into scripture things that aren't there, and then trying to mold your theology to fit.

    peace to you:praying:
     
  13. richard n koustas

    richard n koustas
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2004
    Messages:
    443
    Likes Received:
    0
    No type is perfect:

    Let's see,according to Zuck's definition, Jonah is a type because there is a clear NT reference in Luke 11:30. right? yet, Jesus was never 'prayed from the belly of a big fish'.

    back to the slave...

    Without "reading into scripture anything that is not there"...how would you answer the following sunday school quiz:

    Who was pierced?
    a) Jesus b) the slave in Ex. 21

    Who willingly did the will of his master?
    a) Jesus (doing the will of His Father) b) the slave in Ex. 21

    Who was given a bride?
    a) Jesus b) the slave in Ex. 21

    Who loves his master?
    a) Jesus ( loving His Father) b) the slave in Ex. 21

    Who was brought to 'judges'?
    a) Jesus b) the slave in Ex. 21

    Why was the slave's (in Ex. 21) ear pierced on the doorpost?
    a) it was where the sacrificed passover lambs blood was appied b)it was just some arbitrary place specified by the law.

    Why is did God leave us with this section of the Law in the first place?
    a) historical information b) to be debated on the baptistboard centuries later c) it is a type (picture, shadow, foreshadow, illustration) of the coming Messiah
     
  14. canadyjd

    canadyjd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    3,896
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  15. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree Canadyjd.
    It is a thin line between illistration and type, but a line none the less and one that is distinguishable as well.
     
  16. richard n koustas

    richard n koustas
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2004
    Messages:
    443
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with this statment -- I just draw the line in a different place! This is where I draw the line: (as I said before on this thread somewhere) It is an OT type as long as there is a NT antitype.

    let me try another example: Isaac

    (I'm relatively sure that he is not specified as a type in the NT).

    Who's birth was announced? more than once?

    a) Isaac b) Jesus

    Who was offered up as a sacrifice?

    a) Isaac b) Jesus

    Who, after being offered as a sacrifice, disappears for a while?

    a) Isaac b) Jesus
    Hint: Start to read from Gen 22:19 There is no record of Isaac returning with Abraham from the mountain. We do not see him in the next chapter at his mother’s ‘funeral’. In fact, we don’t see him again until Gen. 24:62.

    Who, after said absence (previous question), returns to meet his bride?

    a) Isaac b) Jesus
     
  17. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    What is the difference then between a type and an illustration that is pointed out for you? Perhaps the OT is given us as an example, and the acknowledged types in the NT as an example of how to interpret the example? Granted anything can be taken to an extreme, but the OT is rife with beautiful pictures of NT truths.
     
  18. richard n koustas

    richard n koustas
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2004
    Messages:
    443
    Likes Received:
    0
    An 'illustration' is everything else...anything in the OT that does not have an antitype in the NT

    ???? I think I agree...

    :thumbs:
     
  19. canadyjd

    canadyjd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    3,896
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  20. canadyjd

    canadyjd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    3,896
    Likes Received:
    0
    "NO" was the answer I was looking for.

    peace to you:praying:
     

Share This Page

Loading...