Messianic Prophecy. Hermeneutics of Typology. CA314 LESSON 02 of 24. Louis Goldberg, ThD

Transcription

1 Messianic Prophecy CA314 LESSON 02 of 24 Louis Goldberg, ThD Experience: Professor of Theology and Jewish Studies, Moody Bible Institute We want to welcome you again to our second lesson in messianic prophecy, and we were discussing the hermeneutics of typology. At the end of our last lesson we were emphasizing the justification of a typology, and we had, by way of illustration, referred to Hebrews 7 and Hebrews 10. In Hebrews 7 there is a tie drawn between the Melchizedek of the Old Testament in a special, unique way, and the tie is drawn between him and Christ, and the arguments are placed on this situation where the two are made off to be a divine tie. Again, this is also seen in chapter 10 of Hebrews when we re talking about the perfect sacrifice, and here we go back into the Old Testament and note the various sacrifices of the Levitical system; again, there is a divine tie between this and the totality of the sacrifice of Christ. I think the most unique illustration concerning the justification for typology is the Messiah s use of the Old Testament, and on the Emmaus Road he mentioned to the disciples, Oh, foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken. Here comes the crux of the situation: Was it not necessary for the Messiah to suffer these things and to enter into His glory? This matter of suffering these things had reference to the very heart, the very reason of why Christ came, and we see this by way of type in the sacrifices of the Levitical system. We re going to come back to this again a little bit later on, but certainly Jesus Christ Himself, in His use of the Old Testament, the Levitical system, related to the necessity for his death; and the various factors that take place in His death become also a specialized illustration concerning the justification of typology. From your syllabus we note the approach of typological interpretation, and we see four possibilities here. We note one possibility where too much is typed. This, of course, we have seen on many occasions. I suppose one of the areas where typing is done almost to extremes is in the tabernacle. There are tremendous lessons in types concerning the furniture of the tabernacle and concerning the function of the tabernacle, but I m sure you have seen books and you have heard messages where types are taken 1 of 7

2 to the very last line, so to speak, when the sockets are typed that holds the tabernacle together and various minor details concerning the tabernacle. All of this is typed in many instances, and we see here one approach of too much as typical. In fact, if we ride this matter of type too far, we land into what some have called an allegorical interpretation. In allegory we interpret so as to bring in something foreign or peculiar to the meaning of a text so as to find a deeper or what some call the real meaning, so that we end up where every piece of wood can refer to the cross or where Jacob, as he crosses the Jordan, is somehow virtue crossing over the difficulties. But I think that this can come as a result of too much type and where too much of a foreign element is introduced into the text. We can swing clear to the other extreme and in a rationalist approach say about this whole thing is that it is just forced exegesis. Rationalists and critics find no basis and have no basis for prophecy because they have ruled out revelation and, by the same token, they will rule out this matter of typology as well. It is Marsh, Bishop Marsh, who defines the type for us and gives us an approach of type interpretation. His approach is that a type is a type only if the New Testament specifically so designates it as such. By following this kind of an approach we will be guarded against going to any extremes and typing too much. This will tend to curb the excesses if we follow Marsh s rule. A good case in point would be in Numbers 21:7, when as the Israelites were bitten with the fiery serpents, then the cure for the bite was to look upon a brass pole that Moses had erected in the middle of camp. Now John, in John 3:14, refers to this incident and says, As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up. Here is a very strict tie, and Marsh would accept this as a type because the New Testament uses it as such. Or take the matter of the exodus and Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:7 when he refers to Christ as our Passover, and here the institution of the Passover is related to Jesus Christ. Marsh would say that this is valid because the New Testament refers to the incident and connects the institution of the Passover and Jesus Christ Himself. For our purposes in our lessons in exegesis, as we get into Scripture a little bit later on, and by way of interpretation is that we re going to follow a moderate approach and will say that types can be of two sorts. We will follow Marsh s rule, and we call this an innate approach and a type is accepted as such when it is specifically declared as such. But I think also we have many other incidents, many other types, many other divine ties between Old 2 of 7

3 and New Testament where it is not declared as such, but certainly it is strongly inferred. And this is a situation where a type and its antitype, its corresponding antitype, is not designated as such in the New Testament but is justified for its existence by the very nature of New Testament materials on typology. And here I think one of the best illustrations is that of Isaac as a type of the Messiah. In Genesis 22:2 God said to Abraham, Take now your son, your only son... and offer him on Mount Moriah. When we go to John 3:16, we certainly see a divine tie: God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten son. So while the New Testament does not say in John 3:16 that we have Messiah as another type of Isaac, certainly we could see the divine tie as strongly inferred. We ll be explaining this a little bit later on and showing what can be regarded as innate and what can be regarded as inferred. As we move along in our syllabus, I think we ought to also take a look at the various kinds of types which the Old Testament indicates. I ve listed six here. There is first of all persons as types: Adam as a type of Christ, and it is declared as such in Romans 5:14; Abraham as a type of all who believed by faith, and Paul emphasizes this in Romans 4. Another kind [of types] is institutions, and we ve already referred to the institution of the sacrifices. Here again we see, for example, the sin offering of the sacrifices, and a sin offering as an institution certainly is a type of one of the most important works that Christ ever came to do. The Passover itself is also, as an institution, a type of Christ, and Paul declares this as such in 1 Corinthians 5. A third kind of type is the offices. Moses the prophet is declared, in a sense, as a type of the Messiah, and in Hebrews 3 we see the tie, the divine tie between Moses and Christ. Aaron is another type: the work of Aaron, the function of Aaron as he was the high priest... in the Old Testament historical kingdom, therefore he is a type of Jesus Christ, who is the high priest in the prophetic kingdom. Melchizedek in his office is also regarded as a type of the office of Christ. Still another kind of type is events, or we might say that these are historical situations. The wilderness wanderings are the stage, in a sense, the platform for a number of types. Here again I think we have to raise the red flag of caution because we don t want to overtype the various events, but certainly in 1 Corinthians 10:6 and 11, when Paul talks about the things which have happened before as examples for us as believers, we note there are many events in the exodus experience which can then be also regarded 3 of 7

4 as types of Christ, and we ll be referring to some of these. Another kind of type would be certain kind of actions: the lifting up of the serpent in the wilderness and this corresponding to the lifting up of Christ in John 3. And then there are various things of the Old Testament, particularly the furniture of the tabernacle: the incense, the ark, the menorah or the seven-branched candlestick, the showbread, the table of showbread, the laver, the altar of burnt offering. These also are types, and, as I ve already indicated, we shall see this when we begin to exegete some of the passages of Scripture. As we move on in our syllabus, we d like to lay down some ground rules as to how you shall handle the types. On your syllabus I ve indicated what shall be considered as examples of types. Milton Terry gives us some of the means by which we can detect the essential characteristics of the type. He first emphasizes that as we look at what we would accept as a type, we find the point of resemblance or the point of dissimilarity. Here again Milton Terry gives us the emphasis upon this, and he says that when we begin to handle a type, there must be some notable point of resemblance. He also adds that in many respects there are points of dissimilarity. So we want to indicate whether we re dealing with resemblance or dissimilarity. For example, in Romans 5:17, as Paul relates the ministry of Adam and the ministry of Christ, so he declares, For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. In the aspect of headship we certainly see a resemblance between Adam as a type of Christ. On the other hand, there is a contrast between Adam and Christ or dissimilarity, and we see this in 1 Corinthians 15:45, So also it is written, The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. Here, of course, we see a point of dissimilarity. So when we first examine what we might accept as a type, we find points of resemblance or points of dissimilarity; most of the time you ll find one, two, or three points of either. Once in a while you will find a type where you will admit some resemblance and you will also admit some dissimilarity. 4 of 7

5 Second in this essential characteristic of the type we want to note, as we ve already indicated, that the type was designed and appointed by God to represent the thing that is typed, in a sense. Terry, again, in his biblical hermeneutics is helpful. He says that there must be evidence that the type was designed and appointed by God to represent the thing typified. This proposition is maintained with great unanimity by the best writers on scriptural typology, and Marsh would add here, as Terry quotes him, to constitute one thing, the type of another, something more is wanted than mere resemblance. He emphasizes the fact that there is something of a design. I think we certainly can see something of a design in the way Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness and people looked and thereby they were healed, that this in a sense became a divine design that came to its full light when John declares that as Jesus was lifted up and, therefore, as all men look at Jesus, they are healed. In the former it was a healing from a snake bite but in the latter it is a healing of the soul. And then the type must, according to Terry, prefigure something in the future. And here comes the link of the Old Testament with the New Testament, and Terry would declare that the type must prefigure something in the future. It must serve in the divine economy as a shadow of things to come so it is that sacred typology which will constitute a specific form of prophetic revelation. For you see, the law is a schoolmaster, and the law does prefigure someone who was to come. And I think, for example, in all of the sin offerings in the Levitical system there was something important, that it prefigured something that was yet to come in the future. The sin offerings of the Old Testament pointed to the one function of Christ upon the cross as He became our sin offering. This is so important that we shall practically give one lesson to this area alone, because if we re going to properly understand what it means to receive Christ as Savior, we need to know something of this divine tie and this prefiguring. In your syllabus I ve given you several examples of how to lay out the type on the page, and I would ask that when you get into the exegesis of the Scripture, and especially when you re dealing with types, that you lay it out as I have done some of these for you already in the syllabus. Take, for example, the brazen serpent. You ll note that I ve indicated the Scriptures, Numbers 21:4 9, the Old Testament passage, and then John 3: Looking at the connection between the Old and New Testament we find points of resemblance. I ve indicated three points of resemblance in this situation; one, as the brazen serpent was lifted up upon a 5 of 7

6 pole, and give your Scripture now, Numbers 21:9, so Messiah is lifted up upon the cross, John 3:14. You see the Old Testament the type as and then the New Testament antitype so. So there you have one point of resemblance. A second point of resemblance: as the serpent of brass was made by divine order in the likeness of the fiery serpents, Numbers 21:8 9, so Messiah was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, Romans 8:3, as a curse for us, Galatians 3:13. You ll note that in finding the points of resemblance, you ll need to examine the passages of Scripture that relate to this. Sometimes you ll not find it in one passage and you ll have to bring together several passages. The third point of resemblance: as the offending Israelites, bitten and ready to die, looked to the serpent of brass and lived, Numbers 21:9, so sinful men poisoned by the old serpent, the devil, and ready to perish, look by faith to the crucified Messiah and are made alive evermore, John 3: If you lay it out in this way, I think you ll see immediately what Marsh was trying to get at. You see the points of resemblance, you see how the type is designed and appointed by God, and you see a beautiful prefigurement. Note the next illustration of a type here, Moses and Messiah, Numbers 12:7 and Hebrews 3:1 6. Here we have a point of difference, a point of contrast, and there are two that I ve indicated. First, Moses was part of the house itself in which he served, Numbers 12:7, but Messiah is entitled to a far greater glory since He may be regarded as the builder of the house and entitled to much greater honor since He is more than the house. This latter, as we show Messiah as the antitype, we have to know the whole thrust of the book of Hebrews, the theme, is that Christ is so much more, that is, the Messiah is so much more than the Old Testament economy, and this fits in here when we are relating Moses and Messiah. And then a second point of difference: Moses was faithful in the house as a minister, Hebrews 3:5; but Messiah, in His presentation, is the Son over the house, and this is in Hebrews 3:6. So I think that if you, as I ve already said, lay it out in this way, you ll see these types, in a sense, come to life. 6 of 7

7 Notice Melchizedek and Messiah, the next page. The two passages of Scripture now, Genesis 14:18 20 and Hebrews 7. There are, I ve indicated, four points of resemblance. [First,] Melchizedek was both king and priest, Genesis 14:18, as was Messiah, and again we see this from Hebrews 7. We notice his timelessness: Melchizedek, a being without recorded parentage, genealogy, Hebrews 7:3. And this, in a sense, prefigures the perpetuity of Messiah s priesthood. I think if you ll look over the rest of the points of resemblance, you could see the beautiful relationship between Melchizedek and Messiah, and so we trust that this will be of help to you. We ll be getting into this matter of types later on as we exegete the various passages of Scripture. Christ-Centered Learning Anytime, Anywhere 7 of 7