אבנימ

Biblical Hermeneutics Part Second Chapter 16

In this chapter Terry turns to the interpretation of types, which along with symbols, are distinct from all the other tropes addressed thus far. First he clarifies the distinction between type and symbol. Both are emblematic, but a symbol is simply the sign of something else, and is usually something inanimate and non-sentient, and with broad temporal scope, e.g. the olive branch as a symbol of peace. Unlike a symbol, a type is always something real, with an intelligent agent involved. Types suggestively represent something else in a limited way, and point to it as an antitype to be fulfilled, e.g. the exodus as a type of salvation. In order to be a type, there must be a notable point of resemblance between it and the antitype, evidence that it was indeed designed by God to point to what is typified, and it must prefigure something future. Types are related to similes and parables in that they all consist of formal comparisons, whereas in metaphors, allegories and symbols the comparisons are implicit.

The rules of interpretation for types are essentially the same as those used in the interpretation of parables and allegories. There are in the Old Testament typical persons, institutions, offices, events and actions, and we have an ample number of New Testament texts to serve as hermeneutical examples in which the antitype is explicitly stated and explained, e.g. the Levitical sacrifices as a type of Christ’s atonement. As with parables and allegories, the interpreter must first apprehend the primary intended point of resemblance between sign and thing signified, and then subject all other incidental comparisons to it. The type will always by nature be lesser than and inferior to the antitype, and we can only expect to fully understand the types of the Old Testament in the light of Gospel.