13 - Interpretation of Types
December 15, 2004 | Comments: 3
SYS 501 – Hermeneutics – Lecture 13 – Interpretation of Types
I. Typology is a valid hermeneutical method
A. Strong prophetic element in OT establishes nexus with NT – “New Testament is latent in the Old, Old Testament is patent in the New”?
B. Our Lord Himself refers to OT as pointing to Him, e.g. Luke 24.44, John 5.39 ff.
C. Epistles use OT sacrificial language to refer to death of Christ, e.g. Eph. 5.2
D. Hebrews presents heavenly tabernacle as antitype to the OT pattern
E. Paul refers to Christ in the wilderness wanderings, I Cor. 10.4
II. Vocabulary of NT is specific in reference to OT typology
A. Hupodeigma (example)
B. Typos, Typikos (type)
C. Skia (shadow)
D. Parabole (similitude, parable)
E. Eikon (image, figure, likeness)
F. Antitypon (figure, reflection, antitype)
G. Allegoreo (to tell a truth in terms of a narrative) e.g. Gal. 4.24
III. Nature and Interpretation of Types
A. Must be a genuine resemblance in form and idea between type and antitype
B. Connection must not be accidental or superficial
C. Interpretation of types must be limited to what is evident in the antitype
1. There will be dissimilarity between type and antitype
2. Must lift out of type only that which is similar
IV. Rules of Interpretation for Types
A. Restrict to major doctrines of the faith
B. Distinguish the typical from the incidental in a type
C. Do not extend the type beyond what is indicated in the antitype
D. Doctrine should not be built upon types without clear warrant from New Testament
V. Typologies in Scripture
A. Persons, e.g. Adam a type of Christ, Abraham a type of all believers, Elijah a type of John the Baptist, etc.
B. Institutions, e.g. Levitical sacrifices types of the Cross
C. Offices, e.g. Aaron as High Priest a type of Christ
D. Events, e.g. wilderness wanderings (1 Cor. 10)
E. Actions, e.g. the lifting up of the brazen serpent, type of the crucifixion
F. Things, e.g. the tabernacle a type of the Incarnation
VI. Symbolism in Scripture
A. Symbols have no time element, unlike types which prefigure something future
B. Symbols interpreted in Scripture form the basic of further symbolic interpretation
C. Symbols not interpreted in Scripture must be carefully studied contextually and comparatively
D. Speculative interpretation must be avoided
Comments
I like the term “shadows.” Good advice in lecture = look not only for similarities but disimilarities between the type and antitype. “Doctrine should not be built upon types without clear warrant from New Testament” If I remember my seminary days accurately and understand the contention of my reformed baptist brothers in that setting, it is precisely this rule quoted above that they accuse us infant baptist of ignoring. What do you think? nathan.
nathan on February 16, 2005 at 07:51 AM
I also like the term “shadows.” I spent a bit of time developing that theme in my sermon on Col. 2.16-19.
What I think about the pisto-baptist’s criticism is that the doctrine and practice of infant baptism is substantiated in Scripture by more than types only. Of course it requires the undergirding covenantal understanding to recognize and appreciate “the clear warrant from the New Testament” in this case.
Andrew on February 27, 2005 at 10:40 PM
As we discussed in person, it becomes clear that the burden of proof is on the pisto-baptist once we grasp a few essential facts.
1) The clear correspondence between the covenant signs of circumcision and baptism which is made manifest in passages like Romans 4.
2) The relationship between the sign/seal and the reality, viz. the believing parents commit their children to God, seeing the sign administered in faith, and living out that faith by believing God for their children, and raising them in the covenant.
3) We assume that they are “in” unless they demonstrate that they are “out,” not vice versa.
4) Caveat: the sign does not ipso facto denote covenant membership, e.g. Ishmael, Esau, et al.
Andrew on March 07, 2005 at 04:28 PM
