Typology in the OT

[dimib116]

I listened to a sermon by John Stott this morning that got me confused.

I believed that when we read the OT the main thing we must do is look for Christ, and not just for moral teachings. I base this on the fact that Jesus seemed to indicate several times that the whole OT is about Him and points towards Him. I also recently discovered that Jonathan Edwards believed that ANYTHING in the OT can be made to be a type of Christ, even if its not explicitly stated in the NT.

However, in this sermon by John Stott on the story of Joseph, he begins by emphatically saying that such typology is not warranted anywhere in the bible and that's not how we should read it.

Can anyone help me out with this? Which of these views is right?

 

[Prufrock]

Dimi,

Without speaking specifically to the passage referenced above, it's important to note that "being about Christ" is not the same as "being a type of Christ" or being typological at all. All of the OT is, of course, about Christ by virtue of the fact that it (along with the New) is the book of the covenant of Grace -- of its terms, promises, stipulations, history, preparation, etc -- which is founded on the blood of Christ and is given from his hand as its mediator. So we don't look *simply* for moral teachings; we don't look *simply* for typology; we don't look *simply* for a redemptive-historical interpretation. There are both redemptive-historical and moral aspects to OT passages which must be considered, all of which are considered with reference to Christ's work.

 

[py3ak]

Not everything in the OT is a type of Christ; and there are more ways for Christ to be present in a text than typologically. But consider:

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Luke 24:27,44 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. (...) And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

When you add to these explicit testimonies the way that OT statements are quoted as being the very words of Christ Himself (e.g., Hebrews 2:11-13) it becomes apparent that approaching the OT without a desire to find Christ is not a legitimate way to read it, even though Christ is not in every passage in the same way: for instance, He is the speaker in Psalm 40:7,8; He is not the speaker of Psalm 11:2,3.

P.S. - After you read my post, read Paul's post again. It will reward rereading.

 

[ChariotsofFire]

We see Christ throughout the OT, and we also can learn from the examples of the OT saints.

1 Cor 10

 

[dimib116]

Let me ask you guys this...is it therefore wrong to see Joseph (or at some points in the story even Judah) as a type of Christ? As far as I know, the NT never says he is...so are we only to say that something/someone is a type of Christ if the NT says it?

I guess that's my real question...where do you draw the line with typology?

 

[Prufrock]

Let me ask you guys this...is it therefore wrong to see Joseph (or at some points in the story even Judah) as a type of Christ? As far as I know, the NT never says he is...so are we only to say that something/someone is a type of Christ if the NT says it?

By no means! Joseph provides a fantastic picture of Christ's work - he is one of the brethren of Israel, betrayed unto death and bondage by his own people through envy, which very act is what made salvation possible for the children of Israel after he was brought forth from the dungeon and seated upon a throne.

What *would* be wrong, however, would be to read the NT, then go back to Genesis, find this story, find the type and say, "Aha! That's why this passage is here, and that's what it means!" and to therein rest content. Rather, one must first approach the passage in Genesis in its own right, and give a full and proper exegesis of the passage using sound hermeneutical rules: once this is done, the exegete will be amply rewarded by understanding the fullness of what was fulfilled in Christ and all else which the passage has to offer.

 

[py3ak]

Dimi, for a full discussion of typology I don't know that you can do better than to consult Patrick Fairbairn's Typology. It is very solid and sober.

But in brief, no, I don't think you can limit the types to those explicitly identified in the NT. I think one of the reasons the NT was given was to teach us how to interpret the Bible. If Scripture equips the man of God for every good work, then it must also equip him for the good work of expounding the word. And therefore we don't look at the NT as giving us an exhaustive list of typical passages, but rather as giving practical examples of a method whereby the presence of types may be legitimately discerned.
My suspicion is that those who think only passages identified in the NT as typical are to be treated as such, have some lingering doubts about the apostolic hermeneutic, questioning whether it is really an appropriate interpretive method, but giving the apostles a pass because they were inspired. In other words, the thinking is something like, "Well, they were inspired so they could get away with this, but we're not." But I deny that an inspired interpretation is proof of an inspired hermeneutic, and I also deny that an inspired interpretation could in any sense be inappropriate.
Or some might think that since we are unable to imitate their inspiration, we cannot imitate their hermeneutic, however legitimate in itself. But that brings me back around to my first point: we should learn our hermeneutic from Scripture, because Scripture is its own interpreter.

 

[Prufrock]

Dimi, Ruben provided some excellent material for consideration (not to mention a *fantastic* reading recommendation - Fairbairn is always worth reading); if I may springboard off one of his comments, there is one point he made which I would expand. The New Testament, indeed, provides us with a great many tools for our exegetical tool-kit when we read the Old Testament. We confess that there is one meaning, or sense of the scriptures - and that is the literal sense, or what the author literally, actually meant. There are several applications, but only one meaning or sense. In order to figure out that meaning and its applications, the NT provides us with several tools. For example, Stephen's speech in Acts shows us we can use the redemptive-historical method when reading historical passages; Hebrews 11 demonstrates the use of redemptive-moral readings of the OT; Gal. 5 and Hebrews shows us the validity of allegory; 1 Cor. 10 shows us the validity of types; etc.

 

[dimib116]

Dimi, Ruben provided some excellent material for consideration (not to mention a *fantastic* reading recommendation - Fairbairn is always worth reading); if I may springboard off one of his comments, there is one point he made which I would expand. The New Testament, indeed, provides us with a great many tools for our exegetical tool-kit when we read the Old Testament. We confess that there is one meaning, or sense of the scriptures - and that is the literal sense, or what the author literally, actually meant. There are several applications, but only one meaning or sense. In order to figure out that meaning and its applications, the NT provides us with several tools. For example, Stephen's speech in Acts shows us we can use the redemptive-historical method when reading historical passages; Hebrews 11 demonstrates the use of redemptive-moral readings of the OT; Gal. 5 and Hebrews shows us the validity of allegory; 1 Cor. 10 shows us the validity of types; etc.

Ahh I see. I think I'm starting to get it now

So let me know if this is right:

Its not wrong to find types of Jesus in the OT even IF the NT hasnt explicitly stated it, but it is wrong to assume that the type is the main or only point of the OT passage, without considering context and the literal meaning. That said, while the NT may not explicitly interpret every OT passage it provides us with hermeneutical tools to interpret those passages ourselves. Correct?

 

[MW]

Rev. 5:5, "And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof."

 

[jwithnell]

That said, while the NT may not explicitly interpret every OT passage it provides us with hermeneutical tools to interpret those passages ourselves.

It is important to keep in mind that the revelation as it was occurring had significance to the people at that time. We perhaps miss the full picture and even the subtle nuances of the Old Testament when we jump forward (in time and revelation) to the New Testament. I find it amazing that people in Joseph's day would have had the oral transmissions regarding creation, the flood and Abraham, and yet even this limited scripture had the power to save. Joseph's story as given to the following generations, particularly in slavery, would have taught God's ability to protect his own people and that His hand was on nations and events.

Another point: the people speaking and writing in the New Testament times were speaking within the context of the OT being "the Bible" and therefore accepted as true and applicable even if not specifically stated. That the law the writings and the prophets were authoritative texts could go without stating.

 

[Jack K]

Dimi:

I agree with what Paul and Ruben have said. I would add that although many people think only of types when looking for Christ in the OT, types are actually among the most difficult and mistake-prone ways to read the OT with a Christ-centered approach.

Don't get me wrong. There are indeed many wonderful types of Christ in the OT. For example, I agree that in the Joseph narrative both Joseph and Judah are types of Christ even though the NT doesn't reference them. And if you can pick up on others without stretching the plain meaning of the texts, good for you. But most of the time, it's even easier and simpler to look for Christ using other methods. Plus, not every OT passage has a legitimate type in it. But you can trace a path to Christ from nearly anywhere in the OT using, say, a redemptive-historical approach.

So besides types, and maybe before you even try to look for types, consider other methods for seeing Christ in the OT:

- Redemptive-historical. What is God doing in the OT passage? How is it a part of his saving work? And how does this saving work progress to Christ and find ultimate fulfillment or expression in him?

- Character of God. What do we learn about God in the OT passage? How is this aspect of his character even more fully revealed in Christ?

- Recurring themes, especially those related to salvation. What does the OT passage tell us about sin? Or about grace? Or justice? Or how God saves his people? How is this theme worked out more fully in Christ?

- Tensions and problems solved. What tensions or problems are left unsettled in the OT passage? How are they finally resolved in Christ?

- Promises. What promises are made in the OT passage? How are the kept and fulfilled in Christ?

Beyond these there are types and analogies and such, and these are valid and important. But you don't need types to read with Christ-focused vision. And I personally find the other methods easier, more straightforward, and more surely found in every OT text.

 

[dimib116]

Dimi:

I agree with what Paul and Ruben have said. I would add that although many people think only of types when looking for Christ in the OT, types are actually among the most difficult and mistake-prone ways to read the OT with a Christ-centered approach.

Don't get me wrong. There are indeed many wonderful types of Christ in the OT. For example, I agree that in the Joseph narrative both Joseph and Judah are types of Christ even though the NT doesn't reference them. And if you can pick up on others without stretching the plain meaning of the texts, good for you. But most of the time, it's even easier and simpler to look for Christ using other methods. Plus, not every OT passage has a legitimate type in it. But you can trace a path to Christ from nearly anywhere in the OT using, say, a redemptive-historical approach.

So besides types, and maybe before you even try to look for types, consider other methods for seeing Christ in the OT:

- Redemptive-historical. What is God doing in the OT passage? How is it a part of his saving work? And how does this saving work progress to Christ and find ultimate fulfillment or expression in him?

- Character of God. What do we learn about God in the OT passage? How is this aspect of his character even more fully revealed in Christ?

- Recurring themes, especially those related to salvation. What does the OT passage tell us about sin? Or about grace? Or justice? Or how God saves his people? How is this theme worked out more fully in Christ?

- Tensions and problems solved. What tensions or problems are left unsettled in the OT passage? How are they finally resolved in Christ?

- Promises. What promises are made in the OT passage? How are the kept and fulfilled in Christ?

Beyond these there are types and analogies and such, and these are valid and important. But you don't need types to read with Christ-focused vision. And I personally find the other methods easier, more straightforward, and more surely found in every OT text.

Thanks for that Jack, those questions were actually really helpful.