offered up his only son on Mount Moriah, he performed a typical
attain success in his own strength and by his own devices, and was now taught, by being disabled, that his career of self-help and resistance to God was futile; and that he had to resort to the use of spiritual weapons, particularly the weapon of prayer, in order to obtain the blessing of Jehovah. His strength had to be broken, that the power of God might become manifest in him.
Or, take one of the miracles of the Saviour. According to John 6:1– 13, Jesus miraculously fed a multitude of more than 5000. To regard this miracle merely as a proof of the Lord's omnipotence is to miss the point as much as the Jews did in Jesus' day. They lost sight of the fact that it was a sign, pointing to the sufficiency of Jesus, as the heavenly bread, to satisfy the hungry souls of men. Christ himself clearly reveals the significance of this miracle in his discourse at Capernaum on the following day. The Scriptural miracles are often symbols of spiritual truth. The very name semeia points to that, and some of the Gospel passages indicate it very clearly. Cf. John 9:1–7, esp. vs. 5; 11:17–44, esp. vss. 25, 26.
2. FACTS MAY HAVE TYPICAL SIGNIFICANCE. When Abraham offered up his only son on Mount Moriah, he performed a typical deed. David, as theocratic king, was clearly a type of his great son. The serpent lifted up in the desert pointed forward to the elevation of Christ on the cross. And the high priest entering the inner sanctuary once a year to make atonement for the sin of the people pre-figured Him who in the fulness of time entered the heavenly sanctuary with his own blood, thus obtaining an eternal redemption. In connection with the types, which occupy an important place in the Bible, two questions arise: (a) What is a type? and (b) What rules apply in its interpretation?
a. The characteristics of types. What is a type? A correct answer to this question will safeguard us against the double error of limiting the typical element too much, on the one hand, and, on the other, of enlarging it unduly. The word "type" (Greek tupos, derived from the verb, tupto), denotes (1) the mark of a blow; (2) an impression, the
stamp made by a die—hence a figure, an image; and (3) an example or pattern, which is the most common meaning in the Bible. Both types and symbols are indicative of something else. They differ, however, in important points. A symbol is a sign, while a type is a pattern or image of something else. A symbol may refer to something either past, present, or future, while a type always prefigures some future reality. Davidson says: "A symbol is a fact that teaches a moral truth. A type is a fact that teaches a moral truth and predicts some actual realization of that truth" (Old Testament Prophecy, p. 229). Scriptural types are not all of one kind. There are typical persons, typical places, typical things, typical rites and typical facts. According to Terry, the fundamental idea is that of "the preordained representative relation which certain persons, events, and institutions of the Old Testament bear to corresponding persons, events, and institutions in the New" (Biblical Hermeneutics, p. 246).
The following three characteristics are generally given by writers on typology: (1) There must be some notable real point of resemblance between a type and its antitype. Whatever differences there may be, the former should be a true picture of the latter in some particular point. (2) The type must be designed by divine appointment to bear a likeness to the anti-type. Accidental similarity between an Old and New Testament person or event does not constitute the one a type of the other. There must be some Scriptural evidence that it was so designed by God. This is not equivalent to the position of Marsh, who insisted on it that nothing should be regarded as typical that was not expressly so designated in the New Testament. If this canon were correct, why not apply it also to Old Testament prophecies? (3) A type always prefigures something future. Moorehead correctly says: "A Scriptural type and predictive prophecy are in substance the same, differing only in form" (Article, "Type," in The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia). This distinguishes it from a symbol. It is well to bear in mind, however, that the Old Testament types were at the same time symbols that conveyed spiritual truths to contemporaries, for their symbolical meaning must be understood before their typical meaning can be ascertained.
b. The interpretation of types. In the interpretation of symbols and types, the same general rules apply that govern the interpretation of parables. Hence we may refer to these. But there are certain special considerations that ought to be borne in mind.
(1) The interpreter should guard against the mistake of regarding a thing that is in itself evil as a type of what is good and pure. There must be congruity. It jars our moral sense to find the clothes of Esau, in which Jacob was dressed, when he deceived his father and received the blessing, represented as a type of the righteousness with which Christ adorns his saints. Of course, there are types in malam partem of similar antitypes. Cf. Gal. 4:22–31.
(2) The Old Testament types were, at the same time, symbols and types; because they were, first of all, symbols expressive of spiritual truth. The truth represented by these symbols for contemporaries was the same as that which they prefigured as types, though in its future realization that truth was raised to a higher level. Hence the proper way to the understanding of a type lies through the study of the symbol. The question must be settled first of all of what moral or spiritual truth the Old Testament symbols conveyed to the Israelites. And only after this is answered satisfactorily should the expositor proceed to the further query as to how this truth was realized on a higher plane in the New Testament. Thus the proper limits of the interpretation of the type will be fixed at once. To reverse the process, and begin with the New Testament realization, leads to all kinds of arbitrary and fanciful interpretations. For example, some interpreters found in the fact that the brazen serpent was made of an inferior metal, a figure of Christ's outer meanness or humble appearance; in its solidity, a sign of his divine strength; and in its dim lustre, a prefiguration of the veil of his human nature.
(3) But, having learned from a study of their symbolical import the proper limits of the types, the exact truth which they conveyed to the Old Testament people of God, the interpreter will have to turn to the New Testament for a real insight into the truth that was typified. It is
patent that the types present the truth in a veiled form, while the New Testament realities dispel the shadows and make the truth stand forth with undimmed lustre. If the prophecies can be fully understood only in the light of their fulfilment, this also applies to the types. Notice how much additional light the Epistle to the Hebrews sheds on the truths embodied in the tabernacle and its furniture.
(4) It is a fundamental principle that types, which are not of a complex nature, have but one radical meaning. Hence the interpreter is not at liberty to multiply its significations, and to make, for example, the passage of the Red Sea, regarded as a type of baptism, refer (a) to the atoning blood of Christ, which offers a safe way to the heavenly Canaan, and (b) to the trials through which Christ leads his people to their eternal rest. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that some types may find more than one fulfilment in New Testament realities, for instance, one in Christ, and another in the people who are organically connected with him. God's dwelling among Israel was a type of his tabernacling among men in Christ, and of his dwelling in the congregation of his saints. The two ideas are fundamentally one, and therefore exactly in line with each other.
(5) Finally, it is necessary to have due regard to the essential difference between type and antitype. The one represents truth on a lower, the other, the same truth on a higher stage. To pass from the type to the antitype is to ascend from that in which the carnal preponderates to that which is purely spiritual, from the external to the internal, from the present to the future, from the earthly to the heavenly. Rome loses sight of this when it finds the antitype of the Old Testament sacrifices, in the mass; of the priesthood, in the apostolic succession of priests and bishops; and of the high priest, in the pope.
EXERCISE: What was the symbolical meaning of the following? The pillars of cloud and fire (Ex. 13:21); the story of Israel's unbelief and rejection at Kadesh-Barnea (Num. 14); the crossing of Jordan (Jos.
3); the resurrection of the dry bones (Ezek. 37:1–14); the marriage of Hosea (Hos. 1); Joshua clothed with filthy garments (Zech. 3); the cleansing of the temple (John 2:13–25); the healing of the man born blind (John 9); the raising of Lazarus (John 11); the gift of tongues (Acts 2).
What was the typical significance of the following? The pass-over; the tabernacle; the altar of burnt-offering; the golden candlestick; the high priest: the sabbath; the special ceremony on the Day of Atonement; Moses; Joshua; David; Solomon.
LITERATURE: Fairbairn. Typology; Moorehead, Studies in the Mosaic Institutions; Schouten, De Tabernakel, Gods Heiligdom bij Israel; White, Christ in the Tabernacle; Newton, The Tabernacle; Atwater, Sacred Tabernacle of the Hebrews; Terry Biblical Hermeneutics, pp. 244–303; and various works on Archaeology.
E. The Interpretation of Prophecy
In the study of prophecy, the expositor encounters some of the most difficult problems of interpretation. These result partly from the character of prophecy as such, and partly from the form in which it is often cast. There are two opposite views of prophecy that should be carefully avoided. The one is that advanced by Butler and adopted by many sects in the present day, viz., that "prophecy is nothing but the history of events before they come to pass." On this standpoint, prophecy must be studied like Sacred History, and its literal fulfilment may confidently be expected. The other view is that of many Rationalists, viz., that predictive prophecy is simply the fruit of an intuition or divination, such as often characterizes great statesmen. Extremists even deny the existence of such prophecy outright, and regard apparent cases of it as vaticinia post eventum (predictions after the fact). Prophecy may simply be defined as the proclamation of that which God revealed. The prophet received special revelations from God, and, in turn, conveyed them to the people. These revelations served to explain the past, to elucidate the