That’s Typical
Typology. Theologians love ugly words. Don’t let the word put you off. As in almost any discipline of study the jargon is more difficult than the idea it represents. In fact it derives from a biblical word ‘type’. Adam for example is called a ‘type’ of Christ.
Typology was popular with Christians until the second half of the C20. Since then it has fallen out of favour. This is largely because of previous abuse. At one time the only kind of preaching heard was ‘typological’ and much of it was over imaginative. However, the answer to abuse is not disuse but right use. Today, interestingly, typology is once more being recognised by scholars as a legitimate, indeed necessary, method of Bible interpretation. If you despise typology then you are in a theological backwater.
What is typology?
Typology is a method of interpreting the OT. It says that OT people, places, events are not simply part of the flow of biblical history leading up to Christ but that these people, places, events and institutions often foreshadow/model/symbolise/parallel/image important aspects of NT truth, particularly who Jesus is and what he came to do. This is neither fanciful nor accidental, but intentional. God planned that OT people, places etc would pattern beforehand the Messiah and the shape of his messianic vision. They would model it partially and imperfectly, yet truly. In fact these very imperfections were vital to the ‘type’. For the people saw (or were intended to see) in the prototype an imperfect image of what the ideal could be and so it created a hunger for the ideal. The shadow stimulated longings for the reality. For example Moses in the OT was the prototype prophet. He modelled what a prophet ought to be. Yet even he was imperfect. He saw in his imperfection the need for a greater and better prophet, ‘the Prophet to come’ who would fill out and complete all that he could never attain (Deut 18:15). The same is true of Aaron the priest, or David the King. David was Israel’s greatest King. Of all her kings he came closest to what God’s ideal King would be. But close was painfully inadequate. Israel saw they needed a King like David, but superior to David (Ez 34:23). He would be the substance of which David was only the shape; the fulfilment of which David was at best a promise (Acts 2).
This entry has been viewed 70 times.
About John
Hi there - I am a member of Greenview and have been for over 20 years. For a number of these years I functioned as an elder, however, indifferent health forced me to take more of a back seat. I see this as an opportunity to do a little writing, often focussing on issues that are a matter of evangelical debate today. Naturally the views expressed are my own and may not reflect the views of the elders or church at large, though differences are likely to be in the detail and not the substance.
These articles and sermons were written partly to clarify my own thoughts and partly with the intention of provoking thought in others who may read them. If you read one I hope you find it stimulating. Please feel free to give me feedback or discuss my articles in the forums.
Subscribe to My Blog
Related Documents
Related Websites
- there are no related websites
Most Recent Articles
- He that endures to the End..
- Sermon: Romans 5:12-21 Two Humanities
- Sermon: The Fear of God
- Sermon: Romans 1:18-23
- Honest Hermeneutics
