Types in the Bible

“A type looks forward to and prefigures the antitype, whereas in an illustration the truth referred to in the New Testament is pointing back to an analogous person or situation in the Old Testament and drawing some parallels (Zuck 177).”  There are four views on interpreting types in the Bible.  These are – (1) No types in the Bible; (2) Excessive use of types; (3) Moderate View or two kinds of types; (4) the New Testament designates types.

The first view in interpreting types that says there are no types in the Bible is an extreme and I believe is incorrect.  Then there are excessive uses of types.  This seems to be the road allegorizers travel down.  There are no limits or controls placed on hermeneutics in this system.  In this system there is forced meaning in the text and historical realities are ignored.  The moderate view is the middle road which the limits and controls are minimized still.

Pentecost says “by its very nature a type is essentially prophetic in character (52).”  Fairbairn chimes in and says of a type and prophecy that “one images or prefigures (type) while the other foretells (prophecy) coming realities (106).”

I would say that the final view, that the New Testament designates types, would be the preferable one.  That being said the very term type should be understood.  “Most Bible students recognize that the Old Testament includes types that are later specified in some way in the New Testament.  The two Testaments are related by types and antitypes, shadows and fulfillments (Zuck 169).” 

“The safeguard against over imaginative misuse of the text does not lie in a retreat from the spiritual and divine nature of the Bible, or in the minimizing of its typical teaching.  The only legitimate and effective safeguard is to clearly demonstrate that the interpretation of typical passages is not a matter of whim and fancy, but of sound, cautious and logical procedure (Fairbairn X).” 

Zuck says that a type must have at least five elements.  They are “a notable resemblance or correspondence between the type and antitype, a prefiguring or predictive foreshadowing of the antitype by the type, a heightening in which the antitype is greater than the type, and divine design (Zuck 175).”  He goes on to add a sixth element which I agree with and that is – “it must be designated in the New Testament.”  Looking back on one of the basic principles of Bible interpretation – the Bible interprets itself.  The interpreter isn’t left hanging in trying to figure what God is saying.  I think where many go wrong with types is they fail to put controls on their system and confuse illustrations with types.  The Bible is full of illustration, especially those that speak to the coming Christ in the Old Testament.  Joseph was certainly an illustration of Christ.  He is the “lilly of the Valley” and the “Rose of Sharon” – but those aren’t types.  Geisler points out well I believe that there is a Christological theme in each book of the Old Testament.  “The Old Testament views Christ by way of anticipation; the New Testament views Him by way of realization (Geisler 18).”  Illustration are not specifically designated as a type in the NT.

On the other hand “a type may be defined as an OT person, event, or thing having historical reality and designed by God to prefigure in a preparatory way a real person, event, or thing so designated in the NT and that corresponds to and fulfills the type (Zuck 176).”

There must be controls and limitations in proper hermeneutics, without them the student is a ship on a large ocean with no rudder.

Presuppositions

Introduction

          Prolegomena is the study of presuppositions, definitions and theological methods that are foundational to any doctrinal system.  The approach in this paper will be dispensational.  That is necessary for a proper understanding of Scripture.  Presuppositions are basic to systematic theology.  A sound theological method must begin with the right assumptions about reality.  In this paper I will seek to isolate presuppositionalism as the framework upon which to build a sufficient method of theology.

          Two theologians which have dedicated the most to Prolegomena are Norman Geisler and Charles Ryrie.  Geisler’s approach is classical with emphasis on epistemology and has contributed an excellent systematic theology series to evangelicalism.  However his view on methodology is thus – “an adequate method for evangelical theology includes many steps that employ various parts of other methodologies.  This is not an eclectic method; rather it is a comprehensive methodology consistent with the corpus evangelical theology.  Used as individual methods they are inadequate, but employed as part of a total methodology, they serve an important function (Geisler 225).”  When the student sits down to study theology; to study the Bible, what presuppositions does he bring with him?  What someone believes in advance about God, the study of God, the Bible, the Church, Israel, Soteriology, sin and so forth, will make a tremendous impact on where they conclude in study. Dispensational theology (classical) says that all things are for God’s glory, Israel and the Church are distinct, and the Bible must be approached from a literal view.  Bringing those items to the table of study, the student will more often than not come out at specific place.

          Charles Ryrie in dealing with presuppositions says that the starting point should be the existence of the God of the Bible.  From a distinctively dispensational view he gets down to the core of presuppositions that are necessary for a Biblical Theology when he says – “The Trinitarian believes God is Triunity.  That is a belief gleaned from the Bible.  Therefore, he also believes the Bible to be true.  This stands as the watershed presupposition.  If the Bible is not true, then trinitarianism is untrue and Jesus Christ is not who He claimed to be…thus the belief in the truthfulness of the Bible is the basic presupposition (Ryrie 16).”  Everyone whether they know it or not, operates on some pre-understanding (some pre-belief).  Just as the atheist presupposes that God does not exist, he cannot approach the Bible with that pre-understanding and pull God’s intended truths out of it.

The Future Challenges

          Ryrie who could probably be considered the current day champion for classic dispensationalism states very clearly above the necessity and reality of the primacy of presuppositions in theological method.  That being said as we look back we can see that the core issues, fundamentally have been dealt with, but when it comes to method and presuppositions they have almost been neglected.  It is exactly that in which those who argue against dispensationalism go to.  The challenges are going to be to the means to which the doctrinal conclusions are arrived.  The critic will focus on the method, which unfortunately are not addressed in frequency.  It appears that there have been several who have defected from dispensationalism.  Could that be they are seeking systems that put a stronger emphasis on presupposition and method?  Even within dispensational circles method is shifting in regards to presuppositions.  This surely impacts negatively hermeneutics which will lead to something other than dispensationalism. 

          The Christian worldview must be the starting basis of the theological framework.  If that be true, which it is, we must stop allowing the world system to have such an impact on the church, theology, and hermeneutics.  There is a lot of confusion in evangelicalism, which seems to have been in a free fall for the last two and half decades.  That, I believe, has brought many back to the basics in search of simplicity.  We must not allow the world to influence our method.  In regards to its impact on hermeneutics – “the increased subjectivism and resulting confusion brought about through the incorporation of pre-understanding into the interpretive process.  By bringing pre-understanding to bear on interpretation at the outset of the process, interpreters are starting with contemporary considerations rather than those connected with the initial setting of a passage (Thomas 29).”   There are enormous challenges ahead.  There is a need for consistent approach to the Bible, particularly within the distinctives already mentioned above.  The difficulty is real and does not invalidate the reality of the hour. 

          Are there any negotiable within the dispensational system?  Unfortunately there are, however they are found in hermeneutic method.  It would seem that minimizing these would only be done through a consistent application in hermeneutics.  Thomas uses the term “hermeneutical self-awareness.”  It seems obvious that pre-understanding and presuppositions stand together, although many disagree with that.  This multiplicity of pre-understandings stems from tolerance and leads to subjectivism and relativism which ultimately robs the Scripture of its intended meaning and power.

I will post the rest of this Thursday….