Archive

Posts Tagged ‘typology’

Andrew Bonar: Leviticus, Covenantal Premillennialism, and Ezekiel

April 3, 2017 1 comment

As part of the 2017 Challies Reading Challenge, for the commentary I’m currently reading Andrew Bonar’s classic and highly-recommended commentary on Leviticus (1846).  I’m a little over halfway through, and greatly appreciate it, as a verse by verse, chapter by chapter commentary that is straightforward reading for the layperson, with many good devotional thoughts.

I have read other works by Andrew Bonar, including his Christ and His Church in the Book of Psalms, and (earlier this year) his biography of Robert Murray McCheyne, which I especially enjoyed.  I like reading his perspective as a covenantal premillennialist, a view not often seen today, due to the over-reaction by many Reformed against the errors of dispensationalism–to the point of rejecting even what has historically been affirmed by Reformed / covenantal theologians.  For Bonar, in the Reformed tradition, saw the unity of scripture (Old and New Testament), and noted in Leviticus many types (figures, allegories) of Christ—yet also affirmed what the scriptures say regarding Israel’s future and how the scriptures describe the future millennial age.

Here, from Bonar’s commentary – published in 1846, years before dispensationalism had taken hold of much of evangelical Christianity – come some interesting thoughts regarding Leviticus and the last chapters of Ezekiel, regarding the future millennial temple.  He notes (as did the later dispensational writers) the differences in this temple as compared to the previous tabernacle and temple, and relates the types and shadows of Leviticus to their educational, instructional purpose:

Is it not possible that some such end as this may be answered by the temple which Ezekiel foretells as yet to be built (chap. Xl., &c.)  Believing nations may frequent that temple in order to get understanding in these types and shadows.  They may go up to the mountain of the Lord’s house, to be there taught his ways (Isaiah 2:3).  In that temple they may learn how not one tittle of the law has failed.  … Indeed, the very fact that the order of arrangement in Ezekiel entirely differs from the order observed in either tabernacle or temple, and that the edifice itself is reared on a plan varying from every former sanctuary, is sufficient to suggest the idea that it is meant to cast light on former types and shadows.  … As it is said of the rigid features of a marble statue, that they may be made to move and vary their expression so as even to smile, when a skillful hand knows how to move a bright light before it; so may it be with these apparently lifeless figures, in the light of that bright millennial day.  At all events, it is probably then that this much-neglected book of Leviticus shall be fully appreciated.  Israel—the good olive-tree—shall again yield its fatness to the nations round (Romans 11:17).  Their ancient ritual may then be more fully understood, and blessed truth found beaming forth from long obscurity.”

The commentary itself includes many references to New Testament passages as well as the Psalms, to give a complete picture of the Levitical worship and what various texts in Leviticus symbolized or paralleled elsewhere.  As for instance, the concluding remarks on Leviticus 1 relate the sacrifices found here to the original sacrifices and features of Eden, explaining these details of God’s progressive revelation from earlier to later Old Testament revelation:

Let us briefly notice that the rudimental sketch of these offerings, and the mode of their presentation, will be found at the gate of Eden.  …  Just as we believe the Hiddekel and Euphrates of Genesis 2 are the same as the Hiddekel and Euphrates of later history; and the cherubim of Genesis 3 the same as those in the tabernacle; and the “sweet savour” of Genesis 8:21 the same as that in Leviticus 1:9 and Ephesians 5:2; so do we regard the intention of sacrifice as always the same throughout Scripture.

In Mosaic rites, the telescope was drawn out farther than at Eden, and the focus at which the ground object could be best seen was more nearly found.  But the gate of Eden presents us with the same truths in a more rudimental form.

… opposite to this sword [at the gate of Eden], at some distance, we see an altar where our first parents shed the blood of sacrifice—showing in type how the barred-up way of access to the Tree of Life was to be opened by the blood of the woman’s bruised seed.  …when we find clean and unclean noticed (Gen. 8:20), and in Abraham’s case (Genesis 15:9,10), the heifer and goat, the turtle and the pigeon, and also “commandments, statutes, and laws” (parallel to Lev. 26:46), we cannot but believe that these fuller institutions in Leviticus are just the expansion of what Adam first received.  The Levitical dispensation is the acorn of Eden grown to a full oak.  If so, then may we say, that the child Jesus, wrapped in his swaddling-clothes, was, in these ceremonies, laid down at the gate of Eden!

Old Testament Studies: Promise of A New Eden

March 13, 2014 2 comments

In my recent studies in the Old Testament I’ve looked more closely at the theme of return to creation, a return to Eden.  Previous material (reading and sermon teaching) often emphasized the Abrahamic covenant and everything that flows out from it – the Davidic and then the New Covenant – and our salvation which is rooted in the Abrahamic promises.  But as others have pointed out, the promise of redemption starts much earlier even than Abraham, back to the seed promise in Genesis 3; and the concept of covenants pre-dates Abraham, back to Adam and then Noah.

James Hamilton, in God’s Glory in Salvation through Judgment, frequently notes the link between the early nation Israel and Eden, the Promised Land described as a new Eden (as in the following, cited in this previous post):

the Promised Land almost becomes a new Eden. The Lord will walk among his people in the land, just as he walked in the garden (Gen. 3:8; Lev. 26:11–12; Deut. 23:15). Like the fertile garden of Eden, the Promised Land will flow with milk and honey. On the way to the Promised Land, the camp of Israel is even described in Edenic terms.

Also this interesting reference, from David Baron’s Israel in the Plan of God, commentary on Isaiah 51:3 (“​​​​​​​For the Lord comforts Zion; he comforts all her waste places and makes her wilderness like Eden, her desert like the garden of the Lord.”)

How glorious a transformation! From a state of total barrenness into another Eden, with all its fertility and beauty, and instead of its present condition of utter desolation it shall be like “the garden of Jehovah,” as glorious as if it had been directly planted by Himself for His own joy and delight.

Searching through the Bible for references to Eden, or the garden of the Lord, reveals more of this theme in the prophets, that restored Israel will be “like the garden of Eden”  (Ezekiel 36:35, Isaiah 51:3), like a watered garden (Isaiah 58:11 and Jeremiah 31:12).  The same figure is used in reverse as well, as in Joel 2:3:  “The land is like the garden of Eden before them, but behind them a desolate wilderness, and nothing escapes them.”  Ezekiel and Zechariah’s description of the future restoration of Israel and its temple structure includes a river flowing out, another likeness to the garden of Eden, bringing everything at the end back to the beginning in Eden.

Hamilton further notes the correspondences between Eden and Israel itself.  Compare Numbers 24:6, Balaam’s description of Israel, with Genesis 2.  Both passages mention the Lord God, and the words planted, garden, river, and trees:  Like palm groves that stretch afar, like gardens beside a river, like aloes that the Lord has planted, like cedar trees beside the waters.  Also consider the following correspondences between the description of Eden (Genesis 2-3) and passages about the tabernacle (in the Pentateuch) and the temple (including the description of the future temple):

(From God’s Glory in Salvation through Judgment, Table 2.3. Correspondences between Eden and the Tabernacle and Temple.)

Correspondences Eden Tabernacle/Temple
God walking among his people Gen. 3:8 Lev. 26:11–13; Deut. 23:14; 2 Sam. 7:6–7
Holy tree/blooming lampstand Gen. 2:9 Ex. 25:31–40; 1 Chron. 28:15
Gold and precious stones Gen. 2:11–12 Ex. 25:7, 11, etc.
Entered from the east Gen. 3:24 Num. 3:38
Guarded by cherubim Gen. 3:24 Ex. 25:10–22; 26:1; 1 Kings 7:29
Food/bread Gen. 2:9 Ex. 25:30; 1 Kings 7:48
Priest who “works and keeps” Gen. 2:15 Num. 3:7–8; 8:26; 18:5–6
Rivers flowing out Gen. 2:10–14 Ezek. 47:1; Joel 3:18; Zech. 14:8

Typology and Parallels Within the Old Testament: Exodus and the Conquest of Canaan

March 7, 2014 2 comments

Continuing through James Hamilton’s God’s Glory in Salvation through Judgment, I’m now reading the section on the former prophets.  Hamilton’s work brings out an interesting aspect of typology:  not merely the illustrations and pictures (types) concerning the correspondences between Old Testament persons, events, or institutions, and New Testament fulfillment.  Typology can also include correspondences between one Old Testament event and a later Old Testament event.  Herein we observe the central theme of scripture, repeated throughout the unfolding story of God’s work with the nation Israel:  God’s Glory as the ultimate purpose of His works, accomplished in Salvation through Judgment.

Considering the Old Testament “Prophets” section and its beginning chapter (Joshua), Hamilton observes several interesting parallels between the Exodus experience and the later conquest of Canaan:

1. Explicit comparison between the crossing of the Red Sea (Exodus) and the later crossing of the River Jordan (Josh. 4:23)

2. The judgment of circumcision:  Moses’ sons in Exodus 4:24-26.  Then, the conquest generation in Joshua 5; Through the judgment of circumcision, the reproach of Egypt is rolled away (Joshua 5:9).

3. Angel of the Lord appearances of God: to Moses (the burning bush); then to Joshua in Joshua 5, the meeting with the Captain of the Host of Yahweh

Just as Moses drew near and inspected the burning bush, Joshua draws near the man with the drawn sword (5:13). Just as Moses was instructed to remove his sandals because of the holy ground, so Joshua is told to remove his (5:15). These historical correspondences connect the beginnings of the triumphant exodus to the beginnings of what is hereby guaranteed to be the triumphant conquest. There might be an escalation of significance in that whereas Moses was resistant to what Yahweh commanded him to do and is not said to have worshiped, Joshua not only does not question and object, as Moses did, but he worships (5:14)

4.  Likeness to Eden

This man with the drawn sword stands to the east of the land, at its entrance, creating an intriguing connection between the land Israel is crossing over to possess, and the land from which Adam and Eve were expelled.15 The way to Eden was guarded at the east by a cherubim with a flaming sword (Gen. 3:24). Similarly, Balaam likened the camp of Israel to a garden planted by Yahweh (Num. 24:6), and as he made his way to their camp, he met the angel of Yahweh, who had a drawn sword in his hand (Num. 22:22–35). With Yahweh in their midst, Israel has recaptured something of the Edenic experience. As they cross into the land, Israel moves in the direction of the reversal of the curse.

5.  Yahweh pursues His glory: He hardened Pharaoh’s heart (Exodus) to accomplish His purpose of the Exodus.  Then He hardens the hearts of the Canaanite kings of the land, to accomplish His purpose of bringing the people into the land, the conquest.

As well summarized, God’s purpose in these great events:

The typological connections between the exodus and conquest set forth in Joshua 4:23, where the crossing of the sea is compared to the crossing of the river, and 5:13–16, where, like Moses, Joshua unshods his feet on holy ground, join with other features in the text17 to indicate that Yahweh’s goal at the conquest is the same goal He had at the exodus. There He wanted all to know that He is Yahweh. He pursued His glory—the proclamation of His name—by saving Israel through the judgment of Egypt. At the conquest, Yahweh causes the inhabitants of the land to know that He is God (2:9–11), He makes Israel know that he is among them (3:10), and He makes the peoples of the land know His might (4:24). Just as Yahweh hardened the heart of Pharaoh to accomplish His purpose at the exodus, so He hardens the hearts of the kings of the land at the conquest (11:18, 20).18 Just as Yahweh demonstrated His glory at the exodus by saving Israel through the judgment of Egypt, He demonstrates His glory at the conquest by saving Israel through the judgment of the peoples of the land.

Presuppositions of Typology

December 3, 2013 Leave a comment

The following points come from Fred Zaspel’s recent blog series on typology, at Credo magazine.  For future reference, his list of six presuppositions of Biblical Typology:

1)      the understanding of the relation of the Old Testament to the New Testament as essentially that of promise and fulfillment. This is reflected in the larger framework of the Old Testament and its patterns, and it is one aspect of typology specifically. The broad narrative of the Old Testament is incomplete in that its story never reaches a climax or conclusion. There is a hope still in place that awaits Christ.

2)      A recognition of history as revelation, a conviction that God reveals himself and his purpose in words, yes, but also in historical events and actions.

3)      An understanding of history as prophecy, an understanding that God directed and arranged historical events, institutions, and persons in a way that was not just analogous to but inherently prospective of a greater reality yet to come. There was a conviction that the patterns of history were illustrative and forward-pointing, portraying ahead of time the way God would yet work in history.

4)      The Sovereignty of God in history is also presupposed, an unshakable conviction that as Lord of history he was all along arranging and directing events and people with his own purpose and goal in mind, thus establishing a framework and declaring ahead of time what he would yet do.

5)      History is redemptive in purpose and in design, that God is working in history toward the goal of his gracious saving purpose that culminates in Christ.

6)      The centrality of Christ in history and in revelation. In a sense, typology is christology, for it all — history and revelation — culminates in Him (Ephesians 1:10).

Christ’s Sufferings In Type: Christology, S. Lewis Johnson

April 29, 2013 2 comments

S. Lewis Johnson’s Systematic Theology series, Christology section, again brings great lessons regarding biblical typology, with “Christ: His Sufferings in Type” (this audio message; transcript here).

As noted from previous S. Lewis Johnson typology lessons (also reference these posts, typology in reference to Joseph and David), a type is not some special technical term reserved only for the “types” explicitly called types in the New Testament.  Rather, a type is just another word for “illustration” or “example,” one that has specific characteristics, including historicity and pattern, with spiritual correspondences between people, things (or institutions), or events within historical revelation – that is, within the Bible.  Typology is a form of prophecy: prophecy conveyed through history.  A type prefigures. A prophecy foretells.  The word type is not a technical term.  that Greek word is a word that does not have any special significance.  It means simply, example. 

Yet the idea of a special classification of only explicitly-named types is not unique to our day (reference this post), for S. Lewis Johnson responded to such a notion in this, the early 1970s Systematic Theology lesson, noting the following:

1)     The New Testament never says that Joseph is a type of Christ.  But there is not a clearer OT example of Jesus Christ than Joseph.  The NT does explicitly call Adam a type of Christ, in Romans 5.   Yet Adam is a type in only one particular point (a representative man), and is actually more to be contrasted with Christ in every other aspect.

2)    Jesus describes Himself as the reality of several Old Testament types, none of which are explicitly called types in the New Testament: as for instance the Temple, Jacob’s ladder, the manna in the wilderness, the brazen serpent, the smitten rock, the pillar of fire.

Also from this lesson: why is typology valid? God controls all of history, and so we observe that Old Testament events were designed by God to express aspects of the ministry of our Lord Jesus.

Now to some actual types of Christ’s sufferings:

In Typical Persons:

  1. Joseph: a man of dreams, dungeons and diadems.  Parallels to Christ in His suffering:
  • the object of the desire and heart of his father’s love.
  • Received a commission from his father to his brethren.
  • Rejected by his brethren, into captivity.
  • lived a life of humiliation (prison)
  • exalted to be a ruler in Egypt (Jesus has been exalted to the right hand of the Father.)
  • acquired a bride in his exaltation; Jesus is acquiring a bride (the church).
  • used to bring about the restoration of his brethren.  Jesus at His second coming shall be used to bring about the restoration of Israel.

2. Moses.  New Testament reference typology: Stephen’s speech in Acts 7.  Moses was rejected by his people, same as Jesus is now rejected by His people Israel.

3. David.

  • Rejected, hunted by Saul, and persecuted. Lived in rejection, and gathered a group of troubled, depressed people to himself. Likewise Christ is now gathering a peculiar people to Himself.
  • Anointed king, then slew Goliath; then rejection. Christ at the cross slew Goliath; then was rejected.
  • David later came into his kingdom, as Christ will at His Second Coming.

In Typical Events:

  • Coats of skins in Eden, Genesis 3.
  • The Passover.  Exodus 12
  • The Smitten Rock — Exodus 17.  The rod that had turned the water of Egypt into blood.

In Typical Institutions:

  • The Tabernacle
  • The brazen altar, the mercy seat
  • The Priesthood:  ordination of the priests.
  • The Offerings: the day of atonement; the offerings in Leviticus 1-4; the offering for the cleansing of a leper

Judges As Types: Why They Are Called gods

December 28, 2012 2 comments

Going through S. Lewis Johnson’s “Gospel of John” series, some great insights concerning Jesus’ statement in John 10:34-36:

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came-and Scripture cannot be broken- 36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

Here Jesus cites Psalm 82:6, which refers to unjust human judges and calls them gods.  What exactly did Jesus mean here?  I’ve heard the general “lesser to greater” argument but hadn’t previously considered this text in depth.

one modern commentator has said that what our Lord is doing is simply using an a fortiori argument.  That is for a still stronger reason if mere men may be called gods then surely I may be called the Son of God.  And it’s not blasphemy for me to be called the Son of God if mere men, unjust judges should be called gods.

This isn’t a fully satisfying answer, though, since – as S. Lewis Johnson notes – after all they’re accusing him of claiming deity, not simply that he’s a God like other men are gods.

Another response given is that Jesus is repelling the technical charge, and that it’s not blasphemy to call someone God who really is God.   So if you can call human judges gods then surely you can call someone who is sanctified and sent into the world the Son of God. 

This may be the sense that was intended, but S. Lewis Johnson then goes a little deeper:  the typology of judges, as a type of God and representing God, and, in the type, showing the unity between the human ruler and God:

Why were judges called gods?  Now that’s not the only place.  In a couple of other places in the Old Testament they’re also called gods.  Why are they called gods?  Why is a judge called a god in the Bible?

Obviously it’s not God in the sense of one who possesses full deity, but yet there is some relationship.  There is some form of representative unity that exists between a human being called a god and the great Triune God in heaven.  Well, judges did have a relationship of limited union with God because they were their divinely delegated representatives.  In Israel, a judge was one who should judge under God, and should judge with the judgment of God.  In that sense they were in limited union with God, very limited union, similar to Paul’s statement in Romans 13 when he calls the magistrates of the cities, ministers of God.

Think of all of our political men.  Of all of the titles that you would think that are least applicable to them, what would stand out most?  Well, I won’t ask you to reply.  I’ll just reply for myself.  What is the least applicable title that I can think of for Senators, and Congressman, and Mayors, and Governors, ministers of God, and yet that’s what they are, ministers of God.  By the providence of God they serve in their office.  … You see they are magistrates of God.  There is a limited sense of union in that they serve ideally and responsibly before God as representatives of him.  They talk about representing the people, but they really are ideally the representatives of God.  That should be their first responsibility.  So there is a limited union then between a magistrate and the Lord God.

In this sense they are types and shadows of a deeper union to come.  All of these things were arranged by God so that they would lead up the great union that exists between the Son and the Father, the mediator, the Lord Jesus Christ, who is absolutely on with the Father.  So the germ of the union between God and man existed in the law, even in unjust judges.  But the Lord Jesus is the one who has perfectly realized the union of God and man in his incarnation and atonement.  And that is indicated by the words, “Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world.”  He perfectly realizes the union between man and God.

Now if you can call those little fellows gods, how much more is it proper and right for him to whom all of those limited unions pointed to call him Son of God?  They all pointed forward to him.  The prophets in the Old Testament had a limited union with God, but they pointed forward to the prophet.  The priests of the Old Testament had a limited union with God, but they looked forward to the priest, the eternal priest, the kings likewise to the King.  And the judges looked forward to the judge, and the judge who would do exactly what Psalm 82 said, “But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes,” when you do not respond to the truth of God.  It was a very affective thrust because it reminded them not only of the fact of his right to be called the Son of God, but also of his right to be the ultimate judge of all men including the judges, and especially the judges among the Pharisees and Sadducees who were before his face at this present moment.

It’s a magnificent reply.

Water from the Rock: Genre Reading Selections

November 24, 2012 4 comments

From my recent readings in a genre style plan, the following passages came up together one day — a few interesting passages to think upon:

  •  John 7:37-39, when Jesus stood up, on the last day, the great day of the Feast, and proclaimed Himself the source of the river of living water
  • Next, Exodus 17:1-7, the story of that event so well remembered thousands of years later at the Feast in John 7: Moses striking the rock, and water coming out for the thirsty people in the desert
  • An unrelated event, one I wouldn’t have thought of except that it was also in the daily genre reading selection:  Judges 15:19, a time when Samson was given special grace, that a “hollow place” in the wilderness split open and provided him water, so that “his spirit returned, and he revived.”
  • Isaiah 48, a great chapter about the suffering servant, including a well-known Old Testament trinity verse (Isaiah 48:16), and in verse 21 another reference to the water from the rock:

They did not thirst when he led them through the deserts;
he made water flow for them from the rock;
he split the rock and the water gushed out.

In God’s word, water is often used as a picture of the Holy Spirit, that which refreshes our soul as physical water refreshes our thirst.  Many other Bible verses also speak of coming to the water, as for instance Isaiah 55:1 and again at the very end of the Bible, Revelation 22:17.  The rock is our God (the first mention in Deuteronomy 32:31), also Christ specifically (1 Corinthians 10:4).  Thus the scriptures also show the importance of the idea of water from the rock, through repetition and remembrance as in the above mentioned texts.