Doc Notes: Gleanings from Genesis Lesson 2 Part 10 Types and meanings

Gentle reader,

It is our intention to understand how God speaks to us through His word and how the writers that He used, spoke, as Peter said "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2Pe 1:21) The whole Scripture, all the prophetic writings; so the Jews call the Scriptures הנבואה, "the prophecy" (g), by way of eminence, and from the subject matter of the sacred word: came not in old time by the will of man; was not brought into the world at first, or in any period of time, as and when man would, according to his pleasure, and as he thought fit: neither Moses, nor David, nor Isaiah, nor Jeremiah, nor Ezekiel, nor Daniel, nor any other of the prophets, prophesied when they pleased, but when it was the will of God they should; they were stirred up to prophesy, not by any human impulse, but by a divine influence: with this agrees what R. Sangari says,

"that the speech of the prophets, when the Holy Spirit clothed them, in all their words was directed by a divine influence, and the prophet could not speak in the choice of his own words,''

or according to his will:

but holy men of God; such as he sanctified by his Spirit, and separated from the rest of men to such peculiar service; and whom he employed as public ministers of his word: for so this phrase "men", or "man of God", often signifies, 1Sam 2:27. spake, as they were moved by the Holy Ghost; who illuminated their minds, gave them a knowledge of divine things, and a foresight of future ones; dictated to them what they should say or write; and moved upon them strongly, and by a secret and powerful impulse stirred them up to deliver what they did, in the name and fear of God: which shows the authority of the Scriptures, that they are the word of God, and not of men; and as such should be attended to, and received with all affection and reverence; and that the Spirit is the best interpreter of them, who first dictated them; and that they are to be the rule of our faith and practice; nor are we to expect any other, until the second coming of Christ.

(g) R. Eliahu in Adderet apud Trigland. de Sect Karaeorum, c. 10. p. 153.

A type may be said to be any person, object, event, act, or institution divinely adapted to represent some spiritual reality, or to prefigure some person or truth to be later revealed.

An antitype is one that is foreshadowed by or identified with an earlier symbol or type, such as a figure in the New Testament who has a counterpart in the Old Testament. An opposite or contrasting type.

It is well in this early stages of these studies that we should have a clear idea of the presence and purpose of type; and the Book of Genesis which we are now studying is singularly rich in types.

In our interpretation and application of types there are two precautions which should always be born in mind. First: no doctrine or theory should ever be built on a type ot types independently of direct teaching elsewhere in Scripture. Types are meant to amplify and vivify doctrine, but not to originate it. They are illuminative but not foundational. Their purpose is it illustrate, not to formulate. This should be obvious in the very nature of the case, for they are types, then they are not originals, but representations of things other than themselves; and unless the realities which they typify existed, the types themselves could not exist. Thus, types are dependent, and must not be used independently to authenticate doctrine.

Second: The parallelism between type and antitype should not be pressed to fanciful extremes . Types it would seem, are not meant to be exact replicas of those things which they typify, but to enrich and illumine our understanding of more essential features in the antitype. When the interpretation of types is carried into insignificant minutiae it degenerates into imaginative allegorizing, which has many dangers.

Values of typology

For example we are told that Joseph is a type of Christ, yet who can read that wonderful Old Testament record in the light of New Testament history without recognizing in Joseph -beloved, humiliated, exalted (not to mention the variety of contributory details)- one of the clearest and fullest types of Christ anywhere in the Scriptures? We hold the writers of the New Testament, like those of the Old, were men inspired by the spirit of God; and because of this their word has a unique authority with us. It has been said the New Testament is but a commentary to the Old. Studied with good sense and a careful eye to New testament teaching, the typology of the Old Testament is a priceless treasure mine to the Bible student, and should on no account be neglected.

Below are just a few of types in Genesis that one would do well to study out for himself/herself.

Adam - type of Christ

Cain and Abel - carnal vs spiritual

Enoch - The coming Translation

Flood survivors - the Church

Lot - type of worldly believer

Melchizedek - type of Christ

all of these and many more are deep wells of truth; truth which, when it is brought to the surface, is clear and fresh as it is deep and hidden.

We will close for now, but if the student is interested we could recommend:

The typology of Scripture: viewed in connection with the whole series of the divine dispensations by Patrick Fairbairn

Next time Gentle Reader we will close our study of Genesis with consideration of four pivotal persons. And move on the the Book of Exodus.

Love,

Denis