預表論(TYPOLOGY)(臘:typos,「印記」)改寫自《聖經新辭典》
這是聖經一種很重要的陳述手法。是一種貫穿整本聖經的邏輯。這種陳述聖經救恩歷史的方法,讓某些較早的階段顯為較後階段的先現,或讓某些較後階段顯為早期階段的重演或應驗。也是漸進式天啟(progressive revelation)的呈現。
舊約有兩個原型時代(archetypal epochs)
在舊約中,有兩個原型時代(archetypal epochs)再三以預表方式表明出來,分別是創世和出埃及的時日,舊約把出埃及一事視為一個新的創造,或至少是最初的創造活動的重複。在太初駕馭狂瀾,說「你只可到這裡,不可越過」(創一9-10;伯卅八8-11)的那一位,在出埃及的事件中,顯出同樣的能力,止住了蘆葦海的水(出十四21-29)。
他以能力攪動大海;他藉知識打傷拉哈伯,藉他的靈使天有妝飾;他的手刺殺快蛇。(伯廿六12-13)
—-當創造主克服拉哈伯與大龍(伯廿六12-13)的傳說用來媲美祂在出埃及的勝利時(詩七十四12-14,八十九8-10),創造與出埃及的對應尤獲強調(拉哈伯與大龍在遠古時象徵混沌)。拉哈伯成為了埃及的預表(參:賽卅7),而大龍(利未亞坦)則是法老的「預表」(參:結廿九3)。
神自古以來為我的王,在地上施行拯救。你曾用能力將海分開,將水中大魚的頭打破。你曾砸碎鱷魚的頭,把他給曠野的禽獸為食物。(詩七十四12-14)
耶和華─萬軍之神啊,哪一個大能者像你耶和華?你的信實是在你的四圍。你管轄海的狂傲;波浪翻騰,你就使他平靜了。你打碎了拉哈伯,似乎是已殺的人;你用有能的膀臂打散了你的仇敵。(詩八十九8-10)
埃及的幫助是徒然無益的;所以我稱他為坐而不動的拉哈伯。(賽卅7)
說主耶和華如此說:埃及王法老啊,我與你這臥在自己河中的大魚為敵。你曾說:這河是我的,是我為自己造的。(結廿九3)
Speak, and say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers, which hath said, My river is mine own, and I have made it for myself.(結廿九3 king James Version)
聖經作者把以色列從被擄到巴比倫後回歸和重建的經歷,描繪為一個新的創造,和一次新的出埃及事件。創世記一章及二章中,用來形容創造主的創世奇工的動詞(來:bara~,yasar, asa),被應用在祂重建擄民的行為上(參:賽四十三7,在這裡,三個動詞同時出現)。
創世時大龍的預表,早已被用來描繪耶和華在出埃及的勝利,現在也被用來形容這新的勝利。百姓呼求耶和華「興起」(膀臂)……像古時的年日興起一樣」(那時祂「砍碎拉哈伯,刺透大龍」)(賽五十一9),他們此刻是呼籲神在這新的處境中,重複祂在創世和以色列人出埃及時的偉大作為。
倘若在出埃及時祂藉著「在滄海中開道,在大水中開路」(賽四十三16)來拯救祂的子民,那麼當那些被擄歸回的人從水中經過的時候,祂會與他們同在(賽四十三2),祂必「在曠野開道路,在沙漠開江河」(賽四十三19)。
正如出埃及的一代,日間由雲柱帶領,夜間由火柱引路,而當後面有危險威脅時,雲柱和火柱又會繞到他們的後邊;同樣,回歸者也得到應許:「耶和華必在你們前頭行,以色列的神必作你們的後盾」(賽五十二12)。對於後來的世代而言,他們就像祖先一樣,真正體驗到「耶和華引導他們經過沙漠,他們並不乾渴,祂為他們使水從磐石而流」(賽四十八21)。
用預表論的字眼來說,從前一系列的事件構成了後來事件的一種「預表」(type);後者則是前者的「對範」(antitype,誠之按:即預表所對應之本體)。
或者我們可以說,救恩歷史中接連不斷的時期,揭示出神的工作有重複出現的模式,而新約的作者們相信,這個模式在他們的時代已最終明確地體現了。
新約
奧古斯丁的精闢句概述了新舊約之間的預表關係:「新約藏臥於舊約;舊約顯立於新約」(或譯:舊約是新約的隱藏;新約是舊約的顯明)。
在新約中,基督徒的救贖是神偉大工作的高峰,是祂在舊約的「典型」(typical;或譯為預表性的)偉大工作的「對範」。基督徒的救恩被視為一次新的創造、新的出埃及,和從被擄中新的重建。
a. 新的創造
「那吩咐光從黑暗裡照出來的神,已經照在我們心裡,叫我們得知神榮耀的光顯在耶穌基督的面上」(林後四6)。也許第四卷福音書提供了創世預表論一個最清楚的例證,其開端──「太初……」──即與創世記起首的話相和應:在上古叫萬物成形的神的道,現在成了肉身,開始一個新的創造。
保羅說那些「在基督裡」的人成為了「新造的人」(林後五17;加六15)。保羅和那在拔摩海島上見異象者同樣認為,基督救贖的工作扭轉了始祖墮落所帶來的咒詛(羅八19-21;啟廿二1-5)。福音建立了「新天新地,有義居在其中」(彼後三13;參:啟廿一1)。
b. 新的出埃及
出埃及的預表尤其遍布於新約中。馬太似乎認為耶穌的孩提時代重演了以色列早期的經歷,即下到埃及,然後又返上來(太二15)。約翰則藉著他的福音書的先後次序及其他事件,暗示基督是逾越節羔羊的對範(參:約十九14、36)。
彼得的說法也大致一樣(彼前一19),而保羅則更清楚闡明這思想:因為「我們逾越節的羔羊基督已經被殺獻祭了」,所以祂的子民應該用「誠實真正的無酵餅」來慶祝隨後的這節期(林前五7-8)。正如以色列人經過蘆葦海,照樣基督徒也受洗歸入基督;正如以色列人從天上得餅、從磐石得水,照樣基督徒也有他們獨特的「靈食靈飲」(林前十1-4)。
正如出埃及的一代,雖然得到各樣福氣,卻仍因為不信及不服從而要死在曠野,不得進入應許之地;同樣,新約聖經勸勉基督徒要接受警戒,免得失足跌倒(林前十5-12;參:來三7-四13;猶5)。因為這些事發生在以色列人身上,是要「作為鑒戒(τυπικῶς),並且寫在經上,正是警戒我們這末世的人」(林前十11)。這預表具有濃厚的道德和勸喻的重點。
c. 新的重建
「福音」(euangelion)這詞及其同詞源的字詞,大概由新約作者取材自賽四十-六十六裡出現的「好信息」一詞;「好信息」在該處是指神引導被擄的人歸回,重建錫安一事(賽四十9,參五十二7,六十一1)。
舊約沒有任何其他一段先知的宣講為福音的見證經文(testimonia)提供了這樣豐富的「情節」:從賽四十3的「聲音」,到賽四十二~五十三的僕人的工作,一直至賽六十五17和六十六22的新天新地。
d. 預表的人物
在羅五14,亞當被稱為「那以後要來之人(即基督,末後的亞當)的預像(τύπος)」。作為舊創造之首,亞當顯然是基督──新創造之首──的一個對比。按保羅的說法,所有人類若不是「在亞當裡」──在他裡面「眾人都死了」,就是「在基督裡」──在祂裡面眾人都要「復活」(林前十五22)。
再沒有其他舊約人物明顯地被稱為新約基督的預像,但他們在相比或對照之下,或多或少預示了基督:作為先知的摩西(徒三22-23,七37),作為大祭司的亞倫(來五4-5),作為君王的大衛(徒十三22)。
希伯來書的作者從詩一一○4處得到暗示,看出麥基洗德是基督祭司身分的一個特別恰當的對比(來五6、10,六20起)。
他也暗示曠野會幕裡的設備和祭禮可能包含預表的意義,不過這意義所涉及的是舊體系與基督所引進的新體系之間的分別,而不是二者的相似處。只有參照對範,才可以體會預表的適切性。
聖經以外的發展—用預表論來詮釋新舊約,須應用建立一套嚴謹的標準。預表論雖然在聖經中俯拾皆是,但不要濫用預表論。
使徒時代以後開始了一個更自由發揮的基督教預表論的紀元。來自第二世紀上半葉的《巴拿巴書》和游斯丁(Justin)的《與特拉浮的對話》(Dialogue with Trypho)都顯示,若沒有釋經上的制約,以預表方法解釋舊約事件可以去到怎樣的地步。這樣的釋經導致在基督徒眼中,舊約的主要價值在於它是以圖畫預示基督及其工作的書,這些圖畫是藉文字及可見的藝術呈現的。
令人印象最深刻的藝術樣本也許是查特勒(Chartres)大教堂,這裡北面的雕塑和窗子上描繪了許多舊約的故事,和教堂南面的雕塑和窗子上所描繪的新約故事互相對應。例如,以撒背負木柴成為了基督背負十架的類比,約瑟以二十塊銀子被賣一事成為了基督以三十塊銀子被賣的對比等等。這樣一來,整本舊約變為基督教故事的預告,而所根據的原則卻不是聖經作者所認許的。
倘若有人要在今天復興中世紀早期的做法,那些在當時自然而自發的東西就往往會變得矯揉造作。那麼,「倘若我們要按恰當的意思援引聖經,並把基督教教義建立在一個較穩固的基礎上,而不是建基於機靈解謎者的私人判斷上,便須馬上為預表方法的合法應用建立一套可行的標準,從而使聖經神學的路較為暢順」(G. W. H. Lampe, Theology 56, 1953,頁208)。
預表(Type,Typology)是釋經學上的一個重要方法
―― 證主聖經百科全書
預表(Type,Typology)釋經學上一個分支,指舊約對新約的預示。最初的稱為「預表」,應驗的則稱為「象徵」。無論是預表或象徵,均可指人、東西或事件;預表則往往是關乎彌賽亞的,並常指向救恩。
研究預表最安全的做法,是只把聖經明顯指出的例子看作預表(參林前四6)。然而,有學者認為這種方法限制了預表的使用,因為有些明顯的預表,並沒有在新約中提及。
此外,新約中明顯的預表只是一些例子,指示我們如何找出舊約中的預表。有些例子可用來檢定聖經中的預表:耶穌曾對尼哥底母說:「摩西在曠野怎樣舉蛇,人子也必照樣被舉起來」(約三14;參民二十一9)。逾越節的羊羔(出十二1-13、49)是基督的預表(林前五7)。
在曠野中為以色列人供應食水的磐石(出十七6),也正好預表基督(林前十3、4)。希伯來書中充滿預表彌賽亞的例子。神在西乃山頒佈的律法中,所有規定的獻祭均預表了耶穌在本體和工作中的某些部分。灑在祭壇上的血,預表了只一次被殺之羔羊的血(來九12-22)。
在聖經研究中,預表跟寓言不同,寓言一般是把聖經歷史作靈意化的解釋。在初期教會,俄利根過分使用這種技巧,後來,其他人也跟隨他的做法。加拉太書四章22-31節指出,夏甲和撒拉在保羅所談及的律法與恩典中,屬寓意的形式。預表跟象徵或修辭法不同。希伯來書指出亞伯拉罕憑信把以撒獻上,預期神會即時叫兒子從死裏復活。
當耶和華阻止他下手,並為他提供一隻代替以撒的祭牲,亞伯拉罕便「象徵性地」(「彷彿」)從死中得回他的兒子(來十一17-19)。水禮似乎是救恩的一個象徵。水禮並不是為了肉身得潔淨,乃是良心蒙赦的一個見證(彼前三21、22)。比喻是另一個用以傳達屬靈真理的修辭技巧。
比喻是一種例證,一個簡單的故事,通常用以說明只一個的意思;不過,耶穌也曾指出某些故事的不同要素,各自表達一些特殊的意義。顯然看比喻的時候,必須考慮其上下文,好使故事能與上下文保持統一;因此,比喻中並非每一個環節,都是可以解釋的。
預表跟表徵不同
預表跟表徵不同,表徵是一個沒有時限的象徵,可指過去、現在或將來;預表則常常是預示一些將要發生的事情。英文中的「預表」,源自希臘文tupos,其基本含義是「一個藉撞擊或壓力而顯現的印象或記號」。
在希臘文新約裏,預表這詞出現了16次,每一次都帶有不同的意思。它是一件複製品,一份模印,或用鑄模壓出來的物件。在使徒行傳七章43節,這詞指偶像或假神的「像」。tupos可以是一個樣式,根據這樣式造出一些東西來(如帳幕,徒七44;來八5)。
它是一個例子或榜樣,或是要加以避免的壞榜樣(林前十6、11),或是要加以仿效的好榜樣(腓三17;帖後三9;提前四12;多二7;彼前五3)。它就像用以灌注混凝土的模型,決定模造出來的東西的形狀和物質。藉著文書「以達致此效果」(徒二十三25;按:和合本沒有此句),以及道理的「模範」(羅六17)等句中所使用的,就是這個意思。
舊約中的預表,預示了新約中的人事。這詞譯作「預表」,在新約中只出現於羅馬書五章14節,經文說亞當「是那以後要來之人(即基督)的預象」。兩者的關係在哥林多前書十五章,再一次提及;那裏並沒有把亞當稱作一個預象,而是指出亞當與基督之間異同之處,均明顯可見(林前十五22、45-49)。
這表明了預表也像實例和比喻一樣,不是每一項細節都得以強調。另一方面,聖經也挑出一些細節,用作預表。例如,在慶祝逾越節的指示中,談到羊羔的時候,說明「羊羔的骨頭一根也不可折斷」(出十二46)。
詩篇三十四篇20節重提這事,並用作一件預表性的事件。在耶穌被釘十字架的記載中(約十九31-36),猶太人要求把被釘囚犯的腿打斷,讓他們快點斷氣,好在安息日之前把屍首從十字架上除下來。但當兵丁來到耶穌跟前,見祂已經死去,便沒有打斷祂的腿。CarlE.DeVries另參:「聖經的詮釋」;「記號/神蹟/預兆」。―― 證主聖經百科全書
預表(Typology)是一種關於聖經研究的神學理論,也是一種在希伯來聖經(舊約聖經)與基督教聖經(新約聖經)之間建立聯繫的方法,認為新舊兩約都來自於上帝的默示。
舊約聖經中有些內容不適用於基督徒,例如,猶太教kosher律法(參見舊約聖經—基督教對於律法的觀點)。因此在有些地方,舊約聖經不能作字面理解,而是作為新約聖經事件的寓言或預示,特別是舊約聖經的事跡被看作耶穌生平事跡的預示。這樣在舊約聖經中看見新約聖經,術語稱為「預表」。
保羅在歌羅西書2章16-17節簡明地闡述了這一學說 -「所以不拘在飲食上、或在節期、月朔、或安息日方面,都不可讓人論斷你們,這些原是要來之事的影兒,那實體卻屬於基督。」這同樣可見於新約聖經中的希伯來書。
預表始於初期教會
預表經常在藝術中得到表達;許多預表成對地出現於主教座堂和普通教堂的雕刻,以及中世紀後期常見的插圖本書籍中,2位最成功的編者是Speculum Humanae Salvationis和Biblia pauperum。
預表的一個例證是舊約聖經中約拿和魚的故事。中世紀對這個故事的寓意解釋,認為這預表耶穌的埋葬,魚的胃就是耶穌的墳墓:如同約拿3天後從鯨魚腹中出來,基督也是3天後從墳墓里復活,參見馬太福音 12章38–42節、16章1–4節、路加福音 11章29–32節。甚至,約拿稱呼魚腹為「陰間」。因此,中世紀文學藝術中只要提到約拿,通常都是預表基督的埋葬與復活。
其他最常見的預表還包括:4位主要的舊約先知以賽亞、耶利米、以西結和但以理,預表4位傳福音者:馬太、馬可、路加和約翰;以色列的十二支派預表十二使徒。
解經家們還在舊約聖經和新約聖經之間,還發現了其他許多預表的例證,諸如:
—-在曠野時,摩西起銅蛇(邪惡的象徵)放在柱子上,被蛇咬的人望這柱子,就得到治癒 [民數記21章8節]。
—-耶穌宣稱那銅蛇就是他自己的象徵,因為「摩西在曠野怎樣舉蛇,人子也必照樣被舉起來,[約翰福音3章14節]
—-「上帝使那不知罪的,替我們成為罪,好叫我們在祂裡面成為上帝的義。」[哥林多後書5章21節]
—-出埃及記17章11節記載,在與亞瑪力人的戰役中,「摩西何時舉手,以色列人就得勝;何時垂手,亞瑪力人就得勝。」解經家解釋說,摩西舉起手,預表耶穌在十字架上舉手,因為當耶穌的手被舉起時他死了,比喻與罪的戰爭已經完成,結果大獲全勝 – 「在基督里眾人也都要活過來。」[哥林多前書15章22節]
Typology in Christian theology and biblical exegesis is a doctrine or theory concerning the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament. Events, persons or statements in the Old Testament are seen as types prefiguring or superseded by antitypes, events or aspects of Christ or his revelation described in the New Testament. For example, Jonah may be seen as the type of Christ in that he emerged from the fish’s belly and thus appeared to rise from death.
In the fullest version of the theory of typology, the whole purpose of the Old Testament is viewed as merely the provision of types for Christ, the antitype or fulfillment. The theory began in the Early Church, was at its most influential in the High Middle Ages and continued to be popular, especially in Calvinism, after the Protestant Reformation, but in subsequent periods, it has been given less emphasis.[1] In 19th-century German Protestantism, typological interpretation was distinguished from rectilinear interpretation[clarification needed] of prophecy. The former was associated with Hegelian theologians and the latter with Kantian analyticity. Several groups favoring typology today include the Christian Brethren beginning in the 19th century for which typology was much favoured and the subject of numerous books and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod.
Notably, in the Eastern Orthodox Church, typology is still a common and frequent exegetical tool, mainly because of the church’s great emphasis on continuity in doctrinal presentation through all historical periods. Typology was frequently used in early Christian art, where type and antitype would be depicted in contrasting positions.
The usage of the terminology has expanded into the secular sphere; for example, “Geoffrey de Montbray (d.1093), Bishop of Coutances, a right-hand man of William the Conqueror, was a type of the great feudal prelate, warrior and administrator”.[2]
Etymology
The term is derived from the Greek noun τύπος (typos), “a blow, hitting, stamp”, and thus the figure or impression made on a coin by such action; that is, an image, figure, or statue of a man; also an original pattern, model, or mould. To this is prefixed the Greek preposition ἀντί anti, meaning opposite, corresponding.[3][4]
Origin of the theory
Christian typology begins in the New Testament itself. For example, Paul in Romans 5:14 calls Adam “a type [τύπος] of the one who was to come” — i.e., a type of Christ. He contrasts Adam and Christ both in Romans 5 and in 1 Corinthians 15. The author of the First Epistle of Peter uses the term ἀντίτυπον (antitypon) to refer to baptism.[5] There are also typological concepts in pre-Pauline strata of the New Testament.[6]
The early Christians, in considering the Old Testament, needed to decide what its role and purpose was for them, given that Christian revelation and the New Covenant might be considered to have superseded it, and many specific Old Testament rules and requirements were no longer being followed from books such as Leviticus dealing with Expounding of the Law.[7] One purpose of the Old Testament for Christians was to demonstrate that the Ministry of Jesus and Christ’s first coming had been prophesied and foreseen, and the Gospels indeed contain many Old Testament prophecies fulfilled by Christ and quotations from the Old Testament which explicitly and implicitly link Jesus to Old Testament prophecies. Typology greatly extended the number of these links by adding others based on the similarity of Old Testament actions or situations to an aspect of Christ.
Typology is also a theory of history, seeing the whole story of the Jewish and Christian peoples as shaped by God, with events within the story acting as symbols for later events. In this role, God is often compared to a writer, using actual events instead of fiction to shape his narrative.[8] The most famous form of this is the three-fold Hegelian dialectic pattern, although it is also used in other applications besides history.
Development of typology
The system of Medieval allegory began in the Early Church as a method for synthesizing the seeming discontinuities between the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and the New Testament. The Church studied both testaments and saw each as equally inspired by God, yet the Old Testament contained discontinuities for Christians such as the Jewish kosher laws and the requirement for male circumcision. This therefore encouraged seeing at least parts of the Old Testament not as a literal account but as an allegory or foreshadowing of the events of the New Testament, and in particular examining how the events of the Old Testament related to the events of Christ’s life. Most theorists believed in the literal truth of the Old Testament accounts, but regarded the events described as shaped by God to provide types foreshadowing Christ. Others regarded some parts of the Bible as essentially allegorical; however, the typological relationships remained the same whichever view was taken. Paul the Apostle states the doctrine in Colossians 2:16–17: “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.” The idea also finds expression in the Letter to the Hebrews.
The development of this systematic view of the Hebrew Bible was influenced by the thought of the Hellenistic Jewish world centered in Alexandria, where Jewish philosopher Philo (c. 20 BC – c. 50 AD) and others viewed Scripture in philosophical terms (contemporary Greek literary theory highlighted foreshadowing as a literary device) as essentially an allegory, using Hellenistic Platonic concepts. Origen (184/185 – 253/254) Christianised the system, and figures including Hilary of Poitiers (c. 300 – c. 368) and Ambrose (c. 340 – 397) spread it. Saint Augustine (345–430) recalled often hearing Ambrose say that “the letter kills but the spirit gives life”, and Augustine in turn became a hugely influential proponent of the system, though also insisting on the literal historical truth of the Bible. Isidore of Seville (c. 560–636) and Rabanus Maurus (c. 780–856) became influential as summarizers and compilers of works setting out standardized interpretations of correspondences and their meanings.[9]
Jewish typological thought continued to develop in Rabbinic literature, including the Kabbalah, with concepts such as the Pardes, the four approaches to a biblical text.
Typology frequently emerged in art; many typological pairings appear in sculpture on cathedrals and churches and in other media. Popular illustrated works expounding typological couplings were among the commonest books of the late Middle Ages, as illuminated manuscripts, blockbooks, and incunabula (early printed books). The Speculum Humanae Salvationis and the Biblia pauperum became the two most successful compilations.
Example of Jonah
The story of Jonah and the fish in the Old Testament offers an example of typology. In the Old Testament Book of Jonah, Jonah told his shipmates to throw him overboard, explaining that God’s wrath would pass if Jonah were sacrificed, and that the sea would become calm. Jonah then spent three days and three nights in the belly of a great fish before it spat him up onto dry land.
Typological interpretation of this story holds that it prefigures Christ’s burial and resurrection. The stomach of the fish represented Christ’s tomb; as Jonah exited from the fish after three days and three nights, so did Christ rise from His tomb on the third day. In the New Testament, Jesus invokes Jonah in the manner of a type: “As the crowds increased, Jesus said, ‘This is a wicked generation. It asks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.'” Luke 11:29–32 (see also Matthew 12:38–42, 16:1–4). In Jonah 2, Jonah called the belly of the fish “She’ol“, the land of the dead (translated as “the grave” in the NIV Bible).
Thus, when one finds an allusion to Jonah in Medieval art or in Medieval literature, it usually represents an allegory for the burial and resurrection of Christ. Other common typological allegories entail the four major Old Testament prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel prefiguring the four Evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, or the twelve tribes of Israel foreshadowing the twelve apostles. Commentators could find countless numbers of analogies between stories of the Old Testament and the New; modern typologists prefer to limit themselves to considering typological relationships that they find sanctioned in the New Testament itself, as in the example of Jonah above.[10]
Other Old Testament examples
Offering of Isaac
Genesis Chapter 22 brings us the story of the preempted offering of Isaac. God asks Abraham to offer his son Isaac to Him, cited as foreshadowing the crucifixion of Jesus. Isaac asks his father, “Where is the lamb for the burnt offering”, and Abraham prophesies, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” And indeed, a ram caught by its horns awaits them, which is also seen as a type for Christ, the lamb that God provides for sacrifice, crowned by thorns.
Joseph
Genesis Chapters 37–50 have the story of Joseph in Egypt, and Joseph is commonly cited as a Christ type.[12] Joseph is a very special son to his father. From his father’s perspective, Joseph dies and then comes back to life as the ruler of Egypt. Joseph’s brothers deceive their father by dipping his coat in the blood of a sacrificed goat (Genesis 37:31). Later, Joseph’s father finds that Joseph is alive and is the ruler of Egypt who saves the world from a great famine. Other parallels between Joseph and Jesus include:
- both are rejected by their own people
- both became servants
- both are betrayed for silver
- both are falsely accused and face false witnesses
- both attain stations at the “right hand” of the respective thrones (Joseph at Pharaoh’s throne and Christ at the throne of God)
- Joseph was 30 years old when he stood before Pharaoh, and Jesus was about the same age, according to the Bible, when he began his ministry
- Money and goods were not able to save the people in time of famine, they had to sell themselves, the same notions are discussed throughout the New Testament.
- both provided for the salvation of gentiles, (Joseph provided a physical salvation in preparing for the famine, while Christ provided the deeper spiritual salvation)
- Joseph married an Egyptian wife, bringing her into the Abrahamic lineage; Christ’s relationship with the church is also described in marriage terms in the New Testament
- A direct parallel with Joseph ruling over all of Egypt, and that only Pharaoh would be greater in the throne (Genesis 41:40) is repeated in 1 Corinthians 15:27 with regards to Jesus
- Both suffered greatly, and through patience and humbleness were exalted greatly by God, who gave in abundance all things over time.
Moses
Moses, like Joseph and Jonah, undergoes a symbolic death and resurrection. Moses is placed in a basket and floated down the Nile river, and then is drawn out of the Nile to be adopted as a prince (floating the body down the Nile river was also part of an Egyptian funerary ritual for royalty).[13]
While in the wilderness, Moses put a brazen serpent on a pole which would heal anyone bitten by a snake, provided that the person looked at it (Numbers 21:8). Jesus proclaimed that the serpent was a type of Himself: “as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up” (John 3:14).
In the battle with the Amalekites at Rephidim, Exodus 17:11 states that “as long as Moses held up his hands, the Israelites were winning, but whenever he lowered his hands, the Amalekites were winning.” Commentators[14] interpret Moses’ raised hands as a type of Jesus’ raised hands upon the Cross for, when Jesus’ hands were raised as He died, a figurative battle was waged with sin, the end result being victory – that “all will be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:22).
Inanimate types
Other types were found in aspects of the Old Testament less tied to specific events. The Jewish holidays also have typological fulfillment in the life of Christ.
The Last Supper was a Passover meal. Furthermore, many people[citation needed] see the Spring Feasts[clarification needed] as types of what Christ accomplished in his first advent and the Fall Feasts[clarification needed] as types of what Christ will accomplish in his second advent.
The Jewish Tabernacle is commonly seen as a series of complex types of Jesus Christ. For example, Jesus describes himself as “the door”[15] and the only “way” to God,[16] represented in the single, wide gate to the tabernacle court; the various layers of coverings over the tabernacle represent Christ’s godliness (in the intricately woven inner covering) and his humanity (in the dull colouring of the outside covering).[17] The Showbread prepared in the Temple of Jerusalem is also seen as a type for Christ.[citation needed]
Post-biblical usage
As Erich Auerbach points out in his essay “Figura”, typological (figural) interpretation co-existed alongside allegorical and symbolic-mythical forms of interpretation.[18] But it was typology that was most influential as Christianity spread in late Mediterranean cultures, as well as in the North and Western European cultures.[19] Auerbach notes that it was the predominant method of understanding the Hebrew scriptures until after the Reformation—that is, that the Hebrew texts were not understood as Jewish history and law but were instead interpreted “as figura rerum or phenomenal prophecy, as a prefiguration of Christ”.[20] Typological interpretation was a key element of Medieval realism, but remained important in Europe “up to the eighteenth century”.[21]
Further, typology was extended beyond interpretations of the Hebrew scriptures and applied to post-biblical events, seeing them as “not the ultimate fulfillment, but […] a promise of the end of time and the true kingdom of God.”[22] Thus, the Puritans interpreted their own history typologically:[23]
Applied more liberally and figured more broadly, typology expanded into a more elaborate verbal system that enabled an interpreter to discover biblical forecasts of current events. Thus, the Atlantic journey of the Puritans could be an antitype of the Exodus of the Israelites; and the New England colony, a New Zion, to which Christ may return to usher in the Millennium. The first settlers were conservative, cautious typologists, but as Edward Johnson’s Wonder-Working Providence of Sion’s Saviour in New England (1654; composed c. 1650) demonstrates, by the 1640s New England’s sacred errand into the wilderness and the approaching Apocalypse were accepted antitypes of sacred history.[24]
In this way, the Puritans applied typology both to themselves as a group and to the progress of the individual souls:
Applied more broadly, typology enabled Puritans to read biblical types as forecasting not just the events of the New Testament but also their own historical situation and experiences. In this way, individual Puritans could make sense of their own spiritual struggles and achievements by identifying with biblical personages like Adam, Noah, or Job. But this broad understanding of typology was not restricted to individual typing; the Puritans also interpreted their group identity as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, identifying their community as the “New Israel.”[25]
Typology also became important as a literary device, in which both historical and literary characters become prefigurations of later historical or literary characters.[26]
Intrinsic vs. extrinsic typology
Exegetical professor Georg Stöckhardt[27] (1842-1913) separated biblical typology into two categories. He distinguished extrinsic or external typology as separate from the meaning of the text and its original meaning – rather, it is applied to the topic by the reader. Stöckhardt saw intrinsic or internal typology as embedded within the meaning of the text itself.
Although he rejected the possibility of intrinsic typology because it would violate the doctrine of the clarity of scripture,[28] most typologists either do not make this distinction or do not reject typology internal to the text. Stöckhardt’s position against intrinsic typology is related to the position that all Messianic prophecies are rectilinear as opposed to typological.[29]
Typology and narrative criticism
Typology is also used by narrative critics to describe the type of time in which an event or happening takes place. Mark Allan Powell separates chronological time from typological time.[30] Whereas chronological time refers to the time of action, typological time refers to the “kind of time” of an action. Typological settings may be symbolic.