The Church in Old Testament Typology

Far from the church being a distant or parenthetical thought, the Holy Spirit so moved the writers of old that it should be clear the things pertaining to Israel “happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come” (I Corinthians 10:11). They have rich application for the church in the new covenant age, both for what they reveal about Christ and for what they also show us about the church in union with him.

via The Church in Old Testament Typology.

 

Advertisement

Reinterpretation or Typology?

A friend of mine asked me to take a look at this article and let him know what my thoughts were. This post is my response.

Rather than reproduce sections of the article in this post, you can read the original post here (Don’t worry; it’s not lengthy): Does Romans 9:25-26 Support Covenant Theology?

1. Mr. Waymeyer seems to be reading the Dispensational definition of “church” into that of covenant theology, making it seem as though Covenant theologians advocate the church’s replacement of Israel. Dispensational theologians typically restrict their definition of “the church” to those believers (Jew & Gentile) in the present age of history, beginning at Pentecost and ending (as far as new members go) with the “Rapture” at the end of this age. Regardless of whose definition is correct, we need to at least let our brothers’ definitions stand for the sake of discussion, so we do not unintentionally misrepresent them. This goes for both Dispensationalists and Covenant Theologians, who often end up talking past one another.

What Mr. Waymeyer needs to take into account is that in Covenant Theology terms, the entirety of the elect throughout history is the “new and true” Israel – the elect are the antitype of Israel’s type. Most Covenant Theologians will simply say “the church,” but usually they simply mean nothing more than the elect of God throughout history, even though the church was not formally organized until the time of the New Testament. This is because Covenant Theologians see Scripture presenting one unified people of God, not two peoples of God with two parallel eschatalogical destinies. Rather, they see the elect, and ethnic Israel as her type. We’ll come back to typology later.

2. I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Waymeyer in his rejection of the “People = Israel” view, for the reasons he presents.

3. For all his desire to be true to the plain meaning of the Old Testament text, I believe Mr. Waymeyer’s attempt actually obscures the plain meaning of the New Testament text. This happens by way of his “analogical” interpretation of the New Testament use of the Old Testament. He provides examples of other “analogical” passages, including Matthew 2:14-15, 17-18; and 8:17. But all three of these passages in Matthew explicitly speak of the “fulfillment” of prophecy – not an analogical illustration. Making the statement, “This event is similar in principle to what that Old Testament text spoke of” cannot be construed as a “fulfillment” of what was said in a passage of prophecy. The fact that Mr. Waymeyer uses these text as examples should cast doubt on the validity of his “analogical” assumption regarding the proper interpretation of Romans 9:25-26 as well.

4. The “absence of any referent in the introductory formula” is an argument from silence, not a positive support for Mr. Waymeyer’s analogical interpretation.

Finally, I have not read Ladd (who held to historic premillennialism) or Storms on the subject, so I do not know if Mr. Waymeyer’s description of the “reinterpretation view” accurately applies to them. However, I will say that it does not apply to me, nor to what I know of Covenant Theology in general. His description is basically that Paul is cherry-picking an Old Testament text, completely divorcing it from its original meaning, and giving it a new meaning. Actually, I think Mr. Waymeyer is being polite by using the label “reinterpretation.” The view he describes is tantamount to saying Paul is performing divinely-inspired eisegesis. Needless to say, for a truthful God for whom yes means yes and no means no, such a view would be unacceptable, and we would be wise to reject it. However, I do not believe his description accurately portrays a Covenantal view of typological interpretation.

Instead of the “reinterpretation” view as Mr. Waymeyer describes Covenant Theologians as espousing, I would actually hold to a typological interpretation of the passage. The apostle Paul is unpacking an Old Testament prophecy which involves typological elements. In this case, the type is ethnic Israel, and the antitype (what is meant by “true Israel”) is the elect. One need only go back to the beginning of the chapter in verses 6-8 to see Paul making this very point. “Israel” can refer to either a) the entirety of ethnic Israel, or b) Israelite believers (the group of whom which would later be expanded to include Gentiles, becoming what is formally known as “the church”).

In conclusion, while I would agree with Mr. Waymeyer that Romans 9:25-26 is not a “proof-text” for Covenant Theology, I would also say that a proper recognition of biblical typology, and allowing the NT writers to mean what they say, in no way contradicts a likewise proper view of Covenant Theology (such as that of the 1689 London Baptist Confession).

For a brief, general comparison of the hermeneutics of 1689 Federalism (Covenant Theology) and Dispensationalism (as well as other systems like New Covenant Theology and Westminster Paedobaptist Covenant Theology), check out this site: 1689federalism.com.

Crampton on Creeds, Confessions, and Exegesis

W. Gary Crampton, in his book, By Scripture Alone: The Sufficiency of Scripture, does not fail to mention the importance of paying attention to historical theology. This is in opposition to the “biblicist” approach discussed by James Renihan here. Crampton writes,

A creed or confession is a summary and orderly statement about what the church believes concerning Christian doctrine. As standards subordinate to the Word of God, creeds serve as distillations of the teaching of Scripture, and are useful in Christian education. Too, they serve as guards against heresy. In [Presbyterian -PMcW] Reformed churches, the Westminster Confession of Faith functions as a paradigm that provides boundaries, acting as a filter to screen theological teachings. All teaching is run through the “grid” or the paradigm of the Confession.

In these ways creeds and confessions are very useful. This is the sense in which Augustine once wrote: “The sentiments of the bishops who have gone before us, men who treated these divine words [of Scripture] faithfully and memorably…what they found in the church, they held; what they had learned, they taught; what they had received from the fathers, this they delivered to the children.”* But never are creeds and confessions to be considered on a par with Scripture. Rather, they, like the decisions of synods and councils, says the Confession (31:4), may and do err: “therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice; but to be use as a help in both.” The Bible and the Bible alone is the Word of God, the only infallible, inerrant standard by which all is to be judged.

*Augustine, Against Julian, 2, 19:34; as cited by Joseph Gallegos in Not By Scripture Alone, 390.

(53-54)

Crampton also comments on the necessary tools and approach for proper exegesis of Scripture:

In contrast to Roman Catholicism, which teaches that only the Roman Church-State can properly interpret the Bible for its children, Christian theology teaches that all believers are to be adults in understanding, not children; they are to be involved in Bible study; and they are able to interpret Scripture correctly (Psalm 1:2-3; Joshua 1:8; 1 Corinthians 14:20). As stated by Charles Hodge: “The Bible is a plain book. It is intelligible by the people. And they have the right, and are bound to read and interpret it for themselves; so that their faith may rest on the testimony of the Scriptures, and not on that of the church.”**

When Paul wrote to the church at Thessalonica, it was the whole body of believers that he commanded to “test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). The Apostle John told his readers that they were to “test the spirits” in order that they would be able to discern “the spirit of truth” from “the spirit of error” (1 John 4:1, 6). Understanding this, the Reformers spoke of the importance of the individual’s right and duty to study privately and to interpret the Scriptures. Christians have both the right and the responsibility to read and interpret the Bible for themselves. By this they would be able to “test” all teachings, and be able to discern “the spirit of truth” from the “spirit of error.” As we have just studied, it is due to the fact that “all of the people of God…have [a] right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,” that we are to have accurate translations in “the vulgar language of every nation.”

This does not mean that every believer has the right to interpret Scripture as he pleases (2 Peter 1:20-21). Rather, Scripture is to be interpreted according to the meaning given to it by Christ, through His Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-21; 1 Corinthians 2:6-16). This is why the discipline of Biblical hermeneutics is of vital importance. Biblical, or sacred, hermeneutics is the science of or the theory of the interpretation of the Bible. The root of the word “hermeneutics” is found in Mark 5:41 (methermeneuo, “to translate”) and 1 Corinthians 12:10 (hermeneia, “translate” or “interpret”). Biblical hermeneutics, as a discipline, is inseparably related to exegesis. The word “exegesis” (exegeomai; John 1:18) means “to lead out.” Proper Biblical exegesis is the “leading out” or “explaining” of Scripture the true meaning of the text, which as the Confession says, “is not manifold, but one.”

…

The high view of Scripture propounded by the Westminster Assembly has several implications for a proper Biblical hermeneutic. First, as Article XVIII of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy claims, it binds us to the grammatical-historical method of interpretation: “We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices.” This methodology focuses on the grammatical structure of the passages of Scripture, as they were originally written, and the historical context of the writing. According to Reymond, what this means is that the exegete “must seek to put himself in the writer’s linguistic, cultural, historical, and religious shoes to discover the writer’s intended meaning.”*** This being so, the Biblical exegete must understand something of the structure of the original languages, bringing to bear on the text the meaning of the words and the syntactical structure of the passage. He must also understand the historical context in which the book under study was written. Questions of authorship, date, and destination of the various books are relevant in a study of Scripture. Commentaries, lexicons, and concordances are available and very helpful to students at all levels of exegetical skills.

**Hodge, Systematic Theology, I:183.

***Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 49.

(125-127)

Emphasis in bold is mine.

Berkhof: “The Implied Sense of Scripture”

Louis Berkhof

Towards the end of Principles of Biblical Interpretation, Louis Berkhof includes a section on “The Implied Sense of Scripture” in which he discusses the nature of logical deduction when applied to the Bible and man’s writings. On the whole, I found this section to be helpful, although perhaps in need of some clarification and slight revision.

“The Bible as the Word of God contains a fulness and wealth of thought that is unfathomable. This is evident not only from its types and symbols and prophecies, but also from what it contains implicitly rather than by express assertion. Even in the case of human compositions we distinguish between what is expressed and what is implied. In writings of a superior order, it is often found that the language suggests and involves important truths that are embodied in words. Great minds contain a wealth of knowledge, and whatever they communicate of it is related to and suggestive of that vast store, so that it becomes quite possible to read between the lines. And if this is true of the literary productions of men, it applies much more to the infallible Word of God.

There is an important distinction, however. Man only knows in part, and is not always conscious of what he knows. Moreover, he often fails to see the implications of what he says or writes. It is quite possible that his words contain implications which he did not see and to which he would not subscribe. It may very well be that what can fairly be deduced from his explicit assertions, by means of logical inference or comparison, lies entirely outside his range of though and is, in fact, the very opposite of what he means. Hence the rule, so often forgotten in practice, but yet essential to all fair controversy, that “it is not allowable to charge upon an author the consequences of his statements when not expressly avowed or adopted, even although these consequences may be necessarily involved in the statements.” He may not have contemplated nor even seen them, so that he is not responsible for them, but only for the employment of language which unintentionally implies them. For the same reason it is not permissible to infer a writer’s opinion on a certain matter from incidental expressions, used by him when the matter in question was not under consideration. As a rule it is an unwarranted procedure, to ascribe to an author thoughts or sentiments which he did not expressly utter in connection with the matter to which they pertain. He who does this is guilty of consequensmacherei.

While Berkhof’s main point is certainly true, and evidences the need for charity in theological discussions, I disagree with his statement (which I have emphasized in bold above) that men are not responsible for errors in logic which result in doctrinal error. In I Corinthians 3:10-15, Paul writes,

¹⁰ According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. ¹¹ For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. ¹² Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, ¹³ each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. ¹⁴ If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. ¹⁵ If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

While this passage is commonly understood to refer to one’s works, it must necessarily first be applied to one’s teaching or doctrine. The foundation of Scriptural doctrine has been laid. How one interprets Scripture, and constructs systematic theology, constitutes the “building” on the foundation. In the end, the truth will be revealed, and all error abolished. This is not only referring to fatal heresy, but to any theological error – Note that the one whose work is burned is still saved. In the Last Day, every man’s beliefs will be put to the test. My own errors, small and large, will be burned away, leaving only Truth standing.

It must also be noted that sinful man is capable of lying, even when under oath, and especially when under scrutiny. Thus, in instances of trials in church courts attempting to ascertain a man’s beliefs, it may not always be as simple as getting the accused to verbally confirm a list of affirmations and denials. Certainly, one may knowingly speak with a forked tongue. Thus it is necessary to closely examine the past words of the accused, to see if he is being honest about his own beliefs.

It is possible that Berkhof would have perfectly agreed with what I have just said. I am merely attempting to offer clarification concerning man’s responsibilities.

Berkhof continues:

But in the case of the Word of God, these restrictions do not apply. The knowledge of God is all-comprehending and is always conscious knowledge. In giving man his Word, He was not only perfectly aware of all that was said, but also all that this implied. He knew the inferences that are deduced from His written Word. Says Bannerman: “The consequences that are deduced from Scripture by unavoidable inference, and more largely still the consequences that are deduced from a comparison of the various Scripture statements among themselves, were foreseen by infinite wisdom in the very act of supernaturally inspiring the record from which they are inferred: and the Revealer not only knew that men would deduce such consequences, but designed that they should do so” (Inspiration of the Scriptures, p. 585). Therefore not only the express statements of Scripture, but its implications as well, must be regarded as the Word of God.

Jesus himself warrants this position. When the Sadducees came to him with a question which, in their estimation, clearly proved the untenableness of the doctrine of the resurrection, he referred them to the self-designation of Jehovah at the bush: “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”; and deduced from it by good and necessary inference, the doctrine which they denied. Moreover, he reproved their failure to see the implication of that self-designation by saying, “Ye do err, not knowing Scripture” (Matt. 22:29-32; Mark 12:24-27; Luke 20:37, 38). For other examples, cf. Rom. 4:5-12; I Cor. 9:8-10; I Tim. 5:17, 18; Heb. 4:5-9.

We feel warranted, therefore, in laying down the following rule: “The deductions of doctrine made from its (the Bible’s) statements on a comparison between them, if truly drawn, are as much a part of God’s meaning and of His revelation — being indeed virtually contained in it, — as these statements themselves” (Bannerman, Inspiration of the Scriptures, p. 587). It goes without saying that great care must be exercised in drawing such inferences from the written word. The deductions must be good, i.e., truly contained in the inspired statements from which they are ostensibly derived; and also necessary, or such as force themselves upon the mind that honestly applies itself to the interpretation of Scripture. Cf. Westminster Catechism, Art. VI [pp. 158-160].

Berkhof: “The Prophetic Perspective”

In his Principles of Biblical Interpretation, Louis Berkhof writes,

 Prophecy has its own peculiar perspective. The element of time is a rather negligible quantity in the prophets. While designations of time are not altogether wanting, their number is exceptionally small. The prophets compressed great events into a brief space of time, brought momentous movements close together in a temporal sense, and took them in at a single glance. This is called “the prophetic perspective,” or, as Delitzsch calls it, “the foreshortening of the prophet’s horizon.” They looked upon the future as the traveler does upon a mountain range in the distance. He fancies that one mountain-top rises up right behind the other, when in reality they are miles apart. Cf. the prophecies respecting the Day of the Lord, and the twofold coming of Christ (p.150).

Berkhof on “The Mystical Sense of Scripture”

Louis Berkhof

 

“The study of the mystical sense of Scripture has not always been characterized by the necessary caution. Some expositors have defended the untenable position that every part of the Bible has besides its literal, also a mystical sense. Others recoiled from that unwarranted position, and went to the extreme of denying outright the existence of any mystical sense. More careful scholars, however, preferred to take the middle ground that certain parts of Scripture have a mystical sense which, in such cases, does not constitute a second, but the real sense of the Word of God. The necessity of recognizing the mystical sense is quite evident from the way in which the New Testament often interprets the Old.

…

“Scripture itself contains indications of a mystical sense. For example, it is well known that the New Testament interprets several passages of the Old Testament messianically, and in so doing, not only points to the presence of the mystical sense, in those particular passages, but also intimates that whole categories of related passages should be interpreted in a similar manner” (Principles of Biblical Interpretation, pp. 140-141).

Berkhof on the Unity of Scripture

 

Louis Berkhof

“In view of the present-day tendency to emphasize the diversity of the contents of the Bible, it is not superfluous to call particular attention to the fact that it should be interpreted as a unity. And the first question that confronts the interpreter is that of the relation in which the Old and New Testaments stand to each other.

…

“Both the Old and the New Testament form essential parts of God’s special revelation. God is the Author of both, and in both has the same purpose in mind. They both contain the same doctrine of redemption, preach the same Christ, and impose upon men the same moral… duties. At the same time, the revelation they contain is progressive, and gradually increases in definiteness, clearness, and spiritual conception. As the New Testament is implicit in the Old, so the Old is explicit in the New. Therefore we say that… [t]he Old and New Testament [sic] constitute a unit.

…

The Word of God is an organic production, and consequently the separate books that constitute it are organically related to one another. The Holy Spirit so directed the human authors in writing the books of the Bible that their productions are mutually complementary. They are one in recording the work which God, in the execution of his divine plan, wrought in Christ for the redemption of a people that would glorify him eternally. The Old Testament reveals this work, first of all, historically in the formation and guidance of Israel as a nation. The poetical books and the wisdom literature disclose its fruit in the spiritual experiences and the practical life of God’s people. And the prophets view it in the light of God’s eternal council, emphasizing the failure of the people to live up to the divine requirements, and directing the hopes of the pious to the future. A similar line of development runs through the New Testament. The Gospels and Acts contain the history of the work of redemption in Christ. The Epistles reveal the effect of this work in the life and experience of the churches. And the Apocalypse discloses its final issue in rays of heavenly light” (Principles of Biblical Interpretation, pp. 134-135, 138-139).