Board index ‹ Bible

[Grover]

could you tell me what your definition of 'type' is?

could you give me a list of people that are explicitly identified as types, and where that identification is?

[jimwalton]

Sure. A "type" is a symbol or prefiguring in the OT that finds its filling up or completion in the NT.

At least a partial list of types:

• Elijah and John the Baptist (Mt. 11.14)
• Jonah & Jesus: As Jonah was in the belly of the whale for 3 days, so also Jesus in the belly of the earth. (Mt. 12.40)
• Sarah & Hagar are types (Gal. 4) of the law and grace
• The Passover and Christ's death (Jn. 1.29 et al.)
• The sacrificial system and Christ's death (Lk. 22.20 et al.)
• The creation and the exodus/wilderness (Isa. 2-12, esp. 4.2-6)
• The temple and Christ (Jn. 2.19-21), as well as all the Temple furniture. Jesus is the light, the bread, the sacrifice, the atonement, etc.
• The rock in the wilderness and Christ (1 Cor. 10.4)
• The serpent hung the wilderness and Christ (Jn. 3.15)
• Matthew and Mark often use Moses typology in reference to Jesus.
• At Jesus's baptism, the voice from heaven "whom I love" seems to be making a typological relationship to Genesis 22.
• Jesus as the manna from heaven (Jn. 6)
• The Nazirite of Num. 6 and Jesus being called a Nazarene (Mt. 2)
• Isa. 11.1: The branch of Jesse and Jesus
• David as a type of Christ (all over the NT)
• The firstborn and firstfruits are types of Christ
• The atonement cover, or bema seat, and Christ

These are the ones that immediately come to mind. I'm sure there are more, but we only accept as formal types that which the Bible formally identifies as types.

[Grover]

> Sure. A "type" is a symbol or prefiguring in the OT that finds its filling up or completion in the NT.

is this definition from the bible?

> I'm sure there are more, but we only accept as formal types that which the Bible formally identifies as types.

who is the 'we' here?

[jimwalton]

> is this definition from the bible?

No. The word "type" in the sense of typology doesn't appear in the Bible. This is a category recognized by biblical scholars and theologians.

> who is the 'we' here?

Biblical scholars.

[Grover]

> Biblical scholars.

a cursory search shows that plenty of scholars and theologians recognize Joseph as a type.

do you also think that prophesy is only prophesy if the fulfillment is explicitly pointed out?

[jimwalton]

Prophesy is a completely different entity and the two (typology and prophesy) can't be compared as if similar interpretive frameworks. But, in general, to answer your question, no: I don't agree that prophesy is only prophesy if the fulfillment is explicitly pointed out. Many prophesies are still unfulfilled. Prophecy is much more complex than typology.

[Burner]

Very useful. Thank you.

[Brainiac]

> There are many parallels between Joseph and Jesus, but Joseph is never identified by the Bible as a type of Jesus. Therefore we read and compare with interest, but not as a legitimate biblical type.

• Beloved of his father (Gn. 37.3a; Mt. 3.17b)
• Lived in fellowship with his father before being sent out (Gn. 37.14; Jn. 17.5)
• Envied and hated without cause (Gn. 37.4; Mk. 15.10; Jn. 15.25b)
• A root out of dry ground (Gn. 37.3b; Isa. 53.2a)
• He foretold that one day he would rule (Gn. 37.7; Mt. 26.64b)
• Accused of being a dreamer (beside himself; deluded) (Gn. 37.19; Mk. 3.21b)
• Sent by the Father to seek the brothers’ welfare (Gn. 37.14a; Lk. 20.13b)
• Went willingly and sought his brothers until he found them (Gn. 37.13, 17b; Heb. 10.9b; Jn. 1.11a; 3.16; Phil. 2.5-7)
• His own family plotted against him (Gn. 37.19-20; Lk. 20.13-14; 19.46-47)
• Rejected and condemned to die (Gn. 37.18b; Lk. 19.14b; 23.21)
• Stripped of his clothing (Gn. 37.23b; Mt. 27.28a)
• Thrown into a pit (alone, forsaken) (Gn. 37.24a; Mt. 12.40b)
• Sold for silver into the hands of Gentiles (Gn. 37.28b; Mt. 26.15b)
• Raised from the pit (Gn. 37.28a; 1 Cor. 15.4b)
• Became a servant (Gn. 39.1-2; Lk. 22.27b; Phil. 2.7b)
• Everything he did prospered (Gn. 39.3b; Isa. 53.10b)
• Resisted Temptation (Gn. 39.7-12; Heb. 7.26; 4.15b)
• Falsely accused (Gn. 39.17-18; Mt. 26.60b, 61a)
• Numbered with transgressors (Gn. 39.20a; Lk. 23.33)
• Promised deliverance to a condemned man (Gn. 40.13; Lk. 23.43b)
• One of the malefactors lived and one died (Gn. 40.21-22; Lk. 23.39-43)
• Foretold the future accurately (Gn. 41.13a; Jn. 13.19)
• Proved to be a great counselor (Gn. 41.39; Isa. 9.6b)
• Promoted to honor and glory and given a new name (Gn. 41.41, 45a; Phil. 2.9)
• After being raised up, he took a bride to share his glory (Gn. 41.45; Eph. 5.23-32)
• All people commanded to know him (Gn. 41.43b; Phil. 2.10a)
• Provided for all in need (Gn. 41.57a; Jn. 6.35a)
• His people did not recognize him (Gn. 42.8; Jn. 1.10-11; 14.9a; 2 Cor. 3.14a)
• His brothers were troubled when they met him (Gn. 45.5a; Zech. 12.10b)
• Knew the past history of his brothers but loved them anyway (Gn. 43.33; Rom. 5.8)
• Allowed his brothers to suffer a period of tribulation (Gn. 42.6-44.34; Jer. 30.7b; Mt. 24.21a)
• Acknowledged to be the ruler and savior of his people (Gn. 47.25; Phil. 2.10-11)
• Revelation and reconciliation (Gn. 45.3b-9; Rom. 11.26)
• Forgiveness full and free to the repentant (Gn. 44.45; 1 Jn. 1.9).

(This list is from a Jews for Jesus paper)

I strongly disagree with everything you said. Joseph is very similar to Jesus.

[jimwalton]

If you agree that "Joseph is very similar to Jesus," then you agree with most of what I said (all 34 points, and there are more that I didn't include). It seems that you disagree only with my primary premise: Joseph is not a type of Jesus because the Bible never affirms that he is.

For me the point of separation is this: If anyone can think they see a similarity to Jesus somewhere in the OT, then we lose all standards of proper interpretation. It's just the Wild West. Someone can say (and I'll choose a silly example) they see Jesus in the talking donkey or in the walls of Babylon, and we all have to agree with it. "Well, I see similarities!" they argue, and what can we say?

But if we let the Bible interpret the Bible, and only recognize things or events as types if the Bible recognizes them as such, then we are on much more reliable interpretive ground.

I'm glad to discuss this more with you.