James Demetrie (2010), Creative Commons

When you read the Old Testament, I hope you’re looking for Jesus. Otherwise, you’re in danger of sucking from the fountain without first pushing the button to get the water flowing (John 5:39-40).

But many are afraid of getting it wrong, and for good reason. We see no lack of grumpy scholars waiting eagerly to dispense demerits to the simple, uneducated folk who draw superficial conclusions and chase christological apparitions through the pages of Hebrew Scripture. We outgrew the Alexandrians long ago, and we’re tired of hearing about the blood of Jesus—I mean Rahab’s scarlet cord—every time a newbie gets a hankering to Jesusify his devotional life.

I’ll confess I’ve served my time as one of the grumps. And I’ve been known to chase an apparition or two. Is help available?

Help!

I recently came across a valuable quote about the nature of biblical typology. Before I give you the quote, however, let me define a few terms. Trust me; it’ll be worth it.

• Typology is the technical term for what we’re talking about. It’s the process of recognizing specific pictures or shadows of Jesus (or his attributes) in the Old Testament.
• Types are the Old Testament pictures or shadows. Something is typical if it serves as a type.
• Antitypes are the New Testament realities pictured by the types.
• To typify is to purposefully put those pictures or shadows there, intending to communicate a deeper reality of something to come.

Len Matthews (2014), Creative Commons

So, when Paul says “the Rock was Christ” (1 Cor 10:4), he recognizes typology. The rock from which Moses drew water was a type that pictured Christ the antitype who gives living water. Paul suggests that Moses wrote of this typical Rock in order to typify what Jesus would later do.

Now that you have the lingo, you’re ready for the quote:

A type can never be a type independently of its being first a symbol. The gateway to the house of typology is at the farther end of the house of symbolism.

This is the fundamental rule to be observed in ascertaining what elements in the Old Testament are typical, and wherein the things corresponding to them as antitypes consist. Only after having discovered what a thing symbolizes, can we legitimately proceed to put the question what it typifies, for the latter can never be aught else than the former lifted to a higher plane. The bond that holds type and antitype together must be a bond of vital continuity in the progress of redemption. Where this is ignored, and in the place of this bond are put accidental resemblances, void of inherent spiritual significance, all sorts of absurdities will result, such as must bring the whole subject of typology into disrepute. Examples of this are: the scarlet cord of Rahab prefigures the blood of Christ; the four lepers at Samaria, the four Evangelists. (Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology, Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1948, pp. 145-6)

Vos goes on to use the example of the tabernacle in Exodus. The tabernacle clearly symbolized God’s presence among his people, and this symbol was clear to the original audience of Exodus. We can take that symbol (God dwelling with his people) and look to the New Testament for its development and fulfillment. Jesus is the new tabernacle, the Word become flesh who dwells among us (John 1:14). His body is the new temple (John 2:19-22). He is Emmanuel, God with us (Matt 1:22-23). He is with us to the end of the age (Matt 28:20).

And with his Spirit in us, we are also God’s new tabernacle/temple, both individually (1 Cor 6:19) and corporately (Eph 2:21-22, 1 Tim 3:15). So the Old Testament tabernacle is a type of both Christ and his body, and the pathway to recognizing the type is to first recognize the original symbol.

How do we do this?

Vos is on to something here, but I think he overstates it a bit. He goes too far to require a type to first be a symbol in the Old Testament passage. By his definition, Paul would be wrong about the Rock in 1 Cor 10:4 (since it doesn’t clearly symbolize anything in the book of Exodus).

However, Vos uncovers useful boundaries that prevent us from befriending the deep end of typological interpretation.

1. Consider the history. OT characters really existed, and OT events really happened. Our interpretation of the OT will go wrong if it treats the history as irrelevant.
2. Consider the original context. Always ask what the OT passage meant to the original audience. If your interpretation takes you to Christ in a manner wholly divorced from the original meaning, you’re out of bounds.
3. Fight for the main point. When the main point of the OT passage leads you to Christ, many of the details are sure to follow. But when you lead with the details, you might leave the point behind. And when you find Jesus, he’ll send you back where you came from with his trademark “Have you never read…?” (Matt 12:3, 5; 19:4; 21:16, 42; 22:31; Mark 2:25, 12:10, 26; Luke 6:3).