« PreviousContinue »
asserted to be a figure of the Roman hierarchy. The universal dominion given to man by his Creator over irrational beings is declared to be prefigurative of the unlimited supremacy of the papal power.* The Hebrew monarch, Saul, whose name is interpreted to signify death, is a type of the moral law, which Paul terms the ministration of death. The period, which transpired between the anointing of David and the death of Saul, typified the time of our Saviour's ministry on earth.f
Brown, in his Dictionary of the Bible, enumerates twenty-nine typical persons, fourteen typical classes of persons, nineteen occasional typical things, twenty miscellaneous typical institutions, six typical places, ten typical utensils, fourteen typical offerings, ten typical seasons, and eight typical purifications,-making an aggregate of one hundred and thirty types; and his enumeration is far from being complete. One person, institution or event is made prefigurative of any other person, institution or event, to which it is supposed to bear even the slightest resemblance, just as may suit the purpose or fancy of the interpreter. Hence the same event is made to stand as the designed representative of half a dozen other distinct events; for no other conceivable reason than because the ingenuity of man has discovered some similarity between them. But even this is not the full extent of the evil. Some have maintained that not only all the acts of typical persons, whether good or bad, had reference to the antitype, but that every thing which was spoken by the type had a like reference. On this principle the entire contents of the Psalms have been explained as relating to Christ and the church. And all the prophecies uttered by typical prophets, which referred to the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, have been regarded as admitting of an ultimate application to their spiritual antitype the church.
Again: there are those who, not content with the types, real and imaginary, which are alleged to exist in the Old Testament, have advanced the opinion that on the principle of analogy we ought to expect types in the New Testament. By the application of this principle, it has been discovered, among other things, that the original employment of the apostles as fishermen, was
typical of their profession as preachers of the gospel; and their taking many fish typical of their success in winning souls to Christ.* Such extravagant opinions are calculated to expose the whole doctrine of types to ridicule, and to lead many to doubt whether there is any foundation whatever for this doctrine in the inspired volume. And such has actually been the result. Some modern theological writers have denied altogether the existence of prophetical types; while others have either studiously avoided all allusion to the subject in their systems of divinity, or in their efforts to reduce the types of Scripture to the least possible number, have stripped persons and institutions of their typical character, which have been regarded as prefigurative by the most enlightened interpreters in every age of the church. · No valid objection, we apprehend, can be alleged against the existence of types abstractly considered. The declared connection of two persons or series of events in the relation of historical type and antitype, is simply one of the various modes employed by the Deity to convey information respecting future events, and record their accomplishment. Now, it is surely no more impossible for the omniscient God to prefigure events than to predict them. And if it is not impossible, how can it be shown to be improbable that he would avail himself of this method of imparting instruction to mankind, and of strengthening the faith of believers in the truth of his word! The only question then, is, whether, in point of fact, God has employed this method of conveying truth ; in other words, whether one person or thing is taken as the representative or type of another person or thing, in the Bible? To this question, it seems to us, but one answer can be given. The perusal of the Epistle to the Hebrews is alone sufficient to convince every candid and unprejudiced mind, that the New Testament lays claim to a preconcerted connection with certain events and persons recorded in the Old; and that this connection, although in some cases obscure, and perhaps in none fully understood by the ancient Hebrews is in
pounding the Old Testament, which we meet with so frequently in this epistle, is occasionally employed in other parts of the New, as well by our Saviour as by his apostles. Indeed, we do not see how any one can thoroughly understand the revealed scheme of divine truth in its completeness, and perceive the intimate connection and beautiful harmony subsisting between the several dispensations of God, who overlooks the typical relation which exists between them. It is not the principle, therefore, of typical interpretation, which we conceive to be liable to objection, either on the ground of reason or of revelation, but the excess to which it has been so often carried. Hence the importance of safe and scriptural criteria by which to determine what are types and what are not, and suitable rules to guide us in their interpretation.
It cannot be doubted by those who have examined the subject with care, that the revolting extreme, to which the doctrine of types has been carried, has arisen, in a considerable degree, from the loose manner in which the word types has been employed by theological writers; from indistinct and confused ideas respecting their nature, and from the want of judicious rules for their interpretation. The term has been applied indiscriminately to any resemblance, real or fancied, between two things. Types have been frequently confounded with allegory, symbol, symbolical action and metaphor. It is necessary then, in the first place, that we should ascertain their true nature, and in what respects they differ from other things to which the term has been improperly applied.
The word type is employed, not only in theology, but in philosophy, medicine, and other sciences and arts. In all these departments of knowledge, the radical idea is the same, while its specific meaning varies with the subject to which it is applied. Resemblance of some kind, real or supposed, lies at the foundation in every case. In the science of theology, it properly signifies, the preordained representative relation which certain persons, events and institutions of the Old Testament bear to corresponding persons, events and institutions in the New. The
* Dr. John Dick defines a type to be" a person or thing by which another person or thing is adumbrated." Theology,
classical and biblical usage of túros, from which type is derived, is for the most part the same. It occurs sixteen times in the New Testament and several times in the Septuagint; where it corresponds to the Hebrew words ass and myan. Hesychius, explains it by χαρακτήρ and εικών, and Cyril by χαρακτήρ and vródeizua. It denotes, 1, a mark, or impression made by percussion or in any way. Thus, Scapula cites from Athenæus (xiii. p. 585. c.), τους τύπους των πληγών ιδούσα, she seeing the marks of the strokes. In this its proper sense- --the word occurs twice in the New Testament, where it is applied to the print or mark of the nails in our Saviour's hands and feet. John 20: 25.—2. A form, figure, image. Polybius, cited by Raphaelius, has 0ɛcov rúnov for images of the gods: and in Herodian, L. 5. s. 11., the phrase vòv rúnov rõv BeoŨ occurs in the sense of a painted figure of a god. By Josephus (Antiq. 1. 19, 11), the images which Rachel took from her father and secreted in her tent, are called túnot. In the LXX they are called tờ xi8w.a; and by Aquila, μορφώματα. Philo uses τύποι and είδωλα interchangeably; and Josephus also (Antiq. 15, 9, 5) employs αγάλματα and τύποι as of equivalent import. The word occurs in this sense in Acts 7: 43. Tropically, as form, manner, it is applied to the contents of a letter, Acts 23: 25, 3 Macc. 3: 30; and to a doctrine, Rom. 6: 17, túnov Sidarns. Comp. Rom. 2: 20, μόρφωσις της γνώσεως ; 2 Tim. 1: 13, υποτύπωσις υγιαινόντων hóyov. So, Jamblicus Vita Pythag. c. 16., xai iv avrò uns AQID=vqews ó túnos tocoūros, he had such a model (or form) of discipline ; and ένεκα του σαφέστερον γενέσθαι τον τύπον της diddoxohics, to render more conspicuous the form of instruction. Macknight, Doddridge, Terrott and others understand túros in Rom. 6: 17, in the sense of a mould, a meaning which the word sometimes, though very rarely, has. The metaphor, however,
certain respects, but future and distant.” Bampton Lectures, p. 237. Horne says: “In the sacred or theological sense of the term, a type may be defined to be a symbol of something future and distant, or an example prepared and evidently designed by God to prefigure that future thing.” Introd. Vol. II. p. 527. Prof. Stuart defines a type to be “a person or thing, which, by special appointment or design of an overruling Providence, is intended to symbolize or present a likeness of some other and future person or thing."
Com. on Romans, p. 234.
in this passage, seems not to be taken from the art of founding, as these critics suppose. The prevailing idea is the emancipation of slaves, or at least, an improvement in their condition,equivalent or rather superior to an emancipation,-by a change of masters. Rosenmueller and Bretschneider think it signifies a stamp or impression, alluding to the doctrine as being impressed on the mind (comp. James 1: 21), a sense, however, which is not in accordance with the usage of Paul, nor does it so well suit the passage in question, as the meaning given to it above.-3. Prototype, pattern, after which any thing is made applied to a building, Acts 7: 44, Heb. 8: 5. These passages refer to Ex. 25: 40, where the LXX has rúrov, answering to the Heb.on. Tropically, it signifies an example. Phil. 3: 17. 1 Thess. 1: 7. 2 Thess. 3: 9. 1 Tim. 4: 12. Tit. 2: 7. 1 Pet. 5: 7. 1 Cor. 10:6, 11.-4. It is applied to a person as bearing the form and figure of another person, i. e., as having a preordained resemblance and connection in certain relations and circumstances, Rom. 5: 14, where Adam is called a type of Christ. This signification belongs generically to the second meaning given above; but the specific idea attached to it in the passage here referred to, is peculiar and exclusively biblical. Here, then, the biblical and theological meaning coincide. The same idea is expressed by other terms in the New Testamentas oxid, Col. 2: 17, Heb. 8: 5, 10: 1, and ropoßolí, Heb. 9: 9, which is well explained by Chrysostom and Theophylact, tútos και σκιαγραφία, and by Hesychius, πραγμάτων ομοίωσις. The correlative term—that which corresponds to the type and is represented by it—is avtitúnos, antitype. See 1 Pet. 3: 21, where the water of baptism is represented as, in a certain sense, the antitype of the waters of the deluge, i. e., it is that which the waters of the deluge were designed to typify in the work of man's salvation. According to the definition we have given, one person is the historical and prophetical type of another, when some one or more of the actions of the former designedly prefigure or adumbrate the actions of the latter. An event or institution is typical of some future event or institution, when the first has the same designed connection with the second. Some writers employ language adapted to produce the impres