When a Type is not a Type

[richard n koustas]

Tell you what.

I'll take a look at Balaam. If you will reconsider Isaac (or Joseph or Daniel, pick one) as a type.

Another element of a "type" is that there must be something of merit being taught.

NT truths (especially about Jesus) hidden in the OT is good enough for me!

 

[canadyjd]

Tell you what.

I'll take a look at Balaam. If you will reconsider Isaac (or Joseph or Daniel, pick one) as a type.

NT truths (especially about Jesus) hidden in the OT is good enough for me!

I am all for taking a close look at scripture.

The big problem I have is the word "hidden". Does that mean certain people have a secret understanding that God didn't give to everyone else?

I have seen folks compare Isaac's search for a bride with Christ and the church. Unless I see something in the N.T. that specifically ties that story to Christ and the church, then it is "reading into" the story something that is not there. Same with Joseph and Daniel.

peace to youraying:

 

[J. Jump]

Unless I see something in the N.T. that specifically ties that story to Christ and the church, then it is "reading into" the story something that is not there. Same with Joseph and Daniel.

No offense here, but the biggest problem with this statement is that big "I" in the middle of it. If "I" don't see something in the NT. . . . Well just because you don't see something doesn't make it untrue.

 

[richard n koustas]

I am all for taking a close look at scripture.

The big problem I have is the word "hidden". Does that mean certain people have a secret understanding that God didn't give to everyone else?

I have seen folks compare Isaac's search for a bride with Christ and the church. Unless I see something in the N.T. that specifically ties that story to Christ and the church, then it is "reading into" the story something that is not there. Same with Joseph and Daniel.

peace to youraying:

I (the big "I") will try and pull something together for you about Isaac and his bride. If "I" add something to scripture that is not there, I'm sure you'll let me know. Things "hidden" are meant to be searched out.

 

[canadyjd]

No offense here, but the biggest problem with this statement is that big "I" in the middle of it. If "I" don't see something in the NT. . . . Well just because you don't see something doesn't make it untrue.

Fair enough, let me rephrase my response.

Unless a passage in the New Testament specifically mentions Jesus Christ and His church being "typed" by Isaac and his wife, then you are reading into the O.T. passage something that is not there.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

I (the big "I") will try and pull something together for you about Isaac and his bride. If "I" add something to scripture that is not there, I'm sure you'll let me know. Things "hidden" are meant to be searched out.

When you find something, I will give full consideration to the teaching of the passage.

peace to youraying:

 

[J. Jump]

Unless a passage in the New Testament specifically mentions Jesus Christ and His church being "typed" by Isaac and his wife, then you are reading into the O.T. passage something that is not there.

But it doesn't matter how you phrase it. The NT doesn't tell us that only specific mentions of types are types. That is just a man made rule. Scripture doesn't establish that rule, so why do we as man think we are above Scripture and can place that limitation on It?

 

[canadyjd]

But it doesn't matter how you phrase it. The NT doesn't tell us that only specific mentions of types are types. That is just a man made rule. Scripture doesn't establish that rule, so why do we as man think we are above Scripture and can place that limitation on It?

The N.T. writers used the word "type" when they wanted to refer to something in the O.T. as a "type". Who are we to tell the N.T. authors, who wrote under inspiration of Holy Spirit, that they didn't use the word "type" often enough? Isn't that just a man made rule, to see "types" when the authors themselves didn't use the word? So why do some think they are above scripture by saying the plain teaching of scripture isn't sufficient? Why do some think they have to "read into" scripture things that aren't there, before it has meaning?

peace to youraying:

 

[J. Jump]

Why do some think they have to "read into" scripture things that aren't there, before it has meaning?

Well if you want to place limits on Scripture because the author didn't use a certain word then by all means you are more than welcome to do so. Obviously the "plain" reading of Scripture is not where it is at all the time, or the Israelites would have had it right, but they missed their own Messiah because they didn't understand the "deeper" things of Scripture.

Now just because you don't agree with someone's take on Scripture does not mean it is "reading" into Scripture things that aren't there.

See that's just it. If the things "weren't there" the types and anti-types would not line up. But they do. If there is a type in the OT there will be a corresponding anti-type in the NT. If not then it is not a type.

And if there is a type and an anti-type then it will line up with the rest of the Scripture teaching. That is the safeguard from people running amuck with types.

Everything lines up in Scripture perfectly.

But again if you want to stay on the surface of Scripture then by all means do so. As for me I will mine His Words for the treasures that they are.

Edit: I forgot to make mention of your last comment. It's not that we search deeper before the text has any meaning. It's just that we don't stop at the surface meaning because there is more to it than that. The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. The life of Scripture is not always found on the surface!

 

[canadyjd]

Well if you want to place limits on Scripture because the author didn't use a certain word then by all means you are more than welcome to do so.

Well, if you want to add to scripture things that aren't there, then by all means you are welcome to do so.

peace to youraying:

 

[J. Jump]

Well, if you want to add to scripture things that aren't there, then by all means you are welcome to do so.

See that's just it, just because you don't see it or don't want to accept it doesn't mean it is adding to Scripture! That's a strawman!

 

[canadyjd]

See that's just it, just because you don't see it or don't want to accept it doesn't mean it is adding to Scripture! That's a strawman!

Well, just because you can find similarities to Old Testament events or people to New Testament events or people, doesn't mean they are types. That's a logical fallacy!

peace to youraying:

 

[J. Jump]

I don't see how you can sit there and say something is a logical fallacy if something is more than just "similar" but exact. Do you think it is just by accident so many of those "similarities" are there? I for one don't.

 

[canadyjd]

I don't see how you can sit there and say something is a logical fallacy if something is more than just "similar" but exact. Do you think it is just by accident so many of those "similarities" are there? I for one don't.

Show me the "exact" similarity.

peace to youraying:

 

[richard n koustas]

Isaac as a type

I hate to interject here, but here goes. this was cut and pasted from a couple posts i made somewere else. I hope it is coherent enough.

Almost everything we read about Isaac in the book of Genesis is a
picture or type of Christ. Both men were promised, both had
miraculous
births, both were loved and did the will of their father (without
complaining), were offered as sacrifices, etc.

We all know the story. When Abraham was tested by God, he went up on
Mount Moriah with his son Isaac. We all know the
story of how Abraham was going to sacrifice his one and only son as a
burnt offering, the angel prevented him, and he found and sacrificed
a ram. (Gen 22)

It is interesting that we have no record of Isaac ever coming down
from
the mountain (it's like he disappears from the scene). He is not
even
mentioned at his mother's funeral. In fact we don't read
about him
until Gen. 24:62 when he comes to meet his bride. Isn't this a
wonderful portrait of Christ? Like Isaac, Christ disappeared (when He
ascended into heaven)...and will reappear to meet his bride, the
church!

Taking a closer look:

Abraham's servant was sent to a distant place to find Isaac a bride.
The Holy Spirit was sent (away from Jews to the Gentiles) to fetch a bride for Christ (ie, the church).

He was led to Rebekah, the one that God has pre-selected.
Members of the church are predestined.

He speaks nothing of himself, but only of his master.
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: Jn 15:20

He gives Rebekah an earnest. (Gen 24:22& 53)
In whom ye also [trusted], after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession...Eph 1:13&14

Rebekah believes him lock, stock and barrel. Rebekah leaves all behind forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before...to follow him. Just like we, as Christians leave all behind, to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit.
He leads Rebekah to Isaac. And here we have a picture of the great marriage feast of the Lamb!

 

[richard n koustas]

J Jump:

Feel free to JUMP right in here...

:smilewinkgrin:

 

[J. Jump]

J Jump:

Feel free to JUMP right in here...

I think you have given one of many examples that could be used here.

There's just too many to list.

 

[richard n koustas]

I think you have given one of many examples that could be used here.

There's just too many to list.

I couldn't agree more...!

...if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

 

[Hope of Glory]

When is a type not a type? Usually when it interferes with conceived notions and man-made teachings.

It there's a type and an anti-type, then it's a type.

If what we hold as a belief doesn't line up with it, then we need to closely examine our closely held beliefs.

 

[canadyjd]

Almost everything we read about Isaac in the book of Genesis is a
picture or type of Christ. Both men were promised, both had
miraculous births, both were loved and did the will of their father (without
complaining), were offered as sacrifices, etc.

Do you really mean that “almost everything….is a type of Christ?” The only “type” I can find in the New Testament is that Isaac is a “type” of believer, (Galatians 4:24-31) where he is compared to current believers as one of the “children of promise” instead of a child of the bondslave. The Jews persecuted the Christians just as Ishmael persecuted young Isaac. That is a far as scripture allows us to go.

Abraham's servant was sent to a distant place to find Isaac a bride. The Holy Spirit was sent (away from Jews to the Gentiles) to fetch a bride for Christ (ie, the church).

But the servant of Abraham was sent away from Gentiles (Canaanites) to relatives (Jews?) Holy Spirit went to the Jews first. Most of the early church was Jewish. The church is made up of both Jews and Gentiles and they become “one new man”, which is the bride of Christ. Any future that “Jews” have of being saved will be through being saved by Holy Spirit and added to the church, which is the bride of Christ.

So see, you have to read into scripture things that are not there to say the search for a bride for Isaac is a “type” of Holy Spirit being sent away from Jews to the Gentiles, when in fact the opposite is true.

He speaks nothing of himself, but only of his master.
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: Jn 15:20


And

He gives Rebekah an earnest. (Gen 24:22& 53)
In whom ye also [trusted], after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession...Eph 1:13&14

Are you saying the servant of Abraham is a “type” of Holy Spirit? Or a “type” of Christ? The servant doesn’t give himself as an “earnest”. He gives gifts from Abraham, the Father. Is the servant a “type” of Christ then, that He gives the gift of earnest (Holy Spirit) to Rebekah (the church?) What is the servant’s relationship to Isaac, if Isaac is a “type” of Christ? Are they both “types” of Christ? How do you reconcile the servant being a “type” of Christ and Isaac being a “type” of Christ at the same time?

Rebekah believes him lock, stock and barrel. Rebekah leaves all behind forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before...to follow him. Just like we, as Christians leave all behind, to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit. He leads Rebekah to Isaac. And here we have a picture of the great marriage feast of the Lamb!

The sum total picture of the marriage of Isaac to Rebekah is found in Gen.24:67 “Then Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and he took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her; thus Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.”

Forget for a moment the problem of trying to identify the mother of Isaac (Jesus Christ) who has died and how that relates to the marriage feast. How can you take one verse and say “here we have a picture of the great marriage feast of the Lamb!” There is no mention of a feast at all. There are no guests invited. There is no celebration. The only emphasis is on Isaac (Jesus Christ) being comforted in the death of his mother by marriage to Rebekah (the church).

Can you see how you have to read into this text to see a “great marriage feast” of the Lamb? It just isn’t there.

To make matters much worse, for the comparison, Isaac (Jesus Christ) is in opposition to the will of God. He wants to bless Esau, but God has decreed the blessing for Jacob. And Rebekah (the Church) is in opposition to the will of her husband (Jesus Christ) and tricks her husband into blessing Jacob (who is??? Little rebellious churches?). And Rebekah (the church) calls for the curse of her husband (Jesus Christ) to be on her instead of her child. What curse is Jesus Christ putting on the Church? Are we cast out as Jacob was, fleeing for our lives? Who is Esau in this scene, false churches?

Now, let me ask you something. Assume for a moment that everything you have said about Isaac being a type of Christ is correct. What does that reveal to us about Jesus Christ that we cannot get from the clear language of scripture in other passages?

Peace to youraying:

ps; I wrote this in my word document. If it comes out bold, I am not meaning to yell at you, I just can't figure out how not to have it bold when I post. Sorry:flower: