When a Type is not a Type

[richard n koustas]

But the servant of Abraham was sent away from Gentiles (Canaanites) to relatives (Jews?)

I may be a bit hazy on my Jewish history, but was there actually a distinction back then? Was Abraham actually the first Jew?

Are you saying the servant of Abraham is a "type" of Holy Spirit?

yes.

He gives gifts from Abraham, the Father.

true. The HS is pictured in the gift AND the giver.

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

I see your point here, but i still see this as the great marriage supper, in type -- when Jesus comes for the church.

Hey, I ended the type at the marraige. I did not go beyond it. as with all types, none are perfect, and none are complete, although the story of Joseph probably comes pretty close -- down to the point where he reveals himself to his brothers.

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?

Nothing. Does it need to? It just reinforces that we have Christ plastered in the pages of the OT, not just in prophecy, not just in Messianic psalms, but burried (burried to be uncovered) in the OT.

Too many questions...not enough time to respond to them all.:wavey:

 

[canadyjd]

Nothing. Does it need to? It just reinforces that we have Christ plastered in the pages of the OT, not just in prophecy, not just in Messianic psalms, but burried (burried to be uncovered) in the OT.:wavey:

Well, when authenic types are mentioned in the New Testament, they are always used to elaborate on teaching/doctrine.
peace to youraying:

 

[richard n koustas]

Well, when authenic types are mentioned in the New Testament, they are always used to elaborate on teaching/doctrine.
peace to youraying:

We are not going be rehashing where each of us draw the line thingy, are we? peace to youraying:, too!

 

[Hope of Glory]

Well, when authenic types are mentioned in the New Testament, they are always used to elaborate on teaching/doctrine.
peace to youraying:

So, do you have Scripture to back up this doctrine that you're pushing?

 

[canadyjd]

So, do you have Scripture to back up this doctrine that you're pushing?

What doctrine would that be?

peace to youraying:

 

[richard n koustas]

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.

sorry for the late hit on this thread, but i just 'found' a NT reference to Isaac being a type ofChrist. Heb 11:17 - 19:

By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten [son], Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
Accounting that God [was] able to raise [him] up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

 

[Hope of Glory]

What doctrine would that be?

peace to youraying:

The one that I quoted in which you cited "authentic" types. You're claiming that there is some authority that only types that are mentioned in the NT are "authentic", and I'm curious as to your authority for this. If it's scriptural, show it.

 

[canadyjd]

sorry for the late hit on this thread, but i just 'found' a NT reference to Isaac being a type ofChrist. Heb 11:17 - 19:

What is Heb 11:17-19 teaching?

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

The one that I quoted in which you cited "authentic" types. You're claiming that there is some authority that only types that are mentioned in the NT are "authentic", and I'm curious as to your authority for this. If it's scriptural, show it.

You didn't understand my post. When the authors of the New Testament specifically use the word "type" to identify a type, they use the comparison to teach or elaborate on doctrine.

These are "authentic" in that since the authors specifically use the word "type" there is no doubting their intention to use it for that purpose.

Since that is the model shown to us in scripture (specifically using the word "type"), then it is certainly scriptural to follow the lead of Holy Spirit and limit the identification of "types" to those that are specifically mentioned as such in scripture.

It is also scriptural to limit the scope of such a "type" to the scope mentioned in scripture (i.e. the scope of the Gal.4 passage is that Isaac is a "type" of believer, born of the promise and not born under bondage which signifies the Mosaic Law in context).

peace to youraying:

 

[EdSutton]

There is something somewhere said about "Fools jump in where angels fear to tread." I have not got into this until now, but "Ker-Splash!!" (Thankfully, there was water in the pool!) & (Too bad I don't have a better smilie for this!) :laugh:

Am I the only one who has noticed that "type" and "antitype" are "theological" words primarily, as opposed to "Biblical" words?

In fact, among most of the twenty versions I find on Bible Gateway©[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif], aside from AMP and YLT, these words and/or synonyms very seldom are even found. And in the few instances they are, these seem, at a quick glance, to be limited to exactly four passages: Rom. 5:14; Gal. 4:24; Heb. 11:19; and I Peter 3:21, where baptism is said to be an antitype by the NKJV.

So we therefore, as far as I can tell anyway, have only three clearly declared "types" or "antitypes" in Scripture. They are Adam [Rom. 5:14 - NKJV, ESV, ('prototype' - HCSB)] and Isaac twice (Heb. 11:19, and Gal. 4:24)- both of which as well as Adam, were types of Christ, and baptism, which is an antitype (NKJV) of the Flood, Noah, the Ark, or Jesus preaching unto the 'spirits in prison', depending on how one actually interprets this in its context.

There simply are not a great number so defined by Scripture.
>
>
>


'Now climbing back up out of the pool soaking wet and dripping water everywhere.'

Language Cop

P.S. For any who might still not be aware, Language Cop is the alter-ego of EdSutton. :thumbsup:
[/FONT]

 

[Hope of Glory]

You didn't understand my post. When the authors of the New Testament specifically use the word "type" to identify a type, they use the comparison to teach or elaborate on doctrine.

These are "authentic" in that since the authors specifically use the word "type" there is no doubting their intention to use it for that purpose.

Since that is the model shown to us in scripture (specifically using the word "type"), then it is certainly scriptural to follow the lead of Holy Spirit and limit the identification of "types" to those that are specifically mentioned as such in scripture.

It is also scriptural to limit the scope of such a "type" to the scope mentioned in scripture (i.e. the scope of the Gal.4 passage is that Isaac is a "type" of believer, born of the promise and not born under bondage which signifies the Mosaic Law in context).

peace to youraying:

So, you're claiming the only types in the OT are the ones that are mentioned by the NT authors? Perhaps we should simply throw out the entire NT, unless it's mentioned in the NT.

 

[canadyjd]

So, you're claiming the only types in the OT are the ones that are mentioned by the NT authors?

There is no doubt discerning the author's intent to use a type when he identifies it as such.

Perhaps we should simply throw out the entire NT, unless it's mentioned in the NT.

I am going to assume you meant "we should throw out the entire Old Testament, unless it's mentioned in the New Testament".

No, I am not saying that.

peace to youraying: