Baptism as type?

Status
Not open for further replies.

HisRobes4Mine

Puritan Board Freshman
In my working through various passages of Scripture regarding the subject of baptism, I've seen the close relationship between baptism and types. Is it right for us to refer to baptism as a type or should it only be referred to as an anti-type? If we say that water baptism is never a thing to itself but always points to something, isn't that what a type is, something that points to a greater spiritual reality in Christ? I'm just trying to be precise with how I understand this issue?
 
There seems to be several layers imbedded within types. For instance, an OT event may be later called a "baptism," which purposefully links the baptism administered to us in our minds as we read or hear the OT event described as such. However, these things ultimately refer to being within the body of Christ, and this, by union.

To your second question, I think the language of sacrament better reflects the relationship of the sign and the thing signified. So, perhaps, when speaking of the deeper spiritual realities of baptism, we are better off referring to them as sacraments. And when we speak of the movement from OT to NT, it is good to speak of them as types and anti-types.
 
1 Peter 3:20-21 uses water baptism symbolically of the Genesis flood. My NKJV does translates the Greek word “ἀντίτυπον” as “antitype” in this case.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1 Peter 3:20-21 uses water baptism symbolically of the Genesis flood. My NKJV does translates the Greek word “ἀντίτυπον” as “antitype” in this case.
I would say: Peter teaches us that the Genesis flood was the first baptism on record in the Bible. Similarly, Paul teaches us that the Red Sea event, Ex.14, is the second biblical-baptism on record, 1Cor.10:1-2.

Which is to say, that our understanding of New Covenant baptism should inform our interpretation of those events; and our interpretation of those events should inform our understanding of New Covenant baptism.
 
Baptism is not a type in a proper or primary sense. It is a positive institution, a divinely appointed sacrament/ordinance, having both physical and spiritual aspects. It can of course be said that the physical aspects of baptism (element and action) contain certain symbolic representations of (or that they typify) certain spiritual truths and concepts. On the other hand, the spiritual aspect of baptism, when received by faith, is an appropriation or seal of an ultimate reality. And, as already mentioned, two OT events, the Flood and the Red Sea Crossing, were statedly or implicitly antitypes (typical of, representing by type or pattern, corresponding to, an image) of Christian baptism. So while baptism contains or includes symbolisms of certain things, it is not itself a type (proper). Rather, certain OT events were types of baptism. Otherwise, one would have to say the OT events were types of a type.
 
Last edited:
Baptism is not a type in a proper or primary sense. It is a positive institution, a divinely appointed sacrament/ordinance, having both physical and spiritual aspects. It can of course be said that the physical aspects of baptism (element and action) contain certain symbolic representations of (or that they typify) certain spiritual truths and concepts. On the other hand, the spiritual aspect of baptism, when received by faith, is an appropriation or seal of an ultimate reality. And, as already mentioned, two OT events, the Flood and the Red Sea Crossing, were statedly or implicitly antitypes (typical of, representing by type or pattern, corresponding to, an image) of Christian baptism. So while baptism contains or includes symbolisms of certain things, it is not itself a type (proper). Rather, certain OT events were types of baptism. Otherwise, one would have to say the OT events were types of a type.
There's a lot here for me to agree with. So, I don't want my further contribution to appear like it straightforwardly controverts what stands before it.

I do have a slightly different take on Peter's meaning, as to his meaning using "type/antitype" language. The Genesis flood is one of Scripture's great, divine judgments; and as such it prefigures or "types" that final judgment which is to come. Peter is even explicit about this connection in his second letter, 2Pet.3:1-7. Now, final judgment is also intimately connected with the cross of Christ, where ultimate justice has already been meted out on the Redeemer in place of believers. Baptism is a kind of linkage between Christ crucified and those believers; which ones are carried through his judgment on their behalf, as they are "crucified with Christ," Gal.2:20, and have died, Col.3:3, the idea of which is carried over from Col.2:11 whence is the term: "buried" via baptism. Christ also speaks of his impending death as a baptism he will undergo, Lk.12:50.

So, for many reasons we should understand how baptism is a symbolic death and judgment. Baptism is not an end for itself; but it points to a greater reality. Hence, we have Peter's improper, i.e. rhetorical use of baptism being placed for the thing (actually but part of many things) it signifies. Because baptism is a token judgment, the complex idea also wraps up salvation from judgment into its symbolism. Returning to 1Pet.3: V20 is where the story of the flood is injected into the flow of apostolic thought. The whole flood narrative is in view, but in particular, it is the ARK that is mentioned by which the salvation is accomplished. The ark brings the eight believers "safe through the water;" and this is the connection to V21 where "baptism" is said to save.

We understand (following Peter) that baptism per se is not the salvation, but the Christ represented by baptism is the salvation. Christ is the fulfillment of the ARK sign, and the fulfillment of baptism. All the water can do is remove filth from the flesh; but what we really need is the internal cleansing brought about by a baptism of the Spirit using the blood of Christ--the blood that was poured out in death. Just as the ARK took the brunt of the flood that drowned the world, being in essence drowned along with it while it protected those IN it; so too Christ protects all who take refuge IN him.

In my opinion, therefore, baptism itself is not the antitype of the flood event or the ark (which are types); but baptism is improperly or informally put for the reality it signifies: namely the cross and ultimate judgment; and in that way baptism is labeled "antitype." Indeed, I would say Peter identifies the flood itself as baptism, in exactly the same way Christ calls his cross baptism. Everybody--and I mean everybody--is destined for a baptism; what will make one safe in the day of judgment is being in the ark of safety, i.e. being baptized already.
 
do have a slightly different take on Peter's meaning, as to his meaning using "type/antitype" language. The Genesis flood is one of Scripture's great, divine judgments; and as such it prefigures or "types" that final judgment which is to come. Peter is even explicit about this connection in his second letter, 2Pet.3:1-7. Now, final judgment is also intimately connected with the cross of Christ, where ultimate justice has already been meted out on the Redeemer in place of believers. Baptism is a kind of linkage between Christ crucified and those believers; which ones are carried through his judgment on their behalf, as they are "crucified with Christ," Gal.2:20, and have died, Col.3:3, the idea of which is carried over from Col.2:11 whence is the term: "buried" via baptism. Christ also speaks of his impending death as a baptism he will undergo, Lk.12:50.

So, for many reasons we should understand how baptism is a symbolic death and judgment. Baptism is not an end for itself; but it points to a greater reality. Hence, we have Peter's improper, i.e. rhetorical use of baptism being placed for the thing (actually but part of many things) it signifies. Because baptism is a token judgment, the complex idea also wraps up salvation from judgment into its symbolism. Returning to 1Pet.3: V20 is where the story of the flood is injected into the flow of apostolic thought. The whole flood narrative is in view, but in particular, it is the ARK that is mentioned by which the salvation is accomplished. The ark brings the eight believers "safe through the water;" and this is the connection to V21 where "baptism" is said to save.

We understand (following Peter) that baptism per se is not the salvation, but the Christ represented by baptism is the salvation. Christ is the fulfillment of the ARK sign, and the fulfillment of baptism. All the water can do is remove filth from the flesh; but what we really need is the internal cleansing brought about by a baptism of the Spirit using the blood of Christ--the blood that was poured out in death. Just as the ARK took the brunt of the flood that drowned the world, being in essence drowned along with it while it protected those IN it; so too Christ protects all who take refuge IN him.

In my opinion, therefore, baptism itself is not the antitype of the flood event or the ark (which are types); but baptism is improperly or informally put for the reality it signifies: namely the cross and ultimate judgment; and in that way baptism is labeled "antitype." Indeed, I would say Peter identifies the flood itself as baptism, in exactly the same way Christ calls his cross baptism. Everybody--and I mean everybody--is destined for a baptism; what will make one safe in the day of judgment is being in the ark of safety, i.e. being baptized already.

Sure, I can see you are right.
 
There seems to be several layers imbedded within types. For instance, an OT event may be later called a "baptism," which purposefully links the baptism administered to us in our minds as we read or hear the OT event described as such. However, these things ultimately refer to being within the body of Christ, and this, by union.

To your second question, I think the language of sacrament better reflects the relationship of the sign and the thing signified. So, perhaps, when speaking of the deeper spiritual realities of baptism, we are better off referring to them as sacraments. And when we speak of the movement from OT to NT, it is good to speak of them as types and anti-types.
Thanks for the help on this. I've definitely begun to see typology as a movement from OT to NT as you mentioned. l think what I struggle with is what language we should use when speaking about the spiritual realities they refer to. 1 Corinthians 10 tells us "these things happened as examples (the Greek here is types)." Is Paul speaking of the baptism of the nation of Israel as a type or only his daily provision of manna and water from the rock. I think he is referring to all the things mentioned in the first 4 verses of 1 Corinthians 10. The question then becomes. What is the anti-type? And is there a relationship between the physical things the nation of Israel went through and the spiritual realities we in the church today partake of.
 
Baptism is not an end for itself; but it points to a greater reality.
This is really what I've been working to understand. I agree that water baptism points to something greater. Your thoughts are helpful as I've also been working to understand the nature of baptism as it relates to 1 Peter 3. Would you say it is improper to use the terminology of a type in the NT or is the language of type/anti-type language best suited to OT picture NT fulfillment? I'm thinking of how Vos uses the idea of a symbol as it relates to types. He essentially argues that symbol and type are two sides of the same coin. Symbol refers to present reality while type refers prospectively to an event in the future.
 
Thanks for the help on this. I've definitely begun to see typology as a movement from OT to NT as you mentioned. l think what I struggle with is what language we should use when speaking about the spiritual realities they refer to. 1 Corinthians 10 tells us "these things happened as examples (the Greek here is types)." Is Paul speaking of the baptism of the nation of Israel as a type or only his daily provision of manna and water from the rock. I think he is referring to all the things mentioned in the first 4 verses of 1 Corinthians 10. The question then becomes. What is the anti-type? And is there a relationship between the physical things the nation of Israel went through and the spiritual realities we in the church today partake of.
This is really what I've been working to understand. I agree that water baptism points to something greater. Your thoughts are helpful as I've also been working to understand the nature of baptism as it relates to 1 Peter 3. Would you say it is improper to use the terminology of a type in the NT or is the language of type/anti-type language best suited to OT picture NT fulfillment? I'm thinking of how Vos uses the idea of a symbol as it relates to types. He essentially argues that symbol and type are two sides of the same coin. Symbol refers to present reality while type refers prospectively to an event in the future.

Not to answer for others, but Francis Turretin said some useful things that speak to these matters, as specifically concerns 1 Cor. 10:1,2.

In 1 Cor. 10:1,2, Paul speaks of the various benefits given to the people of God in the past, which by way of analogy correspond with our own Sacrament. ...Paul gives us the key to the mystery in the words that we have before us, for he would not have been able to say that the Fathers were baptized into Moses in the Cloud and the Sea, unless the pillar of Cloud and the passage through the Sea had something that would symbolically correspond to the Sacrament of baptism and the spiritual benefits that are sealed with it.​
...It is certain that in our baptism three things come together: Divine Grace, the Word, and Water—that is, the Grace into which we are ushered, the Word of institution, and the Water in which we are baptized. Corresponding to this, there was a combination of three things in the Mosaic baptism: the Cloud, Moses, and the Sea—the Cloud was a symbol of the grace and divine protection into which we are initiated, Moses represented the doctrine of the Law and the gracious promises of the Word, the confirmation of which is sealed by the Sacrament, and the Sea represented the water of baptism in which we are washed.​
...In order to truly grasp the meaning of this illustrious mystery, the three things said here by the Apostle must be carefully considered: Our Fathers were baptized into Moses, in the cloud, and in the sea. The first thing he says, they were baptized into Moses, is explained in various ways. …We think, however, that they speak most consistently who say that in this instance Moses metonymically designates the teaching and dispensation of Moses, which is often the case in Scripture: Luke 16:29, they have Moses and the Prophets; Acts 15:21, Moses has those who proclaim him; John 5:45, Moses himself will accuse you. No less is Christ taken for the doctrine of Christ, Eph. 4:21. Thus, to be baptized into Moses, is nothing other than to be baptized into the doctrine and Law of Moses, to be initiated into the Covenant handed down by him, and to be consecrated in the Mosaic instruction. Put another way, it was a solemn rite and profession of being immersed into [tingendi] the religion and worship that was handed down by Moses, because God testified his grace and benevolence to the people with these symbols. In this way the people were progressively united and consecrated to Moses. Likewise, in Acts 19:3,4, to be baptized in the baptism of John, was to be consecrated by the baptism of John to faith in the doctrine which John preached. For as the Sacraments are the seals of the Word, so they are the tokens and symbols of our faith.​
...In another great similarity, the passage of the Israelites through the Sea wonderfully agrees with our own baptism, by foreshadowing its grace. For, as in baptism, when performed by immersion and emersion, as it once was, the person descends into the water and then comes out again, of which descent and ascent we have an example in the Eunuch (Acts 8:38,39). Consequently, when in this rite persons are immersed in water, they are overwhelmed and, in a manner, buried together with Christ; and again, when they emerge, seem to be raised out of the grave, and are said to rise again with Christ (Rom. 6:4,5, Col. 2:12).​
In the Mosaic baptism we likewise have an immersion and an emersion; that, when they descended into the depths of the Sea; this, when they came out and escaped to the opposite shore. The former was a picture of death, the latter of resurrection. When they passed through the bottom of the Sea, what distanced them from death, except their escape to the opposite shore—so were they not, as it were, resurrected from the dead? Again, in the crossing of the Sea the Israelites are saved, but the Egyptians perish; the same Sea which is the means of deliverance for one, becomes the cause of death and destruction to the other.​
And we may also observe this very thing in baptism: the same baptism which saves us, also extinguishes and mortifies the old man; just as Pharaoh with his whole army of sins perish in the Red Sea of the Blood of Christ, so our old man was crucified with Christ (Rom. 6:3,6). While we are baptized into the death of Christ, the same blood that redeems us and opens the way to heaven for us (Heb. 10:19,20), destroys the devil and sin. By death He destroyed him who had the power of death (Heb. 2:14,15) and triumphed on the cross over Principalities and Powers (Col. 2:13,14,15).​
(De Baptismo Nubis et Maris; Accessit ujusdem Disputationum Miscellanearum Decas; [Geneva: 1687], 131ff.)​
 
Last edited:
This is really what I've been working to understand. I agree that water baptism points to something greater. Your thoughts are helpful as I've also been working to understand the nature of baptism as it relates to 1 Peter 3. Would you say it is improper to use the terminology of a type in the NT or is the language of type/anti-type language best suited to OT picture NT fulfillment? I'm thinking of how Vos uses the idea of a symbol as it relates to types. He essentially argues that symbol and type are two sides of the same coin. Symbol refers to present reality while type refers prospectively to an event in the future.
By "improper," I'm not implying a pejorative sense. "Proper" will often convey a meaning similar to "formal" or "by definition," something like that. So, if the name of a sign is put in the text in place of the thing it signifies, rather than exclusively referring to itself: this is an "improper" but nevertheless perfectly legitimate use. But the hearer or interpreter needs to be aware of this potential use by a writer or speaker, so that the correct sense arises in relation to the words chosen to communicate.

Now, as to your question regarding "type" and NT-terminology: broadly the Gk work has three general uses

1) a non-technical use of the term "typos" in a text like Pho.3:17 refers to the apostle and his co-laborers as "examples," and 1Ths.1:7 where a young congregation has nontheless become an "example" to the whole church.
2) a specific pattern, Heb.8:5 quoting Ex.25:40; cf. Act.7:33-34; also a peculiar "mark" see Jn.20:25, where the nails left their unique scar on Jesus' body.
3) a technical relation between an OT concept and its fulfillment in NT reality, Rom.5:14; 1Cor.10:6, 11; cf. Heb.9:24 & 1Pet.3:21; what comes forth first in time is nevertheless secondary to the antitype that has the greater essence, but appears later on. This makes the "type" a prefigurement.

Because the NT is centered on Christ as the fulfillment of the OT, it is probably unhelpful to denominate signs of and for the present age with the same term as that which fills the OT, indeed that is its very character. Other teachers and authors may show less reticence to make use of the term as a synonym for current signs or symbols. I think JLAllen (above) makes the same argument for using this-age terminology of "sacrament" to say of the signs given to the NT church: These things point beyond themselves to the spiritual (both present and sometimes still future) reality.

Luke 24:27, 44 bear witness to the pervasive Christological character of OT revelation. 1Cor.10:1-4 barely touches on a handful of moments or incidents or personalities (out of hundreds or thousands) which the apostle could have invoked; but he chose what he did in order to meet his literary/rhetorical need at that instant (and under the Spirit's guidance). The task of the Bible-interpreter is to labor for his own adoption of the apostolic mind, which is opened by Christ, in order to make proper connections between what was written, and has come down to us for our instruction. It demands wisdom, and the tools and skills to avoid fanciful allegorizing.

Paul once uses the term "allegory," Gal.4:24, but not to encourage or license free-associations or casual spiritualization of the text. Rather, his example is just the very same type/antitype employment of the OT in a manner that leads to fuller understanding of Christ and his accomplishment, and what that now means for the church of this age continuing through the world until the Second Coming. Study the patterns of the NT authors (and preachers in the historical narratives) as they engage with the text of the OT in order to present its truths. I do not believe we interpreters and teachers who come after them are meant to be confined solely to those few representative samples contained in the NT; but we should be imitators of them who sat at Jesus' feet to learn a kingdom-centric, fulfillment methodology of preaching for the benefit of God's New Covenant people.
 
Good thoughts throughout. One way to keep the idea of a sacrament and type distinct is to remember that Christ is the Mediator of the Covenant of Grace. This was true in the OT where there were others who served as types or shadows of the Mediator Who was to come. Those mediators of the past sate in the offices of prophet, priest, and king but were shadows of the One Mediator whose work ultimately stood behind them all as they pre-figured what He would accomplish. During this period of the CoG prior to Christ, the OT Saints were given sacraments of the Covenant of Grace that served as signs and seals of God's interest in them. A sacrament is physical and tangible so that the participant can see, taste, and hear of God's interest and it is intended to be understood in faith as sealing that reality for those to whom it belongs.

When the fullness of time came, the True Mediator was born, lived, died, rose, and ascended. There are no longer types of the Mediator as the New Covenant no longer looks forward to but possesses the Mediator to which all prior administrations shadowed. Sacraments are now fewer in number than in the OC, but they still function in the same way, providing sensible signs of the Savior's grace and interest in the recipient. They seal things that are presently salvific, union and communion with the risen and ascended Christ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top