Fairbairn on Type and Prophecy

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
This is a follow-up to the thread on successive fulfilment. The aim is to explain the approach of Patrick Fairbairn in his masterful work on Typology. In the fifth chapter (vol. 1, pp. 137ff.) he discusses "Prophetical Types, Or The Combination Of Type With Prophecy."

The difference between type and prophecy is explained: "The one images or prefigures, while the other foretells, coming realities." Type uses "representative acts or symbols" whereas prophecy uses "verbal delineations." Because of this prophecy has the advantage of directness and definiteness, and comes closer to "historical description." Types, on the other hand, are full of "moral import," and are more complicated because "less transparent." Despite this a type can produce as deep a conviction "of design and preordained connection."

This is an important difference and one that bears on the interpretation of the book of Revelation. Revelation speaks of what must shortly come to pass but does so by means of signs or images rather than by expressly foretelling the future. Rev. 1:1 says that the revelation is "signified" by the angel sent from Christ to John. In observing the difference between type and prophecy the interpreter should not take the images of Revelation as definite historical descriptions. Still, there is divine design and foreordination in them, which connects them with history in a less direct way.

Fairbairn notes that type and prophecy are connected. They are sometimes "combined into one prospective exhibition of the future." It is here that the complexities of prophecy come to the surface and cause debates in interpretation. The reason for this is that things relating to the past are interwoven with the "anticipations of things to come." For Fairbairn these complexities can be reduced if "the typical element in prophecy is allowed its due place and weight." One must expect that "they may sometimes run into each other." At this point he makes a key statement: "the typical in action may in various ways form the groundwork and the materials by means of which the prophetic in word gave forth its intimations of the coming future." In other words, the prophetic is borrowing from the significance of the type in order to describe the future.

This also has a bearing on the book of Revelation. It gives substantial reasoning for the idealist interpretation of the book. Regrettably, idealist interpreters have tended to assume their approach rather than explain it. This allows some degree of elasticity in the way they explain the symbols. In the process the symbols often become vague to the point of becoming meaningless or disconnected from history altogether. If the prophetic is understood to be "borrowing from the significance of the type," the interpreter must establish the meaning of the symbol in history. The type must be established before its antitype is expounded. Now the symbol has a fixed meaning and this will help to control the way the symbol functions in relation to the future.

Fairbairn gives four examples where type combines with prophecy. This forms the outline for the rest of the chapter. I will not attempt to summarise as it will be the aim of future posts to explore these combinations.

"(1.) A typical action might, in some portion, of the prophetic word, be historically mentioned; and hence the mention being that of a prophetical circumstance or event, would come to possess a prophetical character. (2.) Or something typical in the past or the present might be represented in a distinct prophetical announcement, as going to appear again in the future; thus combining together the typical in act and the prophetical in word. (3.) Or the typical, not expressly and formally, but in its essential relations and principles, might be embodied in an accompanying prediction, which foretold things corresponding in nature, but far higher and greater in importance. (4.) Or, finally, the typical might itself be still future, and in a prophetic word might be partly described, partly presupposed, as a vantage-ground for the delineation of other things still more distant, to which, when it occurred, it was to stand in the relation of type to antitype."
 
Interesting observation. I have done quite a bit of work on typology, writing on Ezekiel's temple as it is fulfilled (in part) in Revelation 21–22.

Fairbairn's point about typology is, for lack of a better term, about a "literary" device (though it's rooted in history; e.g. Melchizedek was a historical figure, but the NT describes the literary use of his genealogy). Thus, I am not sure how that would transfer over to Revelation, seeing as the canon is closed. In other words, to say that Revelation has types would mean that there would be an antitype in a later document. I suppose you might respond that there's nothing inherent in a type to say it must be so, that requires a type find its fulfillment in later Scripture rather than simply a later event or person. Nevertheless, in studying types, this is what is usually meant— a previous event/figure/institution in a text finds its antitypical fulfillment in a later text.

It may be useful to have an example. Take, for instance, the walls of the new city. Why the height and why the names? What about this is a "type" of something in the future, rather than being the antitypical fulfillment of something previous?
 
Last edited:
Nevertheless, in studying types, this is what is usually meant— a previous event/figure/institution in a text finds its antitypical fulfillment in a later text.

Revelation is the text that accomplishes this. Fairbairn will discuss four kinds of combination, and I hope to show how they apply to Revelation.

To instance in your example from Ezekiel, Fairbairn takes the view that it is typical of the church. Revelation picks up on that type and develops it prophetically.
 
With Revelation being the terminal book and final culmination of all prophecy, one can't expect a later text of course. Which then brings us to conclude that Revelation is going to have some unique things going on given its place in the canon.
Post automatically merged:

Regrettably, idealist interpreters have tended to assume their approach rather than explain it. This allows some degree of elasticity in the way they explain the symbols. In the process the symbols often become vague to the point of becoming meaningless or disconnected from history altogether. If the prophetic is understood to be "borrowing from the significance of the type," the interpreter must establish the meaning of the symbol in history. The type must be established before its antitype is expounded. Now the symbol has a fixed meaning and this will help to control the way the symbol functions in relation to the future.

Excellent critique.

I am greatly looking forward to your findings as this has been an area of interest of mine for some time.
 
Got it. Thanks. I thought you meant that Revelation itself was describing types of something later to come.
 
Fairbairn's first category of typical prophecy occurs when something typical is "historically mentioned in the prophetic word." These are circumstances or events that come to us in the form of historical statements. This category has two classes -- the general and the specific. In this post we will confine ourselves to the general class of historical statement. It will help us to get some idea of the broad method of New Testament writers as they understood and applied the Old Testament Scriptures in a distinctive Christological way. They did not confine themselves to what we call "Messianic prophecies," but observed general patterns which appeared in a peculiar way in the personal history of Christ. When we can appreciate this it will assist in understanding the general pattern of thought which lies behind the Book of Revelation.

Fairbairn gives a number of examples to illustrate this point but we will confine ourselves to three of them because they all come from the Gospel of John and that is of special interest to us because we believe the apostle John wrote both the Gospel and the Apocalypse.

"The zeal of Thine house hath eaten me up," Ps. 69:9, quoted in John 2:17.

"He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me," Ps. 41:9, quoted in John 13:18.

"They hated me without a cause," Ps. 69:4, quoted in John 15:25.

On the surface these passages present a difficulty for interpreters because it is not obvious why they should be distinctly applied to Christ. Fairbairn notes, "as originally penned, they assume the form of historical statements rather than of prophetical announcements." They contain "general truths" which obviously recur in the experiences of God's people throughout history.

These general truths, however, "were exemplified also in Jesus, when travailing in the work of man’s redemption." They are not so general that they lose their distinctive connection with history. As a whole these historical statements meet in Christ in a literal way and are fulfilled in exhaustive detail. This is because He fulfils the typical element. He is the Antitype.

We will explore the typical element of these general statements in another post. For now the important point to observe is that the historical circumstances and events that are connected with types have prophetical value. This point will assist the idealist approach to Revelation, which interprets typical prophecy in terms of "general truths." The visions of Revelation are full of incidental details as well as big pictures. What are the visions drawing from? My conviction is that they draw from the well of typical history. They speak of the future in terms of the past.
 
We now follow up on the basic point that historical statements which are connected with types have prophetical value. It is the presence of something "typical" in these historical statements which enabled Jesus and the New Testament writers to see a prophetical meaning in Old Testament passages. They should not be taken as suggesting there is a double meaning in Scripture. As the Westminster Confession teaches us, the meaning of Scripture is not manifold but one. It is always the literal meaning that we are to seek after. Nevertheless that one meaning is quite extensive in its literal sense. The reason for this is the reality of types in historical statements.

As Fairbairn reflected on the NT quotations of the OT he saw that historical statements described what "belonged to characters" like David and Israel. These "bore typical relations to Christ; so that their being descriptive in the one respect necessarily implied their being prophetic in the other. What had formerly taken place in the experience of the type must substantially renew itself again in the experience of the antitype." These descriptions were not just historical statements related to David and Israel, but also contained a typological relationship to Christ. They foreshadowed the Antitype, so that what was true for them in their historical experiences had to be repeated in the personal experience of Christ in a greater, ultimate way.

If we take a step back from Fairbairn for a moment we can ponder what is happening here. It is not that the reader finds a type and then justifies all the parallels that he sees between the type and antitype. That would allow too much scope for the imagination to seize control of the text for its own purposes. Instead, the text itself sets up the type with a futuristic function. God has given promises, even entered into covenant, with the "character," and as such has constituted him the centre around which the promises of God will be performed in the future. So constituted the type fulfils a covenantal goal. He is made an eschatological figure. This eschatology, in turn, enables us to draw a line from the type to the fulfilment, and this gives objective guidance in the interpretation of correspondences between type and Antitype.

We may return to Fairbairn at this point because he will give us a clear example of this covenantal goal in the use of Ps. 78:2. It says, "I will open my mouth in a parable (lit. similitude); I will utter dark sayings (lit. riddles) of old." In Matt. 13:35 this finds its fulfilment in the parabolic teaching of Christ. In the Psalm the idea of a parable "simply records a fact, but a fact essentially connected with the discharge of the prophetical office." There is something significant in the fact because of its association with the speech of prophets. "Every prophet may be said to speak in similitudes or parables in the sense here indicated, which is comprehensive of all discourses upon divine things, delivered in figurative terms or an elevated style, and requiring more than common discernment to understand it aright." Since speaking in parables was characteristic of the prophetic office, the Psalm was appropriately applied to Christ as the ultimate Prophet.

What Fairbairn does not observe, however, is the fact that Psalm 78 is also connected with Israel, another significant type, which had a covenantal goal of its own. The Psalm describes the selection process by which God manifested His chosen, and ultimately set apart David as His servant to oversee and feed Israel. Here we have another type with its own eschatological line. The lines are converging -- Israel and David. The prophetic lines are also converging. The Mosaic prophet to Israel is aligning with the Samuelic prophet to the kingdom and pointing to the Great Prophet to come. The parabolic teaching is not only appropriate because it is prophetic, or because it sets forth divine things in earthly forms, but because it is setting forth the mysteries of the kingdom.

What is the relevance of this to the Apocalypse? It does not speak to us in historical or didactic forms of speech. It adopts the prophetic mode of parable. It does so in order to reveal the mystery of the kingdom where all the eschatological lines of typical prophecy converge in Christ -- the lion of the tribe of Judah who has inherited the land promises given to Israel and promises the kingdom to His saints. Rev. 1:5 gives salutation "from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness [the Prophet], and the first begotten of the dead [Israel's hope], and the prince of the kings of the earth [the Davidic promise]." The past lives in the exalted state of Christ and it foretells what shall become of the people whom He has loved and washed in His blood.

This is but a glimpse of what is to come. We must not get ahead of ourselves. It is necessary to return to Fairbairn's description of the different kinds of typical prophecy, which we will do in our next post.
 
Fairbairn next turns to discuss more specific examples of historical statements that possess a prophetic character because of their connection with something typical in nature. The difference between general and specific now becomes clearer. They have in common that some event or circumstance in the past is "regarded as prophetically indicative of something similar under the Gospel." For general examples we observed that there is nothing special in the event since it might be repeated in human experience. It is only the connection with something typical that makes it relevant. In the case of specific examples, however, there is a formal similarity between type and antitype. "The scripture fulfilled was prophetical, simply because the circumstance it recorded was typical." In other words, the event itself is typical.

The first example of specific historical statement is Hos. 11:1, "I called my son out of Egypt," quoted in Matt. 2:15. As originally spoken it was "meant to refer historically to the fact of the Lord’s goodness in delivering Israel from that land of bondage and oppression." As it appears in the Gospel of Matthew it functions as a prophecy to be fulfilled in the case of the infant Jesus, who "was for a time sent into Egypt, and again brought out of it, that the word might be fulfilled." It is important to note that this arose "from the typical connection between Christ and Israel. The scripture fulfilled was prophetical, simply because the circumstance it recorded was typical."

Regrettably Fairbairn doesn't enlarge on this connection other than to state it as a fact. I think the connection is important for understanding how the land-promises of Israel relate to Jesus. The Gospel of Matthew itself elaborates on this theme. Some commentators have observed a kind of recapitulation in the narrative in which Jesus re-lives the story of Israel. Matthew also has the strongest denunciations of unbelieving Israel and the judgment to follow in terms of expulsion from the promised land. By the end of the Gospel all authority in heaven and earth is given to Jesus, and on this basis He sends forth the apostles to teach all nations with the promise that He would be with them to the end of the world. There is an enlarging of the land promise to include all nations by virtue of the fact that the Lord of heaven and earth has taken possession of the land.

It is observable that the Gospel of John does not have an Olivet Discourse. Nor does it have the kind of judgments on unbelieving Israel that are found in the Synoptic Gospels. People are presented as clashing over the status of Jesus. The doctrine of individual election and regeneration is more front and centre. The eschatology is more realised. The prince of this world is cast out. The Spirit will convince the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment.

At the same time some commentators on Revelation have seen that the seven seals are very similar to the events revealed in the Olivet Discourse. For this reason the Olivet Discourse has been called the Little Apocalypse. Revelation is, in effect, John's version of the apocalypse as taught by Jesus, only it is fully unfolded by virtue of the development that has taken place with the planting of churches among the diaspora. The seals, trumpets, and vials are judgments. But upon whom? On unbelieving Israel. On those who say they are Jews and are not. Noticeably, at the end of each series we have a revelation of Jesus Christ (which is what the book claims to be), and He is seen to possess what Israel has been dispossessed of. The type of Israel has been fully developed and fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

We have not gone very far. The subject is not one which allows the person who runs to read it. We need to stop to read and understand the signs. Otherwise we will not know where to turn next. By perceiving the connection between Israel and Christ we are in a better position to know what the Revelation of Jesus Christ is unfolding to us.
 
Last edited:
As Fairbairn reflected on the NT quotations of the OT he saw that historical statements described what "belonged to characters" like David and Israel. These "bore typical relations to Christ; so that their being descriptive in the one respect necessarily implied their being prophetic in the other. What had formerly taken place in the experience of the type must substantially renew itself again in the experience of the antitype." These descriptions were not just historical statements related to David and Israel, but also contained a typological relationship to Christ. They foreshadowed the Antitype, so that what was true for them in their historical experiences had to be repeated in the personal experience of Christ in a greater, ultimate way.

The use of "foreshadowed" reminds me of a literary approach that might be somewhat supplementary here. In literature foreshadowing is discerned (or at least confirmed) after the reality is narrated. With regard to the interpretation of Scripture, the literary portrayal in the OT is taken up in the NT for the purpose of drawing out a typical connection between the historical person or event and its future reference.
 
The use of "foreshadowed" reminds me of a literary approach that might be somewhat supplementary here. In literature foreshadowing is discerned (or at least confirmed) after the reality is narrated. With regard to the interpretation of Scripture, the literary portrayal in the OT is taken up in the NT for the purpose of drawing out a typical connection between the historical person or event and its future reference.

That is helpful for illustrating the idea. It would raise the question of whether the connection were an afterthought or if there is an actual historical basis to it. Fairbairn is affirming the latter and I am strongly in favour of that view, especially given the seed promises of the Old Testament.
 
That is helpful for illustrating the idea. It would raise the question of whether the connection were an afterthought or if there is an actual historical basis to it. Fairbairn is affirming the latter and I am strongly in favour of that view, especially given the seed promises of the Old Testament.
Yes, I think it is very important to see types as prospective rather than retrospective. They were placed there intentionally by the Divine Author and latently contain hints that show us of a future escalated fulfillment. This is an issue I have with Beale's definition (I bring this up because this is a popular view today). Notice how he defines them as inherently retrospective:
The study of analogical correspondences among revealed truths about persons, events, institutions, and other things within the historical framework of God’s special revelation, which, from a retrospective view, are of a prophetic nature and are escalated in meaning.
Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation, p. 14
 
That is helpful for illustrating the idea. It would raise the question of whether the connection were an afterthought or if there is an actual historical basis to it. Fairbairn is affirming the latter and I am strongly in favour of that view, especially given the seed promises of the Old Testament.
I also affirm the latter. In literature also, foreshadowing is deliberate. Mine is more a point about technique, one that seems fairly clear when considering how Hebrews treats Melchizedek. The abruptness of his introduction in the text of Genesis is made the basis of a point about what he represents. The historical event is narrated in a certain way; the NT authors appropriate the specific portrayal to highlight the typical connection.
 
Yes, I think it is very important to see types as prospective rather than retrospective. They were placed there intentionally by the Divine Author and latently contain hints that show us of a future escalated fulfillment. This is an issue I have with Beale's definition (I bring this up because this is a popular view today). Notice how he defines them as inherently retrospective:

Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation, p. 14

I hadn't picked that up in Beale. It's a general trend I've seen though. It seems interpreters often deal with the NT use of the OT as something that requires an apology from a rational standpoint rather than as a positive contribution to understanding the Old Testament itself.
 
I also affirm the latter. In literature also, foreshadowing is deliberate. Mine is more a point about technique, one that seems fairly clear when considering how Hebrews treats Melchizedek. The abruptness of his introduction in the text of Genesis is made the basis of a point about what he represents. The historical event is narrated in a certain way; the NT authors appropriate the specific portrayal to highlight the typical connection.

There appear to be a few details like this in Hebrews that fall into this category.
 
Or the commentators are focused too heavily on what they believe is the human author’s intent rather than God’s intent (as paranymph pointed out). Its a massive pet peeve of mine and I am surprised when I see it in commentators who I think should know better (or it may be due to some kind of real or perceived pressure and/or standards in unbelieving academia).
 
I was following you up until that point.

When I have finished Fairbairn I hope to start a new thread and will aim to unpack this in a series of posts which show the Old Testament typical background of the seals, trumpets, and vials, and how they relate to the covenant, land, and people.
 
The next example provided by Fairbairn is Exod. 12:46, "A bone of him shall not be broken." In John 19:36 this is represented "as finding its fulfilment in the remarkable preservation of our Lord's body on the cross from the common fate of malefactors." The OT reference "was a historical testimony." It laid down instructions for the way the paschal lamb was to be treated by the Israelites. They were to eat it as one whole. As with the previous example, it "could only be esteemed a prophecy from being the record of a typical or prophetical action." This is not a circumstance connected with a type, but the action itself is typical.

At this point Fairbairn notes a very important principle of interpretation . There is no "recondite depth or subtle ambiguity" being read into the words of the text. The prophetic element is not introduced by finding "some new and hidden sense." It is already there and it only requires the "natural and obvious sense" of the words to bring out its meaning. The NT passage does not invest the original words "with a force and meaning foreign to its original purport and design." It only declares "the correlative events or circumstances in which the fulfilment should be discovered."

Fundamental to this correlation is the conviction that the earlier action "was originally ordained in anticipation of the other, and so ordained that the earlier should not have been brought into existence if the later had not been before in contemplation." There is a divine plan and order in these actions, in which "the past appears to run into the future." Note, though, that the past is the past. "These things happened unto them," to borrow the words of the apostle Paul. The events of the past must be understood in their historical context in the first place. This is necessary to correctly interpret the event and arrive at its true meaning. However, the past action exists on account of what is to come in the future. To continue Paul's statement, "these things happened unto them as ensamples" or types. This gives the event "the essential character of a prediction." It embodies "a prophetical circumstance or action," and so in the New Testament it is designated by the name of "prophecy."

How does this apply to Revelation? We should allow Revelation to inform us: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty" (Rev. 1:8). This is the overseeing perspective of the prophecy of the book. There is a divine plan and order so that what is described for us in the present has, in an important sense, always been, and is sure to have its development into the future. The Gospels have shown the way to see the past in the present in the Advent of Christ; and the Apocalypse reveals how that Advent carries the past and the present into the future where they will be consummated. The interpreter only needs to observe the past from the perspective of the present and he will see how everything is sure to end. But it is Christ who holds it all together. Again, the book can only be understood as the revelation of Jesus Christ.
 
It would be intriguing to follow up on Fairbairn's reference to the Passover lamb given that the Lamb is the central figure of the Apocalypse, but our aim in this series of posts is only to follow our author's explanation of typical prophecy, or the different ways that type and prophecy combine, so as to gain a better understanding of what is involved in the idealist perspective of Revelation. We have considered the first category consisting of "historical statement," which is classed as general when it has a circumstance connected with a type, or specific when the type itself is described in the history.

The second category is prophetical announcement. What is typical is now found in prophecy rather than history. Something that belonged to the past or exists in the present is "going to appear again in the future, – the prophetical in word being thus combined with the typical in act into a prospective delineation of things to come."

Fairbairn sees it as being natural to the mind of man to see the future "imaged in the past, to make use of the known in giving shape and form to the unknown." He observes the phenomenon in classical literature and gives examples from Virgil and Horace. Readers understand them full well. They are not taken as meaning that the actual thing will reappear. "All we are to understand is, that others of a like kind – holding similar relations to the parties interested, and occupying much the same position – were announced beforehand to appear; and so would render the future a sort of repetition of the past, or the past a kind of typical foreshadowing of the future."

The same phenomenon is manifest in the writings of inspiration. Hos. 8:13 speaks of Israel returning to Egypt. "The old state of bondage and oppression should come back upon them; or the things going to befall them of evil should be after the type of what their forefathers had experienced under the yoke of Pharaoh." It is not "the exact repetition of the old." That is apparent from the fact that the prophet deliberately mixes things up: "Ephraim shall return to Egypt, and they shall eat unclean things in Assyria" (9:3); "He shall not return into the land of Egypt, but the Assyrian shall be his king" (11:5). As Fairbairn notes, "He shall return to Egypt, and still not return; in other words, the Egypt-state shall come back on him, though the precise locality and external circumstances shall differ."

Mark this! Egypt appears again in Revelation. As with Hosea there is a deliberate mixing of circumstances-- Sodom and Egypt. And the place itself is pointed out for us -- where also our Lord was crucified. "Jerusalem" itself is not mentioned because that is the name of the holy city and it is reserved for something new. Instead the old city will receive other designations more fitting its covenant-breaking status.

The main point is that prophetical announcement is not a simple prediction of the future. It comes to us clothed in types in order to connect it with the past. We must look at what has been in order to understand what will be. It is the past that gives shape and form to the future. To properly interpret the idealism of Revelation we must see the ideals as they are grounded in history -- and not just any history, but redemptive history. Instead of looking forward from the seer's perspective, we should be looking back.
 
@MW, do you place the writing of Revelation before or after 70 AD? Also, do you see that dating as having relevant bearing on your theorem?
 
@MW, do you place the writing of Revelation before or after 70 AD? Also, do you see that dating as having relevant bearing on your theorem?

I Incline to an ante 70 AD date for the whole NT, and there is evidence for a standing temple in Revelation, but I don't see it as affecting any point in the interpretation.
 
Yes, I think it is very important to see types as prospective rather than retrospective. They were placed there intentionally by the Divine Author and latently contain hints that show us of a future escalated fulfillment. This is an issue I have with Beale's definition (I bring this up because this is a popular view today). Notice how he defines them as inherently retrospective.

I hadn't picked that up in Beale. It's a general trend I've seen though. It seems interpreters often deal with the NT use of the OT as something that requires an apology from a rational standpoint rather than as a positive contribution to understanding the Old Testament itself.
Having taken Intro to BT with Beale in seminary, I have to say that I think this is a misunderstanding of Beale (though probably a fair criticism of others). When Beale says that types are prophetic "from a retrospective view," I understand him to be speaking only about the perspective from which the prophetic aspect can be seen. I don't believe he would ever deny that the prophetic aspect was intended by God from the beginning.
 
Having taken Intro to BT with Beale in seminary, I have to say that I think this is a misunderstanding of Beale (though probably a fair criticism of others). When Beale says that types are prophetic "from a retrospective view," I understand him to be speaking only about the perspective from which the prophetic aspect can be seen. I don't believe he would ever deny that the prophetic aspect was intended by God from the beginning.

That is a good point. From our perspective we are looking back. So it is automatically retrospective. This might explain why interpreters speak in these terms. It is what comes naturally.
 
So far we have seen two ways in which type and prophecy combine -- historical statement and prophetic announcement. Because of this I would maintain that it is not wise to adopt a "literal where possible" approach to the interpretation of prophecy. By the time we have finished this post I hope it will be clear to others that the literal sense of the Scriptures includes the acknowledgment that there is an element of idealism in the text.

Fairbairn is careful to note that typical prophecy does not mean there will be "a literal reproduction of the past." Past events and figures point forward to future realities. This means that the future will resemble the past "in spirit and character" so that "the events in prospect were to bear the image of the past." He gives three examples to illustrate this point. Their cumulative effect is too strong to break them up and analyse them individually so we will look at them all at once.

Zechariah 6:12-13: Joshua rebuilding the temple is a type of Christ’s work in building the church as a temple to be inhabited by God through the Spirit.

Ezekiel 34:23: David’s reign is a type of Christ’s future role as the Shepherd-King of the covenant people.

Malachi 4:5: Elijah’s ministry is a type of John the Baptist's preparatory work before the coming of Christ.

These examples demonstrate that the past serves as a type to set forth the future, but now through the addition of a predictive prophecy there will be a full realisation of the "ideal" in the type. As Fairbairn explains, "the prophecy thus involved in the action is expressly uttered in the prediction, which at once explained the type, and sent forward the expectations of believers toward the contemplated result." The ultimate fulfiment "might have been probably conjectured or dimly apprehended from the things themselves; but it became comparatively clear, when it was announced in explicit predictions, that a new David and a new Elias were to appear."

How does this bear on the "literal where possible" interpretation? The use of Joshua, David, and Elijah were "intended to indicate, not the literal reproduction of the past, but the full realization of all that the past typically foretokened of good." As explained in a footnote, they are used as "exhibiting the highest known ideal."

At this point my reformed convictions want to take over and extrapolate on the highest ideal of the prophet, priest, and king in the threefold office of Christ, but it would take us far afield. What it should impress upon us is that there is a typical element in predictive prophecy. To miss this element is to miss the literal sense of Scripture. Ironically, the Jews looked for Elijah to reappear on the scene of history. Our Lord explained to His disciples that Elijah had already come in the spirit and power of John the Baptist's ministry. The same could be said for the wholesale premillennial expectation to see some time in the future the reappearance of the kingdom of David or the work of Joshua the high priest in rebuilding the temple. It fails to see what has already been realised in Christ.

This is of fundamental importance when it comes to the book of Revelation. It is, afterall, the revelation of Jesus Christ and it is signified to us through the types of the Old Testament. We should not take a "literal where possible approach" lest we miss the obvious fulfilment in our glorious Prophet, Priest, and King. We should expect to see the past fully realised in what He has done. To be clear, I am not suggesting we ignore our earlier point that we must look to the past in order to understand the future. That is necessary to bring out the ideal that is in the type. But we must also look to the present ministry of Christ in heaven to see how the past has been developed and surpassed beyond our expectations. It is this which will enable us to see how the future must unfold and manifest "the highest known ideal" so as to bring the past and the present to its glorious consummation.
 
Fairbairn's third class of typical prophecy introduces a new idea, which appears to be very similar to his previous idea of prophetic announcement, but advances it a step further. Regrettably he does not use a clear phrase to describe this phenomenon, so I will name it for him -- prophetic escalation.

In prophetic escalation the type is not simply used to predict what will unfold in the future but is raised higher. In prophetic announcement, as we saw, the ideal of the type reappears in the future. This requires the type to assume a central position in the prophecy. The future is only described in terms of the type. Under prophetic escalation, however, the type itself recedes into the background while its "correspondence" with the Antitype is described in loftier and greater terms.

To understand this correctly it is important to see that the type has not been dispensed with. It "must necessarily form the background, and the explanatory prediction the foreground, of the picture." But it is "the corresponding and grander future" that is revealed to us. The type itself is "more vague and indefinite," while the correspondence becomes "more precise and definite" as it directly points to greater things to come.

This gives rise to the concept of successive fulfilment, which was discussed in a previous thread. The prophecy itself only has one sense or one meaning, but it contains a twofold prediction. There is a vague or general prediction which is rooted in the type, and there is a precise and specific prediction which points to the future fulfillment.

To illustrate this point Fairbairn turns to the song of Hannah in 1 Samuel 2:1-10. The occasion for the song was the birth of Samuel, yet its language and themes reach far beyond that event. It speaks of God's sovereignty, the reversal of human fortunes, and the ultimate triumph of God's kingdom. These point beyond Hannah's personal experience to the future Messianic kingdom. In marking the operation of the Lord's hand in her own case, which was typical in nature, through the Spirit of prophecy she was able to give expression to the outworking of the same principles in the establishment and extension of the kingdom of God's anointed. The final results are seen beforehand in the initial working: “The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken to pieces; out of heaven shall He thunder upon them: the Lord shall judge the ends of the earth; and He shall give strength unto His king, and exalt the horn of His anointed.”

The escalation towards the kingdom of Christ is verified in the song of Mary, which echoes Hannah's song and shows a striking continuity between the Old and New Testaments. Through prophetic escalation Hannah has foreshadowed the coming of Christ and the nature of His kingdom. Fairbairn will enlarge on this by making reference to the Messianic Psalms. Hannah's song in effect commences a new epoch in redemptive history which will give rise to an elaborate service of song in connection with the Davidic kingdom. But we will have to defer that until the next post.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top