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."
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."