Republication and Principles of Biblical Typology

[Alexander Suarez]

In Christ and Covenant Theology, Cornelis Venema argues the following concerning principles of biblical typology in critiquing Klinean republication of the Covenant of Works:

"In the usual view of Reformed covenant theology, however, the temporal blessings promised Israel are regarded typologically as a foreshadowing of the full spiritual blessing of fellowship with God in a renewed creation . . . in Kline's view of the typology of the Mosaic covenant, two radically opposed inheritance principles are posited . . . The problem with this conception is that the typology of the Mosaic economy does not foreshadow or prefigure, at least at the level of Israel's existence as a nation in the Land of Promise, the blessings that are granted freely and graciously to the new covenant people of God. The blessings are different in kind; and the principles for the inheritance of these blessings are radically different. To put the matter differently, because the Mosaic administration actually consists of two levels of covenant administration, one of works and the other of grace, it cannot function at both levels as a typological promise of the new covenant, which is essentially and exclusively a covenant of grace." (128)

Venema will go on to provide quotations to the same effect from O. Palmer Robertson and Geerhardus Vos. Does anyone know of resources that have amplified upon, interacted with, or criitqued what Venema says in the above quotation regarding typology?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Report of the Committee to Study Republication: The Orthodox Presbyterian Church

We're the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Our purpose is simple: to bring glory to God through our churches and individual lives to make known to the world the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ

opc.org

 

[MW]

Just a small observation on this: "it cannot function at both levels as a typological promise of the new covenant, which is essentially and exclusively a covenant of grace." Israel after the flesh suffers covenantal judgments. The Gospel of Matthew in particular highlights the words of judgment against unbelieving Israel. The idea that the typological promise is fulfilled in the new covenant does not address the fact that the judgments of the old covenant were also fulfilled.

I am not a Klinean, but some of the critiques don't effectively deal with his biblical theology. I also think some room must be left for a subordinate covenant of works, which has an important place in the history of reformed theology.

 

[Alexander Suarez]

Report of the Committee to Study Republication: The Orthodox Presbyterian Church

We're the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Our purpose is simple: to bring glory to God through our churches and individual lives to make known to the world the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ

opc.org

Thank you Elder Rich.

Here are relevant portions from the OPC report on the topic of typology, for those interested:

From a confessional viewpoint, the basic weakness here [in the subservient covenant position] is that it reverses the true biblical priority of Christ as the substance and primary signification of these types and shadows. According to our standards, the purpose of these various types and ordinances was to function as an aspect of the covenant of grace, being means of administering the eternal and salvific blessings procured by Christ (WCF 7.5, 8.6, 17.5). He is the “substance” of the types and ordinances (not merely their secondary referent), even as he is the substance of God’s covenant of grace (WCF 7.6), while all else remains secondary or accidental. The subservient covenant effectively reverses this in insisting that these types primarily signify temporal benefits, and only secondarily signify Christ. As John Cameron stated, the subservient covenant leads to Christ only “indirectly” whereas the covenant of grace leads to him directly.[170] It is difficult to harmonize the idea that Christ was the “substance” of all these types and ordinances and at the same time only their secondary referent.

In keeping with this, a similar weakness arises when we consider the proposed “typological” function of this renewed or reenacted covenant of works. As typology is a subset of the broader category of the administration of the covenant, the same basic weakness arises. The proposed renewed or reenacted covenant of works with Israel is said to function typologically under the broader category of the covenant of grace. This formulation does not seem to harmonize easily with the conception of typology reflected in our confession. According to our standards, typology is an aspect of the administration of the covenant of grace in the Old Testament, which in turn is described as the outward means of the Old Testament era for communicating grace to the elect of that era. Saving grace was not simply administered merely as a consequence or by-product of these types.[275] Rather, saving grace was present by and in these types, and in this way communicated grace to believers.[276] In terms of our confessional definitions, to say that something is an administration of grace means that grace is communicated by and in that thing. It is not clear how a works principle in sharp contrast to grace can be consistently said to be a means by and in which God communicates grace. A covenant of works administers “works,” not grace, to those within its bounds. It difficult to see how such an actual reenactment of a substantial covenant of works coheres with the administration of the covenant of grace under Moses.[277]

 

[Alexander Suarez]

Found the following from Harrison Perkins's Reformed Covenant Theology: A Systematic Introduction in attempt to critique Venema on a narrower principle:

Mosaic typology thoroughly signified Christ's obedience. Reformed theologians seem to agree universally that the animal sacrifices signify Christ's passive obedience, but surely the Mosaic covenant also teaches Christ's active obedience. Some object that it would be unfitting for human deeds of righteousness to be types of Christ's active obedience. This objection overlooks that the Israelites themselves offered the animal sacrifices, which certainly did not themselves truly remove sin (Heb 9:11-14). The Mosaic covenant itself emphasized active obedience above sacrifices, as in Jeremiah 7:21-26 . . . Jeremiah indicted their lack of active obedience. The people's actions albeit imperfect, were no more problematic as types of Christ's active obedience than his passive obedience. (331)

 

[Charles Johnson]

Found the following from Harrison Perkins's Reformed Covenant Theology: A Systematic Introduction in attempt to critique Venema:

The Mosaic covenant itself emphasized active obedience above sacrifices, as in Jeremiah 7:21-26 . . . Jeremiah indicted their lack of active obedience. The people's actions albeit imperfect, were no more problematic as types of Christ's active obedience than his passive obedience. (331)

This strikes me as a very antinomian line of thought. "Persons in the Old Testament were commanded to obey to foreshadow Christ's obedience [and not because of the vital importance of obedience in the Christian life]."

Mosaic typology thoroughly signified Christ's obedience. Reformed theologians seem to agree universally that the animal sacrifices signify Christ's passive obedience, but surely the Mosaic covenant also teaches Christ's active obedience.

The thing though is that the sacrificial system doesn't have any reference to active obedience. That's why the Apostle, in interpreting it in Hebrews, attributes forgiveness to "the shedding of blood" and "the blood of Christ."

 

[brandonadams]

I don't recall anything specifically responding to Venema on this, but I will keep thinking. (Thanks for the Perkins quote. I haven't read his book yet.)

In my opinion, Venema's understanding of typology (shared by others) is much too restrictive. It does not follow from his definition of a type:

biblical types may be defined as those features, including events, persons, or institutions, of the Old Testament that prefigure or foreshadow their New Testament realities.90

Beale defines typology as

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. According to this definition,the essential characteristics of a type are (1) analogical correspondence, (2) historicity, (3) a pointing-forwardness (i.e., an aspect of foreshadowing or presignification), (4) escalation, and (5) retrospection...

For example, escalation would be the correspondence of God providing literal manna from heaven for physical sustenance and providing the manna of Christ from heaven for spiritual sustenance

-Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation (p. 14)

Types are analogies. They are like the anti-type in some ways, but unlike the anti-type in other ways (this is true of all analogies). In his example of manna, it is similar to Christ in that it was miraculously provided from heaven for sustenance, it is dissimilar to Christ in that it was provided for temporal, physical sustenance in this life, while Christ provides spiritual, eternal sustenance in the life to come. Venema's critique amounts to "In Kline's understanding, the types are unlike the anti-type in some ways." His objection that Kline's typology posits a "disjunction" between temporal blessing and spiritual blessing, entailing a "difference in kind" is simply an objection that the type is not like the anti-type in some ways. He says

it is important to observe that biblical typology assumes the essential similarity in meaning and symbolism between the Old Testament type and the New Testament reality to which it points forward

That's not what a type is. David was a type of Christ. Was David "essentially similar in meaning and symbolism" to Christ? No. David was like Christ in some ways and unlike Christ in other ways. David was sinful. Christ was not. Does that mean David cannot be a type of Christ? No. David led Israel into a state of rest in the land of Canaan by conquering their enemies with the physical sword. That is "different in kind" from the eternal rest we have in Christ through his conquering our spiritual enemies by the cross. Does that mean David was not a type of Christ? No.

He quotes O. Palmer Robertson making the same argument

Vos effectively makes the point that the typological can communicate in its essence nothing different than the symbolized reality it portrays (Biblical Theology, 145–46).

Vos' view is likewise too restrictive and not shared by all.

SYMBOL AND TYPE

In determining the function of the ceremonial law we must take into consideration its two large aspects, the symbolical and typical, and the relation between these two. The same things were, looked at from one point of view, symbols, and, from another point of view, types. A symbol is in its religious significance something that profoundly portrays a certain fact or principle or relationship of a spiritual nature in a visible form. The things it pictures are of present existence and present application. They are in force at the time in which the symbol operates.

With the same thing, regarded as a type, it is different. A typical thing is prospective; it relates to what will become real or applicable in the future...

The main problem to understand is, how the same system of portrayals can have served at one and the same time in a symbolical and a typical capacity. Obviously this would have been impossible if the things portrayed had been in each case different or diverse, unrelated to each other. If something is an accurate picture of a certain reality, then it would seem disqualified by this very fact for pointing to another future reality of a quite different nature. The solution of the problem lies in this, that the things symbolized and the things typified are not different sets of things. They are in reality the same things, only different in this respect that they come first on a lower stage of development in redemption, and then again, in a later period, on a higher stage. Thus what is symbolical with regard to the already existing edition of the fact or truth becomes typical, prophetic, of the later, final edition of that same fact or truth. From this it will be perceived that a type can never be a type independently of its being first a symbol. The gateway to the house of typology is at the farther end of the house of symbolism.

This is the fundamental rule to be observed in ascertaining what elements in the Old Testament are typical, and wherein the things corresponding to them as antitypes consist. Only after having discovered what a thing symbolizes, can we legitimately proceed to put the question what it typifies, for the latter can never be aught else than the former lifted to a higher plane. The bond that holds type and antitype together must be a bond of vital continuity in the progress of redemption. Where this is ignored, and in the place of this bond are put accidental resemblances, void of inherent spiritual significance, all sorts of absurdities will result, such as must bring the whole subject of typology into disrepute. Examples of this are: the scarlet cord of Rahab prefigures the blood of Christ; the four lepers at Samaria, the four Evangelists...

In the Mosaic institutions this natural symbolism also lay at the basis, but here there was a special divine control in the shaping of the materials. Because thus the truth found expression in physical forms, we say that it came on a lower plane. Under the New Testament this outward mode of expression has been retained in the two instances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper only, but the entire Old Testament still moves in this physical sphere. Hence, in Heb. 9:1, the tabernacle is called 'a worldly sanctuary', that is, a sanctuary belonging to this physical world. It was appropriate that after this fashion a sort of artificial substratum should be created for the truth of redemption to rest upon. The truth shuns suspension in the air. In the New Testament it has the accomplished facts to attach itself to. While these were yet in the making a provisional support was constructed for them in the ceremonial institutions.

Vos is mistaken that all types must first be symbols of a present reality (at least insofar as his pupils have applied him). Here is Carlton Wynne on Reformed Forum expounding on the idea:

anything we we read as a type, in order to be truly a type according to the decree and design of God, is first a symbol (a symbol used very technically) that sacramentally presents, and to the faith of the old testament Jew, applies the power of the future accomplishment of Jesus Christ before it occurs on earth in history

Again, apply this to David. How exactly is "saving grace present in and by" David? How exactly was David a sacrament?

 

[MW]

This strikes me as a very antinomian line of thought. "Persons in the Old Testament were commanded to obey to foreshadow Christ's obedience [and not because of the vital importance of obedience in the Christian life]."

The thing though is that the sacrificial system doesn't have any reference to active obedience. That's why the Apostle, in interpreting it in Hebrews, attributes forgiveness to "the shedding of blood" and "the blood of Christ."

It would only be antinomian if that was the exclusive use to be made of it.

The virtue of blood is not "material," but the voluntary yielding of oneself to God. Hence to obey is better than sacrifice.

 

[Charles Johnson]

It would only be antinomian if that was the exclusive use to be made of it.

How could one ever exhort to obedience to the moral law out of the Old Testament if the retort "that was just symbolic of Christ" is at hand?

Does the Scripture ever represent any Old Testament person's obedience to the moral law as foreshadowing Christ?

In connection to his sacrifice, it certainly does. For example, Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac. But there obedience to the law in general?

 

[MW]

Types are analogies.

That is the sure way to make them subject to imaginative theologies. Take your theology, find an analogy, and you have a type. This spells disaster.

Instead, types are divinely appointed resemblances. Appointment and resemblance are essential to a type. This restricts the imagination and binds us to the revelation of God.

Post automatically merged: Jan 8, 2025

How could one ever exhort to obedience to the moral law out of the Old Testament if the retort "that was just symbolic of Christ" is at hand?

The word "just" is exclusive. Take it out of your question and see how that works.

Does the Scripture ever represent any Old Testament person's obedience to the moral law as foreshadowing Christ?

It is positive law, not moral. Persons, places, or things, are constituted types by God. Hebrews teaches the priest's action is typical of Christ's action.

In connection to his sacrifice, it certainly does. For example, Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac. But there obedience to the law in general?

I have no idea what you are asking here.

 

[Laborer for the Lord]

I find that discussions of this sort are quick to devolve into arguments over minutae, but especially so when we segment or attempt to demarcate the covenants too rigidly or fixedly. For example, is the Davidic covenant to be understood as a subordinate or appended clause of the Mosaic covenant? The Israelites who lived during the monarchical period were under the Mosaic economy after all, and Deuteronomy 17:14-20 specifically delineates the duties and prohibitions of the regal office. If one accepts that the monarchy is part of the Mosaic covenant, then the typology at play begins to assume a greater cohesiveness. The king, as the representative head of God's covenant people, was entrusted with upholding the burden of obedience, the nation enjoying blessing or suffering calamity largely on account of the ruler's actions. In spiritual matters especially, the Scriptures seemingly describe the character of the people as largely imitative or following after the pattern set by the king (i.e. "as the king goes, so goes the people"), something that can likewise be read typologically.

In this respect, then, the principle of works under the Old Covenant typifying the active obedience of Christ and the heavenly inheritance procured by it ought perhaps best be interpreted through the lens of OT kingship; that is, in a federal sense. It is this principle of obedience on behalf of others that the prophets, and Isaiah most of all, reiterate and expand upon; the righteous, redeeming work of Messiah, wrought for the sake of His people and for God's glory, and freely imputed and shared with the elect. With respect to the works themselves, both of the people as well as the rulers, the purity of God's holy standard as exhibited in the Law would have at every occasion of its public reading or private remembrance convicted those persons who esteemed their works as 'congruously meritorious', and humbled them to the seek the only basis of God's being propitious towards them; namely, the free promise of grace, adoption, and inheritance that was made to Abraham and founded on the Lord Jesus Christ, exhibited to them via the Mosaic worship and whose advent was foretold by patriarchal utterances (Genesis 3:15, Genesis 22:8, Genesis 49:10, Numbers 24:17, Deuteronomy 18:15-19).

As it is faith in Christ alone that makes our works acceptable and pleasing unto God (John 6:28-29, Hebrews 11:6, 1 John 3:23), and that such works are "good" only as they are founded upon His commandments, per WCF 16.1-4, then I believe it reasonable to conclude that even under a strict view the works of the Mosaic economy, with the respect to the duties enjoined upon the people, the Levites, and the priesthood, are typological of the active obedience of Christ, irrespective of the nation's success in its fulfilling of the terms, for the simple reason that such duties were likewise entrusted to and fully discharged by Jesus. Christ is the true Israel, after all. And it is precisely for that purpose that the regal office was set up, so as to lead and shepherd the nation in conformity to God's Word (Deuteronomy 17:18-20, 2 Samuel 5:2) and for its occupier to "live out" the terms of obedience, albeit imperfectly, with the expectation that Messiah would complete the whole of the work (1 Chronicles 17:11-14, Psalm 89:19-37). There is good reason that Calvin describes the Old Covenant's purpose as to essentially hold the people "in suspense" (Beveridge's choice of translation) and keep alive the hope of salvation until Christ's advent (Calvin, Instit. 2.7.) It is in that regard that I see the Biblical typology of OT works as fore-shadowings of Christ's perfect ministry, a view I hold to be in good standing among the majority of Reformed theologians.

As to Venema's objections that Kline's typological views are untenable owing to the diametrically opposed principles of inheritance ostensibly present in the Mosaic covenant, that of works and that of faith, I don't really see the tension. It is certainly there if one is reading through Exodus the first time and one is impressed by the "sense" of the formal, bi-lateral nature of the covenant between Israel and YHWH, likened unto marriage bond in many later prophetic passages, as well as the sanctions pronounced against infidelity and disobedience; in sum, it has all the appearance of a conditional legal treaty. Yet the substance of the covenant is revealed when Moses descends from the mount and finds the people polluting themselves with gross idolatry; God's anger consumes the instigators of the apostasy without mercy, yet when Moses ascends the mountain to appease the Almighty what ground for pleading does he adduce? Works? Nay, but the very loving kindness of God Himself and the steadfastness of the promise made to the fathers, to be God to them and their children afterward (Exodus 32:11-13). The inheritance is manifestly rooted in the kindness of God towards His people, who manifested to us by faith and the fruit of repentance, as contrasted with the unbelieving multitude. Hence, it is not on account of their righteousness that He gifts them the land of Canaan nor its physical blessings, as He plainly states (Deuteronomy 9:5-6), but wholly to His own good pleasure and steadfast love (Deuteronomy 7:7, Isaiah 1:9, Lamentations 3:22). So likewise are all spiritual blessings in Christ. Yet this in no way obscures or glosses over the "terms and conditions" of the covenantal administrations, either old or new. As @Semper Fidelis and @MW have pointed to elsewhere, the distinction between antecedent and consequent conditions, and the way in which God fulfills BOTH in the course of His decree to save, is highly relevant to this discussion. The fact such heavy judgment fell upon NT Jersusalem in fulfillment of the curses and punitive sanctions issued by the LORD and his prophets is illustrative of the validity of this truth; that is, the shared substantial basis of the covenants.

I'm not as astute in the nuances of typological theology as some of our other esteemed board members, but I hope these thoughts help steer the discussion.

 

[MW]

Here are relevant portions from the OPC report on the topic of typology, for those interested:

The report is incorrect on one significant point:

"The proposed renewed or reenacted covenant of works with Israel is said to function typologically under the broader category of the covenant of grace. This formulation does not seem to harmonize easily with the conception of typology reflected in our confession. According to our standards, typology is an aspect of the administration of the covenant of grace in the Old Testament, which in turn is described as the outward means of the Old Testament era for communicating grace to the elect of that era."

When we turn to the Confession, specifically 7.2 and 19.1, it quotes from Paul's references to the Mosaic law to support its teaching on the covenant of works.

 

[brandonadams]

That is the sure way to make them subject to imaginative theologies. Take your theology, find an analogy, and you have a type. This spells disaster.

Instead, types are divinely appointed resemblances. Appointment and resemblance are essential to a type. This restricts the imagination and binds us to the revelation of God.

This is not relevant to what I said. I did not deny types are divinely appointed resemblances. I was simply noting the nature of the divinely appointed resemblance is analogy (Beale's first point).

 

[MW]

This is not relevant to what I said. I did not deny types are divinely appointed resemblances. I was simply noting the nature of the divinely appointed resemblance is analogy (Beale's first point).

As long as appointment and resemblance are seen to be essential to the type, I won't quibble over words. But the word "analogy" is easily abused and requires guarding.

 

[MW]

Again, apply this to David. How exactly is "saving grace present in and by" David? How exactly was David a sacrament?

"Sacramentally present" was a bad choice of words. Sacraments are specific kinds of symbols.

But the general point is valid with respect to the relation between symbol and type. David was the anointed king and symbolically represents the rule of God over His people. But God also promises that his seed will sit on his throne for ever. Here is a distinct futuristic element that constitutes a type. By this means David can speak of himself and at the same time be interpreted as speaking of the future seed, as in the well known case of Psalm 16 quoted in Acts 2.

 

[brandonadams]

"Sacramentally present" may not be a phrase that you agree with, but it was not a poor choice of words. Wynne was very careful in everything he said to express exactly what he meant. "Sacramentally present" is what he meant and his intention was that every type must be a sacrament (you can watch the full video, as well as a follow up they did to confirm).

Again, how exactly is "saving grace present in and by" David? This is from the OPC Report, which insists that "saving grace is present in and by" all types, otherwise they are not a type.

 

[MW]

"Sacramentally present" may not be a phrase that you agree with, but it was not a poor choice of words. Wynne was very careful in everything he said to express exactly what he meant. "Sacramentally present" is what he meant and his intention was that every type must be a sacrament (you can watch the full video, as well as a follow up they did to confirm).

Again, how exactly is "saving grace present in and by" David? This is from the OPC Report, which insists that "saving grace is present in and by" all types, otherwise they are not a type.

I don't know the person or his agenda. The point about symbol and type doesn't require this kind of language or reasoning to support it.

It was a theocracy. The king administered divine rule. See Psalm 20.

What is the problem with acknowledging saving grace being present in and by the types? WCF 7.5, "which were for that time sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins and eternal salvation." Or is this an area where your particular federal theology differs from the WCF?

 

[brandonadams]

He is a professor of Systematic Theology at RTS. The clip is from Reformed Forum, which beats on this drum continually for years, led by Lane Tipton, etc.

The point about symbol and type doesn't require this kind of language or reasoning to support it.

The OP is about disciples of Vos interpreting and applying him in this way (as I read it). So you may disagree with them, but it's a substantial perspective that is articulated in the OPC Report, as quoted above (or are you suggesting there is a difference between "sacramentally present" (Wynne) and "saving grace present in and by" (OPC Report))?

What is the problem with acknowledging saving grace being present in and by the types?

I'm not here commenting on this point in general. I'm asking specifically what does it mean for saving grace to be present in David? I don't see how your comment explains that. Yes, it was a theocracy wherein a man chosen by God represented God's rule over the land of Canaan. How does that entail saving grace (the benefits of Christ's work) being present in David?

 

[MW]

I'm not here commenting on this point in general. I'm asking specifically what does it mean for saving grace to be present in David? I don't see how your comment explains that. Yes, it was a theocracy wherein a man chosen by God represented God's rule over the land of Canaan. How does that entail saving grace (the benefits of Christ's work) being present in David?

I'm interested in Vos; his disciples don't really interest me unless it becomes an issue of interpretation. This might be one of them. But I will need to look further into it.

Everything under the theocracy is mediated. The king's salvation and victory is the people's salvation and victory. That is the salvation and victory of the Anointed (Christ). This is the means by which Christ's work is mediated and ministered under the OT.