Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
Interesting read as Brakel addresses why he believes the Tree of Life was NOT a “Type” of Christ but rather should just be viewed by comparison (Rev. 2:7; 22:2), Pg. 327-328:
I am not sure I fully follow Brakel here as he does use “type” again in the last sentence. Maybe others can add more insight.
This tree did not typify the second Person of the Godhead, that is, the Son, for the following reasons:
(1) There is no evidence substantiating this anywhere.
(2) It is not congruent with the Godhead to be typified by a physical image, and then especially by a tree. God has
forbidden to make any physical likeness of Himself, and has not done so Himself.
(3) It would not have been advantageous to man in his perfect state, since he knew God rightly.
(4) The Lord Jesus Christ, the Mediator of the covenant of grace, is called the tree of life (Rev 2:7; Rev 22:2). He
is not called thus because He was typified by this tree, for Adam in the state of perfection neither had need of a Mediator nor had it been revealed to him that a Mediator would come. Although he was capable of believing everything which God would present to him as an object to be believed in, he nevertheless did not believe in Christ, who had not been revealed to him. If the tree had been a type of Christ, Adam, being in the covenant of grace, would have been permitted to eat from this tree, which, on the contrary, he was forbidden to do. Christ, however, is called the tree of life by way of application and by way of comparison due to the efficacy of his mediatorial office, by virtue of which He is the life of His people and grants them eternal life. The tree of life was a type and sacrament of this for Adam.
I am not sure I fully follow Brakel here as he does use “type” again in the last sentence. Maybe others can add more insight.