My impression is that a lot of it had to do with the majesty of God (see Malachi 1), which required that God receive the best. When the text says that the offering had to be "unblemished," for example, I don't limit my thoughts to "Oh my, this must be a type of the sinless Son of God." Rather, I ask why the offering had to be unblemished within the Hebrew mindset. I try to understand the writings of the Hebrew Bible on their own terms, before I apply them to Jesus Christ. ![]() But I don't expect typology to convince someone with non-Christian presuppositions, such as Jews, or historical critics who don't seek to force the Hebrew Bible into a Christian mold. I personally don't slay giants or sacrifice animals, so I have to do something to make those concepts meaningful to my own spiritual life. But what makes them think that it's a type of Christ at all, when the two don't completely match?Īs a Christian, I'm not totally against typology, since it's a way that I derive meaning from the Hebrew Bible. When this happens, the preacher usually says that the type is intentionally imperfect, since God wants us to focus not so much on the type, but rather on the antetype, the perfect Jesus Christ. The problem is that the "type" and the " antetype" are not always perfect fits. They like to use typology, as they seek to tie things in the Old Testament to Jesus Christ. there are as many 'types' as people with imagination! Oftentimes it just degenerates into our reading what we want into the biblical text rather than letting it speak for itself."įor my weekly quiet times, I've heard a lot of Christian sermons-from Jon Courson, Chuck Missler, Bob Smith, and the list goes on. I have the same problem with typology that Richard expresses under T.C.'s post: "The problem that I have with most 'typology' is the severe lack of control, i.e. Were they a type of Christ? If so, then gender obviously doesn't matter, does it? And Sue points out under T.C.'s post that the red heifer of Numbers 19 was a female. There were also peace offerings, which could be either male or female (Leviticus 3:1, 6). ![]() ![]() how he accounts for the female sin offerings in the Hebrew Bible (Leviticus 4:28, 32 5:6). Robinson argues on New Leaven that the Passover lamb had to be a male, since the Passover lamb was a type of Christ, who was a man (see "The Passover Lamb had to be Male…").
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |