CHRISTOLOGICAL METHODOLOGY. HOW DID THE APOSTLES READ THE OLD TESTAMENT? A TYPOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF THE PERSON OF JESUS IN THE BOOK OF ACTS.
Issue Christology is a diverse field. One can find several scholars debating whether or not Jesus is God and will not find only one position, but several. However, when approaching the New Testament, specially the book of Acts, one will find a unified position and reading of the Old Testament in relation to the person of Jesus. The Apostles knew how to read the Old Testament with the proper Christological framework. That is why typology is so important for the topic of Christology. It will, in many cases, define how to interpret this Son of God, coming after a pattern of so many figures of the Old Testament. The present work will try to present the typological view of the Apostles in the book of Acts and to show both the liberal interpretation of typology regarding the person of Jesus and the ultra-literal interpretation (dispensationalism). Also, there will be a brief discussion if one can or should interpret the Bible (specially the Old Testament) as the Apostles did in the conclusion. Dispensational and liberal theology talk about typology. However, they would get to very different conclusions. Specially because they view the Person of Jesus in relation to the Biblical data in very different ways. Knowing this, typology will be a very diverse within itself even in definition. Fortunately, Fairbain's assertion that “typology of Scripture is one of the most neglected departments of theological science”1 is not valid anymore. And despite the diversity, evangelicals still have some agreement on it.2 It is coming from this presupposition that the present work will be written. A 1Patrick Fairbairn, The Typology of Scripture (Grand Rapids: Nabu Press, 2010), 1. 2This footnote is a list of resources on evangelicals that have some agreement on the topic provided by Brent E. Parker “The Nature of Typology and its Relationship to Competing Views of Scripture,” [on-line]; accessed 10 november, available
1
2 discussion on the validity will not be extensively made because of space. The main concern is the application of the correct concept to texts and a brief evaluation of dispensational and liberal understanding of typology.
Defining Typology and Understanding the Apostles Reading Typology is a very debated issue and one needs to define what does it mean before starting to work with it. However, typology is not so easy to define and the definition of it differs depending on the theological system one holds. So, for terms of this work, typology will be limited in the terms of historical correspondence, escalation, some prophetic nuance and repetition.3 All of this in the light of the Old Testament presentation. Words, events and persons in the Old Testament point in some sense to the person of Jesus Christ. In another sense, sometimes it is hard to separate rectilinear prophecy and typology. And often times, as it will be seen they are presented together. In a much broader sense, typology is interpretation of history. According to Francis Foulkes, “Old Testament history...is history with a purpose and a goal. Manifestly incomplete it forwards to a climax of the manifestation of God among men.”4 What this means is that one ought to look at the at http://alturl.com/bzf4f; Internet. .l. Berkhof, Principles of Biblical Interpretation: Sacred Hermeneutics, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1952), 145-47; Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948; reprint, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2004), 144-48; Hans K. LaRondelle, The Israel of God in Prophecy: Principles of Prophetic Interpretation, Andrews University Monographs, vol. 13 (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University, 1983), 35-59; Stek, “Biblical Typology Yesterday and Today,” 159-62; Charles T. Fritsch, “Biblical Typology,” Bibliotheca Sacra 104 (1947): 87-100, 214-22; John D. Currid, “Recognition and Use of Typology in Preaching,” RTR 53 (1994): 118- 21; Nevin, “The Hermeneutics of Typology,” 7-10; Davidson, Typology in Scripture, 405-406; Ninow, Indicators of Typology, 95-96; Carson, “Mystery and Fulfillment,” 404-409; Hoskins, That Scripture Might be Fulfilled, 20-27; Goppelt, Typos, 17-18, 198200; G. K. Beale, “Did Jesus and His Followers Preach the Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? An Examination of the Presuppositions of Jesus’ and the Apostles’ Exegetical Method” in The Right Doctrine From the Wrong Texts?, ed. G. K. Beale (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 396-401; James M. Hamilton, “Was Joseph a Type of the Messiah? Tracing the Typological Identification between Joseph, David, and Jesus,” SBJT 12 (2008): 53-54; Dan McCartney and Charles Clayton, Let the Reader Understand: A Guide to Interpreting and Applying the Bible, 2nd ed. (Phillipsburg: P & R, 2002), 162-69.
3Stephen J. Wellum. The Contemporary Context, Chapter 4, “doing Christology” Today: Methodological Issues And Assumptions (Unknown City Of Publication: Unknown Publisher Name, forthcoming), 22. Pagination is according to the chapter, not the book as a whole. 4Ed Gregory K Beale, The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts?: Essays On the Use of the Old Testament in the New, ed. G.K. Beale (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1994),366.
3 Bible with two eyes. One eye in the event in its time-relation and the other eye in the whole revelation of God. Or as Foulkes said, “Revelation wrought in history, and to the eyes of faith history is revelation.”5 Historical correspondence is the reality of the existence of the type. One event/person existed and pointed in some way to the antitype. The event or person has a significance that foreshadow Christ. So in the history of salvation the way to do it is not to go from the event directly to Christ. The way is to draw the significance of the person and event and compare it to Christ in the eschatological scope. In the prophetic nuance, it is helpful to take Wellum's explanation, “God intended for the 'type' to point beyond itself to its fulfillment or 'antitype' in a later epoch of redemptive-history. That is why typologies are not mere 'analogies,' but are tied to recurrent patterns pointing forward to a culminating repetition of a pattern, which ultimately find its fulfillment in Christ.”6 And by repetition, the meaning is that the pattern brought out in Scripture find its culmination in the person of Jesus. So, how did the Apostles read the Old Testament? Did they have all this concepts in their minds when they looked to the person and work of Christ and preached his message? One can make the case that not, but G.K Beale brilliantly makes the case that they had some similar categories in their minds as they preached to the jews. 1. There is an apparent assumption of corporate solidarity or representation. 2. In the light of corporate solidarity or representation, Christ as the Messiah is viewed as representing the true Israel of the OT and the true Israel – the Church – in the NT. 3. History is unified by a wise and sovereign plan so that the earlier parts are designed to correspond and point to the later parts (cf., e.g., Matt. 5:17; 11:13; 13:16-17). 4. The age of eschatological fulfillment has come in Christ. 5Ibid, 366. 6Wellum. The Contemporary Context, Chapter 4, “doing Christology” Today: Methodological Issues And Assumptions, 22.
4 5. As a consequence of the preceding presupposition, it follows that the later parts of biblical history function as the broader context for interpreting earlier parts because they all have the same, ultimate divine author who inspires the various human authors. One deduction from this premise is that Christ is the goal toward which the OT pointed and is the end-time center of redemptive history, which is the key to interpreting the earlier portions of the OT and its promises.7 All this safeguards and limits will be helpful when treating the texts of the New Testament. Several attempts have been made to use typology. However, doing careful exegesis and having limits to interpretation is a way to not extrapolate the text and find the person of Jesus everywhere. Even if one thinks only in terms of authorial intent he is not just thinking on human authorial intent, but the divine intent has also to be preserved.8
The book of Acts Jesus had just left the disciples and gave them a mission. The disciples have the mission to be Jesus' witness. Written by the evangelist Luke, he viewed Christianity as the fulfillment of Israel's religion. So the book is structured in a sense of the proclamation of the gospel as the disciples are being witnesses of Jesus. Being a witness took place in some dramatic moments. Some of courage, but most of them of were only regular speeches. The apostles had to make a defense of the Jesus they knew. A 7G.K. Beale, Handbook On the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation (Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Academic, 2012), 96-7. 8There is a whole discussion on wether typology is retrospective or prospective. James Hamilton wrote in The Typology of David’s Rise to Power: Messianic Patterns in the Book of Samuel at the Julius Brown Gay lectures, available at http://www.sbts.edu/documents/JBGay/the_typology_of_davids_rise_to_power2008-03-101.pdf; “There is a dispute among those who read the Bible typologically over whether types are only retrospective or whether they also function prospectively, that is, predictively. On one side, R. T. France writes: “There is no indication in a type, as such, of any forward reference; it is complete and intelligible in itself.”22 On the other side, G. K. Beale states that “the !"#$!% [fulfillment] formulas prefixed to citations from formally non-prophetic OT passages in the gospels decisively argue against this.”23 In between these two options, Grant Osborne writes, “It is likely that the solution lies in the middle. The OT authors and participants did not necessarily recognize any typological force in the original, but in the divine plan the early event did anticipate the later reality.”24 The fulfillment formulas do indicate that the NT authors understand the Old Testament types to be pointing forward, but Osborne is correct to point out that more needs to be said about how and when these types would have been understood as pointing forward.”
5 summary of the speeches are given as it follows9: Speaker
Text 2:14–26
Audience Jews in Jerusalem
Peter
3:11–26
Jews in Jerusalem
10:34–43
Cornelius’ Household Jews in Jerusalem
7:1–53 Stephen
13:16–47 17:22–31
Paul
20:18–35 22:1–21 24:10–21 26:1–29
Content Resurrection and giving of the Spirit fulfill the OT Healed in Jesus’ Name, repent and believe Synoptic Gospel Pattern Typology: God’s Appointed Leader Rejected by Wicked Israelites
Synagogue in Pisidian Antioch Greeks in Athens
God raised up Jesus, the seed of David There is one true God who is calling all to repentance Elders of the Church Shepherd the flock, for in Ephesus wolves will arise from among you Jews in Jerusalem Paul’s Conversion Felix and his court Paul’s Defense Agrippa and his Paul’s life, conversion, court and a call to repentance
With that in mind, whenever an apostle is giving a defense to the jews, one can say that he is explaining how they saw Jesus in the Old Testament.10 So, the present work will focus on the exegesis of three speeches, one from each section. One from Peter on Acts 2:29-36, other from Stephen in Acts 7:1-53 and the final one from Paul in Acts 13:16-47. Also having being impacted by the Lukan perspective of the Old Testament, one can be even more certain of the impact the Old Testament had when Luke (although a gentile) wrote. The 9Thomas Schreiner “Acts-Revelation Notebook.” Classroom Notebook, Louisville, KY, Spring 2012. 10For a good understanding of the apostles view of the Old Testament Passages, see James Hamilton, God's Glory in Salvation Through Judgement:A Biblical Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 355-9.
6 Lukan perspective is based on his own narration of Luke 24:27: “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” So, it is possible that Luke had access to this kind of information in his research.11 Having this knowledge, Luke goes on interpreting Scripture not only in the basis of prediction-fact-fullfilment, but with a whole historical perspective in mind. As it was stated, he sees “Revelation wrought in history, and to the eyes of faith history is revelation.”12
Acts 2:29-36 The key to understand this passage is to understand how is the Psalm 110 working in this passage. Who is it talking about? More specifically, did Peter understood David as the one who wrote the Psalm? It is clear from the discourse that Peter saw that David was the one who wrote Psalm 110, “For David...” (verse 34) . The significance of it is great. For if it is “critical for its messianic application.”13 In summary Peter is recalling the confrontation of Jesus with the Pharisees in Luke 20:39-44. It is clear from the text that “David's son is his superior, and the messianic kingdom is not simply a renewal of David's earthly dominion. For Jesus, the enthronement of the Messiah at God's right hand is clearly a transcendental event.”14 And Peter did see that. But was this just a case of rectlinear prophecy-fulfillment? Or can one argue for a typological interpretation of the Apostle? The premise of Peter is that David did not raise up, Jesus did. This makes this “Lord” from 11A helpful analysis of the types and their function to the Lukan methodology is presented at G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, eds., Commentary On the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Nottingham, England: Baker Academic, 2007), 518. 12Ed Gregory K. Beale, The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts?, 366. 13David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009), 151. 14Ibid ,152
7 verse 34 a greater one. But the text does not stop with the conclusion that Jesus is Lord. He is also Messiah. Jesus is to be called Lord because he is the Messiah that resurrected from the dead. So one could not be separated from another in the apostle's mind. Applying the categories explained before for typology, one can see that the escalation point is fulfilled. Jesus is indeed greater than David in the resurrection work. Jesus is historically corresponded to David, for David is not only an allegory to Jesus, but he existed in time and history and is united to Jesus through a series of connections. The prophetic category is easily understood here because it said that David literally prophesied. “But exactly what David foresaw is not stated. On the Basis of this foreknowledge he spoke of the resurrection of 'the Christ.'”15 Christ is not only the fulfillment of the king in the line of David, but he is greater than David. He is the king who actually fulfills the requisites from Deuteronomy 17. Yes, Jesus does come in the line of David in a certain prophecy-fulfillment kind. However, his greatness is highly stressed here in this text. As Peter said, David did not ascend into heaven, but Jesus did. In doing so he establishes an everlasting dominion as the true king of Israel. As Nebuchadnezzar said “...for his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation; all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, 'What have you done?' ” (Daniel 4:34-35). The theme of dominion and dynasty pervades Scriptures all over it. It is safe to say that the Apostles saw Jesus as a greater David and that the resurrection, at least in this text, is the key to understand that event. One can be sure that Jesus was the fulfillment of David's covenant (2 Samuel 7). But in the sense that Jesus surpassed David in this throne forever and ever makes David only a shadow of the one true king. He reigns and inaugurates the new eschatology. 15G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, eds., Commentary On the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 540.
8 Acts 7:1-53 It is helpful here to use James Hamilton's summary of this text: “Luke presents Stephen as giving two examples of rejected prophets: Joseph and Moses. Both these men were prophets. In both cases, they were marked out by God.”16 Joseph and Moses are presented here as types of Jesus in a sense that they are leaders appointed by God and are rejected by men. Even in the indictment (verses 51-53) Stephen made it is clear that it was the plan of God all along history. So the rejection the people made was not something hanging in space and time, but it followed the same pattern of rejection of the leaders appointed by God in the past. As Hamilton said, “The law typologically foreshadows Christ as the rejected prophet; thus those who reject him are also typologically foreshadowed by those who rejected Joseph, Moses and the prophets (cf Acts 17:2-3). It is clear, here, that the principles G.K Beale had in mind of how the apostles read the Old Testament are in Stephen's mind when he read this passages. First, it is clear that the solidarity/representation of Jesus from Moses and Joseph was in his mind, or nothing would explain the “Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it.” Stephen had in mind that if Jesus was a true prophet like Moses and Joseph17 were, he was to be persecuted by a corrupt generation. Jesus is the true and greater prophet. Also, Hamilton said that typology is not only confined to Stephen's speech, but also to his own actions: 16James M. Hamilton Jr., God's Glory in Salvation Through Judgement:A Biblical Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010),428. 17Although Joseph was not a prophet in the sense of a prophet according to Deuteronomy, he had himself the spirit of prophecy. See Numbers 12:1-8 for clarifications on the subject. His capacity to interpret the dreams and even the recognition of Pharaoh are hints of this. It is often made the objection, specially from dispensationalists that Joseph could not be a prophet because there was no law regulating the office of a prophet. However, the principle that office does not precede execution is helpful here. For an even better understanding of this, see James Hamilton essay “Was Joseph a Type of the Messiah? Tracing the Typological Identification between Joseph, David, and Jesus,” SBJT 12 no, 4 (2008): 52-57.
9 Typology is not all there is in Stephen’s speech. He answers the charge of speaking “against this holy place” (6:13), for instance, by showing that God is not limited to the land of Israel, the city of Jerusalem, or temple mount. Yahweh appeared to Abraham in Mesopotamia (7:2), and Abraham had no foothold in the land (7:5). Similarly, Yahweh appeared to Moses at Sinai (7:30), and then even though Yahweh took up residence in the temple, Isaiah taught that Yahweh’s footstool would be not merely the ark but the earth, which Yahweh created as his dwelling place (7:44–50). These statements seem to represent Stephen’s efforts to place the temple mount in Jerusalem in proper biblical-theological perspective. Second, just the fact that Stephen ran for a summary of Old Testament Theology to make his defense makes the case that he had a view of unified history. He did indeed view the continuation of the work of God. Jesus is not another event only, but he is the Long awaited Son of Man that came in the pattern of this other prophets. The true prophet according to Deuteronomy 18:25-22. Thirdly, “the age of eschatological fulfillment has come in Christ” is clear because it would make little or no sense if Stephen was saying that the coming of the “Righteous One” was just another prophet. He had in mind that the Righteous One was the Long awaited Messiah that came in a pattern, but was the One inaugurating a new era and a new epoch (cf. Isa 53; Dan 7; Zech 12:10). So, typologically, even the definition made previously in this work is covered by Beale's principles. If the apostle understood it that way, the modern reader ought to see the types of Christ as he is represented. Historically, by those two characters, in escalation, he is a true and greater prophet that not only is rejected, but dies for a people. Prophetically speaking, Stephen understood that those previous generations “killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One.” And the repetition aspect is clear as Moses and Joseph are cited not only here but all throughout the New Testament (cf. Hb 11, John 5, Lk 24).
Acts 13:16-47 This text calls for a brief introduction. Paul is addressing a jewish crowd. This is an
10 important fact because he rushes through the history of Israel. And makes one crucial comment about David, that is, he would do all of God's will (Acts 13:22b). This is a very important fact for the discussion here. The Holy One of God, the king who would come to fulfill plainly Deuteronomy 17 would not see corruption. That is not the historical David. Although David is called the one after God's own heart, he sinned. That is, of course, Jesus as Paul presents here. But the important fact is that the resurrection is the proof of an incorruptible life. Jesus fulfills all of this by coming from the dead. As Gentry and Wellum demonstrated18, the citation of Psalm 2 is a irrefutable prove of this incorruptibility. And they show this by referencing two texts that will collaborate to the discussion of Jesus' fulfillment of these typological patterns. The first text is Isaiah 55:3 where it says: “Incline your ear, and come to me; hear, that your soul may live; and I will make with you an everlasting covenant, my steadfast, sure love for David.” The problem is that interpreters all along history viewed the reference to David here as a simple historical fact. But as Gentry and Wellum wrote that if Paul meant !" #$%& '&()* !" +%$!, in a subjective genitive19, then the historic “David” is only a rubric of the David to come. However, as Gentry and Wellum said, the reason why it is so hard to understand how this text maybe referring to the Historical David is because it is not referring to him at all. The basic flow of the text makes it clear that he is referring to Jesus. Applying the categories laid down before in the text one can say that the historical correspondent factor is present because they “narrate 'precisely those redemptive acts of God to which the Israelite bore witness in his confession recital of the works of God.' ”20 Therefore, it was 18Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant: a Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants, 419-21. 19Darrel Bock's analysis of the greek is gives perfect support. In Darrell L. Bock, Acts (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007), 457. He says, “Holy things” (&' ()*+) and “Holy one” [...] are the link words between Isa. 55:3 and Ps 16:10 as Paul employs gezerah shewa, one of Hillel's rabbinic rules of interpretation. 20F.F. Bruce, Book of Acts. Revised. New International Commentary On the New Testament Series. (Grand
11 extremely connected to historical facts that Jesus frees his people just like God freed them through his servants, specially David that freed people from an oppressor king like Saul. In terms of escalation, Jesus was the One God raised from the death and did not decay. Peter's argument in Pentecost is almost the same as Paul's argument. The resurrection is the proof of the greatness of Jesus. Different from liberal typology that will be described in this work, Paul and all the New Testament authors are very careful when doing exegesis of the Old Testament. They are not making it up without any connection. The fact is that there is a great connection and the greatness of Jesus is always stressed. The prophetic nuance is evidently present because Paul says in verse 23 that “Of this man's offspring God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus, as he promised.” God promised and he kept his word in bringing the Savior. This came not only in servanthood manner, but in a way that he was greater than all the kings of the earth, even David. It is almost needless to say that David is repeated all throughout the New Testament. He is clearly identified with the type of Christ. The king that would come and reign forevermore conquering the greatest battle of all times -death. And through this resurrection, he would reign forever. Liberal Understanding of Typology Brent Parker calls this view The Post-Critical Neo-Typology Approach.21 Basically, he tries to say that with the rise of the enlightenment and the critiques of Rudolf Bultmann and Friedrich Baumgärtel the typological interpretation started to lean more on the “ 'recurring rhythm of the divine activity' or through the 'structural analogies' by which biblical writers re-actualize earlier Rapids, Mich.: Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 2011), 254. 21Brent E. Parker in the “The Nature of Typology and its Relationship to Competing Views of Scripture.”[online].
12 events experienced as divine revelation into new situations.”22 One has to be really careful when making a case for typology, because it is often used by liberal theologians in the sense that they usually take rectilinear prophecy-fulfillment texts and categorize them as types. However, their use of types has to be referred not as salvation history finding its culmination in Jesus Christ, but by the simple human analogy as the writers of the New Testament saw how history developed in the Old Testament. Historicity of the facts is not counted here.23 The so called “Post-Critical Neo-Typology Approach” (or liberal, for this work) holds to the Historical-Critical Method. This would imply that events, persons and institutions could not even be real. The fundamental premise here is that Old Testament realities do not need to be real for the typological relation. The “veracity” of the typological structure derives from the author as he reads the Old Testament and finds the correlation by simple analogy. There is no careful exegesis, simple analogy that does not even need to be real. Another point to be observed is the understanding of “fulfillment and eschatology.” If liberalism has any respect for Biblical Theology as taking in by its own terms, then it will see great significance of the eschatological fulfillment of Christ. However, they do not see it. When they do24 see Christ as a fulfillment it is related to Israel's religion. For them, Jesus is the one who completes judaism. Judaism is, therefore, incomplete and Jesus is complete in this view. Fairbain rightly 22Ibid.
23Although even some more left-winging evangelicals are starting to appeal to the historiographical device as a mean of typology. As in http://alturl.com/kfr74, referring to The Historiographical Jesus: Memory, Typology and the Son of David. LeDonne says that [T]ypological narrativization is often a means of remembering and not necessarily a literary device employed in a far-removed context" (p. 59). The heart of Le Donne's thesis is found in chapter 4 ("Memory and Typology"), which argues, "the analysis of memory refraction provides the Jesus historian a means to locate and chart historical memories that betray typological interpretation" (p. 65). Typological narrativization, then, is a means of memory refraction. The basic argument is the fact that one can see New Testament uses history, but only for the mnemonic purposes. 24Since there is no hermeneutics safeguards in liberalism, it is even more diverse than the modern evangelical “movement.”
13 asserts that this is vagueness.25 Finally, there is incompleteness when talking about true typology. However, what is incomplete is not the religion of judaism that needed a better way of thinking, but as Graeme Goldsworthy writes, “typology then takes account of the fact that God used a particular part of human history to reveal himself and his purposes to mankind. But it was a process, so that the historical types are incomplete revelations and depend on their antitype for their real meaning.” Here is presupposed the fact that the types are real and historical and the progressive revelation of God.26
Dispensational Understanding of Typology27 It is wise to use G. P. Hugenberger here when referring to some conservative circles he says, “a lack of confidence in the validity of typology as a modern interpretative method may reflect the influence of dispensationalism and its historic conviction that typology has no basis in historical exegesis of the underlying Old Testament text.”28 The reason why dispensational theology gives such this lack of confidence is because they tend to accuse typology of using allegory29. Coming 25 Fairbairn, The Typology of Scripture, 36. 26Graeme Goldsworthy, According to Plan: the Unfolding Revelation of God in the Bible (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2002), 68. 27This paper is treating the fact that dispensationalists tend to somewhat not accept typology. Regardless of that, there is a charge to be made to the opposing hermeneutical system. Covenant Theology generally works having too many typological relations. They work in a one-one equivalency between Israel and the church. This per se is a mistake that needs to be addressed, but for the sake of this paper length it will not. This continuity makes less of the person of Jesus and makes the revelation of God not have the discontinuity it needs to be stressed as in Jeremiah 31. They work with the presupposition that the only discontinuity present between the Testaments is the “promise-fulfillment” theme. The theme of explicit Christology is at least loosen in covenant theology as they understand it much more at the level of implicit Christology. 28Ed Gregory K. Beale , The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts?, 366. 29Once more, Goldsworthy provides a helpful and summarized way of thinking of how one uses the terms: “Literalism: says the historical promises lead to exactly corresponding historical fulfillment. Allegory: say the historical promises and events are of significance only for the hidden meanings which lie beneath them. Typology: say that historical promises are the first stages of progressive revealed truths. The historical fulfillments correspond to and develop the promises.”
14 from the background in which dispensational theology had to fight for evangelicalism against the historical-critical method and its extravagant hermeneutics, it makes sense that they would be afraid. However, it can be said there is an overreaction. The meaning of calling Jesus the one who is a type of David, for example, is not hidden in the text, but is clear if one applies the simple methodology of this paper. The view of dispensationals is not a unified view also. So, they would not even agree with the presupposition made by Beale and that served as a model to analyze the passages in this work. However, most dispensationals tend to see two distinct purposes that God had. One for the Church, another for Israel. With that view New Testament and Old Testament do not have such close relationship, therefore, dispensationals tend to see fewer types than covenant theologians. According to W. Edward Glenny, both because of this view of Church and Israel and also the literal interpretation, “Some would limit types to instances where they are explicitly identified as such in Scripture.”30 The heart of the discussion regarding the Person of Jesus is due the fact that is Jesus is not identified in greatness when compared to Old Testament expectations, he will only fulfill prophecies, but he can loose the sense of representation (as a second Adam31 and kingship coming after David). One important analysis of the hermeneutical view of dispensationalists is made by Vern Poythress: One must compare later Scripture to earlier Scripture to understand everything. Such comparison, though it should not undermine or contradict grammatical-historical interpretation, goes beyond its bounds. It takes account of information not available in the original historical and cultural context. Hence, grammatical-historical interpretation is not enough. It is not all there is to interpretation. True, grammatical-historical interpretation exercises a vital role in bringing controls and refinements to our understanding of particular texts. But we must also undertake to relate those texts forward to further revelation which 30W. Edward Glenny, “Typology: A Summary of the Present Evangelical Discussion,” JETS 40 (1997): 627-38 31Although, dispensationals agrre that Jesus is the second Adam because he is identified as him in Roman 5.
15 they anticipate and prepare for. 32 The basic accusation is simply to the fact that one is reading the Bible canonically. However, dispensational theology does exactly the same thing when trying to put together the prophecies. And Vern Poythress also demonstrates this by challenging dispensationals to (a) develop a conception of grammatical-historical interpretation, (b) be willing to enrich the results of (a) and learn from (b) itself not only when it is a matter of typology within the OT historical passages, but prophecies as well.33 Contrary to the liberal understanding of typology, the dispensational view holds to historicity. However, the fundamental understanding of dual-authorship is missing (or at least neglected here), for dispensationalists try not to harm the authorial intent of Scripture.34 In trying to preserve authorial intent, they mean only human author. Also the basic dispensational hermeneutics has an appeal to a literal reading of the text that in itself looses the perception of the themes and its repetitions throughout Scripture. The theme of the Land also plays a great part in the dispensational rejection of typology. If Jesus is the one who fulfills the covenants and receives the land as the great king in the inaugurated kingdom, then dispensational theology falls apart. Their presupposition is that because of a literal understanding of the nation of Israel, this nation is has the possession of the land in the future eschatology.35 The person of Jesus is diminished and what they wanted when they stress discontinuity is lost in a macroscopic analysis. 32Vern S. Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 2nd ed. (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Publishing, 1994), 115-6. 33Ibid, 117. 34Ed Gregory K. Beale, The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts?, 74. 35Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant: a Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2012), 122-4.
16 Conclusion The question underlying this work is, can one do the same thing as the apostles did? Is it possible to read the Bible with a typological mindset? The answer is yes and no. At the same time that Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament not everything points to Jesus. And that is one of the abuses that has happened today. Scholars and students tend to look at the Old Testament already trying to find Jesus. As Goldsworthy pointed, it is respecting the progressiveness of revelation that one makes justice to typology. As he said, “Typology: say that historical promises are the first stages of progressive revealed truths. The historical fulfillments correspond to and develop the promises.”36 Progressive revelation should not be understood as the only eye that someone reads the Scriptures, but as one of the eyes.37 Canonical approach to the Bible will also provide safe exegesis of a text. This brief discussion at the present work served to show that with careful eyes and good hermeneutical system, one can approach texts with good confidence to find the relationship between types and antitypes. The book of Acts is a good place to start because not only the apostles were trying to make sense of the data regarding Jesus and the Old Testament, but because Jesus saw himself as the fulfillment of the Old Testament and in a unique relationship to the father, Acts will provide the answers of how the Apostles made sense of these categories of implicit and explicit Christologies. 36Goldsworthy, According to Plan: the Unfolding Revelation of God in the Bible, 68. 37Robert Plummer provides a helpful discussion on how the authors of the Bible saw themselves regarding the future eschatology in “Righteousness and Peace Kiss: The Reconciliation of Authorial Intent and Biblical Typology.” SBJT 14.2 (2010): 54-61. He says, “In essence, I am asserting that Hosea quite consciously sees himself mid-way on the dimly lit stairsteps of revelation. He looks down the stairs which are lit well (the previous revelation) and sees the prior interventions of God and sees correspondences to them in his own day—a repetition of steps in parallel fashion. Similarly, Hosea looks up the stairs—again quite consciously—seeing the stair steps of future revelation repeated in ever climactic pattern. Hosea also recognizes that there is a top to the stairs—a final climactic saving intervention of God, at which point, all the stairway will be illumined—and the line of successive saving steps will be unmistakably visible. So, though Hosea does not apparently consciously know of the Messiah’s coming flight into Egypt, he gives implicit permission for later readers who witness subsequent divine revelation to find that correspondence in his text.”
BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Beale, Ed Gregory K, The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts?: Essays On the Use of the Old Testament in the New, ed. G.K. Beale Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1994. ---, G.K. Handbook On the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Academic, 2012.
Interpretation
Bock, Darrell L. Acts. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007. Bruce, F.F. Book of Acts. Revised. New International Commentary On the New Testament Series. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 2011. Carson, D. A., and G. K. Beale, eds. Commentary On the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Nottingham, England: Baker Academic, 2007. Fairbairn, Patrick The Typology of Scripture. Grand Rapids: Nabu Press, 2010. Gentry, Peter J., and Stephen J. Wellum. Kingdom through Covenant: a Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2012 Goldsworthy, Graeme According to Plan: the Unfolding Revelation of God in the Bible Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2002. Hamilton, James God's Glory in Salvation Through Judgement:A Biblical Theology, Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010. Peterson, David G. The Acts of the Apostles. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009. Poythress, Vern S. Understanding Dispensationalists, 2nd ed. Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Publishing, 1994. Wellum, Stephen J. The Contemporary Context, Chapter 4, “doing Christology” Today: Methodological Issues And Assumptions Unknown City Of Publication: Unknown Publisher Name, forthcoming.
17
18
Journals Glenny, W. Edward “Typology: A Summary of the Present Evangelical Discussion,” JETS 40 ( 1997): 627-38. Hamilton, James. “Was Joseph a Type of the Messiah? Tracing the Typological Identification between Joseph, David, and Jesus,” SBJT 12 no, 4 (2008): 52-57. Plummer, Robert “Righteousness and Peace Kiss: The Reconciliation of Authorial Intent and Biblical Typology.” SBJT 14.2 (2010): 54-61.
Lectures Hamilton, James “The Typology of David’s Rise to Power: Messianic Patterns in the Book of Samuel.” Lecture. Julius Brown Gay Lectures, Louisville, KY, January, 2008. Schreiner, Thomas “Acts-Revelation Notebook.” Classroom Notebook, Louisville, KY, Spring 2012. Internet Resources Joshua W. Jipp The Historiographical Jesus: Memory, Typology and the Son of David. LeDonne [on-line]; accessed 28 november 2012, available at http://alturl.com/kfr74; Internet. Parker, Brent E. “The Nature of Typology and its Relationship to Competing Views of Scripture,” [on-line]; accessed 10 november, available at http://alturl.com/bzf4f; Internet.