Types and Their Abuse

by Jerry C. Ray
The Gospel Guardian, 5 January 1961 and 12 January 1961

Webster's Dictionary defines type as "a person or thing regarded as the symbol of someone or something that is yet to appear." The word "type" (Greek — tupos) is from the Greek word, tuptein — to strike, as when a hammer strikes and leaves an impression. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon says:

"A. In the technical sense, viz. the pattern in conformity to which a thing must be made: Acts 7:44, Heb. 8:5, (Ex. 25:40)....c. in a doctrinal sense, a type i. e. a person or thing prefiguring a future (Messianic) person or thing: in this sense Adam is called tupos tou mellontos....Rom. 5:14" [p. 632].

The word tapir occurs 16 times in the New Testament. It is translated "print" twice (John 20:25);  "figure" two times (Acts 7:43; Romans 5:14); "pattern" twice (Titus 2:7; Hebrew 8:25); "fashion" once (Acts 7:44); "manner" once (Acts 23:25); "form" once (Romans 6:17); and "example" seven times (I Corinthians 10:6, 11; Philippians 3:17; I Thessalonians 1:7; II Thessalonians 3:9; I Timothy 4:12; I Peter 5:3). While the word is used with some latitude, it has one general idea — "likeness."

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia States:

"A person, event or thing is so fashioned or appointed as to resemble another; the one is made to answer to the other in some essential feature; in some particulars the one matches the other. The two are called type and antitype; and the link which binds them together is the correspondence, the similarity, of the one with the other." (William G. Moorehead. "Type", Vol. V, p. 3029).

The word "antitype" should be noted. Antitype (antitupos) is the fulfillment of the type, or in other words, the antitype is the thing prefigured in the type. Thayer states:

"In the N. T. language antitupon as a subst. means 1. a thing formed after some pattern (tupos) Heb. 9:24 (R. V. like in pattern). 2. a thing resembling another, its counterpart; something in the Messianic times which answers to the type.... prefiguring it in the O. T. as baptism corresponds to the deluge: 1 Pet. 3:21." (p. 51)

Three words in the New Testament are used with similar import:

1. Shadow (skia) in Hebrews 10:1, "For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things...." implies dimness and transitoriness, but with a resemblance.
2. copy or pattern (hupodeigma) in Hebrews 9:23; the tabernacle and its furniture were copies of the heavenly things.
3. Parable (parabole) in Hebrews 9:9; the tabernacle with its services was an acted "parable" prefiguring things to come.

I. S. B. E. divides types into three classifications:

1. Personal types (Adam and Christ, Romans 5:14).
2. Historical types (Caanan's wanderings in the wilderness and the Christian's life on this earth, I Corinthians 10:1-12).
3. Ritual types (The word of the High Priest and Christ, as our High Priest, Hebrews 9:24-28).

Thus, God, in His infinite wisdom, and according to His plan, prefigured and foreshadowed events of the long ago, great truths that have to do with our salvation through Christ.

What Constitutes a Type

There is another word that needs to be defined. "Analogy" means "a relation of likeness, between two things or one thing to or with another, consisting in the resemblance not of things themselves but of two or more attributes, circumstances, or effects." We hear brethren speak of types when they mean analogies. An analogy is a resemblance between things, but a type is a divinely given analogy. The lack of distinction between these two things has given rise to many false interpretations of the Scriptures and many false doctrines. Men have taken fanciful analogies under the cloak of types to prove every conceivable false doctrine. The stock in trade of many preachers is the fulfillment of "typical prophecies." (They're the ones who see Stalin, Khrushchev, the atomic bomb, etc. in the Old Testament and Revelation). One of these, Herbert W. Armstrong, can find in the prophets a passage for nearly every imaginable political and religious event of the present day. He states that 75% of the Bible is prophecy and 90% of that prophecy is for this present generation!

The key to the fallacy of this and other fanciful interpreters of the Bible was stated by brother H. Leo Boles in his written debate with R. H. Boll, premillennialist. Brother Boles said, "No proposition which depends wholly upon an interpretation of unfulfilled prophecies for its proof can ever be established" and "man, unaided by inspiration, is unable to interpret unfulfilled prophecy with any degree of certainty." What he said of prophecy is equally true with regard to "typical prophecy" and types. To test this, just go through the prophecies and the types and see how many you would never have recognized if the inspired writers had not spoken.

What constitutes a type? Mr. Moorehead (I. S. B. E.) lists three things:

1.  It must be a true picture of the person or the thing it represents or prefigures.
2. The type must be of Divine appointment.
3. A type prefigures something future.

Actually only the second of these is necessary by way of definition. If God appoints the type, it will be a true picture (number one) and it will represent something future to it (number three). But one and three are helpful for clarification.

In considering how much of the Old Testament is typical Mr. Moorehead missed his own point made in number two. He states that we should not go to the extremes of the Early Fathers (Origen, Ambrose, Jerome) who saw great mysteries in the cords and pins of the tabernacle, the yield of the herds, even in the number of fish caught by the disciples. (John 21:11) He says the other extreme is in contrasting the typical elements of the Old Testament. He places Prof. Moses Stuart in this number and quotes Stuart's position: "Just so much of the Old Testament is to be accounted typical as the New Testament affirms to be so, and no more."

Mr. Stuart's statement (if we understand his language) is absolutely right. The New Testament must speak plainly that a thing is a type before we can declare such to be so. If an inspired man does not say a thing is a type, then how can an uninspired man speak? This does not mean that a New Testament writer must say, "This is a type" before it is so, but he must make such statements or allusions to that effect that there can be no doubt as to the typical nature of the thing. Men are too prone to find something in the Old Testament that reminds them of something in the New Testament and say, "This is it; this is a type" when there is no such statement, implication, or inference. There may be an analogy, but analogies are not types.

This is not to say that we are opposed to sermons based on analogies (although some are so far-fetched and synthetic as to be ridiculous). But let's call them what they are: analogies, not types. Only God appoints types and man cannot know a type unless God has spoken (I Corinthians 2:11-13).

There are two dangers involved in the study and use of types:

1. Finding types where none exist.
2. Pressing types too far; trying to prove something that is not found in the passage (even though the point may be true, as proven from other passages).

Types, as do parables, have one main focal point of emphasis. All others are incidental.

Father of the "Spiritualizers"

Origen, with propriety, might be called the father of the "spiritualizers." Origen (c. 185-6 d. 253) was taught the Scriptures from childhood by his father, Eonides. Because of his great intelligence and piety, he was made the head of the religious school at Alexandria when he was 18. He is important for his work on a written exposition of the Scriptures. The most important of his 6,000 works was the one against Celsus. Despite the fact that he was the smartest man of his time, he held to the allegorical interpretation of the scriptures, believing that each passage had three meanings: spiritual, moral, and literal! Below a classic example of his "type" is given for your entertainment.

Pharaoh and the Destruction of the Hebrew Infants

Pharaoh represents the devil, the male and female children represent the animal and rational faculties. Pharaoh (the devil) wishes to destroy the male children (rationality and spiritual science by which man seeks heavenly things) and preserve the females (animal propensities of man which lead him into carnality and devilishness). The midwives represent the Old and New Testaments. Sephora (Old) signifies a sparrow: that sort of instruction that leads the soul to soar aloft and contemplate heavenly things. The other midwife, named Phua (New) signifies ruddy and points out the gospel which is ruddy with the blood of Christ. By these midwives, souls are born into the church. But Satan tries to corrupt these midwives so that those born into the church will be worldly (only females allowed to live). Pharaoh's daughter is the church among the Gentiles. She has learned iniquity in the house of her father, so she has come to the waters to bathe (baptismal font) and finds Moses (the law) in a basket daubed with pitch (deformed and misunderstood by the Jews). Fantastic, isn't it?

Adam Clarke, in commenting on this second homily on Exodus, wisely states:

"Neither the praise of piety nor the merit of ingenuity can be denied to this eminent man in such interpretations as these. But who at the same time does not see that if such a mode of exposition were to be allowed, the trumpet could no longer give a certain sound? Every passage and fact might then be obliged to say something, anything, everything, or nothing, according to the fancy, peculiar creed, or caprice of the interpreter.

"I have given this large specimen from one of the ancients, merely to save the moderns, from whose works on the sacred writings I could produce many specimens equally singular and more absurd. Reader, it is possible to trifle with the testimonies of God, and all the while speak serious things; but if all be not done according to the pattern shown in the mount, much evil may be produced, and many stumbling blocks thrown in the way of others, which may turn them totally out of the way of understanding; and than what a dreadful account must such interpreters have to give to that God who has pronounced a curse, not only on those who take away from his word, but also on those who add to it." [Clarke's Commentary, Vol. 1, pp. 296-297].

A Host of Others

Others can be given:

1. Some see in the names of the daughters of Zelophehad, Numbers 27, the "fall, recovery, and full salvation of man." We are born in the shadow of fear (Zelophehad) and being brought forth in sin, and being subject to the bondage of sin we are begotten in infirmity or sickness — grief of heart for our estate (Mahlah). After wandering around (Noah) we find comfort in Christ by whom our sorrows are turned into joy (Hoglah). Christ communicates of his royalty (Milcah) so that we are found well-pleasing (Tirzah) in God's sight.
2. Some see Joseph as a type of Christ. Joseph (Christ) the beloved of his father (God) was sent to his brethren (Jews) but was sold for a few pieces of silver, the bargain having been proposed by Judah (Judas Iscariot). We then find Joseph in prison (on the cross) with two thieves (thieves on the cross). He tells of the restoration of one and the destruction of the other (one thief promised he would be in paradise with Christ, the other evidently lost). Joseph requests that the person remember him when he is restored to his former position (the person saved by Christ entreats his deliverer to remember him when he comes into his kingdom).

   Adam Clarke again judiciously remarks:

   "Parallels and coincidences of this kind should always be received cautiously, for where the Spirit of God has not marked a direct resemblance, and obviously referred to it as such in some other part of his word, it is bold, if not dangerous to say 'such and such things and persons are types of Christ.' We have instances sufficiently numerous, legitimately attested, without having recourse to those which are of dubious import and precarious application." [Clarke's Commentary, Vol. 1, p. 223].

   But brethren continue to speak of Joseph as a type of Christ, adding to the list that they were both sinned against and despised, sold for a price, sent to preserve life, found alive, had compassion for the needy, and had pardon upon the penitent. These are certainly points of analogy, but similarity does not constitute proof of a type.

3. Some see Moses' death and Joshua's leading of the Hebrews into Caanan as another type. Moses (the law) could not bring God's children into Caanan (heaven). It took Joshua (Jesus: Greek word for Hebrew, Joshua) to lead them.
4. Several of the Early Fathers saw a great mystery in the quarrel Aaron and Miriam had with Moses about his marriage to the Cushite woman. Origen speaks of it as follows: "The Cushite woman is the choice that Jesus, made of the Gentiles for his spouse and church. The jealousy of Miriam and Aaron is the jealousy of the Jews. The leprosy on Miriam is the gross ignorance of the Jews and the ruinous state of their religion. This is only the "hem of the garment" for Origen. He declares that limitations of time and the magnitude of the mysteries permit him "to pluck a few flowers from those vast fields — not as many as the exuberance of those fields afford, but only such as by their odor he was led to select from the rest." [Clarke's Commentary, Vol. 1, p. 659].
5. Mr. Henry Ainsworth, a Puritan of the 17th century, saw in the forty-two stations of the Hebrews in the wilderness the forty-two generations from Abraham to Christ. [Clarke, Vol. 1,p. 659].

Contemporary Interpretations

From our own time have come equally absurd and erroneous interpretations. The Roman Catholics see in the story of the Prodigal Son, the Protestant world gone into a ruinous state with a loving father (the Romans Catholic Church) ready to receive the wanderer back with open arms.

Jehovah's Witnesses explain the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus thusly:

"By this parable Jesus uttered a prophecy which has been undergoing its modern fulfillment since A. D. 1919. It has its application to two classes existing on earth today. The rich man represents the ultra-selfish class of the clergy of Christendom, who are now afar off from God and dead to his favor and service and tormented by the kingdom truth proclaimed. Lazarus depicts the faithful remnant of the 'body of Christ.' These, on being delivered from Modern BabyIon since 1919, receive God's favor, pictured by the 'bosom position of Abraham.' " [Let God Be True, p. 98]

It is amazing what a little imagination and a lot of unmitigated gall can find in the Scriptures! Deliver us from such!