Bible Encyclopedias
Tyng, Dudley A.

Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Search for…

Enter query below:

or

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z

Prev Entry
Tyndarldes

Next Entry
Tyng, Stephen Higginson, D.D.

Resource Toolbox

Print Article

a clergyman of the Protestant Episcopal Church, was born in Prince George County, Md., in 1825. He graduated at the University of Pennsylvania in 1843; studied at the Alexandria (Va.) Theological Seminary; became deacon in 1846 and priest in 1849; was first settled as a clergyman in Columbus, O., and afterwards was rector of Christ Church, Cincinnati; in 1854 was pastor of the Church of the Epiphany, Philadelphia, where he remained one year, resigning and organizing a new parish called the Church of the Covenant, of which he was minister at the time of his death, which occurred at Brookfield, near Philadelphia, April 19, 1858. See American Quar. Church Rev. 1858, p. 344.

Type.

I. Name. — The Greek word τύπος, from which our type is derived, denotes primarily a blow, then the mark left by a blow, then a mark or print of any kind, then a figure or image; and finally a mould or model, whether that be viewed as the original from which something else has taken its form, or as indicating the form which something not yet existing may assume. In the New Test. the word occurs in several of these senses, and in some passages with a shade of meaning peculiar to itself. In John 20:25 it is used to denote the mark which the nails made in our Lord's hands and feet; in Acts 7:43 it means a copy or image; in Acts 7:44 and Hebrews 8:5 it signifies a model after which something is made; in Romans 6:17 it denotes a mould from which a form is derived; in Romans 6:14 it conveys the idea of one person presenting some analogy to another person; and in several places it means an example which others may follow (1 Corinthians 10:6; 1 Corinthians 10:11; Philippians 3:17; 1 Thessalonians 1:7; 2 Thessalonians 3:9, etc.).

As used by theologians, the word type has received a special technical meaning not exactly equivalent to any of these usages, though approaching to that of Romans 5:14, where Adam is said to be the type of Christ. They mean by it any object, whether office, institution, person, or action, by means of which some truth connected with Christianity was prefiguratively foretold under preceding dispensations. Such an object the apostles call a σκιά , a shadow or adumbration of that which it indicated (comp. Hebrews 10:1; Colossians 2:17). This shadow became a type because it presented the model or representation of something yet future. Sometimes, also, the term παραβολή is used with a similar meaning (Hebrews 9:9; Hebrews 11:19),

II. Fundamental Principles. — There are certain notions which must be assumed as lying at the basis of typology.

1. Spiritual truths, ideas, thoughts, may be represented By material symbols, whether actions, institutions, or objects. This the usage of all nations establishes. More especially was this a favorite method of communicating thought among the imaginative Orientals; in general, it is found to prevail most in the earlier stages of a people's history, while as yet the use of objects that appeal to the senses is more effective than the use of written documents. In Scripture, frequent instances occur of such symbolical methods of conveying ideas; as, for instance, the placing of the hand under the thigh for confirmation of an oath; the boring of the ear of the servant who declined to avail himself of the liberty brought by the year of jubilee; the rending of the garments in token of grief; and such acts as those of Abijah when, in announcing to Jeroboam the secession of the ten tribes from the house of Solomon, he tore his garment into twelve pieces and gave to Jeroboam ten (1 Kings 9:29); that of Elisha when he indicated to the king of Israel the victories which by divine help he should obtain over the Syrians by commanding him to shoot an arrow from the window eastward after he had placed his hand on the king's hand (2 Kings 13:14-19); and those of Jeremiah and Ezekiel when they were signs to the people (Jeremiah 19:1-11; Ezekiel 12:3-16).

2. Such symbolical representations may be employed to convey religious truth. This usage we find also to have prevailed among all nations, especially in the earlier stages of their history. Among the Jews it was abundantly used; not however, according to human caprice or ingenuity, but always in obedience to the express ordinance of God. The symbolical observances of an earlier age introduced into the service of God, it may be presumed, were also of divine appointment, on the general principle that, as God alone can declare what worship he will receive, it is only as he appoints that any service can be properly offered to him.

3. The true religion has in all ages been essentially the same, so that the truths symbolized by the institutions of the earlier dispensations are identical with those more directly and fully made known to us under the Christian dispensation. The substantial identity of the patriarchal and Mosaic religions with the Christian must be assumed in all attempts to argue from the Old Test. to the New, or vice versa, and will not be denied by any who receive these books as divine. From this it necessarily follows that what was taught by symbol under the ancient economies as part of religious truth will be found identical with what is taught in words under the new dispensation.

4. The religion of Jesus Christ is one resting on the facts of his personal appearance and work. Out of these all its truths flow directly or indirectly; and to these they all have respect. Hence the truths taught symbolically to the Old Test. saints, being identical with those of Christianity, must also rest on, and have respect to these facts.

5. A twofold character was thus of necessity given to the religious institutions of the ancient economies. They were primarily symbolical of religious truth. They were secondarily predictive of facts in the future on which these truths rested.

III. Nature of Types. — Proceeding on these data, we may attempt to construct a typology, the design of which shall be to show what are the types in the Old Test. and the correspondence between them and their antitypes in the New Test. The most important step towards this is to determine from the preceding data what is the proper idea of a type. This we would express as follows: A type is an institute or act appointed by God to symbolize a religious truth, and to prefigure by means of analog or resemblance those facts in the mediatorial work of Christ on which these truths rest. This definition involves the following elements:

1. A type is an institute or act. We use these terms in a wide sense, understanding under the former not only, formal organizations and religious offices, but times, places, implements of religious service; and under the latter not only rites and ceremonies, but special acts, or series of acts determined by the proper criterion to be typical. By this definition, however, persons and things simply as such are excluded. A person per se, or a thing simply as such, cannot possess a symbolical character; and cannot be the σκιά, or prefigurative sign, of another person or thing, much less of a fact or series of facts. A person may sustain atypical office or may perform a typical act, and a thing may be used in a typical service or ceremony, but in and by itself it cannot be a type. This sets aside a whole host of types which the ingenuity of interpreters has constructed out of the historical personages of the Old Test. That many of these sustained typical offices and performed typical acts is admitted; but that they were in themselves-in' their proper individual personality types of our Lord, we cannot believe. The assertion indeed, is to us unintelligible except in a sense which would be profane and untrue — viz. that their personal character and conduct were a representation of the character and conduct of our blessed Lord. It is true that for this doctrine of personal types the authority of the New Test. has been pleaded. But we are unable to find a solitary instance in the New Test. of any historical character mentioned in the Old Test. being brought forward as having been personally a σκιά of Christ or his work. In one passage, indeed Adam is called a τύπος of Christ, but τύπος is not there equivalent to σκιά; and, even if it were, it would not follow that it was Adam as a person who was the type of Christ, for the apostle is speaking throughout that context of our first parent in his official, federal, or representative character. The words of Peter also (1 Peter 3, 21) have been cited as showing that a simple historical occurrence may be the type of a Christian truth; but, whatever the apostle may mean in that passage by calling salvation by baptism the ἀντίτυπον of Noah's salvation by the ark, he certainly cannot mean that the latter was a divinely appointed prefiguration of the former. The utmost that can be drawn from his words is that an analogy subsists between the two, whereby the one is fitted to illustrate the other. The strongest case in favor of the opinion we are opposing is our Lord's representation of himself as the true bread of which the manna was tie prefiguration. We cannot understand this as intimating less than that the manna was a type of him. Still it was the manna, not as a natural phenomenon; but as a special and peculiar provision made by God for the feeding of the people, that was the type of Christ; and in this divine appointment we find what reduces this under the head of proper types.

2. A type is an institute or act appointed by God, and by him adapted to the end — it is designed to serve. Knowing what in due time was to be exhibited to men by the mission and work of his Son, God could not only predict it in words, but also give by means of symbolical acts and institutes such representation of it as would, in some measure at ‘ least, bring before the minds of the ancient saints a lively idea of it. As God alone could do this, it is on his appointment that the whole must rest. "To constitute one thing the type of another, as the term is generally understood in reference to Scripture, something more is needed than mere resemblance. The former must not only resemble the latter, but must have been designed to resemble the latter. It must have been so designed in its original institution. It must have been designed as something preparatory to the latter. The type as well as the antitype must have been preordained; and they must have been preordained as constituent parts of the same general scheme of Divine Providence. It is this previous design and this preordained connection which constitute the relation of type and antitype" (Marsh, Lectures on Criticism and Interpretation, p. 374). By the earlier typologists this condition was neglected, and resemblance was made the sole criterion of the relation between an event or person of the Old Test. and a fact or doctrine of the New Test. as type and antitype. A once popular book written on this plan is that of M'Ewen, On the Types and Figures of the Old Test. But the principle has been carried out to the wildest extent in a work entitled The Typical Testimony to the Messiah, by Micaiah Hill (Lond. 1862).

3. Each act or institute designed by God to serve as typical possessed a symbolical as well as a predictive character. This follows from the position that a type is a sensible emblem or prefigurative token of some spiritual truth, which itself rests upon certain events yet future, but of which events a certain degree of knowledge is possessed by those to whom the type is exhibited. In all such cases a twofold impression is conveyed to the mind: in the first place, that a particular truth already known is symbolically indicated; and, in the second place, that those events on which that truth depends shall certainly take place. In the testimony of God concerning his Son there are two points-one of fact, and one of doctrine-on both of which we must be instructed before we can really believe that testimony in all its fullness. What God calls us in the Bible to believe is, first, "the truth;" and, secondly, that "truth as it is in. Christ Jesus." With regard, for instance, to the doctrine of salvation by the atonement, there is, first, the general principle that such a mode of salvation is reasonable, practicable, and intended by God; and, secondly, the matter of fact that such an atonement has really been presented by our Lord Jesus Christ and accepted by the Sovereign and Judge of all. Now it was, of course, the same under the Old- Test. dispensation there were both the doctrine to be announced and the fact to be predicted before a complete statement of saving truth could be laid before the mind; and it was only as both of these were apprehended that the belief of a Jew in the truth became full and intelligent. Hence every type contained at once a symbol of the truth and a prediction of the fact.

It presented to the senses of the beholder an outward sign of a great general truth, and a memorial that in due season the event on which that truth rested would take place. Thus, for instance, in the case of sacrifice, there were both a symbol and a prediction. The slaying of the animal and the burning of its flesh were emblems of the great truth that the sinner whose substitute that animal had become deserved death and subsequent agony, as well as of the general truth that God's plan of saving men from that desert was by the substitutionary offerings of another. All this, however, would have been of no avail to the sin-burdened Israelite, who knew well that no mere animal could make atonement for the sins of man, had not that act prefigured and predicted the great sacrifice for sin on the part of the Lamb of God. But, pointed forward to this, his faith obtained an object upon which to rest, and he was enabled to rejoice in the salvation of God. So, also, with regard to the immediate consequences of sacrifice. When a Jew had committed a trespass against the Mosaic law, he had to offer certain sacrifices before he could enjoy his civil and political rights. Immediately, however, on presenting these, he stood rectus in curia; he was acquitted of the sin he had committed, and restored to his civil privileges. With this a mere carnal and worldly Jew was content. But to the pious believer all this was only the symbol and type of something spiritual. It reminded him that his sins against God had made him guilty and excluded him from the divine favor — it directed him to the need of a sacrifice for sincere God would forgive his transgression; and it assured him-that; just as by sacrifice he had been restored to his place in the Jewish State, so by the great sacrifice he might be restored to the divine favor, and to a place in that spiritual kingdom of which the Jewish-nation was the type.

4. Though resemblance to that which it is designed to prefigure does not constitute the only, or even the primary, condition, of a. type, it is obvious that this must form a very important element in the adaptation of the type to serve its designed end. Hence we may expect to find some obvious analogy not only between the symbol and that which it symbolizes, but also between the divinely appointed act or institute and that which it was designed to prefigure.

On the other hand, as there must be a similarity or analogy between the type and the antitype, so there is also a disparity or dissimilitude between them. It is not in the nature of type and antitype that they should agree in all things; else, instead of similitude, there would be identity. Hence the apostle, while making Adam a type of Christ. yet shows how infinitely the latter excelled the former (1 Corinthians 15:47). So the priests of old were types of Christ, though he infinitely excelled them both as to his own person and as to the character of his priesthood (see Hebrews 7, 8, 9, 10). Chrysostom observes (Hom. 61, in Cen.) that there must be more in the type than in the antitype. Hence the distinction must be observed between total and partial types. This distinction (Ecumenius also draws in commenting on Hebrews 7 p. 829. He says: ῾Ο τύπος οὐ κατὰ πάντα ισος ἐστὶ τῇ ἀληθείᾷ (ἐπεὶ και αύτὸς ἀλήθεια εὑρίσκεται, καὶ ταυτότης μᾶλλον ἢ τύπος ), ἀλλ᾿ εἰκόνας ἔχει τινὰς καὶ ἰνδάλματα " A type does not express that which it represents. in every minute particular, for then, instead of similitude, there would. be identity, but it contains certain outlines and assimilations of the antitype." Cyril of Alexandria, in Amos 6 p. 315, also observes on this subject: ῾Ο τύπος οὐκ ἀλήθεια, μόρφωσιν δὲ μᾶλλον τῆς ἀληθείας εἰσφέρει "A type is not the very truth itself, but its representation."

IV. Relation to other 1Modes of Teaching. — Having thus indicated the nature of a type, we would now point out the relation' of this mode of teaching divine truth to other modes employed in Scripture more or less akin to it.

1. Relation to Prophecy. — Type stands related to prophecy as its parallel. Like it, it teaches a present, truth, and announces a future fulfillment of it like it, also, it has in its capacity of a type one definite meaning and one definite fulfillment, to both of which it was intended and designed to point. The difference between a prophecy and a type lies only in this, that the former teaches by words, the latter by things; the former, that is, by an artificial combination of signs, the latter by a scenical representation of the whole truth' at once. A word is the symbol of an idea; a type is the symbol of some principle or law, and the prediction of some great general fact in- the economy of redemption. (See PROPHECY).

2. Relation to Parable. — From the word παραβόλη being used to designate a type, it may be inferred that the connection between the two is intimate. A type, in fact, may be viewed as a sort of acted parable. Let us suppose, for instance, that our Lord, instead of describing in words the conduct and circumstances of the prodigal son, had, by the help of suitable actors and scenes, made the whole to pass before the eves and ears of his auditors, the lesson would have been conveyed to them much in the same way as the truth concerning himself was conveyed to the ancient Jews by the typical rites of the Mosaic economy. In neither case is the lesson new, nor fully to be understood without an elucidatory comment; the object of both being to impress vividly a truth, otherwise reasonable or familiar, upon the minds of those to whom it is presented. There is this difference, however, between such a representation and a type - that the former, being merely doctrinal, would be exhausted in inculcating a present truth, while the latter would, with the doctrine, incorporate a prophetic reference to some great event yet to happen on which the doctrine was based. (See PARABLE).

3. Relation to Comparison. — The New-Test. teachers occasionally, for the sake of illustrating their meaning, introduce a comparison, drawn from some well-known fact in the history of the Jewish people, between which and the point they are discussing there exists some obvious analogy. In this way our Lord makes use of the fact of Moses erecting the brazen serpent in the wilderness for the purpose of illustrating his own character as a deliverer, who was to be "lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:14-15). On another occasion he instituted a comparison between his own case, as about to be consigned for a season to the tomb, and that of Jonah, "who had been three days and three nights in the belly of the fish" (Matthew 12:40). From this it has been hastily concluded that these events, and others alluded to in the New Test. in a similar manner, were real types and prefigurations of the facts they are brought to illustrate. It is obvious, however, that there is a great difference between a historical event — whether occurring in the natural course of things, or by the special interposition of the divine power, and which a subsequent writer or speaker may make use of to illustrate, by comparison, some fact or doctrine of which he is treating and a symbolic institute expressly appointed by God to prefigure, to those among whom it was set up, certain great transactions in connection with that plan of redemption which, in the fullness of time, he was to unfold to mankind. In the two cases above referred to there is the absence of any express evidence that the events recorded possess any other than a simple historical character. In the case of the brazen serpent, indeed, we have divine appointment; but along with the appointment we have the specific mention of the purpose for which it was set up, which was not to teach any religious truths at all, or to form any part of religious worship, but simply that it might act as an instrument of cure to the Israelites who were bitten by the fiery flying serpents. (See BRAZEN SERPENT).

Yet even in this case it is clear from the whole tenor of the narrative that the act was significant of more than a mere physical remedy; and our Lord's reference to the event confirms its higher import. — It is also possible that such a thing as the brazen serpent. might possess a symbolical character; but if any will from this argue that it really had such a character, .and that it was a symbol of Christ, it will be incumbent upon him, in the first place, to show some evidence in favor of his inference, and in the next, to explain how it should come to pass that the express symbolical antithesis of the Messiah, the serpent, could form part of an institute intended to prefigure his work as the Savior of men. As to the case of Jonah, we do not find in it so much as the appearance of anything typical; and, indeed, it would have been very strange had God caused the prophet to perform an actions typical of the burial and resurrection of Christ, under circumstances in which there was no human being to receive any instruction by it except himself. A type is an acted lesson visible representation of invisible truths. To its utility, therefore, spectators are as indispensable as actors; and where the former are not present, to say that God appoints the latter to go through their performance is to charge him with doing something in vain. (See SIMIILITUDE).

4. Relation to Allegory. — "An allegory," says bishop Marsh, "according to its original and proper meaning, denotes a representation of one thing which is intended to excite the representation of another thing." Adopting this as a just explanation, it is obvious that type and allegory are closely allied. In both there is an original representation which has a meaning of its own, and there is the use of that for the purpose of calling up to the mind the conception of another thing analogous to the former. The two, however, are very distinct. They differ in two respects: the one is that the subject of an allegory is a mere historical event occurring in the ordinary course of things, whereas a type is an act or institute expressly appointed by God to teach some important truth; the other is, that the allegorical sense is a fictitious meaning put upon a narrative for the sake of illustrating something else, whereas the explanation of a type is its true and only meaning, and is adduced solely for the sake of unfolding that meaning. Thus Paul, in order to explain the doctrine of the covenants, allegorizes the anecdote of Sarai and Hagar recorded by Moses, making Sarai represent the Abrahamic or new or everlasting covenant, and Hagar the Sinaitic or old covenant (Galatians 4:24-25). In the same way he allegorizes the fact of the water from the rock following the Israelites through the wilderness, speaking of it as representing Christ in the blessings he coifers upon his church (1 Corinthians 10:4). These allegorizings, ( ἀλληγορούμενα ) are only comparisons without the form; and their use is obviously merely to explain one thing by another. The radical difference between the exposition of a type and an allegorical interpretation of history, is apparent from ‘ the use which the apostle makes of them respectively, His allegorizings are mere illustrations on which, by themselves, nothing is built; whereas his typical explanations are all brought forward as forming the basis of arguments addressed to those who, admitting the type, were thereby pledged to the admission of the truths it embodied. (See ALLEGORY).

V. Interpretation of Types. — As a general rule it may be laid down that we should always expect to find in the antitype something higher and more glorious than in the type (Chrysost. in Genes. Horn.35. μὴ πάντα ἀπαίτει ἐν τῷ τύπῷ· οὐδὲ γὰρ ¨ ν εἴη τύπος εἰ μέλλοι παντὰ ἔχειν τὰ τῇ ἀληθείᾷ συμβαίνοντα ). This follows from the nature of the case. For if the design of a type be by outward symbols to foreshadow spiritual truths, it follows that, in proportion ash the thing signified is more valuable than the mere sign, and as things spiritual and eternal are more glorious than things material and transitory, the type must be inferior in value and in majesty to that which it is designed to prefigure.

More specific rules having reference especially to the Mosaic ritual are—

1. The symbolical ritual, as a whole and in its individual parts, can set forth only such ideas and truths as accord with the known, and elsewhere clearly announced, principles of Old-Test. theology.

2. An accurate knowledge of the outward constitution of each symbol is an indispensable condition of its interpretation; for, as the sole object of the symbol is to convey spiritual truth by sensible representations, to attempt to discover the former before we understand the latter is to endeavor to reach an end without using the means.

3. The first step in the interpretation of a symbol is the explanation of its name; for, as this is generally given with a direct reference to the idea symbolized, it forms of itself a sort of exponent of the symbol to which it is affixed.

4. Each symbol expresses, in general, only one grand idea; at the same time, of course, including all subordinate ideas that may be involved in it. Thus, in the case of sacrifices, a variety of truths are presented to the mind, but all going to make up the one grand truth, which that rite symbolized.

5. Each symbol has always the same fundamental meaning, however different may be the objects with which it is combined. Thus, for instance, the act of purification has the same symbolical meaning, whether it is- performed upon a person or an animal, or upon a material object.

6. In interpreting a symbol, we must throw out of view all that is merely necessitated by the laws of its physical condition, and that does not serve to help out the symbolical representation. Symbols have often accessories of two kinds the one consisting of such as are in themselves symbolical, and which go to make up the sum total of the representation; the other, of such as are, from the nature of things, required by the material objects composing the symbol for their continued existence. Thus, in the case of the candlestick in the sanctuary, it was provided that it should have branches and knops and flowers, and also that it should be supplied with snuffers and snuff-dishes. Now, of those accessories the former were not indispensable to its serving the purpose for which it was designed — that of giving light; but they, having each a symbolical meaning, added to the symbolical effect of the whole; whereas the latter were merely required in order to prevent the lights from dying out for want of cleansing. Keeping this distinction in view, we need not be afraid of going too minutely into the explanation of the Mosaic rituals Everything, in fact, of which it was composed was a symbol; with the single exception of such things as the earthly, physical condition of the substance or persons employed rendered indispensable. Nay, even these, from belonging to a typical institute, such as the nation of Israel was, acquired a sort of secondary typical character; just as the ordinary events of Israelitish history have for the same reason a spiritually doctrinal character. (See SYMBOL).

VI. Examples of Types. — In tracing out who and what typified or shadowed forth Christ and his salvation under the antediluvian, patriarchal, and Mosaic dispensations, we must be careful not to substitute the suggestions of our own imaginations for the intimations of' Scripture. We must endeavor to learn the mind of God as to what actually constitutes a type, either by the ex-press declarations of Scripture, or by the obvious analogy, which subsists between things under the Gospel and its antecedent dispensations. Thus guarding ourselves, we may notice the various types by which God was pleased, at all times, in a sense, to preach the Gospel to mans kind.

1. Among individual persons, before the law, Adam, Enoch, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph were eminently typical of Christ, but only in certain relations. Again, under the law, Moses, Joshua, Samson, David, Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, Jonah, Zerubbabel, and Joshua the high- priest were, in many points, singularly types of Christ.

2. The first-born, the Nazarites, prophets, priests, and kings were typical orders of persons.

3. Under the head of things typical may be noticed Jacob's ladder, the burning bush, the pillar of cloud and fire; and, in the opinion of some, the manna, the rock, and the brazen serpent.

4. Actions typical were the deliverance out of Egypt, the passage of the Red Sea, the sojourn in the wilderness, the passage over the Jordan, the entrance into Canaan, and the restoration from Babylon.

5. Rites typical were circumcision, various sacrifices, and sundry purifications.

6. Places typical were the land of Canaan, the cities of refuge, the tabernacle, and the temple. The above types were designed to shadow forth Christ and the blessings of his salvation; but there were others also which pointed at our miseries without him. There were ceremonial uncleannesses the leprosy, for instance was a type of our natural pollution.

See Michaelis, Eltwurf der typischen Gottesgelahrtieit (Gö tt. 1763); Keach, Tropologia, p. 225-237; Suicerj Thesaur. 2, 1337; Mather, Types of the Old Test. (Lond. 1705) Bahr, Symbolik des mosaischen Cultus (Heidelb. 1837, 2 vols.); Chevallier, Hulsean Lecture for 1826; Fairbairn, The Typology of Scripture (Edinb. 1854, 2 vols.); and other works cited by Darling, Cyclop. Bibliog. col. 1803 sq., and by Maicom, Theol. Index, s.v. (See MESSIAH).