Jesus, on the evening of the resurrection, taught His disciples that it is written (in the Old Testament) that Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead on the third day (Luke 24:44-46). In spite of this assertion, it would be quite a challenge to demonstrate the truth of Jesus’ claim from a survey of modern critical evangelical commentary on the Old Testament. No less a scholar than N.T. Wright has stated that modern scholarship generally denies that the Hebrew Scriptures teach the doctrine of the resurrection.
We should acknowledge that there is a way of reading the Old Testament that misses the resurrection altogether. The Sadducees did that. They denied the resurrection, at least in the five books of Moses that they held to be canonical (Matt 22:23). Jesus rebuked them strongly, claiming that they understood neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. Jesus likewise rebuked His own Emmaus disciples, calling them foolish and slow to believe all that the prophets spoke about concerning the suffering (death) and glory (resurrection) of the Christ (Luke 24:21-26).
How is it that so many miss the pervasive teaching about the resurrection, and specifically the third day resurrection, when they read the Old Testament? Perhaps this is because we have refused to read the Old Testament typologically, rejecting the figural intention of the ancient prophets of Israel in their preview of Christ’s suffering and glory.
Read the full article: The Typology of the Resurrection
Sep 18
Posted by Warren Gage on Thursday Sep 18, 2008 Under General
We should begin with a definition. Typology is a biblical author’s intentional comparison of two (or more) persons, institutions, or events. These comparisons are observed between the type (the original) and the antitype (the after copy). Authorial intent behind such comparisons is suggested by the presence of verbal concordance and shared thematic patterns, a literary phenomenon extensively seen throughout the Scripture. Admittedly our confidence in the validity of biblical types is more secure the more extensive the verbal concordance and the more elaborate the thematic patterning.
Today, however, there is an unfortunate hesitance on the part of many reformed exegetes to recognize and work with biblical types. This is in spite of the overwhelming evidence that the exegetical method of the evangelists and apostles was robustly typological. Such reluctance, it seems, stems from several misunderstandings. First, there is a lack of appreciation for the typological framework that undergirds the entire apostolic understanding of Jesus. Second, there is a striking under appreciation of the necessity of typology to sustain reformed (especially Pauline) covenantal theology as well as an unwarranted fear of the loss of the historicity of the Bible to allegorical fancy, a fear which fundamentally misunderstands Paul’s own use of allegory in Galatians 4. And finally, there has not yet developed a consensus on the precise method by which legitimate types may be recognized. This short paper is intended to speak to these misunderstandings and, hopefully, to help to correct them.
Read the full article: Typology and Reformed Exegesis
