# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1998_S57 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) SYNODICAL REPORTS 57 Appendix R3-01A Prophecy and Typology I. Introduction The Commission on Theology and Church Relations has been asked by the Missouri District of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS) to respond to an overture to its 1988 district con- vention concerning the nature of prophecy in Holy Scripture. The overture raises questions about the nature of scriptural prophecy and about typological interpretations of messianic prophecy. It is the purpose of this document to address this issue. The central question in the discussion and debate on the nature of prophecy concerns the rejationship between prophecy and ty- pology. To answer this question adequately, certain prior questions must be addressed and attendant assumptions described. How does one identify a prophecy? How does one identify a type? What hermeneutical rules guide the interpretation of prophecy? Of ty- pology? How are these rules established? The effort to answer a very specific question brings very broad questions into view. What- ever one’s answer to the narrow question, prior decisions will have been made and assumptions advanced on the larger questions, which are, in fact, key. II. Common Postures To clarify what points are at issue it is helpful to describe the broad areas in which there is agreement. LCMS theologians who take part in this discussion hold the following views in common: A. On Sacred Scripture 1. that it is the inspired and inerrant Word of God; 2. that no authority shall norm the Scriptures; 3. that the Lutheran Confessions are a correct exposition of the Scriptures (quia subscription; that is, we subscribe to them because they are in agreement with Scripture); 4. that the historical-grammatical rather than the historical-crit- ical method is the appropriate vehicle for the interpretation of Scripture; 5. that the Scriptures are christocentric; and, 6. that Scripture interprets Scripture. B. On Typology 1. that the Scriptures describe and illustrate such a category; 2. that proper typology does not read into the Old Testament texts meanings that were not originally there, but rather reads out the full meaning God originally put into the prophet’s words; 3. that typologies include persons, places, and events; 4. that the mere resemblance between two persons or events does not automatically make something a type; 5. that typology has described a broad variety of hermeneutical moves, some of which are clearly supported by the Scriptures, oth- ers of which must be regarded as questionable or even in error; and, 6. that the clarity of Scripture is not violated by proper scrip- tural types or by the proper use of typology. C. On Prophecy 1. that biblical prophecy both foretells and forthtells; 2. that vaticinium ex eventu (prophecy after the event) is not biblical, i.e., the prophets do not reflect on what has already tran- spired but are given God’s guidance in describing future persons and events; 3. that the words of Scripture themselves point to the future events, i.e., they are not applied in new and foreign ways to situa- tions not envisioned by the text itself; 4. that the prophetic messages of the Old Testament must be in- terpreted in their historical setting and context, and with an under- standing of the New Testament fulfillment; 5. that the Old Testament prophets were able to transcend their own time (1 Peter 1:10-12); 6. that the perspective of the prophets often blended the near and distant future (what Theodore Graebner called “the prophetic perspective’)! IIE. Unresolved Differences Within this arena of consensus, disagreements in perspective or exegetical accent have emerged. The following may be noted: A. On Typology The exact definition, nature and scope of typology are still somewhat in dispute. While all are agreed that where Scripture identifies a type it is to be acknowledged and taught as a type, there is some divergence on the question of identifying a type apart from an explicit use of a vocable such as tonog or oxic. One view is that to identify a type without such a vocable is to go beyond the Scrip- tures. To recognize a type in these circumstances is seen as specu- lation that is not biblical and probably erroneous. The other view is that typology describes a larger pattern and consistency about God’s character, words, and actions that must be expounded if we are to be true to biblical revelation. To require the presence of a vocable for “type” or “shadow” before these patterns can be ex- pounded is to reduce the grammatical-historical method to a me- chanical and wooden hermeneutic.’ Note: Both views reject any description of typology that would view the New Testament as reading new meaning into the Old Tes- tament texts rather than reading out the full meaning which God’s prophets conveyed in their words.’ Even the prophets had to search their own writings for their full meaning (1 Peter 1:10—12)." B. On Prophecy Here three differences are in evidence. 1. The chief difference is whether the words of one prophecy can have two referents and, usually in connection with that, two somewhat different meanings, and, therefore, two fulfillments. For example, can the single vocable “son” in 2 Sam. 7:14 refer both to Solomon (2 Chron. 6:9) and to Jesus (Heb. 1:5)? Can it mean “son” in a metaphorical sense in 2 Samuel 7 and “son” in a literal sense in Hebrews, and be fulfilled in both Solomon and in our Lord? © The exclusive rectilinear point of view holds that words can le- gitimately point to and describe only one person or event as a ful- fillment. All prophecies must be understood in this manner. * The typological point of view holds that in the case of typologi- cal prophecies the words point to the future fulfillment, but, de- pending upon the Old Testament context, may entail a contem- porary or intervening referent, which referent itself is a foretaste of Christ.° Also, according to this viewpoint, all prophecies need not be of one type; there can be a mix of rectilinear and typolog- ical prophecies in the prophetic corpus. Passages that would widely be acknowledged as exclusively rectilinear in character by exegetes in both categories would in- clude: Gen. 3:15; 12: 1-3; Is. 9:1-7; 11:1-10; 52:13-53:12; Micah 5:1-3; 3:1-5 (English—2:28-32); Job 19:23-27. 2. Closely intertwined with one (1) above is the question of how the hermeneutical rule sensus literalis unus est (the literal sense is one) is'to be understood. ¢ On the one hand, this rule is applied in such a way as to preclude typology. “Son” must refer to either Israel or Jesus in Hosea 11:1. According to this view, to refer it to both Israel and Jesus is to violate the sensus unus. * On the other hand, this rule is seen as compatible with the Scrip- ture’s inclusive perspective, i.e., the text is seen as intended to point to Israel and to Jesus. Jesus is Israel reduced to one. The disobedient firstborn (Israel) points to the obedient son (Jesus) by virtue of the Holy Spirit’s guidance. Such a view understands the sensus unus principle to speak, not to the issue of prophecy and fulfillment, but rather to the matter of allegorizing (what was common in medieval exegesis), i.e., finding referents for words on a different (e.g., spiritual) plane of reality (e.g., seeing Abram’s journey from Ur to Haran [Gen. 11:32] as referring both to an historical journey of people and to the “journey” of the soul from the spiritual “darkness” of unbelief and ignorance to the “light” of belief and understanding).° 3. Related to the two previous points is the matter of the clarity of Scripture.