# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1998_S58
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

58 SYNODICAL REPORTS

*An exclusive rectilinear view tends to see a typological ap-
proach as violating the principle of the claritas (clarity) of Scrip-
ture, because such an approach is more or less complex.

°A typological approach sees such an assertion as confusing
clarity with simplicity, noting that there are many items in Holy
Scripture that are not simple to interpret (cf. parables and the book
of the Revelation of St. John), so that it is not proper criticism that
a typological approach to prophecy is “too complicated.”

IV. Summary and Evaluation
A. On Typology
1. Introduction

“In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by
the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son.
...”’ (Heb. 1:1—2a; RSV).

The letter to the Hebrews begins by acknowledging the richness
of God’s witness through the prophets: “In many and various ways.
..” (ROAVHEPHS KAI TOAVTPOMWS) God spoke. As this epistle goes
on to expound the significance of the person and work of Jesus
Christ, specific examples of these “many and various ways” are
provided: Christ is superior to angels (1:5—2:18), to Moses
(3:14:13), to the Aaronic priests (4:14-17), and to the Old Testa-
ment priesthood and cultus (chapters 8-10). Yet, these Old Testa-
ment persons and institutions pointed to Christ as types or shadows
(Heb. 8:5, 6; 10:1).

2. Two Key Terms
a, TOROS

St. Paul uses the word for “type” in the plural (turot) in 1 Cor.
10:6 (cf. also the adverb tunika in 10:11) to refer to the warnings
from Israel’s history as reasons to withstand present temptations
(1 Cor. 10:1-13). Twice he suggests that the things which hap-
pened to Israel happened (1 Cor. 10:6, 11) and were written down
(v. 11) for his readers’ instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages
have already come (v. 11). The apostle clearly perceives God’s
hand in both the events and in their scriptural record. These matters
were not simply for the benefit of ancient Israel, but also occurred
with a view to and as divine instruction for the church living al-
ready in the age to come.

Similarly, Paul describes Adam as a type of Christ: “Neverthe-
less, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses,
even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did
Adam, who was a pattern (tu0c) of the one to come” (Rom. 5:14;
NIV). The point of comparison is that while Adam brought univer-
sal death through sin, Jesus bestowed universal blessing by his life,
death and resurrection.’

bona

“Shadow” (ox1d) is also used to describe this theological pat-
tern between the Old and New Testaments. It can be seen in Col.
2:16: “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or
drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebra-
tion or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow (ox1d) of the things that
were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ” (NIV). The
book of Hebrews (cf. 10:11) makes use of this word in its discus-
sion of the sacrifices of the Old Covenant and the fulfillment of
these in the perfect sacrifice of Christ. The pattern of past events is,
again, in the service of the New Testament readers, The God who
ordered the past did so in a manner which pointed to and prepared
for Christ.

3. The Lutheran Approach

It should be noted that there is no hint in the passages which
speak of tozo1 or oxtai that the author has been exhaustive in his
enumeration of types or shadows from the Old Testament. Rather,
the clear implication is that the entire Old Testament was punctu-
ated with such patterns, from which the New Testament writers
have provided select examples in accord with their theological aim.
Indeed, John 3:14 would be such an example: “Just as (ka@0c)
Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so (oUtws) the Son of Man
must be lifted up” (NIV). Here the coordination of two historical

actions (the movement of lifting up) is seen as expressing one the-
ological truth (God’s offer of deliverance) and is understood as di-
vinely ordered. God's actions in the past are consistent with his
present movement, for it is the same God working in the same way
for the same purposes. God’s character is not capricious. This
means that the God who led the Israelites by a cloud for 40 years
can be recognized as the One who speaks from the cloud at Jesus’
baptism and leads him into the wilderness for 40 days. In the Old
Testament, too, God binds his promises of Christ to historical ac-
tions (people, events, institutions, etc.), located within the real life
history of his people.

Thus, typology expresses the unity of the Scriptures and the
consistency of God’s character. He is true to his promise. The life
of Israel, with its many facets, points to the life of Jesus even as
specific prophecies within that history speak of Jesus (Gen. 3:15;
12:1-3). And this patterning was not lost on the exegetes of the
Lutheran tradition. Luther used typology throughout his life, with a
particular emphasis on christological types. A good example of his
approach is his presentation of the Passover as a type of Easter (LW
13:363; WA 31:393).8

The Confessors were equally sympathetic to the broader typo-
logical reading of the Old Testament. Two passages from the Apol-
ogy of the Augsburg Confession are representative:

The same thing happened among the people of Israel. The majority
of the people believed that they merited the forgiveness of sins by their
works, and so they multiplied sacrifices and devotions. The prophets,
on the contrary, condemned this opinion and taught the righteousness of
faith. The history of the people is a type of what was to happen in the
church of the future (Ap IV, 395; Tappert, 167).

And the type aptly represents not only the ceremony, but also the
preaching of the Gospel. In Num. 28, 4f. three parts of that daily sacri-
fice are represented, the burning of the lamb, the libation, and the obla-
tion of wheat flour. The Law had pictures or shadows of future things.
Accordingly, in this spectacle Christ and the entire worship of the New
Testament are portrayed. The burning of the lamb signifies the death of
Christ. The libation signifies that everywhere in the entire world, by the
preaching of the Gospel, believers are sprinkled with the blood of that
Lamb, i.e., sanctified, as Peter says, 1. Ep. 1, 2: Through sanctification
of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.
The oblation of wheat flour signifies faith, prayer, and thanksgiving in
hearts. As, therefore, in the Old Testament, the shadow is perceived, so
in the New the thing signified should be sought, and not another type, as
sufficient for a sacrifice (Ap XXIV, 36, 37; Trigiot, 397).°
The Confessions can also speak about the Old Testament as a

shadow (umbra) of things to come.

But the Gospel brings not merely the shadow of eternal things, but
the eternal things themselves, the Holy Ghost and righteousness, by
which we are righteous before God (Ap VII. VIII; Triglot, 231).
Lastly, the use of “image” (imago) can serve as the metaphor

to describe the relationship of the Old Testament sacrifices to the
sacrifice of Christ.

For the Levitical sacrifices for sins did not merit the remission of
sins before God; they were only an image of the sacrifice of Christ,
which was to be the one propitiatory sacrifice, as we have said above
(Ap XXIV, 53; Triglot, 403).

If one looks to Post-Reformation Lutheranism, the influential
hermeneutics of Solomon Glassius has an extensive discussion of
typology.'® Here the question is not whether typology is scriptural
or not, but when can it be rightly used rather than abused. Similar
treatments are found in Johann Gerhard (1582-1637), an earlier
dogmatician who sought to distinguish typology from allegory,'!
as well as in later dogmaticians such as Abraham Calov
(1612-1686), who included the matter in a discussion of the so-
called “mystical” senses of Scripture (sensus mysticus),'? and David
Hollaz (1646-1713). Indeed, Michael Walther, writing in the 18th
century, provides an extensive discussion of the ways in which
Moses is and is not a type of the coming Christ.'?

Significant for this discussion is the fact that, in our own coun-
try and Synod, the hermeneutical posture described above was fol-
lowed by D. C. G. Hoffman in his Institutiones Theologiae Ex-
egeticae (Saint Louis: Ex Officini Synodi Missouriensis
Lutheranae, 1876). This volume was the hermeneutics text in use
during C. F. W. Walther’s presidency and contains some twenty