# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1998_S59
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

SYNODICAL REPORTS

pages on the proper interpretation of types. According to Hoffman,
genuine types can be divided into three categories: 1) persons; 2)
institutions and laws; and, 3) historical events. Specific examples
are then provided:

With respect to personal types, it can be said that they extend to the
persons of the high priest, especially Aaron, Melchizedek, etc. With re-
spect to the /aws, similarly, it refers to the ceremonies and the entire
worship of God in Leviticus, with all the laws which constitute its make
up, such as the sacrifices, the tabernacle with its appointments, the tem-
ple, the priesthood, the sacraments, the feasts, the jubilee years, the sab-
baths, the new moons, and in like manner, the combined Mosaic law
and other ceremonies. With respect, finally, to historical events as types,
examples are the exodus of the people of Israel from Egypt, the return
of the same people from the Babylonian captivity, the weeping of
Rachel, etc. (49-50),

This paragraph with its many examples and openness to other
examples (note the repeated “etc.”) suggests that typological exe-
gesis had a significant place in the synodical seminarian’s study of
the Bible in the middle of the 19th century.

B. On Prophecy

Given typology—the existence of types/shadows in the Old
Testament and their coming to “fulfillment’’/reality in the New—it
is not surprising what we find with respect to biblical prophecy.
The New Testament writers appeal to both exclusively rectilinear
and typological prophecies in their texts. Exclusive rectilinear
prophecies (Micah 5:2; Matt. 2:6) are not set in antithesis to typo-
logical prophecies (2 Sam. 7:14; Heb. 1:5). The two types of
prophecy complement rather than stand in tension with one an-
other. And the fathers of our own LCMS agree, as evidenced in
their approaches. Several examples can be given. The first is The
Concordia Bible With Notes, revised by J. T. Mueller (Saint Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, 1946). This work interprets a num-
ber of the Old Testament prophecies in typological fashion (e.g.,
Hos. 11:1, 2 Samuel 7, Psalm 8). Whether or not one agrees with
each instance of such interpretation, the publishers (CPH) recom-
mend this Bible to the reader with the words: “The present edition
embodies the results of thorough Biblical scholarship and reflects
the conservative, fundamental viewpoint” (Preface). Second is the
inductive study of Walter R. Roehrs, “The Typological Use of the
Old Testament in the New Testament,” Concordia Journal 10
(1984), 204-216. In this article the author expounds the biblical
texts in a way that shows the nature of and appropriate place for
typological exegesis and prophecy. Finally, we may note the treat-
ment given by William F. Arndt to Jesus’ prediction of the final
judgment in Luke 21:32 and the relationship these words have to
the historical fall of Jerusalem:

After all, it seems best to follow Pl [Plummer] and Stoeckhardt and
to take y. [yeved] in the usual sense, considering the destruction of
Jerusalem as a type, sign, and prelude of the beginning of the final
global collapse and to say that symbolically and embryonically the
prophecies of Jesus were fulfilled when Jerusalem was struck by the
lightning of divine wrath. Jesus, one may suggest, employs the so-called
prophetic perspective, in which events, far removed from one another in
time, are seen as being close together, as forming one unity."*

It must be acknowledged, particularly in reaction to the rise of
historical-critical scholarship, that certain Lutheran exegetes have
taken a very cautious view toward typology and typological
prophecy. Ludwig Fuerbringer, George Stoeckhardt, Walter A.
Maier Sr., and Theodore Laetsch would be the most prominent crit-
ics of typological prophecy within Missouri Synod exegetical tra-
dition.’> The objections these men had to typological prophecy,
however, were really a reaction to a different position than that elu-
cidated in this paper. The kind of typological prophecy they re-
jected out of hand—and which the commission rejects—declared
that Christ was not spoken of in the Old Testament prophecies, that
these supposed prophecies were read into the Old Testament Scrip-
tures by the New Testament writers, and that the original prophe-
cies were not prophecies at all but were statements that simply re-
ferred to something that was happening in the day of the prophet
(cf. footnote 3, above). This view denied that the Old Testament
prophets could look into the future. To make their rejection of that
kind of typology and typological prophecy a rejection of the proper

~

59

scriptural position laid out in this paper is to misapply their wnt-
ings. It is interesting to note that when Ludwig Fuerbringer re-
viewed August Pieper’s /saiah II, a volume with a significant
amount of typological interpretation, he expressed differences only
at the level of specific exegetical decisions.'® And this reaction
should not be surprising, for as William J. Hassold showed in his
survey of LCMS and Wisconsin Synod attitudes on the issue of
prophecy and fulfillment,'’ while each synod may have tended in
one direction or another on the matter, neither condemned the
other’s position. In other words, if confessional assumptions are
not compromised, whether a particular prophecy is typological or
exclusively rectilinear is an exegetical question that must be de-
cided on a case by case basis."*

V. Conclusion

This brief survey suggests that Lutheran exegesis has, within
confessional boundaries and under the authority of Sacred Scrip-
ture, exhibited a disciplined use of typology and of a typological
understanding of prophecy. Speculations which drift far from the
text (cf. medieval exegesis) are rare. Serious exegesis which be-
holds types and shadows of Christ and the church is more frequent.

Ultimately, understanding the Scriptures as containing numer-
ous types and as containing typological prophecies is an expres-
sion of the fundamental unity of the Scriptures. The God who called
Israel to be his chosen people and a royal priesthood (Exodus 19)
has also sent his Son to redeem and constitute a “new” Israel, the
church (Eph. 2:20). And he has given prophecies consonant with
this outlook.

If there are diverse perspectives on when a type or a typological
prophecy is in view, appeals should be made to the total scriptural
text and context, rather than to a dogmatic assumption that this cat-
egory is limited to those instances when the biblical text explicitly
indicates it. To make this latter sort of appeal does, in fact, reduce
that exegetical richness of Lutheran orthodoxy considerably, and
it is for this reason that we do not believe that a specific exegesis of
given prophetic passages (as requested in the overture) can be leg-
islated. Rather, when all acknowledge the authority of the Scrip-
tures and subscribe without reservation to the Lutheran Confessions
in a quia manner, a lengthy and mutually beneficial conversation
can be engaged in on the part of all who are called to “search the
Scriptures.”

From Luther to the present, the unity of the Scriptures for a
Lutheran is, essentially, christological.’? Over and over the
Lutheran fathers find types of Christ and typological prophecies of
his work.”° They do so not because they qualified the sola scrip-
tura principle, but because they believed that the Scriptures them-
selves require such an interpretation.

Adopted May 21, 1996

Notes

1 Theodore Graebner, A Dictionary of Bible Topics (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1943), 66.

2 It should be noted that even interpreters sympathetic to an
exclusive rectilinear position may not assert that the presence
of a specific vocable is necessary to identify a type. Raymond
F. Surburg (A Summary of Hermeneutical Principles [Fort
Wayne, IN: Concordia Theological Seminary Press, 1980],
11), e.g., says: “The mere fact that there is some resemblance
between two persons does not make something a type.
However, it is not necessary that Scriptures expressly state it,
just so it is indicated in some way. Thus the whole Old
Testament is spoken of as an adumbration of the New
Testament, cf. Col. 2:16—-17.”

3 The position articulated by James Smart (The Interpretation
of Scripture [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961], 116, 123)
would be such a position: “Typological exposition ... sees,
from the standpoint of the later event, a meaning in the Old
Testament text that was not there for the original author. ...”
“\.. in the Old Testament passage there is no consciousness
whatsoever of the future New Testament meaning. The Old
Testament event is seen as a type only from the vantage point
of the New Testament.”

4 The exegesis of the church fathers is viewed differently. On