11
THE CHALLENGE OF
TYPOLOGY

In the previous chapter we have argued that Israel's social and political structures, and even its own existence, had symbolic significance. Especially at the time of Moses, when Israel was organized into a nation, its social structures and its character were defined by reference to God himself, his promises, and his glorious dwelling in heaven. The symbolic significance of elements in Mosaic legislation was therefore a "vertical" significance. The various arrangements pointed to God, his character, his plans, and his heaven. But the significance could simultaneously be horizontal. The spiritual realities to which the symbols pointed vertically were to be revealed fully on earth at the time of the eschatological "coming" of God in his glory. Hence, the symbols have sometimes more, sometimes less obviously, a forward-pointing character.

Now, we wish to ask how classic dispensationalists have dealt with this symbolic aspect of OT revelation.

36. Dispensationalist approaches to typology

Of course, dispensationalists have known about typology and studied it. They have viewed typology as something that we as NT Christians could find in the OT. But most of the time dispensationalists have said very little about the grammatical-historical basis on which NT typologizing rests. It has almost appeared that there was nothing in the OT itself, understood on its own, that encouraged any symbolic reflection. Thus NT typology has been isolated from the OT symbolic overtones which were already there in OT times.

Now such an approach, used in the past, harmonized very well with Scofield's dichotomous approach to hermeneutics. I do not know whether anyone worked out the logical relations in detail. But it could have been argued that the OT was to be read on two levels. On the one hand, the OT as directed to Israel was intended to be quite prosaic. Symbolic meanings to the tabernacle, the sacrifices, the lives of the patriarchs, the kingship, the life of David, and so on, could be ignored, perhaps should be ignored, by the Israelite. On the other hand, the OT was intended to produce a rich symbolic meaning when related to the church.

But such an approach has become more and more problematic as the discussions have developed about the significance of literal interpretation. Any sort of twofold approach like Scofield's must already begin with the assumption of a sharp distinction between two parallel purposes for Israel and the church. If that just stands by itself, it seems too arbitrary. How do we define "literal" interpretation, in such a way that it represents an attractive ideal? The most obvious way would seem to be to make it identical with grammatical-historical interpretation.

But interesting things happen in the confrontation of grammatical-historical interpretation with typology. What does grammatical-historical interpretation do with the OT tabernacle, the sacrifice of Isaac, the life of David, and so on? At least two responses are possible.

On the one hand, one could claim that grammatical-historical interpretation finds no symbolic overtones, or only a minimum of such overtones in such passages. But this conclusion would be in tension with what the NT itself as well as dispensationalist interpreters have done with many aspects of OT historical revelation.

On the other hand, one could say that grammatical-historical interpretation uncovers many symbolic significances in the OT, and that these are right in line with the use that is later made of them in the NT. This second alternative is close to my own point of view.

But if this is true, the symbolic and typological significances do not disappear when we go over to OT prophecy. OT prophecy is written against the background of Mosaic revelation. If the sacrifices, the temple, the land, the priesthood, the kingship, have symbolic significance in Mosaic times, that significance still clings to them when the same items are mentioned or alluded to in prophecy. In fact, if anything it will be increased and filled out as the later revelation of the prophets throws light on certain things that may have been in relative obscurity before.

Thus, grammatical-historical interpretation, constrained as it is to interpret the prophets against the background of Moses, will go ahead and introduce the symbolic and typological element directly into prophetic utterances about the future. This is counter to Scofield's rigid separation between OT history and prophecy (section 5). Many modern dispensationalists might nevertheless reconcile themselves to it. They might say, "OT history points to actual ("literal") events and institutions. The symbolic overtones do not cancel out the reality of the events. The same thing happens with prophecy. Prophecy of future things may have both symbolic overtones and straight-forward ("literal") fulfillment."

Such an admission by dispensationalists is a significant step forward, because it opens the way for vigorous use of OT prophecy in secondary application to the church age. Dispensationalists can still retain "literal" fulfillments in more or less the form that they had before. But the symbolic overtones of OT history contain typological lessons about us as the church. Similarly, the symbolic overtones of prophecy will have implications for us, even if they do not amount to "fulfillment."

Having gone this far, however, dispensationalists will find themselves having to ask themselves again what fulfillment of prophecy really amounts to. As I have argued, many OT prophecies, though they may have partial fulfillments in the immediate future, anticipate a great and climactic time of fulfillment in the "latter days." This will be the time when the glory of the Lord is definitively revealed and that which is partial and shadowy about OT revelation will be superseded by that which is final and real. Such prophecies are "eschatological" (having to do with last things) in the broadest sense.

Now, can we expect that eschatological prophecies will operate in exactly the same way as do OT histories and OT institutions? OT histories and institutions, when they involve symbolic typological overtones, have, as it were, two dimensions: the dimension of the symbol itself, and the dimension of what the symbol symbolizes. Moreover, the symbols do not merely symbolize some timeless spiritual truth. They are not merely vertically oriented. They also point forward in time, at least indirectly, to the same period which is the concern of eschatological prophecy. The two dimensionality is bound up with the fact that OT revelation is preliminary and shadowy in character.

Eschatological prophecy may indeed have the same two dimensions: the dimension of the symbol in itself, and the dimension of what the symbol symbolizes. But the time of fulfillment of the eschatological prophecy is the time of climactic revelation. Hence, it may well be that, at that future time, the symbol is superseded by the reality, and no longer needs a separate historical realization along side the reality.

37. The temple as a type

We may take as an example the temple: the temple of Solomon, the postexilic temple built under Zerubbabel, the temple envisioned in Ezekiel 40-48, and prophecies of the Messiah as temple builder (Zech 6:12-13). Everyone agrees that the temple is a symbolic, typological institution within the bounds of the OT. It is the house of God, symbolizing God's dwelling with human beings. It is modeled after God's dwelling in heaven (1 Kgs 8:29-30, Exod 25:40). It is a "copy and shadow" of heavenly things (Heb 8:5). It points "vertically" to God's dwelling in heaven, but also points forward to the eschatological time when God's dwelling with men will be fully realized.

Everyone would, I hope, also agree that Christ's own body is the temple of God (John 2:21; cf. John 1:14). And they will say that the church corporately and Christians individually are a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 3:16, Eph 2:21, 1 Cor 6:19).

The question now is whether or not the church and Christians are related to a prophecy like that in Zech 6:12-13. First of all, note that Christ himself is related to Zech 6:12-13. The resurrection of Christ alluded to in John 2:21 is surely part of the fulfillment of Zech 6:12-13, because all the promises of God find fulfillment in Christ (2 Cor 1:20). Now what about Christians? Christians are raised with Christ (Eph 2:6), and Christ himself, who is the temple of God, is dwelling in them (Rom 8:10). That is the sense in which Christians are a temple. Hence how can we avoid saying that Christians also are part of the fulfillment of the temple-building prophecy of Zech 6:12-13)?

Consider now the type of fulfillment that takes place in the NT. In the NT era, do we now need a second dimension of symbolism, a temple of material stones? In the OT there were two dimensions, "literal" (temple of stone) and typological-spiritual (the spiritual reality of God's communing with human beings, now realized in the resurrection and the sending of the Holy Spirit). If there were two dimensions then, shouldn't there be two dimensions now? But that reaction overlooks the theme of the book of Hebrews. According to Hebrews, that which is shadowy (temple of stone) can be "abolished" when it is superseded by the perfect (Heb 10:9).

Of course, the NT era itself does not contain the fullest and richest possible realization of God's promises. That fullness comes in the new Jerusalem, in the new heaven and the new earth. In that situation, there remains a material, "earthly" component. Those who are saved are not then disembodied spirits, but people with resurrection bodies dwelling in a city that it simultaneously a holy of holies, a temple. We shall consider that more at length in the next chapter.

For the moment, it is sufficient that we appreciate some of the challenges that are introduced by the interpretation of symbolic and typological overtones in the OT. Dispensationalists readily agree that these types foreshadow truths concerning Christ and believers in the NT. So types are a natural starting point for a discussion with dispensationalists. Since grammatical-historical interpretation will find the same symbolic, typological significance within prophecy, it shows how prophecy also has an organically unified relation to NT believers. Typological relations cannot merely be dismissed as a secondary application.

The major weakness of classic dispensationalist interpretive theory, at this point, has been to have neglected the integration of typological interpretation with grammatical-historical interpretation.

38. A limit to grammatical-historical interpretation

One more difficulty arises in relation to typology. It is this. As I argued in the previous chapter, the significance of a type is not fully discernible until the time of fulfillment. The type means a good deal at the time. But it is open-ended. One cannot anticipate in a vague, general way how fulfillment might come. But the details remain in obscurity. When the fulfillment does come, it throws additional light on the significance of the original symbolism.

In other words, one must compare later Scripture to earlier Scripture to understand everything. Such comparison, though it should not undermine or contradict grammatical-historical interpretation, goes beyond its bounds. It takes account of information not available in the original historical and cultural context. Hence, grammatical-historical interpretation is not enough. It is not all there is to interpretation. True, grammatical-historical interpretation exercises a vital role in bringing controls and refinements to our understanding particular texts. But we must also undertake to relate those texts forward to further revelation which they anticipate and prepare for.

Now, this is important because dispensationalist statements about interpretation have almost always omitted it. In fact, dispensationalists have frequently rejected nondispensationalist interpretation on the ground that it is "reading the NT back into the OT." Well, that way of putting it makes it sound bad. It sounds as if the OT doesn't really support that "reading back." And sometimes, no doubt, dispensationalists are right. Some people's "reading back" has virtually wiped out the influence of grammatical-historical interpretation of the OT.

But let us not escape the difficulties too easily. Dispensationalists themselves do something very like this when they use typology. They do it also when they form a "prophetic system" that depends on an integrated interpretation of texts from many different parts of the Bible. All interpreters are bound to do something like this when they reckon with the fact that the Bible has one divine author, so that we may expect an unified and self-consistent message from beginning to end.

Hence, I want to appeal to dispensationalists to do two things: (a) to develop a conception of grammatical-historical interpretation that takes seriously symbolic and typological overtones of both OT history and OT prophecy; (b) to be willing to enrich the results of grammatical-historical interpretation with insights that derive only from considering earlier and later Scriptures together. And they must learn to do step (b) not only when it is a matter of typology within OT historical passages, but when it is a matter of typological or allusive material within OT prophetic passages.

I think that some modified dispensationalists are already doing this. One can do this and still maintain that in the future millennial period, there will be relatively "straight-forward" fulfillments of most eschatological prophecies. For me, that is not the most important question. What is more important is whether we are able to affirm that here and there we have fulfillment of prophecy in Christians and in the church. That has been one of the bones of contention in the past. Further reflection on problems with typology may therefore help to bring us together.