English Baptist history, so there's nothing left. So I figured we could talk about typology for a couple of reasons. I think it's just where we're at in our 1689 study on the covenants and Todd's been at the end of Luke and you have Jesus talking about how the scriptures point to him and opening the eyes of the disciples to comprehend the scriptures. So I just thought it would be a good time to talk about typology. It's something I've been reading about the past year, and so I'm familiar with it. But before we get into it, I did want to point out a couple of resources. Steven lent me this book. It's called Typos. It's by Leonard Gopelt. I think that's how you say his name. He goes through in the Gospels, Acts, and then Paul's letters, kind of where the types and anti-types appear, and he explains them. And then there's this book, which is not on types, but he's got a helpful chapter on types called Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. So that was really helpful to me. Also, there will be some Samuel Rinehan quotes, Mystery of Christ, you've heard that. That's a good resource as well. I think his second chapter is on typology. And then a more historical work, since I'm the historical Baptist guy, there's a work called Tropologia by Benjamin Keech. It's essentially the same thing as typos, but it's harder to understand since it's old. And it's about 2,000 pages, but he just goes through and he explains types and metaphors in scripture. That was a helpful thing for me to consult, and I've got a few quotes from that. So to get started, I wanted to start in Hebrews 10. So if you want to turn there, we'll read from Hebrews 1 through verse 18. All right, so Hebrews 10. For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come, instead of the true form of these realities, so this first verse is important, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins. But in these sacrifices, there is a reminder of sins every year, for it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body you have prepared for me, and burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. Then I said, behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book. When he said above, you have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings. These are offered according to the law. Then he added, behold, I have come to do your will. He does away with the first in order to establish the second. And by that, will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ. once for all. And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sin. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us, for after saying, this is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord, I will put my laws on their hearts and write them on their minds. Then he adds, I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more. Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin. That's good news, by the way. So I want to start there because there's a couple places, and we'll touch on them all, that sort of make really clear in the New Testament this idea of shadows and types and anti-types. So I mentioned before I wanted to do this study because we just finished Covenants on Wednesday night. We just finished chapter 7 of the 1689. I think a few weeks ago when we were in Galatians with Stephen, he had mentioned the types and Paul's metaphor, his allegory, which I think is really more typological than allegory, with the two covenants, with the two offsprings, remember Hagar and Sarah. So I thought this was just, it was a good thing to kind of dive into. And I think most of us probably know when we hear types and shadows, we could probably give a decent explanation. I'll ask, what is typology? Does anyone know? The hint is in the word, ology, type. What? Study of types, okay, that's good, yeah. So if you look it up, Webster says it's the doctrine of theological types, but yes, it's the study of types and symbols And I think Beal, again, I mentioned his book, he was really helpful, so I'll be referencing him a lot, but he gives a nice, concise definition. It's the study of analogical correspondence, which that just means things that relate to each other, among revealed truths about persons, institutions, and other things, so people, places, things, within the historical framework of God's special revelation, so within the Bible. We find types in the Bible. We don't find types outside of the Bible. We can talk about what makes a metaphor or an analogy different than a type. That would be one thing. As a metaphor, you could, I mean, that's what a sermon illustration is. You can compare something outside of the Bible to something in the Bible. But with types, we stick to the Bible. They're divine analogies. So Bill gives five aspects or I guess requirements for what makes a type. Which I guess before I get into that, we know what typology is. So I'll ask, what is a type? Does anyone know? Put that in your own words, what a type is. Q-Y-P-E? Yes. Yes. You know how to spell it? Rodney? Yes. Yeah, that's good. A picture of something. Yes. Yes. Right. One is the image. One's the actual thing. So if you look at the etymology of anti-type, anti, it may, that may be weird because when we think anti, we think like bad or negative. But the idea is anti-type literally meant to strike against. So think of like a stamp or an impression. So if you're at the beach and you slam your hand down in the sand, there's going to be the shape. There's going to be a handprint type. Your hand is what corresponds to it. It's what struck against. It's the anti-type. So it's the thing. It's the substance of the shadow. But yeah, so it's a good definition, Rodney. OK, so we know what a type is. So there's some rules with types. Again, it kind of distinguishes them from metaphors, from allegories. So Bill is helpful on this. The first thing is analogical correspondence. That, to me, is kind of funny, because analogical means the same thing as correspondence. An analogy is something that corresponds. It's kind of like chai tea. It's tea, tea. But it just means that the type and the anti-type relate to each other. So that's kind of the first thing you've got to figure out. We can't take things that don't relate to each other and declare them to be types. So just an example would be the sacrifices. This is what we read in Hebrews. The sacrifices point to Christ. There's an analogical correspondence in the fact that they were offered up as a sacrifice. Sacrifices in the Old Testament offered for the people of Israel to be clean within the land, so by law. And then Christ offered to cleanse sins inside, to actually cleanse our consciences, to make us clean and right before God. So there's a correspondence. So number two is historicity. This is something that Benjamin Keech really kind of obsesses on, but historicity just refers to the fact that these types and anti-types appear within the Bible, and more specifically within its historical framework or its historical narratives. King David, being a type of Christ, was an actual king that existed within historical narrative. Something that wouldn't be a type because of this historical aspect would be like the parables. The shepherd who goes after the one sheep, he's a metaphor. It's not a real shepherd. He does point to Christ, but there's no historical reality. He wasn't a specific character within the Old Testament. So that's kind of what makes it different than a metaphor. So when we think historicity, we should be thinking Adam, Noah, Abraham, right? In Galatians we've got Sarah, Hagar. These were all, these are all examples of people who were types, but they all existed in the Old Testament. Does that make sense? They're all historical, either people, places, or things. They weren't metaphors or poetry or anything like that. So, I guess another example of what wouldn't be a type would be the husband in Song of Solomon. If you take that to be a metaphor for Christ's love for his church, that's a metaphor, it's poetry. I mean, you might argue, I wouldn't argue that Song of Solomon is something that actually happened, but, so that would be a metaphor, or an allegory, but not a type. So the next thing, so we have analogical correspondence, they relate to each other, historicity, they appear in history, and a pointing forwardness is the next thing. So there's some element of the type that points forward. You're often left wanting when we encounter the type, so going back to the sacrifices, they could never truly make a person clean, they couldn't circumcise their hearts, so that would leave you wanting, there must be something greater. Although, and we'll get to this later, when Moses is writing about sacrifices, he may not know this is going to point exactly to the person of Jesus Christ. But the idea is that there's something left unfulfilled. And this is often true of prophecies in the Old Testament. And Jonathan and I were talking about this beforehand. you'll encounter prophecies in the Old Testament where they're quoted in the New Testament as being fulfilled in Christ or the church. And you go back and read and you're like, that's not what this is talking about. Or it's talking about something more local. It's talking about not King Jesus, it's talking about a king in Israel. But there's often something about that prophecy that that king at the time doesn't fulfill. So there's a pointing forwardness. the sacrifices weren't this final sufficient solution. So that's the point is that there's an anti-type that will fulfill totally. whatever this problem, this prophecy, function, whatever it is. So analogical correspondence, historicity, pointing forwardness. The next one is escalation. So escalation, this is an important one to understanding types. It just means that the reality of the anti-type is greater than the reality of the type. So Christ, obviously, is greater than the Passover lamb. We would much rather dine at Christ's table, and then at the Passover. That's not to say that the Passover wasn't good, it's just that the thing that fulfilled that which prefigured the anti-type is much greater. Christ is much greater than any of the types. And then just another note, Seymour Anaheim brings this out in Mystery of Christ, but it's important to note when we think of types escalating, we shouldn't think of an anti-type and a type existing on a spectrum. So it's not just that the types get better. They're actually other. There's something about them that is different. So Christ, being the fulfillment of the Passover lamb, is not merely just a better lamb that we eat, right? He's the God-man. His sacrifice was not for a festival or a feast. but it was offered up as a propitiation that wiped us clean. So greater and other, remember that. And then lastly, the last thing that Beal brings out is that there's an element of retrospection. And he's kind of hard it's hard to interpret kind of what he means about this because at least in this book he Kind of he puts it out there, and he doesn't really in my opinion. He doesn't do a good job of explaining it, but I think he's talking about the hermeneutics of types antitypes, so It's this idea that without the antitype if you encountered a type so the sacrifices in the Old Testament you might not be able to predict the anti-type or connect it until you have the anti-type. So this is the benefit that the Apostles had learning from Christ. Having been with Him, walked with Him, they could more easily look back and determine which types connect to the anti-type. what in the Old Testament pointed to Christ, to the church, to its ordinances, to Christ's kingdom. Whereas if you don't have the New Testament and you're reading the Old Testament, you might not make some of these connections. So those are Beal's five, I know that's a lot, this whole study is probably going to be a lot, but I'm hoping it'll be helpful. So those are his five, I guess, keys to what makes a type. And also, I know I don't have a handout or anything like this, but afterwards, if you want my notes, I can definitely send them to you. Okay, so that's Beal. Then I do want to mention Keech, because we have to, because he's a particular Baptist. He's one of our forefathers. But in Tropologia, he talks about types. He kind of gets, I don't want to say he gets stuck, but he spends a lot of time on the historicity point. So I'm going to read a couple of things from him. Maybe that will help kind of make that part more clear. So remember historicity is the types appear in historical framework of the Bible. And antitypes also appear within the New Testament. We're not going outside of the Bible for antitypes either. So Keats, on Types, Keats says, they suppose the verity, which means truth, of some history, and his example is Jonah. So as Jonah's being three days and three nights in the whale's belly, when it is applied to Christ in the New Testament, it supposeth such a thing was once done. So if you didn't catch that, what he's saying is, Because Jonah, specifically being in the whale's belly three days, is applied to Christ in the New Testament. Remember, Jesus says that just as Jonah was in the whale's belly for three days and three nights, so shall the Son of Man be in the belly of the earth three days and three nights. So in the New Testament, we have that Christ actually died and was in what Paul calls the lower regions of the earth for three days and three nights, or for three days. And because that actually happened, because what Jonah did, is applied to that, we would suppose that Jonah actually was in the whale's belly three days and three nights. So again, these aren't metaphors. We're not arguing that Jonah, well that's just a metaphor for death, and then Christ applies it to himself. Jonah is actually a type of Christ that points to the anti-type, Christ. Specifically in that instance, Jonah actually in the whale's belly three days, three nights. Christ actually in the earth for three days. Does that make sense? I know this might be kind of a weird... Yes, Jonathan. Yeah, that's a good question. Yeah, I'll get to that. But yes, so types don't just have to have a positive-positive connection. It can be a negative action of a type can correspond to a positive action of an anti-type. Yeah, that's a great. And we're going to get to Adam. Another one would be Israel is tested in the wilderness. They fail. Who else is tested in the wilderness? Christ. And he succeeds. Type anti-type. So just to nail this down, Keech continues, types only look to matter of fact and compare one fact and another. Christ being slain, lying three days in the grave, to Jonah's lying so long in the well's belly. So just to nail that down, and I think he does this because Tropologia deals with metaphors and types, so he's trying to distinguish what makes a metaphor, what makes a type. So hopefully that's clear. on that point. So Keech also says, and I like this quote, and you'll see why, but he says, but where the ceremonies and types of the Old Testament are called shadows, so that's what we read in Hebrews, with respect to Christ, and he also references Colossians 2, and I'll read that. He says, it is not to be understood that they are naturally so, but artificially. And like a picture, for painters, first draw a shadow or an umbretal kind of delineation. And afterwards, perfect their picture with lively colors, the former vanishing out of sight. And you see why I like this quote is because I'm an artist. So the idea here is shadow would be, if you've ever taken a painting class, which maybe you have, maybe you haven't, I have, or maybe watched somebody on YouTube, but somebody kind of more technical, more professional, they'll start with the shadows. They'll start with, it's called blocking out the picture. It's called an underpainting, but you'll have just kind of, I mean there literally are shadows, but if you're painting a house and on a hillside, you'll have the house kind of as this blob of paint, darker paint. Maybe you block out the hillside, but there are no details. And so the picture is, as the painter continues, he adds details, and what you end up with is a painting with multiple colors, multiple details, multiple subjects. When you started with basically using one color, it's all blurry. It's not clear. It doesn't have a figure or form until you start to add that. And then the point there is that once you have that which is figured, the anti-type, the type is no more. You don't go back and talk about how great the underpainting was. you admire the painting. So that's a good metaphor for typology. And so Teach continues on that point, so it was with the sacrifices and ceremonies of the ancients which figured Christ and ceased when he came, which explication is evident by the opposition of shadows in the very image of things. So again, just driving down that point that once the anti-type arrives, once Christ is here, we have no need for the ceremonies. We have no need for circumcision. Remember, circumcision is of no gain. And he referenced Colossians 2, so I wanted to read that. Colossians 2, starting in verse 16. Therefore, let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival, or a new moon, or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. So you see that relationship there, what we're talking about? The Sabbath, the new moons, the festivals, they had their roles, so we'll get to that. We're not saying that they were useless and they merely pointed to Christ, but that they were just a shadow pointing to Christ. So once Christ comes, we don't need the shadow, the thing that pointed to it. So, in short, again, I know that's a lot, but types are people, places, things that serve as a divine analogy which escalates. Types are in the Old Testament, anti-types we see in the New Testament. Types are shadows of things to come, and anti-types are the greater and final fulfillment of those things. So, I'm going to stop there, and just before we go on and ask it, Does anyone have any questions? Again, I know this is a lot. Might be... Why are we Sabbatarians? So I think in Colossians 2, 16, Sabbath there is not necessarily talking about the Sabbath. I think there were Sabbath days, certain festivals and things you would do on the Sabbath. But I am a Sabbatarian because Maybe not strict, but it's a creation ordinance. So God gave the Sabbath in the garden. It's part of his moral law. It's part of the Ten Commandments. So it's not, to me, the typological function of the Sabbath. I wouldn't really say it's a type. I think it still exists in the New Testament. I think there are aspects of it that point to, maybe there's a typological aspect of it that points to rest in Christ. But I think we're still supposed to rest. I don't think that part of the moral law... Again, Paul is talking more about ceremonial law and things like that, so that would be my answer. I don't know if... That was a good question. I don't know if somebody has a better answer, but... Yeah, so I would just say he's talking more about these ceremonial Sabbaths that... I think it actually is plural. Colossians 2, 16, I think it's Sabbaths. Well, there you go. There's your answer. So yeah. All right. A few additional notes, because I do want to get to Atom. I want to spend some time on Atom as a type. I just want to make sure we've got our typology straight. So that's why I'm spending so much time on this. Yeah? Could you talk a little bit more about how when it terminates, you said it's no longer necessary I think just when we we see Paul talking about circumcision and how he talks and I mean circumcision in this ceremonial Old Testament type way is we're not required to keep it anymore. It's of no value. So I guess you can still keep the Passover, but I think Paul would just say it's of no value because we have what the Passover pointed to. Yes, John. So I would, I think with the ordinances, they're more anti-types. They do point to Christ. But for example, remember Peter talks about the flood corresponding to baptism. So I think you have a type-anti-type relationship there. So I would view the ordinances of having, they take on the anti-type role. I mean, I don't know if you could say you have like an ultra-anti-type. Correspondence and that they do point to Christ, but there are things that Christ obviously we have the command to follow them out until he comes back But Yeah, I think so. And I think with communion, we have like the Passover meal. I think that is also a type of, I mean, it's where we celebrate, or they celebrated the Passover lamb. We celebrate Christ's death and resurrection and our salvation in him. So yeah, I mean, I think when you're looking at types and anti-types, to keep it simple, types are the Old Testament, anti-types are the New Testament, I wouldn't make the argument that there's then like a new type within the ordinances and things like that in the New Testament that will point to anti-types, you know, in the new creation. Maybe, but that's just, I think, again, it's important to stick with how Christ interprets, how the Apostles interpret the Old Testament, so we're pulling That's maybe not a great way of saying it, but pulling Christ out of the Old Testament. We're not really worried about how these things we're doing now might point typologically to the new creation. We don't have a lot to go off there, but that's a good question. I see your point. But I think it's okay for anti-types that aren't specifically Christ to point to Christ, right? That's the idea. If you're determining things are types and anti-types, those anti-types, like, they must point to Christ. They must be related to Him. So we shouldn't spend time with things like, is the Ark of the Covenant a type for Mary as the anti-type? Or, you know, something like that. I mean, you could come up with some crazy comparisons and I think my warning is if you're not getting back to Christ, if you're not finding Him in the Old Testament, then you're kind of wasting your time. And that's not the purpose of typology. That was a good question. Anything else before I move on? Yes. Yeah. Right, yeah, and I think that's like, I think when Christ again is on the road to Emmaus and then when he's with the disciples and he opens their eyes, I think this is probably part of what he's talking about. I think prophecies and types are where we find Christ in the Old Testament. So yeah, if you're spending time about, well, does something in the Old Testament prefigure Peter or Mary or Joseph? That's not the point. I don't think Christ was spending time on the road to Emmaus talking about the Ark of the Covenant. prefiguring Mary, because our hope's not in Mary. Our hope is in Christ. And another note is I think something important with typology is that it takes place within a covenant framework. And so you have these types that are under these covenants, related to the covenants. What are the covenants? Well, God is condescended, right, to make a covenant with man. And ultimately, the covenants lead to the new covenant, which is headed by Christ. So it all has to focus on Christ. Does that answer your question? Yeah, I would definitely say it's speculation to get stuck on things like Mary and the Ark of the Covenant. Moranahan, yeah, he says that if typology gets away from Christ, then it's not typology. So to him, central to the definition of typology is Christ, which is good. We'd rather talk about Christ than, you know, what myths and genealogies, what does Paul say? Yeah. Yes. Yeah, no, that's a good example of that wouldn't be typology because that's outside of the Bible. Joe Biden's not in the New Testament. I mean, could they serve as metaphors? Probably not intentionally, but yeah, don't waste your time on that stuff. That's not because remember, Ultimately, the Holy Spirit has authored these types, so he gets to determine the anti-types, and to say that Saul could be Joe Biden is just insanity. So a few additional notes on types just before we get to Adam. We touched on it in our Wednesday night group, but one aspect coming from a Baptist perspective as opposed to like a Westminster Presbyterian is that types and anti-types, we can't flatten that relationship. And what I mean by that is just because the sacrifices point to Christ, they did have their own function in their covenant. I mentioned earlier they made you clean in the land of Canaan. You could be brought back before the people. You didn't have to be cast out because you had been atoned for, but again it doesn't do what Christ does when he gives us a new heart, right? So those sacrifices didn't give the people a new heart. They did point to Christ their need for a new heart, but that doesn't mean that they were, aside from that, useless. So we shouldn't say Because of sacrifices, because a type points to the anti-type, that type functions as the anti-type. Does that make sense? They have their own function. Yeah, I don't know. If that's not clear, let me know. But that's just something that comes up in the discussion of the covenants with Baptists and Presbyterians. It's just sort of a difference in our typology. And then another thing is something we've already talked about, but types terminate in their anti-types. So once the anti-type has come, the type is no more. There's a good quote by Hercules Collins. He's a particular Baptist. And I told Aspen that our next child, we're going to name him Hercules Collins Gage. Such a good name. He's not on board yet. So he says about types and anti-types, the substance being come, so the anti-type, the substance which is Christ, the substance being come, the shadow flies away. That's a catchy way to remember that. So Christ having come, the sacrifices fly away. And then I want to read from Galatians 5. I think this is kind of, Paul is kind of nailing down this idea. So Galatians 5.1 says, For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm therefore and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Look, I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. So this kind of gets to Stephen's question of should we do the Passover? I think Paul would just say there's no advantage. We have the one that the Passover pointed to. Verse 3 says, I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law, you have fallen away from grace. So here's a really kind of real example of why the types terminate in their anti-types. You wouldn't go back under the law because the law is useless, because we have Christ who cannot be justified by the law. That's why Christ came. So take advantage of the type, or the anti-type, not the type. And again, this isn't to say that types are bad. They were good that we had them, that they pointed to Christ. It's just now that we have the anti-type, types are terminated. So what are the roles of a type? And I'll ask the class this. So we know what typology is. We know what types are. I've mentioned it. But what's the point? What's their purpose? Is studying this knowing types, anti-types, is it of any advantage to us, to use Paul's words? It does. It does strengthen our faith. Yes, yes, those are both correct. So, yes, it strengthens our faith when we are able to look back in the Old Testament and see Christ there, to see what we believe. What's written about in the New Testament didn't just come out of nowhere, right? And yes, it provides continuity. And I think that's one of the bigger, I guess, benefits to studying this. It kind of brings the Old Testament, I don't want to say to life, I know that's cliche, but it sheds some light on the Old Testament. And again, I think this is kind of what Christ is talking about probably to the disciples in Luke 24, what we've been, what Todd's been preaching on the past two weeks. Remember, he says, or it says, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures, the things concerning himself. I mean, that's gonna be prophecies, obviously. There's gonna be things like the suffering servant in Isaiah, but I think that's probably also the types in the Old Testament. He says, everything written about me and the law of Moses and the prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled. And he opened their minds to understand the scriptures. So, yeah, it strengthens our faith definitely. So I do encourage you to, when you're reading the Old Testament and you come across figures like Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, even Solomon, look for those typological relationships, those typological aspects. And again, there's a warning to not just go crazy with it. That's why I wanted to bring up all these rules and things like that. Alright, so this kind of brings up the question, and I know you know the answer, but are types a legitimate way of understanding the Old Testament and its connection to the New Testament? That might sound like a weird question, but I ask that because there are people who, kind of more in the academic world, that would say about types and prophecies. Well, when you have these things show up in the New Testament, and you go back and read them in the Old Testament, it almost seems like they're taking it out of context. Or, there's no way Moses would have known that the sacrifices would point to Christ. So, should this be allowed, And so, I guess another way of asking that is, do the Old Testament authors have to have an understanding of the type, anti-type? So, when Moses is receiving the law, when he's writing down all the sacrifices, does he have to know that those were going to point to the person of Christ? Rod? Yeah, I mean, I think you're right. I think that there is, I mean, we know Abraham knew a lot more than we have written down about him in the Old Testament. I think definitely when you have in the garden, when God's cursing the serpent, prophesying the seed that, yeah, they know that there's a Messiah coming. That's something that's consistent throughout the Old Testament, but I think when we're talking about something as a type. So the Passover meal or the flood. Does Moses, when he's writing that down, know that that's going to correspond to something called, you know, Christian baptism? Yeah, probably not. Maybe. But the point is that for the type-anti-type relationship to exist, the Old Testament authors don't need an exhaustive understanding. Jonathan, you're right. I do think sometimes they may have they're seeing the shadows, right? They're seeing the shadows of the figure, the substance, but they don't see the substance clearly, because that's what progressive revelation is. It becomes more and more clear until it is, you can't argue with it in the New Testament. So I think if that kind of idea of, well, we shouldn't, if the Old Testament authors didn't know, then we shouldn't be, you know, kind of placing this interpretation on them. If that's what you're thinking, hopefully not. One way to think about it is that, for one, we have the example in the New Testament. This is a legitimate hermeneutic. So, I mean, that would be my answer of, is this a legitimate way? Well, of course it is, because that's what Christ and the Apostles, that's how they're interpreting it. But thinking of it this way, if the Holy Spirit is the ultimate author of the Old Testament types, led Moses to write what he did, he's also the ultimate, infallible, and final interpreter of those types. And that interpretation is found where? In the New Testament, as what? Antitypes. So it's legitimate because we have the example in the New Testament, and because the Holy Spirit, He is the ultimate author. He has authored these connections. This isn't just something we're, you know, we've kind of da Vinci coded, figured out about the Bible. Yes? The anti-types were all in the New Testament, or are they in the Old Testament as well? The anti-types would be in the New Testament, yes. So then people would know about Christ. Yeah, so that's when I was talking about the retrospection. That's that idea of you have Christ, so you're able to point back and say, oh, there's a connection there. And then sometimes Paul is helpful and he'll just give us, you know, Adam is a type and we don't have to make that for that conclusion for ourselves. So that does bring up the question, should we use this typological hermeneutic? So looking for types in the Old Testament, should we use that hermeneutic where scripture is silent on it? So another way of asking would be, can we say that Noah is a type of Christ? Because Paul tells us Adam's a type of Christ. We have quotations about David when the Psalms are applied to Christ. But what about Noah? Noah, as far as I can remember, is never identified as a type. So can we say he's a type of Christ? Yeah, I would agree 100%. I think, again, we've got to be careful. There are things to consider, but yeah, I think it's the example given to us. I think for the Apostles, this wasn't just a gimmick that Jesus gave them, but it's kind of the key to the Old Testament, to finding Christ in the Old Testament. I do think he's all over. Now, I think there's two ditches you can fall into. An example, not a great example, but Spurgeon, often when you read him, he finds Jesus in everything, and he's got, obviously he had a good heart, and he's a lot smarter than me, so maybe Jesus is in everything, but there are some times where you'll read him and he's like, huh, how did you, you know, Jesus isn't under every single rock in the Old Testament. But the other dish would be saying, well, we can't say no as a type because, you know, Paul didn't tell us he was a type, Peter didn't tell us he was a type. So I do think, yeah, we can look for some typological relationships in the Old Testament that the New Testament might not specifically bring out. Otherwise, I think you've got like four or five places you could go and that's it. So another thing to consider since we've decided, and I hope we're all in agreement, but if we're not that's okay, that we can use this hermeneutical principle is, I said it before, but we've got to make sure the typology centers on Christ. If you're going outside of that and you're starting to talk about Mary, pump the brakes. So Samuel Renahan, he's got a good quote in Mystery of Christ about this. He says, typology without Christ at its center, I referenced this before, he says, typology without Christ at its center is concerned with something other than the mystery of Christ, his kingdom, his covenant, and his kingdom, which is also the title of the book, and is therefore by definition not typology. So it's not an allegorical tool that we can just run wild with. It is the hermeneutic of Christ and the apostles to show that the Old Testament pointed in many ways and many times to Christ and his kingdom and the church. I think it's fair to say that but along the way Yes, yeah, that's right Yes, yes that is the other key is the spirit yes revealing I like the prophets were inquiring and searching what the spirit of Christ was telling them about the sufferings. I'm paraphrasing, but yeah, all throughout to your point earlier, it was the spirit in the Old and New Testaments making these things known. Yeah. Yes. Yeah, I think that's right yeah, it's just another aspect another I think the way that the spirit points us to the anti-types and the types, yeah. I mean, that's kind of the idea that there's got to be correspondence, right? And a lot of times you find that, yeah, they're talking, they're spoken of in the same ways, as if they have the same effect. Yeah, I think you're exactly right I've got several more pages on Adam. So we might have to save that but I I'll introduce it and then we can pick it up next time. So I do want to look at in the next 10 minutes at Adam and the plan was to do Adam and then do Noah the next time and if I get another time we can do Moses since Stephen's spending so much time on Abraham. I was gonna ask, in what ways does Adam prefigure Christ? And I'll ask that, just in what ways is Adam, so he's the type, Christ is the anti-type, and what kind of connections can you make? Maybe we'll end with this. He is a real man. Yes, he prefigures a real man that would come. Federal head, okay, that's the big one. Where would you go? Yeah, you go to Romans 5, and what does Paul say? He says in verse 14, "...yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come." That's very plainly given to us. What else? What other ways? Yes. Yeah, it's the gift or what was obtained by the federal heads. So yeah, one transgression brought death, and the other, Paul says, after lots of transgressions, he lives the perfect life, and he brings life, the gift of, Paul says, righteousness, the abundance of grace. He delivers that to those who are in him. Yeah, they're both federal heads, and they both obtain something for their people. What about Adam was tested, tempted in the garden? Christ was tempted in the wilderness. Yeah. So you have Satan coming to both Adam and Christ. trying to get them to both eat. Remember, Eve sees that the fruit is good for food. Satan's saying, did God really say? Surely you're not going to die. He tries to get Jesus, hey, just turn these rocks into bread. You're the Son of God. What else? He He dismisses the consequence of falling to temptation. So with Adam and Eve, God says to Adam, if you eat, you'll surely die. And Satan says, you will not surely die. In Matthew 4, when Christ is being tempted, Satan tells Christ, you know, throw yourself off. If you're the Son of God, the angels will save you. And he ignores, right, Satan dismisses this consequence of, well, what if Jesus did do that? He disobeys the Father, and he allies with Satan, and where does that leave us? We're dead forever. We have no hope. But the good news is, this is kind of what Jonathan, you brought it up, where Adam fails in his test, Christ succeeds. And so there is a typological connection even though there's a negative aspect with Adam, positive aspect with Christ. So I'll, we can wrap up and I'll end with, I wanna read from Colossians 1. And I wanna end here because my hope, I know this is a lot of information, but my hope is that by studying this, by seeing Christ in the Old Testament, it's what the book of Hebrews is trying to nail down for us, we see Christ's preeminence. That's the, the ESV gives that heading for Colossians 115, I think it's a good one. So when we see these types, these shadows, we should be even more in awe when we encounter the substance, the anti-types, Christ. So Colossians 115, I'll read through verse 20 and then we'll wrap up. It says, He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities, all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body of the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, and everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. I know a church in the Mobile area that once a year has a Seder dinner. I've not seen it. I don't want to be unfairly critical having not seen it, but my question would be why? And again, you heard me say we don't need to be unfairly critical. Yeah. No, absolutely, and that's why I wanted to end there, is when we study these relationships, you know, the goal, the hope is that you are more in awe of the anti-type than the type. Yeah, we've got the anti-type infinitely better. You made a statement about how did Spurgeon find Christ under every rock, because Christ is a rock. Christ is a rock. Yes, that is true. Spurgeon and Robert Hawke are both yeah but again that's it's coming from a good place and I'd rather you find you know look for Christ right be looking for Christ all right all right let's pray Father, we thank you for this time that we've got to come to your house to worship you, to gather with one another. We thank you for the hermeneutics of the apostles. We thank you for giving us the spirit to understand, to rightly divide your word. We do pray that you would give us discernment as we read and study your scriptures on our own. not be afraid to just get with one another to discuss these things. And we are so thankful for Christ, all these types and things in the Old Testament that point to Him. It's so clear how how much better he is, how much better it is that we don't have to make yearly sacrifices, but that we have the one, once for all, the final sacrifice, Christ's death on the cross, and we're so thankful that you raised him from the dead, that he succeeded where Adam failed. He's bringing his people into paradise where Adam was kicked out of paradise, Lord. Pray you'd be with us for the rest of today. Pray that you'd be with us the rest of the service that our worship would be pleasing and honoring and glorifying to you. And I pray all this in Christ's holy name. Amen.