| The Christian Life | February 1940 |
Types—Their Relationship to Sound Doctrine
PASTOR RUSSELL said (1910), “Bearing fruit does not consist in imagination and making of all sorts of types. I am sorry to see such a tendency of some to make types out of everything and to take their own minds as well as the minds of others from the more important things. I am afraid the adversary is behind some of this type-making. Stick to the types explained in the Scriptures.”
It would seem that some persons can see types in everything, and others fail to see any. Some are disposed to think so lightly of types as to doubt if they can be classed under sound doctrine, while others freely use them to teach doctrines. Is it not important, then, to examine the Scriptures carefully for the purpose of discovering its unquestionable testimony on the subject? Surely this is one of the matters that should be taken into consideration in our endeavor to be guided by the apostle’s counsel in writing to Timothy, when he said: “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in these things: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.”—I Tim. 4:16
Paul also wrote to Timothy to hold fast to the “form” or “pattern” of sound [Greek, “healthful”] words—to hold them in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. (II Tim. 1:13) After being in the race course for some thirty years, events had transpired that caused Paul to further instruct Timothy to charge “some” (certain men) to teach “no other doctrine,” nor to give heed to “endless genealogies”—for some had “missed the mark” by turning aside unto vain talking, instead of seeking the end of the commandment, which is love out of a pure heart and a good conscience and unfeigned faith.—I Tim. 1:3-10
To Titus Paul wrote that he was to appoint elders in every city, specifying those “holding fast the faithful word,” which is according to the teaching, so that they might exhort in sound doctrine, and convince the gainsayers. Others were to be “sharply reproved that they might be sound” in the faith, so that they would not give heed to the commandments of men. Titus was also admonished to speak sound doctrine to the aged men that they might be sound in the faith; and to all he was to show himself an example of good works, gravity, in unadulterated doctrine, sound speech that could not be condemned, so that even opposers might be ashamed, having no evil things to say against us. (Tit. 1:5-14; 2:1,2,7,8; 3:9,10) Additionally he was to shun certain questionings and genealogies, and various other subjects, as unprofitable and vain.
The movement was evidently abroad even in the early church in which the “serpent” in his craftiness, together with his able associates (I Tim. 4:2), was gradually undermining the Gospel by beguiling, diverting, corrupting its simplicity and purity in Christ. (II Cor. 11:3,13,14) Truth, knowledge, was to be imparted, and the church was expected to grow in it, but it was to be of the soul-satisfying, sanctifying kind, which is able to make “wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus”—“the word of His grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.”—II Tim. 3:15; John 6:63; 17:17; Acts 20:32
SCRIPTURAL TESTIMONY ON TYPES
In view of these many admonitions to hold fast to sound doctrine, what shall we say about the habit of making types out of nearly all the stories and historical accounts of the Bible? Does the Bible give us any instructions to guide us in this matter? We believe it does. The English word “type” does not actually occur at all in either the Common or Revised Version of the Bible; but Paul, Luke and Peter use an equivalent Greek word, typos, which Young defines as “type, model.” Translators have rendered this word variously as “example,” “ensample,” “pattern,” and “figure.” Following are texts in which the Greek word typos is thus translated. As we read the texts let us note carefully the manner in which the inspired writers use the word:
“Brethren, be ye followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample [typos].”—Phil. 3:17
“Ye … received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Spirit: so that ye were ensamples [typos] to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia.”—I Thess. 1:6,7
“We … wrought … that we might not be chargeable to any of you … but to make ourselves an ensample [typos] unto you to follow us.”—II Thess. 3:8,9
“Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example [typos] of the believers, in word, in conversation [manner of life], in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity.”—I Tim. 4:12
“See, saith He [God], that thou make all things according to the pattern [typos] shewed to thee in the mount.”—Heb. 8:5
“Neither as being lords over God’s heritage but, being ensamples [typos] to the flock.”—I Pet. 5:3
“Ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures [typos] which ye made to worship them.”—Acts 7:43
It will be noted in these quotations that the words “example,” “ensample,” “figures,” manifestly express the writer’s intent and the Young’s definition, “model,” would neatly fit in all cases. Another instance in which the word typos appears, is:
“Death reigned … over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure [typos] of Him that was to come.” (Rom. 5:14) Rotherham, the Syriac and the Diaglott translations use the word “type” in this verse. Now, say some, surely here is a Scriptural basis for considering all the Old Testament characters as being types, and all of their experiences as typical of things to occur on a still larger scale in the antitype. But let us not be too hasty in such a conclusion. If we read more into the apostle’s words concerning Adam being a type of Christ than the inspired writer indicates, we get into serious difficulty. It would mean that the bride of Christ will entice Him, even as Eve enticed Adam; and the sin of both Adam and Eve will be carried out on a still more tragic scale in the experiences of Christ and His church. This, of course, is unreasonable. It is evident that Paul’s reference to Adam as a type of Christ is limited to one point; namely, his headship over the human family. In this office of headship, Adam was a type of a second Head, the Lord from heaven, through whom deliverance is to come.—Rom. 8:21-23; Titus 3:5; Matt. 19:28; I Cor. 15:45. See also W.T. Reprints, pp. 1388 and 3655.
PAUL’S TESTIMONY CONCERNING ALLEGORIES
Evidently the Scriptural usage of the word “type” is somewhat at variance with the accepted thought by some, which is rather more exactly expressed by Paul’s word “allegory,” occurring but once (Gal. 4:24), and which is defined as “a description of one thing under the image of another.” Some feel very confident that they have found a basis for this typical, allegorical method of Scripture interpretation in I Corinthians 10:6,11, which we here quote:
“Now these things were our examples [typos], to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted,” and:
“Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples [typos]: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world [ages] are come.”
A consideration of the entire passage in which these texts are found indicates that it is in the nature of a warning to all believers, especially the over-confident (vs. 12), to be whole-heartedly and unswervingly sincere in carrying out their covenant of sacrifice, lest they tempt Christ (vs. 9) by murmuring, or by lusting for sinful things (vs. 7,8,10) and thereby, like the Israelites, fall under condemnation. (vs. 5,8,9,10) Rather, we should seek to please God (vs. 5), flee forbidden things (vs. 14), and appeal unto the faithful God Who will abundantly aid (vs. 13), and Who, in great kindness, has had the experiences of unfaithful Israel recorded so that they may serve as an example, or model (typos), to the end that we should not do the same things. “For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest He also spare not thee.”—Rom. 11:21
In Hebrews, chapter 11, Paul again reviews Old Testament history and cites a long list of faithful witnesses, who “obtained a good report through faith,” and who, therefore, are examples, models, types, worthy of imitation. (Heb. 12:1) Some have insisted that Paul’s words, “written for our admonition upon whom the ends of the ages are come,” must refer exclusively to the end of the Gospel age; but this view does not hold true to all the apostle says on the matter. The same phrase is used by Paul in Hebrews 9:26, where he says, “But now once in the end of the age, hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.” No one can question but what this text refers to the end of the Jewish age.
THE ENDS OF THE AGES
In I Corinthians 10, where the apostle speaks of the “ends” of the ages, he uses the words “us” and “our” and thus clearly includes himself with the Corinthian brethren. Hence his admonitions must have had an application in his time—the end of the law dispensation, and the beginning of the Gospel dispensation. Furthermore, the exhortations which he bases upon the models and types of the Old Testament worthies, have been the property of the saints throughout the age, and therefore could not be limited to the end of the Gospel age. There are certain specific “visions,” of the truth that were kept “sealed” until the “time of the end.” when “meat in due season” was to be served to the household of faith by the returned Lord. This increase of light, obviously, enhances our appreciation of all truth; but to the extent that the Lord’s people have familiarized themselves with the faithful examples of the Old Testament, and with the unfaithful ones as well, those models have served either as inspirations to faithfulness or as warnings against unfaithfulness, to Christians at all times during the age.
Paul’s allegory in Galatians 4:21-31, drawn from the Lord’s specific instructions and miraculous manifestations to Abraham concerning Isaac, has led some to erroneously conclude that, therefore, all the Old Testament incidents, down to the smallest details, were so designed, overruled and recorded as to conceal an antitypical, allegorical significance, which under God’s guidance could later be interpreted. These mystic truths thus concealed are claimed to be of vastly greater importance than the events by which they were foreshadowed.
TYPE-MAKING IN THE PAST
Many, many volumes have been written on this basis. But is this a safe, sound, healthful and logical practice? Are deductions thus arrived at, really the teaching of God? It has been practiced by one after another throughout the age, but what has been the result? Did it help to bring about a healthy Christian growth in the hearts of God’s people? Was it manifestly profitable in a truly spiritual sense? Would it not be enlightening to hear brief testimonies of some historians and consecrated Christians on this subject? All historians agree that this system of interpretation was set in motion about the year 230, by Origen, the foremost writer of the third century. Concerning him, H.L. Hastings says:
“Modern higher criticism bears a strange resemblance to some theories and expositions in ages past. Let us go back to Origen and listen to a learned critic, an author of perhaps fifty volumes, the founder of a theological school, a man in whose extant writings more than two-thirds of the New Testament can be found. In his second sermon on Exodus, Origen gives us this striking exposition: ‘Pharaoh is the devil; the male and female children of the Hebrews are the rational and animal faculties of the soul; the midwives are the Old and New Testaments. Pharaoh’s daughter is the church; Moses is the Law, etc.’”
Seiss, the author says:
“The first and greatest cause for the decline and fall of faith in the Millennium, was the allegorical method of interpreting the Scriptures, which Origen set on foot, and which did more mischief than all its enemies. This system was injurious beyond everything else, casting darkness over the whole field of inspired truth, throwing uncertainty over all Christian hope, and, in the hands of its own author, makes the bride of Christ the daughter of the devil.”
Mosheim says:
“This unhappy method opened a secure retreat for all sorts of errors that a wild and irregular imagination could bring forth. One first forms conclusions as to how things ought to be, and then interprets the Scriptures to these conclusions. Origen was followed by a vast number of such interpreters in that age and succeeding ages, that overflowed the church and paralyzed the true teachings.”
Clarke says:
“Every friend of Christianity must lament that a man of so much learning and piety as Origen, was led to recommend such a plan of interpreting the Bible, which in many respects is the most futile, absurd and dangerous that can be possibly thought of and by which the sacred Scriptures could be made to say anything, everything, or nothing, according to the fancy, peculiar creed or whim of the interpreter.”
Milner says:
“A thick mist for ages pervaded the Christian world, supported by Origen’s manner of teaching. The learned alone were considered guides, implicitly to be followed. And the common people, when the literal sense was hissed off the stage, had nothing to do but to follow their authority, wherever it might lead them.”
Giekie says:
“Augustine [fifth century] has a sermon on Anna, which is a good specimen of allegorizing, which was in too great vogue in the early church. ‘The seven years of her married life are a symbol of the Law, the 84 years of her widowhood of the Gospel. The Law is only seven, while the apostles (12) who represent the Gospel, are 12 x 7 equals 84—that is, are twelve times more value.’”
Luther says:
“I insist on the so-called literal sense of the Scripture, which alone is the substance of faith and of Christian theology—which alone will sustain him in the hour of trouble and temptation—and which will triumph over sin and death, to the praise and glory of God. The allegorical sense is usually uncertain for it depends on human opinion only, on which, if a man lean, he will find no better than an Egyptian reed. Therefore, Origen, Jerome and similar of the fathers are to be avoided, with the whole of the Alexandrian school.”
Farrar says:
“All these views have their root in one and the same error—which consists of men bringing to the Bible their own self-made dogmas, instead of learning from its own simple and noble truthfulness, what the Bible is. Incredible is the misery and ruin which has been caused by the misinterpretation of Scripture that every passing word has been so miraculously inspired as to contain enigmatic and mystic senses. Infidelity is the natural outcome of false and exaggerated dogmas.”
DIFFICULTIES IN THE “INTERPRETATION” OF DETAILS
Little even in the recorded life of Abraham can well be carried beyond the words of Paul; that is, with the thought of using his experiences to teach doctrinal truths. What would Abraham’s father, his two brothers, or Lot picture? Or, what would be taught by his leaving Canaan for Egypt to escape a “grievous famine”? or his spineless compromise of Sarah with Pharaoh and Abimelech: their rebuke of Abraham after God’s intervention? or his, or Sarah’s or Isaac’s death?
What difficulty we would be in by trying to make a type out of every detail of Moses’ life. Moses did picture the “greater than Moses,” Christ; yet he did things that we cannot conceive would represent things in the life and ministry of Christ. For example, he lost his poise and struck the rock twice in an attempt to get water. (I Cor. 10:14) And what about his unavailing prayers to enter the promised land?—Deut. 3:23-28
And what about Aaron, the typical high priest? After he “saw” God (Exod. 24:9), he made a golden calf and joined Miriam in reprimanding Moses. Then there is David, who wrote, in the first person, so many prophecies concerning Christ. Surely we would find difficulty in trying to fit all of his experiences into a pattern that would type Christ in every detail. Not only did David displease God in connection with his domestic affairs, but he disobeyed the Lord also in his taking of a census, and thus caused the death of 70,000.—I Chron. 21:1-30
So we might go on citing illustrations to prove the folly of attempting to attach doctrinal and prophetic meaning to every detail in the lives of Old Testament characters. It is mere human assumption that insists that Old Testament history was written by God for this purpose. The use of the Old Testament in this manner depends, at the best, on mere guesswork—except, of course, where the inspired writers of the New Testament have made definite applications—and guesswork is a poor substitute for the Word of God, and time has proven that as the “heavens are higher than the earth,” so is a “thus it is written,” above theological speculation.
NAMES NOT ALWAYS SIGNIFICANT
Closely allied to types, allegories, is the supposition that the names of Old Testament persons and places must always have a prophetic significance. Some, indeed, do, because God arbitrarily changed the names of certain persons to make them fit with specific lessons He desired to teach. For example, the “valley of Jehoshaphat,” meaning “Jehovah hath judged,” is interpreted by the Lord to mean the “valley of decision.” (Joel 3:2,14) But such isolated instances of divine overruling is no justification for attempting to attach vital significance to all the personal and geographical names of the Old Testament.
Men and women in ancient times were no more able, without a miracle to aid them, to give names of prophetic import to their children than we are today. When the Lord desired that the name of a person should bear an important significance, He either chose the name Himself, gave instructions to the parents, or else changed names to suit His purpose. For example, Abram’s name was changed to Abraham; Sarai’s to Sarah; Jacob’s to Israel; Simon’s to Peter; and Isaac, John, and Jesus were named by the Lord before their birth.
It is interesting, of course, to consult a Bible Dictionary of proper names, and to note the meanings given, but an insistently fertile imagination can discern applications of these meanings no matter what the name may be; and usually these “interpretations” are based almost wholly on the interpreter’s own idea of what it ought to be.
“WRITTEN FOR OUR ADMONITION”
Twice the Word of God says that “the things written aforetime” were written for our admonition, instruction. (I Cor. 10:11; Rom. 15:4) Now just what is an admonition? It is defined thus: “An expression of authoritative advice or warning; a caution, forewarning, notification, gently or kindly yet seriously given; a counsel, a reminding, an advising against wrong practices or faults; an instruction in duties.” In what great mercy and love the Heavenly Father has had recorded for us a series of examples, types, models, of persons and experiences which brought pleasure to Him; and another series of examples, types, models, which brought displeasure. It is in our endeavor to follow the faithful examples and be warned by the unfaithful examples of these models, that the real value of these portions of the Word of God might be apparent to us.
Not merely have the Lord’s people in the past been deceived into making harmful use of the Scriptures along the line of excessive type-making, but it is still practiced, both by individuals and by groups. Today we are told, for example. that the posts which hold up the curtains of the typical tabernacle represent the alleged division among Bible Students at this end of the age; while in fact, according to the New Testament, the tabernacle picture covers the entire age. Jonadab, who, for a while, worked with Jehu, we are told represents an earthly class in this end of the age who will go through the time of trouble and then repopulate the earth with perfect, righteous offspring: thus doing away with the necessity of God’s program of restitution.
Noah’s ark, we are told, represents “God’s Organization,” and that Noah’s family saved in the ark, represents the Jonadabs who will be taken through the time of trouble. Peter, the inspired apostle, tells us that the ark represents Christ; and that those who come into Christ by being baptized with Him into death are saved. But, Peter’s application of the lesson must be set aside by modern type-makers as it would not fit with their theories.
“TYPE-MAKING” NOT DIFFICULT
These are but samples of hundreds of weird and contradictory “interpretation,” now being set forth. How evident that this picture method of interpreting the Bible enables one to read practically what he wishes into the Word of God. Its effective use is no evidence of special brilliancy, nor of keen spiritual discernment, nor yet of special favor or appointment from God. In a sense it is quite an easy method to use. It is mostly a matter of getting started on the right track; and that right track is to arbitrarily assume divine appointment, hence divine approval and favor for one’s self. The next logical surmise,—which soon becomes a dogma—is that those who agree with the interpreter are also heaven’s favorites; and that those who do not, are children of the devil, or if not children of the devil, renegades, outcasts from the councils of these brilliant(?) ones.
From here on, interpretations merely follow a logical sequence. Every character in the Bible whom God specially favored usually represents the interpreter and his followers; while those characters who were unfaithful to God and whom He punished, represent the devil and those who disagree with the interpreter. Starting upon this wrongly surmised premise, it is obvious that anyone can make up wonderful pictures, and have them apparently fit the circumstances.
And these pictures may seem logical until a closer examination is made of all the facts relating to them; and when this closer examination is made, the interpretations are often found to be absurd and contradictory. This method, for example, enables one to say in 1931 that the Edomites represent a certain class, and then in 1936 to say that they represent an entirely different class. It outlines a “mighty work” of gathering “Jonadabs” at the end of the age, while the only divine commission to the church for a gathering this side of the veil is that of making disciples, gathering them into the one faith, by the one baptism, inspiring them with the one glorious hope of the heavenly calling.
To these the New Testament is addressed; and its direct teachings, and its applications of Old Testament lessons, set forth the conditions upon which the church may aspire for joint-heirship with Jesus in His glorious Kingdom soon to be established. But, throughout the age, and even now, the advocates of “picture” teaching have actually typed aside, or annulled, the preaching of the one true gospel, and have substituted other gospels that are of purely human origin and guess-work, and to which the Lord and the apostles gave no testimony.
SCRIPTURAL TYPES AND SHADOWS
This discussion is not intended to convey the thought that there is nothing typical in the Old Testament; for that would be swinging to the other extreme. The tabernacle and its services were typical, and the Lord makes it very plain that this is so. Nearly the entire book of Hebrews substantiates this thought, having much to say concerning those “shadows of good things to come.” As already noted, Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Moses, David, etc., are mentioned in the New Testament as being typical. The point is, let us not go beyond what the Scriptures clearly show to be typical in the lives of these characters. Let us, on the other hand, give even closer attention to the example of faithfulness given us by so many of the ancient worthies, and seek to profit by that example in being more faithful to our vows of consecration to the Lord. Let us also give closer heed to the warnings furnished by the historical accounts of those who, for one reason or another, and in one way or another, were unfaithful to the Lord.
The extent to which the writings of the New Testament are based upon the prophecies and promises of the Old Testament is not appreciated as it should be. Here is a field of study offering a wonderful opportunity for profitable research, the findings of which should prove most enlightening and upbuilding. And it is a safe field, for when the inspired writers of the New Testament make an application of the testimony of the Old Testament, we know that it is right, and that it can be depended upon as being genuine, divine truth.
PROMISCUOUS TYPE-MAKING LEADS TO DARKNESS
The inspired Scriptures are given for instruction in righteousness, for doctrine, for reproof, etc. and they are profitable for this. To follow the inspired Word implicitly is to remain sound in the faith; to give heed to fantastic interpretations which claim to be based upon the Word often leads one away from the “faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” No better evidence of this is in the fact that many who once rejoiced in the glorious hope of the blessing of all the families of the earth through the “restitution of all things spoken by the mouth of all the holy prophets since the world began,” are now basing their hope for filling the earth upon the fertility of the Jonadab class, having through their interpretations of Old Testament pictures, convinced themselves that very few of the millions of Adam’s children—and not even Adam himself—are to have a resurrection.
Let us then value more and more the pure Word of God. And let us value, also, the divine method of making it plain. Let us realize that truly, God is His own interpreter. True, there is a due time for the various truths of His plan to be made clear, and the Lord uses special messengers to serve the “meat in due season,” but the truths themselves, in order to be the truth, must be made plain in the Word, by one Scripture interpreting another. When this is not so, then we are basing our conclusions upon mere human guesswork, which can never be profitable, but more than likely to lead to a ship-wreck of our faith.