Typology

[Willa]

Very Good, Kwik! Thank you, Brother.

 

However, I find it a bit weak; limited in substance because of the over emphasis upon the doctrine of grace the RF church has  preached for so long. What RF fails to point up is the penalty for partaking "presumptously"/unworthily by believing His grace is unconditional; __ that poor understanding of grace advanced by Luther's followers is now the new Christianity. Sins are now forgiven, past, present and future. Ergo, why abide? Where is the need?

 

The Wine and Bread speak of "intimacy" in the Father, Jesus prayed for in John 17; "intimacy" even  in understanding the preciousness of our indentification with cross.The Wine and the Bread becoming the one thing that can be 'touched'. To 'touch' it unworthily is to step behind the Curtain unworthily. What was the OT penalty for that crime that Jesus might now be our advocater?

 

"Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 (KJV)

 

I believe you are asute enough to understand what I am advancing for anyone's profit who hasn't given it much thought.

Thanks again for sharing.

 

Lov'in Jesus,

 

 

Perhaps you are thinking of Calvin's reformed theology.  Lutherans actually teach that a lifestyle of sin will harden your heart and cause you to fall from grace and lose your salvation should you resist the Holy Spirit all of your life..  Luther's theology was evangelical, offering salvation to all who would believe.  He chose the name Evangelical for his church.  Calvin's reformed theology emphasized everything from God's point of view from eternity, and Luther emphasized things from man's point of view but dared not to go beyond scripture. His view was more balanced saying that we have to take seemingly contradicting scripture by faith.  Luther taught salvation by grace through FAITH.  But he taught that the Holy Spirit was limited to working through the word of God and the sacraments,  I believe that He also works through gifts and is able to speak to us in many ways, such as through object lessons and through hymns, but His voice always agrees with scripture.

 

The longer I have walked with God, the more I have looked back and realized that our whole Christian life is totally dependent on God's unmerited favor or grace.  At the time I think it is my own doing or decision, but when I look back I can see how God took away my blindness and set me up to make the right decision.  

Faith is not of ourselves but a gift from God, lest anyone should boast.  That is scripture--not dreamed up by Luther or Calvin.  Amazing Grace.  Praise God for His mercy and grace that He would reach out to save me.  I can't understand it, but can only weep with thanksgiving.   Bless His holy Name!

 

Blessings

Willa

[Cross Reference]

 

Very Good, Kwik! Thank you, Brother.

 

However, I find it a bit weak; limited in substance because of the over emphasis upon the doctrine of grace the RF church has  preached for so long. What RF fails to point up is the penalty for partaking "presumptously"/unworthily by believing His grace is unconditional; __ that poor understanding of grace advanced by Luther's followers is now the new Christianity. Sins are now forgiven, past, present and future. Ergo, why abide? Where is the need?

 

The Wine and Bread speak of "intimacy" in the Father, Jesus prayed for in John 17; "intimacy" even  in understanding the preciousness of our indentification with cross.The Wine and the Bread becoming the one thing that can be 'touched'. To 'touch' it unworthily is to step behind the Curtain unworthily. What was the OT penalty for that crime that Jesus might now be our advocater?

 

"Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 (KJV)

 

I believe you are asute enough to understand what I am advancing for anyone's profit who hasn't given it much thought.

Thanks again for sharing.

 

Lov'in Jesus,

 

 

Perhaps you are thinking of Calvin's reformed theology.

Since there theologies over lap we can see how influences intermingled.

 

 

 Lutherans actually teach that a lifestyle of sin will harden your heart and cause you to fall from grace and lose your salvation should you resist the Holy Spirit all of your life.

Until many lost sight of that understanding to embrace grace as the Calvinists.

 

Luther's theology was evangelical, offering salvation to all who would believe.  He chose the name Evangelical for his church.

Yes, and was correct.

 

Calvin's reformed theology emphasized everything from God's point of view from eternity, and Luther emphasized things from man's point of view but dared not to go beyond scripture.

Which was the "objective" thing to do.

 

His view was more balanced saying that we have to take seemingly contradicting scripture by faith.

That is where Calvin went wrong. In doing so he injected his own opinion into the mix and it become another gospel.

 

 Luther taught salvation by grace through FAITH.

Well, we can't argue with that. .

 

 But he taught that the Holy Spirit was limited to working through the word of God and the sacraments,

 I believe the conclusions at which he arrived by living his self imposed monastic style brought him to realize the need of intimacy with the Father and it couldn't be achieved by keeping the sacraments or reading the word. That is why he split from the RCC. He knew that it was a heart issue and not a head issue that would keep him.

 

 I believe that He also works through gifts and is able to speak to us in many ways, such as through object lessons and through hymns, but His voice always agrees with scripture.

Absolutely!!

 

The longer I have walked with God, the more I have looked back and realized that our whole Christian life is totally dependent on God's unmerited favor or grace.

Try believing that "obedience" to His word is that which brings on His grace __ and more! Are we to believe that obedience to His word is, "works salvation"?

 

At the time I think it is my own doing or decision, but when I look back I can see how God took away my blindness and set me up to make the right decision.  

Ah yes!, the foreknowledge of God. And for my life, there could have been no other reason that I still draw breath.

 

Faith is not of ourselves but a gift from God, lest anyone should boast.

Everyone from birth man has been given a measure of faith to believe for anything he sets his love upon. The is no question about the reality of God in anyone's life. The person who says there is no God is the fool; one who, for reasons is own, lies to himself. He is god and he will have no other God in his life.  Many times with others, faith gets misplaced and he becomes disenchanted with the results and blames God.

God has revealed Himself to all mankind that mankind is without excuse for seeking after God.

Man who does righteousness is righteous and God is the rewarder of those who (carefully cf 1John3:7; Rom 5:1). Missionary's are sent to explain that and speak of the Rewarder of such righteousness, i.e., just make disciples of them.

 

 

Praise God for His mercy and grace that He would reach out to save me.  I can't understand it, but can only weep with thanksgiving.   Bless His holy Name!

 

Blessings

Willa

 

I do  and I thank you for your friendship in Him.

 

Lov'in Jesus,

 

Cross

 

PS. I think this is diverting from the OP and should be moved over to the Doctrinal board.

 

 

Edited June 18, 2014 by Cross Reference

[kwikphilly]

Blessings Jade...

     Yes indeed,as Cross Reference has pointed out (LOL) we did get waaaay off topic,huh? So where were we anyway?

 

Types of types (That�s not confusing lol.)

There are several classifications of types:
1) Types from people
Example: Adam and Christ
2) Types from prescribed offices
3) Types from historic events
Example: Moses and the bronze serpent
4) Types from religious rituals
5) Types from Levitical offerings
6) Types from feasts and festivals

 Can we pick up where we left of ,Sis......you started a really good OP & I would love to hear what others have to contribute.....

                                                                                                                                                                   With love-in Chris-Kwik

Jade gave a very good definition for "types"in her OP if anyone needs reference point to join in this study

[Trinitron]

Some Old Testament to Matthew Typology

 

Genesis 45-50 Joseph takes old Israel down to Egypt

Matthew 2:13 Joseph brings new Israel down to Egypt

 

Exodus 1 Pharaoh massacres boys

Matthew 2:16 Herod massacres boys

 

Exodus 4 "All the med are dead..."

Matthew 2:20 "They are all dead..."

 

Exodus 12 From Egypt to Israel

Matthew 2:21 From Egypt to Israel

 

Exodus 14 Passing through water

Matthew 3:13 Baptism

 

Exodus 16 Tempted by bread

Matthew 4:4 Tempted by bread

 

Exodus 17 Do not tempt God

Matthew 4:7 Do not tempt God

 

Exodus 32 Worship only God

Matthew 4:10 Worship only God

Edited June 22, 2014 by Trinitron

[Trinitron]

Joseph to Esther / Mordecai Typology

 

Joseph rises to a high position in the Egyptian government through his beauty and wisdom

Esther rises to a high position in the Persian government through her beauty and wisdom

 

Josephs good deed(interpreting the butler's dream) is forgotten for a long time

Mordecai's good deed(saving the king's life) is forgotten for a long time

 

Joseph:  A person refuses to listen "she spoke to Joseph every day but he refused to listen" Genesis 38:10

Esther:  A person refuses to listen "they told him every day but he refused to listen" Esther 3:4

 

Joseph:  Pharaoh's chief servant is hanged

Esther:  The king's chief servant is hanged

 

Joseph reveals his identity to the Pharaoh after a feast

Esther reveals her identity to the king after a feast

[Trinitron]

Another separate typology

 

Esther 5:3 promised up to half the kingdom

Mark 6:23 Daughter of Herodias promised up to half the kingdom

[Trinitron]

Elijah multiplied food:  1 Kings 17:14

Elijah raises someone from the dead:  1 Kings 17:22

Elijah's water miracles 1 Kings 17:1 & 1 Kings 1 Kings 18:45

Elijah ascends to heaven:  2 Kings 2:11

Edited July 2, 2014 by Trinitron

[Persuaded]

Abraham

One of my favorite types in the bible occurs with Abraham in Genesis 22.

 

 

This is a favorite for me as well, Abraham as a father offering Isaac as a son, paralleling the Father offering His Son.

I find it interesting that the Holy Spirit seems to actually distort the original text to make it better fit the model.

He starts with: "Take now thy son, thine only [son] Isaac, whom thou lovest" which is (on its face) untrue in Abraham's case- he had another son in Ishmael. Also interesting is that this is the first use of the word "love", in referring to an only son about to be sacrificed.

 

It takes three days to arrive at the mountain, during which time Isaac was dead to Abraham: Hebrews 11:19 says he received Isaac from the dead figuratively. This is one of the OT scriptures that Paul spoke of: 1Co 15:4 "And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures"

 

Next, also in v2: "...and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of." Jerusalem is one of the mountains in the land of Moriah. It is my personal conviction that the offering of Isaac occurred on the same hill where our Father offered His Son. My only proof is a conviction that God doesn't leave his putts 6 inches from the cup!

 

v5:"and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you." Abraham believed that God would bring them both back. (again, Heb 11:19 "Accounting that God [was] able to raise [him] up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.")

 

v6: Isaac carries the wood of the sacrifice up the hill. Later, another Son carries the wood of His sacrifice up the same hill.

 

v7: Isaac asks "where is the lamb?" In John 1, John the Baptist declares "Behold the lamb of God".

 

v13: The ram is sacrificed instead. The ram becomes it's own type of Christ in the form of the Levitical scapegoat. (Lev 16).

 

v14: "And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said [to] this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen." Abraham, by choosing this name, knew he was foreshadowing a future event.

 

v19: "So Abraham returned unto his young men, and they rose up and went together..." After the offering, Isaac's name is expunged from the record, so to speak. He obviously came down the mountain with Abraham, right? Most people stop looking at the typology of the offering somewhere around v14, but look a little further! After his death, Jesus returns to heaven and sends the HS in His place, until the time He joins His bride. This is the exact narrative that is played out through Gen 25.

 

Although we know Abraham's servant's name from earlier passages (Gen 15, Eliezer, one whom God helps or comforted), the text leaves him un-named as Abraham sends him to go search for a bride for his son in Gen 24:2 and onward. So? In John 14, 15, and 16 the Comforter is spoken of as coming in Jesus' name, and not "speaking of himself" (16:13). It is not until the bride is brought to the son that we see Isaac reappear in the story, in Gen 25. So in Genesis, and today with the church, the un-named servant goes out into the world to find and prepare a bride, while the Son waits with the Father. I think that's pretty neat.

[Persuaded]

Ok, another one. How about the burning bush?

(I can maybe weave in a little John 8:58 here as well, since that thread got shut down!)

 

[Exo 3:2 NKJV] And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush [was] not consumed.

[Exo 3:3 NKJV] Then Moses said, "I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn."

[Exo 3:4 NKJV] So when the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, "Moses, Moses!" And he said, "Here I am."

[Exo 3:5 NKJV] Then He said, "Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand [is] holy ground."

 

First, the bush. The word is cenah, and refers to a thorn bush. The "thorn bush of the desert" is referred to fairly often, and is a part of the acacia family. This same thorn bush is linked to the wood of the tabernacle, and to Jesus' thorny crown. There's more going on here than "a bush"!

 

Regardless of all that, thorns are a symbol of the curse, or more specifically the sin that caused the curse.

Fire speaks of judgment or punishment for sin. Altars and sacrifice weren't new under the Law; they go back all the way to Abel.

So the the bush burning is analogous to sin being judged. A pretty basic metaphor.

But, the bush didn't burn, and this is what drew Moses closer. The lack of burning is a figure of mercy.

 

We are drawn to God by His mercy, not by His righteousness. From the outside, we are terrified by His righteousness, and it's only when we learn of His mercy that we can approach and commune with Him.

 

And a minor digression...

[Exo 3:13 NKJV] Then Moses said to God, "Indeed, [when] I come to the children of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What [is] His name?' what shall I say to them?"

[Exo 3:14 NKJV] And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.' "

 

This is the famous "I AM" statement, that Jesus claims for Himself:

[Jhn 8:58 NKJV] Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."

 

One of the Jesus-isn't-God doubters here brought up that Jesus' "I am" (ego eimi, ἐγὼ εἰμί) means something else, like "I was". (the post was deleted, I forget the exact wording he used). But, it actually doesn't matter what the meaning of ego eimi is, the point was that Jesus was identifying Himself with the voice in the burning bush, which the pharisees clearly understood and therefore tried to kill Him.

 

In Jesus' day, they spoke greek. They used the greek translation of the OT, called the septuagint or LXX. How does the LXX translate Exodus 3:14, and does it exactly match what Jesus said? Why, yes it does!

 

Exodus 3:14 (LXX)  καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν καὶ εἶπεν οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς

John 8:58  εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ἰησοῦς ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί

[countingsheep]

Exodus 17:6 Smite the Rock = Death of Jesus

Numbers 20:5 Speak to the Rock = Speak to Jesus Recieve Living Water Confess

Numbers 20:11 Moses smote the rock twice instead of speaking oops!

Typology gone wrong? I heard this from Dr Walter Bramson audio a while back I thought it was inspired. it feels right and is comforting fortunately Im not smart enough to get myself tangled up i try to learn from people like you all

Praise Jesus