Types

The apostle Paul, and many of the other Biblical writers were quite fond of using types to interpret Old Testament prophecy. I was wondering if anybody out there knows where in the Old Testament the inspired writers based this method of interpretation on. Such as, what verses out there led them to say "I can interpret with these cool things called types."

Hi PTCI'm alittle suprised that you have not got a answer to this post. It has been said that if someone calls themself a teacher of God's Word and they don't know bible typology, don't listen to them. A picture is worth a 1000 words and that basicly what a type is. A word picture to look at and see truths. You are not to make doctrine out of them. They are meant to bring out deeper truths or confirm doctrine.I see types as a family lanugage. (one of many ways that God speak to His chrildren) Most friends and family speak with types. If a family member says something about uncle Joe, then anyone that knows uncle Joe will understand much more deeply what is being spoken of. If you don't know him then you will probably not understand much of what is being said.One more point about types is that they are OT pictures of NT truths. All true bible types point to Christ.This is a big but important subject. I believe that typology is only the beginning in learning to unlock the deeper truths hidden in God's Word. I would be glad to answer any question that you have.Take care, Mark

Mark,I agree with what you say. I'm a little shocked myself that I haven't had any feedback yet. I'm familar with bible types, and sometimes the Holy Spirit will show me when I read the OT, that something is a type. For example, I can remember a few years ago when I was reading the story of Abraham preparing Isaac for sacrifice, and it being said "God will provide the sacrifice." After I read this, I immediately believed that this somehow tied to Christ. I found out after a little while that other Christians have believed the same. However, if I had to explain to a unbelieving Jew why typology is a good method of interpretation, I'm afraid I couldn't show them such from the O.T Scriptures the validity of this method. Such recently occured to me, and I thought, that perhaps I should come across an unbelieving Jew one day, and wished to show them Christ through Types, they'd probably just look at me in bewilderment for using such a method. They might ask me what Biblical basis in the O.T. I have for such an interpretation, and I would not be able to answer.So, any insights you or others might have on the matter is greatly welcomed.

Hey PTCIf you were to speak about types to a Jewish person you would start by speaking about Midrash.If he or you don't know what this is then there will probably be little real knowledge pass. Kind of like the uncle Joe thing.I did a "study in types", inwhich I tell about Midrash, on another board. I will post (a new post) it here and we can go over it if you would like.Mark

Mark,I've had a bit of a flirtation with the Midrash, but not much more than that. I have "The Classic Midrash" on my book shelf, but have not been able to get around to reading it. I can't say I have much understanding of it, and if memory serves me correctly, the Midrash is simply a way of repackaging the stories of the (Old Testament) Scriptures for various purposes e.g. liturgical, modern application, etc.Correct me if I am wrong :) Please feel free to post your link and we can go over things.

With many preachers in my church background, "typology" was a very big deal. I think in many cases people "see" types that simply aren't there. As to the NT writers, it seems to me that the Holy Spirit showed them what was a true "type and shadow" of things to come in the OT. I think a very real danger in emphasizing typology is that it is in some cases too close to allegorizing scripture. I have no problem affirming the OT types that are clearly shown to be such in the NT, like the tabernacle, feasts, etc.

Exodus tells us that Moses made the tabernacle "according to the pattern which he saw on the mountain."This indicates that the tabernacle was a mirror or shadow of the things that Moses had been shown on the mountain rather than the real things in themselves. This shows that the real substance is not in the things (or practices) but in what was seen on the mountain. Since Moses was with God on the mountain, it is clear that he was seeing spiritual things. That is probably the quickest route to understanding the origin of types. There are other examples of this (for example, Ezekiel constantly uses "like" or "as" words indicating that his descriptions of his visions were similes for something of more substance -- again pointing to a spiritual application of his words), but this is probably the easiest.Hope that helps.

With many preachers in my church background, "typology" was a very big deal. ...I think a very real danger in emphasizing typology is that it is in some cases too close to allegorizing scripture.Indeed. And sometimes some people outright confuse a type with an allegory... though there are some parallel's. The most common confusion I've seen on the issue is when they quote Galatians, where Paul talks about Hagar and Sarah as an allegory, yet many confuse this as a type... and will even quote it as a type. The main difference between an allegory and a type is that a type is always a foreshadow of things to come through an object-lesson. Whereas an allegory doesn't point forward to anything, but rather, just has a symbolic meaning. The type always gives way to the "anti-type." The type can be fulfilled, the allegory cannot. That's not to say there isn't some parallel, for without a doubt, both have in common the concept of symbolism. Paul's example in Galatians was not to show a foreshadow (a type), but to simply show that those born according to the promises of God, they are children of freedom, whereas the others are children of slavery. He was speaking in purely symbolic terms, and not trying to show us a type.

This may be one that is well-known by many of you, but God actually just taught me about types this past week. In the book of Ruth, Boaz (kinsman-redeemer) redeems both Naomi/Mara (Israelite) and Ruth (Gentile). It's a type for Christ's redemption of both Jews and Gentiles. :-)And Abraham's near-sacrifice of Isaac was a type of God sacrificing Jesus on that same spot many years later. And we're familiar with Moses' holding up of the snake is Christ on the cross.Learn something new everyday. :-D Thanks be to God!!

Typeology, as best as I can tell, can be seen in the patterns and the customs of the time at wich a certain scripture was written. The message that was conveyed then is still valid today. The typeology is also a foreshadow. The Bible is a process of progressive revelation, so by its nature it's going to be filled with many foreshadowings. Gen. 3:15 is called the "Proto Evangeleon" or the first gospel. Here we are given the first prophecy of Christ. We are only given a small glimpse of what the messiah would do. Later writers would progressively give us more information about what Christ's life and ministry would be like on earth. From our position in Redemptive History, we can look back and see the types and shadows that the prophets were writing about as they unfolded in the life of Christ. We can also see how people responed to God in faith or lack of it and compare that to ourselves and how we respond in life.There is another type of interpretation called alleghory. One of the few problems I have with Augustine is his use and reliance on alleghory to interpret the scriptures. Alleghory can over-spiritualize the text and can give a person great liscense in how he/she derrives the meaning of a particular passage. Read Augustine's interpretation of the parable of the man on the road to Jericho for a good example of alleghory.I hope I haven't muddied the waters up too much on this subject.In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

typrs and shadows have to do with the overall shape of a thing. They are able to map outline. They are also 2 dimensional. Reality is always (at least) 3 dimensional.Imagine a figure of a man with a light behind him. As you approach him you encounter the shadow first. As you draw near you see colour and detail. Sometimes shadows can be frightening. We can only appreciate the shadow properly when we have met the reality.Many OT events can serve as types and shadows, but pictures are not the reality. Jesus used pictures (parables) because of hardheartedness. When things came into clear focus the disciples said 'now you're speaking plainly'.

A somewhat useful resource in biblical typology that I have is A Dictionary of Bible Types by Walter L. Wilson.I like the way the editor classifies the entries into three categories. Entries in class A are those explicitly identified as types by the scripture. Those in class B and C are classified based on the strength of biblical evidences.This is helpful because it raises awareness of the dangers of typology -- reading our own wishful thinking into the Word of God.As another poster pointed out, the Jews in the first century would be familiar to similar approaches to scripture, typically known midrash. However, it probably would not help to convince a Jew today in this way that the OT is tied to Christ. After all, typology is a method of understanding the OT in light of the NT.

The shadow or type expressed in Scripture exists no doubt. What I find problematic is that men, for instance, label the appearance of Christ in Old Testament Scripture, as a Christophany (sp). This term then defines a set of ideas which often dismiss the actual work that Christ was accomplishing in the Scripture which has been labeled as such. It dismisses man's responsiblity to recognize that Christ does not change, He has always been part of the Trinity. Thus man has denied Him throughout the generations. Likewise the work of the Holy Spirit has always existed and has never changed between God and man. Moses wrote, "And the Lord said, My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty." Genesis 6:3 After a hundred years passed the great flood came. What does it mean that God's Spirit strives with man? What does it mean when James writes, "Or do you think that the Scripture says in vain, "The Spirit who dwells in us yearns jealously?" What Old Testament Scripture is James refering too?Does salvation differ from the book of Genesis or Job to the book of Revelation? As Ravenhill preaches, "What are we save from. From hell? From lying? From stealing? What are we saved from?????God calls through His Holy Spirit, repent, turn back to me. God restores men's souls through the work of Christ.In ChristJeff

"After all, typology is a method of understanding the OT in light of the NT."Could it be both ways ?

joukos:"After all, typology is a method of understanding the OT in light of the NT."Could it be both ways ? Yes, I think it goes both ways, although in different sense.We must understand the NT in light of the OT, because the writings of the first century authors are saturated with OT concepts and allusions. The Gospel of John, for instance, is so full of OT allusions that without a proper understanding of the OT we could never fully appreciate. (e.g. References to the lamb that removes sin, manna, bronze serpent, God as the "I AM", etc.)The point that I was making in my previous posting is that we cannot expect those who did not have a NT perspective (such as Jews) to understand OT typology the way we do, unless faith opens the way. After all, they do not have the full revelation that we as NT believers have received.

joukos wrote: We must understand the NT in light of the OT, because the writings of the first century authors are saturated with OT concepts and allusions...The point that I was making in my previous posting is that we cannot expect...unless faith opens the way.Amen! Faith means to follow God, He will reveal Himself to us. I once said as a new believer, "I only need the NT, I have no interest in the OT. An old man spoke after me. He said that he lives in the OT. For there is where you find the mysteries of God. In never saw him again. But that night began a journey that now I say, I spend most of my time in the OT. There is where the mysteries of God are.Jesus spoke to the men on the road to Emmaus, "And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself...And they said to one another, "Did not our heart burn within us while He talked with us on the road, and while He opened the Scriptures to us.? Luke 24:27,32Everytime I hear someone say the OT is boring I know the condition of their spiritual lives.In ChristJeff

Jeff:Re: ChristophanyI need you to clarify why "Christophany" is a problematic term. As far as I could see, it literally means "the appearance of Christ to his disciples." Applied to the OT, it means "the appearance of Christ before His Incarnation." This definition, in my opinion, does not carry any implication that Christ was ever not part of the Triune God.Re: SpiritI am also a little puzzled here -Are you saying that James 4:5 is quoting Genesis 6:3? Frankly, I do not see the connection.(As for what James is referring to in 4:5, the IVP NT Commentaries on James says, "We would be helped in determining the meaning if a definite Old Testament origin could be identified, but there is no verse like the last half of 4:5. In the absence of a definite reference by which to establish the meaning, two major understandings have been proposed...," etc. Biblegateway.com)Nevertheless, references to the work of the Spirit of God are quite clear in the OT. It does seem though that there are no reference in the OT to the Spirit's indwelling within the believer (The OT emphasis seems to be on the Spirit's outpouring on individuals in order to empower them to accomplish specific tasks for God-- note that the Spirit departed from Saul after his kingship was rejected in 1 Samuel 16:14). Therefore, I think there are perhaps aspects of experiencing the Spirit that the NT believers enjoy to a fuller extent than the OT people of God. Jeff, I think in the overall picture, we have much agreement. I do not doubt that the Triune God co-existed from eternity to eternity, nor do I doubt that the Trinity worked throughout the OT. Indeed, I believe that Christ is the ultimate central theme of all of Scripture. And typology is one of the legitimate methods to draw out this connection between the OT and the NT -- Christ is the all in all. May glory be to him, for ever and ever.

joukos wrote: We must understand the NT in light of the OT, because the writings of the first century authors are saturated with OT concepts and allusions...The point that I was making in my previous posting is that we cannot expect...unless faith opens the way.Hey Jeff! I wrote that, not joukos! Agent001

Sorry brother. In Christ Jeff

I am sorry for not clearly writing my thougths. I quoted Genesis 6:3 in terms of showing that God's Spirit strives with men's spirit though they are wicked and enemies of God. I believe this verse refers to God giving man no excuse. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them....so that they are without excuse, because although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were they thankful..." Romans 1:18-21 I believe one might apply this to what Jesus said, "Many are called but few are chosen."In terms of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and James 4:5, the New Testament gives us the doctrine of the indwelling Spirit. The Old Testament gives us the evidence of the work of God not seen. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1 As you mentioned the idea of faith being the plausible explaination for understanding Scripture in the OT saints, I believe the OT gives the evidence of God promising to be their God. What comes with God promising to be their God? What comes from God telling us we are His child? Our hearts cry out Abba Father. Man can not muster up this feeling, it is the work of God. The fruits of our relationship with our Savior is the substance for which we begin to hope for. It is the substance that drives our lifes. The yoke of Christ will show evidence outwardly of what God had done inwardly in the spirit of a disciple.In Christ Jeff

As Ravenhill preaches, "What are we save from. From hell? From lying? From stealing? What are we saved from?????To finish the quote "...an ingrown toenail?" Leonard RavenhillFunny, I had just had this quote running through my head not 20 minutes ago...

Jeff:We briefly discussed the question of the Holy Spirit's operation in the Old Testament.I found a link that seems rather helpful. Bible.org FAQ

Hi agent 001'I read your link. The work of the Spirit is defined in three not two ways. The author mention para (with), and en (in). The day of Pentecost the Spirit came epi (upon) the individuals. I see Pentecost as an empowering the saints to do His work. The Spirit came upon Christ, when John baptized Him. The word used in Matthew 3:16 is epi. Christ did not need to be born from above. In terms of the OT saints is do not see that Scripture indicates that the dwelling of the Holy Spirit was temporary for those who remained faithful. I do not believe I the doctrine, once saved always saved. I believe men try to seperate the OT saints from the NT saints because they have to in order to support the once saved always saved doctrine. In ChristJeff

Jeff:Interesting observations."Once Saved, Always Saved." That deserves a new thread in the Scriptural Debate Forum. I don't know the intricacies of that debate, but I believe genuine Christians should have the assurance of salvation as evidenced in 1 John 5:13, "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life." As for Holy Spirit in the OT (this probably should be a new thread too), a similar counter-argument can be made that the NT scripture never indicates the departure of the Holy Spirit from any believer as in the OT. However, this observation alone is insufficient, because this is an argument from silence (usually not a good idea).The more important observation is that the Spirit is seen in the NT as a guarantee within the believers for what is to come (2 Cor. 1:22, 5:5). This would explain why the Spirit never departed from any believer just as it did in the OT.Consequently, it does seem to me that the promise and the experience of the Spirit in the NT is fuller than and beyond the extent of the OT. In my view, we should not separate the OT and the NT people of God as though there is no continuity in God's work; however, neither should we so identify the two as though there is not two covenant, but one. We need to maintain the tension between the continuity and the discontinuity between the covenants.We should not interpret scripture merely on the basis that an interpretation supports a particular doctrine (say, "once saved always saved"); but likewise, we should not interpret scripture on the basis that an interpretation rejects a particular doctrine! We should strive to read the scripture in its proper context. So let our discussion and fellowship continue!May the Spirit enlighten us so that we might know him, glorify him, and enjoy him.

His Agent 001Your quote: a similar counter-argument can be made that the NT Scripture never indicates the departure of the Holy Spirit from any believer as in the OT."Paul writes, "Therefore brethren, we are debtors -not the the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live." Romans 8:12-13When Paul writes to the believers, he warns them that if they do not submit to being led by the Spirit they will die. I believe this death is a spiritual death. Secondly, this points to the fact that as believers we have the choice to obey or disobey. Jesus taught, "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free...Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever." John 8:31-35Jesus preaches as He has throughout the gospel that one must obey. Here Jesus says, as Paul has said, that a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son does. Again Jesus taught that only those who follow Him will be set free. Luke wrote about the incident of Annanias and Saphira. They lost the Holy Spirit.Now look to the OT. read Ezekiel 33: 10-20. Hear these words and look to the NT for the types. In Christ Jeff

Re: Romans 8:12-13That is not a reference to the Spirit departing the believer. I personally think that "you will die" means a spiritual death, however, I would not presuppose that it means the Spirit is leaving the believer. That would be contradictory to Paul's teaching on the Spirit as a deposit in the believer, a guarantee of what is to come (see my reference to 2 Cor).I also agree that we as believers have a choice to obey or disobey (I think all sensible believers would agree on this). However, I don't think the indwelling of the Spirit is dependent upon our obedience. We may feel disconnected from God, but God is ever ready to embrace us. Otherwise, you sound like the Spirit is going to move in and out all the day. Note also in Ephesians 4:30, "And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption." In the context, the grieving of the Spirit refers to "every form of malice" in v. 31, certainly acts of disobedience. However, I see here again the connection to the Spirit as deposit (2 Cor again). The Spirit is a deposit sent by God to seal the believers for the day of redemption. In other words, the Spirit is the proof of God's ownership of the believers until the Lord's second coming.Re: John 8:31-35This verse is not a direct reference to the doctrine of the Spirit's indwelling, so I don't really how this fit to the argument, except you want to emphasis obedience.The highlighted portion regarding slave must be considered in the larger context. The point Jesus was making is that all of humanity are enslaved to sin, only the Son of God Jesus Christ can set us free. Hence, v. 36 "So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed." We who are in Christ can enjoy the freedom from the bondage of sin.Moreover, according to the same author John himself, "Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God." (John 1:12) Believers are the children of God, not slaves. Re: AnaniasAgain, this incident in Acts 5 is not directly related to the Spirit's indwelling.The church life was so prevailing and so full of the power of the Spirit that Peter could say, Ananias and his wife lied to the Spirit. Furthermore, the Spirit declared his judgement immediately by putting them to death. If only we are so in sync with the Spirit in the church today! I understand your logic. You agree upon the fact the Spirit indwells within the believers, but you think the Spirit can also be lost (and possibly regained?). That is because you think the Spirit's indwelling is dependent upon our obedience. You are concerned that otherwise it might give believers a false sense of security ("once saved always saved") and use it as a license to sin.I say Amen to the cost of discipleship. The Lord fully expects obedience from his disciples. I have no problem with such concerns.I am concerned though, that you might have read too much into the Scripture your theological bias.I think the Spirit lives in the believer as a seal of God's ownership "until the day of redemption." This is a gift given to all believers. However, this is not a license for the believer to sin. If a believer falls into sin, he "grieves the Spirit". Moreover, I believe in the judgement seat of Christ, a judgement reserved for all believers. All believers will have to give an account of their deeds before the Lord. There will be reward and punishment for the believers.

Hi, I hear what your saying. First, you say you believe that when Paul writes, you will die, Paul means that you will die spiritually. I agree with you. However, to die spiritually means that you had the Spirit of God in you, and because you reject His voice, I believe that God will turn you over to your own ways. The Spirit is everlasting so for one to die spiritually means that you no longer have the Spirit of God. Secondly, I understand the idea of being sealed with the Spirit of God as knowing the Holy Spirit is actually with me. Because He speaks to me, because others minister to me through the same Holy Spirit, I know He is with Me. I do believe that God is faithful because of what He has done in my life thus far. That is trust that comes from the sealing of the Spirit. As I walk with my Lord, I grow nearer to Him. He also is teaching me to fear Him. How could I exist without Him. Well as we grow nearer to the Lord, and we choose to deny Him in front of the world, He has every right to do to Me what He did to Annanias and Saphira. His name will not be compromised. To whom much is given much is required.In ChristJeff

Jeff:Re: Romans 8:13Clearly, even though we agree that "you will die" here refers to spiritual death, we are not thinking of the same thing. I understand it to mean a loss of sensitivity towards the Spirit and enjoyment in God. From this perspective, it does not necessarily mean that the Spirit will depart. I think the Spirit will be in us grieving (Eph. 4:30)!Also, the connection between spiritual death and the possession of the Spirit that you made here is not apparent in the text. It seems to be more of an inference based on a particular presupposition. Re: Holy Spirit as a SealI say Amen to what you shared. But how do you reconcile your idea that "NT believers may lose the Spirit" with the following?1) The Spirit is a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come, which implies that the Spirit is a deposit until the Lord's coming. (2 Cor. 1:22, 5:5)2) Ephesians 1:13-14 is even more explicit. First, "Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit," indicating that we receive the Spirit as a result of accepting the truth of the gospel. Second, the Spirit is "a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession--to the praise of his glory." Therefore, those who have believed shall one day be fully redeemed as God's possession and enjoy his heavenly inheritance. This is God's plan, which will not be frustrated.3) Every mention of the Holy Spirit as a seal of God's ownership and as a deposit guaranteeing what is to come, looks forward to the day of redemption. (After all, the Greek terms were used in business transactions; the Spirit is a "first instalment" that will be fully redeemed in the future). Should we not expect then, that the presence of Holy spirit will be with us until the Lord's coming?Re: Eternal SecuritySome see the doctrine of eternal security as giving an excuse for Christians to indulge in their own desires (because they think they already have a ticket to heaven). My present understanding is that there are two judgements--(1) The Unbeliever's Judgement: the judgement at the "great white throne" (Rev. 20:11) where the unbelievers are cast into the lake of fire; (2) The Believer's Judgement: the "judgement seat of Christ" (Rom. 14:10-12; 2 Cor. 5:10) where the believers are to give an account of themselves to God for "the things done while in the body." It seems to me that all are saved, but not all will receive the same reward (and punishment, maybe?).It is in this light that I understand Phil 3:14, "I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. "

Hi Sam, You wrote: " Also, the connection between spiritual death and the possession of the Spirit that you made here is not apparent in the text. It seems to be more of an inference based on a particular presupposition."You are correct in that it is an inference based on a particular presupposition. In the thread, we are writing about types that existed in the OT that are revealed more clearly in the NT. In other words, what existed in the OT exists in the NT. Now some may not agree with this statement. We know as you said that the Holy Spirit was taken away from those who were disobedient and or unbelieving. They could not enter God's rest because of unbelief. In Hebrews, it says that God's rest still remains for those who do believe. So again we come to the law of faith. The God of the OT is the same in the NT."When I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, but he trusts in his own righteousness and commits iniquity, none of his righteous works shall be remembered; but because of the iniquity that he has committed, he shall die. Again, when I say to the wicked, "You shall surely die,' if he turns from his sin and does what is lawful and right, if the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has stolen, and walks in the statutes of life without committing iniquity, he shall surely live; he shall not die." Ezekiel 33:13-15 Now in this Scripture I believe life and death speak to the eternal inheritance and not the life or death of one's body. When I see the word walk, I believe this is a type described in the NT as faith. In this Scripture, we find the righteous and the wicked. It is God who declares to the righteous, "He shall surely live." It is God who declares that if this man walks not with God, God will declare, "He shall die." So you are correct. I have made inferences based on my understand of Scripture. When God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, Abraham concluded that God would work things out. I believe that it is necessary for us to follow the Holy Spirit in us. I also believe that if we find ourselves denying Jesus who directs the Holy Spirit in our lives, Jesus will deny us. I believe this is the unpardonable sin. We crucify Christ a second time. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are One. If we deny God we lose the Counselor. "If we endure, we shall also reign with Him, If we deny Him, He will deny us." 2 Timothy 2:12 The OT is the evidence of what is revealed in the NT.You wrote: "The Spirit is a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come, which implies that the Spirit is a deposit until the Lord's coming." You see based on your presupposition, you also must resort to inference. I do believe that one who continues to walk, stumbling along the way, will be convinced as Paul was, "For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to seperate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 8:38-39. In ChristJeff

Jeff:Thank you for your thoughtful response.You wrote: "The Spirit is a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come, which implies that the Spirit is a deposit until the Lord's coming."You see based on your presupposition, you also must resort to inference.What I wrote above was in point (1) of my previous post [2 Cor. 1:22, 5:5]. In this case, I think my inference is strong because the same point was made explicit in point (2) [Eph. 1:13-14]. The connection is strong because they use the same idea (and same words) of deposit, guarantee, and seal in reference to the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the NT. This could be my bias. But I'm curious, when you read Eph. 1:13-14, how did you interpret it? I am willing to correct my understanding if I find a better exposition!To repeat my own understanding, which I thought seems straightforward from the text:Ephesians 1:13-14. First, "Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit," (v. 13) indicates that we receive the Spirit as a result of accepting the truth of the gospel. Second, the Spirit is "a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession--to the praise of his glory." (v. 14) Therefore, those who have believed shall one day be fully redeemed as God's possession and enjoy his heavenly inheritance. As far as I could see, the first verse talks about the condition for being marked in Christ with the Spirit as the seal. The condition seems to be clear: "having believed". The second verse talks about the purpose of having the Spirit as the seal. To me, the purpose is quite clearly mentioned: to guarantee our spiritual inheritance until the time of full redemption.If the above is true, it is hard to conceive of God as someone who would forfeit a deposit (i.e. deny us the Holy Spirit) and give up what he promised to fulfill in the future.

Hi SamIn both 2 Corinthians 1:22, and Ephesians 1:14, the word guarantee is used to affirm our standing in the Lord. The Holy Spirit is given as a promise, a down payment, until the redemption that is Christ. The Hebrew word is arrhabon, is a pledge, a down payment given in advance for the full purchase. I believe that those who continue to obey the Holy Spirit will inherit Eternal Life. I believe it is not only the Spirit that one inherits, but through faith in following the Spirit, Christ also is formed within us. This is the work of the Spirit. Christ in us. Paul also cautions the Corinthians, "Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple are you." 1 Corinthians 3:16-17"Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which you are also saved, if you hold fast ...unless you believed in vain." 1 Corinthians 15:1"Not that we have dominion over your faith, but are fellow workers for your joy, for by faith you stand." 2 Corinthians 1:24"Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?--unless indeed you are disqualified, but I trust that you will know that we are not disqualified." 2 Corinthians 13: 5. (disqualified, another way of saying, "you do not stand the test) The Holy Spirit is the down payment for the redemption. If we follow the Holy Spirit, Jesus is revealed in us. Paul clearly warns the Corinthians, You are babes in Christ, I cannot speak to you as spiritual people but as to carnal... 1 Corinthians 3:1.Again this thread is about types. The OT supports the NT in the way the Holy Spirit has always worked. Christ is the light of life that is given to every man coming into the world. We who stand in faith are predestined to be conformed into the image of the Son of God. In Christ Jeff

Hi Jeff:I think we have gone as far as we could at the moment. I hope you have recognised that in many ways, especially in the practical aspects, I am in much agreement with you. God's purpose is for us to live a life in the Spirit today so that we might be conformed into Christ's image. If I have sounded critical at times, it is just the nature of having a forum called "Scriptural Debates" (as opposed to "Scriptural Fellowship").To sum up our thread on types, typology is an interpretive method that is particularly interested in relating the OT to the NT and vice versa. Typology does have its dangers. There is a temptation to read too much into the text and come up with ideas totally foreign to the authors of scripture. We must also avoid being too dogmatic about the meaning of the types if they are not explicitly spelled out in scripture.As for my disagreement with you in the previous posts, the issue has little to do with typology. We both acknowledge that the triune God is at work throughout human history, both in the OT and in the NT. But in terms of the ministry of the Spirit, we differed at certain points.I certainly acknowledge the continuity of the work of the Spirit in the OT and in the NT. However, based on the unique NT teaching of the Spirit's indwelling (the Spirit in the believer, not just on the believer), I see a progress in the ministry of Spirit. The Spirit indwells the NT believers as a deposit unconditionally, guaranteeing God’s promise until their full redemption.I think you see not just a continuity, but an identity in the work of the Spirit in the testaments. Therefore, not only is the Spirit the same in the both testaments (which I agree), but you insist that the way he works is exactly the same (which I disagree). As a result, you see the sealing of the Spirit as conditional upon the believer's obedience (which I fail to see in the direct reference), inferring from the OT that the Spirit could depart from NT believers (which I cannot fully embrace on the mere basis of few OT references). Part of the reason why you insist on attaching a condition to the Spirit's indwelling is your conviction in rejecting the doctrine of "eternal security" (hence your citations from 1 Cor. 3:1,16-17; 15:1; 2 Cor. 1:24, 13:5 -- all of which, in my opinion, has nothing to do with losing eternal life -- but that deserves another thread).I hope that accurately summarises our discussion. :)

Hi Sam, I believe you have summarized correctly. In my case, I believe that we are saved by grace through faith. I believe that faith is a result of God speaking to you and asking you to do things for Him. In the OT, God asked Abram to go to a new country. God promised He would bless those who blessed him and curse those who cursed him. We see that Abram obeyed, and then stumbled a couple of times. Each time God confirmed His promise to Abram, Abram began to understand that God does keep His promises. So in trust, Abram began to walk more closely with God. Then we see that God makes a covenant with Abram who is now Abraham. I believe this OT example of God's grace working together with Abraham obeying His commands makes for the relationship between God and man. God is everything, man has the choice to obey or not. There is a period of calling in Abram's life. Then there is the covenant. I believe this is pointed out when Jesus says, Those who the Father gives Me I will by no mean lose. This is where we may differ. One may say that we are saved by grace alone. Therefore faith is of no consequence because it is God who develops our faith. In the OT, obedience is required. In the NT, a disciple of Jesus must obey. Paul always writes about the choices we make. In ChristJeff

This is where we may differ. One may say that we are saved by grace alone. Therefore faith is of no consequence because it is God who develops our faith. No, this is not where we differ, we are in agreement here. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." (Ephesians 2:8-10) In the OT, obedience is required. In the NT, a disciple of Jesus must obey. Paul always writes about the choices we make. I agree with this statement too. A living faith should produce obedience and good works. We are created in Christ to do so. 001

I am sorry Sam God blessJeff

Jeff, No need to apologise. I have quite enjoyed the discussion myself. :)001