The Church in Old Testament Typology

We have been promoting happily David Murray’s book Jesus on Every Pageas it is such a clear presentation of how we can see Jesus throughout all of Old Testament literature as the Lord said we could (Luke 22:44; John 5:39).  Could it also be true that we can find “the church on every page” in the Old Testament, or at least the church on almost every page?

I believe so.

Of course this cuts against the grain of dispensational theology that grips much of the church today, which in itself is a sad irony as it leaves the church downplaying its very existence.  You see, one of the key tenets of dispensationalism is the sharp distinction made between the nation of Israel and the church.   This more than perhaps anything else is what distinguishes dispensational theology from covenant theology.  Though many systems of dispensationalism exist, every form of which I am aware sees God’s plan for Israel as different from that of the church in one fundamental way.  What is it?    Dispensationalists see the Old Testament prophecies regarding Israel as fundamentally describing the physical nation of the Jews rather than the church of the New Covenant.  Many dispensationalists would even go so far as to say the church is not prophesied about in the Old Testament and, based on their view of certain prophecies such as Daniel 7:24-27, deem the age of the church as “parenthetical,” i.e. not a major aspect of the overall plan of God.

Rather than this diminished view of the church, it is clear that the New Testament writers did not read their Old Testament this way.  They saw the church as the fulfillment of many Old Testament prophecies.  Consider one aspect of Old Testament prophecy, that of typology, where symbols that taught Israel a moral truth also served to predict the future realities during the time of the Messiah.  As the authors of the New Testament books showed how Christ primarily fulfilled Old Testament types, their thinking then immediately flowed right into how the church further fulfills these types by virtue of believers’ union with Jesus.  As Louis Berkhof wrote in Principles of Biblical Interpretation, “At the same time, it should be borne in mind that some types may find more than one fulfillment in the New  realities, for instance, one in Christ, and another in the people who are organically connected with him” (Berkhof, 147, emphasis mine as this implies the church).

For the sake of brevity, how about I explain here one key example that clearly shows this, then offer others for you to ponder?  In this demonstration then, consider the church as the temple of God.  

Every believer should see that Jesus came as the tabernacle of God (John 1:14), God’s true temple.  Our Lord clearly identified himself as such when he stood in Herod’s temple and proclaimed, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I shall raise it up” (John 2:19; see also Revelation 21:22).  He was the chief cornerstone that the builders despised (Psalm 118:22; I Peter 2:7).  Thus, the temple of the Old Testament was typical of Christ.

Yet a Master Builder cannot plan to set a chief cornerstone without also including the rest of the foundation and the building!  So Paul readily spoke of the prophets and apostles who wrote of Christ as the God-given completion of that foundation (Ephesians 2:20), and regularly referred to the church as the temple built on this foundation (Ephesians 2:21-22) as it is now indwelt by the Holy Spirit (I Corinthians 2:12; 3:16).  Note how similarly Peter connects this typology when he says, “As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (I Peter 2:4-5).

Based on this truth, the New Testament authors then take the articles in the temple, from altars to veils, and use them in reference to both Jesus and the church.  For instance, Christ is the light represented by the lamp stands in the temple (John 8:12, 9:5); as such, the church in union with him is his light and lamp stands in this world (Philippians 2:15; Revelation 1:20).  Jesus’ offering of Himself was a sweet fragrance of incense to God (Ephesians 5:2); as the church dwells in holiness with Christ she offers herself up in obedience as incense similarly (II Corinthians 2:14-16; Revelation 5:8).  Since the New Testament is saturated with this temple imagery regarding the church, the believing reader really only has two options in explaining its presence there.  Either one thinks the New Testament writers were very imaginative and creative in using the temple and its articles to describe the church, or God, planning and foreseeing what was to come in the age of Christ, deliberately arranged the Old Testament to foreshadow Christ fulfilling this imagery, first through his own person, yes, but also in further fulfillment through his church.  I rather think Paul, Peter, John and the rest write as if it were the latter.

The incredible wonder of it all is that this is a consistent pattern throughout typology.  Wherever you find Christ being referred to in the New Testament with Old Testament imagery, in such varied objects and people as the bridegroom, circumcision, seed of Abraham, high priest, vine of God, kingly Son of David, or shepherd (just to give seven more examples), you almost always see the church either sharing that description or complementing it as the bride, the true circumcision, children of Abraham, priests, branches of the vine, ones seated with Christ in heaven, or sheep and even under shepherds, respectively.  We are in such union with our Savior the same rich terms used throughout Scripture to describe him are used in describing what we have become and what we have in him.  Does that not astound you?

This means we can read our Old Testament Scriptures with confidence in their message to the church.  Far from the church being a distant or parenthetical thought, the Holy Spirit so moved the writers of old that it should be clear the things pertaining to Israel “happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come” (I Corinthians 10:11). They have rich application for the church in the new covenant age, both for what they reveal about Christ and for what they also show us about the church in union with him.   We can believe as Paul encourages us that all the promises of God in the Old Testament find their Yes in Christ, so that is why it is through him we can utter our Amen to God for his glory (II Corinthians 1:20).  The church should worship Christ in awe and wonder for the privileges we have, for though we were once not his people, now we  – Jews and Gentiles who believe in Christ – have become the true people of God (Hosea 1:10; I Peter 2:10).

This then leads us to the Old Testament type most fully developed and descriptive of all the church typologies in Scripture. In I Corinthians 10:11 above, the word describing Israel as “an example” to the church is literally “a type.” Ironically, Israel itself is the chief type of the church.  How much we will miss about the nature and life of the church if we do not see this.

10 Comments

  1. Dan September 9, 2013 at 10:29 am #

    Reflecting on your post, is one’s doctrine of baptism bound to be rooted in his view of the church as it relates to Israel?

    I was pondering this sermon transcription by John Piper last night as I continue to think through the doctrine of baptism.
    http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/how-do-circumcision-and-baptism-correspond

    I saw that Piper mentioned the visible church in his representation of the Reformed view of baptism, but he didn’t seem to distinguish visible and invisible churches when presenting his own position. My understanding of Piper’s view is that the new covenant applies only to those who are regenerated, therefore restricting administration of the covenant sign to those individuals.

    Pardon my ignorance, I am trying to understand!

    • Barry York September 10, 2013 at 2:44 pm #

      Dan, the short answer to your question is Yes. You seem to be understanding what you are reading from Piper pretty well.

      In looking at the article, as much as I respect John Piper I do think there are places where “he didn’t seem to distinguish visible and invisible churches” properly enough, or at least not in a way that is consistent. For he does not recognize that the same statements he makes about the visible/invisible church could be made about visible/invisible Israel and vice versa.

      For instance, Piper says, “The Church is not to be a mixed heritage like Abraham’s seed. The Church is not to be like Israel—a physical multitude and in it a small remnant of true saints.” On the one hand, Israel was not to be a mixed heritage or small remnant of saints either, as it was not by God’s preceptive will but through unfaithfulness that it became that way. Then, on the other, even a cursory glance at the church in history would show it becomes this way in ages of disobedience. It seems he makes a number of statements like this.

      One thing we do agree with him about, however, that he is bringing out clearly in the article. One’s view of Israel and its relation to the church does impact your baptismal view.

      • Dan September 11, 2013 at 5:16 pm #

        Prof. York,

        I’m still quite new to covenant theology so it’s been challenging to me to compare these differing views; your response helps a lot but reveals to me that I have to sharpen my understanding further! I too respect John Piper, and wrote simply to get a more precise understanding of where he and Reformed theologians diverge on the issues underlying the resultant differences in doctrine on baptism. I was drawn here by David Murray’s summary of your post, “Can we find the church on every page of the Old Testament?”. If that is the case, then I thought your words may provide some insight, so thank you very much for your post and response.

        I do have his book, by the way, and have appreciated what I’ve read thus far.

  2. particularkev September 16, 2013 at 8:24 am #

    Reblogged this on The Particular Baptist Journal.

  3. gary June 8, 2015 at 1:03 am #

    Here is the dilemma: Every Christian Old Testament Bible scholar, pastor, and priest on the planet says that the Old Testament prophesies the birth and death of Jesus of Nazareth as the Jewish Messiah (ben David). However, every (non-messianic) Jewish “Old Testament” scholar and rabbi adamantly states that there is not one single prophesy in the Hebrew Bible about Jesus.

    So who are we poor, ignorant, non-Hebrew speaking, non-Bible scholar, saps to believe?

    In lieu of spending the next 10 -15 years becoming a fluent Hebrew-speaking Old Testament Bible scholar yourself, I would suggest using some good ol’ common sense. Who is more likely to be correct:

    1.) Jewish sages and rabbis who have spent their entire lives immersed in Jewish culture, the Jewish Faith, the Hebrew language, and the Hebrew Bible—for the last 2,000 years— or, 2.) seminary graduates from Christian Bible colleges in Dallas, Texas and Lynchburg, Virginia?

    Sorry, Christian scholars, but using good ol’ common sense, I have to go with the Jewish scholars. And Jewish scholars say that Christian translators deliberately mistranslated and distorted the Hebrew Bible to say things in the Christian Bible that is never said in the original Hebrew—all for the purpose of inventing prophesies into which they can “shoehorn” Jesus!

    I strongly recommend that every Christian read orthodox Jewish author, Asher Norman’s book, “Twenty-Six Reasons Why Jews Don’t Believe in Jesus”. This fascinating, easy-to read book written for the layperson/non-scholar, demonstrates, step by step, how the alleged “prophecies” about Jesus in the Old Testament were manufactured by the authors of the New Testament. You will be shocked by the strong evidence that Jews present for their belief that Jesus absolutely could not have been the Jewish Messiah.

    • Barry York June 8, 2015 at 6:46 am #

      Gary,

      Thanks for reading.

      Please consider that pride always blinds. Your sneer in option 2 above reveals more than you realize.

      The problem with these Jewish scholars and you is that none of you must really believe Moses. If you did, you would believe Jesus for he wrote so clearly about him. I will pray your eyes are opened by God to see that.

      Sincerely,

      Barry

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. INDISCRIMINATE EXPRESSION OF EMOTIONS | Inspirational Christian Blogs - September 7, 2013

    […] The Church in Old Testament Typology (gentlereformation.org) […]

  2. Check out | HeadHeartHand Blog - September 9, 2013

    […] The Church in Old Testament Typology Can we find the church on every page of the Old Testament? […]

  3. The Church Is on Every Page of the Old Testament – True or False? | Redeemer OPC - September 9, 2013

    […] I believe so. [KEEP READING] […]

  4. Gospel-Centered Links October 2013 - October 2, 2013

    […] The Church in Old Testament Typology […]

Leave a Reply

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.