Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non-Nicene, non-Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Placable37

Favourite Signposts Of Typology

Recommended Posts

Mephibosheth - as a type of sinner protected by a covenant - is one of my favourites. 

 

2Sa 4:4
(4)  And Jonathan, Saul's son, had a son that was lame of his feet. He was five years old when the tidings came of Saul and Jonathan out of Jezreel, and his nurse took him up, and fled: and it came to pass, as she made haste to flee, that he fell, and became lame. And his name was Mephibosheth.

 

The name Mephibosheth means "dispeller of shame" (that is, of Baal)


Types are always characterised by their history, and their correspondence:

There was a covenant history between David and Jonathan which affected Jonathan's crippled son in a way that corresponds to the way sinners are affected by their covenant with God which Jesus confirmed in the New Testament: 

1Sa 20:42

(42)  And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the LORD, saying, The LORD be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever. And he arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city.
Mat 26:26-29
(26)  And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
(27)  And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
(28)  For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
(29)  But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

 

Types are also always characterised by their predictiveness:

The kindness of David in his search for those who are the object of his promise is predictive of God's initiative in seeking out those who are lost in sin. 

2Sa 9:1
(1)  And David said, Is there yet any that is left of the house of Saul, that I may shew him kindness for Jonathan's sake?
Luk 19:9-10
(9)  And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.
(10)  For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

 

The restoration of Mephibosheth to his inheritance and his promotion to the king's table is predictive of the sinner's restoration to eternal life and communion with God.

2Sa 9:2-7
(2)  And there was of the house of Saul a servant whose name was Ziba. And when they had called him unto David, the king said unto him, Art thou Ziba? And he said, Thy servant is he.
(3)  And the king said, Is there not yet any of the house of Saul, that I may shew the kindness of God unto him? And Ziba said unto the king, Jonathan hath yet a son, which is lame on his feet.
(4)  And the king said unto him, Where is he? And Ziba said unto the king, Behold, he is in the house of Machir, the son of Ammiel, in Lodebar.
(5)  Then king David sent, and fetched him out of the house of Machir, the son of Ammiel, from Lodebar.
(6)  Now when Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, was come unto David, he fell on his face, and did reverence. And David said, Mephibosheth. And he answered, Behold thy servant!
(7)  And David said unto him, Fear not: for I will surely shew thee kindness for Jonathan thy father's sake, and will restore thee all the land of Saul thy father; and thou shalt eat bread at my table continually.

1Pe 1:3-5
(3)  Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
(4)  to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you,
(5)  who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

Rev 19:9
(9)  And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

 

The typology of the Mephibosheth story is but one of my favourite signposts, and I know of people who have been much edified by coming across such types which point to the fulfilment of God's Word. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • Jim Hamilton on Typology in the Psalms

      I try to keep episodes of Help Me Teach the Bible less than 60 minutes, but this time I just couldn’t do it. There was simply too much you’ve-got-to-hear-this insight offered by Jim Hamilton, professor of biblical theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and preaching pastor at Kenwood Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky. I had to begin our conversation with a short discussion on the book that brought him to my attention—The Glory of God in Salvation Through Judgment—as it was a paradigm-shifting book for me when I read it. The rest of our conversation deals with four aspects of the Psalms: typology in the Psalms; use of earlier Scripture in the Psalms; psalms quoted in the New Testament; and the flow of thought in the psalms. And, frankly, most of it was new to me. This is one of those episodes listeners may want to listen to more than once to catch all that Hamilton is presenting. Fans of the broadway musical Hamilton will appreciate the numerous ways Hamilton (no relation so far as he knows) draws upon the form and content of the musical to illustrate aspects of the Psalms. You can listen to the episode here. Recommended Resources: Sermons on every Psalm preached by Jim Hamilton at Kenwood Baptist Church (look for sermons March 2015 to June 2018) Biblical Theology for Christian Proclamation: Commentary on Psalms by James Hamilton (planned release in late 2019 or early 2020). What Is Biblical Theology: A Guide to the Bible’s Story, Symbolism, and Patterns by James Hamilton The Glory of God in Salvation Through Judgment by James Hamilton Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament edited by D. A. Carson and G. K. Beale View the full article

      in Christian Current Events

    • Don’t Use Prophet, Priest, and King as a Modern Leadership Typology

      Writing and editing a book takes a long time. Rewriting a book you’ve already written takes even longer, but that’s precisely what I did last year. The rewrite was necessary because I became convinced that the use of prophet, priest, and king as a leadership typology—a pattern that’s become increasingly common among Reformed church leaders—is fundamentally flawed. Munus Triplex I first ran across this leadership typology a little more than a decade ago when I heard potential church planters refer to themselves using terms like “kingly leader” or “priestly type.” “I’m not really preparing to do pastoral care,” one commented to me. “I’m more a king than a priest, you know. So someone else will need to do the counseling and visiting when I’m a pastor.” Another pastor-in-training put it this way: “I’m more of a prophetic teacher, so I’m looking for a kingly leader to supplement my leadership style by taking care of strategy and vision.” When I pressed these individuals further, it was clear they believed this leadership model is well-grounded in the Scriptures: to lead like Jesus is to imitate one or more of the Old Testament offices Jesus fulfilled. The threefold office of prophet, priest, and king—the “munus triplex”—provided them with a typology for their leadership. According to one proponent of this typology, the prophetic leader is “a visionary who has a burning desire to preach the Word of God,” while kingly leaders “know how to take a vision, organize, and implement it,” and the priestly leader cares for “the needs of the people” and solves “interpersonal problems.” Over the past couple of decades, this leadership typology has grown increasingly popular among Reformed pastors and church planters. Among the church planters I knew, the triperspectival approach of John Frame and Vern Poythress solidified a typology they heard about at church-planting conferences. At first, I went along with the typology, even as I expressed some reservations about the ways I saw it applied. In particular, it concerned me that caregiving—the supposed “priestly role”—was almost always being delegated to someone else. In some cases, pastors-in-training made it clear that counseling and caring for people’s souls weren’t roles they planned to pursue at all. When I began co-writing the leadership book that became The God Who Goes before You, one of my goals was to curb some of the problems I saw arising from pigeonholing church leaders into the categories of prophet, priest, or king. By the time we completed the book, I concluded that the way this typology has been applied to new covenant leaders is fundamentally flawed. The result was a near-total rewrite of the entire book. Problems with Using the Munus Triplex The munus triplex itself is, of course, a venerable and biblically grounded structure with roots that stretch back into ancient times. But the notion that the triad of prophet, priest, and king describes capacities that different leaders possess in differing degrees is a recent idea that isn’t biblical. Here are three of more than a dozen key truths from Scripture that drove me to this conclusion. 1. Kingship in the Old Testament had to do with covenant faithfulness, not organizational leadership. The primary role of Israel’s king was to live as an exemplar of faithfulness to God’s covenant. This point is particularly clear in Moses’s command to future kings of Israel: “Write . . . a copy of this law” (Deut. 17:18). This process reminded each king to live out his commitment to God’s covenant by judging the people with justice and by trusting God’s provision when enemies threatened the people’s safety. There’s no hint that visionary organizational strategies were part of the job description for Israel’s kings. Identifying kingly leadership with organizational strategy imports a modern, Western conception of leadership into old covenant kingship. 2.  Kingliness and priesthood in the new covenant are communal identities, not individual capacities. God has designated his new covenant people as “a royal priesthood” through our union with Christ, the perfect high priest and king (1 Pet. 2:9; see also 2 Tim. 2:12; Rev. 5:9–10). Through faith in Christ, women and men from every race and nation are bound together even now into this single kingdom of priests. No individual within the body of Christ can become more kingly or more priestly than anyone else, because every aspect of Christ’s royal priesthood is already ours in him. This isn’t to suggest, of course, that different church leaders don’t have distinct gifts that are best deployed by focusing their energies on particular areas of ministry. But the identities of priest and king in particular aren’t individual capacities that some individuals possess more strongly than others; they’re identities shared by the whole community in union with Christ. At one point, when a few Christians in Corinth did try to “reign as kings” individually, Paul’s response was to demand they return to unity with the body and imitate his way of life as a servant (1 Cor. 4:1, 8, 16). 3. Teaching is far more consistently connected with priests than with prophets. According to the typology, the skillful teacher is a prophetic leader. But Scripture never clearly or consistently connects teaching with prophecy. In fact, teaching is most frequently linked not with prophets but with priests (Lev. 10:10–11; 2 Kings 12:2; 2 Chron. 15:3; 17:7–9; 35:3; Ezra 7:6–10; Neh. 8:7–9; Isa. 28:7–10; Jer. 18:18; Ezek. 7:26; 22:26; Mic. 3:11; Mal. 2:7–9). Prophets weren’t primarily teachers or expositors of written revelation; they were recipients of direct divine revelation. Their declarations of divine revelation were tested against previous revelations and against the events that succeeded their proclamations (Num. 12:6–8; Deut. 18:19–22). And so, even if the munus triplex happens to describe different modes of leadership that leaders possess in differing degrees, prophecy isn’t the office linked most clearly to teaching. What’s more, prophecy was seen in the New Testament as accessible and desirable for every first-century believer (Acts 2:17; 1 Cor. 14:1–5, 31–39). The notion that prophet, priest, and king are capacities different leaders possess in varying degrees is a recent innovation. In fact, the earliest expression I’ve discovered is in The Glorious Body of Christ by R. B. Kuiper, published in 1967. Studying the Scriptures as I wrote a book on pastoral leadership convinced me that this typology is fundamentally flawed. And that’s why I spent months rewriting a book that was already finished. The munus triplex should indeed shape our leadership, but it shapes our leadership best when these offices are treated not as a leadership typology but as functions that have been fulfilled in Christ and conveyed to the whole people of God through union with him. View the full article

      in Christian Current Events

    • sharing my favourite music

      Listenning to music is my favourite hobby . Today I watched a short video of the worship hymn , it touched and warmed my heart , I feel the God´s love from the music, so I would like to share it with you.What is your favourite music?can you recommend to us?

      in Sports & Hobbies

    • The Church in Old Testament Typology

      September 6, 2013, Barry York in Biblical Studies, The Church, Theology   We have been promoting happily David Murray’s book Jesus on Every Page, as 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.

      in Covenant Theology

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.