ronning at nis.za
Thu Nov 11 15:34:34 EST 1999
"Griffin, James R SWL" wrote:
> The only OT types that are legitimate types are ones that the New Testament
> declares as such, e.g., Jonah. If we go beyond this scope of interpretation,
> we take a liberty upon ourselves that is not supported by the scriptures.
> Perhaps this is a narrow view of "typology," but I believe it is the safest
It looks to me like Paul expected the Galatians to "take
this liberty upon themselves" when he expounded the
Sarah/Hagar typology - he did not expect them to receive it
on the basis of his apostolic authority, but rather said
"don't you listen to what the law says?"
You're basically saying we should ignore 90+ % of biblical
typology because it doesn't happen to be mentioned in the
NT. E.g. the rather detailed typological connection between
Cyrus and the servant of the Lord in Isaiah 41-53 - should
we ignore it because it's not mentioned in the NT?
I would counter that if you want to understand NT use of
types, you have to start with the OT and learn to "speak the
language" of typology.
More information about the b-hebrew