0:03
Amen. Years ago, we watched a series uh called Merlin. It was about the the wizard, you know, from the Middle Ages, the early Middle Ages, and he had a mentor. It was
0:15
young Merlin. He had a mentor by the name of Gas. And every time Merlin went to do something, Gas would say, "It's too dangerous, Merlin." So, that kind of became a phrase in our family whenever
0:26
we're going to do something. It's too dangerous, Merlin. when even when I was watching it, I thought he's a wizard. Just turn them all into frogs. I mean, like, how can it be dangerous if you're
0:38
a wizard? So anyhow, um I thought that would help introduce the discussion tonight because what we've been doing
0:49
and and you know you know me um several several weeks um maybe sometimes scores of weeks of introduction, you know, trying to lay the groundwork for what it
1:01
is we're actually doing here. And essentially what we're doing is what I consider to be a dangerous necessity or a necessary danger. Maybe
1:31
So there's a lot of people who have written especially since the reformation on typology itself prior to the reformation pretty much everybody just did it. Didn't really
1:43
talk about doing it. They they just did it. But the way some of them did it
1:54
disturbed others because there's an element of subjectivity and even imagination
2:04
in such a way that not everybody sees it the same way and that's a danger it can it can easily so the the main danger is involved in the
2:30
Now, it may seem like they're much the same thing, but but they're not. The the primary difference that that I've discerned in in studying this is that typology when it's done
2:45
correctly holds on to the historical event as both historical and important.
2:59
allegory reads the historical event and then moves off into the realm of fantasy in terms of what the different
3:10
referenced people and events in the narrative really mean. So it's a subtle difference but if
3:20
you've read any commentary by origin of the second century or even by Luther on the identity of the four wise men
3:33
representing the four corners of the earth. How he knew there were four wise men no one has quite figured out yet. But even the reformers who railed
3:44
against allegorical interpretation fell into it themselves. And you can even read it um in modern commentaries.
4:00
you you read it for example in in many commentaries on the various um elements of the apocryphal or the apocalyptic, excuse me, the apocalyptic book of Revelation
4:11
where the the the flying uh lizards or whatever they are are actually nuclear warheads. And
4:22
warheads. And that's, you know, that's that's that's getting into allegorical um interpretation. So the the the the
4:53
So allegory uses the historical event merely as a launching point launching point to whatever the text really means. Okay. So allegory does this.
5:16
Now I I need to say that even someone like Origin did not dismiss the historical validity of the event. He simply dismissed the exeetical significance of it. So he didn't deny
5:29
that the event happened. So we're not talking about modern liberalism which basically says this stuff never happened. the 10 plagues, the parting of
5:39
the Red Sea, the mana in the wilderness, the water from the rock, that stuff never happened. Now, Origin would say, "Oh, yeah, it happened." But that's just
5:50
a children's story. In fact, that's pretty much what he said. It's purile. That that is surface level. The the real Bible student dives into the meaning that is hidden beneath the
6:02
narrative. So there is another subtle distinction between those who simply deny the historicity of these events and that's not typically
6:13
allegorical interpretation in the history of the church up until the modern era up until basically the 17th century. So in allegory the historical narrative is uh valid
6:35
unimportant except in forming the framework for the hidden deeper meaning. So it's valid but
7:12
I hope that's not what we're doing. At least it's certainly something I want to avoid doing.
8:02
one uh modern 20th century author says, "The one word which perhaps better than any other describes the early church's method of interpreting the Old Testament is typology."
8:13
is typology." Now we we've lost that. We lost it in several ways. First through the middle ages. The rise of tradition, consilier and
8:24
papal tradition kind of pushed out biblical exugesus as a practice of the church. and and also the the scholastic era
8:37
where the those who did study the Bible were studying were studying arcane minutia that that really had no application at all. So that was the the
8:50
middle ages through the Roman Catholic and then in the Protestant Reformation there was a reaction against the allegorical interpretation that was
9:01
still prevalent in parts of the church. So that Calvin, Luther, Calvin, Knox, they rejected any form of typological
9:15
interpretation if it was not explicitly done by a New Testament author. Testament author. And so what happened is is if you if you were to see for example as I've said
9:28
before the the pattern of the life of Jesus in the flow of the life of Joseph if if you if you follow the trajectory
9:40
of Joseph's life and then you overlay it to Jesus's life I think it's pretty amazing that would be flatly rejected. Ed, that would be
9:52
allegorical because nowhere in the New Testament is such a comparison made. So, we're doing something that people like Luther and Calvin would say you
10:03
should not be doing that. And we're going to talk about that because there are others are others um who would say actually it's a longlost hermeneutic that needs to be recovered.
10:14
Patrick Fairbar in the 19th century laments the the loss of typological exugesus in the church up to that point. It it had largely left u biblical
10:26
exugesus commentaries would focus on the grammatical historic method which means we would just focus on the words and the
10:36
history the con the historical context and that and that would just tell us what the writer is saying. But if you tried to go anywhere other than a specific
10:47
citation from the New Testament, you were you were sliding down that slippery slope into subjective allegory.
11:01
>> How would you >> You're anticipating me because I think it must be safeguarded and I think we can safeguard it. um and Fairbar actually gives I think one of the most
11:12
uh concise uh concise manners in which we can safeguard that disscent and that's what I've been trying to do these two sessions. Okay. So the first thing we we looked at last
11:24
time in the first session was this idea of the three-fold references in the New Testament to the Old. Okay. So I've already said that the
11:35
safe path is to stick with explicit citations. Okay. So we have we talked about those.
11:51
But the point of the last lesson was to establish that this is by no means exhaustive concerning the New Testament writer's use of the Old Testament. We have
12:04
illusions that some are are undeniable, some are just very powerful. Uh if they get less than that, then they become echoes. So these are left off.
12:23
Okay. So this the safe path sticks with number one. That's it. If it's cited in the New Testament, then you're you're valid in interpreting the Old Testament that way. Because the the argument goes that the the New Testament writers were
12:37
inspired. And so apparently inspiration is required in order to recognize types and shadows from the Old Testament.
12:49
I don't think any of us have actually experienced that. I think we've read the New Testament and we've heard and seen the shadows or we've read the Old
13:00
Testament and our mind goes to something in the New Testament, something that Jesus has done or something that occurs to us because of what Jesus has done.
13:13
And yet there's no New Testament verse that we can go to that explicitly says that. Is that fair? Have you ever experienced that? Okay. Are you inspired?
13:25
Well, in a way, John says you are. Now, certainly not in any way like the New Testament writers, but John does say in his first epistle that you have the
13:35
anointing and you have no need of any to teach you. Okay? So, and Jesus did promise that the Holy Spirit would come and lead us into all the truth.
13:48
So there there is a sense in which we're not inspired in the sense that that what we say and what we write is inherent or infallible. That that is not
14:01
true. It's probably not even true. And this has been a kind of a scholastic argument as to whether or not everything, you know, for example, if Paul took a math test, would he get a hundred?
14:12
Probably not. Although maybe he did and Peter didn't. I don't know. But you know, we we understand that their inspiration was not across the board in everything they did or said. Peter
14:23
clearly was wrong in the situation that occurred in Antioch when the when the disciples from James came down and they were Jewish and Peter pulled back from having meals with the Gentiles. Paul
14:36
flatly says, "I opposed him because he was wrong." was wrong." There's a never- ending debate as to whether or not Peter or Paul or Barnabas was right in their little disagreement.
14:47
So, so clearly these men were not infallible in all things. We believe that they were infallible in that which the Holy Spirit taught them and they recorded for us. The Holy Spirit
14:58
preserved for us. So, so in a completely different sense of the word, we do have the anointing within us.
15:08
Now, because we are not infallible, we have to be careful. So, there there are different ways I have, you know, in in light of all this, there are several things. um
15:21
things. um uh George Wright who who's a fairly unknown uh to me anyhow he wrote a small book called God who acts back in 1952
15:33
um and I find it quite good but he says in other words typology when rightly understood and used takes historical data seriously
15:45
persons acts and events possess a typological ical meaning when they are understood to have been fixed or directed by God so that they point
15:55
forward to the future. They possess their own original historical significance, but the eye of faith can discern that God has also set them as previews
16:10
or types which point to a greater and more complete facts. What that's saying is is that it points toward Jesus.
16:20
toward Jesus. That we're not denying the historical significance of the event itself, the 10 plagues, the crossing of the Red Sea, Passover, the mana. We're going to talk about
16:31
these events that took place at the birth of Israel as a nation. It is their deliverance. That deliverance through the water is both reminiscent, as Peter
16:44
puts it in his letter, reminiscent of Noah and also and also significant of baptism.
16:54
So we start to see patterns. Okay. So how do we do this? I think that that's an excellent and necessary question. How do we do this safely?
17:21
>> Yeah, you can try this at home. You put on a harness, three point, fivepoint harness, wear a hard hat, and definitely a reflective vest so we can find you. Um, how do we do this? Well, the reformers, and I'll put this
18:29
Yeah. Um, actually the the the allegorical, you understand that's not what I'm proposing. Okay. proposing. Okay. >> Honestly, with the allegorical, I would
18:40
say probably yes. Water does Water does have ancient and biblical significance. In in the Bible, there are two forms of
18:53
water with diametrically opposed significance. Rivers. Now, are rivers good or bad in the Bible? the Bible? >> They are good.
19:04
How about seas? >> Really bad. Really bad. Really bad. Is that how we're supposed to see? I mean, frankly, um
19:17
I would rather be by a river than the ocean. I'd rather be on a river than the ocean. That rivers I mean rivers don't have the same not only powerful but
19:31
almost malevolent almost malevolent aspect to them as the oceans do. Now some people obviously that's a generalization. Okay. Some people don't have a problem with oceans at all but
19:42
frankly uh it traditionally really throughout human history but certainly in uniformly in ancient literature not just the Bible rivers are
19:54
symbolic of life. Right. Rivers in the desert. I mean, that's that's like that's new earth type prophecy in Isaiah. Rivers flowing in
20:04
the desert. River flowing out of the temple in Ezekiel and getting wider and deeper. It's a river, not an ocean. Daniel, you have the the four beasts coming out of where? The sea.
20:17
The human empires that dominate Israel's existence throughout that perh period are all coming out out of the sea. Even at creation there's nothing but
20:30
chaos formless and void and darkness covered what? The face of the deep. Right? So in a sense yes
20:41
the I think the most the most significant of them all we'll talk about this next week. So, I'm kind of giving away a punchline, but is it in Revelation 21 Revelation 21 where we read of the new earth and
20:52
what's not there in the new earth? There are no seeds. It's a bddaptism.
21:16
>> Yeah. Oh, you wouldn't if you No, I don't think so. If you were origin, you would not do that. If you were even Josephus or Pho um you would not do that because
21:27
first of all, that was fresh water. That was that was sweet water. So, it could not represent baptism. It could not represent baptism because baptism both
21:38
in in 1 Corinthians 10 and in 1 Peter 3 where 1 Corinthians 10 baptism is referred to the passing through the Red
21:50
Sea. In 1 Peter 3, baptism is referred to the deluge, the flood. We're getting a little ahead because we're going to be talking about in detail next week, but I think that's a
22:01
very good question. and how do you discern this from that? And I think that's one of the reasons why you you you generally try to stay away from
22:13
allegory. I I I agree with this method completely in terms of allegory. Galatians 4, Paul says his analysis of Abraham and Sarah
22:24
and Hagar and Ishmael and Isaac, he said, "Now this is allegory." Okay, Paul, you can do that. I don't do that. Okay. He's he's assigning symbolic roles
22:35
to not only those people but also to Jerusalem and the Jerusalem from above. So, you know, he's know, he's what he's doing there, I think, is
22:46
purely inspired. purely inspired. Um I I don't think we would even get there with the methodology that I'm going to I'm trying to teach and and trying to follow.
22:56
It should keep us from flights of fancy. I I think it does. But um I think the water from the rock origin would have no basis. Now origin was not an idiot. He
23:08
was a very intelligent man and acknowledged as such in his time and he was very well kn well wellversed in both the old and new testament. The water
23:18
from the rock was a gracious provision of drinking water for the children of Israel. The seas represent chaos and death.
23:31
So water from the rock would be like a river from the rock. A river, not an ocean. So that's kind of one of the patterns. And that that's really where
23:42
I'm headed is there are patterns and those patterns become more recognizable. Sometimes we just need to be shown them. And then as we read them,
23:53
we we we see that the passing through the Red Sea was actually reminiscent of the flood, as Peter says, through which eight souls passed alive.
24:06
Now, through the Red Sea, far more than eight souls passed through alive, but the sea did represent death to Pharaoh's
24:22
Leviticus study with parable. with parable. >> No, because a a a parable still it is a Yeah, that's a good question. A parable is still a type
24:33
because it doesn't depart from the elements of it. But the difference is a parable is known not to be historical. Nobody pretends
24:46
that the parable is intended to be literal history. Okay? So other than that, there's still a narrative. There's still a story, right? And it's a story that could happen. A sewer went out to
24:56
sew, right? So it's a story that could happen, but because it's a parable, we know that the elements of it are
25:08
symbolic. That's what Okay. So it's a figure of speech that we know. Now, the 10 plagues is not a parable in the sense that it actually happened. I don't think that
25:21
Jesus's story of Lazarus and the rich man is a parable for several reasons. One, it's not called a parable anywhere. Two, if it is a parable, it is the only
25:33
parable in the Bible where someone is actually named, actually named, given an an actual name, Lazarus. Okay. Um, three, there's nothing about the
25:44
parable that is necessarily unhistorical. Now, the parable of the mustard seed is different. We were talking about that a couple weeks ago, weren't we? That
25:54
mustard seeds don't grow into trees, you know? So, it's like, whoa. I mean, the hearers of that parable when he said, "And the tree grew into the largest in the garden, and birds nested
26:06
in its branches." Like, where'd you get that mustard seed? I know Burpee doesn't sell that one. I mean, that's a serious mustard seed plant. That would have the whole German army would have been able
26:16
to live off that plant through World War I, I guess. But, you know, there's something wrong with it because it doesn't match with reality, which means that's kind of keys you to think what's
26:27
going on here. So, that's the difference. A parable is never established as historical. The problem with allegory and in fact um George
26:37
Wright makes this comment that I think is uh he says the typology can be more dangerous than allegory because it achieves the same end without
26:48
being so openly unhistorical. You see the allegorist departs from the history immediately.
26:59
In in other words, when we get into the 10 plagues, we're going to talk about what, if anything, did those specific plagues signify at that time.
27:10
Not in not in depth because that would actually be an exugesus of of Exodus 6 through11 and I'm not going to do that. But in general, we we exedute the passage according to its historical
27:24
setting. But while we're doing that, we're also looking for
27:34
the I hate to say deeper meaning, but this the the the symbolic meaning that as Fairbear says points forward to a fuller and more complete story.
27:47
Now, I personally believe that the events of the Old Testament in some way or another point toward the work of Jesus Christ or the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
27:58
Holy Spirit. I will freely admit that I do not see where all of them do that, but I believe they do because I think everything was intended to point toward
28:09
Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ. I don't think that's that's one of my biggest arguments against dispensationalism is that it breaks up that eternal purpose of God that
28:20
culminates in the sending of his son. So, as I said last week, if anything is is true about Jesus in the New Testament, then it must somehow be
28:31
foreshadowed in the revelation of the Old Testament. And the more we learn of that foreshadowing, the deeper will be our understanding of the fulfillment. That that's all we're trying to do here
28:43
is to show how everything did point to Jesus. Back when we did the first session, we had a lengthy discussion about the threads that run through the whole scripture. And I remember I said I
28:55
didn't think that Jesus Christ was himself a thread because he's actually the whole fabric. I mean, he everything points to him.
29:05
Now, if you look at the son of man, that's a thread. Or the seed of woman, that's a thread. Or the seed of Abraham, that's a thread. Of course, all of them culminate in Jesus Christ. One of the
29:16
reasons I point out so often that the Jews of the second temple didn't see this is because of how important it is to see it. We see it, but we see it because of
29:26
the Holy Spirit. We see that he is the servant of Yahweh. We see that he's the Messiah. we see that he's he's um the son of man. All those different uh
29:39
illusions from the Old Testament, prophetic illusions, we see them fulfilled in Jesus. So, what what we're doing is now looking at more of the historical events. Why did God create?
29:50
That was last session. You know, that whole up to Abraham. Why why all of what did this all point to? Now, we're taking Israel, which I think is is really remarkable from Isaiah 43,
30:02
that when when God speaks of the Exodus, he uses creation language. I created you. I formed you. And he uses that several times throughout that chapter to
30:14
show that the Exodus is actually not merely the political organization of the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but it was the creation, not
30:33
Out of all of the peoples, God created for himself a people. That's really significant because that's what he's doing now. Out of every tongue, tribe, and nation, he's
30:44
creating a people. See, there's the foreshadowing. And so, that helps us not to treat Israel as if she was an end unto
30:55
herself. That's the error of dispensationalism. But it also teaches us, if we're doing it correctly, not to simply replace Israel with the church.
31:08
Because if you do that, if you just simply say, "Israel, God's done with Israel. Israel doesn't matter anymore, you're actually calling God unfaithful."
31:19
Because the Old Testament, I think quite clearly and quite consistently
31:29
puts God's honor on the line in terms of his name and his promises. So to say that they're somehow fulfilled in the church and therefore we don't have to worry about the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, I think it's
31:40
an error on the other extreme. I think it's an error of not treating the historical meaning as significant and jumping to the typological fulfillment which is the church.
32:30
>> Is there overlap? >> There's overlap. But we are too hung up. >> No, I don't I don't think we're too hung up. I I see where you're what you're saying. And there's definitely overlap and and one person's parable, one man's
32:42
parable is another man's allegory. And that is true. That really is. Um but the the historical reality of exugesus
32:55
does divide up into two broad camps. actually three, typological, and literal.
33:07
and literal. And so I do think it's important that we we allow those distinctions because they too are historical. And admitting that there is overlap and there's not agreement as to what crosses
33:17
the line into allegory, we still have, you know, again, the safe the safe pass is literal. Just whatever the Bible says, that's what it says. And I don't even think
33:28
about it. It just says yes. Did Did Moses lead the children of Israel across the Red Sea? He most certainly did.
33:58
>> right. Yeah, I think the literal I I think that two things um well actually just the literal because the literal went off in two directions. It went off into liberalism
34:11
where modern rational thinking just frankly denied the literal meaning of it just didn't happen at that point.
34:21
Many modern commentators think it is illegitimate to find Jesus in the Old Testament at all. Okay. The other one went off into
34:34
fundamentalism, which basically I if if you're not going to see anything typological or symbolic in the Old Testament, then the only thing it's there for is for you can mine for messianic
34:45
prophecies and use them in apologetics. You can use them in evangelism. See, this prophecy is filled. Isaiah 9 and here's Jesus, you know, and that's all it's there for. The net effect there is
34:58
to only see Jesus in those passages in the Old Testament that have a star in the margin. At least that's the way my Bible has a star in the margin. I'm sure it's the original, like the first verse
35:10
of the Psalms, you know, I'm sure that star telling us it's a messianic prophecy. I wouldn't have known otherwise. Okay. Um,
35:22
this is an example from our own congregation many years ago. Uh, someone who uh objected to the singing of Psalms because they wanted to sing about Jesus.
35:34
How do you feel about that? And Lord willing, next summer we'll do a Sunday school class where we'll finish up the Acts two part and we're going to talk about that. But that statement, I
35:45
don't want to sing the Psalms because I want to sing about Jesus. Is that >> what >> I do
35:56
>> in the Psalms? >> That's why I want to say the Psalms. >> Do you see this? Do you see Jesus in the Psalms? Does that Okay. I mean, basically what
36:06
the person was saying is Jesus isn't in the Psalms. the Psalms. I don't want to sing the Psalms because I don't see Jesus there.
36:19
I think Aaron's response is that's why I sing the Psalms. He is there and he's very many other places too. >> Yeah. Often he is the speaker. Yeah. Uh
36:30
the Lord said to my Lord, you know that they're they're the conversation. The father and the son as Jesus says. So um but but that's that I think is very true that that moving into the safety of
36:45
literalism it it may be safe but I I think I'm saying that saying that executing scripture becoming a skilled craftsman able to handle the word of truth means handling sharp tools.
36:59
It it does put you in the danger of heresy. Now, I think the fundamental protection of that has always been the church that, and I've said this before, this this is
37:11
not a one-man operation. That's usually where the cults have come from is when one man convinces a group of
37:22
people and a growing group of people to follow his analysis. And there's a danger. So, there's a protection in the body of Christ. So
37:33
when John said, you know, you have the anointing and you have no need of any to teach you, that should be fair warning against just accepting lock, stock, and barrel what any author or any speaker
37:45
happens to say. I've made the comment before that, you know, if you if you if you go into a church, you go into the pastor's study, you should take a look at the different authors on the
37:56
bookshelf and hope that there are different names there because if there's only one name, whatever name that may be other than the name that is named under heaven, and Jesus didn't actually write
38:08
anything, but if you're only looking at if you're only looking at a one shelf of Calvin and nothing else, flee. flee for your lives. You know that that person is simply a parrot.
38:22
So literalism, we're not even going to really talk about literalism because I think it's a dead end street. It really is. It's it's the hermeneutic of the dead. And I really don't think you can apply
38:32
it. I don't think you can honestly apply it to your reading of scripture. There's just so much in there that you can hear the echoes both from the, you know, reciprocally from the Old Testament and
38:43
the New Testament back and forth. and you realize that, you know, I can't just say this is the literal what happened. That's it. Go on. That's that's the hermeneutic of the dead. Now,
38:54
I'm not saying you're not saved. Don't get me wrong. I'm just saying in terms of your your growth and the understanding of God's revelation of himself and of his will, it's the hermeneutic of the dead. And so you're
39:05
left with the necessary danger of not only recognizing the typological interpretations of the New Testament, but also learning how to do it yourself
39:18
as you're reading the Old Testament. And again, I know you've all done this already. You've you're reading, for example, you're reading Ezekiel 36 where
39:30
God says, "I will I will wash you and you will be clean. I will take out your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my spirit in you and cause you to walk in my statutes.
39:44
How can you read that and not hear the You can't. Okay? And and you and you don't even the literalist doesn't say
39:55
that that I I have a heart of actual stone that God's going to reach in, take out, you know, they don't take it literally. So it's it's not only a hermeneutic of the dead, it's really untenable. It it can't be done. And so I
40:07
I think in a sense we have to embrace the danger of reading the scripture not only the way the New Testament writers read it and they definitely did read it typologically. I mean frankly mo Matthew
40:19
saying of Joseph and Mary bringing Jesus back into Galilee out of Egypt I called my son.
40:29
my son. That's a stretch. and and you got to see it as a stretch. That's Hosea 11, right? 11 verse one. And it's clearly referring to the
40:42
Exodus. So that tells us right away. And as I said last week, Luke 24, that Jesus took the two disciples and starting with Moses and the prophets and all the scriptures, he told them about himself,
40:54
but he didn't tell us. And I think that's where we are. If he told them everything about himself in
41:04
the scriptures, the law and the prophets and all the scriptures, can't we also find him there? I I think we're supposed to, you know,
41:16
we we often say that we should be Bereans, and I think we should, but in another sense, we ought to be the the two disciples on the road to Emmas. Are not Were not our hearts marvelously
41:27
warmed, you know, with the Old Testament? Yeah, I think so. I I'd like to see I think I would rejoice if if if that were be our response. So, let me
41:38
let me finish up this section on typology because I do want to get into the 10 plagues this evening and I'm going to run out of time. >> Okay, we'll run out of time. That's
41:50
fine. >> No, no, I don't mind. I can do it again next week. It's no problem. Go for it. Seriously, go for it. >> I'm just kidding. >> You were just kidding. Okay. All right. I don't think so, but All right. Well,
42:03
19th century 19th century um very wellrespected biblical scholar by the name of Moses Stewart, Scottish with the name Moses. Couldn't
42:27
that just so much of the Old Testament is to be accounted typical as the New Testament affirms to be so and no more. He puts it in italics.
42:39
Okay. So, no more of the Old Testament is to be accounted as typical if the New Testament does not affirm it to be so. The fact that anything or
42:51
event under the Old Testament dispensation was designed to prefigure something under the new can be known to us only by
43:04
revelation. And of course, all that is not designated by divine authority as typical can never be made so by any authority less than that which guided
43:15
the writers of the New Testament. I I just don't agree with that. >> Scottish accent. >> That's right. Right.
43:25
>> Get Sean Connory to read it. It doesn't help it. It it it completely obiates the in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit
43:36
in every believer. In fact, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is really nothing more than fire insurance. There's there's no guiding into the truth. There's there's no anointing that
43:47
all have. I I don't think the New Testament writers would for a moment accept this statement, but rather tell us to study to show ourselves approved. Study what?
43:59
Study what? Study the scriptures. Well, you haven't even written the New Testament yet. What are we supposed to do? You know, we got to wait till you're done. Come on, hurry up. You gota
44:10
>> Yeah. The letters teachings of the New Testament are entirely too short
44:21
in the Old Testament. And yet And yet of the Lord Jesus, then there's
44:38
his logic. You would have to revise 2 Timothy 3:16. All scripture is God breathed and profitable if in the New Testament you find the explicit meaning of it.
44:50
That is not what 2 Corinthians 3:16 says. Okay. Um George Wright goes on. I think we're going to move toward how to do it correctly and then hopefully we
45:00
will then practice doing it correctly from here on out. Um but George Wright makes this comment. Now, he's he's an interesting author because he basically
45:11
lays out the right way to do it and then says, "It's too dangerous, Merlin. You need to just do it when the New Testament does it." And I'm reading this
45:21
like, "Did you just say that?" Maybe his editor made him make made him say it. So, here is the approach that he advocates for the understanding of the
45:32
Old Testament typologically. It is based very simply upon the belief that God has been directing the events of biblical time for his own name's sake and that in
45:45
Christ the whole of the former period has been brought to completion and the new age inaugurated. Typology when properly defined points to
45:57
the center of the Bible in a divinely directed unique history wherein as a result of the fulfillment, one is enabled to see that the events of the
46:08
Old Testament were meant by God to be preparatory events with an inner significance only partially understood by the original participants and only to
46:20
be comprehended fully in Jesus Christ. Now that that's a lot of words and what it basically is saying is God ordained this whole story.
46:32
It actually happened and everything that God ordained to happen that is recorded in the scripture points to the fulfillment in Jesus Christ. Is that fair? Does anybody object to
46:44
that? Now that does not mean we get it right. But I think the comment that you made that there's just not enough in the New Testament. New Testament. I mean, John basically said if if
46:56
everything that Jesus did had been written down, the world couldn't contain the books. the books. What was written down is for us to know and to and to have fellowship with Jesus
47:06
Christ and to believe. But there's so much more that we glean from what of God and of Christ and of ourselves and of the church, of the Holy Spirit and his ministry. All of that is foreshadowed by
47:19
the Old Testament. The roots of it all is in the Old Testament. So that's where we're we're going to head. Um and so I do want to one more
47:30
quote from Patrick Fairbar. And I think this is a um as I alluded to when Abe when you asked your question, how do we do this? Um
47:46
okay. Fairbar advocates that readers of the Bible search out the fundamental principles involved in the whole representations of
47:57
scripture. Okay. So that's what I said was the patterns. All right. So safe typological hermeneutics. First of all,
48:11
sit tight to the history its meaning in its time.
48:28
Don't don't just use the history as a diving board diving board for imaginative, subjective, allegorical. If you stick tight to the history, the the typology becomes not only
48:38
clearer, but it comes be safer, much much safer. But then seek out
49:12
So again, when when uh when the Lord speaks in Isaiah 43 of his formation of of Israel, he's using a language of Genesis 1. When John starts his gospel, he's using the
49:23
language of Genesis 1. So the events of God, I I've said this before, the the events of God become the language of prophecy. So that the the redemption of Israel
49:36
from the prophesied exile. This is Isaiah 43. So Isaiah is several hundred years before the exile. And he's speaking of that exile. He actually mentions Babylon in chapter 43:15. We
49:49
talked about that last week. He speaks of the redemption from the exile from Babylon in terms of the exodus from Egypt because Exodus becomes the motif.
50:00
But even the even the narrative of the Exodus uses the language of creation, the crossing of the sea, which we'll look at, Lord willing, next week. So the
50:11
the language of God's acts becomes the the language of his future acts. So learning a language is what we're doing. We're learning the language of
50:23
divine revelation and seeing what happens as we see the patterns that God has established in his redemptive history that recur.
50:34
So as I said in 1 Corinthians 10, Paul speaks of baptism under the rubric of the crossing of the Red Sea. In 1 Peter 3, Peter speaks of baptism under the
50:45
rubric of the deluge, the flood. They're both saying the same thing because both of those past events, true
51:00
baptism. And so what they meant at the time is a microcosm of what baptism means. And again, we're going to look at that next week when we look at the crossing
51:10
of the Red Sea. the whole um complex of the the 10 plagues really from from the 10 plagues to Sinai that that that
51:22
issue right there or you could say simply the 10 plagues to the coming up on the other side of the Red Sea. That that little area in Exodus through chapter 15 that is just so incredibly
51:34
powerful that that is all the creation of Israel. It is redemption. Okay. And I I I I've got to do a little more work on this, but the the connection between
51:46
Passover and the crossing of the Red Sea connects baptism and the Lord's supper inextricably with redemption.
51:57
That they're not substitute. Lord's supper and baptism are not substitute sacraments. They're not taking the place of circumcision or even Passover. We'll
52:08
look at that in a few weeks. They they are themselves are themselves uh redemption uh redemption and it's the exodus that represents
52:19
that. So what what God has done for us in Christ is an exodus. It is also a return from exile. Okay. So what what Fairbaron is saying here which I think
52:30
is is so correct. search out the fundamental principles involved in the whole representation of scripture and to make judicious and
52:41
discriminating application of the light vents arising in the different parts of the subject. That's where the difficulty comes in to make judicious and
52:54
discriminating application. discriminating application. And that's where we we are in a little bit of danger because we're going to read things and we're going to see things and we might get a little little
53:04
bit of a wild hair and apply them in a manner that that does not fit in with the fabric of redemptive history. I think one of the safest
53:24
remember it all points to Jesus. So, and and you'll see this and I've saw it a lot when we were in the charismatic
53:38
movement. Somebody would take for example this, this is the one that we remember um both humorously and and weepingly. Um
53:53
the preacher was going on about Esau whose name means red and how uh Jacob grabbed his heel. So that's how we're we're to be heel
54:03
grabbers. We're be heel grabbers. was be grabbing our future and and making our our own breaks. He's gone on about this thing. And we missed something. We were not CCD
54:13
on the memo because the next night of this rally that we were attending, everybody was wearing red high top sneakers except us.
54:28
And I thought, "This is really weird." And There was no Jesus in it at all. We were all supposed to be heel grabbers,
54:39
meaning we were supposed to get up, climb the ladder, and and actually when you grab someone by the heel, what do they do? They they kick you or they I
54:49
was thinking that they tripped, but my daughter says they kick you. All right. Yeah, Jenny. Oh, you said that, too. My daughter said that.
55:01
I thought it was something my son would say, but they you you trip them. That's what he was getting at is that we trip up unbelievers and we take their wealth. It was a prosperity. It was it was I
55:11
mean it was really it was like high top maneuver. Okay. Way waiting boots. It was bad. It was really bad. But we were in a bad way. And now we can look back, praise God, we can look back and laugh
55:23
on it. But um at the time it was a pretty traumatic experience. Really bad. But what he was saying, I should have been able to recognize even at that young age in Christ, there was no Jesus
55:34
in it. There's no glory to Jesus. It did not point to anything that Jesus did for me. It's what I'm supposed to do now. I'm supposed to grab some red sneaker boob that that has a job ahead of me and
55:47
I'm going to trip him up and take his job. So, I mean, that's that looking back on that, that seemed pretty obvious, but it was sadly it wasn't obvious at the time. We didn't go out and buy red sneakers because we had a
55:57
little bit more fashion sense. We had no biblical sense, but we had a little bit more fashion sense than to do that.
56:27
a great scholar whatever but nothing about Jesus not at all reflected in the broader pattern of scripture. >> Yeah. Right. No, not reflected in the broader pattern of scripture. Not reflected in the historical concept
56:38
context. I mean they were in the womb. There was no higher level promotion that you know was going on here. They were coming out of the womb and no reference to what Paul says in Romans nine. You
56:49
know no cross referencing of how the Bible reads that event. it was just simply, you know, on its own and and um completely invalid. And and I guess we
56:59
could we could kind of piggyback off of what Aaron said. You could read something in a book and and and then read it in a Scottish accent and if that doesn't help it, just throw it away,
57:13
right? All right. So, let's move on. Also another point here is that if the Lord God mentions a thing over and over again, it's pretty
57:25
significant. >> It is. It is very significant. And I appreciate you saying that. I appreciate you saying that because we've often I've often mentioned uh when we talk about the millennium the millennium which is mentioned
57:39
once and look at the huge doctrine doctrines that have been built on one. One's enough one is enough. But when it's
57:51
repeated over and over again, okay, and when motifs like the deluge and then the crossing of the Red Sea and then the crossing of the Jordan, you know, these splitting of water, these things are
58:01
happening repeatedly, they have meaning. And what is but the meaning is never never independent of its fulfillment in Jesus Christ. It has meaning at the
58:13
time. And I think it has meaning as we we get into this. Hopefully, we'll we'll be able to get through it. Um, when we look at the plagues, now I'm not going to exedute all 10,
58:26
but I do want to I want to say a few things exeetically things exeetically in in interpreting the 10 plagues. It has been common practice, not universal,
58:37
but certainly not uncommon, to associate each plague with a particular deity of the Egyptian
58:48
pantheon. The problem with that is there is a great deal of overlap. It's hard to say, for example, which deity frogs represent because there are
59:00
several. And there are a multitude of Egyptian deities, far more than nine. Okay? The 10th, of course, is the death of the firstborn. So that doesn't really represent. Now, in the notes, if you
59:12
have an opportunity to read them, I put forth a theory that is not original to me, but it's the one I think is probably has the most merit. Um, that if any
59:22
deity is being referenced, it's very dysfunctional daughter, Sahmet.
59:38
um who is also known as interestingly the destroyer the destroyer which is a word used in the narrative of the night of the Passover
59:48
destroyer. So I do think that there is something and that's really where I'm headed is there's something a a lot more than just Moses versus Pharaoh going on here. And
