The Watchtower, March 15, 2015, pages 17-18
QUESTIONS FROM READERS
_____________________________
In the past, our publications
often mentioned types
and antitypes, but in recent years they have seldom
done so. Why is that?
■ The
Watchtower of September 15, 1950, defined a “type” and an “antitype” this
way: “A type is an image or representation of something that will come to
pass at some future time. The antitype is the reality of the thing which the
type represents. The type may properly be called a shadow; the antitype,
the reality.”
Many years ago, our publications stated that such faithful men and
women as Deborah, Elihu, Jephthah, Job, Rahab, and Rebekah, as well as many
others, were really types, or shadows, of either the anointed or the “great
crowd.” (Rev. 7:9) For example, Jephthah, Job, and Rebekah were thought to
represent the anointed, while Deborah and Rahab were said to foreshadow the
great crowd. However, in recent years we have not drawn such comparisons.
Why not?
The Scriptures do indicate that some individuals mentioned in the
Bible served as types of something greater. As recorded at Galatians
4:21-31, the apostle Paul mentions “a symbolic drama” involving two women.
Hagar, Abraham’s slave girl, represented or corresponded to literal Israel,
which was bound to Jehovah by the Mosaic Law. But Sarah, “the free woman,”
symbolized God’s wife, the heavenly part of his organization. In his letter
to the Hebrews, Paul links king-priest Melchizedek to Jesus, highlighting
specific similarities between the two. (Heb. 6:20; 7:1-3) Further, Paul
compares Isaiah and his sons to Jesus and his anointed followers. (Heb.
2:13, 14) Paul was writing under inspiration; thus, we gladly accept what he
says about these types.
However, even where the Bible indicates that someone is a type of
someone else, we should not conclude that every detail or incident in the
life of the type is a picture of something greater. For example, although
Paul tells us that Melchizedek is a type of Jesus, Paul says nothing about
the fact that on one occasion Melchizedek brought out bread and wine for
Abraham to enjoy after he had defeated four kings. Hence, there is no
Scriptural basis for finding a hidden meaning in that incident.—Gen.
14:1,18.
Some
writers in the centuries after Christ’s death fell into a trap—they
saw types everywhere. (Bold added) Describing the teachings of Origen,
Ambrose, and Jerome, The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia explains:
“They sought for types, and of course found them, in every incident and
event, however trivial, recorded in Scripture. Even the most simple and
commonplace circumstance was thought to conceal within itself the most
recondite [hidden] truth . . . , even in the number of fish caught by the
disciples on the night the risen Saviour appeared to them—how much some
have tried to make of that number, 153!”
Augustine of Hippo commented extensively on the account where we
read that Jesus fed about 5,000 men with five barley loaves and two fish.
Since barley was considered to be inferior to wheat, Augustine concluded
that the five loaves must represent the five books of Moses (the inferior
“barley” representing the supposed inferiority of the “Old Testament”). And
the two fish? For some reason he likened them to a king and a priest.
Another scholar fond of looking for types and antitypes asserted that
Jacob’s purchase of Esau’s birthright with a bowl of red stew represented
Jesus’ purchase of the heavenly inheritance for mankind with his red blood!
If such interpretations seem far-fetched, you can understand the
dilemma. Humans cannot know which Bible accounts are shadows of things to
come and which are not. The clearest course is this: Where the Scriptures
teach that an individual, an event, or an object is typical of something
else, we accept it as such. Otherwise, we ought to be reluctant to assign an
antitypical application to a certain person or account if there is no
specific Scriptural basis for doing so.
How, then, can we benefit from the events and examples found in the
Scriptures? At Romans 15:4, we read the apostle Paul’s words: “All the
things that were written beforehand were written for our instruction, so
that through our endurance and through the comfort from the
Scriptures we might have hope.” Paul was saying that his anointed brothers
in the first century could learn powerful lessons from the events that were
recorded in the Scriptures. However, God’s people in every generation,
whether of the anointed or of the “other sheep,” whether living in “the last
days” or not, could benefit—and have benefited—from the lessons taught in
“all the things that were written beforehand.”—John 10:16; 2 Tim. 3:1.
Instead of viewing most of these accounts as finding their
application to only one class, whether the anointed or the great crowd, and
to only one time period, God’s people of either class and from any time
period can apply to themselves many of the lessons the accounts teach us.
Thus, for example, we need not limit the application of the book of Job to
the experiences the anointed endured during World War I. Many of God’s
servants, both men and women, both of the anointed and of the great crowd,
have undergone experiences such as Job faced and “have seen the outcome
Jehovah gave, that Jehovah is very tender in affection and merciful.”—Jas.
5:11.
Consider: In our congregations today, do we not find older women as
loyal as Deborah, fine young elders as wise as Elihu, courageous pioneers as
zealous as Jephthah, and faithful men and women as patient as Job? How
grateful we are that Jehovah preserved the record of “all the things that
were written beforehand,” so that “through the comfort from the Scriptures
we might have hope”!
So for these reasons our publications in recent years have
emphasized the lessons we can learn from Bible accounts instead of trying to
find typical and antitypical patterns and fulfillments.