 Good morning everyone. Before we begin, will someone open us in prayer please? Let's pray heavenly Father. We just wish to thank you for this time of study. Father, we commit this time into Thy holy hands and we pray that as we learn Your Word will minister to us Father. We pray that we will not only be able to retain whatever we learn Father but apply the same in our lives. We pray for blessing upon all our faculty members and all the students of the Bible College. In Jesus' precious name we pray. Amen. Thank you. Let me just share a screen and we can begin. Okay, so we'll just do a recap of what we covered last week and then go into today's what we look at today. So last week we finished our discussion on culture and these were the two highlights from our discussion on culture that the first one is we want to understand when we are studying the Bible. The first thing is we want to understand what did that scripture text mean to the people in that context, in that culture. What did it mean to them? And then the second thing is if this is what it meant to them, what does it mean to us in our context now? So those are the two tasks when we are looking at culture and studying scripture from considering the culture and the cultural setting that it was in. We also looked at how do we decide whether something in scripture is transferable to us? Is it something we still need to be following today? And two main questions we ask is has it been revoked or replaced? Has that command or that practice been revoked or replaced? And then what was the last command regarding this topic? And based on that we decide whether we will continue to practice it or we'll just take the principles from it. So in some cases we won't take anything from it because it's no longer relevant to us. It may be something that was relevant to a specific person, a specific situation or context and it's not something that is expected of all believers to continue to follow. In some cases it may be that we take the principles from that practice and we continue to follow the principles. We don't follow the exact practice. So we discussed a few examples of that. And then we looked at grammar. So studying, looking at the literary context, looking at how words are used in the Bible, the meaning of words, the structure of words, the tense, the relationship of words to each other. Is it a noun? Is it a verb? Is it a cause or is it a... So understanding all of those things and then applying that to our situation. So we look at the original meaning of the word. We look at what it meant considering the context it was in. So in that context, how was that word being used? And then we looked at some guidelines for how we can do interpretation of word meanings correctly. We won't go over all of that now. Then we looked at figures of speech. How do we know when a figure of speech is being used? When should something be taken literally? When should something be taken figuratively? So is the meaning, if we take it literally, is it observed? Would it demand immoral action? Or does it make sense as a literal sentence? Sometimes you will have both the figurative and the literal together and so the literal explains the figurative. Some rules or guidelines for how we can interpret figures of speech. And with that we came into types and shadows. So that's where we stopped last week. So we'll continue from here. I'll just kind of go a little more into detail on this. And in the second hour we'll practice some of what we are doing now, whatever we're talking about. So does anyone remember what we talked about in regard to what is a type? Type and anti-type? So we have all of it in our notes and I think the notes give us a good description. But a type or an anti-type is something, especially the type is something that appears in the Old Testament. And it points to something that is going to come in the New Testament. So what are the characteristics of a type? Is that it in some way will be similar to the anti-type. There will be some resemblance between the type and the anti-type. The second is that there is historical reality. That means whoever the person or the event or the thing is that we are saying is a type actually existed or actually happened. It's just not a story. It's not something that was imagined by the writer. But it's something that was actually took place. And that is meant to point to something that is to come in the New Testament. It's also a prefiguring. That means it points to it's almost prophetic in nature. In that when you look at that type in the Old Testament, you can see that it is pointing forward to something. And it's showing you that something is yet to come. So we looked at one example. We'll look at that again today. And then heightening. So heightening is where the type is in the Old Testament and the anti-type is in the New Testament. So the anti-type will always be greater than the type. So it's greater, superior, more glorious than what was revealed in the Old Testament. It is something that was designed, so divine design. It is something that God himself intended. It's not something that we are going to scripture and we are trying to find types and anti-types. But it's that God himself intentionally put that in the Old Testament to be something that would be more clearly explained in the New Testament. So why would God do this? Why would God put something in the Old Testament and then fulfill it in the New Testament? Or more clearly reveal it in the New Testament? What purpose does that serve? Just to showcase more of the perfection of Christ. Like certain things which were done as a Passover feast or certain things. So it had to be done on a human level. Where it is in the New Testament, the reflection is more with regard to what Christ has accomplished on a full-scale level. And as divine being human. Divine, sorry? He being divine, but still in the form of human as one complete sacrifice, rather than these are all man-made rituals which they had to do. Christ in the New Testament does it all by himself. So it highlights what Christ accomplished for us. It also kind of put in place certain things that people were doing that would help them understand why Jesus came in the first place. The purpose of Jesus is coming, what was fulfilled when Christ came. And it helps us understand why Jesus needed to come. So we will do this exercise where we go through these examples. And that will help us understand how the type helps us more fully understand Jesus' ministry and what was accomplished by Christ. Designated by God. So this means that scripture itself tells us what is a type and what we should consider to be a type. So in scripture itself it will indicate that this was a type of this. And so because scripture itself said it, we are saying it is, that's what the intent was. God's intent was when he did this in the Old Testament. Okay, so last week we looked at the example of Melchizedek. And I think we discussed it a bit, Christ's perpetual priesthood. So in the second hour, I'm going to ask you all to look at the other examples given here and to discuss it among yourselves. So we won't go into it now. So another way in which scripture compares to things is through illustration. So type is one way and illustration is another way. So let's just look at what a type is first. Then that will help us understand what an illustration is in contrast to a type. Okay, so a type is an Old Testament person event or thing. It has historical reality. It's designed by God to foreshadow or prefigure something that is going to happen, right? A real person event or thing that's going to take place. And then it's designated in the New Testament and corresponds to fulfills the type. Okay, so the anti-type will be mentioned in the New Testament and the type also will be mentioned saying this was a type of this. Okay, so these are the ways we can recognize when we're looking at something that it is a type. So what is an illustration then? An illustration is also a biblical person event or thing. Okay, it also has historical reality. So those two are similarities between the type and the illustration. It is in some way similar to a spiritual truth and it's something that is not forced. You can naturally see the similarities between the illustration and the actual thing that it's being compared to or the fulfillment that it's being compared to. But it's not explicitly in the New Testament. It doesn't say this is a type. It may say this is similar or this is like this, but it won't call it a type. So that is the difference between a type and an illustration. We look at more differences from the table in your textbook. But this is just to introduce you to the two ways in which things are compared in Scripture. Okay, so we look at one example. The example of Adam and Christ. If someone can read Romans 5.14 for us, please. Romans 5.14. Nevertheless, that rain from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned. According to the lackness of a transgression of Adam, who is a type of him who was to come. Okay, and one Corinthians 15.22. First Corinthians chapter 15 verse 22. For as in Adam, all die, even so in Christ, all shall be made alive. Okay, thank you. So here actually, if we look at Romans 5.14. It does use the word to pass, which is translated as type. That's our red, right? Adam was a type of Christ. But it's not considered most. Most teachers of Scripture won't consider Adam as a type of Christ because Adam didn't point. Like we said, a type will be predictive in nature. When you look at the type, you are expecting that something else is going to come that is going to fulfill what that type was pointing to. But when you look at Adam's life, you don't see that kind of prophetic or predictive nature. So most people don't consider this as a type. Rather, they consider it as an illustration. So Adam was an example or an illustration of Christ. Both of them were the first man of a new creation. Okay, so Adam was the first man when God brought all creation to being. And Christ is the first man of the new creation that God is making in his kingdom. And so this is one example of an illustration that is fulfilled later on in some truth that is revealed. So Adam is used as an illustration to help us understand something about what Christ accomplished. Okay, is that clear? Okay, so the main thing is why is it not considered a type? Is that clear? Somewhat? Okay, so once you all do the other exercise of looking through the other examples, hopefully it will be clear and we'll try and do it at the start of class and come back for some time of discussion in the second hour. But the main reason why Adam is not considered as a type of Christ is because if you just look at Adam as a person described in Scripture, you don't see a prophetic role that he plays in that. You don't expect somebody is going to come who is like Adam. There is no prediction of there will be someone else who will come like Adam in Scripture. So because of that lack of prophetic or prefiguring that is expected of a type, we don't call this a type, we call it an illustration. That's the main thing. Okay, so this is not in your textbook, but it's just something I thought would be helpful. When we are studying types, what are some things we can keep in mind to help us understand or correctly interpret what we are studying? Okay, the first thing is we look at in Scripture itself. Does the Bible call it a type? Okay, so one Corinthians 10-10, let's just open that. Okay, so here I actually don't see the word, this was one that was given as an example of using the word to pick us, which is to say typologically. I don't see it in the Greek text. I'm not sure if this example or the verse given here is wrong. Okay, verse 11 says, these things happen to them as examples for us. So the word examples there is to poi. And so does it use some word like that? Does it use to pause, to pick us, skia, which means shadow or foreshadowing? Does the Greek use one of those words? And if it uses one of those words, how is it translated in the English translation? Does the English translation say type? Or does it say example illustration? Does it use one of those words? If the English translation says type, then we can probably understand it as a type. Okay, then we'll check whether it fulfills all of those other characteristics of a type. The second thing is, does it show that God intentionally put it there? So God intentionally put it in the Old Testament and then fulfilled it in the New Testament. Is that clear in scripture? Okay, that it was designed by God himself. The third is, were they both historical? Did they actually happen or is it a story? Is it just like some story that someone told like a parable or an illustration? Or is it a historical event or a person or a thing? Okay, and when we're looking at this, we won't look at every detail and try to make everything match, like between Adam and Christ or between Melchizedek and Christ. We're not going to try and make everything match between everything we know of Melchizedek. Okay, so we know Melchizedek took type from Abraham, so we can't say, okay, now who is Christ taking type from? Those are not the things that scriptures comparing between them. Scriptures clearly said that Christ is a priest like Melchizedek without genealogy, without family. So whatever scripture has designed, scripture has clearly said are things that are to be compared. Those are the things we'll compare or those are the things we'll look at. What are the similarities? What did Christ fulfill? But if scripture hasn't said that, then we don't try to match every detail of the type and the anti-type. Okay, based on a type, we won't build basic doctrine. Our foundational Christian doctrines, we shouldn't base on our interpretation of a type. So Christ is a high priest. We're not going to understand it based on Melchizedek. We are also going to take the rest of scripture into consideration and see what does it say about Jesus as our high priest. Okay, what was the role of a high priest? We have all of that clearly mentioned in the Old Testament, so we're able to understand what was Jesus' role and how did he, how does he serve as our high priest? Okay, so whatever we are taking from the type, we should also validate with the rest of scripture's teachings. We should be careful not to see types everywhere. That means we don't start simply calling everything a type in the Bible. We follow those rules, right? Has scripture called it a type? Has God designed it in such a way? Is it clearly mentioned in scripture? What is compared in scripture? And then only we call it a type. Okay, and then the last one is following anti-guidelines. So that's what, in the New Testament, has it been called a type? And what exactly is being called between those two things? What are the things that are being compared? So we'll follow those guidelines. So one of the examples is that the tabernacle and the wilderness wanderings point to many things that Christ did in his ministry. Okay, so those things we can expect that there will be similarities. There are things that we can learn from what Christ did looking at the tabernacle and the wilderness wanderings. So that's just one example of a type. Okay, so the third thing is, now we talked about types. We talked about illustrations. The third is allegories. Okay, so these are three ways in which two things, two people, two events, two things in scripture are compared. Either one is a type that is fulfilled in the New Testament as an anti-type, or one is an illustration that is revealed in some way by some truth. And the third is allegory. So what is an allegory? It is something where there is no natural similarities between two things. Okay, and we'll look at examples that will make it clearer. The second is where we are taking that allegory or that story, and we're not taking it literally, we're taking it figuratively. Okay, so what does that mean when we take a story figuratively rather than literally? Literally as in not like on a case-to-case kind of a thing. It's like just an overall outline you're trying to... Yeah, so we're just taking what it's saying, but we're reading a deeper meaning into what it's saying. So we look at some examples that will help understand that. So in this, we are finding hidden ideas or things behind the text that actually are not there. We are trying to find some hidden meaning behind the text. It also doesn't fulfill scripture texts like how we saw in the type and the illustration. Something is mentioned and then something is fulfilled in scripture, but in an allegory we don't see that happening. It is in the interpreter's imagination, not in the design of God. That is, God himself has not said, this is like this. Okay, or this is meant to... Like in the parables, Jesus clearly says the kingdom of God is like this and then he uses a story to describe it. But when we are doing it, it's not something that God himself has said is like this. We are imagining that there is some spiritual meaning behind a story or behind a text. And then it's not mentioned in scripture. So it's something that the interpreter, that is the person who's studying the Bible and explaining it to others, that person has imagined some meaning behind the text and is explaining that meaning to others. We look at an example of an allegory. We have three examples here. So some people, I don't know if these are actual things that people have preached or they're just examples of ways in which people have preached. But if we look at the Good Samaritan story, we can't take that story and then compare the inn in the Good Samaritan story to the church saying that the church should be a place where Christians are brought and they will be nourished, they will grow to become mature in Christ. Okay, so the Good Samaritan, he finds someone who is hurt on the road. He takes him to an inn and he says, take care of him and I'll come back and I'll pay whatever the cost is. He gives them a down payment and then he says, I'll come back. So he's taking this person to be taken care of by an inn. So we can't take that story and say likewise as Christians, we should be bringing new believers to the church and we should be in the church, we should be taking care of new Christians to help them mature in Christ because that's not the intent of the story. Does that make sense? We've taken a story. We've come up with our own spiritual meaning behind the text. Jesus intended that story for a reason. What was the reason he told that story of the Good Samaritan? What was the question he was asked? Who is my neighbor? Yeah, who is my neighbor, right? So it's in relation to the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself and then someone asks him who is my neighbor. And so Jesus talks about a Samaritan taking care of a Jew to consider as people who didn't like each other, who avoided each other but because that Jew was hurt, the Samaritans still took care of him. So the intent of that is to say that anybody who is in need, anyone you're passing by, if you take care of them, if you recognize their need and you minister to them, you are being a neighbor to that person. Okay, that's the clear intent in scriptures. But in this example, we are taking that story and we are making our own meaning behind it, comparing it to the church, comparing it to new believers which is never talked about in scripture in connection to the Good Samaritan story. So that is an example of an allegory and it's considered as wrong interpretation, a wrong practice of interpretation, but it's very common we hear it a lot in sermons where a story is taken like that and some meaning is given to the story that was never intended by God and never indicated in scripture. Okay, so where everything in the story is given a spiritual meaning and then some lessons are taken from it. If that is not the intent of scripture, that's not how we should be interpreting it. Okay, does that make sense? Yeah, so we look at these two more examples. We know the story in the Old Testament of where Abraham's servant is sent to find a bride for Isaac, okay? So taking that story, we can't say this is a type of the Holy Spirit finding the church as a bride for Christ. Okay, because nowhere in scripture is that said at all, right? We never have this story connected to the church, connected to the Holy Spirit, connected to us being brought as a bride of Christ. Of course, the church is called the bride of Christ, right? So when people are using allegories, they may be still preaching things that are in line with the truth of scripture, but they're not using the text the way it should be used. Okay, they're misusing text, they're misinterpreting text. So this, although this is true, right? We are prepared, the church is prepared to be the bride of Christ, that is true. We can't connect it to this story of Abraham's servant because there's actually no connection like that in scripture. So we won't misuse some text of scripture to preach a message that we want to preach. If we want to preach about the bride of Christ, we can easily go to scriptures, find passages that relate to that and talk about it from there, okay? Another example is the lady with the alabaster jar who goes and breaks it on Jesus' feet, right? So using that as an example of people's hearts being brought to Jesus and broken before Christ, that again is never indicated in scripture. Although there are other parts of scripture that may talk about coming to Jesus with that kind of surrender, with worship, all of that. This story is not something that indicates that. And so we can't use it in that way, okay? Any other examples that you all can think of or any sermons you all may have heard where an allegory is being used, it's used a lot even today. We actually see it at one point in church history. A lot of scripture was being interpreted in this way using allegories. But even today there are lots of sermons that are preached in this way. So in the Old Testament, the life of Joseph, would you bring that as a type, anti-type or would it be a little like an allegory, like how Joseph was sold by his brothers for some amount of money? Similar like how Jesus was betrayed and sold for pieces of silver? Yeah. So we can talk about those things without saying this is a type and anti-type unless scripture says it, right? So scripture doesn't designate Joseph as a type of Christ. But we can say there are similarities between their lives and we can talk about those similarities. But we won't say that Joseph was intentionally put in scripture to point to Christ because there are many people we can find like that in the Old Testament and we can find similarities. But if scripture itself has not said, like we don't see anywhere in scripture where it says like Joseph was, this was done to Joseph, this was also done to Christ. Because we don't see that in scripture, we won't use it in that way. Actually, anti-type is actually the opposite of type. Anti-type is the fulfillment of the type. So the type is what we see in the Old Testament and the anti-type is what fulfills that type. So Christ is the anti-type of the tabernacle in the Old Testament like that. Okay. Okay, so is that kind of clear? Okay. Okay. So one more note on allegories. There may be certain circumstances where we are preaching a message and we feel that the Holy Spirit has inspired us to speak a certain message to a group of people, say they are going through some trials, through persecution and God puts in your heart that just like Paul moved into those things, those challenges with the willingness to undergo persecution, God is calling this church to enter into the ministry that they are doing to continue to do that ministry without giving up. Okay. So we will, if we are using something like that or an example of just as David faced giants, faced Goliath, you are going to face certain giants and you can go into that battle trusting in God's strength. Okay. So we won't take that story and preach a message on it. Without actually telling the church, this is what I believe the Holy Spirit has inspired for you today. Okay. So the Holy Spirit has inspired me to speak this message to you because of something you are going to face or something you are facing. And this is how it connects to the story of David and Goliath or how it connects to Paul's life and ministry. Okay. So here we are taking an actual story that happened and we're drawing spiritual truths from it that may not necessarily be in scripture, but we are doing it by inspiration of the Holy Spirit for a particular group of people at a particular time. So in this case, we have to make it clear that this I feel is a message that the Holy Spirit wants to give the church or give you today. And this is not how the text is to be understood at all times. Okay. So we'll focus on the message that we're giving the church, not on the text itself and trying to bring some spiritual meaning to the text that is not actually intended in scripture. Okay. Make sense? Yes? Somewhat? Okay. Okay. Let me take another example. Okay. So the example of the widow of Zarafath, she was running out of oil and Elijah is supposed to ask her to feed him, but she already has just a little bit of oil and she's planning to have her last meal with her sons and die because they don't have any more food. There's a famine in the land. Okay. So Elijah tells her you keep pouring out oil and it will keep filling up whatever jars you have or whatever jars your neighbors have. Right? I don't know if I'm mixing up two stories. Sorry. One is the dead. One and one is the widow of Zarafath. Let me just pull it up so that I don't misquote. Okay. First Kings 17, 7 to 16. Okay. So she says we're going to have our last meal and die. And then Elijah says verse 13, don't be afraid. Make the do what you have said. Make a small loaf of bread for me from what you have. Bring it to me and then make some for yourself and your son. For this is what the Lord, the God of Israel says, the jar of flour will not be used up and the jug of oil will not dry until the day the Lord sends rain on the land. Okay. That's first Kings 17 verse 13 and 14. So this story is a story of God divinely providing for this widow and her sons and for Elijah and promising that he will sustain all of them through the famine. Okay. So based on this story, we will not say, okay, like this story here, the bread represents as spiritually feeding people and the oil represents as anointing people with the Holy Spirit or baptizing people in the Holy Spirit. And so as God brings new believers into the church, we will keep baptizing them and we will keep feeding them until Christ's return or something like that. So we're taking this story. This is a story about God's physical provision is providing for these people. He's sustaining these people. God is able to take care of them miraculously through the famine. But we don't give it some spiritual, give each of those physical things a spiritual meaning, right? Calling the bread, the meat or the gospel that is given to people, calling the oil the baptism of the Holy Spirit. We know that oil is used to describe anointing and anointing in the Old Testament is given by the whole in the New Testament is given by the Holy Spirit. But this story was never intended with that purpose, right? So if we are giving all of these things spiritual meanings and then we're preaching a message to a church, say we feel that this church is going through some hard times and God is saying he's going to sustain them through it. We can say that like just as God sustained the widow of Zarafath and he sustained Elijah through the famine he will sustain us as a church through this time. So we can say that. But we can't make all of these things a spiritual thing that was never intended in scripture saying even as the widow of Zarafath fed Elijah we should be feeding people around us with the word of God and we should be anointing people. We should be praying for the baptism of the Holy Spirit just how she used the oil to make the bread. All of those things are not there in scripture. It was never intended in this story and so we don't give it a spiritual meaning that is not indicated in scripture. Is that clear? Yeah? Okay, so we take stories as they were intended in scripture. If in scripture itself it indicates that there is some spiritual truth that is to be linked like we are going to see in parables then we will do it. We will take it the way it's pointed to in scripture. Anyone online have any questions? Okay, sister Gertrude, you can go ahead. Sister, but I know for one incident that God has provided divinely when they were praying for it. Yes, so this is definitely a story to encourage people in God's divine provision, right? What I am saying is we don't take this story of God's provision and make it something that it's not like giving it spiritual meaning that is not intended in the story itself like connecting the bread to the gospel or connecting that kind of thing. So in this we see clearly God is able to provide even when people have nothing and he is able to sustain his people and so from that if in a particular situation we believe that God is saying that to a specific church we can take that message and we can say it to them God is going to sustain you just as he did the widow of Saraphat and just as he did sustain Elijah he will sustain you. So that is an okay way to use scripture but not to give it a meaning that was not intended. Okay, so... Thank you sister. No problem. So we look quickly at the differences between a type, illustration and an allegory. Okay, so the type and the anti-type have a natural correspondence or resemblance. That means you can easily see the resemblances between the type and anti-type. Likewise in an illustration you can also see that there is a natural similarity between the two things. On the other hand with an allegory where you are bringing meaning to something and you are giving it a meaning that is not naturally there. Right? So to say the bread is like the gospel it's not naturally there it's not indicated there in any way but we are giving it some meaning from our own imagination. Okay? The second one is the type has a historical reality that means it's an actual person place of thing that happened. The illustration or truth depends on the historical reality so here the illustration is a historical reality. The truth that we learn from it may not be it's just a truth that we are learning we are taking from something that actually took place or some person who actually existed. Okay? But with an allegory we are not at all looking at the literal meaning of the passage. We are just taking our own spiritual or our own figurative interpretation of it and that is what we are focusing on. Okay? A type is a prefiguring so it's predictive prophetic foreshadowing in nature and illustration is not predictive it's more like an example. To say this serves as an example of this or this is like this. Okay? And it looks back to the Old Testament. The allegory is something where we are trying to make that kind of that kind of meaning or idea come out of the text that is not there. Okay? The type is fulfilled by the anti-type. Okay? So this is where the anti-type is greater than the type itself. The illustration is not fulfilled by the truth. The illustration is there and the truth kind of the illustration is used to explain the truth but there is no sense of fulfillment like the illustration was pointing to something in the future and now it's being fulfilled that doesn't take place within illustration. But with the type and anti-type, that happens. Okay? The allegory does not fulfill the texts. The type is divinely designed by God. The illustration is also divinely designed by God but the allegory is designed by the interpreter. Okay? It's the interpreter's imagination. It's not by God. The type and anti-type are clearly indicated in scripture. Okay? A truth or illustration won't be called a type or anti-type in scripture. It will say this is like this but it won't call it a type and anti-type and the allegory is not mentioned in scripture. Okay? So it's something that we are coming up with ourselves. So I wanted to do parables as well and then give us some time to do a group discussion but we'll figure out how to do the second half. We'll go for a break and come back for our second half.