Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 12
January 19, 1961
NUMBER 36, PAGE 5

Types And Their Abuse---(III.)

Jerry C. Ray, Irving, Texas

There are several attendant dangers in fanciful and erroneous interpretation of types. First, false doctrines are many times taught thereby. Secondly, many become confused with such loose and mystical handling of the Bible, and turn away from the Bible in disgust and confusion believing that either the Bible is a fraud and full of lies or that it is a book past the understanding of the average person. Thirdly, such loose handling of the word of God cannot but foster and encourage faulty interpretation in every field of Bible study and will lead to strife, division and sin; for every man becomes a law unto himself in the interpretation of so-called types which he sees in the most insignificant detail of a passage. Fourthly, it is very difficult to combat error if we are guilty of the same error, even though it be to a lesser degree. Even though our "types" may teach truth and may be substantiated by plain statements from the New Testament, we are in a position. Thus, the false teacher is given a quibble by which to evade the truth. And he will declare, "see, he interprets just as I do. It's all right when he does it, but it's wrong when I do it."

While our "types" may teach nothing but truth we still do the Cause of Truth an injustice when we label such analogies as "types" thus putting upon them the stamp of divine approval. Truth is never helped by arguments built upon false premises. Let's watch our words and speak as the oracles of God. (1 Pet. 4:11) If the Bible doesn't teach that it is a type, let's not be found stating such. We should watch that our sermons on analogies do not become so far-fetched as to become silly, absurd, and beneath the dignity of the gospel of Christ. Fred O. Blakely, a preacher of the conservative branch of the Christian church, published a book, The Apostles' Doctrine. in 1957. In many respects it is a good book. But one lesson in the book is entitled, "The Marriage of Isaac and Rebekah, a type of Christ and the Church." A summary of his basic outline follows:

1. Abraham and God. A wedding planned. The servant is sent (The Spirit operates only through the word). Purpose of the marriage.

2. The servant and the Holy Spirit. Limitations of the servant. The incentive provided. The joy attendant on success.

3. Isaac and Christ. The son of promise. The only son. The common absence.

4. Rebekah and the church. Residence in a foreign country. Necessity of personal decision. Submission to leadership. Consummation of the marriage.

Why not leave off the fanciful interpretation and just preach a good sermon on Christ and the church? This is the sort of thing we need to watch. Even though the analogy might be true, this kind of interpretation is false and can have serious consequences.

Our Brethren

While our brethren, generally, do not go to such extremes in their supposed types, still they speak in the "language of Ashdod" (to use an analogy) about certain things being types.

Time and again we have seen and heard the sermon on Noah's Ark and the church of Christ. Most of the time it is spoken of as a type. In one book of sermons by a brother who has been preaching longer than I have been in the world, he says in the introduction to this lesson, a "beautiful type." The outline usually runs: One builder (Noah and Christ); one material (gopherwood and living stones); one light (window and Bible); one entrance (door and Christ); one family (Noah's and Christians); one name (Noah's and Christian); one building (Ark and church: no societies needed); saved in ark (saved in the church); destruction to all outside the ark (destruction to those outside the church); one hope realized (life in the new world and life eternal).

All the points of similarity are true, but why waste time on Noah's ark? Just preach the so-called antitype; you'll have more time if you leave off the "type." And what are you going to do when the sectarian collars you and says, "All right, by your divine type, the Noah's were in the ark before the waters ever came; therefore a Christian is in the church without and before baptism?" Better leave this "type" alone and just preach the truth. (Yes, I preached this sermon when I first began preaching. But I've found out better since then).

Nimrod

Still another brother sees in Nimrod a type of the pope, and in the tower of Babel a type of the Roman Catholic church. As Nimrod was a mighty hunter (slave trader) so the pope looks for slaves to build a city and tower to reach to heaven. Catholicism wants to go to heaven, dethrone God and make itself universal. As God confounded the languages at the tower of Babel, so he confounded Catholicism by sending in Protestantism. As God scattered abroad the people from the tower, so God has scattered the religious world until Catholicism is just one among many religious bodies. Since Rev. 17:3-6 speaks of the Catholic church as the mother of harlots (denominations) then as God's scattering the people from the tower sent idolatry upon the earth, so the denominations have brought pollution to the pure gospel of Christ. What can't be found in the Bible!

This is not to condemn the use of analogies. We all use analogies in preaching time and again. How many preachers have not preached sermons built on analogies such as Naaman, Sin in the camp, Mark ye well her bulwarks, and many others. But let's speak sound words and say, "there is a wonderful analogy here." And in the use of analogies let's keep them sane, sensible and appropriate.