Sermon construction: Types and Shadows.

[ALAYMAN]

Is it appropriate for a preacher today to form a sermon that uses types and shadows (ie, heavily laden with OT allusions and references) to point to the fulfillment in the gospel/Christ?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Is it appropriate for a preacher today to form a sermon that uses types and shadows (ie, heavily laden with OT allusions and references) to point to the fulfillment in the gospel/Christ?

Jesus did it....Luke 24
25 He said to them,

 

[Bob]

Is it appropriate for a preacher today to form a sermon that uses types and shadows (ie, heavily laden with OT allusions and references) to point to the fulfillment in the gospel/Christ?

Jesus did it....Luke 24
25 He said to them,

 

[RedeemedYote]

Yes, but he was the unique Son of God. Can a preacher today do the same? I was taught that you cannot.

When it comes to using the Old Testament to point to fulfillment in the Gospel, what does Jesus' identity as the Son of God have to do with the appropriateness of using those references? I don't see where in the Scriptures He is uniquely qualified to give those sorts of sermons. Rather, just by reading the New Testament and seeing the multiple references to Old Testament prophecy and their fulfillment in Christ, I would state that the early church didn't have a problem with this approach either.

Can you point to a passage that says we cannot do that today?

Let me ask a different version of the original question: Why would you not use the references and allusions? When would it be inappropriate?

 

[rsc2a]

Is it appropriate for a preacher today to form a sermon that uses types and shadows (ie, heavily laden with OT allusions and references) to point to the fulfillment in the gospel/Christ?

I'd break these (shadows and types) into three different categories and treat each category a particular way:

Explicit shadows and types
These would be shadows and types that are explicitly taught in Scripture.

Examples: manna, ark (boat, not box), Jonah, Passover lamb

I have no problem when teaching on these subjects showing how these are pictures of Christ. I would even go to the NT Scriptures that detail this out.

Obvious shadows and types (recognized by nearly everyone)

Examples: Joseph (the dream interpreter, not the father), Issac, Moses, Adam and Eve's animal garment

These are pretty clear foreshadowings of Jesus. Some of these especially pertain to the Messiah aspect of Who Jesus is. It is fine to show how these point to Christ. In fact, if you do it well and often, people will start to see the meta-narrative for themselves.

Questionable shadows and types

Examples: ---

I would be very cautious about using questionable shadows and types. I would only proceed once I had done a lot of study regarding that particular passage and possibly gotten additional validation from others. I would not make it a main point in the sermon, and I especially wouldn't hang the entire sermon on it.

I also would definitely not go looking for types to make the sermon Christocentric. (e.g. "Rahab's scarf was red because it symbolized the blood of Jesus.") There are much better, more sound ways of making a sermon Christocentric that do not involve suspect interpretation.

 

[Bob]

Yes, but he was the unique Son of God. Can a preacher today do the same? I was taught that you cannot.

When it comes to using the Old Testament to point to fulfillment in the Gospel, what does Jesus' identity as the Son of God have to do with the appropriateness of using those references? I don't see where in the Scriptures He is uniquely qualified to give those sorts of sermons. Rather, just by reading the New Testament and seeing the multiple references to Old Testament prophecy and their fulfillment in Christ, I would state that the early church didn't have a problem with this approach either.

Can you point to a passage that says we cannot do that today?

Let me ask a different version of the original question: Why would you not use the references and allusions? When would it be inappropriate?

We are talking past each other.

Jesus and the writers of inspired New Testament Holy Writ made reference to OLD testament allusions (types, etc) to Christ.  And I think it is appropriate for us to follow them and where they make those connections, we can exegete, expand, explain, preach.  But for a man today to go into the Old Testament and find allusions to Christ where the New Testament never goes is what I am talking about. for example, saying that the floating axhead is really a pointer to Christ walking on water.

 

[rsc2a]

We are talking past each other.

Jesus and the writers of inspired New Testament Holy Writ made reference to OLD testament allusions (types, etc) to Christ.  And I think it is appropriate for us to follow them and where they make those connections, we can exegete, expand, explain, preach.  But for a man today to go into the Old Testament and find allusions to Christ where the New Testament never goes is what I am talking about. for example, saying that the floating axhead is really a pointer to Christ walking on water.

The NT writers never explicitly reference Isaac, Joseph, and Moses as pictures of Christ, but the parallels are obvious.

 

[Bob]

We are talking past each other.

Jesus and the writers of inspired New Testament Holy Writ made reference to OLD testament allusions (types, etc) to Christ.  And I think it is appropriate for us to follow them and where they make those connections, we can exegete, expand, explain, preach.  But for a man today to go into the Old Testament and find allusions to Christ where the New Testament never goes is what I am talking about. for example, saying that the floating axhead is really a pointer to Christ walking on water.

The NT writers never explicitly reference Isaac, Joseph, and Moses as pictures of Christ, but the parallels are obvious.

Maybe.

Maybe not.

Moses is never called  a "picture" of Christ, but he is used as a reference in Hebrews 3 to show the superiority of Christ.

 

[Trueblood]

We are talking past each other.

Jesus and the writers of inspired New Testament Holy Writ made reference to OLD testament allusions (types, etc) to Christ.  And I think it is appropriate for us to follow them and where they make those connections, we can exegete, expand, explain, preach.  But for a man today to go into the Old Testament and find allusions to Christ where the New Testament never goes is what I am talking about. for example, saying that the floating axhead is really a pointer to Christ walking on water.

The NT writers never explicitly reference Isaac, Joseph, and Moses as pictures of Christ, but the parallels are obvious.

You use the word explicitly so technically you are correct, but there are specific allusions and comparisons and echos made in the NT of Jesus to Moses.

I would argue that your obvious parallels of Isaac and Joseph are not as obvious as you say. A similarity of event or experience does not equate to being a type or shadow. It is hard to really call Isaac a type for Christ when he didn't die and didn't even go to the altar for someone else (I think some comparisons could be made between Abraham's actions and the Father's). Likewise, Joseph's false accusations and such do not amount to a type.

I am with Bob on this, with one addition. When the language is so overtly similar between the two that it can't be attributed to commonality of life experiences (something many might go through) one can make a case for a type.  Even then, though, the observations should be illustrative or to undergird a point clearly in the text, not be the central feature.

Our primary points and sermon points should be demonstrable from the text, not due to our ingenuity or creativity.

 

[Fresh Air]

Is it appropriate for a preacher today to form a sermon that uses types and shadows (ie, heavily laden with OT allusions and references) to point to the fulfillment in the gospel/Christ?

If elsewhere in the Bible they are revealed to be types, yes. If it is something he came up with on his own, I probably wouldn't mind an allusion to it with the caveat that this is his opinion, but I would mind an entire sermon. The only one that has a genuine right to ascribe a secondary meaning to a passage of literature is the author himself. In the case of Scripture that author is the Holy Spirit, and if He no where else reveals a secondary meaning than I have no right to dogmatically assert the presence of one. That way lies wholesale spiritualizing, and that way lies disaster.

 

[rsc2a]

We are talking past each other.

Jesus and the writers of inspired New Testament Holy Writ made reference to OLD testament allusions (types, etc) to Christ.  And I think it is appropriate for us to follow them and where they make those connections, we can exegete, expand, explain, preach.  But for a man today to go into the Old Testament and find allusions to Christ where the New Testament never goes is what I am talking about. for example, saying that the floating axhead is really a pointer to Christ walking on water.

The NT writers never explicitly reference Isaac, Joseph, and Moses as pictures of Christ, but the parallels are obvious.

You use the word explicitly so technically you are correct, but there are specific allusions and comparisons and echos made in the NT of Jesus to Moses.

...and Issac and Joseph and David and Israel and....

[quote author=Trueblood]I would argue that your obvious parallels of Isaac and Joseph are not as obvious as you say. A similarity of event or experience does not equate to being a type or shadow. It is hard to really call Isaac a type for Christ when he didn't die and didn't even go to the altar for someone else (I think some comparisons could be made between Abraham's actions and the Father's). Likewise, Joseph's false accusations and such do not amount to a type.[/quote]

I'm talking about the entire narrative, not one piece of one verse that looks like something that might be Jesus.

And, I was wrong, Isaac is more explicitly referred to as a type than I remembered. (Heb 11:17-19)

[quote author=Trueblood]I am with Bob on this, with one addition. When the language is so overtly similar between the two that it can't be attributed to commonality of life experiences (something many might go through) one can make a case for a type.  Even then, though, the observations should be illustrative or to undergird a point clearly in the text, not be the central feature.

Our primary points and sermon points should be demonstrable from the text, not due to our ingenuity or creativity.
[/quote]

I would generally agree with this.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Is it appropriate for a preacher today to form a sermon that uses types and shadows (ie, heavily laden with OT allusions and references) to point to the fulfillment in the gospel/Christ?

Jesus did it....Luke 24
25 He said to them,

 

[4everfsu]

TB you mean you did know learn the sermon constructions of RLS.

He used some shadowy types in his outlines, 1. Long hair 2. Short skirts 3. More dollars please

 

[T-Bone]

All I know is according to the OT type of priests wearing britches that Jesus wore pants...at least that is what Spammy said.

 

[AresMan]

1Co 10:1  Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
1Co 10:2  And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
1Co 10:3  And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
1Co 10:4  And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

'nuff said