Hi, I'm David Bercot, and tonight we're going to talk about shadows of Christ in the Old Testament. After Jesus had been crucified, His followers were all thoroughly discouraged, not yet understanding that he would be resurrected. Well, two of his disciples were walking to Emmaus, a small village about seven miles from Jerusalem. And as you know, the resurrected Jesus appeared among them. Now, they didn't recognize who He was, and so they started conversing together.
The Scriptures say that beginning at Moses and all the prophets, Jesus expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. Now I'd like to ask you a question. Can you go through all of the Old Testament scriptures and point to prophecies about Christ? Probably not. I certainly can't. Now, perhaps the verse I just quoted doesn't mean that every single book of the Old Testament contains at least one prophecy about Jesus.
But I think it indicates that there are a lot more prophecies about Christ in the Old Testament than most of us realize. After all, a short time after his discussion with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, Jesus appeared to most of the rest of the apostles and explained to them that all things written in the Law of Moses and the prophets and Psalms concerning me must be fulfilled. That expression, the Law of Moses, the prophets and the Psalms is very specific.
The first century Jews recognized a threefold division of the Old Testament. There's first the law, which is the first five books of the Bible. And then there are the prophets, which would include all of the major and minor prophets that we know. And then there was the Psalms, or sometimes called the Writings, which included all of the other books, the wisdom books like Psalms and Proverbs, and the historical books like First and Second Kings.
So Jesus was explaining to his apostles that the entire Old Testament testifies about Him. It's not just a few prophecies here and there like in the book of Isaiah. Similarly, on another occasion before his death, Jesus told the unbelieving Jews," You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life, and these are they which testify of Me." So He's telling Him, the Scriptures testify about Him, the Scriptures they knew, which was the Old Testament.
Now, was Jesus referring just to the specific prophecies about Himself, such as Isaiah 7:14? No, he wasn't. And I can say that confidently because Jesus Himself revealed that various people, events, and objects had prophetic significance allegorically. For example, on one occasion, he told the scribes and Pharisees," An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Now, as we know, Jonah was a real person, and he did actually spend three days and nights in the belly of a great fish. At the same time, unbeknownst to Jonah, his experience with the great fish was also an allegory that prophetically prefigured Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection. Let me ask you, was that it?
Was Jonah the only Old Testament person who prefigured Christ? Well, he's the only one Jesus specifically mentioned besides perhaps Moses. But the New Testament writers tell us that both Adam and Melchizedek were also prophetic types. So Jonah was not the only Old Testament person who prefigured Christ. Now I use a term there that I should more fully explain. That term is type. What is a type? Well, as I'm using it here, a type means a figure, representation, or symbol of something to come.
An Old Testament type pictures or foreshadows a person event or thing in the New Testament. The fulfillment is called the anti-type. The anti-type is, in other words, the reality which fulfills the prophetic picture given in the Old Testament. Now, these two words type and anti-type are not words that theologians have conjured up. They are both words used by the New Testament writers themselves. Our English word type is a direct transliteration of the Greek word tupos.
Now, in former times, the Greek word was written as TYPOS. Today they write it as TUPOS. So type was just a direct transliteration of what used to be written as TYPOS. Now in Romans 5:14, Paul declares that Adam is a type, Tupos, of him that was to come, who is Christ.
Similarly, Peter uses the word anti-type in 1 Peter 3:21, where he writes," There is also an anti-type which now saves us: baptism, not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Peter had been referring to the flood of Noah's Day, explaining that it was a type or foreshadowing of Christian baptism. For the fulfillment, he uses the Greek word anti-tupon.
Now, the study of Old Testament prophetic symbols and types, along with their New Testament fulfillments, is called typology. I should mention that type is not the only word used in the New Testament to describe prophetic symbols and allegorical people in the Old Testament. Another Greek word they use was skia, which is often translated in English as shadow.
In Colossians 2:17, Paul said," Let no one judge you in food or in drink or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbath, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ." So Paul tells us that all of these various ceremonial things in the Mosaic Law were types or foreshadowings of things in Christianity. Another Greek word that is sometimes used to mean a prophetic type is the word parabola, from which we get our English word parable.
The writer of Hebrews uses it in Hebrews 9:9, where he says about the tabernacle that it was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered, which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience, concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of Reformation.
But Christ came as high priest of the good things to come with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands that is not of this creation. A third Greek word that the New Testament writers use is allegoreo. And as you can probably guess, our English word allegory is simply a transliteration of this Greek word.
Paul uses this word in Galatians 4, verses 23 and 24, where he says," But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the free woman through promise, which things are symbolic?
For these are the two covenants, the one from Mount Sinai, which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar." Now, I want to go back to the phrase where Paul says, and I was reading from the New King James Version, he says," Which things are symbolic?" Now, that isn't a wrong translation, but the original King James actually translates it more literally. For what Paul literally said was these things are an allegory, which is how the King James translates it.
Now, when Paul says that Hagar and Sarah are an allegory, does he mean that these two women weren't real people? Of course not. They were real historical people, but they also foreshadowed greater spiritual realities. I'm mentioning this because nowadays in English, when we say something is an allegory, we usually mean that it isn't historical. We're saying that it's fictitious.
For example, when liberal theologians say that Adam and Eve and the events in the Garden of Eden are allegorical, they mean that Adam and Eve were not real people, nor did the events in the third chapter of Genesis actually take place. However, that is not the biblical use of the term. When the New Testament says that something in the Old Testament is allegorical, it is not saying that it is fictitious.
Rather, it is saying that in addition to the historical understanding, there is also an allegorical meaning, a symbolic meaning. And when I talk about allegories in this message, I'm using the term in the New Testament sense. Now I want to ask you a question. Does the New Testament point out all of the Old Testament shadows and allegories? In other words, can we find types and shadows and allegories in the Old Testament that the New Testament writers don't discuss?
Well, before you answer that, let me ask you a related question. Does the New Testament specifically point out every fulfillment of direct prophecies about Jesus and about Christianity? Well, if you think the answer to that question is yes, I want you to consider the following prophecies. Genesis 3: 15, it says," I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed.
He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." Now, as far as I know, all Christians believe that this is talking about the battle between Jesus and Satan, and that Satan bruises Jesus in the heel by having him crucified, and Jesus will eventually crush his head when he returns.
But, you know, none of the New Testament writers ever quote from Genesis 3:15 and say," Just as it is written in Genesis 3:15." Now, you can point to events and prophecies in the New Testament and say," Aha, this points to a fulfillment of Genesis 3:15." But the New Testament writers themselves never quote Genesis 3:15 and say," This is in fulfillment of that." But it is a real prophecy about Jesus and His battle with Satan. Another one, Daniel 9 verses 25 and 26.
It says this," Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem, until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and 62 weeks. The streets shall be built again and the wall, even in troublesome times. And after the 62 weeks, Messiah shall be cut off." Now again, most Christians feel that this is a prophecy about the coming of the Messiah and that the cutting off of the Messiah is His crucifixion. They feel that the 62 weeks are actually 62 weeks of years.
Now, the New Testament writers do make reference to Daniel, but none of them point to this specific prophecy and say just as it was foretold in Daniel that after 62 weeks he would be cut off. But the fact that none of them point this out doesn't mean that it's not a prophecy about the Messiah. I'll give you one more, Psalm 22:16. It says," For dogs have surrounded me. The congregation of the wicked has enclosed me.
They pierced my hands and my feet." Do any Christians doubt that that's a prophecy about Jesus, about His crucifixion when they pierced His hands and His feet? I don't think any Christian would deny that, but none of the New Testament writers, when they discuss his crucifixion, say, just as it was prophesied in the Psalms, that they would pierce his hands and his feet. So obviously, the New Testament writers don't point out the fulfillment of all of the direct prophecies about Christ.
There are many that they never discuss. They allow us to discover many of these Old Testament prophecies ourselves and to be able to see their fulfillment as described in the New Testament. Well, is the same thing true about all of the allegorical prophecies and foreshadowings about Christ and about the Christian system? Yes, it is. The New Testament writers point out some of these shadows and types, but they leave plenty for us to discover on our own.
For example, think about the scenario with Abraham and Isaac when God commanded Abraham to offer up Isaac as a sacrifice. I think most Christians, probably all Christians, recognize that this was not only a real event, but it also foreshadowed what God Himself was actually going to do with His Only Begotten Son, Jesus. Yet none of the New Testament writers ever specifically point out that this passage about Abraham and Isaac was an allegory or foreshadowing of God offering up his son.
Yet that is what it prefigured. So we can't say that a Bible event doesn't have allegorical significance just because none of the New Testament writers specifically pointed out. Just like we can't say that there are no prophecies in the Old Testament about the Messiah except the ones that the New Testament writers specifically point out. Now, what helped me to tune into all of this was reading the writings of the early Christians?
Because when I started reading their writings, I immediately noticed that they were recognizing all kinds of types, symbols, and allegories in the Old Testament that I had never noticed. Now, I have to admit that at first, I thought the early Christians were guilty of having overactive imaginations. I wasn't initially impressed by their recognition of different types and symbols in the Old Testament.
But then, when I went back and read the New Testament, I immediately realized that the New Testament writers read the Old Testament the exact same way the early Christians did. The New Testament writers recognized all kinds of types and symbols and allegories in the Old Testament. Reading scripture that way was part of Eastern thinking. And it's important that you realize that the New Testament writers were not the first ones to see symbols and types and allegories in the Old Testament.
The Jewish writer Philo saw all kinds of things with allegorical significance in the Old Testament, and most of his writings precede the New Testament writings. But Philo himself wasn't the first person to see allegorical significance in historic events. Many learned Greeks felt that there were allegorical meanings to Homer's writings, in addition to the historical meaning of those writings. And it was this Greek type of thinking that influenced Philo, who was a Greek speaking Jew who lived in Alexandria.
And Philo was an extremely well-respected Jew in the Hellenistic Jewish community. So when Paul and the other New Testament writers said that there were symbols and allegorical meanings built into the Old Testament historical accounts, they weren't introducing a whole new thought pattern. No, they were simply affirming that the Greek way of looking at things wasn't fanciful or nonsensical.
To be sure, the apostles weren't saying that Philo's specific allegorical interpretations were correct, but they were affirming that his methodology, that is the Greek methodology, or maybe I should say the Eastern methodology was valid. And they were affirming that indeed, in addition to the historical and moral lessons in the Old Testament, there are allegorical meanings and prophetic types. In fact, Jesus Himself personally attested to this.
As I've mentioned, He told the Jews that Jonah's three days in the great fish were a prophetic type of his three days in the tomb. Again, in John chapter 6, he told the Jews that the manna, that the Israelites had eaten when they were in the wilderness, that that prefigured his body, that he would give his heavenly bread. He also told the Jews that the brazen serpent, that Moses lifted up on the pole, that it represented his being lifted up, that is, in his crucifixion.
Some of the other allegorical types that are pointed out by the New Testament writers are the following. We'll start with objects and things. In Hebrews, we read that the tabernacle and I think by logical deduction, the temple and the various rooms that were in the tabernacle, the holy and the most holy and that were in the temple, that these all had allegorical prophetic meanings. We learned from the New Testament that the altar that the high priest participated in had again symbolic meaning of heaven itself.
The Passover Lamb, the New Testament, tells us that this represented Jesus Christ. The blood sacrifices, the blood of bulls and goats, et cetera. Once again, these had allegorical or symbolic meaning. We learned from the New Testament that just the fact that the bodies of the sacrificed animals were burned outside the gate that prefigured Jesus being crucified outside the walls of Jerusalem. We learned from Paul that the rock that Moses struck in the wilderness, the water that flowed out of it represented Christ.
We learned that God's day of rest, spoken of in Genesis, had meanings just beyond what's there in Genesis. The New Testament tells us that different events or historical happenings in the Old Testament had prophetic significance. I've already mentioned Jonah, but Peter told us that the flood that rescued Noah and his family from the wicked world around them symbolized baptism that likewise saves us.
The New Testament tells us that people in the Old Testament were types of Jesus Christ or of things in the Christian system. Paul tells us that Sarah and Hagar were allegorical, as I've already mentioned. We learned from the New Testament that Melchizedek represented Jesus Christ. We also learned that the Jewish high priest represented Jesus Christ. What about places in the Old Testament? Well, we find out in the New that Jerusalem had prophetic meaning beyond the literal city of Jerusalem.
We learned from Revelation that Egypt and Babylon have prophetic meanings. And then there's the spiritual teachings within the Mosaic Law. Paul points these out in his letter to the Corinthians. He wrote in 1 Corinthians 9," Whoever goes to war at his own expense, who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Or who tends a flock and doesn't drink of the milk of the flock?"" Do I say these things as a mere man?" Paul writes," Or does not the law say the same also?
For it is written in the law of Moses, you shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain." Is it oxen God is concerned about? Or does he say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope. Later on in that same passage, he again points to the law.
He says," Do you not know that those who minister the holy things eat of the things of the temple, and those who serve at the altar partake of the offerings of the altar?" Even so, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel. Now, the mistake we 21st century Westerners make is to immediately conclude that the New Testament writers point to all of these types and allegorical meanings in the Old Testament, only because they were inspired writers.
In other words, finding prophetic types and allegorical meanings in the law and in the rest of the Old Testament is not a valid way to read the Scriptures, but it was okay for Paul to do it only because he was writing under inspiration. The problem with that position is that when Paul wrote his letters, his first readers wouldn't have viewed them as inspired Scripture.
In fact, as Paul reveals in his letter to the Corinthians, he was having to fight just to be accepted as an apostle, let alone having his words being put on an equal level with the law and the prophets. That would only come later. So when Paul wrote to the Corinthians, he was using arguments that would have been persuasive to his readers, many of whom questioned his authority. He couldn't afford to write something that would only make sense to his readers if they accepted his words as inspired scripture.
So Paul's argument about not muzzling the ox made sense to his first century readers, even to those who rejected Paul's apostolic authority. Furthermore, the New Testament book that contains the greatest use of types and allegories is Hebrews. And no human knows for certain who wrote Hebrews. In fact, for three centuries, the church debated the question of whether or not Hebrews should even be included in the New Testament canon. It certainly wasn't immediately accepted as scripture.
Yet in all of the debates about the status of Hebrews in ancient times, none of the early Christians had issues with its use of typology and allegory. They found the book very edifying. What held it back from being widely accepted as part of the New Testament was they didn't know who wrote it or when it was written.
Other than that, the only thing controversial about the book of Hebrews was that it could be taken as teaching that there is no allowance for repentance after committing a serious sin or after denying Christ. But the fact that about half of the epistle deals with prophetic types, symbols, and allegories was never an issue. There's one thing more I want you to think about.
If this Eastern mindset and this Eastern method of reading the Old Testament is not valid, does it make sense that the Holy Spirit would encourage that methodology by inspiring Paul to use it himself? That doesn't make sense, does it? By inspiring Paul and the other New Testament writers to use allegories and typology in their arguments, the Holy Spirit was vindicating this approach to reading the Old Testament.
The Spirit obviously knew that this would encourage Christian teachers to look for other types and parallels in the Old Testament. More importantly, the Holy Spirit was saying that there is nothing wrong with Eastern thinking and Eastern methodology. We Westerners often imagine that we have a monopoly when it comes to valid argumentation and spiritual interpretation, but we don't.
In fact, when it comes to understanding Scripture, we are the ones who are at a disadvantage because the Bible was written by Easterners. The ancient Jews were Easterners. Jesus was raised by Eastern parents and he lived out his earthly life in an Eastern society. Furthermore, you need to understand that the Eastern thinking in the New Testament isn't limited to just typology and allegory.
For example, after describing how Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt, Matthew wrote," He was there until the death of Herod that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying," Out of Egypt, did I call my son?" Well, what's eastern about that statement, you may be thinking? Well, let's turn to the passage that Matthew quoted from the Old Testament, and you'll see what's eastern about it.
He quotes from the 11th chapter of Hosea, which reads," When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son." As they called them, so they went from them. They sacrificed to the Baals and burned incense to carved images. I taught Ephraim to walk, taking them by their arms, but they did not know that I healed them. I drew them with gentle cords with bands of love, and I was to them as those who take the yoke from their neck. I stooped and fed them.
He shall not return to the land of Egypt, but the Assyrians shall be his king because they refuse to repent." End quote. That's a prophecy about Jesus? Let's be honest, if this prophecy had not been quoted by Matthew in the New Testament, and it was me who was arguing that Hosea 11 applies to the Messiah, you would all be saying, now you've got to really watch out for this David Bercot character. He twists scriptures upside down, sideways, you name it.
And to be fair, if Matthew had not made the application he did and one of you tried to argue that this was a prophecy about Messiah, I would no doubt think the same thing. It would seem to any of us that the passage from Hosea is clearly talking about the nation of Israel, not about the Messiah. But again, please don't say, well, Matthew was writing under inspiration, and so it was okay for him to make this kind of argument.
His purpose in quoting various Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah was to convince his readers that Jesus was the promised Messiah. If his proofs made no sense to them, then it was pointless for him to have made them. It would have only weakened his argument, not strengthened it. Furthermore, according to the early Christians, Matthew originally wrote his gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic in order to convince and reach the unbelieving Jews. So his arguments had to make sense to unbelievers.
The simple fact is that what ancient Easterners accepted as a logical, valid argument is different from what we modern Westerners accept as a logical valid argument. And the prophecy from Hosea is no isolated example. After pointing to that prophecy in Hosea, Matthew goes on to describe the slaughter of the male infants in Bethlehem.
And again, he points out that this fulfilled an Old Testament prophecy, saying," Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled, saying, a voice was heard in Rama, weeping in great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and she refused to be comforted because they were no more. Well, that sounds reasonable enough. Or at least it sounds reasonable until we look up the passage in Jeremiah that Matthew quotes. It says this, a voice is heard in Rama, lamentation and bitter weeping.
Rachel is weeping for her children. She refuses to be comforted for her children because they are no more. Thus says the Lord," Restrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears, for your work shall be rewarded declares the Lord, and they shall return from the land of the enemy.
And there is hope for your future declares the Lord, and your children shall return to their own territory." You see, Jeremiah was talking about the fact that the Israelites were going to be taken as captives and taken to the land of Babylonia and would leave the land of Judah desolate. And that's why Rachel would be weeping because they are no more. There would be no more people in the land, at least not her physical descendants.
So we would have to wonder, that's talking about the slaughter of the infants in Bethlehem after the birth of Jesus? Again, if that prophecy had not been quoted by Matthew and I were the one making the argument, you would say that I was twisting Scripture. Well, I hope by now that you can see that ancient Eastern thinking is often different from our modern Western thinking. And the Bible was not written by modern Westerners, but by ancient Easterners.
If we want to understand the Bible the same way the New Testament Christians did, we have to learn to get into their Eastern mindset. Now, please don't misunderstand me. I'm neither denying nor minimizing the inspiration of Scripture. I believe that Matthew and the other New Testament writers wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And I believe that what they wrote is inerrant and infallible.
However, what I'm saying is that the New Testament writers were real people writing to other real people, all of whom lived in a real historic world. It wasn't a Westernized, modern world. It was an ancient Eastern world with its own thought patterns. This becomes so obvious when we read the writings of the early Christians. Now, their writings aren't inspired and they don't claim to be inspired. And they're not inerrant or infallible.
But they do reflect the exact same kind of ancient Eastern thinking that we see in the New Testament. And their writings help us to see many rich truths in the Old Testament that we would otherwise not recognize. And so now I'd like to share with you some of their best insights into Old Testament types and allegories. We'll begin with the cross. Before reading the early Christian writings, I hadn't realized that there was anything about the cross in the Old Testament.
Now, I knew there were prophecies and types concerning the crucifixion of Jesus, but I didn't know there was anything concerning the actual shape of the cross, but it's there. Let me point to some of the figures of the cross in the Old Testament, which the early Christians write about. One Old Testament passage that quite a number of early Christian writers point to is Exodus 17 verses 9 through 13. It reads," And Moses said to Joshua,' Choose us some men and go out, fight with Amalek.
Tomorrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in my hand." So Joshua did, as Moses said to him, and fought with Amalek. And Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill. And so it was when Moses held up his hand that Israel prevailed. And when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed. But Moses' hands became heavy, so they took a stone and put it under him and he sat on it.
And Aaron and Hur supported his hands, one on one side and the other on the other side, and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun. So Joshua defeated Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword. So do you see the figure there? Moses was on this hilltop with his hands stretched out, roughly forming the shape of the cross. And as long as he was holding the shape of the cross, the Israelites prevailed against their enemies.
The early Christians universally saw this as a foreshadowing of the cross of Christ, that through the cross, God's people prevail even today. With that in mind, I noticed some other interesting parallels in this passage. Now, these are things I'm seeing. I don't specifically remember if the early Christians talked about these things or not. One is that Moses was on top of a hill. Well, likewise, Jesus was crucified at Golgotha or Calvary, which was a hill.
Second, in Exodus, there were three men on the hill, Moses, Aaron, and Hur. Likewise, three men were crucified at Calvary that day. Third, Moses was in the middle between these two other men, Aaron and Hur. Likewise, Jesus was crucified in the middle between two robbers. Finally, Moses was unable to hold his hands up the entire time. They had to be propped up or held up by others. Likewise, Jesus did not hold his own arms up on the cross. The nails held his arms in that position.
As I mentioned, I think the lesson we can learn from this situation in the Old Testament is that God's people can only be victorious in the cross of Christ. Without it, we cannot conquer the world. The world will prevail against us. Well, are there other foreshadowings of the cross in the Old Testament? Yes, another one is in the account of Jacob blessing Ephraim and Manasseh. This is recorded in Genesis chapter 48.
It reads," Then Israel saw Joseph's sons and said," Who are these?" And Joseph said to his father," They are my sons whom God has given me in this place." And he said," Please bring them to me and I will bless them." Now the eyes of Israel were dim with age so that he could not see. Then Joseph brought them near him and he kissed them and embraced them.
And Israel said to Joseph," I had not thought to see your face, but in fact, God has also shown me your offspring." So Joseph brought them from beside his knees, and he bowed down with his face to the earth. And Joseph took them both, Ephraim with his right hand toward Israel's left hand, and Manasseh with his left hand towards Israel's right hand and brought them near him.
Then Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it on Ephraim's head, who was the younger, and his left hand on Manasseh's head, guiding his hands knowingly for Manasseh was the firstborn. Now, all that most of us see in this account is the fact that Jacob gave the primary blessing to Ephraim instead of to Manasseh the Firstborn. But the early Christians saw something further. Why does the account go into so much detail about Jacob crossing his arms when he gave the blessing? Well, I think I just gave it away.
He made a cross with his arms, prefiguring the cross of Christ. Something else I see here is that perhaps Ephraim and Manasseh prefigure Israel and the church. Israel was the firstborn like Manasseh, but as a result of the cross of Christ, the greater blessing has gone to the second born, the church. And just as it was true in the case of the literal tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, spiritual Israel, the second born is much larger in size than fleshly Israel.
A third foreshadowing of the cross is found in the book of Ezekiel. However, this foreshadow is not as apparent in our English Bible. Let me read to you the passage. This is from the New King James. It's found in Ezekiel 9, verses 3 and 4. And it says," And he called to the man clothed with linen who had the writer's inkhorn at his side.
And the Lord said to him," Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and put a mark on the foreheads of the men who sigh and cry over all the abominations that are done within it." The passage goes on to explain that all those in Jerusalem were destroyed except for those who had the mark on their forehead. As I mentioned in English, few of us would see a foreshadowing of the cross in this passage. However, in Hebrew, the foreshadowing is a lot more obvious.
That's because what the text actually says is that the man with the writer's inkhorn was to put the letter T or tau on the foreheads of those who were sighing and crying over the abominations in Jerusalem. And of course, the letter T is in the shape of the cross. But our English Bibles inaccurately translate the passage by saying that the man was simply to put a mark on the foreheads when the text says he was to put a T on their foreheads. Why the letter T? Why not alpha or beta or any of the other letters?
Because again, the T is a picture or foreshadowing of the cross. Actually, the foreshadowing here was even more apparent to the early Christians than to us because they frequently traced the sign of the cross on their foreheads to demonstrate that they belong to Jesus. In fact, at least as early as the year 200, after a person was baptized, the bishop would normally anoint him with oil by tracing the sign of the cross with oil on the forehead of the newly baptized person.
Well, the message here is that on Judgment Day, those who belong to Christ, who figuratively bear the sign of the cross on their foreheads, are the ones who will be spared from condemnation. Another instance of the sign of the cross in the Old Testament would be apparent only to those who witnessed the roasting of the Passover lamb. In his conversation with Trypho the Jew, Justin Martyr talks about how the Jews roasted this lamb.
He says the lamb, which is roasted, is roasted and dressed up in the form of the cross. For one spit pierces right through the lower parts of the head, and another one pierces a lamb across the back to which are attached the legs of the lamb. So the Passover lamb not only prefigured Jesus Christ, but the method of its roasting was done in the shape of the cross, which prefigured the cross of Christ and the crucifixion.
Of course, there were many other things in the Christian plan of salvation that were foreshadowed in the Old Testament. Let me share with you a few of the other ones the early Christians saw. We'll start with Jesus. I mentioned earlier that I think we all agree that in Abraham being commanded to offer up Isaac, this prefigured God offering up his only begotten Son. But I never noticed the significance of some of the specific details about this event until the early Christians pointed them out.
For example, the account in Genesis reads," So Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on Isaac his son, and he took the fire in his hand and a knife, and the two of them went together." Now, do you see something there in that description that happened in the life of Christ, particularly close to his death? Well, as I mentioned, I think we all realize that Isaac represents Christ in this scene. Now, who carries the wood to the place of sacrifice? Well, it was Isaac, wasn't it?
Likewise, Jesus started out having to carry his own cross up until the point when he was physically unable. There's another interesting detail here. Once God stopped Abraham from offering up Isaac, he pointed out to Abraham a ram. I think, again, we all would recognize that the ram also prefigures Christ. Now, in our English Bibles, this is how it describes what happens with the Ram.
It says," Then Abraham lifted his eyes and looked, and there behind him was a ram caught in a thicket by its horns." Well, nothing there that would particularly catch our attention. However, the Septuagint says that the ram was caught in a Sabek plant by its horns. Now, the Sabek plant was a thorny Mideastern plant. You get the picture now? The ram's head was surrounded by thorns, just as Jesus' head was circumscribed by the crown of thorns.
Moving on, as Christians, we know that there will be two advents or coming of Christ. However, the Jews had not realized this, nor do they accept it even to this day. But did God give any clues that there would be two comings of Christ? Well, in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Justin Martyr argued that the two comings were prefigured by the two goats presented on the Day of Atonement. You probably remember the two goats had to both be free of blemish, so in some ways they were identical.
But only one of them was killed, picturing the first coming of Christ when He was crucified. But the other goat was not killed. It was released in the wilderness, picturing the Second Coming of Christ. What about Jesus' actual name, Jesus? Was this foreshadowed? Yes, it was in Joshua. Now, in our English Bibles, we wouldn't see any connection between the two names, Joshua and Jesus. But Jesus is simply the Greek form for the name Joshua. They're one in the same name.
And since the New Testament Christians and the early Christians all used the Septuagint as their Old Testament. Well, they read about this man Jesus in both the Old and the New Testaments. The Old Testament Jesus is the one who led the Israelites into the Promised Land. Moses was able to lead the Israelites up to the edge of the Promised Land, but God didn't allow Moses to take them into the Promised Land. Only Joshua or Jesus in Greek could do that. Similarly, the Mosaic Law can't get us into heaven.
It could only take the Jews so far. Only Jesus can take us into heaven, the Promised Land. Let's move on to types and allegories picturing two peoples, Israel and the Church, fleshly Israel and Spiritual Israel, we might say. Now, as we've already discussed, Paul tells us that these two peoples were represented by Sarah and Hagar. But Sarah and Hagar are not the only two persons to represent Israel and the church. The early Christians saw many other representations in the Old Testament.
Well, first you have Cain and Abel. Cain was the older of the two brothers, but his sacrifice was not accepted by God. Similarly, Israel is the older people between them and the church. But after Christ's coming, Israel sacrifices are no longer accepted by God. In Genesis, we read that Cain slew his younger brother Abel. Likewise, the Jews persecuted the church and killed many Christians. Even more, they slew the head of the church, Jesus Christ. Then there's Jacob and Esau.
Jacob was the younger one, but he received the blessing, just as the church receives it. Also, initially, Jacob had to flee from the wrath of Esau, just as initially the church had to flee from the wrath of the Jews. What about Rachel and Leah? Rachel was the younger, but she was the one who was especially loved by Jacob, picturing the church being loved by God in comparison to his first wife, Israel. Then again, I've already mentioned Ephraim and Manasseh.
That would seem to represent, again, Israel and the Church. Did you know that baptism is symbolized in the Old Testament? Well, no doubt you do, since Peter tells us that the ark in the flood of Noah's Day prefigured baptism. Also, Paul tells us that the Israelites were baptized into Moses when they crossed the Red Sea. So the crossing of the Red Sea prefigured baptism. Another foreshadowing of baptism, which the early Christians often point to, is the cleansing of Naaman the Syrian.
As you remember, he was afflicted with leprosy. And leprosy represents sin, which all of us are infected with. But how is Naaman's leprosy cured? By going into the Jordan River and bathing seven times. Seven, of course, is a number used throughout the scriptures to symbolize heavenly or spiritual completeness. Naaman's washing represented the washing we receive in baptism through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. As Ananias told Paul," Why are you waiting?
Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Well, those are just a few examples of types and allegories that the early Christians point out. There are many more. In fact, not only did the early Christians see types and symbols in various Old Testament historical and prophetic passages, but they all understood that the Mosaic Law primarily had a spiritual purpose.
Of course, the Israelites were expected to live by it literally and physically, but God knew that the literal application of the law was only for a limited time, but its spiritual teachings were eternal. Now, most of us have never paid much attention to Paul's statement in Romans where he said," We know that the law is spiritual." At least for me, that always went in one ear and out the other. I never gave it any thought.
Well, that is until I read the early Christian writings, I soon found that they were quoting that statement a lot and that they all saw many spiritual truths hidden in the commandments of the law. Of course, when I went back and reread the New Testament, I saw that this is also stated throughout the New Testament.
For example, in addition to what we've already read, there's a statement in Colossians 2: 17 where Paul says," Therefore, let no one judge you in food or in drink or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ." So all of these things, all of these regulations about food, drink, festivals, sabbaths, et cetera, he says they are a shadow of things to come. He didn't say they're just obsolete or that they have no more meaning.
He says that they were a shadow. They prefigured something. Then there is a statement in the book of Hebrews that says," The law having a shadow of the good things to come and not the very image of the things." Telling us that shadows are contained all throughout the law, there's not just the literal meaning to the law. Well, the early Christians all talk about this a lot.
For example, Irenaeus wrote," When at this present time the law is read to the Jews, it is like a fable, for they don't possess the explanation of all things pertaining to the coming of the Son of God, which took place in human nature. But when it is read by the Christians, it is a treasure hidden indeed in a field, but brought to light by the cross of Christ." Origen wrote," The scriptures were written by the Spirit of God.
They have not only the meaning that is apparent at first sight, but also another meaning that escapes the notice of most people. For those written passages are the forms of certain mysteries and are the images of divine things." Concerning these, there is one opinion throughout the entire church that the whole law is indeed spiritual. Even Tertullian, who's Mr. Practical, who is the antithesis of the Alexandrian School of Thought, even he agreed with this.
He wrote," The Lord therefore wished that the law should be more profoundly understood as signifying spiritual truths through material facts." In that manner, Christ does not destroy, but builds up the law. Well, I'll give you just one example of their understanding the law to be spiritual. As we know, the Mosaic Law contains very detailed instructions on what animals are clean and what are unclean for eating.
The early Christians, of course, realized that the Israelites were meant to follow those commandments literally, but they also saw moral teachings in these commandments. Things similar to Paul's application of not muzzling the ox. So let's look at some of these commandments about food. Now we all know that the Jews were forbidden to eat pigs, but why? We eat pork and bacon today. Well, the early Christians saw a moral lesson here. God calls pigs unclean because He doesn't want us to be like pigs.
Pigs like filth, mud, and garbage. They're slaves to their appetite. In fact, we use that term today. Boy, what a pig to mean somebody who's a glutton. Also, in ancient times, pigs didn't serve any useful function to farmers other than to be eaten. Other farm animals furnished transportation. They carried loads, they pulled wagons, or they provided a steady supply of milk, eggs, or wool, but not pigs. Nothing. God also labeled weasels as unclean. Why? Well, even today, the name weasel has a bad connotation.
My dictionary gives one of the definitions of weasel as a cunning, sneaky person. Someone God does not want us to be. Here's another one. Most people today view the eagle as something good and noble. The United States and many other nations have made the eagle their national bird. So why would God label the eagle as unclean? In fact, he labeled all of the birds of prey as unclean.
Well, the early Christians felt the message here was that God hates those who acquire their food or their possessions by plundering and killing others. Well, I could go on and on, but I think now you see the point. There are many moral and spiritual lessons provided in the dietary commandments of the Mosaic Law, as well as in the other details of the law. In closing, I want to clarify a few things.
First, while I think the types and figures the early Christians saw in the Old Testament are valid, they're not infallible. And that's where they differ from the New Testament discussions. If the New Testament says that Sarah and Hagar prefigured the two covenants or the two peoples, then they did. End of discussion. When the early Christians say that Jacob and Esau prefigured Israel and the church, they're probably right. But there's always the possibility that they may be wrong.
Second, there's also a difference between what the early Christians saw in the Old Testament and what non-Christian Jews like Philo saw. Jesus and the Holy Spirit have opened up the eyes of Christians to many truths in the Old Testament that were completely hidden until Christ came. So someone like Philo had no way of seeing these things. As a result, a lot of the shadows and types he thought he saw in the Old Testament were in error. So the insights of the church are on a different level than his conjectures.
Now let me ask the question, can typology be misused? Yes, it can. Someone with an overactive imagination can see types and allegories in the Old Testament that aren't really there. Even though I don't like that sort of overuse of typology, there's probably no great spiritual harm that comes from it either. I would say there's more harm in going to the other extreme and refusing to notice the shadows and types that are there.
I think the main harm that overuse of typology causes is that it tends to turn other people off from even looking at legitimate shadows in the Old Testament. Now, you may be wondering that if the apostles and the early Christians saw all of these shadows in the Old Testament, why don't we hear a lot of this kind of teaching today? Well, it's primarily because of the Reformation.
The original Eastern way of looking at the Old Testament continued on in both the East and the West long after the early Christians passed off of the scene. However, the Reformers virtually ignored everything the early Christians taught. They basically decided to erase the first 300 years of Christian history and to try to go back directly to the New Testament without the early Christians. And that's fine. That in itself, there's nothing wrong with that.
And it wouldn't have been so bad if they had truly gone back to the New Testament without any preconceptions or any agenda. But the truth is they were more going back to Augustine than they were going back to the Bible. And Luther and Calvin had very specific agendas, so they ignored much of what is revealed in the Scriptures. What's worse is that they approached the Scriptures with a very different mindset than that of the New Testament Christians.
The Reformers applied their 16th century rationalistic Western thinking to Scripture and tended to discard anything that didn't fit into that kind of Western thinking. Well, then after the Reformation, some Protestants went so far as to claim that there are no shadows or types in the Old Testament, except for the ones that are specifically discussed in the New Testament.
Well, happily, I think today most Bible-believing Protestants and evangelicals have moved back to a more balanced view of types and shadows, but we still tend to neglect, I would say, this area of Bible study. Of course, you may be thinking, well, what's the point of all these shadows and allegories? What difference do Old Testament types and shadows make in my Christian life? Well, there are several benefits.
For me, I know that seeing these shadows and types is very faith strengthening because I see a God who truly knows the future, a God I can trust in. He doesn't do things haphazardly. His actions are usually planned long in advance. And he planted all of these types shadows and allegories in the Old Testament in order to build up our faith once the fulfillments came about. As a result, we can see that all of human history has been heading in a direction that leads to God's Son, Jesus Christ.
God is in ultimate control of history. Furthermore, the early Christians pointed to these types and shadows when they were witnessing to the Jews because they could demonstrate to the Jews from their own holy writings, the Jewish writings, that look, your writings pointed to Christ all along. And today, we can do the same thing. We can point to the types and shadows, and we can point to the specific direct prophecies. And of course, it's not limited to witnessing just to Jews.
We can use these same things when witnessing to the Muslims since they recognize the Old Testament. And as a matter of fact, we can use it to witness to anybody. In addition, I think God planted these shadows and figures in order to draw Christians to the Old Testament. I say that because, you know, it's very easy to get into the mindset that the Old Testament is just past history. All we need is the New Testament.
And since the law has been fulfilled by Jesus, it's easy to think that there's no reason to even study the law any longer. It's something passed, it's something done with. But by planting types, shadows, and allegories all throughout the Old Testament, God has made sure that the Old Testament remains very relevant for Christians in all ages. Also, these shadows and types are important to demonstrate the unity of the two testaments. The two testaments make a united whole.
We see Christ explicitly in the New Testament, and we see Him implicitly in the Old. But to bring this down to a more personal level, once we start seeing these various shadows in the Old Testament, we suddenly find that reading the Old Testament is very exciting. In fact, it's like a treasure hunt. What new things will I discover when I reread this Old Testament book? Or maybe that one? That's certainly been my experience. In fact, that's what led to this message to start with.
It actually began in February 2012, when I was invited to speak at Harvard University. While I was in Boston, I got to meet a number of the Christian brothers and sisters who were responsible for my getting the invitation to speak at Harvard. Anyway, I learned that one of the brothers who I met there, Chuck Pike, had recently done a series of messages in his church on seeing Christ in various Old Testament books.
He had been motivated to do this because of reading the early Christian writings and seeing the various shadows in the Old Testament that they point out. So I asked Chuck if he, by any chance, had recorded any of these messages. And he said, yeah, in fact, he had. They weren't polished recordings, but they were there. So I asked him if I could maybe get some copies of them to listen to on the drive back to Pennsylvania from Boston. And he was able to do that.
So while Deborah and I were driving back to Pennsylvania, we were listening to his messages about shadows and types in the book of Genesis. And I found his messages and insights to be absolutely fascinating. So as soon as we got back home, I called and asked him if he would consider re-recording those messages for the Scroll Publishing audience, and he agreed to do so.
Not only that, while I was in Boston, Chuck had told me about a lesson he had done recently to an adult Bible study group on seeing Christ in the account of Daniel in the lion's den. Well, I told him I'd like to hear that and he made a recording of it for our scroll listeners. Once again, I found it captivating. I feel quite certain that most of you will find it so as well.
As a result, in the months and years to come, Scroll Publishing plans to feature a series of Chuck Pike's messages on shadows of Christ and shadows on the plan of salvation that are found in the Old Testament. The first CD message will be on seeing Christ in Daniel talking about Daniel in the lion's den. That's going to be followed by his message on seeing Christ in the fall of Jericho.
In fact, some of the things I shared with you just a few minutes ago about Joshua prefiguring Jesus are things I learned from his message on the fall of Jericho. Other titles we plan on publishing will be Seeing Christ in Jonah and Seeing Christ in Genesis. My hope is that not only will you find these messages fascinating and faith-strengthening, but that they will spur you on to find other hidden treasures yourself in the Old Testament.
Finally, I also hope that through these messages, it will help all of us to bond a bit closer to the New Testament Christians and the early Christians with their marvelous Eastern thinking and insights.