Bible Typology Class

  • Thread starter Thread starter BibleReader
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BibleReader

Guest
The single most important concept to keep in mind, before we get into the “meat” of Bible typology, is that the Holy Spirit frequently plays a kind of “game” in the Bible text when He foreshadows Christ and Christ’s salvation process:

PRINCIPLE #1: Christ is frequently foreshadowed and described in Scripture with SIN symbols.

You must get used to this.

Example familiar to most: The Bronze Serpent on the Pole.

In Numbers 21:4-9, the Israelites relentlessly complain, complain, complain; God gets sick of the complaining; He permiuts the people to be afflicted with hordes of serpents; the people realize that God is angry with them, and go to Moses for a solution; God tells Moses to tell the people to fashion a serpent out of bronze, fix it to a poole, and look at it every time they are bitten, and they will be cured.

The bronze serpenton the pole is Christ on the cross! At John 3:14-15, Jesus actually compares Himself on the cross to the bronze serpent on the pole, as follows…

"And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life."

Now, *why in Heaven’s holy name do this??? *Why does the Bible, inspired by the Holy Spirit, symbolize Christ with SIN symbols??? It’s crazy, right???

Here are some other instances…

In the Bible, the basic meaning of “birds” is “demons,” “sin.” So, in the Parable of the Sower, Christ, at Matthew 13:19, explains that the “birds” pecking-up the seed at Matthew 13:3 are the Evil One stealing-away faith.

Yet, in Leviticus 14:1-9, one bird, symbolizing Christ, is slaughtered, and its blood splattered on a second bird, symbolizing sin, which is allowed to fly away. It is a picture of the sacrificial blood of Christ chasing away sin. But why a sin symbol for Christ.

Here’s another one: In the Bible, the abyss, seas, oceans, lakes, etc. – all large bodies of water, or saline water, are “the sea of damnable souls.”

Fish IN large bodies of water are damnable souls IN the sea of damnable souls needing salvation.

So, for example, at the end of John’s gospel a large haul of fish being hauled-in in the presence of resurrected Christ is a picture of the saved being taken out of the sea of damnable souls. See John 21:9-11.

But, in the famous Book of Jonah, when Jonah-the-Christ-figure is swallowed by a big fish, that is a picture of Jonah/Christ “turning into” a great big fish sin symbol, and in the Book of Tobit, in Chapter 6, we see the same big Christ fish surfacing and trying to bite off the hero’s feet.

Why in Heaven’s name symbolize Christ with a fish SINNER symbol?

Answer: Paul figured it out, at 2 Corinthians 5:21. It reads as follows…

**For our sake he made him to be sin who did not know sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God in him. **

So, in a sense, one of Christ’s “official titles” in typology is “Him-Who-did-not-know-sin-Who-was-made-to-be-sin.”

The Holy Spirit himself is frequently symbolized with bird symbols – usually a dove or eagle – because the Holy Spirit is “He-Who-continues-on-Earth-as-the-Paraclete-the-mission-of-Him-Who-did-not-know-sin-Who-was-made-to-be-sin.”

So, in understanding Bible symbols, get used to looking for Christ to be symbolized in a backwards way – in the form of “Him-Who-did-not-know-sin-Who-was-made-to-be-sin.”

Why does the Holy Spirit do this?

I think because God the Father is proud of the fact that this Son Whom He just desperately loves volunteered to be treated like He were sin, itself, even though He is sinless. Paternal pride.
 
TOMORROW: The two different kinds of symbols in the Bible: “Types,” and “Word-Pictures.”
 
BR,

If I am reading correctly, we can start our Standard Typological Definition lexicon as follows:

The Bronze Serpent - Christ on the Cross

Birds - Demons / Satan

Singular Bird (a dove or eagle, usually) - The Holy Spirit or Christ, depending on usage

The Abyss, Seas, Oceans, Lakes, all large bodies of water, or saline water - “The Sea of Damnable Souls.”

** Fish in large bodies of water - Damnable Souls Needing Salvation.

Is this correct?
God bless,
RyanL
 
40.png
RyanL:
BR,

If I am reading correctly, we can start our Standard Typological Definition lexicon as follows:

The Bronze Serpent - Christ on the Cross

Birds - Demons / Satan

Singular Bird (a dove or eagle, usually) - The Holy Spirit or Christ, depending on usage

The Abyss, Seas, Oceans, Lakes, all large bodies of water, or saline water - “The Sea of Damnable Souls.”

**Fish *in ***large bodies of water - Damnable Souls Needing Salvation.

Is this correct?
God bless,
RyanL
Click to expand...
Hi, Ryan.

What you are doing here is essentially correct. We’ll start doing types in a day or two. And a type vocabulary is correct. I used to have a written one (and there is a loooooooong written one in the book’s rough draft).

And you are doing something else correct: You see a reading, and you break down all of the types in it.

Doing this incessantly is the key to achieving competence.

However, let me make a few adjustments.

“Word-pictures” are made of types, not vice versa.

The Bronze Serpent is a “word-picture” constructed out of the Bronze Type, the “red” metal which symbolizes Christ because it is “red” like blood; and the Serpent Type.

In the Bronze Serpent word picture, the Serpent Type for the Devil, demons or sin is used “paradoxically” to represent Christ in the form of “He-Who-did-not-know-sin-Who-was-made-to-be-sin.” I sometimes call this “Christ in the 2 Corinthians 5:21 form.”

So, the “bronze” “serpent” is the “bloodied” form of “He-Who-did-not-know-sin-Who-was-made-to-be-sin.”

The presumably wooden pole to which the Bronze Serpent was attached is an “analog of” – or version of – the “Non-Fig Tree Type” symbolizing “the cross.”

The number of birds isn’t necessarily *the * point distinguishing between good guy interps and bad guy interps of the Bird Type. For example, at Job 39:30 you’ll see the Holy Spirit eagle watching protectively over a *bunch * of Catholic Christian baby eagles drinking the blood of *chalal *(in Hebrew), “the pierced one.” At Numbers 11:31-32, you’ll see the Hebrews eating thousands upon thousands of quail – Christ in the form of “He-Who-did-not-know-sin-Who-was-made-to-be-sin,” vastly multiplied and eaten, as in the Eucharist.

The Abyss Type IS “the sea of damnable souls.” Very good.

The Fish Type IS “a damnable soul in the sea of damnable souls.” But of course, like most sin-related types, it is sometimes used to symbolize Christ in the form of “He-Who-did-not-know-sin-Who-was-made-to-be-sin.”

In the miracle of five loaves and two fishes, “five” = The Five Type = “Christ.” “Loaves” = The Grain Type = “Eucharistic Bread.” There are “five” loaves because it is “Christ bread.” Get it?

It is “sat next to” “two fishes” by the story because that is “Identification by Juxtaposition” – we are being told, “Those two fishes are the same thing as the five loaves.”

“Two” = “Church.”

“Fishes” = that paradoxical use of the Fish Type for “damnable souls in the sea of damnable souls,” where the “damnable soul” is really Christ in the form of “He-Who-did-not-know-sin-Who-was-made-to-be-sin.”

So, “two fishes” are “Church fishes,” or “He-Who-did-not-know-sin-Who-was-made-to-be-sin” from the “Church.”

So, "Christ bread is the same thing as ‘He-Who-did-not-know-sin-Who-was-made-to-be-sin’ from the “Church.”
 
allrighty, this is interesting, i’ll be following this one.
 
I have only one problem so far - the “Christ became sin” bit. I’m afraid that 2 Cor 5:21 may be being misinterpreted. Using the same linguistic short-hand found in the Septuagint, Paul uses “became sin” as short-hand for “became a sin offering”. All the patristic exegesis understands the clause as referring only to Christ becoming a “sin offering,” not sin itself, even as the corollary passage, Romans 8:3, stipulates. In fact, for Catholic theology, it was precisely the fact that Christ was totally without the stain of sin, whether personally or vicariously, that He was able to offer Himself as an appeasing sacrifice. Truth cannot become Lie, and Good cannot become Evil. Based on this logical absolute, Christ could never “become sin”, though He could quite consistantly become a “sin offering”.

My fear lies in realizing the falsehood of Christ being made a “penal sacrifice”, where He “becomes sin” so that the Father can punnish Christ as sin on our behalf. This, in turn, leads to “imputed righteousness” as a theology, which is exactly the mistake Luther made. In response to this, the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia states:
…The second mistake is the tendency to treat the Passion of Christ as being literally a case of vicarious punishment. This is at best a distorted view of the truth that His atoning Sacrifice took the place of our punishment, and that He took upon Himself the sufferings and death that were due to our sins.
Click to expand...
As long as the distinction is clear, I can fully agree with the lesson so far.

God bless,
RyanL
 
40.png
RyanL:
I have only one problem so far - the “Christ became sin” bit. I’m afraid that 2 Cor 5:21 may be being misinterpreted. Using the same linguistic short-hand found in the Septuagint, Paul uses “became sin” as short-hand for “became a sin offering”. All the patristic exegesis understands the clause as referring only to Christ becoming a “sin offering,” not sin itself, even as the corollary passage, Romans 8:3, stipulates. In fact, for Catholic theology, it was precisely the fact that Christ was totally without the stain of sin, whether personally or vicariously, that He was able to offer Himself as an appeasing sacrifice. Truth cannot become Lie, and Good cannot become Evil. Based on this logical absolute, Christ could never “become sin”, though He could quite consistantly become a “sin offering”.

My fear lies in realizing the falsehood of Christ being made a “penal sacrifice”, where He “becomes sin” so that the Father can punnish Christ as sin on our behalf. This, in turn, leads to “imputed righteousness” as a theology, which is exactly the mistake Luther made. In response to this, the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia states:

As long as the distinction is clear, I can fully agree with the lesson so far.

God bless,
RyanL
Click to expand...
Hi, Ryan.

As I suspected, the “corollary verse,” Romans 8:3, actually contains both ideas…

**For what the law, weakened by the flesh, was powerless to do, this God has done: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for the sake of sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, **

Also, you don’t get to ignore 2 Corinthians 5:21…

**For our sake he made him to be sin who did not know sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God in him. **

Why ignore the italicized words “he made him to be sin”?

And then here’s Galatians 3:13…

Christ ransomed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us,…**

Close enough. And then there’s 1 Peter 2:24…

**He himself bore our sins in his body upon the cross, so that, free from sin, we might live for righteousness. **

Again, close enough.

I didn’t just make-up the concept of Christ in the form of “Him-Who-did-not-know-sin-Who-was-made-to-be-sin.” It is THE REASON why the Holy Spirit foreshadows Christ Himself with SIN symbols.
 
Yesterday we discussed what I off-the-cuff described as Principle #1, namely that the Bible foreshadows and refers to Christ with SIN symbols.

Examples:

(1) The bronze serpent on a pole, where Christ is portrayed with a serpent; Numbers 21;

(2) The sacrifice in Leviticus of a bird whose blood is splattered on a second bird which is allowed to fly away, where Christ is the sacrificed bird, and the seconbd bird is sin being driven away by the sacrificial blood; Leviticus 14;

(3) The Tobit fish; Tobit 6;

Some new examples:

(4) The black raven released by Noah; it doesn’t come down from the sky until after the flood; it is Christ ascending to Heaven, and returning at the end of time; Genesis 8;

(5) The Moses staff which becomes a serpent, and eats-up Pharaoh’s magicians’ serpents; Exodus 7;

(6) A “hand”-shape cloud – Christ is symbolized by the hand – coming out of the sea in response to the prayer of Elijah andf bringing saving rain to Israel; 1 Kings 18.

Recollect that the Bible does this because in accord with 2 Corinthians 5:21 Christ is “Him-Who-did-not-know-sin-Who-was-made-to-be-sin.”
Today we’ll discuss what I’ll call Principle #2: Identification by Juxtaposition.

In Identification by Juxtaposition, the Bible frequently lays two things together in a story, Thing A and Thing B, to tell us, “Thing A = Thing B.”

Examples:

(1) We see Christ riding an a s s at the time of His Messianic entry. There is a reason for this: It is that several verses in the Old Testament require that “a first-born male who opens the womb” be killed if it is not redeemed. And then a few verses – for example, Exodus 13:13, 34:20 – give as an example of an animal which must be killed an * a s s.*

Well, Christ sits atop an a s s at the time of His Messianic enbtry because we are being told, “This one, like the a s s He is sitting on, must be killed because He is unredeemed.”

(2) Again and again and again, to teach Real Presence theology, the Bible uses Identification by Juxtaposition to tell us, “A = B,” “The Bread = the Sacrificed One.”

In Genesis 18, Abraham serves rolls with a choice steer.

In Genesis 21, Abraham supplies Hagar with bread and a skin filled with water.

In Genesis 27, Jacob serves bread and wine with slaughtered kid stew.

In Genesis 41, Pharaoh dreams about gaunt, dying grain after he dreams about gaunt, dying cows.

In Exodus 12, unleavened bread is served with sacrificed blemishless lamb.

Do you see what is going on? We are being told, "Friends, the *bread * will be the same thing as the Slaughtered One."

Well, Identification by Juxtaposition to say “A = B” is used throughout the Bible, like sin types to symbolize Christ. So, you have to know about it, in advance, so that you can keep your eye out for it.
 
I am finding this So interesting that I’ll be reading along.

Questions:
When Jesus walks on the water, he is walking among the ‘damned souls’ and thus being present ‘above’ these water, thus he can’t walk ‘through’ the water Is this a correct interpetion?

I thought tha anology in The Passion that Mel Gibson had the crow peck out the eyes of the thief that heckled Jesus. Mel was using typology here right?

I’m interested in why in the early OT that each time a stone was erected and used, it was given a name. Giving a rock a name, I don’t understand. I guess ‘names’ are important in understanding Scripture.
 
**When Jesus walks on the water, he is walking among the ‘damned souls’ and thus being present ‘above’ these water, thus he can’t walk ‘through’ the water Is this a correct interpetion?
**
Yup. You are absolutely correct. And note that Peter, the first pope, sinks into the water, and Jesus pulls him up. In my opinion, this and the other verses where Peter is faulted – Jesus says to Peter, “GET BEHIND ME, YOU SATAN!” [Ouch.]; Jesus predicting Peter’s three denials; Jesus seeking repeated assurances that Peter will feed His sheep – foreshadow the failings of the Church of the Popes, and the Church-crippling sins of the Church of the Popes, including the latest sex scandal – over the centuries.

But, note one more thing: Even inside that negative foreshgadowing is implicit confirmation that we are the One True Church!
 
I thought [of] that anology in The Passion [where] Mel Gibson had the crow peck out the eyes of the thief that heckled Jesus. Mel was using typology here right?

Mel Gibson probably intended the crow to symbolize the Devil punishing the bad thief, I agree.

However, interestingly, in the Bible, though birds do generally symbolize the Devil and his demons and sin, Christ is frequently symbolized with SIN symbols (see Post #1 in this thread) and so the black raven released by Noah at Genesis 8:7, which doers not come down until after the flood, is ascended Christ not coming back until the end of time. And the ravens bringing Elijah bread and meat in the evening (when Christ died) and in the morning (when Christ rose) are Christ bringing the Eucharist to mankind. (Note well – another example of Identification by Juxtaposition – bread served with meat to tello us, “That bread will be the same stuff as the sacrificed meat of Christ,” see Post #8.)

If the Bible portrayed a crow pecking out eyes (and I think it actually does that here-and-there!) I would normally interpret that as Christ punishing someone for lack of faith (where Seeing = “faith,” and Blindness = “lack of faith.”)
 
I’m interested in why in the early OT that each time a stone was erected and used, it was given a name. Giving a rock a name, I don’t understand. I guess ‘names’ are important in understanding Scripture.

This, too, is a pretty insightful point.

In the Bible, the one who names things is the keeper of the thing named, and the thing named is subject to the namer. So, note that God names things in Genesis 1, and then Adam names things in Genesis 2 (including woman!!!). Yet, note that Moses doesn’t know God’s name, and God gives Moses a mystical name for God – Exodus 3:13-14.

Those stone monuments named by the Patriarchs are the Church being named by, and being made subject to, Christ.
 
Dear BR,

I have to say this is one of the most interesting topics I have seen yet. It is such a discovery to get these insights.

Scott Hahn has gave me some enthuism for this since re-reading his book *Swear to God. *

Pg 37 Chapt 3, He refers to water as a type for the grace of the Holy spirit, If i understand correctly, then you can go into baptism with that, and moses exodus, etc…

But what really struck me was that in revelation, 22:1"then he showed me the river of life, clear as crystal, gushing from the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the middle of the city, on both sides of the river are the trees of life producing fruit 12 times…leaves for healing the nations"

if this is correct then materials actually are shrowed by a sacremental veil, now, just like OT types were only seen as a shadow of what the were meant to represent, prior to the unveiling.

My point, can this suggest that the spirt proceeds from both God(the father) and The lamb (the son)?

another Question?
at gethsemene] Linen cloth was left behind… mark 14:51-52
he saw the linen cloths lying flat…[in the empty tomb] john 20:5

I think this is obviously related. can you offer any insights please.

God bless you, and sorry if I have interupted the flow of your presentation of your material, but I had to ask about this coz it is facinating. :bounce:

M.
 
Again sorry to disturb the flow of the thread, but I couldnt resist posting my thoughts. on this 19th Sunday in ordinary time Gospel, from Matthew 14:22-33.

Jesus made disciples get into the boat church] go on ahead to the other side leading the way to the spirit so to speak away from the ways of flesh?]…he went to hills to pray.[prefiguring his ascension, when he would pray to the father for them? and leave them] Evening came…boat far out on the lake Church alone without the immediate recognisable -presence of Christ, in the sea of despair among the dammed] battling with a heavy sea [prob some sign of persecution/fear] for there was a headwind [Not sure what a heavy wind suggests? Trouble? But there was a violent wind immediately before the Lord came in 1Kings [/color]19:12, and indicated the coming of the Holy spirit in Acts 2]. 4th watch of the night he went towards them [number 4 is a type for “everyone” I think one of your posts says, Night to me suggests abandonment, despair,(just like at Golgotha-darkness came when He died) perhaps for everyone in the world without Christs presence, there is only despair]…they saw him walking on the lake. [Someone earlier in a post said, he is above the dammed/the lost, superior, separate from their ways so to speak]…it’s a ghost perhaps an indication of the appearance of the resurrected Christ? Or transfigured Christ? ] Peter said…If it is you tell me to come out across the water… Perhaps an allusion to the early Acts, when peter filled with the spirit speaks out across the water-to the dammed-those who haven’t embraced the gospel] Come…[just like his invitation to follow in the end of John [/color]21:22] peter got out of the boat [He lead the Church militant to the Church triumphant in heaven across the waters of despair , or [perhaps leading the church from the way of the flesh to the way of spirit?] He felt the force of the wind and started to sink [again the strong wind thing! Not sure= Trouble? My earlier logic may fail me here] peter said Lord save me! Jesus put out his hand at once and held him. Perhaps a reference to the receiving of the spirit at Pentecost]. They got into the boat and the wind dropped back in the safety of the Church, with the spirit now. Note the wind dropped, so we now have a gentle wind, which represents the presence of God, as the verse in Kings cited in the first reading and above suggests, and also in the Genesis 3:8] they bowed down before him [all in the boat, they realised the lord in his saving action and worshipped], so now the Church proceeds with its bridegroom/spirit along to the other side (to salvation), all the time in the presence of Christ indicating the real sacramental presence of Christ among us today, until the end of time, or end of our time, when we reach the other side], all the while for the ship to float, it must keep its ways separate from the waters of the dammed,(ultimately it’s a balance, as we all know the church is full of wheat and tares) or else it will ultimately sink, short of its goal-the other side.

This has been a fun experiment:yup: . Can you give me any indication as to the validity of anything I said? If my interpretation is correct, I bet some early church father has already said it.

God bless
m
 
The name 'Israel" has many meanings. I sometimes get mixed up when in Scripture whether the name is referring to the Nation Israel, the person Israel or the people of Israel. Than then Jesus uses the name in a different way as well.

Can you help meunderstand these different uses of that name?
 
Hi, folks.

I’ve got to do my 3 mile “power walk” now, or die of fat.

So, I’ll just start answering points and finish tomorrow.
Pg 37 Chapt 3, He refers to water as a type for the grace of the Holy spirit, If i understand correctly, then you can go into baptism with that, and moses exodus, etc…

In the Bible, potable water – non-saline flowing rivers and streams and such = the River Type = “salvation.”

The Abyss Type – oceans, seas, lakes (even if they are fresh water), and saline or “bitter” flowing water = “the sea of damnable souls.”

Yet, BOTH can be used for Baptism.

If it’s salt water, Baptism by immersion is portrayed when the person rises out of “the sea of damnable souls.” Get it?

The Jordan River is actually saline. That’s why Christ’s baptism there was by immersion. Immersion enables Him to then rise out of it, thus dramatizing what happens to us when we are baptized – we stop being *in *the “sea of damnable souls.”

At the Last Supper in John’s gospel, Jesus says, “Whoever has bathed [been baptized] has no need except to have his feet washed [except to have his sins forgiven in Reconciliation – remember the Jesus fish trying to bite off Tobit’s dirty feet in the Book of Tobit?], for he is clean all over; so you are clean,…” John 13:10.

So, in John’s gospel, “baptism” is suddenly portrayed not as a “rising out of” the “sea of damnable souls,” but rather as a “bathing in” the waters of salvation.

So, note well: When the Israelites pass through the Red Sea without even getting their feet wet, that is a “rising-out-of-the-sea-of-damnable-souls” baptism picture, not a “bathing” baptism picture.
 
**But what really struck me was that in revelation, 22:1"then he showed me the river of life, clear as crystal, gushing from the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the middle of the city, on both sides of the river are the trees of life producing fruit 12 times…leaves for healing the nations"

if this is correct then materials actually are shrowed by a sacremental veil, now, just like OT types were only seen as a shadow of what the were meant to represent, prior to the unveiling.
**
That verse, Revelation 22:1, is why I called the River Type the “River Type.”

Regarding the “veiling” of Scripture, you might be interested in Daniel 12:9.
 
**My point, can this suggest that the spirt proceeds from both God(the father) and The lamb (the son)?
**
The concept of the procession of Christ from His Father, and the procession of the Spirit from both the Father and Son, is in Scripture.

The concept is important. It fills-in the blank space left behind by the mysteriousness inhering in the Trinity concept, and I think that is why God lets us see a little bit about the internal dynamics of the Trinity.

The fact that the Son mysteriously “perpetually pops out of” – “proceeds out of” – the Father is why He bears the quality of “Son-ness” vis-a-vis God the Father.

And it’s really, really neat that the Spirit “perpetually pops out of” – “proceeds out of” – the Son and the Father and the love between them. It kind of dramatically verifies how God is inherently a loving God – not a “God of Thunder and Lightning.”

Aquinas combines two sorts of verses to achieve the concept that the Holy Spirit proceeds out of the Father and the Son…

Verses referring to the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Christ…

Whoever does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. Romans 8:9.
As proof that you are children, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” Galatians 4:6.

…and verses verifying that all that Christ has was given to him by the Father…

Everything that the Father has is mine;… John 16:15.

There is a verse that seems to gently refer to procession out of both at once…

**When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me. John 15:26. **So, note: The Spirit is “from the Father,” but Christ “sends” Him, and that Spirit “testifies to” Christ. There may be very substantial content here: The Father as the Lover, Christ as the Beloved, and the Spirit as the Love between them.

It’s this Lover/Beloved/Lopve structure which God typified on Earth in the heterosexual human relationship: The man typifies the Father Lover; the woman typifies the Son Beloved; the love between them, and the children proceeding from that love, typifies the Holy Spirit Love.
 
another Question?
at gethsemene] Linen cloth was left behind… mark 14:51-52
he saw the linen cloths lying flat…[in the empty tomb] john 20:5

**I think this is obviously related. can you offer any insights please.

**Well, you’re right. These verses are extremely significat.

The Clothing Type, which has “cloth” as one of its analogs (versions of the type), refers to “religious beliefs.”

The Linen Type is “death.”

Christ’s tomb, made of “rock,” = the Rock Type = “Church.” So, the linen cloth left behind in the rock tomb = the “death religion” left behind in the “Church.” I.e., the religion with the death of Christ as its foundation.

That young man in Gethsemane springing out of the linen cloth and running off naked in Mark’s gospel is a picture foreshadowing “dead” Christ springing out of the linen shroud covering Him at the time of His resurrection, leaving behind the “religion of death.”
 
40.png
RyanL:
Birds - Demons / Satan

Singular Bird (a dove or eagle, usually) - The Holy Spirit or Christ, depending on usage
Click to expand...
This type of typology has always confused me. How do you reconcile the Birds with Jesus parable:

He proposed another parable to them. "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed that a person took and sowed in a field. It is the smallest of all the seeds, yet when full-grown it is the largest of plants. It becomes a large bush, and the 'birds of the sky come and dwell in its branches." (Mt. 17:31:32)

Is there a time where we assume the bird/satan typology and believe that the Church is filled with Satan, or is there a time when we don’t use this typology? And how do we know?

NotWorthy

P.S. Thanks BibleReader for offering this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top