Isaac and Rebeccah

[idiopathogen]

I have recently become aquanted with a Catholic who was interested in discussing the types in the Old Testament, such as the Passover Lamb (Exodus 12) as a figure or type of Christ, Abraham and Isaac as a type of God the Father offering His only Son (Gen 22).

I listened to a couple Scott Hahn CD’s by the Mary Foundation. I found his tone somewhat objectionable, because the basis of his conversion, it seems, was intellectual discovery, as well as an attraction to some of the less scripturally obvious superstitions of Catholicism.

From scripture, I can see that all truth really comes through the conscience and is based on obedience (John 7:17), not intellectual accomplishment, education, or the dispelling of ignorance. Paul and the apostles warned us about the truth being perverted not by unintelligent or ignorant men, but by wicked men – this is discussed in all of the second epistles, except 2 Corinthians, which bring out the apostate condition of the professing Church.

That being said, it is not my desire here to expose the ignorance of others necessarily which would be somewhat hypocritical, but simply to ask, if the Catholic Church ‘gave’ of the Bible, and can alone interpret the Bible, then I should be able to get simple questions answered from the Bible, especially the Old Testament which seems to be obscure to Catholics and Protestants alike. I don’t have a full understanding of the old testament myself, but having been raised amongst so called “plymouth brethren,” I have not met Catholics or Protestants especially of the covenant theological presuasion that have a good understanding of the old testament, unless they are stealing from “dispensationalists” like us (which they are welcome to do so. The truth is for the whole Church, and the Church does not teach. The church is TAUGHT, see Rev 2 & 3). I realize that you must take the new testament to the old testament to correctly interpret some of these things, and the types sometimes fall short of what they signify in their details, but Jesus Himself we know did this (Luke 24:27), and we are missing quite a bit if we don’t read the old testament in this way.

First question. I’m interested in learning more about Isaac as a type of Christ. It is easy to see Abraham and Isaac as a type of God the Father offering his Only begotten Son at Calvary (Gen 22), and raised again in a figure as it says in Hebrews. What is the significance of Isaac and Rebeccah in chapter 24? Can you point me to Catholic resources, especially ones that are pre-1830, or even pre-reformation era that can show the significance of this type?

~Peter

 

[NotWorthy]

Good question and this one fascinates me, but to be honest, you’ve only scratched the surface.

Isaac, after the angel stops Abraham from sacrificing him, is referred to as, “your beloved son”. Something like, “stay your hand, Abraham, for you have proven your love for me by being willing to sacrifice your only beloved son”.

Nowhere else in the OT is someone referred to as “beloved son”.

Now, fast-forward to the Gospels. We have three instances of Jesus being referred to as God’s “Beloved Son”.
A) Baptism
B) Transfiguration
C) as the “Beloved Son” In the parable of the wicked tenants who slay the landowners “own beloved son” in order to try and get the inheritance.

That would point the reader to Isaac being a Type of Jesus.

 

[NotWorthy]

But there’s more!

Isaac carried the wood up Mt. Moriah just as Jesus carried the wood of the Cross up the Mt. to Calgary.

Isaac willingly offered himself up to be bound. Think about it, a 16 year old boy (give or take a few) being tied up by a 100+ year old man could only let this happen willingly. Jesus offered Himself willingly as a sacrifice for us all.

Isaac and Abraham were gone for 3 days on this venture, while Jesus was in the tomb for three days.

There’s more to it than this, but I don’t have access to my files.

 

[NotWorthy]

But wait! There’s more!!! You asked about Rebekah. I almost forgot!!!

You see, Abraham, his servant, Isaac, and Rebekah are types for the Holy Family and the Church.

Abraham, the Father of God’s Children (Israel), who went to sacrifice his own beloved son) is a type of God the Father (who gave up His own Beloved Son as a sacrifice).

Isaac, as we’ve discussed, is a Type of Christ.

Abraham’s servant (notice he’s never given a name… curious, eh?), who went out into the world to retrieve a bride for Isaac, is a Type of the Holy Spirit (who doesn’t have a name), who goes out into the world to bring the Bride, the Church, back to Christ.

Rebekah, of course, is a Type of the Church, the Bride of Isaac (a type for Christ).

 

[idiopathogen]

Wow. Ok. This is great. That matches up with what I have learned as well.

Let’s take this now down two veins:

1. Can you document the catholic Church was teaching this more than 200 years ago for each of these types? I don’t need that information quickly, and l realize that is asking a lot, but I would like to see some of this in a old catechism or some such thing that predates 200 years ago, or better yet, predates the reformation. If Jesus taught the disciples on the road to Emmaus these things and their hearts burned within them, and the catholic church faithfully maintained them, there should be documentation of this.
2. I would like to spend more time on Abraham and Isaac to get more detail from it before we move on to another type. I am going to get more obscure in details of the types, which of course makes the interpretation more questionable, but if it matches up with the rest of scripture and can be proven from within the Bible, since no scripture is of private interpretation, the Catholic church or her representives should have in their studies discovered this information. The next question. What is the meaning of the wood of the burnt offering (and why was it to be a burnt offering rather than a trespass or sin offering?), the fire, and the knife? (Gen 22:6) Why was the ram caught by his horns in a thicket? What do the horns symbolize? (Gen 22:13)

~Peter

 

[NotWorthy]

Wow. Ok. This is great. That matches up with what I have learned as well.

Let’s take this now down two veins:

1. Can you document the catholic Church was teaching this more than 200 years ago for each of these types? I don’t need that information quickly, and l realize that is asking a lot, but I would like to see some of this in a old catechism or some such thing that predates 200 years ago, or better yet, predates the reformation. If Jesus taught the disciples on the road to Emmaus these things and their hearts burned within them, and the catholic church faithfully maintained them, there should be documentation of this.

If I remember correctly, I believe Scott Hahn said that Typology died out and then did return until recently - like the last 50 years or so.

1. I would like to spend more time on Abraham and Isaac to get more detail from it before we move on to another type. I am going to get more obscure in details of the types, which of course makes the interpretation more questionable, but if it matches up with the rest of scripture and can be proven from within the Bible, since no scripture is of private interpretation, the Catholic church or her representives should have in their studies discovered this information. The next question. What is the meaning of the wood of the burnt offering (and why was it to be a burnt offering rather than a trespass or sin offering?), the fire, and the knife? (Gen 22:6) Why was the ram caught by his horns in a thicket? What do the horns symbolize? (Gen 22:13)

~Peter

Um… I’m going to have to get back to you on this. I’ve got some studies on this and I’ll check on them.

I’ll also see if I can find more information on the study of Typology within Catholic history.

 

[Howl]

1. I would like to spend more time on Abraham and Isaac to get more detail from it before we move on to another type. I am going to get more obscure in details of the types, which of course makes the interpretation more questionable, but if it matches up with the rest of scripture and can be proven from within the Bible, since no scripture is of private interpretation, the Catholic church or her representives should have in their studies discovered this information. The next question. What is the meaning of the wood of the burnt offering (and why was it to be a burnt offering rather than a trespass or sin offering?), the fire, and the knife? (Gen 22:6) Why was the ram caught by his horns in a thicket? What do the horns symbolize? (Gen 22:13)

~Peter

My Hebrew is very poor, so I can’t call myself any sort of expert in the Hebrew scriptures, however, I may have some more insight on burnt offerings for you. If you pay careful attention, you will discover that burnt offerings are the only type of offering mentioned in Genesis. That alone means they have some special significance…

The Hebrew word for burnt offering comes from roots which mean ascension. The idea is that fire would completely consume the sacrifice and ‘deliver’ it to God.

If you consider the various types of offerings, the olah was the most complete kind of offering. In, for example, a peace offering, everyone would get some of the animal (a portion was given to God, a portion was given to the kohanim, a portion was given to the person who killed the animal, and on and on). A burnt offering, in Hebrew, represents complete submission to God’s will.

So, look at the story of Abraham. Abraham didn’t have an easy lot of it. Imagine being in your 90s and having God come to you and say, “Look Abram. First off, you’ve gotta change your name. Abram doesn’t do it for me, so you should maybe call yourself Abraham. And you know your foreskin? Yeah, you should cut it off and while you’re at it, circumcise every guy you know. As far as your wife, Sarai is going to have to change her name to Sarah. If you do this and if you keep circumcising the boys when they’re eight days old, I’ll bless you with an entire nation of descendants.”

I’m going to be totally honest with you here. If God came to me and said, “Okay Greg, I want you to change your name, circumcise yourself and all of your friends, and then change your wife’s name” I don’t know if I would say, “Okay God!” Fact is, Abraham had to sacrifice so much in order to have his son. But God wasn’t quite convinced of Abraham’s loyalty…

Abraham followed God’s instructions and he was blessed with a son. And Isaac was the perfect son. Then God asked Abraham to sacrifice the child he had worked so hard to get. Imagine being put in that situation? Being forced to choose between your God and your son? It would be any parents nightmare - Abraham could have said, “No, I worked far too hard for this little one”, but instead he demonstrated incredible faith in his God. By God’s own words, “you have not withheld from me even your own son.”

I believe that if you follow that logic, the ram being caught makes perfect sense. In a way, this is Job part one - if you put your trust in the Lord and demonstrate complete faith, you will find the options you need…

 

[Nita]

Wow. Ok. This is great. That matches up with what I have learned as well.

Let’s take this now down two veins:

1. Can you document the catholic Church was teaching this more than 200 years ago for each of these types? I don’t need that information quickly, and l realize that is asking a lot, but I would like to see some of this in a old catechism or some such thing that predates 200 years ago, or better yet, predates the reformation. If Jesus taught the disciples on the road to Emmaus these things and their hearts burned within them, and the catholic church faithfully maintained them, there should be documentation of this.

~Peter

Council of Trent Catechism - published by decree of Pope St. Pius V (1566):
Under Part I “The Creed”; Article IV
Section titled: “Figures and Prophecies of the Passion and Death of the Saviour” (p. 52 in my book):

Quote:
Since, therefore, nothing is so far above the reach of human reason as the mystery of the cross, the Lord immediately after the fall ceased not, both by figures and prophecies, to signify the death by which His Son was to die.

To mention a few of these types. First of all, Abel, who fell a victim of the envy of his brother,** Isaac who was commanded to be offered in sacrifice**, the lamb immolated by the Jews on their departure from Egypt, and also the brazen serpent lifted up by Moses in the desert, were all figures of the Passion and death of Christ the Lord.

I don’t know if New Advent (www.newadvent.org) has a search engine on their early Church fathers’ writings. Haven’t checked that far yet. Origen was big into hidden meanings, typology. My guess is he’d be a good one to investigate.

Another good one to check is St. Thomas Aquinas - if you have means to do a word search.

Nita

 

[idiopathogen]

That’s certainly intersting to see, but not much detail. Any catholic expositors with good detail?

What about the law of the leper (Lev 14)?

The distinction between the burnt offering, the meal offering, the trespass offering, and the sin offering in Leviticus? The red heifer in Numbers 19? The scapegoat in Leviticus 16?

The tabernacle with its associated furniture (including the ark), priesthood, and ceremonies?

Anything on Joseph as a type of Christ betrayed by his brethren to save the whole known world at that time?

~Peter

 

[Nita]

That’s certainly intersting to see, but not much detail. Any catholic expositors with good detail?

What about the law of the leper (Lev 14)?

The distinction between the burnt offering, the meal offering, the trespass offering, and the sin offering in Leviticus? The red heifer in Numbers 19? The scapegoat in Leviticus 16?

The tabernacle with its associated furniture (including the ark), priesthood, and ceremonies?

Anything on Joseph as a type of Christ betrayed by his brethren to save the whole known world at that time?

~Peter

You sound like you’re after a book written by an early Catholic where the author lists all OT persons, events, rites that he felt prefigured NT events. I’m not saying there isn’t such a book - but I’m not aware of it. My thinking is that “type” exposition would have been a small part inserted in a broader teaching. (Eg. Isaac carrying wood as prefigure of Christ may have been mentioned in a sermon on Gen 22, or on the crucifixion, or…)

Reading all the ECF writings would take more time than I have. They are available on line if you’re interested enough to check them out. newadvent.org/fathers/

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Sounds like you already know the answers to your questions. Scott Hahn, who you criticized in your OP, deals with all these things in his works. The wood of the fire is a type of the wood of the cross, the ram is the lamb that God provided (Isaac asked his father, where is the lamb to be sacrificed, and Abraham answered it will be provided), the thorns of the bush the ram is caught in are the the crown of thorns worn by Jesus, etc. All this is covered by Scott Hahn at his website salvationhistory.com in the free courses he offers on the website, especially the one about reading the Gospel of Matthew in light of the Books of Moses.

I listened to a couple Scott Hahn CD’s by the Mary Foundation. I found his tone somewhat objectionable, because the basis of his conversion, it seems, was intellectual discovery, as well as an attraction to some of the less scripturally obvious superstitions of Catholicism.

The teachings of the Catholic Church are not “superstitions.” They are the revealed Word of God, either through Holy Scripture, Tradition, or the Magisterium of the Church. As I understand Dr. Hahn’s conversion story, he became convinced of the reality of the Eucharist, that is was in fact the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. He also, through study of the Early Church Fathers, saw that the Catholic Church was in fact the Church that Jesus founded and passed on to us through Apostolic succession. Which of these TRUTHS (the Eucharist and Apostolic Succession) are you referring to as “less scripturally obvious superstitions of Catholicism”?

You’re being dishonest, pretending to ask questions while getting in all these little shots at the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I don’t have a full understanding of the old testament myself, but having been raised amongst so called “plymouth brethren,” I have not met Catholics or Protestants especially of the covenant theological presuasion that have a good understanding of the old testament, unless they are stealing from “dispensationalists” like us (which they are welcome to do so. The truth is for the whole Church, and the Church does not teach.

I don’t know what you mean by “the Church does not teach.” The Catholic Church certainly does.

You say you are from the “Plymouth brethren” - why not tell us what that is and explain your interpretation of these various OT passages you’re “asking” about?

 

[idiopathogen]

Sounds like you already know the answers to your questions. Scott Hahn, who you criticized in your OP, deals with all these things in his works. The wood of the fire is a type of the wood of the cross, the ram is the lamb that God provided (Isaac asked his father, where is the lamb to be sacrificed, and Abraham answered it will be provided), the thorns of the bush the ram is caught in are the the crown of thorns worn by Jesus, etc. All this is covered by Scott Hahn at his website salvationhistory.com in the free courses he offers on the website, especially the one about reading the Gospel of Matthew in light of the Books of Moses.

The teachings of the Catholic Church are not “superstitions.” They are the revealed Word of God, either through Holy Scripture, Tradition, or the Magisterium of the Church. As I understand Dr. Hahn’s conversion story, he became convinced of the reality of the Eucharist, that is was in fact the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. He also, through study of the Early Church Fathers, saw that the Catholic Church was in fact the Church that Jesus founded and passed on to us through Apostolic succession. Which of these TRUTHS (the Eucharist and Apostolic Succession) are you referring to as “less scripturally obvious superstitions of Catholicism”?

You’re being dishonest, pretending to ask questions while getting in all these little shots at the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I don’t know what you mean by “the Church does not teach.” The Catholic Church certainly does.

You say you are from the “Plymouth brethren” - why not tell us what that is and explain your interpretation of these various OT passages you’re “asking” about?

Yes, mea. I know the answers to most of these questions. That is the point of this post. I will provide the answers to the questions and places you can study further, but before I do that, I want to see if Catholics can answer these questions, seeing we must rely on you for interpretting God’s word since God needed you to give it to us.

The wood as the cross is a nice thought, but not exactly correct. I can provide from scripture more about that, but I am interested in knowing if Catholics can answer these questions. Should I call up Scott Hahn?

The Church teaches? I find many instances of the Church being taught by apostles and prophets in Acts, and by the Spirit in Revelation 2 and 3, “he that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit teaches the 7 churches…” etc. Has the Spirit had the liberty to teach the types of Christ in the Old Testament to the Catholic Church? I don’t claim to know all the answers, nor do the “brethren,” but the Catholic Church DOES. And I don’t think it is unfair for me to ask Catholics to produce those answers.

I also understand that with differing gifts in the Church, and differing levels of knowledge and maturity, there may not be a good catholic teacher on this forum. Invite one, or point me where I can read one who has these answers.

The point is that Scott Hahn’s comes across with this typology like it might be something strange in the ears of protestants, and as far as protestants in general, I don’t disagree with him. What I want to know, has the Catholic church digged as deep into these things as the “brethren” have? Want some types on this concept? See Gen 26:18. Scott’s claim is that the wells were never filled, such truth was never lost. I am asking you to prove it.

There was one post a while back about some early church writings on old testament types that you would consider Catholic. That is certainly interesting to me, and I am going to follow that up while you guys dig through your catholic writings on the law of the leper, Joseph, etc etc. I would like to see at what point these things stopped being taught, and I would really like to know why they did not come out again until 50 years ago. The relationship between the Old and New Testament seems rather foundational, doesn’t it? Were not these the scriptures Paul reasoned with?

Your options are to dig these things out for yourself, or seek outside of the Catholic Church. To not do either would make you a bad steward (Gen 16:3). You can dig, or beg. I’ll give you some time to dig first. Please also cite your sources. There is a plethora of ministry on this stuff online. I only want to see Catholic ministry on the subject as I am told I can only trust your interpretation of these things, and that is your own belief.

 

[idiopathogen]

Nita,

I’m going to follow up on your post and read through the material you suggested thanks.

I will look for info on the following:

‘’’
What about the law of the leper (Lev 14)?

The distinction between the burnt offering, the meal offering, the trespass offering, and the sin offering in Leviticus? The red heifer in Numbers 19? The scapegoat in Leviticus 16?

The tabernacle with its associated furniture (including the ark), priesthood, and ceremonies?

Anything on Joseph as a type of Christ betrayed by his brethren to save the whole known world at that time?
‘’’’

I have very much enjoyed my conversations with this Catholic brother. I have actively avoided the things that I know would only generate heat and not light, and have seen him light up talking about the Passover and Isaac and Abraham. I would like to share more with him, but am afraid that if his Church doesn’t teach it, he is not free to enjoy it.

 

[idiopathogen]

My Hebrew is very poor, so I can’t call myself any sort of expert in the Hebrew scriptures, however, I may have some more insight on burnt offerings for you. If you pay careful attention, you will discover that burnt offerings are the only type of offering mentioned in Genesis. That alone means they have some special significance…

The Hebrew word for burnt offering comes from roots which mean ascension. The idea is that fire would completely consume the sacrifice and ‘deliver’ it to God.

If you consider the various types of offerings, the olah was the most complete kind of offering. In, for example, a peace offering, everyone would get some of the animal (a portion was given to God, a portion was given to the kohanim, a portion was given to the person who killed the animal, and on and on). A burnt offering, in Hebrew, represents complete submission to God’s will.

So, look at the story of Abraham. Abraham didn’t have an easy lot of it. Imagine being in your 90s and having God come to you and say, “Look Abram. First off, you’ve gotta change your name. Abram doesn’t do it for me, so you should maybe call yourself Abraham. And you know your foreskin? Yeah, you should cut it off and while you’re at it, circumcise every guy you know. As far as your wife, Sarai is going to have to change her name to Sarah. If you do this and if you keep circumcising the boys when they’re eight days old, I’ll bless you with an entire nation of descendants.”

I’m going to be totally honest with you here. If God came to me and said, “Okay Greg, I want you to change your name, circumcise yourself and all of your friends, and then change your wife’s name” I don’t know if I would say, “Okay God!” Fact is, Abraham had to sacrifice so much in order to have his son. But God wasn’t quite convinced of Abraham’s loyalty…

Abraham followed God’s instructions and he was blessed with a son. And Isaac was the perfect son. Then God asked Abraham to sacrifice the child he had worked so hard to get. Imagine being put in that situation? Being forced to choose between your God and your son? It would be any parents nightmare - Abraham could have said, “No, I worked far too hard for this little one”, but instead he demonstrated incredible faith in his God. By God’s own words, “you have not withheld from me even your own son.”

I believe that if you follow that logic, the ram being caught makes perfect sense. In a way, this is Job part one - if you put your trust in the Lord and demonstrate complete faith, you will find the options you need…

I enjoyed this post Howl. I’m interested more in the typology of the event rather than the man of faith/works as taught by Paul and James – that’s another subject, but you certainly have a very good meditation here. Where did you learn it?

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Hi Idiopathogen, re-reading my other post, it sounded kind of negative. While there is a lot of Catholic scholarship on the Bible, there have been few actual Church statements on what particular passages mean. Many Catholics are not even very aware of what’s in the Bible. We have much to learn from our separated brethren in this regard. Please share any insights you may have, I’d be very interested to hear them.

 

[idiopathogen]

Mea,

Perhaps these things are passed on by word of mouth as Paul instructed Timothy to do so? (2 Tim 2:2)

Could you take these questions to mass with you this Lord’s Day, and speak to the priest, some teachers, etc and get back to me?

I’ll post on Joseph tonight as the details of that story are probably very familiar to all of you, and it is an easy type to see. Gen 50:17 has special significance as well, especially when it comes to the doctrine of purgatory. Anyone following this post and not familiar with Joseph’s story should read Genesis 37 - 50 straight through like a story while I get this post ready.

~Peter

 

[idiopathogen]

I apologize I did not get to this last night. I had to get payroll done last night, but I did do some reading and found quite a bit of good stuff on the typical significance of Joseph.

Last call for Catholics on Joseph. Since you gave us the Bible, I’m giving you one more chance to interpret it for me since only you can do that. What is the typical significance of Joseph? Please cite your catholic sources for this information. Should I stop by a Catholic church and speak to a priest or teacher there first? I want to be fair here. Should I allow more time?

One more chance to dig before you beg. I myself am a beggar I freely admit. A good steward is wiling to do either when it comes to the truth of God.

1 Kings 18:21

 

[Nita]

Nita,

I’m going to follow up on your post and read through the material you suggested thanks.

I will look for info on the following:

‘’’
What about the law of the leper (Lev 14)?

The distinction between the burnt offering, the meal offering, the trespass offering, and the sin offering in Leviticus? The red heifer in Numbers 19? The scapegoat in Leviticus 16?

The tabernacle with its associated furniture (including the ark), priesthood, and ceremonies?

Anything on Joseph as a type of Christ betrayed by his brethren to save the whole known world at that time?
‘’’’

I have very much enjoyed my conversations with this Catholic brother. I have actively avoided the things that I know would only generate heat and not light, and have seen him light up talking about the Passover and Isaac and Abraham. I would like to share more with him, but am afraid that if his Church doesn’t teach it, he is not free to enjoy it.

I don’t really know just what you’re after. I have always found a lot of prefigurement when reading the Old Testament. I just glanced briefly thru Leviticus 14 - and found a lot in there, even tho I only looked at it briefly. But, my impression is that it is not my thoughts that you are after; - rather, that what you want is for us to quote exegesis done by Catholic leaders hundreds of years ago - preferably prior to the Reformation. That’s the kind of research that doesn’t interest me. I love it when I happen to come across it in reading - but I’m not ready to spend the time that would be needed to track it all down.

Now, if you want to start a discussion asking forum members to share their insights - that is, prefigurements they see in Lev. 14, Joseph, etc., that would be very interesting. However, I would suggest starting a separate thread for each topic.

You seem to have a misunderstanding about the freedom Catholics have when it comes to reading Scripture. We are free to read and interpret - as long as our interpretation does not contradict infallible Church teaching. I have often discovered that Catholics find greater depths in Scripture - precisely because of the growth of understanding that has come through Church teaching (doctrines) over the course of 2000 years.

God bless,
Nita

 

[Gefra]

Ideopathogen states that he was raised among the Plymouth Brethren. Few if any of the so-called Plymouth Brethren would accept that name. It was given to a group of professing Christians in the early years of the 19th century, whose movement’s earliest proponents met in Plymouth England. The Brethren themselves rejected any name other than those found in the New Testament such as Christians, Brethren, Saints and Believers. The Brethren were people who left the Protestant Churches of that time seeking to simply “gather in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ”. The chief man among the Brethren was a former Church of Ireland clergyman named John Nelson Darby. He was extremly prolific and is generally credited as one of the initiators of Dispensational Theology which is the prevailing theology among many fundamentalists and charasmatics today. The pre-tribulational, pre-millenial rapture of the church is largely the result of Darby’s teachings on scripture. Most folks who subscribe to the “rapture theology” have no idea that it originated with the Plymouth Brethren. The reason for that is that their efforts to recover the “ground of gathering” of the New Testament Assembly using the New Testament as their only guide failed. I speculate that Ideopathogen requested Catholic teaching on types prior to 1830 because that is the approximate date that the Brethren started their volumonous writings on that subject. There were many followers of Darby who wrote books on the types. Men such as William Kelly, C.H. Mackintosh, J.G. Bellet, F.W. Grant and others were widely read in the 19th century on these topics. In fact Cardinal Newman’s brother Francis was a close associate of Darby for awhile. A few Brethren publishing houses still print these authors today. They were the main inspiration for C.I. Scofield whose Scofield Bible was the mainstay of the Dispensational Movement in this country and still sells widely today. Scofield influenced Lewis Chafer who founded Dallas Theological Seminary which is one of the main institutions promoting dispensationalism today. The Brethren were, and are, vehemently anti-catholic. In their writings the terms, “romish” “popish” and the like are applied with disdain to catholics. They believe Catholicism is satanic with its roots in Babylon. The Brethren proslytize and attempt to draw other fundamentalists away from their denominations into “the Meetings”. The reason most people are unfamiliar with the Brethren is because of the numerous splits and divisions that have occured among them almost from the start…1830? If you refer to Mead’s Handbook of Denominations you will see 8 or more divisions of Plymouth Brethren idenitfied by roman numerals. In their history, the resulting divisions over the Brethren doctrines of the Assembly (church) and prophecy have split communities and families and have resulted in the several various Brethren groups shunning each other as apostate and “not holding the head”. There are small Exclusive Brethren and Open Brethren groups in this country, but are they extemely strong in Northren Ireland and other countries in the Commenweath. They are divided into “tight” and “open” groups. Perhaps Ideopathogen is truly interested in the history of typeology within Catholicism. Or not.

 

[mercygate]

Wow. Ok. This is great. That matches up with what I have learned as well.

Let’s take this now down two veins:

1. Can you document the catholic Church was teaching this more than 200 years ago for each of these types? I don’t need that information quickly, and l realize that is asking a lot, but I would like to see some of this in a old catechism or some such thing that predates 200 years ago, or better yet, predates the reformation. If Jesus taught the disciples on the road to Emmaus these things and their hearts burned within them, and the catholic church faithfully maintained them, there should be documentation of this.
2. I would like to spend more time on Abraham and Isaac to get more detail from it before we move on to another type. I am going to get more obscure in details of the types, which of course makes the interpretation more questionable, but if it matches up with the rest of scripture and can be proven from within the Bible, since no scripture is of private interpretation, the Catholic church or her representives should have in their studies discovered this information. The next question. What is the meaning of the wood of the burnt offering (and why was it to be a burnt offering rather than a trespass or sin offering?), the fire, and the knife? (Gen 22:6) Why was the ram caught by his horns in a thicket? What do the horns symbolize? (Gen 22:13)

~Peter

Just joining this thread to say hi. My best buddy at work is Plymouth Brethren. He and I talk Scripture all the time. He’s very sharp with typology. We compare notes and insights all the time.