Isaac and Rebeccah

  • Thread starter Thread starter idiopathogen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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
The Tabernacle is COMPLETELY a type of Jesus Christ. Actually James McGee, a Fundamentalist, who died in 1988 but whose radio broadcasts are still being aired, does a fantastic job of demonstrating that the Tabernacle in the Wilderness prefigures Jesus Christ. You can go to the web site, ttb.com, click on “McGee Resources” and look for "notes and outlines. Go to Leviticus and you can download the PDF.

As I said, McGee isn’t Catholic, but he does a “Catholic” job on THIS one.

As for Isaac & Abraham, this goes WAY back. Here’s a link to the early 3rd Century Father, Origen on this. This is one of my featured teaching points with my 6th grade catechism class (we cover most of the Bible in 28 weeks). Joseph in Egypt is number two.
 
I’ve about figured that Joseph is a Type for:
Joseph - the husband of Mary
Jesus
Peter

He is a fascinating person!

Joseph for receiving dreams and bringing his family to Egypt.

Jesus… uh, I’m not really sure what makes Joseph a type for Jesus. Idio is supposed to fill us in on that, aren’t they?

Peter, because both of them had revelations from God and were given authority of the kingdom.

There’s much more, but that’s the basic gist of it.
 
I’ve about figured that Joseph is a Type for:
Joseph - the husband of Mary
Jesus
Peter

He is a fascinating person!

Joseph for receiving dreams and bringing his family to Egypt.

Jesus… uh, I’m not really sure what makes Joseph a type for Jesus. Idio is supposed to fill us in on that, aren’t they?

Peter, because both of them had revelations from God and were given authority of the kingdom.

There’s much more, but that’s the basic gist of it.
Joseph models forgiveness of those who offended him. He “saves” all of Israel by saving his brothers, who become the progenitors of the tribes.
 
Joseph models forgiveness of those who offended him. He “saves” all of Israel by saving his brothers, who become the progenitors of the tribes.
Thanks!!! Of course, now I have to go to dictionary.com and look up the word, “progenitors”. 😉 I never knew being smart took so much work!!! 🙂
 
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.
Gefra,

No. I am interested in the history of typology, or even typology in general within the Catholic Church. As an infallible authority, I expect a bit better than what we are getting so far.

~Peter
 
Gefra,

No. I am interested in the history of typology, or even typology in general within the Catholic Church. As an infallible authority, I expect a bit better than what we are getting so far.

~Peter
What exactly are you looking for? Typology is more of a mind set than a self-standing “thing”. Did you do a search of the Library of Congress catalogue on the subject?
 
No. I am interested in the history of typology, or even typology in general within the Catholic Church. As an infallible authority, I expect a bit better than what we are getting so far.

~Peter
I wasn’t aware you were addressing this to the Catholic Authority. I thought you were addressing this to Catholics who love to share their faith with others.

Have you tried contacting the Magisterium at www.vatican.va?
 
The Tabernacle is COMPLETELY a type of Jesus Christ. Actually James McGee, a Fundamentalist, who died in 1988 but whose radio broadcasts are still being aired, does a fantastic job of demonstrating that the Tabernacle in the Wilderness prefigures Jesus Christ. You can go to the web site, ttb.com, click on “McGee Resources” and look for "notes and outlines. Go to Leviticus and you can download the PDF.

As I said, McGee isn’t Catholic, but he does a “Catholic” job on THIS one.

As for Isaac & Abraham, this goes WAY back. Here’s a link to the early 3rd Century Father, Origen on this. This is one of my featured teaching points with my 6th grade catechism class (we cover most of the Bible in 28 weeks). Joseph in Egypt is number two.
Mercy, why does he do a particularly “catholic” job on this one, seeing we have very little typology in the Catholic church historically, and recent burst of a few of the simpler types (which are also mentioned in the New Testament, which makes them a bit safer as far as interpretation).

I’m not promoting the Brethren as having it all. But I will say they were given quite a bit. What they did with the truth is quite embarrasing, but I think Christendom as a whole is guilty in that regard, except the one pure Holy Roman Catholic Church. She’s infallible. (sarcasm).

To be given the truth, you need to get the order right. The church does not teach. It is taught, and is in a place before God to be a responsible witness to God. Like Israel, she must give an answer for her activity down here. In 1 Tim, it says, “judgement must begin at the house of God.” There is only one infallible authority.

Mea already mentioned the word “separation,” referring to protestants as “separated brethren.” Interestingly enough, Joseph was separated from his brethren due to their wickedness, and that put him in a position where he was able to save the whole world. The Spirit does not mentioned a single failure of Joseph. While no doubt he had a sin nature as the rest of us, I think this is significant and he is a worthy meditation for us.

Anything else on Joseph (I kind of like this stone soup approach)?.

~Peter
 
Mercy, why does he do a particularly “catholic” job on this one, seeing we have very little typology in the Catholic church historically, and recent burst of a few of the simpler types (which are also mentioned in the New Testament, which makes them a bit safer as far as interpretation).
The “catholic” job means the author doesn’t twist the truth to forward an agenda of their own.
I’m not promoting the Brethren as having it all. But I will say they were given quite a bit. What they did with the truth is quite embarrasing, but I think Christendom as a whole is guilty in that regard, except the one pure Holy Roman Catholic Church. She’s infallible. (sarcasm).
Sarcasm noted… you’re sarcasm and condensation are drawing the interest of me and (I assume) others away, idio.
 
Mercy, why does he do a particularly “catholic” job on this one, seeing we have very little typology in the Catholic church historically, and recent burst of a few of the simpler types (which are also mentioned in the New Testament, which makes them a bit safer as far as interpretation).
Where do you get the idea that the Church has “little” typology historically? The ancients started that ball rolling long ago. I’ll bet if I took the time (but that woud be your job since you’re the one who is interested) I could find all of McGee’s points on the Tabernacle in the Fathers. I am virtually certain that’s where he drew his material from. Did you go get McGee’s outline for Leviticus? Here.
I’m not promoting the Brethren as having it all. But I will say they were given quite a bit. What they did with the truth is quite embarrasing, but I think Christendom as a whole is guilty in that regard, except the one pure Holy Roman Catholic Church. She’s infallible. (sarcasm).
Why would you want to be sarcastic? Or why would you want to bring up infallibility in a thread about typology? Why would you be sarcastic about this beautiful way of reading Scripture? It is an ancient custom in the Church, a devotional rather than a doctrinal practice, and it is delightful to find non-Catholics interested in it. We are delighted that you are interested in our history. Many Protestants accuse Catholics of never reading the Bible. Many are almost offended to learn that we LOVE the Sacred Scriptures.

From this typological way of looking at the Bible we get the beautiful reference to Our Lady as the “new Eve” – in the Fathers. As the Ark of the covenant – in the Fathers. And my personal favorite – also in the Fathers – as the burning bush that held the Word of God and “was not consumed.”
To be given the truth, you need to get the order right. The church does not teach. It is taught, and is in a place before God to be a responsible witness to God.
Catholics agree with this. Our Lord promised to the Eleven that he would send “another paraclete” to “guide you into all the truth” (be taught) and then he gave to the Eleven the Great Commission to “teach . . . all that I have commanded”. So the Church is both ‘taught’ and ‘teaching.’ So the Church does “teach” as she is guided by the Holy Spirit. Sounds like you are already half Catholic.
Like Israel, she must give an answer for her activity down here. In 1 Tim, it says, “judgement must begin at the house of God.” There is only one infallible authority.
Yup.
Mea already mentioned the word “separation,” referring to protestants as “separated brethren.” Interestingly enough, Joseph was separated from his brethren due to their wickedness, and that put him in a position where he was able to save the whole world. The Spirit does not mentioned a single failure of Joseph. While no doubt he had a sin nature as the rest of us, I think this is significant and he is a worthy meditation for us.
Catholics would say that Joseph is a type of Christ because his brothers rejected him. Since the Church is the Body of Christ, Catholics would turn your view right back around atcha. I find this sort of thing fruitless and cruel. Blamestorming and name calling are hardly what I want to do with other Christians.
Anything else on Joseph (I kind of like this stone soup approach)?.

~Peter
Nothing more on Joseph at the moment. You?

I’m always moved about his bones, though. He tells his brothers that when they leave Egypt they must take his bones. And 400 years later, they do. And Joshua carefully buries them. Sirach reports – 1100 years later: “his bones are cared for.” :tissues:
 
To be given the truth, you need to get the order right. The church does not teach. It is taught, and is in a place before God to be a responsible witness to God. Like Israel, she must give an answer for her activity down here. In 1 Tim, it says, “judgement must begin at the house of God.” There is only one infallible authority.

To whom is the truth given?

How is the truth given?

Who determines the right order?

Who/what is the only one infallible authroity?

*. The church does not teach. It is taught *

Who teaches the Church?

How does whoever teaches the Church do it?
 
Mercy, why does he do a particularly “catholic” job on this one, seeing we have very little typology in the Catholic church historically, and recent burst of a few of the simpler types (which are also mentioned in the New Testament, which makes them a bit safer as far as interpretation).
Wrong. Typology goes pretty far back in the Catholic Church. Some writing from the Church Fathers:

Letter of Barnabas (AD 70/79)

Moses, therefore, said to Jesus, the son of Nave, after giving him this name, when he sent him to spy out the land: “Take a book in your hands and write what the Lord says, that in the last days the Son of God will tear out by the roots the whole house of Amalec.” Behold, here is Jesus, again, not a son of man but the Son of God, revealed in the flesh by a type.
St. Justin the Martyr (AD155)

Sine it is written of Him in the Memoirs of the Apostles that He is the Son of God, and since we call Him Son, we have understood that before all creatures He proceeded from the Father by His will and power - for in the words of the Prophets He is addressed in one way or another as Wisdom and Day and East and Sword and Stone and Rod and Jacob and Israel - and that He became Man by the Virgin so that the course which was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent, might be also the very course by which it would be put down. For Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent, and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy one being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied: “Be it done unto me according to thy word.”

Tertullian (AD 200)

There is, however, a rule of faith; and so that we may acknowledge at this point what it is we defend, it is this precisely that we believe: There is one only God, and none other besides Him; the Creator of the world who brought forth all things out of nothing through his Word, first of all sent forth. This Word is called His Son; and in the name of God he was seen at various times by the patriarchs, and has always been heard in the Prophets; and at last He was brought down from the Spirit and Power of God the Father into the Virgin Mary, and was made flesh in her womb; and having been born from her, came forth as Jesus Christ.

St. Hippolytus of Rome (AD 204) Commentary on Daniel

And she said to her maids, “Bring me oil.” Indeed, faith and love prepare oil and cleansing unguents for those who are washed. But what were these unguents if not the commands of the Holy Word? What what the oil, if not the power of the Holy Spirit? It is with these, after the washing, that believers are anointed as with a sweet-smelling oil. All these things were prefigured through the blessed Susanna for our sakes, so that we of the present time who believe in God, might not regard as strange the things hwich now are done in the Church, and that we might believe that all of them have been set forth in figures by the patriarchs.

Lactantius (AD 304)

It is no wonder that you, who are far removed from the Wisdom of God, understand nothing of the things you have read; for not even the Jews, who were well-read in the Prophets from the beginning, and to whom the mystery of God was consigned, knew what they were reading. Learn, then, if you have any sense at all, that it is not because He worked miracles that we believe in Christ and that He is God, but because we have seen that in Him were fulfilled all the things which were announded to us beforehand by the predictions of the prophets.

St. Augustine (AD 400)

In regard to the sacrifices of animals, who among us does not know that they were enjoined more because they suited a perverse people than because God had any desire for such sacrifices? But even in these sacrifices there were figures of ours; for our being cleansed and God’s being propitiated are as naught to us if there be no blood. Christ, but whose blood were are redeemed and cleansed, is the truth of those figures.

There are lots more.

The Nicene Creed says the Holy Spirit has “spoken through the prophets” and that Jesus Christ “rose again in fulfillment of the scriptures.”

It’s really pretty silly to think that the Catholic Church for 2,000 years never noticed that the Old Testament is all about Christ and that it’s something that you just figured out yourself.
I think Christendom as a whole is guilty in that regard, except the one pure Holy Roman Catholic Church. She’s infallible. (sarcasm).
The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic is infallibly guided by the successor of Peter in matters of faith and morals when he speaks ex cathedra, from the Chair of Peter.
Anything else on Joseph (I kind of like this stone soup approach)?.
Joseph redeemed his people. He was thought to be dead and then was discovered not to be dead. He was his father’s beloved son. He was sold into slavery (died), and then rose to a high position (ascended into heaven) and called his people to follow him into the land of salvation from starvation.
 
Nita,

I’m going to follow up on your post and read through the material you suggested thanks.
Great.
And they’re only the ones from the first few centuries! If you really want to study Catholic exegetics, be prepared; there are Catholic authors that span 2000 years.

God bless you in your search,
Nita
 
Mea,

So it looks like the typology died out around 400 AD up until recently?

I wonder if that corresponds somewhat to Constantine uniting the Church with the Pagan world? That would certainly lead to some darkness, I would think. The Church of England came about in a similar way, hence the term Anglo-Catholics. I can’t imagine a fallible Church allowing such a union.

Your exegesis on Joseph is great. Did you get this from McGee? The Church fathers seem rather limited, but only a few generations from the apostles should have quite a bit. I don’t see the volume of material within the Church fathers that would match up with McGee’s teaching, but I can find that on stempublishing.com/
…authors that predate McGee and Scott Hahn.

Here’s something I learned recently about Joseph you may find interesting.

Genesis 37:1-4 corresponds to John’s Gospel, which presents Christ as the only beloved Son of the Father.
Genesis 37:5-11 Corresponds to Matthew’s Gospel, which presents Christ as the King of Kings. The first dream corresponds to his glorification on Earth, and the second with the stars to his glorification in Heaven.
Genesis 37:12-14 corresponds to Mark’s Gospel, which presents Christ as the perfect Servant sent by the Father to Israel.
Genesis 37:15-22 corresponds to Luke’s Gospel, which presents Christ in His perfect humanity as a lowly, humble man among men.

There is also a nice parallel between Genesis 50:20 and Peter’s sermon to the Jews in Acts 2:23.

The point of this thread is that Scott Hahn claimed that typical teaching such as the passover and Abraham and Isaac has been maintained for 2000 years within the Catholic Church, and yet I don’t see much of such teaching in Church history until the reformation, and a second boost of such material when the clergy system was abandoned and the Spirit given His place in the Church during the “brethren” movement.

I would be willing to view any evidence you all have to the contrary for myself and my catholic friend.

~Peter
 
I got out my Douay-Rheims Bible with commentary by George Haydock from the early 1800’s. It has lots of examples in the footnotes of typology.

Genesis 37:9 He dreamed also another dream, which he told his brethren, saying: I saw in a dream, as it were the sun, and the moon, and eleven stars worshipping me.

The note says “This second dream confirmed the truth of the former. Joseph relates it with simplicity, not suspecting the ill will of his brethren: but his father easily perceived what effect the narration would have, and desires him to be more cautious. He even point out the apparent incoherence of the dream, as Rachel, who seem intended by the moon, was already dead; unless this dream happened before that event. S. Augustine observes, this was never literally verified in Joseph, but it was in Jesus Christ, whom he prefigured.”

The note for Gen 37:36 says “The providence of God never shines more brightly in any part of the Scripture, than in this history of Joseph, except in that of Jesus Christ, of whom Joseph was a beautiful figure. He was born when is father was grown old, as Jesus was in the last age of the world; he was a son increassing, as Jesus waxed in age and grace before God and men; both were beloved by their father, both comely, etc.”
I wonder if that corresponds somewhat to Constantine uniting the Church with the Pagan world? That would certainly lead to some darkness, I would think. The Church of England came about in a similar way, hence the term Anglo-Catholics. I can’t imagine a fallible Church allowing such a union
I don’t know what you’re trying to say here. The Church of England came about because the Pope wouldn’t let Henry VIII divorce his wives.

Is this the “great apostasy” theory, that the Church was good until Constantine did this or that (lots of variations with the Mormons and various Protestant sects all using a variation of this theory).
 
Apostasy would be the abandoning of the Christian profession all together, ie the resurrection of Christ, the Trinity, etc. In that sense, Mormons are apostates, but Catholics are not.

You get a nice history of the Church in Revelation 2 and 3. Constantine’s time would correspond to Pergamos. Ephesus to the early Church, Smyrna to the persecuted Church before it united with the state, Rome to Thyatira with Jezebel (Rome) teaching idolatry. The results of the reformation in Sardis which became basically a political movement. I wouldn’t say I was a Philidelphian, because that would make me more like Laodicea, but we should all strive to have it said of us that we “kept his word and did not deny his name.” The only infallable authority in the Church is Christ Himself, and He walks among the candlesticks, and judges those that take His name.

I think it interesting that the Lord commends Thyatira for at least something, but Sardis gets no commendation at all. I believe it has something to do with the desire of the Catholic Church to maintain oneness within the Christian testimony, for which Christ died. I also appreciate Catholics for maintaining the doctrine of the trinity, although the Bible is all you need for that. But despite these good things, there is all the trappings of the camp (Heb 13:13) and going back to Judaism, but worse than that, because with the priesthood etc you have a strange mixture of Judaism and Christianity. There is also a great deal of “going forward” and not abiding in the doctrine of Christ that we have in 3 John. Both of these lead to apostasy, eventually.

Here something on the trinity, without a creed, just the Bible:

The Trinity
 
The formation of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church are much the same. The Roman state was unified with the Christian Church. Historical fact. Bad idea.
 
Mea,

So it looks like the typology died out around 400 AD up until recently?
You make the strangest statements idio. I’m assuming you’ve been taught all these impressions of Catholicism by others. You really need to do more research.

Typology didn’t die out in Catholicism. I don’t know if you’ve ever been to a Catholic Mass, but at every Mass one of the prayers is “**Lamb **of God, who takes away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.” (The Mass is not “recent”!! - and it’s been continuous for almost 2000 years.)

From your posts, typology seems to be almost the “be all and end all” of Scriptural exegesis for you. Is that the primary focus and meaning (exposition) of Scripture in your denomination? Is locating OT types the primary motivation for Scripture reading and study in your denomination?

It appears you accept the first 400 years of typological exegesis. Well, we don’t keep reinventing the wheel - or claiming something is a new insight of ours when in fact we know it’s been taught by others long before us. We cite their works. (Please don’t assume now that I’m saying there’ve been no “new” typological insights since 400 AD. My guess is there have been many.) By the way, if you do research, you’ll probably find a lot of “types” that you missed - such as Mary being the “new Eve”. (Eve a type of Mary just as Adam a type of Jesus.)

Nita
 
Ideopathogen,

If I want to know what the Plymouth Brethren REALLY teach, I’m not going to just accept what someone says they teach - especially if that someone does not belong to the Brethren or if they are a fallen away member. Instead, I will read what your original founder wrote; I will read works accepted by your Church as expressing your doctrine.

So, if you want to really know what Catholicism teaches and has taught at various periods of history, you are going to have to take the time to read the definitive teachings of our Church; read the writings of recognized/accepted Church authors. You cannot just accept what someone says the Catholic Church teaches. (Even if the person is a Catholic! Ask them for an authoritative source. Our Catechism of the Catholic Church is in any bookstore at a very reasonable price. Reading that is a very good place to start.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top