Download ROUGHLY EDITED COPY

ROUGHLY EDITED COPY
CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY EDUCATION NETWORK
EXODUS
DR. DAVID ADAMS
#52
Captioning Provided By:
Caption First, Inc.
10 E. 22nd Street
Suite 304
Lombard, IL 60148
800-825-5234
***
This text is being provided in a rough draft format.
Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in
order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a
totally verbatim record of the proceedings.
***
>> We've made several references so far to typologies and
metaphors present in the text and history of the Exodus. Is the
meal that the elders of Israel eat before God a type of the
Lord's Supper?
>> Before we can answer the question about the specific -about a specific instance like this one, it might be good for us
to pause and review what typology is and how we know a type when
we see one or hopefully know it when we see it. First we need
to recognize that the New Testament is very clear about the
existence of types in the text. So in Romans Chapter 5 Verse
14, for example, we read "Death reigned from Adam to Moses even
over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam
who was a type of the one who was to come."
So here in Romans Paul uses the very word type. In fact,
it's from this passage in Romans that we get our term typology.
The question is: What does this mean? What is a type? What do
we mean when we talk about typology?
Well, the first thing that we have to admit is there is
no clear-cut definition within the Bible itself. There's no
verse that you can turn to that will explain exactly what Paul
means when he says that Adam is a type of the one who is to
come. But if you look at the way that the New Testament itself
uses typology or types, then I think we can inductively conclude
the way that we should understand what a type is.
So perhaps we should start with a definition and then
kind of work up that definition. A type is a person, place,
thing or event that in some way points ahead to or anticipates
another person, place, thing or event in the kingdom of God and
is such a way that the latter is a fulfillment or completion of
the former.
Now, there are a couple of key elements here. First, a
type is not the same as a verbal prophesy. You know, if someone
says X will happen in the future, that's a verbal direct
prophesy. A type is a form, if you will, of indirect prophesy
where you get a person or a place or a thing or an event like
the exodus that anticipates or points ahead to something that
God is going to do in his kingdom at a future time.
So here are some of the things that we need to remember
when we ask if something is a type or not. First both the
proposed type and the proposed anti-type -- by anti-type we mean
the fulfillment. The type is the first thing. The anti-type is
the latter thing.
So both the type and the anti-type must be real
historical things. It's this fact that distinguishes typology
from symbolism or typology from allegory. Typology is not just
symbolism and it's not allegory. Because the things referred to
must always be real historical things. And on both ends of the
equation. Both the original must be a real historical thing and
the fulfillment must be a real historical thing. So no
symbolism here.
Secondly, the type -- excuse me, the anti-type, the
fulfillment, must in some way be greater than the type. In
other words, what we have is a development or growth or we would
probably say better fulfillment of what is anticipated
beforehand.
And thirdly, the -- this must in some way be connected to
the revelation of God's kingdom or the work of Christ in the
world. And that includes the ***escaton, the final days, as
well. In other words, these are just not sort of random events.
But they are things that God reveals as part of revealing his
plan in the world and showing us what his kingdom is.
So these three elements -- and this is I realize
something of a simplified definition. But it will get us enough
to, you know, certainly help us understand the discussion in
almost every case. Both the type and the anti-type must be
historical. They must be -- that is to say, they must be real,
not symbols. The anti-type must be greater than the type or
fuller than the type. And they must be connected to the
revelation of the kingdom of God in the world or in the escaton.
So as an example that we've already seen here in the book
of Exodus, the Passover lamb is used as a type of the
sacrificial death of Christ. Both are real historical events.
The Passover actually happened. You know, here we have a thing,
a Passover lamb.
The anti-type, the coming of Jesus Christ and his death,
is also a real historical thing. The anti-type is greater than
the type because the type -- the Passover lamb just functioned
for the people of Israel and that particular family. Whereas
Jesus' death and resurrection was part of God's redemptive act
for the whole world. And so it's greater than the former.
And of course in this case self-evidently both are part
of God's revealing his kingdom or his work in the world. So
that's how we understand what a type is. Now, we need to also
know that there's disagreement among scholars, even conservative
Lutheran scholars, about the freedom that one has to find types
where the New Testament itself doesn't directly identify them.
There are some who take the view that the only things
that we can call types are the things that the Bible itself
calls types. That's a perfectly legitimate position and one
that many even in our church hold to. There are others who take
the view who might go to the other extreme and sort of every
time they see something in the Old Testament, they sort of find
a type under every rock. You know, and so in some ways, it's
hard, you know, for this sort of more -- I hate to call it a
liberal view. But let's call it a freer view of typology.
Sometimes it's hard to tell what the connection is between the
type and the anti-type, except perhaps some kind of word
association.
My own view is probably somewhere between those two. I
think -- and this is, you know, a personal judgement on my part.
You don't have to agree with me in this case. But it's my view
that we can identify types that are not specifically mentioned
in the New Testament but that we must be very careful in doing
so.
We shouldn't just find any kind of connection in the Old
Testament that reminds us of something in the New Testament and
say that that's a type. That might be going just a little too
far. So my view would be -- my personal view would be a little
more of a restrained view. And so from that perspective of a
sort of middle of the road restrained view of typology, let me
try, Eric, to answer your question now about whether this
particular meal in Exodus 24 is a type of the Lord's Supper or
not.
Well, let's walk through our criteria. First, is this
specifically identified as a type in the New Testament? The
answer is no, it is not. And for some scholars, that would be
enough to answer the question. No, if it's not identified as
one, then it's not one. So if you want to take that view,
that's fine. I certainly have no problems with that. But let's
go a little further and say for the moment -- at least for the
sake of our academic discussion let's say we're still going to
be open to considering the matter further. So let's look at
some other criteria.
Is it historical? Yes, both the type, this meal, and the
Lord's Supper, the anti-type, are real historical events. Is
the latter greater than the former? I think so. Yeah, I think
we would say that the Lord's Supper by which God communicates
his grace to his people is greater than this covenant meal that
just involved the elders of Israel. Are both a part of the
revelation of God's plan in history? Yeah, I think we would all
agree that that's the case, as well.
So we might be inclined to think, well, yeah, okay, we're
on a roll here. It looks like evidence is pretty good. But let
me offer some other considerations.
First, the Lord's Supper is a redemptive meal. That is
to say it actually accomplishes the salvation that God is giving
his people. By giving his body and blood in, with and under the
bread and wine, God communicates his grace to those who receive
it. And so it is a truly redemptive act. Where this meal in
Exodus 24 is merely a fellowship meal. It does not communicate
God's salvation to Moses and the elders.
Now, you may say, "But that's part of the way that the
Lord's Supper is greater than this." And that would be a
reasonable response. But I thought that I should point that out
at least.
By the way, there is a real redemptive meal in the book
of Exodus. And we've already seen it. Remember? The Passover
meal. That's part of God's redemptive activity. And so maybe
we should also ask the question at the same time: Is the
Passover meal a type of the Lord's Supper? Well, let's stop and
think about this.
The Lord's Supper has two aspects, as you will recall.
It has a vertical aspect that is our relationship with God. And
that's the redemptive aspect of the meal. Because in that
vertical aspect we receive the grace of God for the forgiveness
of our sins in, with and under the bread and wine. That's what
makes the Lord's Supper a sacrament, that vertical aspect.
But the Lord's Supper also has a horizontal aspect in
which we rejoice with other believers in the gift that we have
received. And part of that horizontal aspect is also the fact
that we in receiving the Lord's Supper confess Christ's death
until he comes. And so we proclaim it both to one another and
to the world. So there is a confessional, public confessional,
aspect to the horizontal part of the Lord's Supper, as well.
When we look at the Passover meal, we see that the
Passover meal has these same two aspects to it. It has the
vertical redemptive aspect. Remember, it's part of the process
by which God redeems Israel. And it also has a horizontal
aspect. Remember the instructions that were given about
teaching children in each new generation. And so the people,
the family gathers together and confesses what God has done in
the past and affirms their reception of God's redemptive work
and proclaims it. So the same confessional aspect applies to
the Passover meal, as well.
And by the way, in that regard there's an interesting
addition that we might note in Chapter 13. Israel is told that
once they come into the land, that the only people who should
participate in the Passover meal are members of the covenant
community. That those who are on the outside, even those who
are visiting them in their family, if they have visitors staying
with them at the time or servants who are living in their
household, they should not participate in the covenant meal
unless they become circumcised.
In other words, the Old Testament is very clear that the
practice of the Passover is a closed practice. The only people
who are allowed to participate in it are members of the covenant
community who are able both to celebrate their reception of
God's grace and, in fact, receive it and also then confess it to
the world by faith. So the Passover meal has the same vertical
and horizontal dimensions that the Lord's Supper does.
Now, what about this meal in Exodus 24? If we look at it
in detail, we would see that it seems to lack the redemptive
dimension. It has the horizontal dimension, the celebration of
the relationship that God has established with his people in the
covenant. And so we could argue that even, you know, it has a
confessional aspect. If we do this before the world, the world
hears about it. But it lacks the vertical. That is to say it
lacks the redemptive -- there is a vertical element here, a
slight one, in the sense that they do do this in the presence of
God. But it's not part of God's redemptive plan. It's not part
of the way that he saves his people.
So it seems to me that Exodus 24 is not quite as good a
type of the Lord's Supper as the Passover meal is. It may be
that the covenant meal in Exodus 24 is a better candidate as a
type for that meal that occurs in the book of Revelation, the
marriage feast of the lamb. There the people of God gathered in
God's eternal presence to celebrate the establishment of the
relationship that God has given them through Christ as they
celebrate the marriage of feast of the lamb on the thrown of the
lamb in eternity.
So if we were going to argue that there was a type here,
I might be inclined to say that this is a better type of that
eschatological meal than it is of the Lord's Supper. But of
course this raises an additional question: What's the
relationship between the Lord's Supper and that eschatological
meal? And frankly, I think that's outside the scope of this
course. So you know, we'll leave that for you. And you can ask
that of some other professor in a future class.
I hate to equivocate, Eric, an answer to your question.
But it seems to me that this is one of those things that fall
into a gray area. Unless you believe that there are no types
except those that are specifically identified in the Bible, then
I think that I would say that there's not quite enough evidence
to say categorically that this is a type of the Lord's Supper.
And at the same time, there's just enough evidence to keep us
from saying that categorically it is not a type of the Lord's
Supper.
So I'm not troubled. If you want to see this as a type
of the Lord's Supper, that would be fine with me. I wouldn't
object to that. As long as you can articulate why. And here
I've tried in some detail to articulate -- to say, "Here is how
you might articulate that answer."
I would prefer to see it as a type of the marriage feast
of the lamb and to see the Passover meal as a type of the Lord's
Supper. But in the end, we might see both of these two, the
Lord's Supper and the marriage feast of the lamb, as related.
And so maybe we're talking about a very fine distinction here.
So Eric, thanks for the question. I'm sorry that I
haven't given you a nice black and white answer on here. But
hopefully in the process of looking at this, I've helped to
clarify some of the issues about typology in general. And then
you can take those and use them as you evaluate other things
that you encounter in the Old Testament.
***
This text is being provided in a rough draft format.
Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in
order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a
totally verbatim record of the proceedings.
***