typology & redemptive-historical hermeneutics.pdf

8/10/2019 Typology & Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutics.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/typology-redemptive-historical-hermeneuticspdf 1/22

Typology & Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutics Early on in my Christian walk, I held to a more strict grammatical-

historical way of interpreting the Bible. That is, human authorial intent

was supreme. When reading the Old Testament, for instance, I sought

to read it as a Jew might read it (my first reading), and then (in my

second reading) to understand it in light of Jesus in the New

Testament. What is more, I saw the hermeneutic employed by the

New Testament authors as something not to be copied. In fact, they

would probably fail many modern classes on hermeneutics. It’s simple

enough, I thought: Just as I interpret a letter written to me by my wife,

so too do I interpret the Holy Scriptures.

My conviction, however, started to wane as I read Luke 24 and 1 Peter

1, for instance. I started to think about typology, and became aware of

redemptive-historical hermeneutics. I began to read and listen to men

like Richard Gaffin, Lane Tipton, David Murray, Sinclair Ferguson,

and the ministry of the Reformed Forum. Through my studies I have

come to a more Redemptive-Historical hermeneutic.

In this blog, I’d like to present my notes that I took as I listened to

these great men. Do pardon the length, as I saw merit in presenting it

all in one blog. If it proves too much, however, maybe just take it a

section at a time. The hyperlinks under their names are the lectures,

sermons, and podcasts that these notes came from.

Recommended Reading



1) “The Redemptive-Historical View,” in Biblical Hermeneutics: Five

Views by Richard Gaffin

2) “The Gospel and Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutics”

in Confident of Better Thingsby Lane Tipton

3) Jesus on Every Page by David Murray

4) The Unfolding Mystery: Discovering Christ in the Old

Testament by Edmund Clowney

5) Him We Proclaim: Preaching Christ From All the Scriptures by

Dennis Johnson

6) Preaching Christ From All The Scriptures by Edmund Clowney

7) The Christ of the Covenants by O. Palmer Robinson

8) The Christ of the Prophets by O. Palmer Robinson

9) Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal

Worldview by Meredith Kline

10) Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament by Christopher Wright

11) Seeing Jesus in the Old Testament (1-5) by Nancy Guthrie

12) The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses by Vern Poythress

13) Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ by Nehemiah Coxe and

John Owen

14) Typological Writings by Jonathan Edwards

15) Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture by Graeme

GoldsworthyRichard Gaffin

Scripture’s Christocentricity, Christ in the Old Testament I, and

Christ in the Old Testament II

[Luke 24:44-49]

1) Christ viewed being “with them” (v. 44) was pre-resurrection, not

post.

2) “Law of Moses, the Prophets, and Psalms” is as weeping term. That



9) c.f. Acts 10:43: Peter said: All the prophets testified about Jesus,

and that by faith in Him forgiveness will be granted.

10) c.f. Acts 26:22-23: Paul said: Moses and the prophets taught that

Jesus would (1) Suffer, and (2) be the first to rise from the dead.

11) c.f. Acts 13:27, 17:2-3: The ministry of the apostles was teaching

from the Old Testament that Jesus must die a substitutionary death

and rise from the grave.

12) c.f. 1 Peter 1:10-12: The prophets knew the gospel (death and

resurrection) (v. 11), and they knew their message was not for their

own time, but for the New Testament readers (v. 12a). That is, the

prophets saw and understood their ministry to be ministering to a

future New Covenant generation of God’s people. The “target

audience” as it were, is the New Covenant readership. “This” in verse

10 is referring back to vv. 3-9, which talks about resurrection,

inheritance, and return of Jesus. The prophets “intent” and “all-

embracing concern” in the main was to show the person and work of

Jesus in their writing and prophesying (both in divine authorial and

human authorial intent). What the various prophets say are unified and

integrated, because the one “Spirit of Christ” (v.11) spoke the one

message to all the prophets. Thus, the Old Testament is one large

promissory, prophetic witness to Christ, and that witness centers in his

“suffering and glory” (v.11).13) c.f. John 12:40-43 quotes Isaiah: Isaiah saw Christ’s glory, John

says, and spoke of Jesus (he spoke of what he saw).

14) Two extremes to avoid: (1) Restricting Jesus to just a few

prophesies in the OT and viewing the rest as Jewish (pre-Christian)

history, and (2) Viewing each particular OT text as teaching some

particular point of the death or resurrection of Jesus (i.e. allegorizing

the OT).



15) Is Jesus in every sentence of the OT? No, in that not every text is

unpacking a particular piece of Jesus’ person and work. But yes, in

that every sentence is in a context of an unfolding history that has one

direction in its overall purpose, which is Jesus Christ’s suffering and

glory. The OT can be oblique, but is not ambivalent.

16) We are bound to read the Old Testament in light of the New

Testament

17) The writer of Hebrews believes that the OT culminates in the NT.

18) c.f. 2 Corinthians 1:20: the promises of God (all of them) are

fulfilled in Christ. Thus, the promises of God in the Old Covenant

have a predictive and forward-looking character

19) The NT writers taught, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that

the Old Testament is preeminently Christocentric.

20) c.f. 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21; Acts 1:16; 2:16-17; 3:18, 21;

4:25; 7:6; 13:47; 28:25; Romans 1:2; 3:2; 9:17; 15:4; 1 Corinthians

9:8-10; Luke 1:70; 24:25; John 5:45-47; Matthew 1:22; 19:5; Mark

7:9-13; Hebrews 1:1-2, 6-7: All of Scripture is derived ultimately

from God’s conscious, not human consciousness. Thus, while there

are earmarks of human authorship that can be useful in hermeneutics,

the authorial intent we seek is ultimately and primarily Christ’s

authorial intent, not man’s.

21) c.f. 1 Corinthians 15:13-8: Paul quotes an early creedal formulaand says the Old Testament Scriptures taught: (1) Christ’s death, (2)

Christ’s burial, (3) resurrections of Christ.

22) c.f. 2 Tim. 2:8; Gal. 3:1; 6:14; 1 Corinthians 2:2: Paul’s gospel is

about the death and resurrection of Christ. In fact, he sees this as the

pervasive teaching of all of the Bible (Old and New Testament).

23) c.f. John 8:56: Abraham saw the day of Jesus and rejoiced over it.

24) c.f. John 5:39: Jesus believes that all of the Scriptures testify about



Him.

25) c.f. John 5:45-47: Moses wrote about Jesus.

26) c.f. Galatians 3:8: The “Scriptures,” which is being used as a

synonym for God, preached the gospel of justification by faith to

Abraham.

27) c.f. Acts 2:31 – David saw the resurrection in advance and spoke

about the resurrection of Jesus in Psalm 16.

28) c.f. Acts 2:16 – The prophet Joel spoke about Pentecost in Joel

2:28-32.

Lane Tipton

“The Gospel and Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutics,” in Confident

of Better Things

1) Because typology is an inherent feature in the Old Testament, it is

(or at least ought to be) thus a function of the grammatical-historical

method (186).

2) Jesus is sacramentally present in the Old Testament (194).

3) Many modern evangelicals teach a two-reading view of the OT.

That is, you first read the OT according to the grammatical-historical

method, which seeks to understand the OT in terms of its original

human and historical intent. Only after this is done, one can read the

text in a “second” or “Christotelic” way. This, however, is a false

segregation, and a false presupposition that somehow the

grammatical-historical method does not functionally do typology (pp.

200-201).

4) “Mystery” in the Bible is “a making known of what has already

been revealed in the Old Testament” (p. 210).



Scripture it presents the gospel on its own terms in

typological categories (p. 211).

It’s time to turn away from deficient concepts of

grammatical-historical meaning, historicist constructions of typology, and artificial disjunctions

between original contextual meaning and christological

fulfillment. It’s time to turn back to the redemptive

revelatory activity of the triune God and to the organic

richness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, accenting all of its

manifold hermeneutical presuppositions and

implications. It is time to proclaim clearly and without reservation that Christ enters the Old Testament through

the front door (p. 213).

The Old Testament, on its own terms, objectively

foresignifies and supernaturally presents Christ to the

faith of Old Testament saints, thereby requiring a

typological presentation of the gospel as an inherent

feature of Old Testament redemptive revelation (p. 186).

The substantial concern of Old Testament redemptive

revelation is the gospel of God’s Son… The history of the

Old Testament is therefore a history of special

revelationthat has Jesus Christ as its central redemptive

concern… Israel, while integral to God’s redemptive

purpose, is from this standpoint not the paramount concern of the Old Testament Scriptures… The gospel of

Jesus Christ is a transtestamental reality (p. 187, 188).

Christ is not merely foresignified in the Old Testament;

he is also sacramentally (or spiritually) present to the

faith of his elect… The gospel of Jesus Christ is not only

foresignified in the Old Testament but is applied through



pictures are objectively and redemptively the actual presence of

Christ.

6) Typology is not just a horizontal, historical unfolding of

redemptive-history, but typology has a strong vertical element (to the

Triune God) connecting the trans-testamental gospel (view as a

triangle, maybe).

7) Jonathan Edwards viewed Typology as a divinely constituted

means by which God uses people, places, and events to illustrate His

Gospel. It’s not a “reader-response” where the NT writers read things

back into the text, but those things were organically present in the OT

text itself.

8) The Old Testament must not be read in any other way but as

gospel-teaching, Christian Scripture.

9) Kant and the Enlightenment has taught us to overemphasize history

qua history, overemphasize the human, and brought with it an

overemphasis on textual criticism. The text, however, is redemptively

qualified and we cannot have a Kantian bear-history understanding.

10) The Old Testament is an inscripturated history of redemptive. You

do not have a human-based, time-bound, human qua human thing

happening in the OT. The God-breathed Scripture does not fit with the

Kantian-Enlightenment framework.

11) The original context of the Old Testament is redemptive-historicalrevelation with Christ as center. That is the context. This should have

a hermeneutical function in all of our readings in Scripture (including

the “first”).

12) The Bible is God’s commentary on His mighty deeds of creation

and redemption, as it moves toward consummation. Deed-revelation

and word-revelation are linked.

13) Redemptive-revelation of the gospel in the Old Testament on its



1) Scripture has dual authorship and each relates to the other.

2) Critical scholars often have an overemphasis on looking at human,

time-bound authorship.

3) What we’re after is not a human understanding of God’s mighty

deeds, but God’s understanding. 1 Corinthians 2 says the Spirit seeks

the mind of God. We are after the mind of God, and it is the Spirit, as

He wrote Scripture, that brings us to the mind of God. Many times the

human authors wrote higher than they knew. God knew what he was

writing through them, but the human authors didn’t always.

4) Since the Bible was written by God using human means, there is a

coherent unit in the Bible. Thus, Scripture interprets Scripture. That is,

when you come to an unclear passage, you can look to clear passages

to help elaborate. The Bible then forms a massive inter-testimental

web. Presbyterians are confessionally bound to this Hermeneutic. For

instance, The WCF says “The infallible rule of interpretation of

Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore when there is a question

about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold,

but one), it must be searched by other places that speak more clearly”

(1.9).

5) There is three levels of history: (1) the actual events that transpired

in history, (2) the unifying grand story (meta-narrative) that unites all

of history, and (3) God’s use of distinct human authors to testify aboutthe events in history.

6) The Scriptures themselves teach us how to understand

Scripture. Sola Scriptura: The rule of interpretation are not extrinsic

but intrinsic to Scripture.

7) The New Testament’s finding of typology in the Old Testament is

the answers in the “back of the book” to the odd number of typology

problems, so the interpreter can endeavor to do the even numbers



(understanding you are fallible and not inspired). For instance, the

New Testament says Jonah was a type of Christ. Using the NT

Hermeneutic, we can understand Joseph as a type of Christ as well,

even though the NT doesn’t specifically name him as a type.

8) The difference between allegory and typology is that allegory

originates in the creativity of the human reader, and typology

originates in the purposes of God as he ordained them as pictures of

the person and work of Christ in the OT. It’s important not to

allegorize the texts.

9) Exile-Restoration, Judgment-Redemption is all throughout he Old

Testament and represents as a Type: Atonement-Resurrection. Jesus in

the Wilderness and being tempted is Jesus re-living the temptations of

the first Adam and the history of Israel. Jesus is the true Israel.

10) New Testament people didn’t look at the Old Testament literary

themes and think “I had better align myself with this.” Rather, God is

using predictive types in the Old Testament to point to how He will

redeem in the future.

Example: Jehoiachin

1) Jehoiachin willingly went into exile (the OT’s type of hell), bore

the Covenantal punishment for his people, on behalf of his people, just

as Christ bore the wrath for His people. Once judgment comes, then

restoration can come. First comes the cross then glory. .2) Ezekiel says Jehoiachin is like a cedar tree that grew big and God

took and planted in Zion. Parellels of Christ can be seen in terms of

the growth after His death.

3) Jehoiachin finds favor with the Babylonians, and he eats at the

kings table all his days—though he’s still in exile. This is illustrative

of inaugurated eschatology. Though he’s still in exile, he lives on; and



though he’s still under wrath, God has given him glimpses of

blessings throughout.

Example: Ruth & Boaz

1) Bethlehem (meaning “house of bread”) has no bread, as a famine

swept the area. Not only this, but wickedness was everywhere (Ruth

was not safe. Also see the idolatry narratives in Judges). In fact, the

wickedness of Bethlehem parallels Sodom language, which seems to

say that Bethlehem was worst that Sodom. But Boaz represents light

coming forth from Bethlehem, just as Jesus will in the future.

2) Elimelech (meaning “my God is king”) did not believe God was his

king and did not believe in the promise that God would provide. He

left the land given to him by God and went to dwell among the pagans

(self-exiled himself). Nevertheless, God shows that he will bring

outsiders into His kingdom as He brings Ruth into His Kingdom.

3) Ruth’s title progresses from (1) “Foreigner” – 2:10, (2) “Maid-servant” – 2:13, (3) “Maiden” – 3:9, (4) “Wife” – 4:10, (5) a “Mother”

in the genealogy of Christ – Matthew 1:5. Does this not illustrate and

give hope to sinners outside God’s fold, that they too can be adopted–

that God will not leave them as foreigners? Christ gives a new identity

and a new nature.

4) Boaz has to take the law upon himself and fulfill it in order to

redeem Ruth and Naomi (3:8-4:10), just as Christ had to take the law

upon Himself to redeem Jew and Gentile.

5) Boaz didn’t have to redeem Ruth, but he spread his wing over Ruth,

a Gentile pagan, just as God spreads His wings over lost sinners and

brings them in His fold (2:11-12).

6) Ruth was a Moabite, which was the tribe born of the incestuous

relationship between Lot and his daughter. Naomi wrongly and



inappropriately tells Ruth to go to the threshing room floor (type of

night club in Israel) when Boaz has been drinking (like Lot). But here,

there is a holy reversal where Boaz does not touch Ruth

Inappropriately.

7) Naomi keeps trying to take things upon herself, but we see several

times–in Naomi trying to take care of herself after her husband dies,

and in trying to get Ruth to the threshing room floor–that human effort

is futile. The author is teaching that it’s through God’s actions that His

promises will come about.

8) The writer was showing (1:16-17) that a pagan Gentile has greater

Covenantal faith in Yahweh than Israel at this time. She is saved at

this time; she has grasped what it means to be God’s people. Ruth did

not see God’s mighty deeds, but Israel did; she has faith while Israel is

in disobedience. In a sense, she has become a “true Jew” as Paul

would talk about later.

9) You also see that God is fulfilling Genesis 12 (promise to

Abraham), as Boaz redeems not only Ruth but Naomi as well, which

sets up this picture nicely.

10) Boaz is a kinsmen-redeemer, just as Jesus is our kinsmen-

Redeemer. Image of a Bride-groom comes into view.

11) The reason the brother had to sleep with his dead brothers wife to

perpetuate his line is because of Genesis 3:15 seed promise (c.f. 4:6).They knew a redeemer was coming by the seed of the woman and

longed for this Redeemer. It’s not until Isaiah that they knew it was

going to be a virgin birth (7:14).

12) Ruth tries to approach Boaz in darkness (3:6), but Boaz redeemed

publicly in the light (4:1), just as God redeems in the light (c.f.

Nicodemus-Jesus conversation).

13) Ruth lays at the feet of her kinsmen redeemer, as the church lays



at the feet of Christ, the true Redeemer (3:14).

14) Boaz was willing to count the cost, and be self-less in redeeming

Ruth and Naomi when the first redeemer was not. Jesus is willing to

take the cost upon Himself to redeem His predestined sheep.

David Murray

Jesus on Every Page Podcast

1) Typology presupposes (1) The Old Testament is a revelation of

God, (2) God’s Genesis 3:15 promise created a forward-looking

momentum for subsequent texts and OT books.

2) A “Type” is “a real person, place, object, or event that God

ordained to act as a predictive pattern or resemblance of Jesus’ person

and work, or of opposition to both.”

3) Analogy isn’t necessarily typology. You have to ask: did the

audience see this with foresight, or are you just seeing it with

hindsight.4) When finding a type: (1) Does the New Testament explicitly call it

a type? (2) Does it have the earmarks of being a type (as defined in

definition above)

5) The type is always lesser or weaker than the antitype, and usually

moves from the simple to the complex (e.g. The Ark (simple) to the

penal substitutionary atonement of Christ (complex)).

6) The heart of typology is finding the essential resemblances, not the

incidental resemblances to Jesus.

7) Not only does the New Testament shed light on the Old, but also

vice versa.

8) Some types have dual fulfillments (multiple antitypes).

9) Similarity is not typology, and coincidence is not the same as

divine providence. Ask: did God ordain this to be a type?



10) Also, an example of moral Christ-likeness is not the same as

typology.

11) Don’t make every detail of the text to be christological or

typological. That’s Allegorizing.

12) The type and antitype must be related. That is, something evil

cannot have a good antitype.

13) Jesus is present in the Old Testament, both physically

(Christophanies), but also in pictures (typology).

14) Sometimes one truth accelerates ahead of the others. For example,

the seed of the woman [Gen. 3:15] is most prominent in the promises

to Abraham in Genesis 12, 15, and 17

Example: Noah’s Ark

1) Matt. 24:38 – Jesus uses Noah’s generation as a analogy for every

generation to be watchful. This, however, is not typology, but is a

hindsight analogy.2) Peter 3:23-32 calls Noah’ flood as a type and defines an antitype.

3) The type was intended to teach the original audience: (1) God is

holy and hates sin and will punish it (2) God provides sinners with a

means of escape (3) God patiently calls sinners to safety (4) God

completely saves those who put their faith in him and use his means of

salvation, (5) God’s wrath purged the world of sin, but will not touch

the believers who are in his appointed place of refuge.

4) God’s Ark only saved a few sinners for a short time and didn’t save

from eternal wrath. The antitype is always greater than the type.

5) The essential resemblances : (1) Just as the flood showed God is

holy, hates sin, and will punish it with the full force of His wrath, so

the 2nd coming of Christ will do the same thing, (2) In the flood God

provided sinners with a divinely approved means of escape, so too in



Christ does God provide sinners with a divinely approved means of

escape. (3) Just as God patiently calls sinner to His place of refuge, so

does He call sinner to Christ as His appointed place of refuge. (4) Just

as God protected and kept safe those who put their faith in Him during

the flood, so will He protect and keep safe those who put their faith in

Jesus. (5) Just as the flood purged the world of sin, and gave the

faithful a new beginning, so too does baptism signify the purging of

sin and the new beginning for believers.

6) Genesis 3:15 told them who would save, and Noah’s Ark told them

how: By God’s appointed means, He will provide a place of refuge for

undeserving sinners.

Example: David & Goliath

1) Just as Adam and Christ are the federal heads representing a large

group of people, David and Goliath are federal heads representing

groups of people.2) David crushed Goliath’s head just as Genesis 3:15 promised.

3) Goliath was a type of Satan: (1) He was an enemy of God, (2) he

was ruthless, (3) He was armed, (4) He was strong, (5) He was

experienced (6) he was self confident, (7) he was frightening, (8) he

enslaves, (9) he is persistent in taunting (10) he mocked David.

4) David was a type of Christ: (1) he was sent by his father, (2) he was

outraged, (3) he is dismissed by the enemy, (4) he is courageous, (5)

God has prepared him, (6) he’s confident (7) he is God glorifying and

motivated to lift the name of God, (8) he was victorious, (9) the defeat

was substitutionary, (10) he was rewarded, (11) In what looked weak,

be crushed the lead of the enemy.

5) The writer was showing that Israel’s nationally security rests in

God’s provision alone.



Example: Leviticus 14 Law regarding Leprosy

1) The sacrifices washed away sins only so far as the person could go

to temple, but did not wash the person of sins for justification. These

sacrifices were the type and Christ’s atonement was the antitype.

2) The leprosy passages in Leviticus teach about spiritual leprosy: sin.

3) The priests in OT could only pronounce unclean, but Jesus, our

high priest, can make clean

4) If you touched a leper you were considered unclean too. But Jesus

touched lepers and they became clean. In fact, we all had spiritual

leprosy and Jesus touched us and we became clean.

5) The Lepers had to dwell outside of God’s dwelling, showing His

holiness, and also points to Paul’s teaching “a little leaven leavens the

whole lump.”

6) Some Lepers were healed by God. If healed, the priest would come

and inspect. The priest would get two sparrows. The priest would kill

one and take his blood and put it into a bowl. He then took the living

bird and dipped it in the blood. The priest would take the living

sparrow dripping with the blood of the dead sparrow, and release it.

The Leper would see the bird sore, free as a bird. The Leper would get

it: “I’m like that bird, free.” The blood of another has set him free.

Every bird the Leper would see would remind him that he is “free as a

bird through sacrificial blood.”7) Next time you see a bird in the sky, remember that Christ has

healed your spiritual leprosy, and you are now free as a bird.

Sinclair Ferguson

Preaching Christ in all the Scriptures

Ferguson advises that to preach Christ from the OT well we must

preach Christ from the NT well. Many evangelicals, he laments, don’t



preach Christ well in the OT. They have, rather, moralized the text,

spent most of their time trying to find himself in the text (a “Where’s

Waldo” hermeneutic), or have, inadvertently, viewed the Bible

through the lens of Schleiermacher. “My job is not to find you in the

text,” he writes, “It is Jesus’ job to find you through the text by the

Holy Spirit. It’s my job to find Christ in the text.” Ferguson also says

finding Jesus in the OT is almost like intuition. When you are

saturated in Jesus—His person, His attributes, His plan, His work—

you begin seeing Gospel-patterns and redemptive-historical truths as

you read the Old Testament. Do you have more books about Jesus on

your shelf than any other Christian topic? Gazing at a man’s bookshelf

can be telling regarding his emphasis, or his “thing.” Are you with

Paul in saying you want to know nothing but Christ and Him

crucified, or would you rather focus on “more interesting doctrines”?.

The more saturated in Jesus one is, the more natural it will be to see

Christ in all of Scripture, as He will become the paradigm, or lens by

which you see things.

Ferguson offers four pieces of advice to seeing Christ in the OT, using

the mnemonic “CURS,” which stands for covenant, union,

redemptive-victory, and seat.

Covenant

God has structured His narrative of redemptive history by way of

covenants. God made a covenant with Adam (pre-fall), then he made a

type of post-fall covenant (Gen. 3:15), then with Noah, Abraham,

Moses, David, and finally the New. These covenants have both

continuities and discontinuities, but the underlying reality and goal is

Jesus. Christ unites the purpose and drive of each covenant. Knowing

what particular covenant is operative in the book or passage you’re



reading will help you to see Christ and how that text points to Him,

presents Him, and is fulfilled in Him.

Union

The commonality between the Old Testament saints and New

Testament saints (including us), is that we are all in union with Christ.

To be “saved” is to be in union with Christ. This union has two

aspects: forensic and transformative, or, as people know them,

justification and sanctification. In union with Christ, the believer is

legally declared righteous because Christ imputes His righteousness to

the believer for justification. Also, there is an ongoing transformative

nature where the believer is progressively transformed into the image

of the Son. Knowing that continuity exists between the Old Testament

believer and you – namely, we are all being conformed to look like

Jesus – can be helpful when reading of the Old Testament saints. We

are all in union and communion with Christ throughout our sufferingsand victories.

Redemptive Victory

In Genesis 3:15, God promises conflict – conflict that will end with

Christ as victorious over Satan and all His works. We see this conflict

throughout almost all of the Old Testament. By seeing this forward-

moving momentum of Genesis 3:15, particular epochs, wars, and

victories can be seen as moving toward Jesus, the “seed of the

woman.” As you read the Old Testament, you begin to see Gospel-

patterns – judgment-redemption, exile-restoration, promise-fulfillment

– all pointing to: atonement-resurrection, which is bookended with

creation-consummation. Thus, when we read about David and

Goliath, for instance, we see a larger picture.

typology & redemptive-historical hermeneutics.pdf

Documents