Q&A Typology: Elijah, Elisha and Jesus

Aug 30

From time to time we interact with questions. If you have a question you’d like answered, send it into redeemingfamily@gmail.com

Question: Is Elijah (and also therefore accompanying disciple Elisha) a type or foreshadowing of Christ?

“It seems that in some ways Elijah was a type of Christ. In 1 Kings 17, he multiplied food and raised from the dead the son of a widow. Jesus feeds the five thousand and raises the son of a widow in Luke 7, which to me seems to be too specific to not be a coincidence. And then they both ascend to heaven, rather than die. Are there any other parallels, or possibly scripture that talks about this relationship more explicitly than Hebrews teaching on the types and shadows? And then do you have any resources that teach on the topic of Elijah being a type of Christ?"

Answer: Absolutely!

When we are engaging with a passage that we think there may be typological foreshadowing (or typological fulfillment) there are a couple of helpful frameworks to keep in mind:

1. The Object Casting the "Shadow"

Typology inherently involves identifying potential patterns or connections between multiple biblical passages. There are many differences between typology and other aspects of interpretation and biblical fulfillment (such as biblical prophecy, eschatology, inerrancy, and Christology). One distinctive typology is rooted in the distinct authorial intent of the inspired Biblical writer to draw a line between one person, place, or thing (like an event) and another person, place, or thing. In this way, one of the most helpful illustrations of biblical typology is that of casting a "shadow". In order for something biblical to be typological of something else, it must have a prior referent (the darkness that is the shadow). Conversely, the thing typified must also have something coming after (object casting the shadow). We need to identify when doing typology both the shadow, and the thing potentially casting the shadow.

2. Looking for Clues

When we are asking questions of typology we've got to ascertain a level of biblical overlap expressed in the potential typological passage (using the historical-grammatical method, looking for words, references, illustrations, allusions, or explicit typological connections). Oftentimes the clues that are left will be genre-specific. The major and minor prophets often speak typologically about many things through heavenly comparisons. The historical books give narratives that can be sequenced or parsed to similar or near exact replication in future related typological passages. Phrases or words are repeated and used in a wide variety of genres including wisdom literature that are then picked up by NT authors in typological application or fashion (such as the New Covenant, Christ, or a host of other objects). We need to break apart (identify) the various clues that are leading us to consider a passage as typological.

3. Finding Fulfillment

Once we have identified the shadow and thing causing the shadow (#1) and considered the various clues leading us towards a typological possibility (#2), we've then got to consider the consequences in the potential fulfillment or inter-related relationship between the biblical passages (truths) typified. There are gross heresies that have spread about (paedocommunion being one of them, baptismal regeneration, and Nestorianism to name a few) due to their failure to recognize this third aspect of typology. If our typology leads to a fulfillment that is contrary to the rest of the scripture, we need to quickly be willing to admit our own faults, failures, and lack of understanding, and go back to the drawing board. Typology in the Biblical canon ALMOST always points to a (i) need for fulfillment, (ii) lack of fulfillment from God in the historical moment, (iii) One who will come and provide "yes and amen" (2 Cor 1:20) to all the needs, and lacks in prior shadows. Unlike an analogy or illustration (which always breaks down) - biblical typology, when rightly understood, is a mine of precious treasures to be delved into and kept close to the heart. If the typology begins to break down at a certain point, we need to be careful and watchful lest we tread into heretical waters tempting apostasy.

"Our author speaks only generally of these items which were in the tabernacle. That he cannot now speak particularly means simply that he will not at this point; enter on a detailed discussion of the individual pieces. Since he makes only a general typological point regarding these items, we will here do the same”
Edward Fudge's commentary on Hebrews 9

4. Greater Than

Typology can often form a part of (or stand alone as) a rhetorical argument moving from the lesser to the greater. We can confidently say that we never find biblical Revelation pointing backward towards something greater or better in the past than what is to come or has come in the present/future. This pattern doesn't mean that in subsequent chapters of biblical history, there are not greater or clearer typological passages revealed. It does mean that the general direction of typology is looking forward to the one yet to come (see quote below from John Skinner for more clarification on the difference). In other words, typology itself doesn't always build in a sequential, timeline-oriented "lesser to greater" trajectory, meaning that Moses is a lesser type than Abraham, or that Adam is a lesser type than David. Instead, all these types point to lesser shadows of the greater fulfilling object (Christ). The realities of the past serve to preview the glorious promises coming yet unseen in the future (Hebrews 11 hammers this home). If the typological passage in mind moves from a "lesser" to "greater" pattern, then the last hinge is set and we can, in humility, but also with boldness say "this lesser thing in the passage (A) is a shadow, of the greater thing to come that is revealed in the passage (B)".

In concluding our study of Ezekiel's Messianic teaching, we may make one remark bearing on its typological interpretation. The attempt is sometimes made to trace a gradual development and enrichment of the Messianic idea in the hands of successive prophets. From that point of view Ezekiel's contribution to the doctrine of the Messiah must be felt to be disappointing. No one can imagine that his portrait of the coming king possesses anything like the suggestiveness and religious 320 meaning conveyed by the ideal which stands out so clearly from the pages of Isaiah. And, indeed, no subsequent prophet excels or even equals Isaiah in the clearness and profundity of his directly Messianic conceptions. This fact shows us that the endeavour to find in the Old Testament a regular progress along one particular line proceeds on too narrow a view of the scope of prophecy. The truth is that the figure of the king is only one of many types of the Christian dispensation which the religious institutions of Israel supplied to the prophets. It is the most perfect of all types, partly because it is personal, and partly because the idea of kingship is the most comprehensive of the offices which Christ executes as our Redeemer. But, after all, it expresses only one aspect of the glorious future of the kingdom of God towards which prophecy steadily points. We must remember also that the order in which these types emerge is determined not altogether by their intrinsic importance, but partly by their adaptation to the needs of the age in which the prophet lived. The main function of prophecy was to furnish present and practical direction to the people of God; and the form under which the ideal was presented to any particular generation was always that best fitted to help it onwards, one stage nearer to the great consummation. Thus while Isaiah idealises the figure of the king, Jeremiah grasps the conception of a new religion under the form of a covenant, the second Isaiah unfolds the idea of the prophetic servant of Jehovah, Zechariah and the writer of the 110th Psalm idealise the priesthood. All these are Messianic prophecies, if we take the word in its widest acceptation; but they are not all cast in one mould, and the attempt to arrange them in a single series is obviously misleading. So with regard to Ezekiel we may say that his chief Messianic ideal (still using the expression in a general sense) is the 321 sanctuary, the symbol of Jehovah's presence in the midst of His people. At the end of ch. xxxvii. the kingdom and the sanctuary are mentioned together as pledges of the glory of the latter days. But while the idea of the Messianic monarchy was a legacy inherited from his prophetic precursors, the Temple was an institution whose typical significance Ezekiel was the first to unfold. It was moreover the one that met the religious requirements of the age in which Ezekiel lived. Ultimately the hope of the personal Messiah loses the importance which it still has in the present section of the book; and the prophet's vision of the future concentrates itself on the sanctuary as the centre of the restored theocracy, and the source from which the regenerating influences of the divine grace flow forth to Israel and the world. John Skinner: Expositor's Bible: The Book of Ezekiel - Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org)

Those are some thoughts! Try it out on Elijah, Elisha, Passover/Lord's Table, OC worship/NC worship. You'll notice many of these patterns throughout the OT. Let me know if you have more questions!