Mecanismos de actualización materiales y servicios necesarios

of Interest Ш. Structures of Typology «**««*«

Introduction

Modem scholarly studies of the Epistle to the Hebrews generally agree that typology plays a crucial role in the argument, particularly in the author's treatment of the sanctuary and its services. At the same time current literature reveals sharp divei^ences of opinion on issues connected with the nature and function of (ypologyln'the Epistle. These issues may be divided into four major areas, each of which will be the focus of a separate section of this chapter.

The first and broadest category pertains to the nature of biblical typology in general. Two modern views of typology—the "traditional" and the "post-critical"— currently claim to represent the fundamental biblical perspective. Since these modem assessments differ so widely and at such critical points, it is imperative that we give some attention to the nature of typology in the Scriptures as a whole.

The first section of this study, therefore, outlines the major differences between the current views of biblical typology. We will then provide a brief summary of my previously published analysis of the characteristics or "structures" of typology as they emerge from Scripture.1

The second major area concerns the relationship between the typology of Hebrews and the typological perspective found elsewhere in Scripture. A number of recent studies have argued that the vertical (earthly/heav-

' enly) typology in Hebrews is a vestige of mythic or dualistic thought forms that are alien to the Bible. Many discussions of typology build upon this

^distinction between the vertical typology in Hebrews and the horizontal (historical) typology used by other Bible writers. The conclusion is then

[drawn that only horizontal typology is acceptable within the modem world ^mew.

; In the second major section of this study we will seek to analyze the ; conceptual structures of typology in Hebrews and will determine how they

1 Richard M. Davidson, Typology In Scripture (Berrien Springs, MI, 1981). 123

Typology in the Book of Hebrews

compare or contrast with those found in representative typological passages outside of Hebrews-

A third major concern relates to the ОТ basis for sanctuary typology in Hebrews. The author of Hebrews (8:5) substantiates his vertical (earthly/ heavenly) sanctuary typology by citing Exodus 25:40. But it has been argued recently that, contrary to the claim in Hebrews, the passage in Exodus does not support the idea of a vertical correspondence between earthly and heavenly sanctuaries. Consequently, in this third section we will take an excursus from Hebrews to examine whether Exodus 25:40 (in context) indicates a vertical sanctuary typology.

The fourth major cluster of issues revolves around the question of the relationship between type and antitype in Hebrews. This area is of particular significance in the light of Seventh-day Adventist discussion of the doctrine of the sanctuary.

Seventh-day Adventists have understood from such passages as Hebrews 8:5 and 9:24 (in their contexts) that the ОТ earthly sanctuary is a copy or model of the heavenly sanctuary. It is held, therefore, that a basic continuity exists between the essential contours of "type" and "antitype." The author of Hebrews recognizes that the earthly is a "shadow" pointing to the greater reality, the "true" sanctuary in heaven. Nonetheless, he still maintains the fundamental continuity between the "type" and "antitype." The earthly sanctuary, with its apartments and services, is regarded as instructive in clarifying the basic contours of the NT heavenly sanctuary.

Recently, however, it has been argued that in the book of Hebrews there is a "tremendous disparity" between types and antitypes, a frequent setting aside of earthly sanctuary "specifics" because of their "weakness and uselessness." It is maintained that the author's "repeated deviations" from the ОТ sanctuary types in order to explain the NT heavenly reality, and his "laboring to modify the type to Christian beliefs," has collapsed the fundamental continuity between type and antitype. Based on or closely related to this general argument are several additional assertions regarding the interpretation of typology in Hebrews:

1. Typology may not be used to establish doctrine, but only to illustrate that which is taught elsewhere in clear didactic, non-symbolic language.

2. Argument may not proceed from ОТ type to NT antitype, but only the other way around—from heavenly to earthly.

3. The author of Hebrews has no concern for the details of the ОТ type. He often alters the type to fit the NT fulfillment and makes blunders in discussing those details that he does mention.

4. The book of Hebrews is the ultimate norm for interpreting the ОТ sanctuary types since only in this book do we find NT interpretation of the

first and Second Apartment ministries.

Such issues concerning the relationship of type and antitype in Hebrews call for careful consideration. We will explore these in the final section of this chapter. Though this study makes no attempt to provide the "last word" on the nature of typology in Hebrews, it is hoped that progress will be made toward identifying principles of typological interpretation that emerge from, and are faithful to, the infallible norm of Scripture.