Types

Why is not Canaan a type of heaven, if the crossing of the Jordan is a type of the believer’s death?

The crossing of the Jordan is not a type of the believer’s physical death, but death or crucifixion in the sense of Galatians 2:20, Colossians 3:3, etc. — death to the old life of sin, from which, having risen, we walk in newness of life — in victory — in the life portrayed in Colossians 3, etc., which life is typified by Canaan, a place, — a life, in which there are still conflicts and defeats (not so of heaven), but marked generally by victory, peace and power.

Is not scriptural typology pressed too far?

The absolutely safe rule is that nothing may be dogmatically asserted to be a type which is not so used in Scripture, e. g., John 3:14; 6:31-33; 1 Corinthians 5:6, 7 (passover and leaven) Hebrews 9, etc. But we may safely look to lives of typical persons, as also to events and institutions for spiritual analogies of great beauty and value. The brides of Scripture come under this head. The types cannot be pressed too far. The beauty of the types is that the natural order of events was not wrested or changed in order to make a type, else they would have made an unnatural and therefore unacceptable history.

What is the meaning of Leviticus 13:13, which intimates that the worse the disease, the more perfect the cure?

The passage presents at first this difficulty, that it seems to be an advantage for a leper to be completely leprous, — that is, white from head to foot. The explanation is twofold: First, sanitary: so long as there is no raw flesh, leprosy is incommunicable; second, spiritually, leprosy is a type of sin, and the judgment of God is that all men are utterly sinful. When a sinner presents himself as not indeed perfect, but not so bad as he might be, the priest cannot pronounce him cleansed; he is resting in part upon mercy and in part upon his own goodness. But when he takes the place of a leper, completely leprous, then the priest can cleanse him. The type of leprosy in its application seems sometimes obscure, but we are to remember that there is a great mystery in the fact and evil of sin.

How could the Church be both the body and bride
of Christ?

See Ephesians 5:30, 31, which is quoted from Genesis 2:28, 24, and excludes the interpretation that the reference is to the Church merely as the body of Christ. Eve, taken from Adam’s body was truly ‘“‘bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh,’’ but she was also his wife, united to him in a relation which makes of “twain... one flesh” (Matt. 19:5, 6) and so a clear type of the Church as bride of Christ (see 2 Cor. 11:2, 3).

How do the three brides of Genesis typify Christ’s bride?

They are typical analogies, illustrating different aspects of the bride of Christ, the Church, — Eve revealing the origin, as she was taken from the side of her husband, so the Church was born, so to speak, from the side of Christ pierced by the spear; Rebekah shows the manner of the betrothal and marriage, — won by the Holy Spirit, — and also the Jewish character of the bride in part, — while Asenath shows the time of the betrothal, and also the Gentile origin of the Church-bride.