Is Isaac a “type” of Christ?
The word “type” comes from the Greek work typos which can mean “mark, form, pattern, model, or example.” The word designates some sort of correspondence between a person, event, or thing to another. For example, “the nail marks [typos] in [Jesus'] hands” (John 20:25) correspond to the nails themselves. Scholars use the word “type” in a technical sense to refer to a person, event, or thing in the Old Testament that is an intentional foreshadowing of a person, thing, or event in the New Testament.
Bible interpreters offer varying definitions of what actually constitutes a “type” (in the technical sense) in the Bible. Some see many types throughout the Old Testament; others suggest that no typology is to be seen at all. It really depends upon one’s definition with regard to the degree of correspondence required. Where do we draw the line? For example, is the budding of Aaron’s rod a type of Christ’s resurrection (as a number of writers suggest)? How much correspondence is necessary for the label to be appropriate?
What about Isaac? Is he a type of Christ? To be sure, there is a high degree of correspondence between the two persons. In both cases, the births are a fulfillment of God’s promise of hope for Abraham and the nations (Gen 16:1-6; Luke 2:28-32). In addition, the births are both miraculous — Isaac is born to a barren woman (Gen 17:15-18; 18:12-14) and Jesus to a virgin (Matt 1:18-25). Like Isaac, Christ is the “only son” (Gen 22:2, 16; John 3:16) and the “beloved” son (Gen 22:2; Matt 3:17). Furthermore, Isaac carries his own wood for the altar up the mount (Gen 22:6) and Christ carries his own wooden cross (John 19:17).
Yet, even with all of this correspondence, there remains a significant difference between the two which threatens the appropriateness of the “type” label. The similarities between Isaac and Christ are indeed dramatic, but the difference is even more startling: in the end, Isaac wasn’t really sacrificed. God stopped Isaac’s father from carrying out the sacrifice of his only and beloved son (Gen 22:10-12). By contrast, however, God “did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all” (Rom 8:32). In this way, then, Christ is more like the lamb which God provided instead of Isaac (Gen 22:8, 13).
Thus, is Isaac a “type” of Christ? The startling and drastic difference goes against any definition. Perhaps, that, in itself, is the real point after all.
Tom Henderson 5:22 pm on September 12, 2009 Permalink |
Yes. I think you make a very good point here. There are many pastors and commentators who make “types of Christ” out of too many people in the Old Testament. Unless the Scriptures clearly tell us what is and what isn’t a “type,” we should be careful in appropriating that label. The lamb in the passage is certainly a “type,” for the John the Baptist tells us of Jesus: “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29- NASB). Isaac is probably not a “type.” I wonder whether Joseph (Jacob’s son) is a legitimate “type.” There are some remarkable similarities between him and Christ (also, compare with Genesis 49:24).
Bill Smith 10:25 am on March 21, 2010 Permalink |
I personally don’t believe a typical person in the Old Testament has to be complete example of Christ’s life in order to be labeled a type. I believe we miss the richness of how God glorified Himself in the lives of His people pointing to Who would be the redemption of mankind by confining types to only what is expressed in the New Testament.
Therefore I believe Isaac is simultaneously a good type and anti-type. I do believe in being careful though and not going in extremes in either direction.
To God be the glory.