Which Bible Passages Predict the A.D. 70 Destruction of Jerusalem?

by Michael J. Vlach

A.D. 70 witnessed the catastrophic destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish temple by the Romans. This is a historical fact and one that the Bible predicted. But the issue of which Bible passages predicted the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem is heavily debated. Put simply, there are many differing views and combinations concerning which Bible passages refer to the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem.

Even people who are closely aligned on most eschatological issues can have differing opinions on this. But below are the Bible passages I believe predicted the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem. Note that this is not a full discussion of the Olivet Discourse, nor do I explain why I do not include passages that others would use (such as Matthew 24 and the Book of Revelation). Thus, what follows is more of a statement of how I view this matter more than a full blown defense of why I include these passages and do not include others.

So here are the passages I believe predicted the A.D. 70 Jerusalem destruction. The first is an Old Testament verse:

Daniel 9:26a:  Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood.

This is a prediction of the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem that occurs in the gap after the 69^th week of Daniel (7 + 62 years) yet before the 70^th week that Daniel 9:27 addresses. The “people of the prince who is to come” refers to the Romans who destroyed Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Since this prediction of Jerusalem’s destruction in A.D. 70 is found in an Old Testament passage, Jesus can say, “so that all things which are written will be fulfilled” in Luke 21:22 concerning this event. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 was predicted in the Old Testament.

Hosea 3:4-5: For the sons of Israel will remain for many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred pillar and without ephod or household idols. ⁵Afterward the sons of Israel will return and seek the Lord their God and David their king; and they will come trembling to the Lord and to His goodness in the last days.

Another verse that could have reference to A.D. 70 is Hosea 3:4-5 (particularly v. 4). For “many days” the people of Israel will be without “king or prince,” “sacrifice,” “sacred pillar,” “ephod or household idols.” Together, these items indicate that Israel’s sovereignty and self-determination as a nation will not exist for a long time. The reference to “king or prince” refers to Israel’s governmental rulers. “Sacrifice” and “sacred pillar” refer to religious and temple activity. So for “many days” Israel will not function and worship independently as it desires.

So when does Israel go for “many days” without these matters? Does this begin with the exile in the OT or does it begin with the destruction of Jerusalem in a.d. 70? The latter is the better option since the Roman destruction of Jerusalem led to a complete cessation of all the things mentioned in Hosea 3:4. With the A.D. 70 destruction, the temple was destroyed and the people of Jerusalem were scattered. The impact of this event remains until our day. From our standpoint in history the “many days” covers nearly two thousand years. Yet that is not the end of the story for Israel since verse 5 predicts a restoration of Israel. (NOTE: This section on Hosea 3:4-5 was added on 2/19/2017)

Luke 19:41-44: When He [Jesus] approached Jerusalem, He saw the city and wept over it,⁴² saying, “If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. ⁴³ For the days will come upon you when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side, ⁴⁴ and they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation.”

As Jesus approached Jerusalem shortly before His death, He wept over the people of Jerusalem who had missed their “time of visitation” by rejecting Him. The peaceful conditions of the kingdom of God could have come to Israel with belief, but instead the people will experience a violent overthrow of their capital city—Jerusalem. This prediction will be further described in Luke 21:20-24 and was fulfilled in A.D. 70.

Matthew 22:7: “But the king was enraged, and he sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and set their city on fire.” 

This verse comes from Jesus’ parable of the wedding feast in Matthew 22:1-14. Here Jesus likens the kingdom of God to a wedding feast a king was throwing for his son. Israel is likened to guests who on two occasions stubbornly refuse to respond positively to the invitation, even killing the messengers of the wedding feast. The enraged king represents God the Father, and the armies that destroy the city represent the Roman armies that destroyed Jerusalem in A.D. 70

Matthew 23:37-38:  “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. ³⁸ Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!” 

Just days before His death Jesus announced that Jerusalem and its temple would be made desolate. This was fulfilled in A.D. 70. The next verse (v. 39) does predict that the nation of Israel will believe in Him on a future day. Thus a happier day is coming for Israel after the awful event of A.D. 70.

The next three references are parallel and introduce what is often called the Olivet Discourse:

Matthew 24:1-2:  Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. ² And He said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down.”

Mark 13:1-2:  As He was going out of the temple, one of His disciples *said to Him, “Teacher, behold what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!” ² And Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left upon another which will not be torn down.”

Luke 21:6:  “As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down.”

These three parallel passages above show Jesus predicting the utter destruction of the Jerusalem temple. The details of this prediction are explicitly found in the Luke 21:20-24 passage below:

Luke 21:20-24:  “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. ²¹ Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; ²² because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled. ²³ Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people; ²⁴ and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

While some see Luke 21:20-24 as being fulfilled in the coming Tribulation Period or Seventieth Week of Daniel I think this passage refers to the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem. This is not the rescue of national Israel that Matthew 24:30-31 depicts but “days of vengeance” with catastrophic consequences to the people of Israel for missing their time of visitation (see Luke 19:41-44). Plus, this event is linked with a period known as “the times of the Gentiles” in which Israel is dispersed and oppressed by Gentile powers for an extended period of time. The rescue of Israel will come later after the times of the Gentiles with the subsequent return of the Son of Man (Jesus) (Luke 21:27-28).

Thus, these are eight passages that I believe predict the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem. Fortunately, this is not the last word for Israel since the Bible also predicts a future salvation and restoration of national Israel (Matt. 19:28; 23:39; Luke 21:24; Acts 1:6; Rom. 11:26-27).

NOTE: Feel free to comment. If you disagree with what I have written on this topic just make sure that the comments are with a gracious spirit and not condescending, emotional, or overly argumentative. Inappropriate comments will be removed.

3 New Books to Consider in 2017

One of the strengths of The Master’s Seminary is that the school and faculty are united, not only on the Gospel, but on the Bible’s storyline from Genesis 1 through Revelation 22.

Recently, three books have been released by people connected with TMS that reveals how TMS views Christian doctrine and the Bible’s storyline. If one wants a taste of what TMS is about and what it stands for these three works will be helpful.

First, there is Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth (Crossway, 2017), which is edited by John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue, with contributions from other faculty members of The Master’s Seminary. This is a systematic theology that covers all the major areas of Christian theology from a systematic perspective. If you want to know what is being taught at The Master’s Seminary, this is a good place to look.

Second, there is my (Michael Vlach) new book, He Will Reign Forever: A Biblical Theology of the Kingdom of God (Lampion Press, 2017). This is a biblical theology that covers the kingdom of God theme from Genesis 1 through Revelation 22. I argue that “kingdom” is the theme of Scripture, thus, if one understands the kingdom theme, one will have a good grasp of the Bible’s storyline. 

Third, Matt Waymeyer, professor at The Expositors Seminary in Jupiter, Florida, has written an excellent defense of Premillennialism against the arguments of Amillennialism in his book, Amillennialism and the Age to Come: A Premillennial Critique of the Two-Age Model (Kress, 2016). Waymeyer completed his academic degrees at TMS, including his dissertation on this topic, and was a professor at TMS. Waymeyer interacts with the best scholars and arguments of Amillennialism and shows how Premillennialism not only survives but thrives even when all criticisms are considered. This book will give the reader confidence in the premillennial view.

Put together, these three books will give you a systematic theology (Biblical Doctrine), a biblical theology (He Will Reign Forever), and a defense of the premillennial view from its critics (Amillennialism and the Age to Come). 

Hopefully these works can find a place in your study in 2017.

Does Daniel 7:13 Refer to the Ascension or Second Coming of Jesus?

by Michael J. Vlach

Daniel 7:13 is a challenging verse for interpreters. Most focus on the identity of the “Son of Man” in this verse, but I want to focus on the setting of Daniel 7:13 and its implications. Does this verse describe the ascension of Jesus or the second coming of Jesus to earth? Below is the text:

“I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a Son of Man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.
¹⁴ “And to Him was given dominion,
Glory and a kingdom,
That all the peoples, nations and men of every language
Might serve Him” (Dan. 7:13-14a).

The context of Daniel 7:13 concerns four beasts which represent Gentile kingdoms on earth, and an evil “little horn” who opposes God’s people on earth (Dan 7:1-8). Then there is an awesome heavenly throne scene where the Ancient of Days (God the Father) is on His throne with thousands around Him (Dan 7:9-14). A Son of Man figure (Jesus the Messiah) appears before the Ancient of Days to receive glory and a kingdom that leads to all people groups serving Him.  

But what is the meaning of the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven and appearing before the Ancient of Days?

There are at least three understandings of Daniel 7:13 within a messianic context. The first is that this is a reference to the ascension of Jesus into heaven. The second is that this involves a heavenly enthronement scene at the time of A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem when Jesus allegedly was vindicated over the Jewish leaders and the Jewish system that rejected Him. (It is also possible to hold to a combination of  resurrection, ascension and destruction of Jerusalem as all included in Jesus' vindication). A third view is that this refers to the second coming of Jesus.

I believe Daniel 7:13 is not referring to the ascension but is describing a heavenly scene where the Son of Man (Jesus) appears before the Ancient of Days without referring to where the Son of Man was prior to this event. Yet Daniel 7:13, in connection with other Old Testament messianic passages, will be used by Jesus and the New Testament writers concerning the second coming of Jesus to earth. The granting of kingdom authority to Jesus in heaven leads to His second coming in power and glory on earth. Thus, while Daniel 7:13 is not explicitly about the second coming of Jesus, this granting of kingdom authority is linked with the Son of Man’s return to earth for His earthly kingdom. This is affirmed in both Daniel 7:26-27 and the New Testament.

The view that Daniel 7:13 is about the ascension of Jesus relies much on Acts 1:9 which states: “He [Jesus] was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.” Allegedly, a cloud receiving Jesus from the sight of the apostles in Acts 1:9 is linked with the clouds of heaven coming to the Ancient of Days in heaven in Daniel 7:13.

Also, much is made of the New American Standard Bible translation, “And He came up to the Ancient of Days.” Some see “came up to” as meaning Jesus moved from earth to heaven to stand before the Ancient of Days. Often advocates of the ascension view will say something like, “The text says Jesus “came up to” not “came down to,” to argue the ascension and not the second coming is in view. So supposedly Daniel 7:13 is describing a scene in which Jesus the Messiah is transported from heaven to earth with His ascension to stand before the Ancient of Days.

The ascension was an amazing event, but the ascension understanding of Daniel 7:13 is not impressive upon closer examination. The Aramaic term metah that the NASB translates “came up to” is not a verb meaning traveling from lower to higher or from earth to heaven. The verb simply means “to approach” or “to reach.” In the Daniel 7 context it emphasizes the Son of Man approaching or being brought near the Ancient of Days but it reveals nothing concerning where the Son of Man came from before this encounter. As J. J. Collins states concerning this verse, “The text does not indicate whether the figure [Son of Man] is ascending or descending or moving horizontally” (Daniel, 311). Note the following translations which have a more precise understanding of metah:

He approached [metah] the Ancient of Days (NIV)

he came to [metah] the Ancient of Days (ESV)

He approached [metah] the Ancient of Days (HCSB)

So with Daniel 7:13 the Son of Man is brought before the Ancient of Days without saying where the Son of Man was before this event. Certainly Jesus has ascended to heaven and the ascended Jesus will receive kingdom authority. But those who hold to the ascension of Jesus view seem to be making too much of the NASB rendering of “came up to” and interpreting it to mean going from lower (earth) to higher (heaven). The verb metah simply means “to approach” or “come before.”

So does Daniel 7:13 refer to the second coming of Jesus? Not directly although there will be implications for the second coming according to Daniel 7:26–27 and the New Testament. Daniel 7:13–14 does describe a scene where the Son of Man (Jesus) approaches the Ancient of Days to receive kingdom authority. Since the Ancient of Days is God the Father and God resides in heaven it seems fair to conclude this is a heavenly scene.

Since this granting of authority to the Son of Man leads to the defeat of the little horn and the saints possessing the kingdom (Dan 7:26–27) this heavenly scene leads to victory and vindication for God’s people, Israel, on the earth. Thus, a heavenly court scene leads to an earthly kingdom where God’s people are vindicated.

Daniel 7:9–14 also parallels Revelation 4–5 where Jesus the Lamb approaches God the Father on the Father’s throne in heaven to take a scroll from the Father’s right hand. This scroll probably refers to the title deed of the earth and the judgments contained in the scroll to take back planet earth for God. Plus, Revelation 5:10 indicates that the goal of this heavenly scene concerns earth—“they will reign upon the earth.” So in both Daniel 7 and Revelation 4–5 a heavenly scene leads to an earthly kingdom.

The New Testament and Daniel 7:13

So what light does the New Testament shine on Daniel 7:13? There are many quotations of and allusions to Daniel 7:13 in the New Testament. Some of these are:

Matt 24:30: And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.

Matt 26:64:  Jesus said to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Matt 25:31: “But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne.”

Mark 8:38:  ^“For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.”

Mark 13:26: “Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.”

Mark 14:62: And Jesus said, “I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”

Rev 1:7:  Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. 

Futurists and preterists will quarrel over whether these are references to a spiritual coming of Jesus through the Roman armies that destroyed Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (preterists), or the actual bodily return of Jesus at His second coming to earth (futurists). I think the evidence strongly sides with the futurist view.

But significantly, none of these references to Daniel 7:13 in the New Testament concern the ascension. Some have argued that these references involve Jesus’ enthronement at the time of the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem when Jesus allegedly was vindicated against His Jewish enemies and the Jewish religious system that opposed Him. But these New Testament verses appear to be references to Jesus’ personal second coming. The Revelation 1:7 statement was made in the 90s A.D., after the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem. Also, the reference to Daniel 7:13 in Matthew 25:31 concerns the second coming since Jesus comes in glory with His angels to sit on His throne and judge the nations. This did not occur in A.D. 70.

Also, some of the references to Daniel 7:13 mentioned above are coupled with other Old Testament passages that connect the Messiah with a coming to earth for an earthly kingdom. Matthew 24:30 and Revelation 1:7 use Zechariah 12:10 concerning the tribes of Israel mourning in repentance over the Messiah when He returns to earth. Matthew 26:64 alludes to Psalm 110 which speaks of a session of the Messiah at the right hand of God which then leads to a kingdom reign from Jerusalem (Ps 110:1-2). Matthew 25:31 and Mark 8:38 could be using Zechariah 14:5, a verse about “holy ones” coming with the returning Lord when He touches down on the Mount of Olives (14:3) and institutes a kingdom reign from and over the earth (14:9). Thus, the use of Daniel 7:13, coupled with other Old Testament passages speaking of Messiah’s kingdom on earth, bolsters the idea that the New Testament writers were connecting Daniel 7:13 with the second coming of Jesus to earth.

So multiple verses in the New Testament link Daniel 7:13 with the second coming of Jesus. While Daniel 7:13 specifically describes a heavenly scene where the Son of Man appears before the Ancient of Days to receive kingdom authority, the New Testament consistently applies Daniel 7:13 directly to Jesus’ second coming. The heavenly scene of Daniel 7:9-14 (and Revelation 4-5) leads to the coming of the Messiah and His earthly kingdom.

Conclusion

So what can we conclude from Daniel 7:13 and quotations of this verse in the New Testament? Daniel 7:13 is referring to a heavenly scene in which the Son of Man (Jesus) uses the vehicle of the clouds of heaven to appear before the Ancient of Days (God the Father). This leads to the granting of kingdom authority to the Son of Man which then leads to the defeat of God’s enemies, and the saints of God possessing the kingdom of God on earth (Dan 7:26-27).

Claims that Daniel 7:13 is about the ascension of Jesus and does not apply at all to the second coming of Jesus to earth are not convincing. The language of Daniel 7:13 [metah] is not speaking of a movement from heaven to earth. And not only does Daniel 7:26-27 have implications for an earthly kingdom, many New Testament passages connect Daniel 7:13 with the second coming of Jesus. Thus, it is correct for Bible students to link Daniel 7:13 with the bodily return of Jesus to earth.

(Be sure to check out Michael's newly released book: He Will Reign Forever: A Biblical Theology of the Kingdom of God Lampion Press).

Update on Michael Vlach’s New Book—He Will Reign Forever

Some have been asking about my upcoming new book—He Will Reign Forever: A Biblical Theology of the Kingdom of God. I have been working on this project for the last four years, but now I’m happy to say that it’s arrival has come.

This book is 640 pages. It is a biblical theology of the kingdom of God that takes the reader from Genesis 1 through Revelation 22. It also looks at important hermeneutical and theological issues related to the kingdom of God.

In it I argue that the kingdom of God is the theme of Scripture and thus a proper understanding of the kingdom means that one is properly grasping the Bible’s storyline.

This study shows how God's kingdom program unfolds throughout history and culminates in a future earthly millennial kingdom which is the fulfillment of the mandate of Genesis 1:26-28 for man to have a successful reign from and over the earth. This book takes seriously Jesus' role as Last Adam and Messiah and the role of national Israel in God’s plans.

While sometimes mentioning other kingdom views, this book is primarily a positive presentation of the kingdom of God from a premillennial dispensational perspective.

The full launch of the book will take place with the 2017 Shepherd’s Conference at Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, CA starting February 28 where the book will be featured (but not part of the giveaway bag). If you are attending the conference you have an opportunity to get the book there.

It is around the time of the conference that an electronic version (Kindle) and Amazon purchasing availability should occur. (I’m not sure of the exact date)

For those interested in obtaining a copy right away, hard copy versions are available from Lampion Press. Click here for more information including purchase info. 

If you scroll down to the page with recommendations and click on it you will be able to survey the first 38 pages of the book.

Also, for bookstores, churches, groups, and people who want to purchase ten copies or more contact Tim Demy at tim@lampionpress.com for bulk discounts.

If you have questions you can contact me at mvlach@tms.edu 

“This will surely raise the discussion of the kingdom of God to a whole new level and it probably will become a classic in our times.”

–Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Ph.D. President Emeritus

 Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary

Is Paul Departing from Contextual Hermeneutics in Galatians 3:16?

by Michael J. Vlach

Some scholars believe New Testament writers sometimes used the Old Testament in non-contextual or non-literal ways. This belief is often connected with the idea that the New Testament writers change or reinterpret the storyline begun in the Old Testament. Near the top of the list of alleged non-contextual uses of the Old Testament is Galatians 3:16 where Paul states:

Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ.

At first glance it seems that Paul’s hermeneutic is off. It appears that he is taking a collective or multiple sense of “seed” in Genesis and turning it into a single reference to Jesus. Most Genesis references to “seed” or “offspring” refer to Abraham’s descendants collectively. But does Paul change or reinterpret the collective meaning in Genesis to an individual reference to Jesus? Is Paul using the Old Testament non-contextually? Using David Daube as support Longenecker says Paul is using “a midrashic mode of interpretation” that goes beyond normal historical-grammatical hermeneutics. (Richard Longenecker, “Can We Produce the Exegesis of the New Testament,” Tyndale Bulletin 21 (1970): 37).

What Is Paul Doing?

I don’t believe Paul is quoting the Old Testament in a non-contextual way. Paul’s statement in Galatians is likely a contextual use of Genesis. This is based on two factors.

First the concept of “seed” from its very first usage concerning persons included an individual element alongside a collective sense. This is found in the strategic verse, Genesis 3:15:

And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel.” (all terms in bold are my emphasis)

Just like the English term “seed” the Hebrew zera ("seed") can be a collective singular or unitary singular. With Genesis 3:15, a collective sense of “seed” is found in the statement “between your seed and her seed.” This predicts an ongoing battle between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent which involves multiple descendants on both sides. Yet a singular sense is found in “He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel.”

So with Genesis 3:15 the collective sense of “seed” culminates in an individual battle between the ultimate seed of the woman (whom we now know as Jesus) and the power behind the serpent. This appears to be a specific messianic hope stemming from the “seed” concept in Genesis 3:15. A coming specific deliverer from the collective seed of the woman will be the one who defeats the power behind the serpent.

An individual sense of “seed” (zera) is also found in Genesis 4:25:

Adam had relations with his wife again; and she gave birth to a son, and named him Seth, for, she said, “God has appointed me another offspring [zera] in place of Abel, for Cain killed him.”

Of course, there are many collective senses of “seed” in Genesis referring to multiple descendants of Abraham (Gen. 13:15; 15:5; 17:8), but since there is a specific messianic hope stemming from Genesis 3:15, the individual sense is never lost or disconnected from the plural sense.

Thus, for Paul to see Jesus as the ultimate referent of the “seed” concept in Genesis in Galatians 3:16 is not allegorical or typological hermeneutics. A messianic hope was connected with the “seed” concept in Genesis 3:15.

Secondly, Paul may be relying literally on the grammar of the Genesis verse he is referring to. Unanimity is lacking concerning which passage Paul is quoting in Galatians 3:16. Many believe he is referring to either Genesis 13:15, 17:8, or 22:18. Paul’ use of “and” leads Schreiner to believe Genesis 13:15 or 17:8 are in view (Galatians, 230). But in his extensive study of what verse Paul was referring to Collins opts for Genesis 22:18:

Genesis 22:18 seems to be the best candidate for Paul’s source here, because, of the Genesis “blessing” texts that might lie behind the composite quotation of Galatians 3:8, it is the one that has the dative of σπέρμα. This, then, allows us to make sense of Paul’s argument in Galatians 3:16 (C. John Collins, “Galatians 3:16: What Kind of Exegete Was Paul?” Tyndale Bulletin 54.1 (2003) p. 86).

If Paul is quoting Genesis 22:18 he could be relying on a straightforward understanding of this text in Galatians 3:16. As a result of researching all references to zera (“offspring”/“seed”) in the Hebrew Bible, Collins concluded that a unitary single sense of zera (“seed”) concerning one person can be discerned when the term is connected with singular verb inflections, adjectives, and pronouns. This applies to Genesis 3:15. Building upon the work of Collins, T. Desmond Alexander applies this criteria for a singular understanding of zera to Genesis 22:17-18a and 24:60 (T. Desmond Alexander, “Further Observations of the Term ‘Seed’ in Genesis,” Tyndale Bulletin 48/1 (1997): 363).

If this is accurate the last reference to “seed” [zera] in 22:17 and the reference to “seed” in 22:18 should be understood in a singular way.” The ESV translates 22:17 as, “And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies.” This is in contrast to other versions that opt for “their enemies.” And if this singular sense is true in 22:17 it is likely that the “offspring” reference in 22:18 (which Paul may be quoting in Galatians 3:16) also refers to a single individual. Alexander explains,

If the immediately preceding reference to ‘seed’ in 22:17 denotes an individual, this must also be the case in 22:18a, for there is nothing here to indicate a change in number. The blessing of ‘all the nations of the earth’ is thus associated with a particular descendant of Abraham, rather than all those descended from him (Alexander, 365).

This unitary individual understanding of “seed” is bolstered by the allusion to Gen 22:17b-18a in Psalm 72:17: “And may all nations be blessed in him.” Psalm 72 is likely a messianic passage that speaks of Messiah’s coming kingdom. It connects the Messiah, an individual, with the fulfillment of the “seed” of Genesis 22:17-18.

What does this all mean? If Paul’s reference to “seed” in Galatians 3:16 is a reference to Genesis 22:18 then Paul is being literal with his understanding. Limiting the seed concept to a singular person (Jesus) is consistent with the literal meaning of Genesis 22:18. Concerning Galatians 3:16 Peter Gentry argues, “So Paul’s argument in Galatians 3:16 that the text speaks of ‘seed’ and not ‘seeds’ appears to be based upon solid exegesis of the Hebrew Scriptures” (Kingdom through Covenant, 289).

Not all will agree with this understanding, but it is reasonable to hold that Paul was being contextual and literal with the Hebrews Scriptures in Galatians 3:16. This means the pool of passages that can be used to say that the New Testament writers were being non-contextual with the Old Testament gets even smaller.

Some Final Thoughts on "Shadow" and "Type" Language in the Bible

by Michael J. Vlach

My last few blogs have surveyed “shadow” and “type” terminology in the Bible. They have not been an exhaustive study of shadows and types, nor have they been a broad study of typology. But I have focused on key terms associated with “shadow” and “type” in the Bible to see what conclusions could be drawn from these terms. This current blog brings together some thoughts I have on these terms and how they are used in the Bible.

Most references to “shadow(s)” and “type” in the Bible are not invested with great doctrinal or inter-testamental significance. Concerning “shadow,” three passages are theologically significant—Colossians 2:16-17; Hebrews 8:4-5; and Hebrews 10:1. The thrust of these texts is that the Mosaic Covenant and its components were a shadow of the superior New Covenant and Jesus’ better sacrifice and priesthood. The concept of “shadow” is not projected to all Old Testament matters or the details of the covenants of promise (i.e. Abrahamic, Davidic, New), but it does address the temporary Mosaic Covenant directly.

Likewise “type” language in the Bible is applied to three main areas. First and foremost, the tabernacle of Moses’ day was a type, pattern, or model of the tabernacle in heaven. This concept is found in Exodus 25:9, 40; Numbers 8:4-5; Acts 7:44; Hebrews 8:4-5; 9:24. It is also applied to Adam and Christ (Rom. 5:14) and Noah’s flood and baptism (1 Pet. 3:20-21). Ironically, the “antitupos” term in Hebrews 9:24 is used of an Old Testament reality when many theologians use the “antitype” word for greater New Testament realities.

Like “shadow,” the various “type” language is used narrowly. The concept of “type” is not projected to all Old Testament matters or details of the covenants of promise. Significantly, “shadow” and “type” language is not used of Israel, Israel’s land, and Jerusalem. It is used in regard to the tabernacle but mostly to show that the tabernacle of Moses’ day was patterned after the tabernacle/temple in heaven. And the Levitical priesthood associated with the Mosaic Covenant was a shadow of Christ’s greater priesthood and the New Covenant. But there is no indication, that this understanding of the tabernacle/temple rules out the presence of literal temples in God’s future purposes (Ezek. 40-48; 2 Thess. 2:4; Rev. 11:1-2).

There are many types in the Bible and issues concerning types that I have not addressed in these blog entries, but a survey of the terms “shadow” and “type” in the Bible do not seem to indicate major changes in understanding the Bible’s storyline or the necessity of a “typological hermeneutic” in addition to historical-grammatical hermeneutics. If typology is going to be established as a legitimate hermeneutical principle it will have to rely on other biblical data.

We should not underdo or overdo the implications of “shadow” and “type” terminology in the Bible. In my estimation, a historical-grammatical hermeneutic will uncover and recognize the reality and significance of legitimate “shadows” and “types” in the Bible, but these terms do not indicate the Old Testament as a whole is primarily inferior types and shadows or that these concepts change the Bible’s storyline begun in the Old Testament. 

Some Thoughts on "Type" Terminology in the Bible

By Michael J. Vlach

In previous blogs I surveyed the term and concept of “shadow.” In this blog entry I survey the term “type” to see its significance in Scripture. Like my previous entry on “shadow,” I understand that a concept can exist where a term is absent and that a study of the term “type” does not exhaust the topic of types and typology which involves many factors. But I thought it would be helpful to survey the term “type” in the Bible and see if any theological or doctrinal conclusions can be made about the term.

Tabnith

Two words are particularly significant for this study of “type” language—the Hebrew term tabnith and the Greek word tupos. Tabnith occurs twenty times in the Old Testament and is translated in the New American Study Bible as “copy,” “form,” “image,” “model,” “pattern,” and “plan.”

Theological significance of tabnith is found in Exodus 25:8-9 where the term could be translated as “pattern” or “model”:

Let them construct a sanctuary for Me, that I may dwell among them. According to all that I am going to show you, as the pattern [tabnith] of the tabernacle and the pattern [tabnith] of all its furniture, just so you shall construct it.

Exodus also 25:40 declares:

See that you make them after the pattern [tabnith] for them, which was shown to you on the mountain.

The tabernacle was to be constructed according to the “pattern” or “model” of a heavenly tabernacle. This is affirmed in Numbers 8:4: “Now this was the workmanship of the lampstand . . . according to the pattern which the Lord had shown Moses, so he made the lampstand.”

This heavenly pattern for the earthly tabernacle of Moses’ time is referred to in Acts 7:44 and the writer of Hebrews in Hebrews 8:4-5 as he quotes Exodus 25:40:

Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law; who serve a copy [tupos] and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, “See,” He says, “that you make all things according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain.”

Thus tabnith and tupos in the above verses have theological significance since they reveal that the tabernacle of Moses’ day was patterned after a heavenly tabernacle. Perhaps this heavenly tabernacle is referenced in Revelation 11:19: “And the temple of God which is in heaven was opened; and the ark of His covenant appeared in His temple.”

Tupos

In the New Testament the term tupos occurs sixteen times and, depending on context, can refer to “imprint,” “pattern,” “example,” or “model.” In its most basic sense a “type” refers to a mark from a blow. In John 20:25 it refers to the “imprint” of nails in Jesus’ hands. Paul often used the tupos term to emphasize being an example for other Christians (Phil. 3:17; 2 Thess. 3:9; 1 Tim. 4:12; Titus 2:7). As a whole the common idea behind tupos is usually correspondence or resemblance.

Most uses of tupos in the New Testament are not loaded with inter-testamental or great doctrinal significance. But in addition to Hebrews 8:5 mentioned above, one example of theological significance for tupos is Romans 5:14:

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type [tupos] of Him [Jesus] who was to come.

Here there is doctrinal significance in that Adam is a “type” of Jesus. In this context (Rom. 5:12-19), both Adam and Jesus operate as federal heads of humanity who by their representative acts impact all of humankind. Adam’s act of disobedience (eating the fruit in Eden) brought condemnation to all, whereas Jesus’ act of righteousness (the cross) brings righteousness to all who believe in Him.

In 1 Corinthians 10:6, 11 Paul uses the tupos term to explain that persons in Old Testament times served as “examples” for us Christians. I’m reluctant to draw big theological implications from these verses but they do show that Christians can learn from the examples of Old Testament saints.

Antitupos

With Hebrews 9:24 we find antitupos concerning the earthly tabernacle: 9:24:

For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy [antitupos] of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.

Often in theological discussions a “type” is seen as the Old Testament thing, but the New Testament counterpart is seen as an “anti-type.” But with Hebrews 9:24, anti-type wording is linked with the Old Testament reality—the earthly tabernacle of Moses’ time. So ironically this rare use of antitupos concerns an Old Testament matter.

The antitupos term is also found in 1 Peter 3:21:

who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. Corresponding [antitupon] to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Pet. 3:20-21).

Here the flood corresponds to or has a type relationship to baptism. In both cases identifying with God delivers one from judgment.

Implications

Most terms connected to “type” do not carry theological significance or indicate a relationship between the Old and New Testaments. Several refer to the earthly tabernacle’s relationship to the tabernacle in heaven. The other clear theological reference to “type” occurs in Romans 5:14 where Adam is viewed as a type of Jesus. Both Adam and Jesus represent mankind and commit acts that impact mankind. With 1 Peter 3:21 the flood of Noah’s Day corresponds to baptism. In sum, the doctrinal sense of “type” refers to the following relationships: (1) earthly tabernacle and heavenly tabernacle; (2) Adam and Christ; and (3) Noah’s flood and Christian baptism.

What are some theological conclusions we can draw from “type” wording in the Bible? First there are God-intended theological correspondences as evidenced by the three examples above. Second, the term “type,” does not appear to be linked with broad and sweeping conclusions that the Old Testament as a whole is a type of New Testament realities. Perhaps other evidence will indicate this (which I don’t think is the case), but there is not enough evidence from “type” terminology to conclude this.