Numbers 24:17 says: >*“I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near. A star shall come out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel; he shall crush the skulls of Moab and break down all the sons of Sheth.”* This verse is commonly understood by some Christian traditions to be a Messianic prophecy pointing to Jesus Christ—with the “star” and “scepter” symbolizing His **divine authority** and **kingship**. However, the latter part of the verse includes a violent image: >*“he shall crush the skulls of Moab.”* According to those who believe Jesus is the fulfillment of this prophecy, how did he fulfill this part of the verse? This is because this verse was fulfilled in David who led his armies against the Moabites and conquered them, so how do they reconcile that?

In Genesis 1:28, God commands humanity to “be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth.” This is a physical multiplication and filling of the world. In the New Testament, Jesus commissions His apostles to “go and make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19), which seems like a spiritual multiplication—filling the world not biologically but with the gospel. Is this seen as a deliberate biblical pattern or typology? In what ways did the apostles fulfill this spiritual fruitfulness and multiplication, and do Christian traditions see a theological link between the original creation mandate and the Great Commission? I’m especially interested in perspectives that view the apostles as spiritually “fruitful” by preaching the gospel and establishing churches across the world.

In Genesis 19, Lot is rescued from Sodom before its destruction by fire and brimstone. In 2 Peter 2:7–8, Lot is described as a righteous man living among the wicked. Given this, I’m wondering how Christian theology interprets Lot’s story in light of salvation and judgment themes. - Is Lot considered a "type" or symbol of the Christian believer, who is saved from judgment? - Is the fire and brimstone that destroyed Sodom seen as a foreshadowing or symbolic representation of hell? - Does this event function in any way like substitutionary judgment, or is it purely a direct act of divine justice? - How is Lot’s wife understood theologically—as a warning to believers who long for or look back to the sinful life they’ve left behind (cf. Luke 17:32)? I’m looking for insight into how theologians or biblical scholars interpret the parallels between this Old Testament narrative and New Testament themes of salvation and final judgment

Genesis 2:18, 2:21-24 NIV > YHWH God said, “**It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a > helper suitable for him.**" > > So YHWH God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he > was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the > place with flesh. Then **YHWH God made a woman from the rib he had > taken out of the man**, and he brought her to the man. > > The man said, > > “**This is now bone of my bones > and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ > for she was taken out of man.**” > > That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his > wife, **and they become one flesh.** I'm told that everything on earth is a symbolic shadow or type of the things in heaven, that it was not good for God to be alone as it was not good for man to be alone. That Adam being set up as the caretaker and guardian of Eden represents God, who is the caretaker and guardian of heaven. That Eve being brought forth out of Adam to be his helper represents Christ, who was brought forth out of God to be his helper. I'm told that in Proverbs 8, the Son is poetically described as Lady Wisdom, the consort of God. As God's wife, he is described as being created by God as the first of his works in Proverbs 8:22, being "brought forth" from God in Proverbs 8:25, and the "master workman" as the helper of God in Proverbs 8:30, resonating with Christ being the one "through whom" God made all things. That Eve is the consort of Adam, his wife, who was created and brought forth from Adam as his "helper". In like manner, Christ was brought forth from God as his consort Wisdom as the Logos. And that as Adam goes into Eve to produce fleshly offspring (sons of men), so God goes into Christ to produce spiritual offspring (sons of God). As Eve came from Adam as "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh", so Christ was from God and a spiritual body from a spiritual body, that Christ was fashioned from the very spiritual flesh and bones of God, for he was taken out of God as Light from the Light. So my question is, do Adam and Eve symbolize God and Christ?

Some consider Jesus a new Joseph. See [this article](https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/joseph-type-foreshadow-jesus/) as an example. According to the answer to [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/89116/is-the-practice-of-seeking-the-intercession-of-rachel-admonished-in-the-new-test) , Dr. Brant Pitre considers the Beloved Disciple a new Benjamin. This consideration explains the Beloved Disciple's moniker, for, if Jesus is a new Joseph, and Joseph especially loved Benjamin, then a new Benjamin would be especially loved by Jesus. It also explains the adoption of Mary by the Beloved Disciple which, in the original Greek, reads more like an adoption than an assignment of a caretaker. >The sons of Jacob’s wife Rachel: Joseph and Benjamin. (Genesis 46:19) >After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own. (John 19:27) [This article](https://orthochristian.com/135233.html) discusses the same claim, but it also credits Dr. Brant Pitre with the claim itself. Who else has spoken or written that the Beloved Disciple is a new Benjamin?

I was reading the Office of Readings this morning and the reading was from the beginning of Habakkuk (assuming I'm on the right week, which I might not be). In any event, it was the first chapter of a book I'd never really paid much attention to and I was reflecting on it and it seemed to draw out a lot of motif's from the life of St. Peter 1. He scoffs at kings (when St. Peter says that Jesus shouldn't go to Jerusalem or wash his feet) 2. He gathers fish, like men 3. He is the rock readied for punishment (although Rock refers to God in _this_ passage) 4. He brandishes the sword and might have slayed without mercy. 5. He was the rash man, but was justified because of his faith. I don't see any intertext references in the New American Bible that suggest it, but I couldn't help but see it this morning and was wondering if there was anything to it.

Adam was not with Eve when she ate the fruit Satan offered her. He did not hear the conversation, otherwise, God in His response would have said that Adam listened to the serpent, but God said that he listened to his wife. Gen 3:17: > And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; This opinion is the basis for my understanding of this comparison. I do not wish to discuss this aspect of the situation. I state it here merely to illustrate my understanding of Genesis 3:6 and its translation, from which my question originates. Gen 3:6: > And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband **with her [?]** and he did eat. Just as Adam was not deceived, neither was Jesus deceived, Jesus did not sin. Adam was not deceived but partook to help Eve. 1 Tim 2:14: > And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Jesus partook of flesh and blood to help us. The Church is referred to as a Crown of thorns to Jesus in Prov 12:4, just as a wife is a crown to her husband: > A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that maketh ashamed is as rottenness in his bones. The Bride of Christ is Jesus's "Crown" as I complete the comparison from John 19:5: > Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man! John 3:16: > For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Another observation: What other situation could Paul have been referring to when he referred to the "husband" as the savior or the marriage? Ephesians 5:23 (KJV): > For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body This appears in all aspects to be accurate. Showing unnecessary deference to Eve/woman-kind by suggesting that Adam was "with her" at that time is merely an attempt to allude to a shared sense of guilt and does not justify distorting scripture, in my opinion. **Hence my question**: Did Adam join Eve in disobedience to save her?

In Deuteronomy 18:16-18 God said to Moses that he will raise up a prophet like unto Moses from his own people or from among their brethern, Christians believe that that this verse is speaking about the Lord Jesus Christ, but in what ways is Jesus like Moses and what are the similarities between Moses and Jesus? > According to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb in > the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of > the Lord my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I > die not. > > And the Lord said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have > spoken. > > I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto > thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them > all that I shall command him. Deuteronomy 18:16-18

I was reading a short essay in the [*Word on Fire* Gospel Reflections on Luke 12:49-53](https://www.wordonfire.org/reflections/a-ordinary-wk29-thursday/) where in Luke 12:49 Jesus says that He came to set fire to the world. In the essay Bishop Barron says that Jesus' priesthood is shown as a "spreader of the sacred fire". This reminded me of something I thought was an Old Testament passage, but on reflection it was just a line from the Lord of the Rings - probably only the movie, not the book. Is the notion of a priest as a spreader and/or keeper of the sacred fire based on something to do with Old Testament typology or is it just a general notion of a priest throughout pagan/human history?

Why do Trinitarians rarely mention the hermeneutical principles which have led them to this belief? What are the hermeneutical principles that support the Trinitarian view? For example Genesis 1:26 "Let us make man" The common Trinitarian interpretation of this verse is that it proves the Old testament taught the Trinity doctrine. Yet it breaks a basic rule of Bible interpretation: "Try to find the original writer's intentions when he wrote the biblical text". From what I have researched, Trinitarians break this rule and several other basic rules of biblical interpretation.

### According to major Reformed theologians, what is the Christian fulfillment of the [Songs of Ascent](https://www.gotquestions.org/Songs-of-Ascent.html) (Ps 120-134)? I'm particularly interested in **what a Reformed theologian determines to be the Christian referents of these 4 nouns** so that the verbs attached to them are meaningful in the Christian context in this age (today), **the verbs representing what a Christian can physically do**, just like how in the OT the Israelites would sing the Psalms as they physically ascended the mountain to go to the temple. Secondly, the interpretation of these 4 nouns should be distinct (i.e. they cannot all be Jesus, at least they should be different aspects of Jesus). For Catholics, the meaning can naturally be connected to ["going to mass"](https://media.ascensionpress.com/podcast/tjcs11/) to physically meet Jesus (the Eucharist) in the house of God (the cathedral) where the throne of the bishop (seat of authority for the bishop acting *in persona Christi*) is. St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican is on the [Vatican Hill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_Hill) . The 4 nouns are: 1. the physical city & walls of **Jerusalem**: "built as a city should be", "solidly united", "Feet were standing within" 2. the **physical temple** which is the house of God: "Let's go to" 3. **mount Zion** on which the city rests (or referring to the city): "where God desires it for his home", "those who trust in the LORD are like mount Zion", "the LORD bless you from Zion", "mountains surround Jerusalem" 4. the **thrones of the house of David**: "there thrones for judgment are placed" Sample verses from the CSB translation: - Ps 121:1: "I **lift my eyes toward the mountains**." - Ps 122:1-2: "**Let's go** to the **house of the LORD**." Our feet were standing **within your gates, Jerusalem** - Ps 122:3-4: "Jerusalem, **built as a city should be**, solidly united, where the tribes, the LORD's tribes, **go up to give thanks** to the name of the Lord" - Ps 122:5: "**There, thrones for judgment are placed**, thrones of the house of David." - Ps 122:6-7: "Pray for the **well-being of Jerusalem**: "May those who love you be secure; may there be **peace within your walls**, security within your fortresses." - Ps 125:1-2: "Those who trust in the LORD **are like Mount Zion**. It cannot be shaken; it remains forever. The **mountains surround Jerusalem and the LORD surrounds his people, both now and forever**." - Ps 128:5-6: "May **the LORD bless you from Zion**, so that you will see the **prosperity of Jerusalem** all the days of your life ..." - Ps 132:13-18: "For **the LORD has chosen Zion; he has desired it for his home**: "This is my resting place forever; I will make my home here because I have desired it. I will abundantly bless its food; I will satisfy its needy with bread. I will clothe its priests with salvation and its faithful people will shout for joy. There I will make a horn grow for David; I have prepared a lamp for my anointed one. I will clothe his enemies with shame, but the crown he wears will be glorious." The answer should have references from Calvin's work, such as from his *Institutes of the Christian religion* or his commentaries on Scripture, **OR** from the work of a major historic Reformed theologian such as Jonathan Edwards, Charles Hodge, Abraham Kuyper, Herman Bavinck, etc.

We see in Gen 22:13 how Abraham saw a ram caught by the horn in a thicket and sacrificed it in lieu of Isaac. Coming over to New Testament we see Jesus being made to wear a crown of thorns. It is believed that the thorn Jesus wore had been made from the twigs of bush. We see here a strange resemblance. Unfortunately, none of the Evangelists draw a parallel between the ram that Abraham sacrificed and Jesus who offered himself on sacrifice vis a vis the thorny twigs that held on to the heads of both. My question therefore is: Are there any teachings from the side of the Catholic Church, that establish a co-relation between Christ and the ram that Abraham sacrificed?

I'm aware someone asked this question already, but they no longer have an account, the post has no answers, and I'm hopefully going to reformulate the question in a way that hopefully explicates the objection more. Mark 1:1-5 states (verse numbers removed): >The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: “I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way” - “a voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.’” And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Mark's quotation is seemingly a conglomeration of a few Old Testament passages, but of the passages he does use from Isaiah and Malachi that are relevant, they both say essentially the same thing. Malachi 3:1 (Emphasis added and verse numbers removed): >“Behold, **I** will send **My messenger**, who will prepare the way before **Me**. Then the Lord whom you seek will suddenly **come to His temple**—the Messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight—see, He is coming,” says the LORD of Hosts. So in Mark 1 we are introduced to two figures, Jesus, and John the Baptist. In Malachi, we are introduced to two figures, God, and the messenger, who will prepare the way before God. Notice that immediately after describing a messenger who will come and prepare the way, Mark launches into his description of the ministry of John the Baptist. Since we know that John the Baptist's purpose was to bring in Jesus' ministry, that means that John the Baptist is the messenger making the path straight for the Lord, Jesus. But that means Jesus must be God. To break this down into a syllogism: 1. The Old Testament speaks of a messenger preparing the way for God to meet his people. 2. Mark identifies this messenger as John the Baptist. 3. John the Baptist was preparing the way for Jesus to make his people. 4. Therefore, Jesus is God as described in the Old Testament.

>“As therefore,” I say, “while Moses was still among men, God took of the spirit which was in Moses and put it on Joshua, even so God was able to cause [the spirit] of Elijah to come upon John; in order that, as Christ at His first coming appeared inglorious, even so the first coming of the spirit, which remained always pure in Elijah like that of Christ, might be perceived to be inglorious. For the Lord said He would wage war against Amalek with concealed hand; and you will not deny that Amalek fell. But if it is said that only in the glorious advent of Christ war will be waged with Amalek, how great will the fulfilment of Scripture be which says, ‘God will wage war against Amalek with concealed hand!’ You can perceive that the concealed power of God was in Christ the crucified, before whom demons, and all the principalities and powers of the earth, tremble.”… A sign of Him that was to be crucified was made… in the type of the extending of the hands of Moses, and of Oshea being named Jesus (Joshua); when you fought against Amalek: concerning which God enjoined that the incident be recorded, **and the name of Jesus laid up in your understandings; saying that this is He who would blot out the memorial of Amalek from under heaven.** Now it is clear that the memorial of Amalek remained after the son of Nave (Nun): but He makes it manifest through Jesus, who was crucified, of whom also those symbols were fore-announcements of all that would happen to Him, the demons would be destroyed, and would dread His name, and that all principalities and kingdoms would fear Him; and that they who believe in Him out of all nations would be shown as God-fearing and peaceful men. > >Justin Martyr >And in the Apocalypse the same exhortation of divine preaching speaks, saying, “Hold fast that which thou hast, lest another take thy crown;” which example of perseverance and persistence is pointed out in Exodus, when Moses, for the overthrow of Amalek, who bore the type of the devil, raised up his open hands in the sign and sacrament of the cross, and could not conquer his adversary unless when he had stedfastly persevered in the sign with hands continually lifted up. “And it came to pass,” says he, “when Moses raised up his hands, Israel prevailed; but when he let down his hands, Amalek grew mighty. And they took a stone and placed it under him, and he sate thereon. And Aaron and Hur held up his hands on the one side and on the other side, and Moses’ hands were made steady even to the going down of the sun. **And Jesus routed Amalek and all his people.** And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this, and let it be a memorial in a book, and tell it in the ears of Jesus; because in destroying I will destroy the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.” > >Cyprian

From the *gospel translations* Wiki page on God's Love and God's Wrath written originally for the journal [*Bibliotheca Sacra*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliotheca_Sacra) by D.A. Carson: >The reality is that the Old Testament displays the grace and love of God **in experience and types**, and these realities become all the clearer in the New Testament . Similarly, the Old Testament displays the righteous wrath of God **in experience and types**, and these realities become all the clearer in the New Testament. ... (emphasis mine)

One of the strongest scriptural basis for the Catholic Marian dogmas is the [Catholic interpretation of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/mary-the-ark-of-the-new-covenant) , appealing to the Glory of the LORD which filled the tabernacle in [Ex 40:34-35, Num 9:18,22](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ex+40%3A34-35%3B+Nm+9%3A18%2C+22&version=ESV) **as typology for** the "overshadow" in [Luke 1:35](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke+1%3A35&version=ESV) . The article has tables showing the elements of comparison between the Old and the New Ark of the Covenants, justifying the typology. I'm looking for the **Earliest** Church Father(s) writing or a council document that offers a similar typological interpretation, preferably more definitive (i.e. a doctrinal document) than the homiletical analogies of Athanasius (c. 296-373) or Gregory the Wonder Worker (c. 213-270) mentioned in the *Catholic.com* magazine article above. The answer must include a reference to the writing, or at least a quotation by a later Church Father.

Does there exist a typology between Moses and Jesus Christ? My friend is a Roman Catholic and said that Jesus is the new Moses, is this true and if so what biblical evidence exists for this?

Which authors developed the concepts of antitypes? Why did they choose that kind of language? Which denominations of Christianity think in terms of types and antitypes?

My question is for those who believe the Bible is the inpired word of God. I have been wondering what exactly the purpose of typology is in the Bible. The best answer I have thusfar is that it acts almost as a very long 'ruler' of sorts that enables the Bible student to acurately draw a very long but very straight line through the Bible 'connecting the dots' as it were, so that he/she may see the 'bigger picture'. Typology enlarges on themes that the Bible sometimes only gives limited details of at the time but later (some times only in the NT) elaborates on in more details. For example, the story of David and Goliath as a typology of the work that Christ came and did in our behalf as described by Paul in Rom. 5:18. By one act of disobedience Adam (king Saul) many were made sinners (all Israel remained as good as'defeated') until Christ (David) by one act of righteousness defeats Satan (Goliath) and because of His victory (David's) all men are made righteous (all Israel was victorious). Further: King Saul is mentioned as being 'head and shoulders higher than the rest' of the nation. So, he was like a 'giant' compared to the rest. He also stands as head (king) of Israel so too does Adam stand as head (king) of humanity. Goliath is described as wearing impregnable armour. So too does God describe Lucifer at the end of the book of Job (Leviathan). God says Leviathan is the king of the children of pride (How art thou fallen O Lucifer...) and that none but his (Lucifer's) maker can approach unto him (to destroy him). So too it is only Christ that could destroy Satan. David as symbol of Christ is quite lengthy so I will limit myself to the means he used against Goliath and the manner of his death. David destroys Goliath without sword or spear (not by might nor by power but by My Spirit) by throwing him with a stone against his head (bruising the serpent's head as promised in Gen 3) There is so much more but I hope you can see how many 'lines' start intersecting in just this one typology. In my mind typology used to be simply something beautiful that reminds me of the 'bigger picture' but the more I study them, the more they start looking like an elegantly detailed unification and harmonization of 'other things' I read of in various places in the Bible. Almost like a mosaic but each little tile in the mosaic is sometimes a mosaic in itself. I suppose that is why the humble romanesco broccoli will always be a tangible illustration to me of the principle behind typology - a small piece of it looks similar to the whole plant (aka self similarity, fractals, etc) Typology is very important to me but I am looking for a more concise answer as to it's purpose (why it is in the Bible). I am not that good with words (hence the long writing just to make a 'simple' illustration and explanation of what I mean so I can get to the point where I can try and make a simple statement as to its purpose). Anyone with wisdom to express this so simply so even a 'child' could understand? Thanks in advance. (And for all your time in reading all of this!

I've been reading the Epistles of St. Paul while doing Exodus 90, so kind of oddly going though both Exodus and the Pauline Epistles I've noticed some similarities: Moses and Paul were chosen by God for a particular mission, that's not exactly unique in the Bible, but they both: 1. Moses and Paul were 'citizens' of different nation 2. Moses and Paul killed someone and went into exile 3. Moses and Paul had problems speaking, but wrote eloquently 4. Moses and Paul encountered God and something happened to their faces Those are just four things I thought of off-hand and I'd like to know more. It's always seemed like New Testament characters needed more OT Types. And I'd like to know if there is anything to this notion.