Perhaps it was here that Peter’s mind was opened to see that when Noah and the seven other members of his family in the ark “were saved through water” this was a foreshadowing of “the antitype of baptism which saves you now” (1 Peter 3.21). If the ‘type’ is the stamp, the ‘antitype’ is the impression it makes; if the ‘type’ is the mould, the ‘antitype’ is the artefact that is cast. The Greek preposition ‘anti’ can mean either ‘instead of’ or ‘against’ – worth remembering when considering the meaning of ‘the antichrist’; it should not be confused with the Latin ‘ante’, meaning ‘before’ (as in a.m.). In ‘antitupos’, its force is not so much ‘against’ as ‘corresponding to’, so that an antitype is the ‘counterpart’ or ‘opposite’ number’ of a type. My lexicon explains it as “something in the Messianic times which answers to the type prefiguring it in the OT”, and then cites our present verse, elucidating it perfectly. The writer to the Hebrews, however, does not seem to have read my lexicon (or perhaps vice versa!), for our final example, the only other occurrence of ‘antitupos’ in the NT, uses it the other way round. We looked earlier, in our study of ‘hupodeigma’, at Hebrews 9.23, which says that “the outlines of the heavenly sanctuary had to be purified by blood sacrifices, but the heavenly sanctuary itself by better sacrifices than these”. Clearly the sacrifice of Jesus, the Lamb of God, is the “better sacrifice”, but there are two other contrasts set up here: the ‘outline’, or perhaps ‘imitation’ sanctuary on earth, and the true sanctuary in heaven. The next verse restates these antitheses in slightly different terms: “For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made by human hands, the ‘antitype’ of the true sanctuary, but he entered heaven itself, so that he now appears before the face of God on our behalf”. Here it is the OT, man-made, sanctuary which is the antitype, and the heavenly sanctuary the ‘type’. This usage may not be in accordance with Peter’s (or with my lexicon), but it is at least self-consistent, for the writer has already (in 8.5) shown that Moses built the Tabernacle in accordance with the ‘tupos’ shown to him on Mount Sinai.
Friday, 16 December 2011
SKENE 8 (d): 'antitupos'
Perhaps it was here that Peter’s mind was opened to see that when Noah and the seven other members of his family in the ark “were saved through water” this was a foreshadowing of “the antitype of baptism which saves you now” (1 Peter 3.21). If the ‘type’ is the stamp, the ‘antitype’ is the impression it makes; if the ‘type’ is the mould, the ‘antitype’ is the artefact that is cast. The Greek preposition ‘anti’ can mean either ‘instead of’ or ‘against’ – worth remembering when considering the meaning of ‘the antichrist’; it should not be confused with the Latin ‘ante’, meaning ‘before’ (as in a.m.). In ‘antitupos’, its force is not so much ‘against’ as ‘corresponding to’, so that an antitype is the ‘counterpart’ or ‘opposite’ number’ of a type. My lexicon explains it as “something in the Messianic times which answers to the type prefiguring it in the OT”, and then cites our present verse, elucidating it perfectly. The writer to the Hebrews, however, does not seem to have read my lexicon (or perhaps vice versa!), for our final example, the only other occurrence of ‘antitupos’ in the NT, uses it the other way round. We looked earlier, in our study of ‘hupodeigma’, at Hebrews 9.23, which says that “the outlines of the heavenly sanctuary had to be purified by blood sacrifices, but the heavenly sanctuary itself by better sacrifices than these”. Clearly the sacrifice of Jesus, the Lamb of God, is the “better sacrifice”, but there are two other contrasts set up here: the ‘outline’, or perhaps ‘imitation’ sanctuary on earth, and the true sanctuary in heaven. The next verse restates these antitheses in slightly different terms: “For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made by human hands, the ‘antitype’ of the true sanctuary, but he entered heaven itself, so that he now appears before the face of God on our behalf”. Here it is the OT, man-made, sanctuary which is the antitype, and the heavenly sanctuary the ‘type’. This usage may not be in accordance with Peter’s (or with my lexicon), but it is at least self-consistent, for the writer has already (in 8.5) shown that Moses built the Tabernacle in accordance with the ‘tupos’ shown to him on Mount Sinai.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment