Christ in the Old Testament

Christ in the Road to Emmaus and the Hermeneutic of the Old Testament

Well, good evening everyone. We are back and this is class 7 of the survey of the Old Testament. Now, if you would, open up your Bibles. We don't always begin with a Bible reading, but tonight we're going to begin with our Bibles open to Luke chapter 24.

And the subject of tonight's lecture is Christ in the Old Testament. And I will say this, since we began the survey of the Old Testament, this has been the one lesson that I have looked forward to the most.

If you go back through the last six weeks, we have gone through each one of the books of the Old Testament. We have done a quick survey of each book, who wrote it, who it was written to, about when was it written, and so on.

But tonight we're going to be looking at the Old Testament with a different lens. Tonight we're going to be looking at the Old Testament through the lens of the New Testament. And so we're going to begin by reading Luke chapter 24, verses 13 to 27.

This is the account on the road to Emmaus after the resurrection of Jesus. That very day, two of them were going to a village named Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem. And they were talking with each other about all these things that had happened.

And while they were talking and discussing together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them. But their eyes were kept from recognizing him. And he said to them, What is this conversation that you are holding with each other as you walk?

And they stood still, looking sad. Then one of them, named Cleopas, answered, Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened here in these days? And he said to them, What things?

And they said to him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, a man who was a prophet, mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death and crucified him.

But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and beside all this, it is now the third day since these things happened. Moreover, some women of our company amazed us. They were at the tomb early in the morning, and when they did not find his body, they came back saying that they had even seen a vision of angels who said that he was alive.

Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see. And he said to them, O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all the prophets have spoken, was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?

And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. May God add his blessing to the reading of his word. In this narrative, Jesus comes alongside two of his disciples, and in the midst of the conversation, when they were kept from seeing who he was, he makes a statement that reverberates down through the ages.

He says that it was necessary that he should suffer. It was necessary that these things should happen. And then it says why it was necessary. Because these things had been foretold in the Old Testament scriptures.

It was necessary that he should suffer. And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. Now, why does it focus on Moses? Because Moses takes us back to the earliest part of the Old Testament.

It shows us that the words of Jesus Christ, the words about Jesus Christ, find their way not only in the later prophets, which we know they're there, we talked about those, but the words about Jesus Christ take us all the way back to the very beginning of the Bible.

And the goal of this lecture is to demonstrate the cohesion in God's word by examining the prefigured person and work of Christ found in the Old Testament scriptures. So that's the goal for tonight. And as I was saying to some of you before the class started, this is one of my favorite subjects to teach about, and this is one of my favorite subjects to study, and I am really nervous that an hour and a half is not even going to give me an opportunity to really do justice to the subject.

But as you've probably seen in the last several weeks, when I get going, I can go pretty quick. But if I talk quick, you have to listen quick. So stay with me tonight. We have a lot of ground to cover.

It is obvious that the Bible uses various methods in the Old Testament to point us to important truths in the New Testament. Some have said that the Old Testament is the Word of God concealed and the New Testament is the Word of God revealed.

I believe it was Augustine who said that. It was concealed in the Old Testament, revealed in the New. Some have said the Old Testament is the Word of God enfolded and the New Testament is the Word of God unfolded.

While the Old Testament has value in and of itself to express truth about God and His people Israel, the fulfillment of that meaning is found not in the Old Testament, but in the New. Some have claimed that that's not the case.

In fact, some Christians will tell you that it's wrong to read the New Testament back into the Old Testament. I've even heard some go as far as saying that almost none of the Old Testament is really about Jesus when it is taken in its historic context.

Even passages which are often always pointed to Jesus, like Isaiah 53, have been questioned by some as saying, no, these aren't really about Jesus. And certainly, one of the things that we want to be careful to do is we don't want to read into the Bible something that is not there.

But it is true that we have to be fair, but at the same time we have to understand that the New Testament tells us that Christ is in the Old Testament. So it isn't as if we're just coming up with this on our own.

It's not as if this was just some idea that someone had a few hundred years ago. Well, hey, we can find Christ in the Old Testament if we just go look hard enough and uncover a few rocks or look through a few things.

It's Jesus Himself who said, beginning with Moses, He showed them that He was talked about in the Old Testament. It should always be remembered that the ultimate author of Scripture is the Holy Spirit of God.

And therefore, when we talk about the intent of the author, we can talk about the intent of Moses and his audience, we can talk about the intent of Isaiah and his audience, and we can talk about the intent of David or any of the other Old Testament writers.

But the ultimate author, the ultimate superior author of the Bible is the Holy Spirit. And therefore, we have to not only consider the intention of David or the intention of Moses or the intention of Isaiah, we also have to consider the intention of the Holy Spirit of God because He is superintending the writing for a grander purpose than is often recognized in a cursory reading of the text.

Christotelic and Christocentric Hermeneutics

Now, I want to pull out my board because I can't work without my board. I want to compare two Old Testament hermeneutical methods with you that I think are important for you to know. And I did give you a handout for this.

So as you came in, you should have been given a handout. There are two schools of thought when it comes to interpreting Jesus in the Old Testament. First is referred to as Christotelic.

Christotelic.

The second is referred to as Christocentric. Christotelic and Christocentric. Now, in your handout, you'll notice that it says what is the difference between Christocentric and Christotelic hermeneutic.

I'm not going to read this whole sheet to you. I had Ms. Pat make copies, and Ms. Pat, thank you. She's always the one who does that for us, so everyone remember to thank her. This handout is for you to take and read.

It goes along with tonight's lesson, but I'm not going to take the time to read it to you because I know that you're able to read on your own. But basically what I'm going to do is give you a very quick overview of what the distinction is between Christotelic hermeneutic and Christocentric hermeneutic.

Christotelic comes from the Greek word telos. Well, obviously the word Christ. Christ is in both of them, so you understand Christ is there. But the word telos. Telos means purpose or goal. Purpose or goal.

I better understand. Now, centric means centered or focused upon. So I don't even think I need to write that. I think you know that. So the distinction is between those who would say, yes, the Messiah is the goal of the Old Testament, but he's not the focus.

He's the end, but he's not on every page. That's the Christotelic view. You understand? That's the view that would say when we read Isaiah 53, it's not really about Jesus. It's about Israel. Yes, Jesus is the ultimate goal of the Old Testament.

He's the ultimate purpose of the Old Testament, but he's not the focus of every page. He's not the focus of every passage. I will tell you, just so you know, and that there is no bones about it. I come from the school of Christocentric, not Christotelic, because I believe that not only is Christ the goal of the Old Testament, I believe that he is spoken about specifically in the Old Testament, and it is as I believe Spurgeon said, you cannot cut the Bible anywhere where it does not bleed the blood of Christ.

And so I would say that the entire Bible has its center in Christ, not just its goal. Now, there are those who would argue against that. There are those who would, and I've had conversations where people tell me I'm flat out wrong.

I will tell you this. I'm willing to have a debate, a conversation about it if you feel like I'm wrong, but I'm going to make my case for a moment as to why I believe in Christocentricity. The imponents of the Christocentric view say that we should not see Jesus as the focus of the Old Testament because this would cause us to miss the original authorial intent of the passages.

But as I already stated, if the Holy Spirit is the author, ultimately, I want to know His authorial intent more than I concern myself about Moses or Isaiah or David or anyone else. I believe Christocentric interpretation is in line with the New Testament because when I read the Apostle Paul, it says that he went about preaching Jesus and the Bible he was using was the Old Testament.

Remember what he says. I knew nothing among you except what? Christ and Him crucified. Remember what he said. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for teaching, for correction, for rebuke, and for training in righteousness.

When he said that, he was talking about the Old Testament, but yet it was enough. The Old Testament was sufficient to teach about Christ. Therefore, I do not think that the Old Testament simply looks forward to the goal of the Messiah.

I believe that the Messiah can be exegeted from the Old Testament. Properly exegeted. He told Timothy in 2 Timothy 3 and chapter 4, 2, he said, Preach the Word. The Word was the Old Testament. For the early church, it was the only Bible they had.

And yet, they were a Christian church. On the road to Emmaus, Jesus models that expositional approach of the Old Testament, that Christological approach rather, when it says, He interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.

Jesus' key statement was this. Everything, listen to this from Luke chapter 24, verse 44. Everything written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled. Everything written about Me in Moses and the Psalms and the Prophets must be fulfilled.

Jesus is telling us He's there. It's not just looking forward to Him. He's there. It's about Him. I want to quote Graham Goldsworthy. And this is from the book Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics. And he says this.

The hermeneutical question about the whole Bible correlates with this question. What do you think of Christ? The hermeneutical center of the Bible is therefore Jesus and His being and His saving acts.

The Jesus of the Gospel. We can say that while not all Scripture is the Gospel, all Scripture is related to the Gospel. That is its center. The Bible makes a very radical idea inescapable. Not only is the Gospel the interpretive norm for the whole Bible, but there is an important sense in which Jesus Christ is the mediator of the meaning of everything that exists.

In other words, the Gospel is the hermeneutical norm for the whole of reality. Everything is to be interpreted through Christ. People say you can't interpret the Bible through the lens of Jesus. I say I can't interpret it any other way.

If I'm going to put on an interpretive pair of glasses that's going to help me understand the Bible, Jesus is those glasses. So I make no shame and I stand upon the truth that I believe in Christocentricity.

Do I believe these people are heretics? No, but I do believe they're getting it wrong. And I'll tell you often who falls into this camp. If you remember a few weeks ago I talked about dispensational and covenant theology.

Dispensationalism. And this is a relatively recent argument that has been really hard hitting because they make the argument that they're interpreting everything literally. And they say a Christotelic view is the literal view.

And a Christocentric view is the figurative view. Well one, I would disagree with that. But also, I would say this. The reason why they're so bent on holding to such a crass, and it is often a crass literalism, is because they have to fit their eschatological presuppositions into the text.

And therefore, they demand that you use this hermeneutic. So, again, I think this is the right way. I realize, and I have friends who would tell me this is the right way. If you disagree with me, I'm not going to call you a heretic.

But I won't agree with you, just so you know. Alright, so tonight we're going to, using the Christocentric method, using Christ as the center of the whole Bible, the focus of the whole Bible, we are going to look at three ways that we can see Christ clearly in the Old Testament.

The first, and you can write these down, it's three headings for tonight's lesson. First, we're going to look at the pre-incarnate appearances of Christ. The pre-incarnate appearances. I'll write that out for you.

So, the pre-incarnate appearances of Christ. Then we are going to look at the prophetic utterances about Christ. The prophetic utterances about Christ. And then we are going to look at the types and shadows of Christ.

The types and shadows. So that's our three-fold lesson for tonight. The pre-incarnate appearances, the prophetic utterances, and the types and shadows. You guys ready? Alright, so we will look first at the pre-incarnate appearances.

Pre-Incarnate Appearances of Christ

The Bible is very clear that Jesus Christ pre-existed Bethlehem. John 1, verse 1 says, In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. So we don't have to doubt whether or not Jesus Christ pre-existed Bethlehem.

In fact, even the Jehovah's Witnesses, who deny that Jesus is fully divine, at least will admit that He pre-existed Bethlehem. Because you just can't get around it. The Bible doesn't allow for any other option.

Jesus clearly pre-existed Bethlehem. He said in John 8, verse 58, Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am. Not only did He use the divine name to describe Himself, I am, but He also said, before Abraham was.

Indicating some 2 ,000 years before He existed. So we have Jesus' confession that He existed before His birth in Bethlehem. It's also clear that no one has seen God the Father. This one is a little more difficult.

But it is true. John 1, verse 18 tells us, No one has ever seen God. Remember that passage? John 1, verse 18. No one has ever seen God. But that isn't where it stops. It says, no one has ever seen God.

The only God who is at the Father's side. He has made Him known. Isn't that interesting? It says, no one has ever seen God. The only God who is at the Father's side. He has made Him known. Makes it sound like there are two gods.

But yet, if you understand the doctrine of the Trinity, you'll know that there is one God. But that one God, that being or essence of God, is shared by three persons. And when Jesus talks about God, He's referring to the Father.

When Jesus uses the term Father, He's referring to God. And those are interchangeable language. And therefore, when we see in the New Testament, no one has ever seen God, but God has made Him known. We know we're talking about God the Father has not been seen, but God the Son has been seen.

And therefore, we can go through the Old Testament, and we can see those places where God is seen, and we can know that that is an example of someone seeing a pre-incarnate Jesus Christ. How many of you have ever heard the term theophany?

Okay, a theophany is a reference to an appearance of God in physical form. The burning bush was a reference to God in physical form. The shakana glory cloud of God was an example of what we would call a theophany.

The theophanies are throughout the Old Testament. But we also use the term Christophany. And a Christophany, I think, often is the better term to use. For instance, in Genesis chapter 18, when it says, the Lord came and visited Abram under the oak trees at Mamre.

And it says He had two people with Him, which we know were angels. And those angels were the ones that would go to Sodom, and there would rain down fire and brimstone on Sodom. And you know what the Bible says?

It says the Lord was there, and the Lord was raining down fire from heaven. Isn't that an interesting reality? That we see the Lord in heaven, and the Lord standing next to Abram. But who is the Lord standing next to Abram?

Can it not be, and should it not be, seen as the Lord Jesus Christ? I believe it should. This is why I believe Jesus is able to confidently say, Abraham longed to see my day, because he knew who I was.

One of the clearest examples of this is in Isaiah chapter 6. The Bible says in Isaiah 6, that Isaiah went to the temple, and he saw the Lord seated on His throne. And the train of His robe filled the temple.

And the seraphim were surrounding Him, saying, Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God Almighty. And the whole earth is filled with His glory. You see, if John chapter 1 .18 says no one has ever seen God, and you go back and read Isaiah 6, and it says Isaiah saw the Lord seated upon His throne, either the Bible is contradicting itself, or we find a place where the Trinity must be true.

You see, the Trinity is not optional. The Trinity is not some Johnny-come-lately theological idea. This is why it is the very first ecumenical council of the church that was held in AD 325. It was not about the subject of eschatology, and whether or not you were an amillennialist or a premillennialist.

It was not about the subject of whether or not you should speak in tongues. It wasn't about the subject of whether or not you should have women pastors. The first ecumenical council was on the subject of who is Jesus.

The question. And it wasn't as if the church didn't know, but a heretic had arisen within the church. Arius, who came and said, Jesus is not fully divine. And he was not only excommunicated as a heretic, but he was universally denounced by the bishops of Nicaea.

Because the universal understanding of Christ was not only that he was man, but that he was God-man. That he was fully divine. So, kind of got off track there a little bit. Let us go back. There are other passages where the Lord appears, and we can assume that it is Jesus.

I've already mentioned Genesis 18. The Lord appeared to him at the Oaks of Mamre. Genesis 19. The Lord raided down Sodom and Gomorrah, sulfur and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah. And there's another passage that some believe is a pre-incarnate Jesus.

And I take a little issue with this, but the person Melchizedek. Some people believe Melchizedek is a pre-incarnate visitation of Jesus. I don't hold that view, but I don't think it's not a hill to die on for me.

If you believe Melchizedek is a pre-incarnate Jesus, that's fine. The reason a lot of people believe that is because in the book of Hebrews, it says he did not have a mother or father. Therefore, he would have been a supernatural being.

And therefore, they say he's supernatural. However, in the book of Hebrews, when it references Melchizedek not having a mother and father, it doesn't mean he didn't have a mother and father. What it means is he didn't have a lineage by which he would be a priest.

His priesthood was granted by God, not through a family line. And so you have to understand what the writer of Hebrews is saying. However, if you take the position that Melchizedek is a pre-existent visitation of Jesus, that's fine.

I think it's possible. It's just not where I'm at personally. But again, I could be wrong. It's one of those times where when I preach it, and I will probably two years from now, because I've been in Genesis for almost a year and I'm still in chapter two.

But when I finally do get to Genesis 18, I'll explain both sides of the argument and explain why I hold to the position that I do. But there are several places throughout the Old Testament. There are several references in the Old Testament, and I don't want to spend a lot of time on this, and this can create some confusion.

So I'm going to make it very clear. There are some references in the Old Testament to a figure known as the angel of the Lord. Not an angel, but the angel of the Lord. And you remember what the word angel simply means?

Messenger. And oftentimes, the angel of the Lord exercises a certain type of divine authority whereby many people have equated that with a pre-incarnate visitation of Christ. Could it be? Possibly. I think it's likely, actually, in some of the passages that it's likely Christ.

But that, again, is just something for you to consider. When you come across the angel of the Lord, look at that person. Look at what the narrative says about that person when you're reading. What authority is he exercising?

Is he coming in the place of Yahweh as his messenger, or is he speaking as Yahweh? That's the key. And when he speaks as Yahweh, think of the burning bush. He spoke as God. This is why we say it wasn't an angel, but it was God speaking in the burning bush.

Take your shoes upon your feet, for the land upon which you stand is holy ground. The Lord your God is visiting you in this spot. So those are examples of what we would call theophanies and christophanies.

And I tend to believe that there are many more christophanies than there are theophanies. I would say just about all of them would be Christ. Any questions about the pre-incarnate appearances before we move to the prophetic utterances?

Good.

I must be doing a fantastic job if nobody has any questions.

All right.

Prophetic Utterances About Christ

Under prophetic utterances, I have given you a handout. If you would please take that handout out. That's not redundant. What is a prophetic utterance? A prophetic utterance is when a prophecy is made about something that will happen, and a messianic prophecy is when a prophecy is made specifically about the coming of Jesus, the Messiah.

In this, you have 44 on this page. It's a front and back page that I gave you. There are 44 messianic prophecies. Some of them are very specific, and I will readily admit that some of them are less specific.

Some might even say they're vague. I don't like to use the word vague, but some of them are not as specific as the others. For instance, the very first one on the list is Messiah would be born of a woman.

You say, well, that doesn't really narrow it down since everybody's born of a woman. You might say that's not much of a prophecy, but if you understand Genesis 3 .15 that it's referencing as the first time there's a promise of a child who would crush the head of the serpent, and that child would be born of woman.

And you know that in Galatians, one of the points that is made about Jesus that He was born of woman, born under the law, that He would redeem those who are under the law. You remember that in Galatians?

So you understand the connection there is not just that He's born of a woman. Everybody's born of a woman. But He is specifically the promise to the first woman, Eve, that she would ultimately, in her line, have a child who would give the devil his due.

So there's more to it than just born of a woman. And also, when you think about this idea of born of a woman, Jesus has the unique qualification of being born of only a woman. Because there is no father, earthly father, the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, and there was a divine conception and a virgin birth.

So like I said, if you see it and it looks a little vague, there might be more to it if you look a little further. But there are 44 on here. Some of the ones I think are really very important are ones like number two, that He would be born in Bethlehem.

Because the New Testament goes through a lot of trouble to tell us how He was born in Bethlehem. Because He was not from Bethlehem. His family line was from Bethlehem because they were of the house of David, but He had to go back there because of the decree of Caesar.

Therefore, there was this entire world event that had to come about to bring Him back to this place. The third one, He was born of a virgin. Very important theological significance there. Not only that it was a miracle that He was born of a virgin, but that He was born without the...

I'm going to say this because I believe it. He was born without the taint of original sin. The original sin taint which comes from our father Adam, I do not believe Jesus was born with that same taint because Jesus is without sin.

And therefore, the virgin birth, I believe, contributed to that. And somebody says, well, does that mean that you believe that the sin is passed on through the Father? I think it's possible because it's a conjecture.

But everybody else has got a daddy and everybody else has got a sin nature. Jesus did not have an earthly father and He didn't have a sin nature. Therefore, there's a conclusion that can be drawn. It's not a necessary, it's an inference.

I'm inferring based on everybody else has a sin nature, everybody else has a father, Jesus doesn't have an earthly father, Jesus doesn't have a sin nature, therefore, the sin nature. Many theologians have seen the sin nature as being passed through the Father.

Make sense? So, there are many more on here. He'd come from the line of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, from the tribe of Judah. He'd be on David's throne. They're all here and I want to encourage you to take this.

Now, if you have the books, if you have Rose Book of Charts, Maps and Timelines, I couldn't photocopy this for you because there's like six pages. But starting on page 129, there's a hundred messianic prophecies.

So, I gave you 44 because I knew not everybody had this book. But if you have this book, you've got 56 more. 66 more. 66 more.

Okay, sorry.

Really bad at math. So, you've got more if you have this book. I'm going to edit that part out. If you have the Zondervan Old Testament Charts, which I recommended that you get. You didn't have to get it.

You didn't have to get anything extra. But if you did, page 107 gives Messiah in the Old Testament as high priest, king of Israel, and how he is represented by certain other individuals such as the patriarchs, Cyrus, Eliab, and then general references to him being the king of Israel.

This one's a little more specific. It doesn't have as many references, but it's more specific references. So, if you have this, you can look that up as well. It's page 107. Now, before we move away from the prophetic utterances, I want to make a note about something that happened to me several years ago.

Because I would say the greatest prophetic utterance regarding Jesus Christ is Isaiah 53. In fact, find your way there if you would. And I want to tell a story about this. Several years ago, a woman came to my office after a sermon.

Very nice lady. But I could tell she was confused. She was having difficulty with what was said. You know, and she just wanted some answers. And so, I invited her to come sit in my office and she came and sat down in my office and we began to talk.

And she said, I just don't know. I just don't know if I can believe the Bible's true. I was thankful for her honesty. A lot of people have trouble believing what the Bible says and won't be honest about it.

At least she was honest. So, I consoled her in that. I said, you know, I understand the Bible. The Bible makes big claims and takes big faith because the Bible makes big statements about where we came from, what life's all about, where we're going.

The most important things in life are in the Bible. And our eternity is staked on whether or not the Bible's true. This is not a small question. And so, I could have went several directions whether I could have talked about what's your standard for good and bad?

Do you believe God exists? I could have taken several different apologetic approaches. But for whatever reason that day, I had this overwhelmed idea. I said, you know what I want to do? I want to read something to you.

And I want you to tell me who this is about. He was despised and rejected of men. A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And as one from whom men hid their eyes, he was despised and we esteemed him not.

Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows. Yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. Upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace and with his stripes we are healed.

All we like sheep have gone astray. We have turned everyone to his own way. And the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and he was afflicted. Yet he opened not his mouth, like a lamb that is led to the slaughter and like a sheep that is before its shearers is silenced.

So he opened not his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And as for his generation who considered that he was cut off from the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people.

And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death. Although he had done no violence and there was no deceit in his mouth, yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him. He has put him to grief.

When his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring. He shall prolong his days. The will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. Out of the anguish of his soul he shall be satisfied. By his knowledge shall the righteous one my servant make many to be accounted righteous.

And he shall bear their iniquities. I said, ma 'am, who is this about? And she said, oh, that's about Jesus. I said, this was written 700 years before Jesus was ever born. Old Testament prophecy is one of the clearest testimonies.

To the divinity of the source of scripture. It tells us things that will happen. And they did happen hundreds of years before they ever came to be. And Isaiah 53 is one of those passages that is simply to me without controversy.

This is about Jesus. Even people who don't know and don't believe they hear those words, that's Jesus. And it is. So prophetic utterances. That is the second thing. Now, the third thing, and the thing that we're gonna spend more time than we have on the first two, probably the rest of tonight,.

Types and Shadows of Christ

Is types and shadows.

Types and shadows. Certainly we see Jesus present in the Old Testament and pre-incarnate appearances. Certainly we see Jesus spoken of in prophecy. But the place we see Jesus the most is in types and shadows.

Typology, and yes, that is a word. I didn't make it up. Typology is a field of study in scripture which studies Old Testament texts which prefigure something that happened in the New Testament. A type will have a corresponding anti-type.

I want to go ahead and apologize for my daughter's artwork. I'm gonna erase this quickly.

Yes, she's the artist.

So we have the word type, type and anti-type. A type is something that represents an anti-type. It represents something else, and the anti-type is that which is represented. In the book of Hebrews, the word is shadow.

We're gonna get to that more in a moment, types and shadows. But it is often seen in using the construction, the linguistic construction of as and so.

As and so.

A-S and S-O. Give you an example. 1 Corinthians 15, 22. As in Adam all die, so in Christ all are made alive. Matthew 24, 37. As the days of Noah were, so shall be the days of the coming of the Son of Man.

As and so. John 3, 14. As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so shall the Son of Man be lifted up. As and so. Matthew 12, 40. As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of Man be three nights and three days in the belly of the earth.