is the image of the invisible Creator; that is, there are respects in which a resemblance-faint and distant it may be, but still a resemblance-exists between God and man. Not only 1 Cor. xi. 17, but all the anthropomorphic expressions of Scripture justify us in saying that man is on earth a visible type of God. This resemblance will hereafter be made more complete. We are now much more like Adam than Christ, ("We have borne the image of the earthy"); we shall then be like Christ, as much so as Adam himself, ("We shall bear the image of the heavenly," 1 Cor. xv. 49). Even now the assimilative process is going on in believers who are "changed into the same image from glory to glory" (2 Cor. iii. 18). In a high and mysterious sense, Christ is the image of God; surely not merely as we are by nature (1 Cor. xi. 7; comp. 2 Cor. iv. 4; Col. i. 15); nor merely as we are by grace (Col. iii. 10); nor even as we shall be in glory (1 Cor. xv. 49); but rather as in Heb. i. 2—4, where Christ is called the aπavyaoμa, or radiance of God's glory and the Xapakтnρ of God's hypostasis. The writer of the epistle just quoted (Heb. x. 1) has a singular expression in which he says the law had a shadow of good things to come, not the very image of the things. Some light is obtained in reference to this text at once by noticing its form in the Greek, "For the law having a shadow of the coming good things (Tv μeλóvTWV ἀγαθῶν), not the very image of the things,” etc. (τῶν πραγμάτων). It will be very apparent that the first neuter plural translated "good things to come," conveys a very different idea from the second, simply rendered "the things." This second neuter means things done, transactions, business, affairs, etc. We find it in the New Testament in the following texts (in addition to Heb. x. 1), but in not one of them does it bear the vague sense of the word "thing" in our language: Matt. xviii. 19; Luke i. 1; Acts v. 4; Rom. xvi. 2; 1 Cor. vi. 1; 2 Cor. vii. 11; 1 Thess. iv. 6; Heb. vi. 18 (where it is once more insufficiently rendered "things"); ii. 1; James iii. 16. In every instance it conveys or involves the thought of an event, occurrence, or transaction. We might call the altar, and the shewbread, the golden candlestick and the ephod, "things;" but should never call them πрауμára. We should reserve this term for the rites and ceremonies, etc., in which they were employed; and for the occupations of the priests who had the care of them. The law then contained within itself a shadow, a mere adumbration of future blessings, but it contained no "lively image and portraiture" of the transactions whereby they were eventually realised. The law foreshadowed and typified the future, but only partially and imperfectly. From all this it follows that the image may involve more than the symbol, and more even than the type. "Likeness" or oμolwμa; "similitude," or ouolwois; and óμolóτns, occur in the New Testament, as descriptions of various resemblances. In Rom. i. 23, we read that the heathens "changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of corruptible man." In Rom. v. 14, we read of "the likeness of the transgression of Adam;" in vi. 5, "the likeness" of the death of Christ is spoken of; in viii. 3, Christ is described as being sent in "the likeness" of sinful flesh; in Phil. ii. 7, He also appears "in the likeness" of men; and in Rev. ix. 7, "the shapes" of the locusts are those of horses prepared for battle. This word then always bears the meaning of resemblance, or similarity. The same is true of ouoórns in Heb. iv. 15; and vii. 15; and of ópolwois in James iii. 9. All these words, therefore, signify less than the word type, as we employ it. The Greek words already enumerated are all that it seems necessary to consider particularly as bearing most directly upon our enquiry. We might speak a little of their use in the writings of the fathers and the classics, and in the Septuagint, from all which we could gather some further illustrations, but for the present we defer this inquiry, because the New Testament use of the words may be pretty well ascertained from the New Testament itself. As it regards the Hebrew of the Old Testament, a little must be said, but a little must suffice. The number of words actually employed to describe material resemblances is considerable, but those for higher and typical resemblances are few. We begin with the word rendered Túros in the LXX., and which appears to stand for two Hebrew terms, and the former being usually translated "image" (the figure or stature of anything), and the latter properly a structure. According to some older and more recent etymologists, the word signifies a shadowing forth or adumbration in its original conception. Hence say they, it describes an image or a similitude whether corporeal or incorporeal. Without pledging ourselves to the derivation, we find the word in such passages as Gen. i. 27, for Adam's likeness to God; Gen. v. 3, for Seth's likeness to Adam, and in Amos v. 26, for an image or idol. The passage last referred to is the one quoted in Acts vii. 43, from the LXX.; in both places the Greek has rumos for Another Hebrew word rendered Túros is n . which as we have said, properly means a structure or building. It is not uncommon in the sense of "pattern," by which word, and "likeness," "similitude," "figure," and "form," it is translated in our version. With scarcely an exception, the word indicates a resemblance to be followed, or actually perceived between material objects; it describes the pattern of an altar, the figure of a man, etc. Partial exceptions occur in Psalm cvi. 20; cxliv. 12. It is very certain that we might render this word sometimes by "type," but not in what we must regard as its theological sense. The word "image," as represented by the eixóv of the LXX., may be rendered by several terms, viz., by, already noticed; b, only in Deut. iv. 16; Ezek. viii. 3, 5; 2 Chron. xxxiii. 7, 15; in all which cases nothing is meant but a visible image. A third word rendered by eixóv is por p, always put for graven or molten images, except in Judges iii. 19, 26, where it is perhaps correctly rendered "quarries." A fourth word is , which no doubt describes incorporeal resemblances as well as corporeal ones, Exod. xx. 4; Numb. xii. 8; Job iv. 16 (which is particularly noticeable, as is also the following, Psalm xvii. 15). But in every instance it seems that this word denotes a visible resemblance. In Hosea xiii. 2, the LXX. has eikóv where our present text has , but we may suppose the ancient reading was, as the Syriac version corresponds in sense with the Greek." We add a few other Hebrew words with their English equivalents in our version. , literally "judgment," apparently with reference to a determined form (Exod. xxvi. 30; 1 Kings vi. 38). , a word indicating "likeness," and rendered "fashion" in 2 Kings xvi. 10; on other occasions it is translated "image," appearance," etc. (Isa. xl. 18; Ezek. i. 5; Dan. x. 16). Comthe Greek of the texts referred to. pare ,"form" (Ezek. xliii. 11) in which verse the same sense appears to be borne by [perhaps for ,"a spectacle, example" (Nah. iii. 6). again]. 17, regarded as equivalent for an appearance, the Chaldee form of the preceding word. < The Authorized translation renders it, "according to their own understanding," and properly so as the text stands. It must be confessed that so far as our enquiries have gone, the Old Testament furnishes scarcely any words which actually describe imaginary or arbitrary resemblances. Comparisons are often expressed by verbs and nouns (e.g., in its different forms), and by particles, but when something material is to be compared with something spiritual, the language seems to be at a loss. We are aware that others will take a different view of the subject; but no matter, we think it will be very difficult to prove the Hebrew vocabulary rich in words descriptive of typical relations. Very often, indeed, where a modern language would institute a comparison between two objects, analogous in some respects, but utterly dissimilar in others, the Hebrew writers unhesitatingly call the one by the name of the other. One or two examples may do as well as a thousand: "Judah is a lion's whelp; "Issachar is a strong ass;" "Naphtali is a hind let loose;" "Joseph is a fruitful bough" (Gen. xlix. 9, 14, 21, 22). Jacob no more meant this literally than he meant to predict that Dan would be a serpent (ver. 17). Comparisons of course occur especially in the prophetical and poetical books (Hosea vi. 4; xiii. 3; xiv. 5-8). It is not our intention to say that the Hebrews had no words which could have been employed to set forth the higher typical and symbolical relations, but simply to say that they did not commonly so use the words they had. The Greeks habitually transferred words expressive of visible, tangible, or physical relations, into the domain of thought, and made them serve for intellectual conceptions more or less analogous. The flexibility and elasticity of their language corresponded with the quickness of their perceptions, and with the poetic cast of their minds. There has been some misunderstanding in connection with this general view of the subject. It is well known that the Saviour's phraseology, "This is my body-this is my blood," has been explained by the erroneous statement that the Syriac, which is radically the same as the Hebrew, has no words to say, "This is a type, figure, etc., of my body," or "this resembles my body." There is poverty in this respect in these languages, but not by any means to the extent supposed. The true explanation appears to be in this, that metaphors were more frequent than comparisons, and that symbols were clothed in the language of identification. And the explanation of this again must be sought in mental and psychological peculiarities. Abundant as were the types of the law, and the symbols and metaphors of the whole Hebrew Scriptures, by a singular inconsistency the popular mind often understood them literally. For example, in Mal. iv. 5, " Behold, I will send you Elijah the pro phet," was regarded as a literal declaration that Elijah would return, as is indicated by several passages of the New Testament. This literal explanation was imported into the Christian Church, and was perpetuated among the Jews. In like manner, the highly figurative language of the prophets foretelling the Messiah as a king, and describing his kingdom by material images, has been understood of a temporal king and a temporal kingdom. Sometimes these figurative predictions have been understood partly literally and partly figuratively, without any just discrimination. Instances of this occur in the Messianic prophecies, into several of which the name of David is introduced as that of the future king (Isa. lv. 3, 4; Jer. xxx. 9; Ezek. xxxiv. 23; Xxxvii. 24; Hosea iii. 5, etc.). Of course David is no more personally meant in such texts than Jacob in Isa. xl. 27, and like passages, where Jacob is put for his descendants. The common explanation is that for David we must read Messiah, and as a corollary, that David was a type of the Messiah, and this brings us back to the point from which we started. For David we must read Messiah. To some extent this is true, but we fall into error if we stop at this substitution. The passages where the name of David comes in symbolically are some of them so figurative throughout, that they must be viewed as allegorical or symbolical predictions, and must be wholly interpreted on that principle. The prediction in Ezekiel (chap. xxxiv.) is of this kind. The people of God are his flock, and their shepherds have been unfaithful and shall be punished; but the flock shall be cared for, and no less honoured name than that of David shall be borne by its shepherd. David, therefore, shall be their shepherd and their prince. What is the mystery underlying this allegory? That God's people would be preserved through all dangers and changes, and come to honour and happiness; that He who should be at their head to rule, guide, feed, and protect them, would in some respects be like David the shepherd king of Israel, the founder of Judah's throne. The prediction, therefore, reaches in its significance to the Gospel dispensation with Christ as the head of his church, of the tribe of Judah, and king of the true Israel. Now was David a TYPE of the Messiah? Perhaps in a secondary sense he was, but not in the true and full significance usually attached to the term in our day. In other words, David was officially a type of Christ, rather than personally. Analogies may be traced between his history and that of Jesus, but contrasts are at least as numerous as resemblances, so numerous in fact that great caution is required in stating the supposed typical relations. The Israelitish religion and polity |