WT typology and the NT

by Narkissos 18 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Narkissos

  This is a question that came to my mind from a couple of recent threads.

  We are all familiar with the traditional WT use of typology on OT material (you know, OT characters and events being "types" of modern-day WT features and history, the latter being "antitypes" of the former). I'm not sure whether this interpretive method has been strictly restricted to OT texts (in fact I don't think so, because I doubt there has been much methodological thinking about it), but it seems to me that it has been only rarely applied to the NT. And I am wondering why. Is it a basically Protestant attitude which considers the NT as God's "last word" as it were (and then needs to misinterpret it to come up with anything new), or the fear of marking themselves as post- or neo-Christians (rather than "simply true Christians") if they did?

  In any case that would solve a number of problems (tip to the GB ;)). No need to avoid the obvious contextual meaning of texts if you can allow for a typological sense in addition to it. For instance, they could admit that the "other sheep" were Gentiles but now the whole "Jew/Gentile" pattern applies to two classes of Christians in the "last days". And from this perspective a number of other texts which are explicitly about the Jew/Gentile distinction (e.g. Colossians-Ephesians) would become available and relevant to the "two class" system (which they are not so far: waste of prooftexts!). Similarly the GB could define themselves as "antitypical" apostles, with whatever nuance to avoid the hint of "apostolic succession" in a Catholic, Orthodox or Neo-Apostolic sense). The "Faithful and Discreet Slave" (if they wish to maintain the parable as a "prophecy") could be identified with the 1st-century (Jewish!) apostles, and the "domestics" to all 1st-century Christians; and now to the relationship between the GB and all JWs ("anointed" or not).

  It seems so convenient (and so much closer to what the average JW actually understands) that I can't help thinking they have already considered this solution. What retains them from opting for it? The only problem I can see is the unique role of Jesus, but they can get around it with the distinction of first and second coming, or something like their idea of "dual fulfillment" of the Olivet discourse for instance (end of the Jewish / global "systems of things").

  So what do you think? Silly idea or the potential "third breath" of WT theology?
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  Narkissos

  I believe that most JW's are not aware of the role typology plays into the overall guiding philosophy of the Governing Body. These days anyway. I understand that old time JW's were much more "up" on it, but as time progressed (and perhaps, esp since 1975 imo) the role has been less and less on WT (read: Fred Franz) typology.

  I have stated this ad nauseam, but Gilead is essentially a typology class applied to the WTBTS, the first 3 Presidents, and the GB since 1976.

  The catch phrase for this typology is a "study of the deeper things", which is in actuality, an invitation to study WT publications that feature the type parallels applied to the Governing Body. It makes one "mature" if you study, understand, and accept it.

  What you propose is interesting, and I never have quite thought of it that way. At first glance though, there is no need for them to discard the typologist approach to their dogma.

  If they need to change, it will have to come from the bible as the source. (crazy interpretations aside.)

  The fact that there has been limited typological associations with the NT and the GB opens up to them a wealth of scripture not previously mined. I don't know why they haven't till this point tried it, but its the one portion that is open to them.

  Who knows what or how the GB intends to respond to the challenges they face. I don't think what you opine about here is out of the realm of possibility.
• 

  DNCall

  They may well have thought along the lines of what you present. However, from my perspective, it seems that rather than try to shore up the intellectual side of things, they are more focused on stopping the bleeding of membership. There is now at least one GB member who wants to emphasize the emotional side so as to contain this problem.

  Under his supervision, the new songbook has been designed to appeal more to emotion and less to intellect. After all, songs are an emotional vehicle--not so much an intellectual one. The new songs are written in a number of cases by professional musicians and contain lyrics with greater emotional appeal. This year's drama reflects the emotional approach as well. It is telling that the majority of the new material released or announced at the District Convention emanates from the audio/video department.

  Whether this approach is successful remains to be seen. Any time you try to amp up the emotion, unless you really know what you're doing, you run the risk of also amping up what I call the "cheese factor".

  Whether shoring up intellect or emotion, the reality is that time is against them. When I was still associating three years ago, the thing you always heard was "the friends are tired." Solomon had it right: "Expectation postponed is making the heart sick."
• 

  neverendingjourney

  That's an interesting analysis. It's fun to speculate how the WT might shore up their tangled mess of incomprehensible and out-of-date doctrines, but the real question is: Does the WT have any interest in doing so?

  I tend to think they do not. First of all, many oldtimers would not be able to stomach the disappointment. It's kind of like the difference in suspecting that your wife is cheating on you versus having her confess it to you. Many JWs can live with the (suppressed) understanding that the WT has failed them, but seeing it in print via the wholesale changes you describe (an implicit recognition that their prior understanding was wrong) might be too much for them to bear. Many on this forum were awakened by the 1995 and 2008 changes in the "generation" teaching. More departures would certainly follow subsequent modifications.

  Also, today's JWs don't seem to be interested in doctrine all that much. Their religion is a social club, a way of life that they were either born into or recruited to join. Their association with the group has more to do with loyalty and the sociological benefits derived from the organization than anything else. Most people don't need solid, logical reasons to join and remain part of a religion. I suspect JWs are no different. Why fix something that ain't broken?
• 

  Narkissos

  ATJ,

  What I had in mind (as you certainly understood, but it may be worth making it clearer) was not that the WT might discard typology, but, on the contrary, extend it to NT material.

  Btw, as those things are fresher in your mind, do you remember any example of extant WT typology on NT stuff?

  I can just imagine what a Fred Franz redivivus (God forbid) could make of that: Peter/Cornelius -> Rutherford/Great Crowd for instance... (pardon my dark humour).

  DNCall,

  The WT level of emotional appeal is so low compared to other religions that it would certainly not hurt trying to boost it up a little... but for the same reason the JW audience is used to low emotion and high theoretical consistency (in a "gullible rationalist" fashion), and I don't see the WT surviving long without feeding some new (even goofy) "knowledge" to the rank and file to revive their interest and strengthen their obedience.
• 

  Narkissos

  nej,

  You may be right, although I don't think the kind of "new light" I'm speculating about (or suggesting!) would be nearly as disappointing to the "oldtimers" as, say, the 1995 change on the "generation". It would not change much to what JWs actually believe (which is precisely not the technicalities most of them are currently unable to explain) but offer a more understandable rationale for it. But again, I can be wrong, and I'm certainly out of touch with the current JW mindset apart from what I gather from this board.
• 

  quietlyleaving

  a gilead missionary in a local congregation used to sometimes share unusual ideas regarding types and antitypes that wasn't in published material- but they were from the OT

  NT antitypical fulfillments would be quite risky for the WTS imo because it would involve a change in emphasis from simplifying/spreading the message to complicating/deepening it. they would also have to stop disfellowshipping those who'd be able to appreciate and have an appetite for such extended meaning.

  edit: but yes it may be just what they need right now
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  What I had in mind (as you certainly understood, but it may be worth making it clearer) was not that the WT might discard typology, but, on the contrary, extend it to NT material.

  Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I do agree that this NT typology is a real possibility, and at some point, maybe a necessity.

  Actually, JW's take their typologist permissions from the NT. (using the NWT, sorry....)

  Heb 9:23,24

  Therefore it was necessary that the typical representations of the things in the heavens should be cleansed by these means, but the heavenly things themselves with sacrifices that are better than such sacrifices. 24 For Christ entered, not into a holy place made with hands, which is a copy of the reality, but into heaven itself, now to appear before the person of God for us.

  1 Pet 3:19-21

  19 In this [state] also he went his way and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who had once been disobedient when the patience of God was waiting in Noah’s days, while the ark was being constructed, in which a few people, that is, eight souls, were carried safely through the water.

  21 That which corresponds to this* is also now saving YOU, namely, baptism, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the request made to God for a good conscience,) through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 22 He is at God’s right hand, for he went his way to heaven; and angels and authorities and powers were made subject to him.

  *That which corresponds to this: NWT footnote " Rbi8 1 Peter 3:21 Lit., "Which thing as an antitype." Gr., ho . . . an·ti´ty·pon"

  These two scriptures were the first two shared with us on the first day of Gilead, to establish the method that JW's maintain is the way the bible is to be understood. Hebrews 9 has the passage where that according to Paul, the tabernacle was a type of heaven. 1 Peter uses the greek word for anti-type applying the experience of getting on Noah's ark (the type) to its antitype, Chrisitan water baptism.

  Beyond these 2 scriptures, I recall off the top of my head no type/antitype in the NT. There might have been one or two, but even our instructors told us that there wouldn't be too many in the "Greek Scriptures" studies.

  It is ironic that JW's take both the formula, and a great deal of license and permission, from the NT, and then apply this near exclusively to the OT.

  Narkissos, to your point, yes, I think NT typology is coming at some point, but whether they actually call it that, or call is as they do in the Insight Volumes as "Prophetic Patterns" remains to be seen.
• 

  Narkissos

  Thank you ql and ATJ for those insights. The remark of the Gilead instructors is particularly interesting in that it shows that the difference of treatment of the OT and NT is conscious.

  Of course there is much typology on the OT in the NT; and it has justified similar OT typology, usually focusing on Christ or common Christian features (like baptism in 1 Peter) throughout the history of Christian interpretation of the OT. What differs in the WT kind of OT typology is that it skips early Christian parallels to reach specific modern JW history directly, or ADDS the latter to the former. Example (which may be wrong, but I speak under Gileadite control ;)): Elijah / Elisha typify John the Baptist / Jesus AND Russell / Rutherford; although it is never said that John / Jesus typify Russell / Rutherford.

  Slightly off-topic: the two NT uses of antitupon ATJ referred to (in Hebrews and 1 Peter) actually belong to completely different (almost opposite) interpretive systems. Hebrews, in Platonic allegory style, considers the eternal, heavenly reality the "pattern" or "type" (cf. 8:5, the heavenly temple Moses beheld in vision) and the temporary, earthly temple the "antitype" or "shadow" (think of Plato's cave allegory in The Republic). 1 Peter otoh considers the "past event" (Flood) the type and the current Christian sacrament (baptism) the antitype. Only the latter one is typology proper, i.e. one feature in history pointing to another feature later in history.
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  Narkissos, if you, in your current incarnation, could have gone to Gilead, you would have been thrown out in two weeks. I mean that as a compliment.

  Example (which may be wrong, but I speak under Gileadite control ;)): Elijah / Elisha typify John the Baptist / Jesus AND Russell / Rutherford; although it is never said that John / Jesus typify Russell / Rutherford.

  Yes. What can I say? It wasn't lost on me that Elijah was already referred to by Jesus, pointing to John, yet the GB was willing to take Elijah and Elisha as pointing to the antitypical existence of Rutheford and Knorr. It raises more questions then answers, thats for sure.

  Slightly off-topic: the two NT uses of antitupon ATJ referred to (in Hebrews and 1 Peter) actually belong to completely different (almost opposite) interpretive systems. Hebrews, in Platonic allegory style, considers the eternal, heavenly reality the "pattern" or "type" (cf. 8:5, the heavenly temple Moses beheld in vision) and the temporary, earthly temple the "antitype" or "shadow" (think of Plato's cave allegory in The Republic). 1 Peter otoh considers the "past event" (Flood) the type and the current Christian sacrament (baptism) the antitype. Only the latter one is typology proper, i.e. one feature in history pointing to another feature later in history.

  Yes! Thanks for putting that into English! One classmate did try to bring this up, as one seems to talk of location, the other, a sacrament. There really is all sorts of interesting possibilities that this raises, one that frankly, I never had the opportunity to explore. Thanks for sharing that!