(3) 'The Epistle to the Hebrews. — In this Epistle we find the typological interpretation of the OT carried to its fullest results. Conceiving of religion as a covenant between God and man, the author's purpose is to prove to his Jewish readers that Christianity, the religion of the New Covenant, is better than Judaism, the religion of the Old ; and the method which he employs is to draw a series of contrasts between the Old and the New regarded as type and antitype. If the doctrinal keynote of the Epistle may be found in the twice-quoted prophecy of Jeremiah, ' Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah' (Jer 3P^«- ; cf. He S^''- 10'«'-), the method of its apologetic argument is given when the legal service of tabernacle and temple is described as ' a copy and shadow of the heavenly things' (8° RV), and the Levitical Law generally as ' having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things' (10')- All through the Epistle there runs a series of contrasts between Judaism as preparatory and typical and Christianity as
antitypical and perfect, (n) In tlie opening verses the fragmentary and varying revelation 'of old time ' by the prophets is set over against God's speech unto us in His Son (!'■'•), and this is immediately followed bj" the contriist of angels as ministering spirits sent forth to do service lor the heirs of salvation (v.") with Him who was made a little lower than the angels that He might bring many sons unto glory ('S'- '"). (6) Next comes (3-4") a contrast between jVIoses, a faithful servant in God's house, and Christ, a Son set over it (;)"■), in the course of which a further contrast is drawn between the good tidings preached to the Israelites in the wilderness and the word of the Christian gospel (4-)— the promised rest of Canaan being used as symbolic of tlio rest that remains for the people of God (v."). The relation of type and antitype clearly underlies these two contrasts, but (<•) in the next section of his work (4'''-10"*), where a contrast is drawn out between the Levitical or Aaronic high priest of the OT and Christ, the Son, con- ceived as a High Priest after the order of llel- chizedek, the author typologizes more boldly and directly, following here a suggestion derived from the OT itself (Ps 110'). Melchizedek, he says, the nijsterious king-priest, was ' made like unto the Son of God' (He 7'); and he describes Christ not only as ' a high priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek ' (6'-" ; cf. u"- '" 7"- "■ ='), l*nt as a priest ' after the likeness of Melchizedek ' (7'''). Side by side, however, with this typology of likeness there is introduced a typology of contrast — the contrast between the order of Aaron and the order of Melchizedek (v."). If Melchizedek typifies Christ as anotlier priest of the same order, Aaron tyinlies Him as a priest of a higher order than his own, who becomes the surety of a better covenant tlian that given under the Levitical Law (v.-- ; cf. v."). The anticipatory and typicd relation of the Levitical priesthood, as serving that which is a copy and shadow of the heavenly things (8^), to the high priesthood of Christ, as ministering the heavenly things themselves (9^) in the heavenly sanctuary (8^--), is carried by the author into great detail. The tabernacle that Moses pitched pointed to the true tabernacle which the Lord pitclied and not man (vv.-- '), and so became ' a parable for the time now present ' (9"), i.e. for the age of the OT, The first covenant, inasmuch as it was not faultless, gives the promise of the second and better covenant (8"-'). In the ))assage of the high priest ome a year into the holy place with his sacrifice of blood, the Holy Ghost signifies that the way into the lioly place has not yet been made manifest (9''), and that Christ Himself must come as the Mediator of the New Coven.ant, otl'ering Himself through the eternal Spirit without spot unto God (v."'-). In all these cases of contrast between the tabernacle made with hands and the greater and more perfect tabernacle, between the earthly ministry of the Levitical priesthood and the ministry of Christ Himself, the relation of type and antitype is made perfectly apparent. It is a relation between copies (i)7ro0fi7inaTa) of the things in the heavens and the he.'ivenly things themselves (v.^), between what is like in pattern (itTlTinra) to the true (v.*") and the enduring realities foreshadowed thereby.
(4) The Apocalypse. — The typology of the NT, so far as we have hitherto considered it, bears upon the relation between past and present ; it consists in the use of persons or things in the OT to repre- sent and prefigure the present realities of the Kingdom of God. But God's Kingdom has a future as well as a present, and when we reach the Apocalypse— a book that claims to be a revela- tion of ' things which must come to pass hereafter ' (4' ; cf. 1') — we find that the writer goes to the OT for his types of the Christian future, just a-s