A "type" is merely a sketch or illustration of the antitype. The word "type" comes from the Greek word tupos:

"Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure (tupos) of him that was to come" (Romans 5:14).

Here Paul says that Adam was a "type" of the Lord Jesus. A "type" is a sketch or illustration that paints a picture of the antitype:

"Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern (tupos) shewed to thee in the mount" (Heb.8:5).

The Lord showed Moses a "sketch" or "illustration" that depicted the antitype, the heavenly tabernacle. In this verse the earthly tabernacle is described as "the example and shadow" of the heavenly tabernacle. The Greek word translated "example" means a "representation", and that is what an illustration or sketch is. The Geek word translated "shadow" means "an image cast by an object and representing the form of that object...a sketch".

A "type" is analogous by its very nature. An "analogy" is defined as "a likeness between the relations of things one to another; a partial similiarity in particular circumstances on which a comparasion can be made."

Therefore we can understand that Israel's New Covenant is a sketch or illustration of today's New Covenant, but not the very same thing as today's New Covenant.

The Progressive Dispensationalists use what they call "Typological-Prophetic" hermeneutics, and this typological arrangement is more than just analogy. According to Glenny "some prophecies concerning Israel that are applied to the Church in the NT actually realize an initial fulfillment in the Church" [emphasis added] (Glenny, "Typology: A Summary Of The Present Evangelical Discussion", Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40:4 [March 1997]: 627-638).

Progressive Dispensationalist Darrell L. Bock explains the distinction between the "types" employed by the classical dispensationalists and the "types" of Progressive Dispensationalism:

"This is the way in which progressive dispensationalism's interest in typology should be understood. Progressive dispensationalists view typology as an aspect of historical-literary interpretation. This is not the same kind of typology as practiced in classical dispensationalism. The latter was oftentimes a form of 'spiritual' interpretation in which material objects, persons, or other phenomena represented something in the spiritual world. For example, oil was thought to be a 'type' of the Holy Spirit, and leaven was considered a 'type' of evil (Blaising & Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism [Baker Books, 1993], p.52).

Bock is correct about some "types" that represent things in the spiritual world but he fails to recognize that some earthly "types" represent things of the "heavenly" sphere. Bock continues:

In contrast to this, typology in historical-literary hermeneutics refers to patterns of resemblance between persons and events in earlier history to persons and events in later history. For example, the Davidic-Solomonic kingdom is a type of the eschatological kingdom, the Day of the Lord judgment in the sixth century B.C. is a type of a future, eschatological Day of the Lord. Consequently, typology for progressive dispensationalism is primarily a 'horizontal' (historical) relationship rather than a 'vertical' (spiritual) one" (Ibid., pp.42-43).

According to the Progressive Dispensationalists the typical relationship between Israel's New Covenant and today's New Covenant is a "horizontal" relationship. However, that assertion cannot be defended, especially with the Lord Jesus' words to Nicodemus in view. According to the Lord Jesus' own words the blessings under Israel's New Covenant are "earthly" while the blessings under today's New Covenant are "heavenly."

The thoughtful and intelligent can see that these relationships are not "horizontal." The Progressive Dispensationalists see that there is a "typological" relationship between Israel's New Covenant and today's, but in order to claim that there is just one New Covenant they must ignore the fact that that this typological arrangement is not "horizontal." Otherwise they must admit that the typological relationship between the two New Covenants is "vertical" and that means that there are in fact two New Covenants, the "type" and the "antitype."

Next