The Tabernacle Was A Type

Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments Here’s a great section of Vos’ Biblical Theology.  It’s a little dense/detailed, but it is helpful:

“…What is true of the Christ is likewise true of the Church.  Of that also the tabernacle was a type.  This could not be otherwise, because the Church is the body of the risen Christ.  For this reason the Church is called ‘the house of God’ [Eph 2.21, 22; 1 Tim 3:15; Heb 3:6, 10:21; 1 Pet 2:5].  An individual turn is given to the thought where the Christian is called a temple of God [1 Cor 6:19].  It ought to be noticed that ‘house of God’ is not in the New Testament a mere figure of the fellowship between God and the Church, but always refers specifically to the Old Testament dwelling of Jehovah.”

“The highest realization of the tabernacle idea is ascribed to the eschatological stage of the history of redemption.  This is depicted by the Apocalypse [Rev 21:3].  The peculiarity of the representation here is that, in dependence on Isaiah 4:5, 6, the area of the tabernacle and temple are widened so as to become equally co-extensive with the entire New Jerusalem.  The necessity of a tabernacle or a temple symbolic and typical, presupposes the imperfection of the present state of the theocracy.  When the theocracy will completely correspond to the divine ideal of it, then there will be no more need of symbol or type.  Hence the statement, ‘I saw no temple therein’ [Rev 21:22].  This does not, however, make it ‘the city without a church.’  Using Scriptural terminology, we should rather say that the place will be all church.”

Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology, p. 155.

shane lems

1 thought on “The Tabernacle Was A Type”

  1. Breathtaking! No matter how many times I read this, I come away with tearful thankfulness that someone really got the point of Rev. 21:22. “No temple” in one sense (shadow/type) does not rule out “The Temple” in the final and fulfilled sense.


Comments are closed.