I have been reading a few conversations going on elsewhere on a Lutheran discussion forum, as they always do, concerning the subject of whether or not, or to what extent, the content of the Old Testament is predictive of Christ only if it asserted to be words spoken directly of Christ, with no meaning at all, or application, to the context in which they were written, or if the entire Old Testament predicts aspects of Christ’s life and ministry only by way of shadow and type, pointing to Christ, but not directly speaking of Him. Both points of views, if asserted this plainly, in my understanding, are incorrect and improperly reflect the right heritage of Lutheran biblical interpretation and study. Here are a few thoughts. I’ve found particularly useful a document somewhat quietly prepared a number of years ago by the Missouri Synod’s Commission on Theology and Church Relations, and it is from that document that I draw a few of the quotes in this post. Here are a few points I would put forward by way of reflection on this interesting and seemingly never ending discussion among confessional Lutherans. I won’t fill the whole screen with this post, so please read through into the “more” section for further important details and quotes. The answer to the question posed in the title of this post is: Yes. This is a case of both/and, not either/or. Here is the CTCR document that you might find helpful: Typology and Prophecy

First, both hyper-typologizing and hyper-rectilinearizing are reactions over against higher critical Biblical studies. Each well intended, but pushing their points too far.

Second, historic Lutheranism knows of neither point of view pushed to an extreme form and manifestation, but admits of both, properly understood.

Third, to suggest that a hyper-rectilinear position is the only point of view advocated and advanced in historic confessional Lutheranism simply is a factual error based on either a misunderstanding or lack of awareness of historic Lutheran exegetical methods. Similarly, to suggest that Old Testament prophecies are only understood to be typologically fulfilled, is equally erroneous.

Fourth, I have found particularly helpful the work of historic Lutheran biblical hermeneuticians upon which Walther and then Stoeckhardt relied heavily. The third/fourth generation Missourians who advanced hyper-rectilinearism were mistaken and had not apprehended the full, rich legacy of Lutheran biblical studies from the age of Lutheran Orthodoxy, a position that found a welcome home in the first generations of Missouri Synod Biblical scholarship.

See Robert Preus, The Theology of Post Reformation Lutheranism, 2:328. Here Preus states: “With its emphasis on types in the Old Testament (Melchizedek, Adam, the stairs of Jacob, the sacrifices, the crossing of the Red Sea, the manna, the fiery serpent, etc.) and on direct predictive prophecy where the prophetic words themselves pointed directly to Christ, classical Lutheranism shows that in a sense it regarded the entire Old Testament as typological, as a foreshadowing and a blueprint, as it were, for the work of Christ and the coming of His kingdom. This would account for the fact that the New Testament so often and at times with apparent caprice finds allusions and types and prophecies of Christ throughout the Old Testament. The same Spirit of God is author of the Old Testament Scriptures, which point to the coming Christ and prepare for Him, and of the New Testament Scriptures, which testify of the Christ who has come according to the promises. Still, the old Lutherans were very cautious and generally did not find types lurking within every Old Testament figure; nor did they seek to discover or make anything of prophecy in the Old Testament where the New Testament did not find it. They were careful, too, not to confuse type and prophecy, although to them type was a kind of prophecy. There were times, however, when agreement could not be reached over the classification of certain passages. For instance, Hos. 11:1 . . . .”

Hosea 11:1 has always struck me as an interesting conundrum for those who wish to assert a strict rectilinear interpretation.

I remember my beloved rectilinearist professors at the seminary stumbling and fumbling to try to shoehorn that verse into their schema.

I read something interesting the other day on this issue.

1. The chief difference is whether the words of one prophecy can have two referents and, usually in connection with that, two somewhat different meanings, and, therefore, two fulfillments. For example, can the single vocable “son” in 2 Sam. 7:14 refer both to Solomon (2 Chron. 6:9) and to Jesus (Hebrews 1:5)? Can it mean “son” in a metaphorical sense in 2 Samuel 7 and “son” in a literal sense in Hebrews, and be fulfilled in both Solomon and in our Lord?

And, I’m wondering if perhaps those who wish to advance a strict “rectilinear” position are adequately reflecting what our Lutheran Confessions state:

“The same thing happened among the people of Israel. The majority of the people believed that they merited the forgiveness of sins by their works, and so they multiplied sacrifices and devotions. The prophets, on the contrary, condemned this opinion and taught the righteousness of faith. The history of the people is a type of what was to happen in the church of the future (Ap IV, 395; Tappert, 167).

“And the type aptly represents not only the ceremony, but also the preaching of the Gospel. In Num. 28, 4f. three parts of that daily sacrifice are represented, the burning of the lamb, the libation, and the oblation of wheat flour. The Law had pictures or shadows of future things. Accordingly, in this spectacle Christ and the entire worship of the New Testament are portrayed. The burning of the lamb signifies the death of Christ. The libation signifies that everywhere in the entire world, by the preaching of the Gospel, believers are sprinkled with the blood of that Lamb, i.e., sanctified, as Peter says, 1. Ep. 1, 2: Through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. The oblation of wheat flour signifies faith, prayer, and thanksgiving in hearts. As, therefore, in the Old Testament, the shadow is perceived, so in the New the thing signified should be sought, and not another type, as sufficient Solomon and in our Lord?” for a sacrifice (Ap XXIV, 36, 37; Triglot, 397).