| Author | Message | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 1599 Registered: 6-2006  |
Hi Friends, I often hear or see SDA's throw around the words "antitype" or "antitypical". That's not something I've ever heard in Evangelical circles. Is there any significance?  Leigh Anne | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 7747 Registered: 3-2004  |
Grace_alone, go to CARM and ask that question. I am sure the folks there would give you an answer. Diana L | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 5760 Registered: 9-2006  |
Means they are shoveling you more bull than normal? | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 10678 Registered: 12-2003  |
Leigh Anne, it generally refers to the "sanctuary doctrine" related to the investigative judgment. The actual words "type" and "antitype" are legitimate words with legitimate meanings, but Adventists use them to justify all manner of ascetic practices. A "type" is a shadow or foreshadowing of something to come, and the "antitype" is the ultimate reality foreshadowed by the "type". This language is especially used of OT types that foreshadow NT antitypes. But Adventists have used the words as integral components of their "sanctuary talk". For example (I've learned this well from my own in-laws): the Day of Atonement in Leviticus is a "type" of Jesus' REAL atonement. In reality, Jesus' death on the cross is the "antitypical" Day of Atonement. Adventists, however, have invented the entire IJ environment. To them, the "antitypical Day of Atonement" is not the day Jesus made atonement on the cross. Rather, it is...NOW. To an Adventist, the antitypical Day of Atonement began in 1844 when Jesus supposedly entered the Most Holy Place in heaven to "apply His blood" to the confessed sins of those who profess Him. (They say it started then because in Leviticus, the Day of Atonement was on the day the high priest entered the Holy of Holies.) Therefore, since Jesus has been in the Most Holy Place since 1844, every day since then we have been living in the "antitypical Day of Atonement". This supposed fact is my MIL's explanation for why jewelry, makeup, and indulgent things are disallowed. The Israelites had to afflict themselves and remove their fine clothes and stand in the camp in an attitude of submission and mourning while they waited for the act of atonement to be completed by the high priest. Since our High Priest is STILL in the Holy of Holies, we are to continue waiting in an attitude of mourning and self-abnegation. And so on... Make sense? Colleen | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 780 Registered: 3-2009 |
Ummmmmmmmmmm? This is new to me. I've never heard before that reason for not wearing jewelry, etc. But it makes sense for their doctrine of "day of atonement." The normal explanation given to the run-of-the-mill member is about not calling attention to oneself. WOW! It goes to show how most SDAs don't even know all the intricacies of their own doctrines. On my, oh my. Hec | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 1600 Registered: 6-2006 |
Colleen, my head hurts! I guess I've been stuck on the prefix "anti". In looking it up in the dictionary it gave two definitions: anti¡€type (an¡äti tš©p¡ä) noun 1.the person or thing represented or foreshadowed by an earlier type or symbol 2.an opposite type After reading the SDA explanation, I'm inclined to believe that theirs is the #2 definition! The IJ is the exact opposite type of Jesus' atonement. As an Evangelical, instead of using the word "antitype", we use the word "fulfilment", which makes clear that Jesus's death on the cross was a complete atonement. Btw, regarding the reason for not adorning ones self, I also remember reading that Jews would rip their clothes and rub dirt all over themselves as part of their mourning. I haven't seen very many SDAs do that... Thanks! Leigh Anne | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 7751 Registered: 3-2004 |
How Sadventist doctrine has changed. Growing up in it back in the 1940's, 50's, 60's the reason for not wearing jewelry was not to be of the world and something about the Israelites not wearing jewelry when coming back to God. I do not remember the exact story used. Diana L | ||
| Pnoga Registered user Username: Pnoga Post Number: 334 Registered: 1-2007  |
Leigh Anne great idea, they should include the dust and ashes, and then follow up with their feet washing service. Paul | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 10682 Registered: 12-2003 |
Probably the doctrine hasn't really changed; this is my MIL's personal explanation since she has become aware that the traditional SDA position regarding jewelry isn't really biblical. I'm not saying, though, that she's never heard this concept somewhere. I think it's likely that she has. Colleen | ||
| Nowisee Registered user Username: Nowisee Post Number: 195 Registered: 5-2009 |
I remember being taught that jewelry thing--and to back it up, I was taught that that's why the Israelites gave away all their jewelry to cover the walls & objects in the sanctuary. As Christians we are not in habitual mourning. We are rejoicing and bejeweled as we delight in the finished sacrifice of Christ! Such a contrast... | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 477 Registered: 2-2003  |
As Colleen pointed out, the type/antitype concept is perfectly legitimate, in fact I taught it in one of the lessons of my Christology course. The type is an Old Testament object, ceremony, situation or person which is a shadow of Christ and the antitype is the fulfilment in some aspect of the life or work of Jesus in the New Testament. Paul uses the word type (typos) in 1 Cor 10:6 (the NIV translates it as example). For instance, all the feast days of Israel (including the Sabbath!) have several meanings, like historical and/or agricultural, but one of the meanings is as a type (see Col 2: 16-17). For some of these, the meaning can be identified easily as it is stated very clearly in the NT. For instance, Paul calls Jesus "our Passover lamb" (1 Cor 5: 7), thus linking the type of the feast of Passover (Lev 23: 4-8) with Jesus' death on the cross being the antitype. He also calls him "the firstfruits" (1 Cor 15: 20, 23), thus enabling us to connect the feast of firstfruits (Lev 23: 9-14), which took place after the Passover, on the day following the Sabbath (i.e. Sunday), and the first sheaf of the harvest was waved in the temple, with the antitype of the resurrection of Christ. Problems arise when the "antitype" is taken as something that is not taught in the New Testment. As Colleen also said, the Investigative Judgement scenario was simply invented on the basis of no NT teaching at all, and claimed as an antitype of the Day of Atonement. That is just NOT how to understand typology. Thanks for listening! Adrian | ||
| Freedom55 Registered user Username: Freedom55 Post Number: 37 Registered: 3-2008 |
Colleen, that was a good summary explanation. I have heard SDA pastors use that same explanation. But it didn't make sense to me back then nor does it make sense today. I believe the Israelites were also forbidden to engage in sexual activity on the Day of Atonement which would mean if SDA's really followed the type, the SDA church should have died out long ago! Imagine no sex since 1844! Maybe that's why some of them are so unhappy. | ||
| Freedom55 Registered user Username: Freedom55 Post Number: 38 Registered: 3-2008 |
They were also supposed to fast on the day of atonement. So if the SDA church has been living in the antitypical day of atonement since 1844, they should be in a continuous state of fasting and perpetual hunger. So to just pick on jewelry & use the day of atonement argument to justify no jewelry is absurd. They can't pick and choose what's convenient. | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 484 Registered: 2-2003 |
Legalism is never consistent. | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 1110 Registered: 7-2007 |
Leigh Anne; the picture that came to mind was hilarious! I could just see Adventists walking around with ripped clothes and dirt rubbed all over themselves! The dirt especially!!! It made me laugh out loud! Doc, yes the Sabbath is certainly a "type" pointing to Christ!!! "Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day - things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belong to Christ." Colossians 2:16,17 Adventists embrace the shadows - the types that have been fulfilled - not only of the Sabbath, but of food and drink too. (And they re-interpret that verse to say "festival or a new moon or a festival" because the "festivals" were the yearly/seasonal feasts and they try to get away from the word "Sabbath" by claiming it just means the former.) It's really sad and frustrating too, because watching an Adventist is like watching someone slowly drinking a poisonous drink - someone who you've warned and warned and tried to reason with; but who's convinced the "drink" is good and is, in fact the only way to life! I'm venting a little because I've tried and tried to reason with my relatives without success (with the possible exception of one aunt.) One sister will let me email her back and forth about it; but when I try to pin her down on something where she would HAVE to admit she's wrong, she just refuses to answer or just says: "we'll have to agree to disagree." It's frustrating.  |
