Images of the Savior (The Provision of a Wife for Isaac)

Genesis 24:7 The LORD God of heaven, which took me from my father’s house, and from the land of my kindred, and which spoke unto me, and that swore unto me, saying, Unto your seed will I give this land; he shall send his angel before you, and you shall take a wife unto my son from there.

It is altogether fitting that Abraham’s promised Son, Isaac, should be set forth as a type of our Savior in every notable event of his life: for, first of all, his birth was of so miraculous a nature as to reinforce to Abraham the truth that the promised Seed, who would bless all the nations of the earth, could never come naturally, by the efforts of the flesh, as Ishmael came. On the contrary Isaac came by the divine promise, and through the divine power, which is even able to bring life out of death. And so that son in whom was said to be the promised Seed, Christ our Savior, was, even from his birth, a type of the Savior, by virtue of his life which was brought out of death, through the power of God, and in accordance with his covenant promise. And second, in the account of Abraham’s testing, we have as clear a personal type as can be found in all of scriptures, of the substitutionary sacrifice and the rising again of our Savior; by means of which test, Abraham demonstrated his faith in the coming Messiah, whom he knew that God would certainly raise from the dead, and thus received his own promised son, “in a figure,” back from the dead (Hebrews 11:17-19). And so, if in two marvelous and unsurpassed ways this man Isaac served to foreshadow the life of our Savior, then we may with some reason suppose that the next notable circumstance in his life, the means by which he obtained his wife, may also convey some truth to us about the coming work of the true Seed of Abraham, Jesus Christ. In pursuance of which, we will now turn to the account in Genesis, chapter twenty-four.

We must first make mention of the redemptive-historical significance of this quest for Isaac’s wife. For it was certainly promised that the promised Seed was in Isaac; and it was therefore imperative that he find a fitting wife by whom he might advance the Messianic line another generation. And furthermore, it was necessary, not only that he find a wife, but that he find a wife who was not of the Gentiles around him, but who was of the chosen race of Abraham. The quest upon which Abraham sent his most trusted servant was, therefore, a matter of the utmost urgency. And this urgency Abraham signified by causing his servant to swear, having placed his hand under his thigh, from where his seed and generational power had its issuance. Which is just the same thing as to say, this is a matter which is as vital as the continuation of my line, which will finally result in the coming of the Messiah, who will bless all the nations of the earth. And yet, the very gravity of this oath was likewise the guarantee of its ultimate success – for had not God himself sworn that he would bring the Seed of blessing to Abraham? And so he assured his servant that the Angel of the Lord would make his way prosperous, and grant him good success.

But now, having established the vital importance of this journey, what may we learn of the typically-instructive manner in which it was carried out? Let us first note the position and roles of the chief characters of the story: first, we have Abraham, the father of Isaac, who commissions and sends out his servant to secure a bride for his son. He fills him up with many precious things, which will adorn and honor the woman, and make her a fitting and glorious bride. He promises him success, and charges him with the utmost gravity to fulfill his task faithfully. Next, we have the servant, who is overwhelmed by the seriousness of his mission, and so pours out his heart in prayer for good success. He searches out those who are of the same kindred as Isaac, and, when he has found them, he brings the news of his master’s decision to find a bride, and invites her to come along with him, until he lead her to him. When she has accepted his good news, he adorns her with many precious things; and, though her family would detain her, he takes her immediately with him, and starts her on her journey to see her husband. Then we have Isaac, the heir of his father, to whom really belong all the riches that are given to the servant. He is worthy of a beautifully adorned and willing bride, and he waits at the side of his Father, until he brings his prized bride unto him. Finally, we have the bride, Rebecca, who, when she hears of the desire of the father’s son and heir to secure a bride, most willingly leaves her land and kindred for the sake of him who, having not seen, she still loves. At the very beginning of her journey, she is given most precious things, but they are as nothing compared to the riches that await her, when she finally sees her espoused husband.

Now, having laid out the story in brief, let us consider the story of Christ’s winning for himself a bride. Just as Abraham determined to find a glorious bride for his Son, so the Father called out from the far lands of the world a people whom he would espouse to Christ his Son, and present to him as “a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle,” that is, as a fitting and beautiful bride (see Ephesians 1:4; Ephesians 5:25-27). Just as Abraham sent out his servant, warned him of the gravity of the task, exhorted him to faithfulness, and promised him success, so God sent out the ministers of the gospel, to persuade the bride to come to Christ, exhorting them to faithfulness (1 Corinthians 4:2), and promising them success (Acts 18:10). And to this task, from the first, the gospel ministers devoted all their labors; as Paul the apostle said, “I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:2). Even as Isaac, so Christ was made the heir of all things (Hebrews 1:2); and that which he inherits, he causes his bride to inherit together with him (Romans 8:17). Just as Rebecca, those who readily consent, when they have been called out by the ministers of the gospel, and, notwithstanding the implorings of their dearest friends and family members, immediately set off on their journey to meet the husband to whom they have been espoused; these are, from the beginning, given many rich spiritual blessings (Ephesians 1:3; Ephesians 4:8). But these gifts are but a foretaste of the heavenly riches awaiting for them, concerning which, “eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither have [they] entered into the heart of man” (1 Corinthians 2:9). These great treasures are laid up for the bride of Christ, who although she has not seen him, she loves him, and “rejoices with joy unspeakable and full of glory” (1 Peter 1:8); just as Rebecca loved Isaac, and was willing to be his, when as yet she had not seen him. Because these are as Rebecca, they will be among those who are blessed to be called to the marriage supper of the Lamb (Revelation 19:5-9).

Now, let us apply to our hearts that which we have observed of the marriage of Isaac, and how it marvelously signified and foreshadowed the marriage of the Lamb. First of all, if Abraham’s servant was so overcome with the gravity of his mission, and so willing to apply to the God of Abraham for aid, in light of his own vast insufficiency – and he was only searching for a bride who would be a shadow and type of the bride of Christ – if he was so serious in his task, how much more serious must we be, who are ministers of the gospel? How much more urgent is it that the Lamb, who shed his precious blood to espouse to himself a bride without spot and without blemish – how much more pressing is this goal, and how much less able are we, in our own native strength, to the task! Oh, let us learn from the example of Abraham’s servant, and not fritter away our lives in meaningless endeavors, nor yet nullify our labors by trusting in our own strength. No, let us be serious and heavenly-minded, and let us pour out our hearts to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God who alone can make our way prosperous!

And second, if Rebecca was so willing to leave her family and friends, her home and all that she knew, to be the bride of Isaac, who is but a shadow of our true husband; and if she received, for the course of her journey, only gold and silver, which will soon dissolve away; how much more should we, who have been called to a greater Bridegroom than Isaac, and who have been given greater spiritual blessings than all the treasure of the world, be willing to hate our father and mother, take up our cross, and joyfully follow Jesus (see Luke 14:26-27), whom to know is to love, and whom to see, with the eyes of faith, is to rejoice with unspeakable joy? Oh, let us ponder, and tremble with the greatness of the good news that has been entrusted to us; let us forsake all, to follow our true Bridegroom, Jesus Christ!

9 Responses to “Images of the Savior (The Provision of a Wife for Isaac)”

  1. Chris Poteet says:
    December 6, 2006 at 5:46 pm

    It’s a neat thought, but I don’t know if that is an instance of typology. I love typology and look for it everywhere, but I’m unsure on this one. I’ll think more on it.

  2. pitchford says:
    December 6, 2006 at 6:24 pm

    My wife was teaching children’s Sunday School on this story, so we were thinking through it together — and it struck us that, as Isaac himself was such an outstanding type of Christ, being the divinely-promised and sovereignly-conceived Abrahamic seed, and even being sacrificed on an altar and raised from the dead, figuratively speaking (the Author of Hebrews tells us that much very clearly) — then, granting that much, could not his marriage picture the marriage of Christ and the Church? And as soon as we thought of that, and started noticing how the story unfolded, the coincidence of characters and design seemed too great to be mere happenstance.

    Anyway, that’s what she ended up teaching, so if we’re wrong, there’s a class of Sunday School kids that are allegorically confused :).

    Blessings from our Bridegroom, Nathan

  3. Bob Hayton says:
    December 11, 2006 at 12:27 am

    Nathan,

    I think you are right on here. You didn’t push the allegory too far. I think something to remember in all such types and allegories is this. All of creation is an allegory. For instance, the very institution of marriage was created for the purpose of highlighting Christ’s relationship with the church (Eph. 5). And the very sun in the sky was created in light of God’s foreknowledge that He would compare Christ to it as the Sun of Righteousness (Mal. 4).

    I am not saying there are no other purposes for marriage or the sun and etc. But it is not as if God made the world in a way completely divorced from His plan of redemption. The sun didn’t have to rise, and it didn’t have to be the most blazing object any of us ever sees. Marriage didn’t have to be the avenue for procreation. We could have been like walking self-pollenating flowers or something.

    Anyways, great post.

    But one more thing. What do you think of this observation. I may be wrong but hear me out…

    The wise men gave gifts which are readily claimed by all to be symbolic. Gold representing his kingship, and myrrh his suffering on the cross. (Can’t remember frankincense right now.) But I thought and then my Reformation Study Bible concurred with my thought, that the wise men, most likely did not understand the significance of the gifts they gave. They just gave gifts fit for a king.

    This assumption (that they did not intentionally represent Christ’s future death on the cross by giving myrrh) finds further attestation in Rom. 16:25-26 among other places. The Romans passage claims that the mystery of the gospel was kept secret in the prophetic writings but now is being revealed in those very OT prophetic writings. This points to the fact that the suffering of Messiah on behalf of His people may have been more obscure before the Advent of Christ than afterward. We can read the OT in light of that Advent, whereas the wisemen couldn’t.

    Anyway, here is my point in this. God never prophesied that myrrh would be given him by wise men/kings. It was merely prophesied that gifts would be given. Yet God intentionally moved to make them give gifts which would have lasting symbolic significance–which is why Matthew recorded the very gifts given. Matthew arguably saw significance in the gifts being given at that time (his childhood well before the cross). Why? Because he looked at events that happened in the redemptive history in light of the Advent and subsequent Sacrifice and Resurrection of the Messiah Jesus.

    Am I way off here? Or does this point make sense?

    Thanks for this post, Nathan. God bless you.

    Bob

  4. pitchford says:
    December 11, 2006 at 8:48 am

    Bob,

    Thanks for the excellent reminders on the purpose of creation — it makes passages such as John 1:1-18 and II Corinthians 4:4-6 all the more poignant. As far as your question about the wise men: I’m not sure if they would have recognized the symbolic importance of their gifts or not, but I agree with you that the gifts were, in the providence of God, richly instructive. It’s interesting, I just had a conversation with someone on the very topic of the extent to which the Old Testament saints would have recognized the gospel-truths which we now see throughout the scriptures. We even talked about Romans 16, and other enlightening passages like Peter’s Acts 2 usage of David, etc. If you want to read the whole discussion (it wasn’t very long) you can find it in the comments under my recent post on ReformationTheology, called, “A Brief Meditation on the Christ-Centeredness of Everything”.

  5. Bob Hayton says:
    December 12, 2006 at 4:09 pm

    Thanks, Nathan. I did go read that discussion and it was enlightening. I need to read that Reymond article some day.

    One other question. I was talking with our SS teacher, who happens to be a college professor at Northwestern College, and he agrees with his mentors that typology needs to have some basis from the actual OT text. That there must be some clue from the OT text re: this being understood typologically or allegorically. I am sure you have read about such views (this guy is reformed, covenantal theology, and almost amillennial, albeit still historic premil). How do you answer that? Or do you agree? Or could you discuss a little their arguments for us?

    This comment thread does seem to be on whether such passages as Gen. 24 can be taken allegorically or typically.

    Thanks and God bless,

    Bob

  6. pitchford says:
    December 13, 2006 at 8:45 am

    Yes, I’m afraid that’s a common Reformed understanding these days — many (perhaps most) Reformed biblical theologians (notably, Vos) have adhered to that principle. But I still don’t buy it.

    For one thing, whatever speculations we may have about how to understand the OT, they should be less weighty than how the inspired NT authors went about the process of interpreting — and they see truths about Christ, his death and resurrection, his building of the Church, and so on, in places that we would be hard-pressed to see them if we were somehow to divorce ourselves artificially from our Christian knowledge and read the texts with respect to themselves alone. Honestly, if you read Psalm 16, for instance, would you think about the Messiah, as Peter did in Acts 2, unless you had been taught a hermeneutic which seeks Christ out? Well, maybe I’m off the trail here, since we’re talking allegories: but do you see any indicators in the Genesis narratives themselves that would imply that Ishmael is to be equated with Mount Sinai, if you did not have Galatians 4 telling you as much? Christ rebuked his disciples for not seeing him in all the OT, and when he taught them differently, and they went out and wrote the NT, then we can be certain they were employing a hermeneutic taught to them by Christ himself, and one which, if we fail to embrace it, he would rebuke us too as slow of heart to believe all that the prophets wrote.

    And besides, I think the OT audience was much more quick to find types, etc., than we might think. The Church was, from the days of Adam, well-versed in the basic truths of the coming Messiah — just from Genesis 3, we may be sure that they understood in at least a vague sense that a single Messiah would come, would overcome the Serpent and sin, would clothe their guilty nakedness by giving his own life, and would be ultimately victorious — which can only mean resurrection, if they understood that he must first die. And then, throughout their history, especially in the days of Moses, they were explicitly taught to understand the events of their history allegorically (e.g. the Passover, most notably, also the redemption from Egypt, etc.). Many hard-hearted Israelites didn’t understand these things, but I am certain that the elect understood more than we give them credit for. As the NT authors also seem to think (think of Hebrews 11, Christ’s optimistic statement of Abraham — “saw my day and rejoiced” — etc.). So I guess what I’m saying is that, from this context, we can’t go back in time and reliably ascertain how much information a saint of the day would be bringing to the text. And it is certainly necessary that we bring some prior information to the text — we can’t read Gen. 1, then entirely forget it and read Gen 2 on a fresh footing, and likewise throughout. At least that which precedes has to be taken into account in any reading, and the amount of info. which precedes in the understanding of a Moses-era Israelite is impossible to ascertain, even if it were necessary for a “fair” reading.

    And finally, not only is it artificial, it is impossible to be given a whole story and attempt to re-read the begin apart from that greater understanding. All great writers are able to foreshadow, hint at things, etc., and then pull all the threads together at the end of the book, so that when you read the beginning again, you say, “Ah, that’s what he meant!” We have been given the blessed position of seeing the end of the story, that which lay hidden in the law and prophets (Rom. 16) has now been revealed — so how can we not go back and say, “Ah, that is how God was foreshadowing the Messiah!”? If we refuse to let our greater NT understanding help us interpret the OT, then passages like Rom. 16 make no sense at all. And besides, we are cutting against the hermeneutic of men like the Apsotle Paul, the Author of Hebrews, and — well, all the NT authors, really.

    Make any sense?

  7. Bob Hayton says:
    December 14, 2006 at 12:37 pm

    Makes a lot of sense. Has anyone done any work in this area that I could look to for help? Does anyone try to fully answer this disregarding of types? I’m thinking not so much the dispensational hermeneutic, but the non Christ-centered hermeneutic of Reformed people (like Vos, I guess). I know some of their hermeneutic is good, but is anyone else arguing for the things you are, or must we rely on Edwards and etc.?

    Thanks for the help, Nathan.

  8. pitchford says:
    December 14, 2006 at 1:16 pm

    Besides that article by Reymond that I keep mentioning (by the way, if you have a copy of his systematic available, you should read the chapter there, since the web article deletes some material at the beginning and end, I suppose for brevity’s sake), nothing really comes to mind, as far as modern texts on hermeneutics. That doesn’t mean nothing is out there, I’m just not aware of it (which is part of the reason I wanted to write “The Living Word” series). I think it’s the hermeneutic that is displayed in the writings of the Reformers and the Puritans, as well as many of the Church fathers (although granted, some of them got out-of-control with their allegorizing). But in modern times, it’s hard to find anyone saying exactly the same thing — actually, even as I’m writing this, some notable exceptions are coming to mind: Michael Barrett wrote a book called Beginning at Moses (A Guide to Finding Christ in the Old Testament), which is, as far as it goes, pretty good (if I remember correctly). Also, Christ-Centered Preaching, by Bryan Chapell, emphasizes the need for a redemptive historical approach in exegesis. I’ve heard good things about Graeme Goldsworthy’s works as well, but I have not yet read anything by him. Oh yes, Vern Poythress is always excellent — I read, not too long ago, The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses and it was truly phenomenal. So I guess there’s more out there than I was originally thinking. That should be enough to get you started, anyway.

  9. Bob Hayton says:
    December 15, 2006 at 5:18 pm

    Thanks!

Leave a Reply