In connecting the dots between the Old and New Testaments, we’ve seen that Scripture sometimes makes formal comparisons using similes. Old Testament sacrifices are thereby linked with aspects of the work of Christ. Other comparisons are larger and more comprehensive and are called types. For example, David and his kingdom are types of Christ and His kingdom.

In the same way, Moses and Israel are types of Christ and the church. Hebrews 3:1-2 says, “Consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession; He was faithful to Him who appointed Him, as Moses also was in all His house.” The writer to the Hebrews compares Christ and Moses. He also compares the church and Israel. We also see this in verses 5-6.

Moses was the chief executive in God’s house in the Old Testament. Christ is the heir set over God’s house, the church, in the New Testament. Moses looks forward to Christ. Israel portends the church.

Note again the language used. Moses and Israel existed “for a testimony” (Heb. 3:5), that is, to testify, or witness, to things in the future—“things which were to be spoken later.” Hebrews 9:9 indicates the whole ceremonial apparatus under the supervision of Moses was “a symbol [parable] for the present time.” We already recognize that the sacrificial system points forward to the time and the work of Christ. The ceremonial system was but a part, albeit a central part, of life in God’s house.

Hebrews compares Moses and all God’s house with Christ and the Church. “Christ was faithful as a Son over His house—whose house we are.”

This typological comparison is overarching and comprehensive. It affects our whole approach to Scripture. It affects biblical interpretation, or hermeneutics. To properly understand the New Testament, we must adequately understand the Old Testament. The reverse is also true. To adequately understand the Old Testament, we must properly understand the New Testament. The New Testament interprets the Old Testament, and the Old Testament informs the New.

This relationship affects our understanding of the big picture of the Bible, of covenant theology versus dispensationalism. Hebrews indicates a vital connection between the Old and New Testaments. We cannot separate the two as dispensationalism attempts to do. Scripture positively compares Moses and Christ, Israel and the Church. God does not have differing plans for Israel and the Church, as dispensationalism contends. The typological connections between Moses and Christ and between Israel and the Church exist because covenant theology is valid.

Finally, the typological comparison between Moses and Christ, along with Israel and the Church, enables us to freely preach and teach Christ from the Old Testament. Many commentators insist we stick with the grammar and history in the Old Testament when expounding and applying Old Testament texts. However, the Bible itself uses typology to set forth Christ and discuss the Church. Many commentators also object that we preachers are not the inspired writers of Scripture. True! It is therefore important to understand biblical typology and to operate within its parameters. When doing so, we may freely and fully preach and teach Christ.