Type = Natual Event; Anti-Type=Natural Event??? Preston believes the typology of the flood is a mirror image of the fall of Juersalem which he believes is the antitype. I question if the type is a natural event, would that not mean that the antitype could not be a natural event, tied to natural fulfillment?
Typology and Covenant Eschatology
We would note first of all that some of the very sources he cites held that the flood was a type of the destruction of Jerusalem. In his Biblical Apocalyptics p. 226-227, as well as "Biblical Hermeneutics" p. 443, Milton S. Terry unquestionably teaches the flood was a type of the fall of Jerusalem. Thus, while Jackson cites Terry as supportive, in fact, Terry was opposed to Jackson's position. Furthermore, Fairbairn, in Prophecy (Baker, 1976, p. 446), after commenting on Matthew 16:28 and applying it primarily to 70 AD insists that Luke 17 "must be viewed also as having its primary reference to the same period--since if referred to the final advent, the practical exhortations...would not be practical." It is apparent then that while Jackson denies that Jerusalem's fall was the antitype of the flood, the very sources which he cites believed the very opposite.
The real question is: Was the destruction of Jerusalem greater than the Flood? Was there in some sense a progression from the lesser to the greater; from type to antitype between the Flood and Jerusalem's catastrophic demise?
eschatology.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=36&Itemid=61
