Tom Shepherd
The English word “type” comes from the Greek noun tupos. Original-ly tupos carried the idea of either a mold used for making an impression, the impression itself, or both. The word came to mean “form,” “arche-type,” “pattern,” “graven image,” “outline/sketch,” and “rough draft.”
In the NT the word is often used by Paul to refer to a “pattern” or “example,” one could almost say a “paradigm” (in the following exam-ples the English words that translates the Greek term tupos are in italics): 1 Corinthians 10:6, “Now these things happened as examples for us, so that we should not crave evil things as they also craved.”; Philippians 3:17, “Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us.” See also 1 Thessalonians 1:7, 2 Thessalonians 3:9, 1 Timothy 4:12, and Titus 2:7. Paul uses tupos in these passages to indicate a pattern of living by which others are to model their behavior or a negative model they are to avoid. The “type” is the paradigm of lifestyle that is to guide the choices of the Christian.
The term tupos finds its fuller historical/prophetic function in Romans 5:14 in which Adam is the type of “Him who was to come” (Christ). A his-torical person serves as a “prophetic blueprint” to which the corresponding “antitype” will stand in parallel or contrast.
However, the “antitype” fulfills a higher, more extensive role than the “type.” Christ is superior to Adam and fulfills what the first man could not be. The “prophetic blueprint,” the “type,” is outstripped and overshadowed by the “antitype” (cf. Col 2:16-17). While the “type” is first historically, the “antitype” is superior typologically. In fact, in some cases this superiority of the counterpart reaches even to the point of role reversal—in Hebrews the heavenly sanctuary is termed the tupos and the earthly is the antitupos. The reason for this is that the heavenly supercedes the earthly and is actually the “blueprint” according to which the earthly tabernacle is constructed.
Typological thinking and interpretation is not limited to the Epistles. It is fairly common in the Gospels in which some aspect of Jesus’ ministry, or people linked to His ministry, such as John the Baptist, are seen as prefigured in OT stories. In Matthew, John the Baptist is identified with Elijah (Matt. 17:11-13, cf. the clear allusion in Mark 9:12-13). Jesus is placed in parallel to King David in the birth narrative (Matt 1) and in the temptations in contrast to Israel in the wilderness (Matt 4). In the Gospel of John, Jesus is linked to the sacrifice of the Passover Lamb (cf. John 1:29) and His death to the day of Passover in John 19 (cf. also 1 Cor 5:7). In John 3 Jesus links Himself to the uplifted serpent in the wilderness (cf. Num 21). Clearly, typological thinking is taking place in NT writings.
However, even within the OT, there are examples that point toward the typological and that indicate the predictive nature of typology. Moses is told to follow the tupos shown to him on Mount Sinai in preparing the tabernacle. A heavenly/earthly typological pattern is set up, illustrating that the earthly tent has a counterpart in heaven. Furthermore, Moses says in Deuteronomy 18:15-19 that God will send another prophet “like me.” A correspondence between Moses and the coming prophet is suggested. In the Prophets the exodus from Egypt is used as a type of the deliverance of God’s people from the Babylonian exile. (cf. Jer 16:14-15 and Isa 43:16-19). Malachi refers to a new Elijah in Malachi 4:5-6. Thus, it is not a NT innovation to see events in a typological framework.
At this point it may be useful to suggest a number of hermeneutical principles that may assist in the discovery of biblical typology and its interpretation, while at the same time avoiding the pitfalls of overextending typological understanding.
1. Recognition of the Use of Typology
Read and know the Bible—It is nearly impossible to recognize typology if we do not know well the stories of the Old and the New Testament.
Recognize explicit statements of typology—At times the Bible writer will use OT names or titles to refer to later OT, or NT, antitypes (cf. Matt 11:11-14 in which John the Baptist = Elijah). This explicitly calls to mind the OT type and indicates that typology is being used.
Recognize implicit statements of typology—At times, the Bible writer will use an OT quotation to point the reader to a typological connection (cf. Matt 2:14-15: “Out of Egypt I called my son,” quoting Hosea 11:1. In Hosea the words refer to the original Exodus and “my son” refers to Israel. When Matthew uses this passage he applies it to Jesus. Thus, typologically, Jesus is the new Israel).
Note parallelism of stories—At times, the Bible writer implies typology by a parallel between the characters in the OT stories and the typological fulfillment in the later OT or NT character (cf. Matt 4:1-11, in which Jesus relives the temptations of Israel in the wilderness and conquers where they failed; He is the new Israel).
2. Establishing the Limits and the Content of Typology
Note what is included and what is left out—The Old or the New Testament writer includes some things in the reference to the same story or institution, and he may leave out other aspects of the OT story or institution. It is safest to interpret typology via what is included in the new reference. This sets limits and controls on the typological explanation and avoids interpreting the typology in ways that the biblical writer did not intend. Not every quotation of the OT in the NT is an example of typology.
Note how the author uses typology—Typology is invoked by the Old or New Testament author to make a point. Typology involves a heightened or intensified historical fulfillment. The Old or New Testament author will illustrate or will imply how the antitypical fulfillment parallels or contrasts with the OT type. It is these parallels and contrasts that make up the content of the thought of typology.
3. Confirming the Typological Interpretation
Check the linkage of typology to the author’s theology—We can take typology too far, expanding it beyond the biblical author’s point. A check on this is a careful analysis of the biblical author’s theology. What theological ideas is he trying to stress in his book? His use of typology will agree with and build his theology. If there is a contrast between our understanding of typology and the major theological themes of the author, we should reexamine our understanding of typology.
For example, Matthew sees Jesus especially as Son of God and Lord and stresses the fulfillment of the Kingdom of God. The typology of Matthew builds and enriches these themes. In chapter 2, Jesus is the newborn king who is the New Israel. He is God’s Son called out of Egypt. He is the Messiah, the Son of David who establishes the Kingdom of God. But Jesus’ being God’s Son called out of Egypt does not mean that, like ancient Israel, He experienced the errors of the 40 years of wandering. That would be to extend the typology in the wrong direction, counter to Matthew’s theology.
Keep the typology in perspective—Typology is not the entire picture. It is not the only way, or even the primary way, that biblical writers make their point. To keep typology in balance with other means of explaining the author’s point, it is useful to prepare or obtain an outline of the Bible writer’s argumentation or story and see what emphasis the outline places on typology and what role typology plays in the overall argumentation. Typology can then be placed within the perspective of the entire theology of the Bible writer.