What Is Typology?

Despite the miracles that the religious leaders had seen Jesus perform, they say, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you” (Matt. 12:38). Jesus promises the sign of the prophet Jonah: “For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and nights in the heart of the earth” (12:40). The contemporaries of Jesus were more accountable to what they heard than even the Ninevites were in Jonah’s day: “The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here” (12:41).

How is Jesus using the story and example of Jonah? He speaks with comparison (“For just as Jonah was . . . so will the Son of Man be”) and with language that heightens the significance of the comparison (“something greater than Jonah is here”).

Jesus is using something known as typology.

The Occurrences of “Type” (Tupos)

The Greek term tupos occurs fifteen times in the New Testament.¹ It refers to an impression, image, example, or pattern.² In at least four instances, biblical authors use tupos to connect to an earlier part of Scripture.

• First, Paul calls Adam a “type” of Christ. He writes, “Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come” (Rom. 5:14).

• Second, Paul labels certain events in Israel’s history “types” for his readers. He writes, “Now these things took place as examples [or types] for us, that we might not desire evil as they did” (1 Cor. 10:6).

• Third, the writer of Hebrews refers to the “pattern” or “type” that Moses used for the construction of the tabernacle, and this structure was a shadow of heavenly realities. He writes that the Old Testament priests “serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, ‘See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain’” (Heb. 8:5).

• Fourth, in Luke’s record of Stephen’s speech, the martyr speaks of this same “pattern” that Moses had received concerning the tabernacle. Stephen says, “Our fathers had the tent of witness in the wilderness, just as he who spoke to Moses directed him to make it, according to the pattern that he had seen” (Acts 7:44).³

Toward Defining a Type

The Standard Definition

Paul’s use of tupos in Romans 5:14 is about a person. Paul’s use of tupos in 1 Corinthians 10:6 is about certain events in Israel’s history. And both Luke in Acts and the writer of Hebrews connect tupos to the building of Israel’s tabernacle. These occurrences of tupos give credence to the standard definition of a type: a person, event, or institution that prefigures an antitype (the person or thing foreshadowed by the type).⁴ But the presence of the word tupos does not limit the concept of a type in the biblical text.⁵

Shadows and Copies

For an example of the presence of a type without the author using that particular word, the author of Hebrews speaks of the sacrifices of the law as a “shadow” of the things that were to come: “For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near” (Heb. 10:1). He also calls the priestly offerings a “shadow” of heavenly things (Heb. 8:5). In Colossians, Paul refers to food/drink regulations and to the Israelite calendar as a “shadow” of the things to come. He writes, “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ” (Col. 2:17).

In Hebrews 9, the author is writing about the practice of sprinkling with blood for the sake of purification (Heb. 9:21–22), and he says it was necessary for “copies” of heavenly things to be thus purified (9:23), referring to the tabernacle and its vessels as copies of heavenly realities. He then calls the handmade holy places “copies” of the true things found in the presence of God where Christ appears now for us (9:24). Peter argues that baptism corresponds to Noah’s flood in the sense that Noah’s flood is a “copy” of what baptism would be (1 Peter 3:21).⁶

Correspondence and Escalation

After briefly surveying the New Testament’s language about types, shadows, and copies, we can conclude that the presence of a biblical type requires correspondence and escalation between type and antitype.

Correspondence refers to the point(s) of connection between type and antitype. There is no minimum number of correspondences. Let’s look at some correspondences present in the passages we have already seen.

• In Hebrews 9:11–28, the writer draws attention to the fact that the priests offered sacrifices and that Jesus offered a sacrifice.

• In Matthew 12:41, Jesus says that just as Jonah experienced a descent for a period of three days, he would also experience a descent for a period of three days.

• In 1 Peter 3:21, we are reminded that those in the ark were brought safely through the water and that people are brought through water in the ordinance of baptism.

The correspondences between type and antitype do not have to match in every respect. In fact, the previous examples have key points of dissimilarity. Levitical priests offered sacrifices, while Jesus was the sacrifice. Jonah was

“True” Fulfillment

The biblical authors may indicate a typological relationship when they use the term “true.” For example, in John’s Gospel, Jesus calls himself the “true bread from heaven” (John 6:32) and the “true vine” (John 15:1). The images of heavenly bread and a vine are from the Old Testament (see Exod. 16; Ps. 80), and thus they provide the background necessary to understand the surpassing person and work of Christ. “It is important to note that Jesus does not devalue the importance of the Old Testament precursors for achieving God’s purposes in their own time. Rather, he is claiming to bring the fullness or fulfillment that was not present in the types.”

The author of Hebrews also links the type/antitype relationship with the word “true.” In Hebrews 8:1–2, the earthly sanctuary pointed to the “true tent” not made with hands. And in Hebrews 9:24, the human-made holy places were copies of the “true things.” Hoskins is right: “The use of ‘true’ (alethinos) to describe antitypes is consistent with the use of this adjective in English and in Greek to denote that which is real or genuine. In this case, the antitype is the real entity that fulfills the incomplete shadow that preceded it.”

Using the term “true,” interpreters can represent christological fulfillment with expressions that call Jesus the true Joshua, the true David, the true ark, the true high priest, the true temple, the true light, the true bread, the true sacrifice, or the true Israel.

A Fuller Definition

We need an understanding of biblical typology that derives from the biblical text itself. This means we need a definition that is full enough to embrace how the biblical authors apply the language of types, shadows, and copies. Here is the definition I will draw upon throughout the rest of this book: a biblical type is a person, office, place, institution, event, or thing in salvation history that anticipates, shares correspondences with, escalates toward, and resolves in its antitype.

We have already seen some examples of types fitting the first half of that definition: Jonah is a person, sacrifices are part of the sacrificial institution, and deliverance through the ark was an event. We will see later, though, that offices and places and things can be types as well.

The verbs in the latter half of the definition have been carefully chosen. Types are anticipatory (“anticipates”), there are correspondences between type and antitype (“shares correspondences with”), the antitype is in some way greater than the type that prefigures it (“escalates toward”), and the antitype in some sense fulfills what has prefigured it (“resolves in its antitype”).