Typology is as old as the Old Testament itself. The prophet Hosea promised the backslidden tribes of Israel that their covenant God would re-enact the ancient Exodus deliverance to renew His covenant with them:
“I am now going to allure her; I will lead her into the desert. . . .There she will sing as in the days of her youth, as in the day she came up out of Egypt” (Hos. 2:14, 15, NIV; see also vv. 18–23).
The prophet Isaiah also used Israel’s exodus under Moses as an assurance of God’s promise of a “second” exodus from Babylon (Isa. 11:11–16; 52:1–12). He paints a striking parallel picture of God’s past and future deliverances:
The LORD will dry up the gulf of the Egyptian sea; with a scorching wind he will sweep his hand over the Euphrates River (Isa. 11:15, NIV).
Isaiah stresses, however, that Israel’s second exodus will be more magnificent and on a global scale, because her deliverer will be greater than Moses: He shall be the glorious “Root of Jesse” or Messiah Himself, who shall gather Israel “from the four quarters of the earth” (11:1, 10, 12, NIV; 12:1–6). This future perspective harbors inconceivable surprises and gratitude, suggests Isaiah:
Since ancient times no one has heard, no ear has perceived, no eye has seen any God besides you, who acts on behalf of those who wait for him” (64:4, 12, NIV; cf. 1 Cor. 2:9).1
This example of Exodus typology teaches some inherent principles: (1) God is a covenant-keeping God, who remains faithful to His promise (see Deut. 7:9); (2) both type and anti-type center on historical correspondences within redemption history; (3) the anti-type will be realized fully only in the Messianic deliverance of God’s covenant people.
Biblical typology then is based on the consistent will of the Creator Redeemer, who alone guarantees the unity of His acts in the past, present, and future. One scholar points out an interesting implication: “The OT authors and participants did not necessarily recognize any typological force in the original, but in the divine plan the early event did anticipate the later reality.”2 This hidden nature of an Old Testament type is the source of real surprises, especially when the Messianic age begins.
The new typology of Jesus
Jesus of Nazareth began His redemptive ministry by being baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan River and then receiving the fullness of the Spirit of God. At that moment a voice from heaven spoke: “ ‘This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased’ ” (Matt. 3:17, NIV). The significance of these words lies in the fact that they allude to the Messianic mission of the “Servant of Yahweh” in Isaiah (see Isa. 42:1; 52:13). Jesus saw His own mission, therefore, in the light of this Old Testament prophecy, as His later citation from Isaiah 53 confirms: “ ‘Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfi llment’ ” (Luke 22:37, NIV). Jesus’ life and work were thus guided by His willingness to conform to God’s will as revealed in the prophetic Scriptures.
But Jesus saw His mission also in the historyof Israel’s kings, priests, and prophets. When the Pharisees challenged Jesus to give them “a miraculous sign,” He surprised them by declaring His superiority over Israel’s anointed ones: “ ‘Now one greater than Jonah is here,’ ” and “ ‘now one greater than Solomon is here,’ ” and by His shocking assertion, “ ‘one greater than the temple is here’ ” (Matt. 12:41, 42, 6, NIV). Read in context, Jesus referred to some specific “signs” of these anointed leaders: The sign of the prophet Jonah to the Ninevites consisted in his miraculous revival after being three days in the belly of a huge fish (12:40); and the sign of King Solomon, son of David, consisted in his extraordinary gift of wisdom that caused the queen of the south to come to hear it (12:42). Jesus, however, claimed to provide greater signs than those of Jonah (see Matt. 16:21, referring to His own death and resurrection), and of Solomon (see Matt. 11:28–30, where Jesus is the embodiment of divine wisdom, offering the “rest” of salvation).
To defend His disciples against an alleged Sabbath violation, Jesus appealed to David, who on one occasion had broken the law regarding the consecrated bread in the temple, thus implying, “If David as God’s anointed one had the right to set aside a ritual requirement, how much the more have I as Messiah” (Matt. 12:1–8). Here Jesus argues on the basis of an underlying Messianic typology.
The temple priests of the old covenant served God continually with their sacrifices, which foreshadowed a greater sacrifice and a greater high priest (a typological theme that is developed more fully in Hebrews 8–10). In this respect Jesus announced during His last Passover meal with His disciples (while handing them the bread and the cup), “ ‘Take and eat; this is my body;” . . . “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins’ ” (Matt. 26:26–28, NIV). Here Jesus replaces the rituals that symbolized the ancient Exodus deliverancewith His own emblems, because His self-sacrifice offers a new and greater deliverance, the forgiveness of sins for all who accept Him as Messiah (cf. Exod. 24:8; Jer. 31:31–34; 1 Cor. 5:7).
Such a dramatic fulfi llment of the slaughtered Passover lamb could not have been deduced from the type itself, either. With Messianic authority, Jesus took the fragmentary revelations and imperfect types and interpreted them as witnesses to Himself, the Life-Giver (John 5:39; Matt. 13:17). No wonder the people were “amazed at His teaching” (Mark 1:27; Matt. 7:28; cf. 13:54).
Jesus’ teachings reveal two unsuspected and new advancements in Israel’s salvation history: (1) The time of the Messianic anti-types had come with His redemptive ministry, and (2) the renewal of God’s covenant with Israel had come in His blood-shedding as the anti-typical Passover Lamb.
Surprising typological design in Matthew’s Gospel
It is widely recognized that Matthew’s Gospel presents a design of correspondences between Jesus’ Messianic ministry and Israel’s history. Commentators speak of “Matthew’s christological Moses typology.”3 As one expressed it: “For Matthew, as for the early Church generally, the Christian dispensation is a new Exodus wrought by Jesus as the new Moses.”4
Matthew’s Exodus typologyis not meant to convince outsiders but, rather, to strengthen the faith of those who already believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Matthew presents his perspective of faith, and not a hermeneutical method or technique of Old Testament exegesis. What is new in Matthew is his interpretation that certain events in Israel’s history were Messianic foreshadowingsthat needed to be “fulfi lled” on a higher plane in Jesus’ ministry. The notion that Israel’s history encloses hidden types of the Messiah’s life may seem a human construct in retrospect, yet is to believers a revelation of the sovereign rulershipof the Lord of history and a confi rmation of the essential unity of the Scriptures.
For example, Matthew interprets Joseph’s flight to Egypt with Mary, his wife, and child “until the death of Herod” by his comment: “And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: ‘Out of Egypt I called my son’ ” (Matt. 2:15, NIV). His citation is from Hosea 11:1, where the prophet recalls Israel’s exodus from Egyptian bondage by her faithful covenant God. How can Matthew turn this historical Exodus into a Messianic promise? Matthew applies here his Christian theology, which views Jesus as the promised DavidicKing (1:1). He presents his typological correspondence, not as a coincidence, but as a divine intention to foreshadow a Messianic “fulfillment.” This typological interpretation of Hosea 11 originated in the Spirit-filled, or charismatic, exegesis of Matthew and can be accepted only by faith in Christ Jesus.
The understanding of Israel’s exodus from Egypt as a type of Christ fi nds its starting point in the New Testament. Matthew adds more unsuspected parallels between Jesus’ acts and Israel’s history. In particular, he presents Jesus as a corporate person who embodies Israel in his narratives of Jesus’ baptism and His “temptation” experiences in the wilderness at the beginning of His ministry (Matt. 3:13–16; 4:1–10).
For example, Jesus wanted to be baptized to demonstrate His solidarity with Israel in her need, and thus to “fulfi ll all righteousness” (3:15). At that moment He receives the anointing of the Spirit to accomplish His mission. The same Spirit directs Jesus into the desert “to be tempted by the devil” (Matt. 4:1; Luke 4:1, “full of the Holy Spirit”). Jesus resists Satan’s suggestions to manifest His Sonship (“If you are the Son of God”). He appeals three times to a central part of Israel’s Scripture, Deuteronomy 6–8 (see 6:13, 16; 8:3). This particular section of Moses’ writing is representative of the entire Torah, because it begins with the historic credo of Israel, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD is our God, the LORD alone. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might” (Deut. 6:4, 5, NRSV).
This summary of Israel’s covenant bond is the heart and core of the Torah, the greatest of all the commandments. The following parts (in chaps. 6–8) describe the alluring temptations for Israel in the Promised Land. Moses calls on Israel at the end of the 40 years of wandering in the wilderness to trust and obey the Lord, stating, “Know then in your heart that as a man disciplines his son, so the LORD your God disciplines you” (Deut. 8:5, NIV; cf. Exod. 4:22, 23). Jesus applied Moses’ farewell address to Himself: As Israel was tempted for 40 years in the wilderness, Jesus (“being led by the Spirit”) parallels this testing time by going into the desert for 40 days. Where Israel succumbed to the temptation to disregard the commandments of God (see Pss. 78 and 95), Jesus stands the test of character and true worship. His responses demonstrate that He had set His mind on loving God supremely, “even if He takes away your soul.”5
Such a manifestation of a humble Messiah was never anticipated in Judaism. It came as a complete surprise to all Jewish Messianic expectations. Matthew’s narrative, however, strongly suggests that Jesus “fulfilled” Israel’s history by carrying it to its eschatological completion.
Thus Jesus Himself introduced the time of the anti-types with its qualitative “newness” that exceeded the imperfect forms and limitations of the old covenant, stating, “ ‘No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. . . .Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. . . . No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved’ ” (Matt. 9:16, 17, NIV). In His redemptive ministerial deeds, Jesus realized Israel’s prophetic hope for the inauguration of the Messianic age, which surprised even John the Baptist (see Matt.11:2–6; cf. Isa. 35:5, 6; 61:1). Jesus also embodied the transition from the old to the new covenant at His last supper. Thus He dramatically demonstrated His new-covenant typology.
Paul’s Creation typology
The apostle Paul continues Jesus’ typological thinking and develops it in astounding Creation and covenant typologies. His theological applications are taken mainly from the Creation narrative, the time of the patriarchs, and the Exodus. Paul’s spiritual perspective is determined not primarily by an exegesis of the Old Testament but by the redemptive appearance of Jesus Christ (see Gal.1:12; Acts 9:1–18).
The starting point of his typology is Christ’s saving presence and “the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord” (Phil. 3:8, NIV). He chooses those Old Testament events that can enlighten his Christian gospel and confi rm God’s eternal purpose. Paul’s typological interpretation is guided by his Christ-centered view of God’s acts and covenant makings in ancient salvation history. He begins to use the Greek term typos occasionally in a new theological sense, to teach the spiritual unity of God’s works in Creation and Redemption. More than that, Paul wants to proclaim God’s redemptive design for “the whole creation,” to liberate it “from its bondage to decay” in revealing “the glorious freedom of the children of God” (Rom. 8:18–21, NIV).
In this universal perspective Paul develops his unique Creation typology, announcing Adam, “who is a type [typos] of Him who was to come” (Rom. 5:14, NASB). The apostle assumes that Adam and Christ are appointed as the two representative heads of all humanity. He adds in another letter, “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:22, NASB). Thus there exists not only a parallel correspondence, but also an antithetical parallel. Paul forcefully stresses both aspects: “For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5:19, NASB). While both Adam and Christ lived a life of decisive and universal significancefor all mankind, Paul’s gospel message is the news that Christ’s obedience and victory availed “much more” than Adam’s disobedience and condemnation to death (5:15). Paul clarifi es this superiority of Christ’s selfsacrificeas “the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness” that brings “much more surely” divine justificationand life for all believers (see 5:15–19, NRSV). He sums it up, stating, “where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (5:20, NRSV, NASB).
Paul’s Adam-Christ typology is essential to his apostolic thinking. He reaffirms this Adam-Christ comparison and contrast when he highlights his future apocalyptic perspective for the believers in Corinth: “ ‘The first man Adam’ ” stands for an advance presentation of the “last Adam” as “a life-giving spirit” (1 Cor. 15:45, NIV). At the end Christ shall “swallow up death in victory” and bestow immortality on all who “belong to Him” (1 Cor. 15:22, 23, 49–57).
This Christocentric structure of Paul’s typology led Leonhard Goppelt to conclude that, according to the New Testament, “typology is theologically constitutive for an understanding of the Gospel.”6 The larger implication of Paul’s typology is the affirmation that God’s works as Creator and as Redeemer are an unbreakable unity from their inception.
God’s revelations occur progressively in history (see Heb. 1:1, 2). From this fundamental truth, H. L. Ellison draws an important lesson: “The Old Testament, even though it only becomes fully understandable in the light of the New, yet remains necessary to our full understanding of the New and of God.”7 This becomes more evident when we consider Paul’s covenant typology in his letters to the Corinthians and the sanctuary typology in the Hebrews letter.
This article is part one of a two-part series:
1 For a more extensive treatment of Old Testament typology, see my book The Israel of God in Prophecy: Principles of Prophetic Interpretation. AUMon., Studies in Rel., vol. 13 (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1983), chap. 4.
2 G. R. Osborne in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia vol. 4, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988), 931.
3 M. Eugene Boring, in The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 8 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995), 175.
4 W. D. Davies, The Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: University Press, 1966), 16.
5 The rabbinic exposition of Deut. 6:5 in the Mishna, Berakoth 9:5. For an extensive treatment, see B. Gerhardsson, The Testing of God’s Son, NT Series 2:1 (Lund: Coniectanea Biblica, 1966).
6 Goppelt, in his article “Tupos,” in Theol. Dict. of the NT 8 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), 256.
7 Ellison, “Typology,” in The Evangelical Quarterly 25 (1953), 158–66; quote from 166.
